When Marx came to understand the fundamentals of historical materialism in the 1840s, he had good reason to interpret the proletariat as the emerging vanguard of the socialist revolution.  Unlike peasants, who worked and lived in relative isolation, industrial workers were concentrated in work and in their living conditions, and they were subjected to extreme forms of abuse, including super-exploitative wages and the destruction of work as a craft.  Marx discerned that large-scale industry would expand, making industrial workers the majority of the workforce, placing them in a position of control of major parts of the productive process.  These dynamics would give rise to the industrial working class as the popular sector with the most advanced revolutionary consciousness and as the greatest political force.

      Trotsky noted that the conditions that placed industrial workers at the vanguard of the revolution were particularly advanced with respect to Russia.  Russian industry developed late, in comparison to England, France and Germany.   And it developed rapidly at the beginning of the twentieth century, through investment by capitalists from Western Europe, and it immediately took the form of large-scale industry, concentrating large numbers of workers.  Moreover, the workers were drafted directly from the countryside, rather than from the craft guilds of the cities, thus producing a radical social dislocation.  These conditions established a proletarian leadership in Russia capable of leading workers and peasants in revolutionary action.  

      However, peasants and agricultural workers comprised the great majority of the laboring population of Russia.  Lenin, therefore, adapted Marx to Russian conditions, conceiving a revolution of workers and peasants led by a proletarian vanguard.  When the proletarian revolutions in the Western industrialized nations did not triumph, Lenin anticipated that the epicenter of the world-wide socialist revolution would move to the oppressed and colonized nations and peoples, which we today call the Third World.  Thus with Lenin, there begins an evolution in Marxism, and a movement away from Marx’s concept of a vanguard formed by a Western European industrial proletariat.

       Marx’s concept of the proletarian vanguard would undergo further modification with the Sinification of Marxism, the adaptation of Marx to China by Mao Zedong.  In Mao’s analysis, the principal revolutionary class is the “propertyless class,” which in China consisted principally of peasants, replacing the revolutionary proletariat of Marx’s analysis.  

     In Vietnam, the revolution for national liberation was being carried forward by the petit bourgeoisie, with roots in the nationalism of Confucian scholars, and the peasantry.  Ho Chi Minh was formed in the nationalism of the Confucian scholars, and his political activities obligated him to flee Indochina.  He later was educated in the Soviet Union, enabling him to learn Marxism-Leninism.  He was for many years a representative of Indochina in the Communist International, and it therefore was logical and politically sensible for Ho, when he emerged as leader of the Vietnamese Revolution, to continue with Lenin’s formulation of a peasant-worker revolution, led by a working-class vanguard.  But Ho, adjusting to the conditions of Vietnam, made a subtle theoretical and practical reformulation of Lenin’s concept, by defining workers in such a broad way that they included intellectuals and peasants.   Moreover, whereas Lenin supported anti-colonial national liberation movements as a transitional stage, Ho interpreted national liberation movements in the colonized regions as complementary and equal to the proletarian revolutions of the advance industrial nations.

      Unlike Ho, Fidel Castro was not educated in the Soviet Union.  He read the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin on his own in the library of the communist party in Cuba.  He more loosely appropriated Marxist-Leninist concepts, adapting them to conditions in Cuba.  In “History Will Absolve Me,” which functioned as the manifesto of the Cuban revolution from 1953 to 1959, Fidel spoke of a revolution that responds to the need of the people, and he named the sectors of the people: the unemployed, agricultural workers, industrial workers, tenant farmers, teachers, professors, small businessmen, and young professionals in health, education, engineering, law, and journalism.  For Fidel, the revolution was more of a popular than a proletarian revolution.

     In the movement toward “Socialism for the Twenty-First Century” in Latin America today, the tendency to speak of the people, as against the working class, has been reinforced by the fact that new social subjects of women, indigenous peoples, and ecologists have emerged, supplementing the conventional social subjects of workers, peasants, agricultural workers, students, and blacks.  The vanguard is not a proletarian vanguard; rather, it is a vanguard of the people, consisting of consisting of persons from the various popular sectors who possess high levels of understanding and commitment.  The vanguard comes from the people and is organically tied to the people, and it speaks and acts in defense of the people.

