Global Learning
  • Home
  • Defenders of Cuban Socialism
    • UN Charter
    • Declaration of Human Rights
    • Bandung
    • New International Economic Order
    • Non-Aligned Movement
  • Substack editorial column
  • New Cold War articles
  • Friends of Socialist China articles
  • Global Research articles
  • Counterpunch articles
  • Cuba and the world-system
    • Table of Contents and chapter summaries
    • About the author
    • Endorsements
    • Obtaining your copy
  • Blog ¨The View from the South¨
    • Blog Index
    • Posts in reverse chronological order
  • The Voice of Third World Leaders
    • Asia >
      • Ho Chi Minh
      • Xi Jinping, President of China
    • Africa >
      • Kwame Nkrumah
      • Julius Nyerere
    • Latin America >
      • Fidel Castro
      • Hugo Chávez
      • Raúl Castro >
        • 55th anniversary speech, January 1, 1914
        • Opening Speech, CELAC
        • Address at G-77, June 15, 2014
        • Address to National Assembly, July 5, 2014
        • Address to National Assembly, December 20, 2014
        • Speech on Venezuela at ALBA, 3-17-2015
        • Declaration of December 18, 2015 on USA-Cuba relations
        • Speech at ALBA, March 5, 2018
      • Miguel Díaz-Canel >
        • UN address, September 26, 2018
        • 100th annivesary, CP of China
      • Evo Morales >
        • About Evo Morales
        • Address to G-77 plus China, January 8, 2014
        • Address to UN General Assembly, September 24, 2014
      • Rafael Correa >
        • About Rafael Correa
        • Speech at CELAC 1/29/2015
        • Speech at Summit of the Americas 2015
      • Nicolás Maduro
      • Cristina Fernández
      • Cuban Ministry of Foreign Relations >
        • Statement at re-opening of Cuban Embassy in USA, June 20, 2015
        • The visit of Barack Obama to Cuba
        • Declaration on parliamentary coup in Brazil, August 31, 2016
        • Declaration of the Revolutionary Government of Cuba on Venezuela, April 13, 2019
      • ALBA >
        • Declaration of ALBA Political Council, May 21, 2019
        • Declaration on Venezuela, March 17, 2015
        • Declaration on Venezuela, April 10, 2017
      • Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) >
        • Havana Declaration 2014
        • Declaration on Venezuela, March 26
    • Martin Luther King, Jr.
    • International >
      • Peoples’ Summit 2015
      • The Group of 77 >
        • Declaration on a New World Order 2014
        • Declaration on Venezuela 3/26/2015
      • BRICS
      • Non-Aligned Movement
  • Readings
    • Charles McKelvey, Cuba in Global Context
    • Piero Gleijeses, Cuba and Africa
    • Charles McKelvey, Chávez and the Revolution in Venezuela
    • Charles McKelvey, The unfinished agenda of race in USA
    • Charles McKelvey, Marxist-Leninist-Fidelist-Chavist Revolutionary
  • Recommended Books
  • Contact

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Recommended books on Amazon.com; click on image of book to connect

The prophets of our time

12/7/2016

0 Comments

 
     In yesterday’s post, we noted that the Dean of Communications of the University of Havana maintained that the Cuban people are united in believing that “Fidel is sacred,” and that, in a similar vein, I had previously maintained that the discourses of revolutionary charismatic leaders constitute “sacred texts.”  These reflections bring us to the question of the character and the role of prophets, especially in light of the fact that many persons in Cuba and Latin America have referred to Fidel as a prophet.

