To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost's citing of a Carl Trueman on the psychologized self and identity politics. In that article, Trueman claims that the root of all oppresion is economic. Ts appeared in heidelblog.net
The problem with this portion of Trueman's article is that his claim about oppression is false. The root of oppression is not always economic. Blacks have suffered, and still do, much psychological harm from various forms of white supremacy. That has been as true for middle class and upper class Black as it has for lower class Blacks. Even today, racial profiling practiced by the police affects Blacks of all classes. White privilege affects Blacks of all classes. But it is not just Blacks who suffer oppression. Kids who are targets of verbal and online bullying suffer psychological oppression.
Trueman, in how he reduces the root of oppression to that which is objectively measured, takes a similar approach to understanding oppression as some, especially some liberal theologians, take to understanding reality. That is they believe that only that which is physical is real. In the end, it seems that Trueman, as a theologian, is not only fighting a turf battle with Pscyhology. he might be trying to excuse or even deny some of the abuse that has been directed from the conservative Church toward certain non-mainstream groups. That abuse includes the conservative Church's efforts to marginalize the LGBT community in society. Here we should remember those Christians who used their religious beliefs to justify and promote the racism that was part of the Jim Crow era. In addition, we should remember the efforts of Martin Luther in trying to get German society to marginalize Jews becaue of their persistent unbelief.
Unless the conservative Church only wants to evangelize political conservatives, it should study the history of oppression in the West in order to remove any current support for or participation in that oppression by its clergy or members of the congregation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 17
To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost that compares Romania under Communist rule with today’s Romania and with what it hopes to become. This appeared in the Acton blog.
It seems like from the above description of Romania that not much changed from the overthrow of Communism back in 1989 in terms of structure. Many of the leaders are still the same. You had authoritarianism in Romania under Communism and you have it today. Only corruption today has gone wild while it was seemingly contained under Communism. And you have Romania growing closer to closer to authoritarian Russia--btw, calling Russia authoritarian just might be an understatement. So is Romania on the 'long road back from Communism?
We might want to answer that question from a Socialist perspective--noting that there is more than one such perspective. Socialist and contemporary of Vlad Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, offers some interesting insights. Her critique of Lenin's regime was that by relying on just a handful of people (Lenin and his Central Committee) to rule over the rest, Lenin was employing the same kind of leadership that the bourgeoisie employ in the private sector. So it seems that Romania hasn't really changed from its days under Communism except that the Socialist leaders from the past became today's bourgeoisie leaders through their acquisition choice private property. What was Luxemburg's alternative to Lenin's regime? It was a proletariat dictatorship that Luxemburg described in the following way (see https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm ):
but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique – dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy.
According to Luxemburg's description of Socialism, Socialism was never employed by Romania. Instead, what we saw in the pre-1989 Romania was the employment of a bourgeoisie model. And can we say the same for Romania today? That Romania is still employing a bourgeoisie model only it is a different model than what Romania employed when it was a "Communist" nation only the older model obviously provided checks that then prevented today's abuses.
Though the Socialism that Luxemburg proposed could be legitimately criticized for creating only a partial democracy, a classocracy where the proletariat replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class, she provides some useful distinctions between Socialism and bourgeoisie rule which counter the Conservative mantra definition of Socialism/Communism or, for short, Marxism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that quotes Machen on how attempts at rescuing Christianity from scientific criticism actual serve to hurt Christianity because it attempts to change the definition of Christianity. This appeared in Heidelblog
The kind of rescuing that evangelicalism/fundamentalism needs now is not scientific, it is political in terms of party and ideological alliances. The association between evangelicalism/fundamentalism with the Republican Party and political conservatism is so strong for individual evangelicals/fundamentalists that it both politically blinds its own members from the real world and continually serves stumbling block after stumbling block to those outside the Republican and conservative political ideological circles.
In addition, because so many have been blinded, evangelicals/fundamentalists are paying moral values to the Republican Party and conservative political ideologies for a promised protection against an encroaching secularism. These moral values would otherwise be used to protect workers and others as well as the environment from exploitation by those with wealth. The Republican Party reduces being pro-life to the abortion issue in order to manipulate the votes of a vast number of evangelicals/fundamentalists. By reducing being pro-life to the abortion issue, the Republican Party has succeeded in persuading evangelicals/fundamentalists that it is the pro-life party while the Democrats are not; though, in reality, both parties have a mixed-bag record on being pro-life--that is if we count the concerns of those who have been born as part of being pro-life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 18
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on tariffs and trade balance. this appeared in the Acton blog.
The weakness of the above post is the assumption that tariffs and other such protectionist measures are practiced only for the sake of supporting mercantilism. America's history shows that is not the case. America employed protectionist measures, such as using tariffs, from its beginning as a nation through the FDR's Administration. Those measures were not used for the benefit of merchants who could charge highest price for their protects as tariffs eliminated foreign competition--even though that was an immediate result. Rather, as Ha-Joon Chang points out, protectionism was employed to give American industries a chance to become competitive (see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/ha-joon-chang-protectionism-the-truth-is-on-a-10-bill-5334137.html ).
In addition, I believe that Griswold's claim about trade policies and deficits is wrong. First, we should note that both have required the importing of certain goods over using domestic products. , And at least NAFTA has contributed to the offshoring of jobs which contributes to the increase of imports (see https://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/1999/october/trade-deficit-import-export-imbalance-currency/ ).
In addition, there seems to be a conservative inconsistency in allowing trade deficits to soar. After all, when the Federal government spends more money than it takes in, the Republicans sound the fiscal responsibility alarm indicating that we are building an insurmountable debt for our descendants to overcome. But when it comes to the trade deficit, it seems that the more the deficit, the merrier the Republicans become. To offset the trade deficit, investors from other nations buy American properties and businesses in order to finance the deficit. And another things that happens is that the American dollar eventually becomes weaker and it could possibly lose it position in the world economy as the default or reserve currency. Also, as more American businesses are owned by foreigners, then the more foreign investors will be able to buy the ear of our elected representatives. And the more those investors can buy, the less our officials will listen to us.
Though there are things to learn from Adam Smith's war against mercantilism, protectionism, when rightly employed for specific reasons, can benefit others than merchants who wish to corner a given market by eliminating competition.
No comments:
Post a Comment