By Tom KandoAt the risk of offending some/many people, I would like to draw a comparison between two ideas/ideologies/"systems,"call it what you will, and point out some similarities:
2,000 years ago, one of the greatest men in history launched a new movement, based on admirable moral idea(l)s. Jesus Christ's revolution was incredibly necessary, as the Roman world had become increasingly cruel and unjust
Then, over a number of centuries, Christianity gradually took over control, and it became the new power system. It bred its own oppression, injustice and above all a stifling dogma which prevented intellectual and scientific progress for over a millennium. From a noble idealism, it turned into the number one cause of world retardation.
In the 19th century, a new thought emerged - Socialism. Its many spokesmen included Karl Marx. Today people throw around the epithet "Marxism" recklessly, even though Socialist thought is complex and varied enough to fill a library. But I'll follow suit and use the vulgar short-hand term "Marxism" myself.
Christianity was based on love. Jesus' aphorisms were brilliant and to the core: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven," "Turn the other cheek," "love thy enemy." Nevertheless, it is this magnificent idea which then produced the Inquisition, the Auto Da fe's and the Crusades, in sum the Dark Ages.
And what about Socialism/Marxism? How can anyone be against equality, justice, abolishing poverty, a government organized for the good of the people instead of the plutocracy? Lofty ideals too, no?
But this system also turned into a nightmare: Stalin, the Soviet Gulag, Mao's Cultural Revolution, etc.
It's clear, isn't it: Both systems began as a set of noble ideas and ideals, and then their implementation went haywire.
But wait, this is not the end of the story: Today, many Americans say about Socialism: "Bah, it may be a good theory, but it doesn't work in practice." But if we had said the same thing about Christianity, we would have junked it long ago. Yet, after Christianity's excesses of the past, it is now the faith of hundreds of millions, and viewed as benign even by non-Christians such as myself.
So the question is: Do you throw the baby out with the bathwater? We did not do this with Christianity, even though it was a bloodthirsty monstrosity when it had a monopoly on power. I believe that Socialism deserves a similar fate. Despite the horrors of Soviet Communism, Pol Pot and all the others, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. leave comment here
9 comments:
Interesting parallels. I'd like to think that 2 generations or so from now, the words "socialism" or "Marxism" won't have the dirty connotation they still carry in the US, mainly as the result of the Cold War. Maybe somewhere down the road, when memory of the perversion of lofty ideals has faded, socialist ideals won't be so scary to those on the right end of the political spectrum. Maybe then, socialism/marxism can enjoy the kind acceptance that they do in Europe, akin to what Christianity has in the US today. One can only hope, eh?
Very interesting take. Marxism has such a negative sound to it Christians will not like to be even compared to it; nevertheless, your observations are very astute. Cheers mate, nice blog.
http://kamikazeearth.blogspot.com/
~Andy
Thank you for your supportive comments. Curiously, I have gotten no venom (yet).
The Christian teaching is about a tranformation of the heart that causes people to care for others. The Christian religion is another thing. But, overall it is responsible for the creation of a civilized culture that includes such social institutions as the UN. If you want to read how it tamed civilization I recommend this recent book: http://www.paragonhouse.com/The-Christian-Legacy-Taming-Brutish-Human-Nature-in-Western-Civilization.html
Marxism seeks justice. Many of its criticisms of the present system are valid. However, it attempts to create justice based on government force rather than a system that distributes ownership among all people. Such a system will never be economically productive.
Tom - What you say is innocuous enough to avoid "the venom," although some people do have strong feelings based on memories of the negative implementation of both Christianity and Marxism/Socialism you speak of.
I'm working on the theory of the "law of unintended consequences," which says that no matter how noble the intent, potential disaster comes with every action.
--Mark
http://ideajones.com
As usual, I find much to take issue with in what you write. I'll settle for this one point, which was implicit in what you wrote, but you seem to have failed to see the implication.
It seems clear that the downfall of Christianity and Marxism was in their acquisition of excessive temporal, political power. The difference between the one and the other is that, for Christianity, it was indeed an aberration, as its philosophy not only does not require, but explicitly eschews such power. For Marxist philosophies, such power is essential and explicitly required.
Happy New Year!
Dwight. I am sorry that you don’t like my ideas. Shucks.
You, Gordon and Mark are saying related things, namely that temporal/governmental power, and its quest, are bad (power corrupts, Lord Acton, right?), and that social policies may have good intent, but generally bad results.
Jesus and the original Christians may not have AIMED to become the new temporal/political power system, but that is precisely what Christianity became. A thousand-year long aberration?
Furthermore, the verdict is not in, regarding the effectiveness of “temporal/political power” (= government), and whether humanity is better served by social movements which eschew it or rely on it.
Your critiques are part of the Zeitgeist, the post-modern loss of faith in progress through better government.
I’ll admit to being an old-fashioned modern person, believing in progressive social evolution, as did not only Marx, but most other 19th century thinkers.
You see, the most important question is not the one currently debated by the American Left and Right, namely “Government? Yes or no?” or: “Big Government or Small Government?”, but:
“Good Government or Bad Government?”
The lack of correlation between the size and the quality of government is demonstrated by the fact that many other Western Social Democracies (Canada, Germany, Japan, Scandinavia, etc.) have governments which are both larger AND better than ours.
No doubt you will now expect me to define “better.” This is not the place for a long dissertation, so I’ll just say: better delivery of public services, more effective economic policies, combined with continued protection of individual political rights.
Finally: I did not say that Christianity and Marxism have everything in common, or many things in common. Just SOME things in common. I am sure that there are more differences than similarities between them.
Tom, Acton was right that power corrupts. You are also right that we ought to continually aim at improving government. One advance that we made in modern times is the separation of church and state, for the reason that we learned a historical lesson that it is harmful to society to impose official truth.
We also learned from the attempts to impose Marxism as an official truth that totalitarianism is created. One of the weaknesses of modern and post-modern thought is the over-reliance on reason and the failure to apply historical lessons. Whether Kant or Zizek, the abstraction of reason from history leads us to throw out well-known and learned historical truths; whether it is that we have to be humble before a universe that we did not create, or that we should check and balance power so as to prevent its misuse.
Christianity tried to convey historical truths through Biblical literature. Marxism sought to abstract reason from history and escape the checks and balances on power we have learned are essential for a better government. Neither reason nor history are adequate in themselves.
Gordon:
Thanks for your thoughful reply. Obviously, I opened a can of worms (or Pandora's box, take your pick). This is often my intent.
For now, I'll just repeat myself:
I did not say that Christianity and Marxism have everything in common, or many things in common. Just SOME things in common. I am sure that there are more differences than similarities between them.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!