      The sacred texts of ancient Israel teach us that Moses, on the basis of an experience that he interpreted as an encounter with God, came to understand and to teach a vision of God as one who acts in history in defense of the oppressed.  As the chosen people of God, Ancient Israel was assigned the mission of developing a just society, unlike other nations.  But Israel as it evolved became a kingdom like others, reaching its heights under the reigns of David and Solomon. As a result, prophets emerged, denouncing the turn from the covenant between God and the people of Israel in the time of Moses, some of them focusing on the demand of God for social justice.  Among the prophets of Israel, Amos stood out as a voice condemning the social injustices of his day.  He decried corrupt public officials that reveled in luxury, wealthy merchants that trampled on the poor and the defenseless, and laws that served the interests of the commercial class.  He prophesied that if the people do not change their lifestyle and return to faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant, God, acting in the arena of history, would unleash terrible events upon them, including the destruction of Israel as a nation, a prophecy that came to pass (Anderson 1986:212-316).  

      Fidel is like a modern day Amos.  He condemns the global political and economic inequalities of our time, and he defends the rights of the poor, the neocolonized, and the excluded.  But unlike the prophets of old, Fidel did not merely denounce with words, predicting the punishment of a God angry with an unfaithful people.  In addition to denouncing the global elite, Fidel led the peoples toward the construction of an alternative world-system, proclaiming the duty to maintain hope for the future of humanity.  His exceptional capacities for political leadership were evident in various stages: his discerning the necessary strategies for toppling the U.S.-supported dictator in the late 1950s; his understanding of the decisive steps necessary for establishing basic revolutionary structures in Cuba in the early 1960s; his leadership of the nation toward the development of alternative structures of Cuban popular democracy in the 1970s; his condemnation of the short-sighted economic policies of the global elite and his scientifically-informed support of the Third World proposal for a New International Economic Order in the early 1980s; his formulation of Cuban structural adjustment policies in the early 1990s, demonstrating the possibility of adjustments in the post-Welfare State era that did not ignore the needs of the people; and his active participation as Cuban head of state in the process of Latin American unity and integration in the early twenty-first century.  This modern day profit possessed not only the gift of discerning God’s will for social justice, like his ancient forebears, but he also was gifted with the capacity to teach and lead the peoples toward the construction of a more just and sustainable world-system.

      The ancient prophets condemned the ways and the policies of the elite, but the conditions did not exist for the formation of social movements.  The prophets possessed the insight and the commitment to condemn the kings, but they could not mobilize the people for the taking of power from the kings.  

      The incapacity of the people to form sustained social movements persisted throughout the ancient and feudal periods in human history. Slaves, serfs and peasants sometimes revolted, but urban-rural ideological and cultural differences as well as difficulties in communication and transportation prevented the formation of a coalition of popular sectors, necessary for sustained social movements.

      The bourgeois revolutions of the late eighteenth century in Western Europe and North America established the foundation for modern popular social movements.  The bourgeois revolutions were led by a rising merchant class, which enlisted the support of farmers, peasants, artisans and workers, who became actively engaged in the bourgeois revolutions, which ultimately were successful in establishing bourgeois control of Western political institutions.  Excluded from effective political power by the new bourgeois institutions, the popular sectors formed their own movements and organizations, sometimes organized by gender or race as well as class or occupation.  In the developed economies of the West, however, these movements could be channeled toward reformism, thus maintaining bourgeois control.

        Modern capitalism was built on a foundation of colonial domination, and the ultimate destiny of the popular movements formed by the colonized would be different from the popular movements of the West.  In the colonized regions, anti-colonial movements emerged, formed by an alliance of the national bourgeoisie and the popular sectors of peasants, agricultural workers, artisans, urban workers, and middle class merchants and professionals.  Once the colonies attained political independence, the conflict of interest between the national bourgeoisie and the popular sectors became manifest.  The national bourgeoisie had an interest in the preservation of the economic and commercial relations developed during the colonial period, with political control of the formally independent nation by the national bourgeoisie, the sovereignty of which was limited by the rules of the neocolonial world-system.  In contrast, the popular sector had an interest in a fundamental social transformation, in order that their social and economic rights would be protected; such transformation necessarily implied true independence of the nation from the colonial powers. Inasmuch as the world-system depended on the superexploitation of the people in the neocolonies and the unregulated exploitation of their natural resources, reformist concessions to popular demands were necessarily limited, and as a result, the popular movements in the neocolonies could not be channeled toward reformism.

