tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4992542558446504317.post5218387524999461054..comments2020-07-31T08:27:59.130-07:00Comments on Skrignov's Corner: The Philosophy Group: Social Justice & Liberation TheologySkrignovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17628791954692813183noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4992542558446504317.post-74942133926339056122010-07-16T09:58:25.359-07:002010-07-16T09:58:25.359-07:00Good afternoon gents! It is always enjoyable to st...Good afternoon gents! It is always enjoyable to stumble upon an argument in progress at Skrignov's Corner. And as with Basil, I was disappointed that the one day we ended up meeting about social justice I could not attend. <br /><br />These comments thus far have brought back such fond memories of taking Marx in school. Our professor - who assumed the character of Marx the entire semester - adamently emphasized that in order to understand Marx and Marxist ideas rooted in dialectical and historical materialism, one absolutely must understand Hegel (as Basil pointed out). From a philisophical perspective, this is probably true. <br /><br />I remember talking to two other people who were taking Marx the same semester; one in a political science class and one in an economics class. Neither of them ever heard the name Hegel be brought up. They studied an aspect of Marx's theories and ignored having to trace back to where the theories came from. Obviously - and especially in our schooling - we do this all the time (address small portions of ideas of an author, study theories without addressing the context it was written, etc.). <br /><br />This is a basic observation (granted somewhat long winded), but I wanted to make the point clear. The use of Marxist ideas separated from the rest of Marx is totally acceptable. However, in doing so, it sort of loses it's Marxist roots. And any time you pull out an idea from one train of thought, you are now required to ground that idea to another train of thought. <br /><br />My point here is that the Church can certainly take an idea of Marx and tie it their own teachings. And if done successfully, that particular idea is not Marxist anymore! So to answer Jonas who posed this an a question, i believe the Church can (and I think does) take secular and/or ideas founded from an antheistic bent, and make it their own. So Basil emphasizing that Marx or Marxism itself is holistically unfounded becomes sort of moot point. All that says is that we have to be careful not to accept one idea and then accept others that were tied to it. Therefore, in argument, we have to be mindful of not assuming that the one idea supported entails all the "baggage" that comes with it. Jonas I believe would agree that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater, and Basil would say try as you might but the baby is still wet with bathwater...or maybe I took that saying alittle too far. I find it amusing anyway. Good day!Yodahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08089942510715550223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4992542558446504317.post-37794563610578004062010-07-16T09:49:36.100-07:002010-07-16T09:49:36.100-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Yoda Muertehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18069147309223740606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4992542558446504317.post-64796676927941279772010-07-14T21:59:58.692-07:002010-07-14T21:59:58.692-07:00None of what I wrote, by the way, is argument agai...None of what I wrote, by the way, is argument against the Church defending the poor; but our central dogmas and theology of the Triune God is failsafe and foolproof (if followed correctly). What we learn from Robespierre (and Stalin and TseTung, etc) is that placing other values which purport to provide a just situation in which humans will then act justly ABOVE the human person leads inevitably to human sacrifice. The Church seeks equity and equality, but in the service of the human person, not vice versa. It seems clear that if the Church supported specific social policies as "the way," it could end up endorsing unjust human sacrifice. The commandment to love demands personal will, not social situations; I can't help but contrast MLK's or Ghandi's or Lech Walesa's non-violent protests with the El Salvadoran civil war. (I'm no expert but it seems war immediately gives advantage to the economically dominant group) The Church, it seems, can adamantly uphold the dignity of the human person without achieving a certain social situation ("nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.").<br /><br />But maybe I'm wrong and Marxist analysis doesn't even entail producing a certain social/political/economic state. Maybe it just means that money is a powerful mover, and let's keep an eye on it. I'm rambling, and it's late, so ta ta for now!Basil Stag Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05249972715160411934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4992542558446504317.post-12337206258185051462010-07-14T21:39:58.064-07:002010-07-14T21:39:58.064-07:00eihhh.... (the sound of unsure discomfort with you...eihhh.... (the sound of unsure discomfort with your line of reasoning)...<br /><br />1. Yes, Marxist analysis (quite different from Marxism, you'll agree) as social class economics can be necessary to best achieve justice--human decisions and life do not occur in a vacuum.<br />So I agree there.