     When I was a participant in the anti-war movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were those, including members of the Progressive Labor Party, who spoke of a vanguard of industrial workers.  It was a concept that made no sense to me, for it was inconsistent with my experiences.  Blacks and white middle class students had the most advanced revolutionary consciousness in the United States at the time, as a result of the fact that they had experienced, in different ways, the contradiction between US claims to be democratic and the actual practice.

      The identification of a working-class vanguard in the Revolution of 1968 in the United States resulted from the error of literally applying Marx’s concepts, which were developed in a particular time and place.  And it was an error with very serious consequences, for it contributed to the undermining of the credibility of Marxist-Leninist theory and practice.  

      But we today can avoid the error of literalism.  We can study and learn from Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, so that we would be able to politically act in an intelligent and effective form.  We should fully understand the following five points.  

      (1) Marxism is not dogmatic.  Marxist-Leninist theory and practice contains no fixed and unchanging concepts and strategies, for it has been continually evolving from the time of Marx to the present day.  

     (2) We should study the Third World.  The evolution of Marxist-Leninist theory and practice is a global phenomenon, occurring in popular social movements in all of the regions of the world, and attaining a particularly advanced expression today among the neocolonized peoples.

     (3)  The members of the vanguard read.  The people tend to focus on concrete problems, and they often are unable to understand particular problems in the context of an evolving social system characterized by structures of domination and exploitation.  In contrast, the members of the vanguard are able to understand concrete problems in historical and global context, largely as a consequence of their commitment to studying the speeches of charismatic leaders and the works of intellectuals tied to popular movements.  

     (4) The vanguard teaches and leads the people.  If we study popular revolutions of the world, we are able to understand that the role of the vanguard is to educate the people and to lead them in emancipatory political action, seeking to transform structures of domination and exploitation and to construct social and national liberation.  

     (5) The vanguard comes from all races, ethnic groups, classes, genders and ages.  If we observe the unfolding popular revolutions of the world, we see that the vanguard is formed by committed and responsible persons from all of the popular sectors.

     The formation of a vanguard of the people is the key to popular revolution, which by definition is the taking of power by the people.  Popular revolutions in the core nations of the world-system are necessary, because the global power elite is leading humanity to chaos and is placing at risk the survival of the human species and the life of the Earth.

     In various posts on Marx, the Russian Revolution, the Mexican Revolution, Vietnam, the Cuban Revolution and the presidential primaries in the United States, I have commented upon the concept of the vanguard, its role and its composition.  These posts have been placed in the category of the Vanguard.  The posts are as follows:

 “Marx on the revolutionary proletariat” 1/14/2014
“The social & historical context of Marx” 1/15/2014
“The proletarian vanguard” 1/24/2014
“The revolutionary party of the vanguard” 1/25/2014
“The proletariat and the Mexican Revolution” 2/14/2014
“Ho reformulates Lenin” 5/7/2014
“Fidel adapts Marxism-Leninism to Cuba” 9/9/2014
“The pluralism of revolutionary unity” 9/18/2014
“Presidential primaries in USA” 8/25/2015

In the category of Vanguard, scroll down to locate the posts.

      World diplomatic developments in recent years suggest the possibility of a socialist-Christian-Islamic alliance: the Vatican has warm relations with progressive governments in Latin America, including socialist Cuba; and the progressive Latin American governments are developing relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Moreover, the Pope has an inclusive message, calling for cooperation among the religions of the world and between believers and non-believers.  