       In this panorama, there emerged during the second half of the twentieth century a number of Third World charismatic leaders, the prophets of our time.  They were mostly young men of the middle class of the colonies/neocolonies.  Their social condition as middle class men afforded them some possibility for study and reflection, and at the same time, they found that their condition as colonized limited the possibilities for their own class, for other popular sectors, and for the nation.  They were and are exceptional leaders, with a capacity for understanding national and international economic and social dynamics, an ability to mobilize and lead the people, and a highly developed sense of social justice.  They condemned the aggression and imperialism of the colonial and neocolonial powers and the morally unjustifiable inequalities between rich and poor.  They have maintained that the neocolonial world-system is not sustainable, and that the future of humanity requires the development of a New International Economic Order, or what they today call a “just, democratic and sustainable world-system.”

      They are the legendary figures of the Third World: Toussaint of Haiti; Zapata of Mexico; Mao, Zhou En-lai and Xi Jinping of China; Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam; Sukarno of Indonesia; Gandhi and Nehru of India; Nasser of Egypt; U Nu of Burma; Ben Youssef of Algeria; Nkrumah of Ghana; Nyerere of Tanzania; Martí, Mella, Guiteras, and Fidel of Cuba; Allende of Chile; Sandino and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua; Mandela of South Africa; Chávez and Maduro of Venezuela; Evo of Bolivia; and Rafael Correa of Ecuador.  They have been found in the United States as well: DuBois, Garvey, A. Philip Randolph, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King.

     Fidel is perhaps the most legendary of them, because of the persistence of the Cuban Revolution in the face of the hostility of the neighboring neocolonial hegemonic power; the leadership of Fidel and Cuba in the Non-Aligned Movement; the concrete support of Cuba for the anti-colonial and anti-apartheid struggle in Africa; the consistently dignified participation of Cuba in international fora in defense of universal human values; the presence of Cuban missions in many nations in health, education, and sports; and the vibrancy and openness of the Cuban people. 

     Like the prophets of Israel, who offered the people a choice between repentance and the wrath of God; the prophets of our time offer humanity a choice between, on the one hand, seeking to maintain an unsustainable neocolonial world-system, based in domination and superexploitation; and on the other hand, cooperative participation in the development of a more just and sustainable world-system.  Like the prophets of old, the profits of our time maintain that the existing patterns of human behavior cannot be maintained without threatening our very survival.  As expressed by Rosa Luxemburg, a prophet from another place, yet widely cited by the prophets of the Third World, it is a question of socialism or barbarism.

      We the peoples of the North should appreciate the prophets of our time as the authors of sacred texts that we should study, so that we can better discern the true and the right, and find the path toward cooperative participation in the development of that more just world that they have maintained is both necessary and possible.  As Raúl said in the eulogy to his brother, “The permanent teaching of Fidel is that it can be done.”   


​Reference
 
Anderson, Bernhard W.  1986.  Understanding the Old Testament, Fourth Edition.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 
 
0 Comments

On spirituality and heroism

1/30/2016

0 Comments

 
     In various declarations, governments and organizations representing the nations and peoples of humanity have repeatedly affirmed their commitment to certain values.  Some of these values pertain to social and economic rights, such as the rights of all persons to adequate nutrition and housing and to access to education and health care.  Others pertain to nations, and they include the rights of all nations to sovereignty, self-determination and development.   Inasmuch as these values have been affirmed by the representatives of many cultures and religions, they are of a universal human character.  Therefore, I refer to them as universal human values (see “Universal human values” 4/16/2014).

     I have observed a tendency in Cuba to refer to such values as spiritual values, and the practice of them as spirituality.  It seems to me valid and valuable to perceive spirituality in this broad sense.  The universal human values are indeed spiritual, for they are proclaiming a moral duty of all of us toward humanity as a whole.  Let us look, for example, at the proclamation of the Declaration of Independence:  “All men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”  This is a spiritual proclamation, not because of its reference to God, but because it affirms that human beings possess intrinsic worth, and that the human species, in its essence, possesses goodness and nobleness.  

