To Joe Carter and his blogpost about antifa. The comment below is mostly directed at what he wrote about both anarchism and fascism in his article. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Though what Carter wrote about how Christians should respond to antifa is very good, there are some background definitions that are insufficient. Anarchism and fascism are two such definitions.
Carter defined anarchism in the following way:
Anarchism is an extreme left-wing movement that believes the ideal of society is for all individuals to do whatever they choose, except interfere with the ability of other individuals to do what they choose. Anarchists oppose government and other authority structures because they interfere with the individual’s freedom of choice.
However, Carter, for whatever reason, leaves out an important part of the description of the ideal of Anarchism from his source. Notice what he leaves out:
The ideal of anarchism is a society in which all individuals can do whatever they choose, except interfere with the ability of other individuals to do what they choose.
Anarchism simply means 'no ruler' or 'no government.' But such does not rule out communities based on anarchism from being even well organized. No ruler simply means no single ruler. What substitutes for the single rule is rule by all the members of the community. To a certain degree, Occupy, depending on the location, operated more-less as an anarchistic community in how it made decisions. A single block by a member could table a whole proposal. This insured that there would be no 'tyranny of the majority.' If there was a block of a proposal, then there would be negotiations made in an effort to make that proposal acceptable to all.
As for fascism, the best definition is found by the acknowledged founder of fascism, Benito Mussolini. How he defined fascism is far different than a particular comment made by Carter. For Carter stated the following about fascism:
Fascism is a difficult ideology to define because it has historically contained elements from both extreme ends of the left-right political spectrum...the best definition of “fascism” is “a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community.”
However, Mussolini wrote the following about fascism (see http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp ):
Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....
...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
We should also note in contrast to Carter's statements about fascism being associated with the Left, that the fascist nazi movement had as part of its campaign platform the promotion of nation first and traditional values.
Carter's associating the left with fascism is common among conservatives who cannot, and perhaps do not want to, distinguish between different forms of totalitarianism. And with their definition of big government being socialism, their inability to distinguish those different forms is really driven from opportunism to criticize the left. The above quotes from Mussolini directly contradict Carter's claims about fascism.
But defining fascism should not be content with what Mussolini wrote. Fascism can contain a mixture of Capitalism and revolutionary Marxism. In a Live Science article, the following is said about fascism (see https://www.livescience.com/57622-fascism.html ):
One element of fascism is collaboration with capitalists and the conservative elite. Fascists, even when they start out with radical ideas, always collaborate to move in the direction of protecting private property, Paxton told Live Science. This is, however, an awkward alliance, he said.
Of course the discussion about anarchism and fascism is a distraction from the subject of antifa. Besides the violence, what else should be rejected about antifa is that it assumes to have the right to limit the free speech rights of others because of what they advocate. That would seem to be a contradiction with their name, but it isn't since antifa is not acting as an all encompassing state and their targets are limited. Nevertheless, the assumption of power and the use of violence must be rejected. And, again, how antifa should be rejected in well described in what Carter says about how Christians should react to antifa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 4
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost criticizing those who work for social justice as believing in and attempting to establish an over-realized eschatology. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
What is condemned here is the secular desire to make the world a better place for only the Gospel can change hearts. At the same time, from a previous article, a theologically deduced Sabbath is insisted on despite the fact that such Sabbath does not exist in the NT Church (see https://heidelblog.net/2017/08/a-rest-to-be-resisted-resting-from-the-sabbath/ ). This is just one set of concerns that shows how insular some religiously conservative Christians are.
Whether secular attempts to improve the world are possible must be determined from an inductive study rather than a set of theological deductions. BTW, the over reliance on theological deduction to define life and the aversion to conduct a inductive inquiry is another sign of the insularity that exists for some religiously conservative Christians.
An inductive study of the results of the Civil Rights Movement saw that despite the over-realized eschatology of leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and the secular leadership and participation of others, some things did improve and that happened without much help from the religiously conservative Christians who insisted that people must first be converted in order to change. The same goes for our nation's approach to wars. Certainly some of those changes have been reversed, but the reversal of changes implies nothing about the legitimacy of the changes when they occurred.
I struggle with the apriori attempts to totally discredit the secular endeavors to better the world regardless of the faults of those efforts. This is especially true when those who are trying to discredit those endeavors don't address the social problems involved. Instead, they focus on the private religious decisions of their adherents and that distracts believers from taking more seriously the command to love one's neighbor.