     Such an alliance has deep roots in the three intellectual and moral traditions of Christianity, Islam, and socialism.  In the Judeo-Christian tradition, liberationist tendencies have been present from the beginning.  From the ancient scriptures of Israel, we learn that God was experienced by Moses as a God who acts in history in defense of the oppressed, and God called upon the people of Israel to develop a just society unlike other nations.  But during the course of time, Israel developed a kingdom, becoming like other nations.  Some prophets, like Amos, denounced the turn from the Mosaic covenant.  But others, like Isaiah, justified the kingdom.  Thus a duality emerged between a religion accommodated to kingdoms and empires, and a purer religion that stood for social justice.  This duality persisted in Christianity, with popes of the European Middle Ages allied with kings, but with some priests and nuns establishing religious orders, seeking religious purity.  The duality expressed itself in Latin America, where the Church was allied with the Latin American estate bourgeoisie, but Latin American liberation theology proclaimed a God who, in the struggle between the rich and the poor, is on the side of the poor (Anderson 1986; Gutierrez 1973, 1983).  

     In the Islamic tradition, similar dual tendencies prevailed.  The initial Islamic community formed by the prophet Mohammed was a political-religious community that possessed a social project involving the construction of a righteous community.  But Muslims lost this purity, and there emerged empires with corrupt rulers who lived lavishly and oppressed the people, thus provoking movements for a restoration of Islamic purity.  The restoration movements often possessed reactionary manifestations, such as literal interpretation of sacred texts, or rejection of inquiry based on reason rather than revelation. But movements for Islamic renewal sometimes had social revolutionary expression, as was reflected in “Islamic socialism” and in Islamic alliances with the international communist movement (Ansary 2009: passim; Schulze 2000:32-35, 51).  

      The tension between exploitative and emancipatory tendencies in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam expressed itself in the context of societies that integrated religion and politics, so that political discourse was shaped by religious tradition.  Kings and emperors justified and legitimated their conduct with reference to religious values, and prophets critical of them also based their condemnations in religious tradition and sacred texts.

     The democratic revolutions of the West severed this integration of politics and religion, creating the modern separation of religion and state and a secular political discourse, for the most part.  But societies and their political discourses must have a foundation in some system of values.  In the modern era, this function was fulfilled by democratic values, which affirmed that all individuals have rights.  The democratic affirmation of the equal rights of all was a great step forward for humanity.  However, in focusing on the individual, democratic theory severed persons from the social organism, and freed the state from social responsibility.

     Led by a rising merchant class that sought to claim political and legal equality with the nobility, the democratic revolutions at first proclaimed merely political and civil rights.  But popular movements from below sought to reestablish political responsibility toward society, and they thus forged an expansion of the meaning of democracy to include the protection of social and economic rights.  Later movements of the colonized peoples of the world expanded social responsibility to a global scale, and thus formulated a concept of democracy to include respect for the rights of nations to self-determination, sovereignty, and development.  Thus the democratic values that shape contemporary global political discourse have become comprehensive: they include the responsibility of the state to protect the political, civil, social and economic rights of citizens, and to respect the rights of nations to self-determination, sovereignty and development.  In their contemporary formulation, democratic values affirm the responsibility of the state toward society.

     These democratic values have been codified in various documents of the United Nations.  They can appropriately be called “universal human values,” inasmuch as they have been affirmed by the nations of the world, regardless of region, language, culture or religion (see “Universal human values” 4/16/2014).

     The universal human values proclaimed by humanity are the contemporary counterpart in the world-system to the sacred texts and moral traditions that provided moral rules of conduct for political elites in ancient Israel and in the Christian and Islamic kingdoms and empires of the pre-modern era.  They have the similar function of constraining the conduct of the powerful, calling them to act with justice toward the people, for the well-being of society.  And they have a similar content: treat justly and tend to the needs of the people, especially the poor and the vulnerable; and treat with justice and respect the rights of all neighboring nations.  Just as the kings and emperors of the pre-modern era often ignored the moral obligations of religions tradition, the global elites of the world-system today ignore universal human values.  And just as the prophets in ancient times condemned the apostasy of the rulers, so in the modern era secular prophets have emerged that have condemned the global elite for its violation of the universal human values that humanity has proclaimed.

     The Third World socialist project that has emerged during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries repeatedly affirms universal human values, both in theory and practice.  Like the liberationist tendencies of the Judaic-Christian-Islamic tradition, the Third World project calls forth leaders who live modestly, who govern with wisdom, who develop policies in defense of the poor and the needy, who seek justice for their peoples, and who cooperate with neighboring nations to create a sustainable world-system.  