     Such affirmation of the essential dignity of humanity implies a projection toward the future: humanity can never destroy itself through malicious and unreasonable behavior, for this would be contrary to its nature.  Therefore, although at the present historic moment the elite is leading humanity to self-destruction, the path of collective self-destruction will not prevail, because we who form humanity understand our worth.  In accordance with this spiritual affirmation, the peoples of the world have created a movement for a just, democratic and sustainable world-system, a movement by humanity in defense of itself. The world’s peoples in movement are affirming the essential goodness of the human species, and in the process, they are proclaiming that the self-destruction of humanity is not its destiny.

     The spiritual attitude, then, is above all consciousness that the good exists, and that one has a duty toward it.  Revolutionaries possess the spiritual attitude; indeed, they are driven by it. 

     The elite, however, has been conducting itself in a form that is profoundly anti-spiritual.  Since the beginning of the twentieth century, it has seduced the people with consumer goods, converting citizens into consumers and creating a consumer society.  It has fashioned a society that places material possessions above all else, and that cynically views as impossible the creation of a world-system in which the social and economic rights of all persons and the sovereignty of all nations are respected.

       Helping this transformation to consumerism and cynicism has been the custom of destroying our heroes.  Intellectuals of the Left, for example, note that Thomas Jefferson, although penning the eloquent words “All men are created equal,” himself owned slaves.  And they point out that Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not actually liberate any slaves, because it proclaimed liberty only for slaves in the territory that the union did not control; and that Lincoln’s public discourses did not express belief in equality between blacks and whites or full citizenship rights for blacks.  These observations ignore the complex political reality in which both worked, and that both were masters of the art of politics.  And they are in effect saying, “We have been told that they were exceptional and virtuous men, but don’t believe it.”  The heroes of the people have been taken away, leaving the people with the belief that there are no heroes.

      In Cuba, it is widely believed that there are heroes, people who make self-sacrificing contributions to the good of the nation or the world (see “The Cuban tradition of heroism” 9/1/2014).  Important figures in the history of the revolutionary struggle since 1868 are among them: Céspedes, Martí, Mella and Guiteras.  In addition, people who have made exceptional contributions in the service of the nation can be formally designated as “Hero of the Republic of Cuba.”  The five Cuban men who endured in a dignified and patriotic manner years of unjust imprisonment for anti-terrorist espionage in Miami are the most famous of them, but there are others as well.  

     One of the reasons that Cubans believe that there are heroes is that Cuban intellectuals do not destroy the heroes of Cuban history.  It is not that the intellectuals overlook the limitations of historic figures in Cuba.  But they evaluate historic figures in the political and cultural context of their time, and taking this approach, they recognize that a number of historic figures made important contributions to the development of the revolutionary project for a dignified and sovereign nation.  Accordingly, they have provided the foundation on which the Cuban revolutionary project today stands.  They indeed are heroes. Rev. Jesse Jackson captured something of this spirit at his address to the Democratic National Convention in 1988, when he proclaimed, “We stand on the shoulders of giants,” and then introduced Rosa Parks, “The mother of the Civil Rights Movement.”

     There is a spiritual component to our heroes; they are strongly committed to universal human values and to the development of a just world-system on their foundation.  On the basis of this commitment, they are prepared to dedicate their lives and their energies.  Their commitment and dedication was expressed by Nelson Mandela, when he proclaimed at his 1963 trial: 

I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve.  But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die (Mandela 1994:322).
 
In the United States, heroes with such spiritual qualities should be held up as an example and inspiration to all, as is done in Cuba. 

    In the world-wide movement for a just, democratic and sustainable world-system, the people are setting aside cynicism and affirming a positive future for humanity.  In contrast to the cynicism of the North, to some extent kindled by academics, revolutionaries of the Third World possess a revolutionary faith in the future of humanity (see “The revolutionary faith of Fidel” 9/15/2014).  In order to develop a revolutionary popular coalition in the United States, we must break free from cynicism and affirm our commitment to universal human values and to the future of humanity, discerning the objective possibilities for human emancipation hidden beneath the appearance of things.