In addition, I struggle with the conflation of the efforts of those who believe that we can eventually reach some kind of absolute utopia with those who merely want to improve how things are. This is done when religiously conservative theologians, like Clark, call all efforts to improve life as we know it 'over-realized eschatology.' Actually these efforts, regardless of any eschatological errors, are being made in order to better love one's neighbor and sometimes enemies. Here we should note Jesus's warning to the Pharisees about substituting religious traditions for the Scriptures (Matthew 15:1-9). Such a warning is appropriate here because our theologies and confessions amount to the traditions that the Pharisees relied on during Jesus's time. That is not to say that our theologies and confessions are more or less biblical or correct than the traditions the Pharisees used. It is to say that we religiously conservative Christians are tempted to over-use our theology and confessions in order to deduce that a practice is totally wrong rather than to use the Scriptures in taking a more nuanced approach to studying whether a given practice is right or wrong.
Finally, those who believe that we cannot improve on life as we know it imply the existence of utopia. And this is of the position of those enjoy a privileged place in today's society. Some how whether one enjoys a privileged place in today's society tends to affect how they see the Scriptures speaking to everyday life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 5
To Joe Carter and his blogpost containing a video presentation by Debbie D’Souza who blames Venezuela’s current collapse solely on Socialism. This appeared in the Acton blog.
This is a rather opportunistic appraisal of Venezuela's plight by someone who opposes Socialism. That the analysis is opportunistic is shown in the stereotyped, over-simplified definition of Socialism given, in the failure to include possible foreign attempts to overthrow the government before there was a fiscal crisis, in the failure to critically look at those who withdrew their wealth from Venezuela because part of it was being used to help those in need, in the fact that Venezuela's economy took a serious hit in the latter part of the 20th century for some of the same reasons why it is being hurt now, in that there is a possibility that foreign nations have played a role in the demise of Venezuela, and the fact that any country that is a member of the WTO is still relying on capitalism for their economic system. That is not to say that Chavez has not failed miserably. But to use his failure as the grounds for saying Socialism alone is the reason why Venezuela is suffering today or that Socialism always fails are not examples of the sound use of logic.
First, we need to look at the over-simplified definition of Socialism. It is, as implied by D'Souza, a big government that makes all people dependent on it. But we should note that Socialism does not equal big government and the government controlled redistribution of wealth is not the basic tenet of Socialism, at least from a Marxist perspective. What is a fundamental characteristic of a Socialistic government is the redistribution of power from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. And that really never took place in Venezuela. That was an important point of discussion during some of the Left Forum sessions in 2015. Chavez was criticized by some for not increasing worker participation in government. This worker participation in government, called the proletariat dictatorship is such an important point that it caused Rosa Luxemburg to label Lenin's regime a bourgeoisie dictatorship because it was under an elite-centered rule (see https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm ).
D'Souza also neglects to mention that Venezuela suffered a similar economic and political plight starting in the early 1980s through the 1990s as it is suffering today. There were multiple economic reasons for Venezuela's collapse including falling oil prices, but the result were somewhat similar to what we see today: major disruptions, riots, and attempted coups (see https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/book/venezuela-1980s-1990s-and-beyond and http://www.americasquarterly.org/content/venezuela-ch%C3%A1vez-anatomy-economic-collapse-ricardo-hausmann-and-francisco-r-rodr%C3%ADguez and https://www.britannica.com/place/Venezuela/The-economy ). Thus to portray Venezuela as this stunning economic success except until Chavez came into power is more than disingenuous.
D'Souza also neglects to mention the 2002 coup in Venezuela. Documents show that the US knew about the coup (see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/03/washington/world/documents-show-cia-knew-of-a-coup-plot-in-venezuela.html?mcubz=0 ) but there is controversy over whether the US supported or even aided the coup (see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela and https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/800 ). Such accusations have historical precedents in the coup in Iran in 1953 and Chilé in 1973. Though those past examples do not prove that the US was involved in the coup to overthrow Chavez, they do point to the realistic possibility that this took place. And those past examples should give us reason to consider whether the US and others were involved in the current destabilization of Venezuela.
We should note that Chavez's elite-centered rule and bad decisions are significant reasons for Venezuela's current collapse. Though Chavez is said to follow socialist ideology, he certainly didn't incorporate a socialist governmental and economic structure from the Marxist tradition. Chavez made poor decisions regarding how the revenues from the oil industries were to be used. And locking out the upper economic class from significant participation in government can only cause rebellion just as locking out any other class from significant participation in government.
In addition, Chomsky claims that like other left-wing governments in South America based their economies on commodity prices (see https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/5/chomsky_leftist_latin_american_governments_have ).
Finally, we should note what D'Souza said about those who withdrew their wealth from Venezuela. For if we combine the threats posed by elite-centered rule while noting that the US is now considered to be an oligarchy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ) and that the wealthy-interests in the US stores much of their wealth offshore in order to maximize profits, perhaps we should look at Venezuela not as a nation to heap scorn on, but as a nation that gives at least a partial picture of what is on our horizon.
No comments:
Post a Comment