      Meanwhile, religion has not been relegated to the past.  Even as political discourse has become secular, the people continue with religious beliefs and practices.  Today, the majority of people on the planet are believers in one religion or another.  And from the vantage point of their religious values, they criticize the conduct of global elites, joining the Third World socialist leaders in the chorus of denunciation of the immoral conduct of the global elite.

     An example of the denunciation of global elites from a religious perspective is found in the discourses of Pope Francis.  In recent posts, we have seen a number of convergences between the Pope and the Third World project with respect to particular issues: the moral obligation to reduce poverty and inequality, the right of the nations of the world to self-determination and to development, the need for a democratic reform of the United Nations and of the global financial infrastructure, the human duty to protect nature, the rejection of militarism and the search for peaceful settlement of differences among nations, and the development of international relations on a foundation of solidarity and consensus (see “Pope Francis: A progressive discourse” 12/11/2015; “Pope speaks for nature and the excluded” 12/12/2015; “Pope Francis: Care for our Common Home” 12/1/4/2015).

     As I noted in a previous post (“Pope speaks for nature and the excluded” 12/12/2015), the Pope hopes for the development of a more just world through a turn of political leaders toward fidelity to fundamental moral principles, whereas the Third World movements and governments see the issue as political, as requiring the taking of power by popular movements.  This difference reflects the fact that the Pope is a head of a church and is not a political leader or a chief of state.  But in spite of this difference in views with respect to the process of social change, the progressive religious perspective of the Pope and Third World socialism have the same fundamental goals.  Progressive religious movements and Third World Socialism can be allies in the global struggle against capitalism in its neoliberal stage.  

     Progressive Christianity, progressive Islam, and Third World socialism have in common a rejection of the global neoliberal economic war against the poor, the military interventions by the global powers, economic and cultural imperialism, ideological manipulations, irrational consumerism, and indifference to the wounds inflicted upon nature and the excluded and impoverished of the planet.  The three intellectual and moral traditions stand in opposition to the savagery of an unsustainable capitalist world-system in full decadence.  Their cooperation in global political alliance is indispensable for ensuring a sustainable future for humanity.
​

​References
 
Anderson, Bernhard W.  1986.  Understanding the Old Testament, Fourth Edition.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 
Ansary, Tamim.  2009.  Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes.  New York: Public Affairs.
 
Gutierrez, Gustavo.  1973.  A Theology of Liberation, English translation.  Maryknoll, New York:  Orbis. 
 
__________.  1983.  The Power of the Poor in History.  Maryknoll, N.Y.:  Orbis Books.
 
Schulze, Reinhard.  2000.  A Modern History of the Islamic World.  New York: New York University Press.
 
 
Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Pope Francis, Christianity, ecology, liberation theology, Islam

     Catholic social thought during the nineteenth century viewed secularism as the source of modern problems, for it divorced the political process from moral teachings rooted in divine revelation. Catholic social thought condemned the excessive individualism of capitalism, and it called for a restoration of the organic unity of society through the reconciliation of society with the Church (O’Brian and Shannon 1977:31).

     As a result of its defense of the old order, nineteenth century Catholic social thought was isolated from intellectual currents and social movements.  Seeking to overcome this isolation, Pope Leo XIII, in a series of encyclicals at the end of the century, affirmed the complementarity of reason and revelation.  He criticized liberal capitalism, for its releasing of the individual from moral constraints; and socialism, for its lack of respect for human rights and disregard for the welfare of religion.  In his critique of capitalism, he maintained that wages should be determined not by market forces alone but also by the needs of the worker; and that the right of property should be subjected to moral restraints.  Continuing with these themes, Pope Pius XI in 1931 denounced both liberal capitalism and atheistic communism and called for a middle way, a Christian social order (O’Brian and Shannon 1977:33-37).