 Reference
 
Mandela, Nelson.  1994.  Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela.  Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
 
 
Key words: spirituality, heroism
0 Comments

A just, democratic & sustainable world-system

1/12/2016

0 Comments

 
     Beginning in the 1970s, the world-system entered into a multifaceted global crisis, as a consequence of the fact that it had reached the geographical limits of the earth, taking away its historic mechanism for productive and commercial expansion, which had been the conquest of new lands and peoples.  The elites of the core nations responded to the crisis by launching the neoliberal project, a global economic war against the popular classes and the nations of the world. Neoliberalism has been characterized by the imposition of economic recipes, utilizing pressure by international finance agencies supplemented by interventionist wars and political interference in the affairs of nations seeking autonomy.

      The response of the global elite to the structural crisis of the world-system has given rise to a popular revolution in the Third World, in which the people, organized and led by charismatic leaders, are seeking to take power away from the elite.  The peoples of the Third World in movement are repeatedly putting forth the slogan of a just, democratic and sustainable world-system.  They are constructing such an alternative world-system in theory and practice.

      A just world-system.  The ethical concept of a just society has ancient religious roots.  In the earliest sacred texts of Ancient Israel, we find a concept of a God who acts in history to liberate the people from oppression and to defend justice for the oppressed. Later, as Israel evolved to a nation, the prophets of Israel denounced economic injustices as well as the luxury in which kings lived while people were living in poverty.  The prophets condemned the lust for economic power; and they declared economic inequality and social injustice to be sins.  They defended poor farmers who suffered at the hands of powerful landlords.  They called for a change in lifestyle and for social justice.  And they proclaimed that history is not governed by powerful empires but by God.  Subsequently, the religious traditions of Israel influenced the development of Christianity and Islam, and the concept of the ethical responsibility of the faithful to construct a just society became central to liberation theology in both religious traditions.  Today, the peoples of the world, influenced directly and indirectly by these religious traditions, have appropriated the ethical principle of social justice, and they are demanding a just world-system.  For specific biblical texts of Ancient Israel, see Anderson (1986:108, 198, 278, 287-88, 293, 297-98, 337, 345, 372, 383, 480, 495, 503, 523); for liberation theology in Christianity, see Gutierrez (1973, 1983) and Brown (1984, 1993); for liberation theory in Islam, see Ansary (2009) and Schulze (2000).

     A democratic world-system.  The bourgeois revolutions of the late eighteenth century established the principle of a society in which all citizens are equal and all have inalienable rights.  But at first, the rights were confined to political and civil rights for white men with property or education.  For the next two hundred years, social movements emerged that would attain respect of citizenship rights for all persons, regardless of class, race, ethnicity, or gender.  And the popular movements would deepen the concept of democracy to include social and economic rights, such as the right to a decent standard of living, education, and health care.  When the anti-colonial and anti-neocolonial movements of the national liberation emerged in the Third World, they proclaimed that nations have rights, such as the rights to sovereignty, equal participation in the community of nations, self-determination and development.  When the peoples of the Third World today demand a democratic world-system, they have in mind a concept of democracy in this expanded and deeper sense that includes social and economic rights as well as the rights of all nations to self-determination.  They seek true independence, so that they can put into practice the most fundamental of all human rights, the right to development, in order to protect the right of the people to a decent standard of living (see “Universal human values” 4/16/2014).  

    A sustainable world-system.  Historical world-systems have risen and fallen.  The great majority of them were not sustainable, many because the center of the empire was gluttonous, and others because of ecological factors.  In the world-system today, ecological contradictions and political conflicts constitute the greatest threats to the stability and sustainability of the world-system.  The peoples of the world today proclaim that the world-system must have a harmonious relation with the natural environment, and it must develop in accordance with the ethical norms of cooperation among nations and solidarity among peoples.  The peoples of the world today demand a just, democratic & sustainable world-system (see “Sustainable development” 11/12/13).
     