<br /><br />2. But I think Marxist analysis brings with it so much baggage as to be unhelpful beyond that statement. For one thing, Marxist class theory is not proven by history; on the contrary in many cases it's demonstrably incorrect. I happened to have studied the French Revolution a great deal (ish), a key event which Marx focused on in great detail, and largely used in his historical picture as "proof" for his dialectical theory. Indeed, of almost any period in history (besides perhaps pre-Civil War South), the Old Regime in France was the epitome of class stratification in society. They even called themselves the 3 Estates (Nobility, Clergy, and Commoners). A surface-level picture of the Revolution apparently shows the 2 dominant classes oppressing the lower class, which then reacts and sets up a new balance between middle-class bourgeois and laborers (no more kings, nobles, or land-holding bishops). But Marx's narrative has been debunked ever since by more accurate scholarship. Indeed, the role of ideology turned out to be far more consequential than one's "class," which even in that clear-cut stratification was by and large nominal, with varying interests and loyalties (aristocrats calling for revolution, bourgeois demanding constitutional monarchy, clerics rejecting the Church, peasants demanding bread and also leading counter-revolutions).<br />I don't want to get to caught up in Marx himself, but I think any discussion of class in more than general terms needs to be extremely careful. Perhaps, of course, these distinctions are clearer in the situation in which Gutierrez was writing.Basil Stag Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05249972715160411934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4992542558446504317.post-44624577656917298292010-07-13T16:01:00.382-07:002010-07-13T16:01:00.382-07:00(2 of 2)
Mike C touched upon very briefly an impo...(2 of 2)<br /><br />Mike C touched upon very briefly an important Marxist idea that Gutiérrez uses in his liberation theology: the perception of class struggle. Integral to this theory is that class struggle is closely connected to economics. To be more specific, we need to recognize that societies often (naturally?) are broken down into different classes based on economics; and often, the dominant class uses its economic status and power to suppress the oppressed. I think history makes this point pretty clear and almost obvious. Of course Marx was focused on the effect of laissez-faire had, and how the wealthy in this system of economics overpowered the poor. Marx was concerned about what the long-term effect this would have, prophesying that revolution would overturn this system, since the evolution of societies tends toward equilibrium. However, you don’t need to go there in order to see the clarity and pertinence of clearly recognizing and studying class struggle. In fact, it is a very Christian idea to fight for the poor (the preferential option for the poor), and to seek ways to transform societies so that the least of this earth (in terms of material power) are not oppressed. <br /><br />You may say this is obvious, or that the analysis expressed here is such a watered-down version of Marx not worthy of the title. On the one hand, you may be correct; but on the other hand, I think that this sort of analysis was definitely not obvious at one point in time, even within Christian teaching and practice. The relatively modern world’s history of colonialism and oppression points us in this direction. Interestingly enough, the more I read of older texts, the more I am painfully aware that humanity often lacked this sort of thinking, simple as it may sound. For example, all you need to do is read early Gandhi texts to realize how much colonialism was ingrained in his way of life and thinking; it was only until Gandhi began to live and empathize with the poor that he began to see the inherent flaws in the systems of governments of his times. Read earlier texts than Gandhi (a lot of Shakespeare, for instance) and you find the system of oppressor and oppressed, determined here via economics, both constantly at play as well as relatively unrecognized by the writer, audience, and society.<br /><br />I think Gutiérrez is simply pointing to certain corrupt states of government around the world, recognizing that there is a wealthy class that uses it economic power to oppress the poor, and stating that the Church should not be, as it has been in the past, aligning itself with the oppressors. Instead, it should recognize this struggle, align itself with the oppressed, and seek ways of making the society more equitable – all in the name of the human dignity inherent within each one of us as sons and daughters of God. I believe that a lot of liberation theologies begin with a premise such as this. But to look at this line of reasoning, see the phrase “class struggle,” and to call it Marxist and therefore incompatible with Church teaching is hasty and potentially damaging to what we are called to work for in this life.<br /><br />Did we need Marx to see this sort of analysis? Probably not. Isn’t this sort of analysis inherent within Christian teaching? Yes. However, I see Marx – or perhaps Marxist theorists before and after Marx – as responsible, in a good way, for making the Christian conscious of the injustice that is inflicted through the use of economic power – and injustice that fails to treat each individual with the dignity he or she is due. Does the personalistic norm of the Commandment to Love do the same? Yes, but Marxist theories can aid in this conversation. They give us a framework to analyze societies and determine real practical steps in transforming the world. “Transformation” and “Marxism” may be two dangerous terms too closely aligned; but, as I’ve been arguing, I thinking some of the basic analysis works perfectly within a Catholic framework.Jonashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01907857891682323709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4992542558446504317.post-16851977085822167202010-07-13T15:58:11.580-07:002010-07-13T15:58:11.580-07:00(1 of 2)
Basil –