     The social teachings of Leo XIII and Pius XI were rigid in theology, and they assumed that the Church possessed the answers to the problems of the age.  As a result, they could not generate a wide following. The later encyclicals of Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, however, were written with a more humble tone, based on a vision of the Church as a servant of humanity.  Moreover, they engaged the issues that confronted the colonized peoples, affirming the rights of the nations of the Third World to self-determination and to control over their natural resources.  John XXIII, in the 1960 encyclical “Christianity and Social Progress,” affirmed public ownership in response to the demands of the common good, and the right of nations to nationalize.  He condemned the economic dependency of neocolonialism, and he called for a just distribution of wealth.  In the 1967 encyclical “On the Development of Peoples,” Paul VI maintained that private property is not an unconditioned right, and that the common good sometimes demands the expropriation of land.  Following up on the progressive themes of the papal encyclicals, the Synod of Bishops in 1971 issued “Justice in the World.”  It suggests that European colonialism is the cause of Third World underdevelopment, and it maintains that action on behalf of social justice is an integral and necessary component of the Christian life (O’Brian and Shannon 1977).

     On the other hand, the encyclicals of John XXIII and Paul VI sometimes reflect a European point of view (see, for example, O’Brian and Shannon 1977:91, 182-83).  And Paul specifically rejects Marxism, for its atheism, historical materialism, and emphasis on class struggle, including justification of violent forms of struggle (O’Brian and Shannon 1977:366-70).

     The 2015 encyclical of Pope Francis, Laudato Si’, represents a further evolution in Catholic social thought.  It does not have the ethnocentric and anti-Marxist formulations that mar the encyclicals of John XXIII and Paul VI.  Focusing on the need to care for the natural environment, it sees ecological issues as integrally tied to economic, political and cultural global issues, in accordance with the most progressive tendencies today.

     Laudato Si’ laments that “economic powers continue to justify the current global system where priority tends to be given to speculation and the pursuit of financial gain.”  In contrast to this systemic defense of profit, the Pope maintain that moral constraints must be placed on the right of private property, if the environment is to be protected.

     The Pope criticizes a one-dimensional epistemological paradigm that exalts rational control over an external object.  He maintains that this technocratic paradigm tends to dominate economic life.  “The economy accepts every advance in technology with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings.”  He calls for the promotion of a different cultural paradigm that seeks to limit and direct technology, placing it in “the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral.”  

     Alongside the technocratic paradigm, there is a “culture of relativism.” The validity of “objective truths” and “sound principles” is denied, except for the principle of “the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate needs.”  This leads us to place no limits on human behavior and to allow “the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy,” disregarding their impact on society and nature.  Francis calls for a perspective that is rooted in the fundamental principle of the common good, which calls us to solidarity and to a preferential option for the poor that demands “an appreciation of the immense dignity of the poor.”  

     The Pope advocates an integral approach to ecology that takes into account economy, society, and culture.  “What is needed is a politics which is far-sighted and capable of a new, integral and interdisciplinary approach to handling the different aspects of the crisis.”

     Pope Francis affirms a positive possibility for humanity, rooted in human dignity.

​    The progressive Christianity of Pope Francis and Socialism for the Twenty-First Century are different, for the Pope calls political leaders to conform to fundamental moral principles, whereas Socialism for the Twenty-First Century places its hope not in the moral conversion of politicians but in the taking of power by the people, who will develop moral policies in defense of its own interests, which are the common interests of humanity.  But the two complement one another, such that an alliance is emerging.  This will be the subject of our next post. 

​References
 
Encyclical Letter, Laudato Si’, of the Holy Father Francis, “On Care for our Common Home.”
 
O’Brian, David and Thomas A. Shannon, Eds.  1977.  Renewing the Earth: Catholic Documents on Peace, Justice and Liberation.  Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Image Books.

 
Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Pope Francis, Christianity, ecology

     In his address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 25, 2015, Pope Francis spoke in defense of nature and on behalf of the marginalized persons and nations of the planet.