     Justice, democracy and sustainability cannot be developed in the context of the structures and logic of the capitalist world-economy.   The attainment by humanity of a just, democratic and sustainable world-system will require a transition to socialism.  This will be the subject of our next post.

​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.
 
Brown, Robert McAfee.  1984.  Unexpected News: Reading the Bible with Third World Eyes.  Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
 
__________.  1993.  Liberation Theology.  Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press.
 
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: social justice, democracy, sustainability, world-system, popular movements, Third World
0 Comments

Socialist-Christian-Islamic alliance

12/15/2015

0 Comments

 
      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
0 Comments

Pope Francis: Care for our Common Home

12/14/2015

0 Comments

 
     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.
Whether believers or not, we are agreed today that the earth is essentially a shared inheritance, whose fruits are meant to benefit everyone. . . .  Hence every ecological approach needs to incorporate a social perspective which takes into account the fundamental rights of the poor and the underprivileged. The principle of the subordination of private property to the universal destination of goods, and thus the right of everyone to their use, is a golden rule of social conduct and “the first principle of the whole ethical and social order” [citing John Paul II].  The Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property. Saint John Paul II forcefully reaffirmed this teaching, stating that “God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone.” These are strong words. He noted that “a type of development which did not respect and promote human rights – personal and social, economic and political, including the rights of nations and of peoples – would not be really worthy of man.”
     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.
Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start, despite their mental and social conditioning. We are able to take an honest look at ourselves, to acknowledge our deep dissatisfaction, and to embark on new paths to authentic freedom. No system can completely suppress our openness to what is good, true and beautiful, or our God-given ability to respond to his grace at work deep in our hearts. I appeal to everyone throughout the world not to forget this dignity which is ours.
​    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

0 Comments

Pope speaks for nature and the excluded

12/12/2015

0 Comments

 
     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 international finance agencies must ensure sustainable development of countries in development and not the asphyxiating submission of these countries to crediting systems that, far from promoting progress, submit the populations to greater poverty, exclusion and dependency. 
     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.
Our world demands of all governmental leaders an effective, practical and constant will and concrete steps and immediate measures to preserve and improve the natural environment and to overcome as soon as possible the phenomenon of social and economic exclusion, with its sad consequences of human trafficking, the marketing of human organs and tissues, the sexual exploitation of boys and girls, slave labor, including prostitution, the trafficking in drugs and arms, terrorism and international organized crime. Such is the magnitude of this situation and its toll in innocent lives, that we must avoid every temptation to fall into a declarationist nominalism that would assuage our consciences. We need to ensure that our institutions are truly effective in the struggle against all these scourges.
     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
0 Comments

Pope Francis: A progressive discourse

12/11/2015

0 Comments

 
    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:
​Being at the service of dialogue and peace . . . means being truly determined to minimize and, in the long term, to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world. Here we have to ask ourselves: Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society? Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood. In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade.
    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
0 Comments

The visit of Pope Francis to Cuba

12/10/2015

0 Comments

 
    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.  
Like Mary, we want to be a Church that serves, that leaves from home, that leaves the Church and its sacristies, in order to accompany life, sustain hope, and be a sign of unity of a noble and dignified people.  Like Mary, the Mother of Charity, we want to be a Church that leaves home in order to build bridges, break down barriers, and seed reconciliation.  Like Mary, we want to be a Church that knows how to accompany our people in all awkward situations, committed to life, culture, society, not disappearing but walking with our brothers and sisters, all together.  All together, serving, helping.  All children of God, children of Mary, sons and daughters of this noble Cuban land.
​     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).
0 Comments

