I am not a Marxist, but that doesn't mean that I'm a capitalist. I'm not, and Marxism too is coercive. I'm a Christian, and never the twain shall meet!
Nevertheless, Marx's criticisms of capitalism were often very well-founded. It was his prescription that was most in error, and that was due to his strange, sudden, and at the time, unexplained hatred of God. He went away to school supposedly a very devout Christian (writing devotional love poetry about God, etc.), but reportedly within a year, came to detest and pathologically condemn God and of course, therefore, Jesus. This was evident in a letter he wrote to his father.
I wonder what happened to him that year that he turned so.
I've read some of his writings on religion and Christianity in particular and was struck by his ignorance on the subjects. I don't recall the particulars but do remember being struck by the number of factual errors. He seemed to have learned about religion from even Theosophic-type sources, which is sure to misguide when it comes to actual Church history and such.
By Marcello Musto
November 16, 2011 -- Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal -- In recent years Karl Marx has again been featuring in the world's press because of his prescient insights into the cyclical and structural character of capitalist crises. Now there is another reason why he should be re-read in the light of Greece and Italy: the reappearance of the "technical government".
As a contributor to the New-York Tribune, one of the widest circulation dailies of his time, Marx observed the political and institutional developments that led to one of the first technical governments in history: the British cabinet of the Earl of Aberdeen, December 1852 to January 1855.
Marx's reports stood out for their perceptiveness and sarcasm. The London Times, for its part, celebrated the events as a sign that Britain was "at the commencement of the political millennium in which party spirit is to fly from the earth, and genius, experience, industry and patriotism are to be the sole qualifications for office", and it called on "men of every class of opinion" to rally behind the new government because "its principles command universal assent and support". All this excited Marx's derision,which poured forth in his article "A Superannuated Administration. Prospects of the Coalition Ministry, &c" (January 1853).
What the Times found so modern and enthralling was for him sheer farce. When the London press announced "a ministry composed entirely of new, young and promising characters", he mused that "the world will certainly be not a little puzzled [to learn] that the new era in the history of Great Britain is to be inaugurated by all but used-up decrepit octogenarians ..., the bureaucrat, who served under almost every Administration since the close of the last century; other members of the Cabinet twice dead of age and exhaustion and only resuscitated into an artificial existence."
Alongside the judgements of individuals are others, naturally of greater interest, concerning their policies. "We are promised the total disappearance of party warfare, nay even of parties themselves", Marx noted. "What is the meaning of The Times?" The question is unfortunately all too topical today, in a world where the rule of capital over labour has become as feral as it was in the middle of the 19th century.
The separation between economics and politics that differentiates capitalism from previous modes of production has reached its highest point. Economics not only dominates politics, setting its agenda and shaping its decisions, but lies outside its jurisdiction and democratic control – to the point where a change of government no longer changes the direction of economic and social policy.
In the last 30 years, the powers of decision making have passed inexorably from the political to the economic sphere. Particular policy options have been transformed into economic imperatives which, brooking no contradiction, disguise a highly political and utterly reactionary project behind an ideological mask of apolitical expertise. This shunting of parts of the political sphere into the economy, as a separate domain impervious to change, involves the gravest threat to democracy in our times; national parliaments, already drained of representative value by skewed electoral systems and authoritarian revisions of the relationship between executive and legislature, find their powers taken away and transferred to the market.
Standard & Poor's ratings and the Wall Street index – those mega-fetishes of contemporary society – carry incomparably more weight than the will of the people. At best political government can "intervene" in the economy (the ruling classes often need to mitigate the destructive anarchy of capitalism and its violent crises), but they cannot call into question its rules and fundamental choices.
Greece and Italy
The events of recent days in Greece and Italy are a striking illustration of these tendencies. Behind the facade of the term "technical government" – or "government of all the talents', as it was known in Marx's day – we can make out a suspension of politics (no referendum, no elections) that supposedly hands over the whole field to economics.
In an article of April 1853, "Achievements of the Ministry", Marx wrote: "The best thing perhaps that can be said in favour of the Coalition ['technical'] Ministry is that it represents impotency in [political] power at a moment of transition." Governments no longer discuss which economic orientation to take; economic orientations bring about the birth of governments.
In Italy, the key programmatic points were listed last summer in a letter (meant to remain secret!) from the European Central Bank to the Berlusconi government. To restore market 'confidence", it was necessary to proceed rapidly down the road of "structural reforms", an expression now used as a synonym for social devastation: in other words, wage cuts, attacks on workers' rights over hiring and firing, increases in the pension age and large-scale privatisation. The new "technical governments", headed by men with a background in some of the economic institutions most responsible for the crisis (Papademos in Greece, Monti in Italy), will set off down this road – no doubt "for the good of the country" and "the wellbeing of future generations". And they will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who raises a discordant voice.
If the left is not to disappear, it must discover again how to identify the true causes of the crisis that is now upon us. It must also have the courage to propose, and experiment with, the radical policies necessary to achieve a solution.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)