     Consistent with the perspective of Third World leaders and governments, the Pope affirmed the importance of the United Nations as an organization that has the potential to create just limits to power, preventing powerful nations from placing their interests above the rights of other nations.  However, this potential has not been realized. The global decision-making process, he observed, is not characterized by equality, which has had the consequence that the natural environment and the socially excluded have become fragile parts of our reality.  He called for a democratic reform of the United Nations, especially the Security Council.  Such a call for reform of the United Nations, seeking to give the less powerful nations greater voice in the decision-making process, has been a persistent demand of the Third World, formulated, for example, by the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77 plus China, and BRICS.

    In a similar vein, Pope Francis called for a democratic reform of international finance agencies, and he criticized them for imposing crediting schemes that stifle development.

     The Pope observed that the steps taken to address human problems, such as the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the World Summit, are signs of hope, but they are not enough.  We have the responsibility to take effective steps and not to make nominal declarations that sooth the conscience.

     Pope Francis further declared that “war is the negation of all rights and a dramatic aggression against the environment.”   He maintained that the full application of international law is effective for the attainment of peace, and he advocated the development of friendly relations among nations as against the doctrine of the threat of mutual destruction.  He called for a world without nuclear arms, applying fully the non-proliferation treaty.  Here again the Pope is standing with the nations of the Third World, which have tried to remind the powers that possess nuclear weapons that the non-proliferation treaty includes not only provisions against countries joining the nuclear arms club, but also provisions calling for the gradual nuclear disarmament by nations that possess nuclear arms.

    As we saw with respect to the Pope’s address to the US Congress (see “Pope Francis: A progressive discourse”), Francis expresses a moral and religious perspective that complements, but is different from, the Third World perspective that has emerged from the national liberation movements.  The Third World movements see the colonialist, neocolonialist, imperialist and neoliberal policies of the global powers as reflecting the particular interests of the elite classes in the colonial and neocolonial nations, whereas the pope sees the scourges of our time as reflections of immoral behavior that casts aside moral law and that violates “the ideal of human fraternity.” 

     In accordance with his moral and religious perspective, Pope Francis sees nature and the excluded as “victims of the immoral exercise of power.”  He views social exclusion as caused by an “unrestricted and egoistic eagerness for power and material goods.”   He believes that misgovernment of the world-economy has occurred because morally irresponsible leaders have been guided “only by ambition for profit and power.” He believes that the contemporary world is experiencing an increasing social fragmentation that is generating conflicts of interest.

     Standing against the immorality and amorality of the world order, Pope Francis maintains that the defense of the environment and the struggle against social and economic exclusion demand recognition of a “moral law written in human nature itself,” a moral law that “renounces the construction of an omnipotent elite” and that demands that governments leave aside interests and “sincerely seek the service of the common good.”  Without recognition of a fundamental moral law, the hopes of the UN Charter are an illusion, or worse, they are words that are manipulated to justify abuse or corruption or to generate a life style of consumerism that is alien to the cultures of the peoples.

     The moral perspective of the Pope is valid, but it is incomplete.  It differs form the perspectives that have been emerging in the popular movements from below during the last 200 years.  From the Pope’s moral perspective, the casting aside of the moral law has created conflicts of interest; in contrast, Marx saw conflicts of interest as intrinsic to societies with class divisions.  From his sincerely held moral perspective, the Pope appeals to governmental authorities to adopt policies that respond to the needs of suffering humanity.  In contrast, the perspective of Third World movements of national liberation, which have appropriated key insights of Marxism-Leninism, discern the need for movements by the people that take power and that begin to implement policies in accordance with popular interests.  

     Nevertheless, in spite of this difference in perspective between the progressive Christian perspective of the Pope and Third World socialism, the two are allies in a common struggle against exclusion and violence and for a more just and democratic world-system.  I will discuss further this potential alliance between progressive Christianity and Socialism for the Twenty-First Century in a subsequent post.

​Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Pope Francis, Christianity

    The address by Pope Francis to the Congress of the United States on September 24, 2015 was a progressive discourse that placed the Pope clearly on the side of the progressive voices in the political conflicts in the United States.

     The Pope observed that the members of Congress, as representatives of the people, have a responsibility to promote the common good.  “You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk.  Legislative activity is always based on care for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you.”