I’m glad you’ve joined the conv...(1 of 2)<br /><br />Basil –<br /><br />I’m glad you’ve joined the conversation. I was pretty sure the term Marxism would elicit a proper response from your quarters.<br /><br />Let me break down my reply into two parts. First, when we discuss Marxist analysis or Marxist thought, theory, etc., we aren’t necessarily discussing the very narrow political theory you just outlined. I see your outline as one of Marx’ conclusions – those conclusions we decided we didn’t find in line with the truth preached by the Church. Besides, that theory, the way you explained it, most people would reject, since it is pretty obvious (at least to me) that is was proved incorrect by history. Perhaps Marx-Purists stick by it, but our contemporary history belies the world’s move toward equilibrium on a social scale. <br /><br />Most of the analysis that is used contemporarily is Marx’ observations about how societies and systems of economics work, particularly in terms of dominant and suppressed groups of society (more on that later). Perhaps it’s a water-downed version of Marx – perhaps. And perhaps Marx wasn’t really the innovator in this line of thinking – I grant that. But let’s be clear: the term “Marxism” is one of those terms that really steps outside the bounds and analysis of a single man in history. You may object to this; but this is simply a fact. If theorists refer to themselves as Marxists, they aren’t implying they accept everything Marx wrote; additionally, they will probably accept other “Marxist” doctrine that Marx didn’t personally theorize about or discuss. This is one of the problems with the term Marxism. It’s almost like saying you’re an existentialist. I think if you took any three thinkers, alive or deceased, that either defined themselves as existentialists or that history labeled as such, and asked a very basic existential question, you would get, at the very least, two different answers – if not three. The point here is that because the term and theory of Marxism is like this, it is unfair of people to take an observation that a large amount of people would label as “Marxist” and call it incorrect, immoral, or necessarily wrong on account of this label. <br /><br />You may be asking yourself the question, in response to my previous paragraph, “So what is useful about Marxist thought? In what ways can it add to Church preaching and teaching – or, as you put it, the “personalistic norm of the Commandment to Love”? (Caveat: I do not consider myself too grounded in the subject to give a detailed answer to this question; however, I think I can at least point to possible answers.) Let me begin by pointing out that there are a lot of “new” discoveries that add to our understanding of ourselves as human persons, both physically and spiritually. I don’t think there’s anything within Church teaching that says that only Scriptures and Tradition can teach important lessons about humanity. We learn much about God’s glory through astronomy; we learn much about how systems and societies work through economic discoveries and theories; a lot of Catholic psychologists use pertinent psychological discoveries (let’s not talk about Freud) to help patients discover their true identities; the list goes on. The point is, I don’t think it’s a huge stretch to say that certain theories and ideas about how societies function economically and collectively can help add “new” knowledge to our understanding of humanity. I understand that saying Marxism can aid our understanding of societies is a loaded statement. But I truly feel that there is much to be learned through certain – key word: certain – Marxist analysis.Jonashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01907857891682323709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4992542558446504317.post-63630725166721600722010-07-12T21:12:04.492-07:002010-07-12T21:12:04.492-07:00Drat, I wish I'd been there, if only to listen...Drat, I wish I'd been there, if only to listen. I don't know enough about the topic to give really intelligent comments, but I have a couple of surface-level reactions.<br /><br />1. From what I understand of the singular salvation idea, I very much agree with it: it goes right along with the idea of Man beginning to live Heaven or Hell already in this life ("Thy kingdom come and Thy will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven").<br /><br />2. Heaven is Love, and Love is a huge, wild, cosmic, creative ... Spirit. I firmly believe that while Love may use the physical things of this world, it is in no way bound by them. Even death, which was Hell, is Hell no longer, for God is there through Jesus's own death and resurrection. Love, for us, must incorporate our corpi; we are bodily creatures, and must love with our bodies. As JPII argues in Love & Responsibility, the personalistic norm (the value which is the corollary to the Commandment to Love) is the value by which we must base our actions. Justice, therefore, is part of love. We must treat each person according to his/her dignity. <br /><br />So far so good.<br /><br />3. "Marxist analysis": to broad to be meaningful. Insofar as he was rationally observing group dynamics and class struggles, he was not original nor was he the final word on it (consider Gregory Stanton's "8 Stages of Genocide"). In my understanding, what distinguished Marx was his application of Hegel's dialectical notion of linear history (history as a collision of matter, maintaining constant mass and momentum, but gradually achieving an equilibrium of direction and speed, like in physics). The main problem with such a model is that it doesn't take into account decision-making, especially for non-economic reasons; for a world full of humans to match a model based on physics, total (or totalitarian) control is necessary, as writers from Orwell to Lowry have emphasized. After reading Hannah Arendt's "Origins of Totalitarianism," and also after much meditation on the links between dogma, reason, and freedom, I can't give weight to Marx.<br /><br />So I don't know what use Liberation Theology makes of Marx, and therefore I can't speak anymore on the subject. I for one don't see how Marx can add anything to the personalistic norm and the Commandment to Love. But perhaps he can.Basil Stag Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05249972715160411934noreply@blogger.com