    In response to “the disturbing social and political situation of the world today,” the Pope warned of the dangers of fundamentalism, religious or of some other type, and of “simplistic reductionism.”  Instead, he asserted, “Our response must be one of hope and healing, of peace and justice. . . .  We must move forward together, as one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good.”

     He maintained that politics must be in service of the common good and the human person, and accordingly, politics “cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life.”

    He called for a humane and just response to immigrants, noting that the great majority of persons on the American continent, including himself, are the descendants of immigrants.  He called for “the global abolition of the death penalty,” maintaining that “every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity” and that the rehabilitation of persons committed of crimes is more beneficial for society.  And he called for a fight on many fronts against poverty and hunger, including especially addressing its causes. 
     
     Quoting from his encyclical Laudato Si,’ he called for “a courageous and responsible effort to ‘redirect our steps,’ and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity. . . . Now is the time for courageous actions and strategies, aimed at implementing a ‘culture of care’ and ‘an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature.’” He maintained that we must put technology in the service of a “‘healthier, more human, more social, more integral’” form of progress.

     Speaking before the political representatives of a nation that, as all the world knows, sells far more arms than any other nation, the Pope proclaimed the following:

    In his address to the Congress, Pope Francis identified four persons who have played an important role in shaping “fundamental values which will endure forever in the spirit of the American people.”  These four constituted a surprising and somewhat unconventional list of significant persons in the United States: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day, and Thomas Merton.  In selecting Lincoln and King, the Pope was affirming the importance of the African-American struggle for fundamental rights.  In selecting Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton, much lesser known figures, the pope was identifying with the Catholic Left in the United States.  Dorothy Day, the founder of the Catholic Worker Movement, was committed to the cause of the oppressed and to non-violence.  Thomas Merton was a Cistercian monk whose spiritual writings and advocacy of peace among nations and reconciliation among religions was appropriated by the Catholic Left in the late 1960s.

     The progressive discourse of the Pope during his journey to the United States was very favorably received in the Third World.  Indeed, it complements the Third World perspective formulated by movements of national liberation, and it reiterates some of the demands of Third World international organizations, such as the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 plus China.

     However, the Pope’s speech before the US Congress did not reflect a Third World perspective.  There was not a word about colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, or neoliberalism as the cause of the great problems and challenges that humanity confronts.  Nor was it a Marxist discourse.  There was no recognition that socially irresponsible policies are driven by the particular interests of the ruling classes within nations and of the ruling nations in the world-system.  The call to responsible action by the Pope was expressed from a religious and moral perspective, and not from a Third World, Marxist, or socialist perspective.  

     The progressive Christian perspective of Pope Francis is an example of “reform form below” that has several goals in common with Third World socialism, and accordingly, it suggests the possibility of a political alliance between Third World socialist and popular governments and the progressive wing of world Christianity in a struggle to establish a more just and sustainable world-system.  Such an alliance that would stand in opposition to the structural immorality and violence of the neocolonial world-system.  See “Reform from above; reform from below” 8/27/2014; and “We can know the true and the good” 4/3/2104.  

     I will reflect further on the possibility of a Socialist-Christian alliance in a subsequent post.

​Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Pope Francis

    The visit of Pope Francis from September 19 to September 22, 2015 was much anticipated in Cuba, where he is viewed as a dignified defender of the poor and the excluded, a critic of the unconscionable neoliberal project of global capitalism, a defender of the environment, and a promoter of peace and reconciliation.  He was welcomed to the island with respect and affection by the people and the government of Cuba.  President Raúl Castro met him at the airport and extended to him the “warmest welcome” on behalf of the Cuban people.  The motorcade transporting the pope from the airport to the apostolic residence in Havana found the avenues lined with people, waving red, white and blue Cuban flags as well as the yellow and white flags of the Vatican, with security along the route provided by volunteers from various places of work and study.  The Pope leaned out of the popemobile, disdaining use of the bulletproof glass, waving and smiling during the 18-kilometer trip.  

     During his four days of intense activities, the Pope attained even more sympathy from the people.  He won over the hearts of the people by his constant touching, kissing, and blessing of children and persons with mental and physical challenges; by his simple message of service to others, especially the most fragile; by his personal piety before the statue of the Virgin of Charity, the patron saint of Cuba; by his appreciation of Cuban culture and his affection for the people; by his pastoral preaching to all Cubans, of all creeds, of which there is a multitude in Cuba, and to believers and non-believers alike; by his constantly asking the people to pray for him; by his encounter with Fidel; and by his humility.  One television commentator observed, “How many people have I heard say, ‘I am not Catholic, but I like the manner of this pope?’”  The Vatican had promoted a trip by a “missionary of mercy.”  And so it came to pass, as the Cuban people referred to him as the “Pope of Mercy.” 

     His homily during mass celebrated in the Plaza of the Revolution, in the presence of images of José Martí, Che Guevara and Camilo Cienfuegos, was the simple message of a humble priest.  It focused on the gospel story of Jesus admonishing his disciples, proclaiming that he who would be first should be dedicated to service to others.  In Francis’ interpretation, service to others involves selfless service to the most fragile; to the most fragile in our families, in our society, and among our people, those that are unprotected and anguished.

      No informed person can deny that few governments in human history have been as dedicated to the defense of the fragile as the Cuban revolutionary government from 1959 to the present.  It has subsidized the costs of basic necessities, and it has built schools, universities, hospitals and clinics, available to all without cost.  In spite of its limited resources, it has sent medical missions to Latin America, Africa and Asia, and it has educated doctors and other medical professionals from these lands.  In a 1985 interview with Brazilian priest and liberation theologian Frei Betto, Fidel Castro observed that if the Catholic Church were to develop a state, it would do exactly what the Cuban revolutionary government has done: directing resources toward the satisfaction of the fundamental human needs of the people.  This convergence between Cuban revolutionary and Christian values is a consequence in part of the influence of Catholic schools on the petit bourgeois leaders of the Cuban Revolution.

      Just a few hours after his departure from Cuba, the Cuban news television program, the Roundtable, dedicated its program to reflections on the ramifications of the visit of Pope Francis.  All expressed the view that there is a confluence between the Christian values of Pope Francis and the humanistic values of the Cuban Revolution.  And it was observed that the visit of the Pope comes at an important moment in Cuba, in which the nation is seeking a renovation of Cuban values at a time when consumerism looms as a threat.  See “Cooperatives and social change in Cuba” 8/7/2015.

    In his September 22 message at the Basílica de Nuestra Señora del Cobre in Santiago de Cuba, the Pope was perhaps calling upon Cuban Catholics to be more engaged in the work of service to others that is integral to the Cuban revolutionary project, when he called for a “revolution of tenderness” that brings Catholics to greater involvement in service to others.  

​     In the context of a series of posts reflecting on the work of Immanuel Wallerstein, I have suggest the possibility of a Christian-socialist alliance on a global scale, or more broadly, an alliance between religion and socialism in the world in opposition to the barbarity of the capitalist world-economy in its neoliberal stage.  See “We can know the true and the good” 4/3/2104.

.     Although cooperation between religion and socialism is a possibility, revolutionary processes must take the position that religion is a private matter.  The separation of religion and state is necessary in the modern world, where there exists a diversity of religious beliefs as well as non-believers.  On this theme, see “Revolution and religion” 12/3/2013, which was written in the context of a series of posts on the French Revolution.  

     The separation of religion and state has been the historic position of the Cuban Revolution, and it was persistently maintained even in the context of the enthusiasm for the visit of Pope Francis.  Pope Francis himself has an inclusive message, calling all, believers and non-believers, to a life of service to others.

Reference
 
Oficina de Publicaciones del Consejo de Estado.  1985.  Fidel y la Religión: Conversaciones con Frei Betto.  La Habana: Oficina de Publicaciones del Consejo de Estado. (English translation: Fidel and Religion: Conversations with Frei Betto on Marxism and Liberation Theology.  Melbourne: Ocean Press).