We can know the true and the good

4/2/2014

0 Comments

 
Posted April 3, 2014

​      Wallerstein’s various essays reflecting on knowledge provide a review of the basic developments in epistemology (1999, 2004, 2006).  Before the modern era, theologians asserted that they could know both the true and the good on the basis of revelation.  They were challenged by the philosophers, who claimed to know the true and the good on a foundation of reason.  Then came the separation of philosophy and science.  Modern science claimed that it could know the truth, but not the good, on the basis of empirical observation, and the search for the good became interpretation or even mere speculation, relative to the person or social location.  In the twentieth century, the truth of science also became challenged, as philosophers of science began to understand that even science emerged in social context and was influenced by cultural assumptions.  Doubt was cast on the human capacity to understand not only the good but also the true.  Knowledge became uncertain.  Post-modernism emerged, including tendencies toward a radical relativism that reduced all truth claims to personal expression.  Wallerstein considers this breakdown of the twentieth century epistemological consensus of the world-system to be a dimension of the terminal structural crisis of the system, and he maintains that the formulation of an alternative epistemological consensus will be integral to the transformation of the world-system.

      I have proposed “cross-horizon encounter” as a methodological guideline for the alternative epistemology that we need to formulate.  I maintain that through cross-horizon encounter, we can arrive at a universal understanding, although not an eternal or certain understanding, of the true and the good (see “Universal philosophical historical social science” 4/2/2014).

     I have drawn from the Catholic philosopher Bernard Lonergan in the formulation of the concept of cross-horizon encounter.  That an essential component of the solution to our current dilemmas would come from a scholar formed in the institutions of the Catholic Church is unexpected.  However, it does make sense, if we give the question some thought.  The Catholic Church is one of the few institutions that pre-date the origin of the modern world-system, and it is by far the largest of them.  Prior to the emergence of the modern world-system, the Church was an important power in Europe.  But various dynamics greatly reduced its power.  Among them was secularization, that is, the separation of science from philosophy and theology, which established science as the domain for the determination of facts, on the basis of empirical observation, and reduced moral and spiritual questions to the realm of mere speculation.  The Church had to accept this situation as a part of its general strategy of adapting to political realities and political powers (Wallerstein 2005).  But the Church never completely made its peace with the modern situation.  As a result, during the twentieth century European Catholic theologians developed a school of thought known as neo-Thomism, which sought an adaptation of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas to the twentieth century.  Among the neo-Thomists was the Canadian Bernard Lonergan, who as we have seen, focuses on epistemological questions, including the question of certainty.  By formulating a single method of knowing in both the realms of the true and the good, and by clarifying the conditions in which there is a high probability that understandings are correct, Lonergan established a renewed epistemological foundation for the philosophical and theological claims of the Church, a foundation that would have some creditability to the modern person.

     As Catholic theologians and philosophers sought to find their place in the modern world, the people suffering from the denial of social and economic rights did not find the need to wrestle with theological or philosophical questions.  They simply continued with their religious beliefs and practices, always evolving, but continually characterized by a simple piety that affirms the presence of God, the saints, and/or the spirits in their lives, sustaining them through difficulties.  The poor have endured, in part, through personal piety.

      But significant numbers of the people also participated in Third World national liberation movements, which like Catholic theologians, did not make peace with the premises of the modern world-system.  The struggles of the peoples of the Third World provide the foundation for the development of an alternative just and democratic world-system, including alternative values and epistemological premises.  Like the neo-Thomist theologians and philosophers, the intellectuals and charismatic leaders of the Third World movements have been formulating a critique of the fundamental assumptions of the modern world-system.  Although Third World and Catholic critiques have been formulated from different vantage points, they nonetheless complement one another.

       The complementarity of Catholic and Third World epistemologies has its counterpart in the political arena, inasmuch as Catholic liberation theology has come to the support of the political and social struggles of the neocolonized.  Perhaps a global Third World-Christian alliance is emerging, as the Church increasingly is critical of the barbaric neoliberal economic war against the poor and the savage militarism of the neocolonial powers.  Perhaps this alliance is symbolized by the embraces of John Paul II and Fidel and by the later embraces of Pope Benedict and Raúl, as well as by the declarations by Hugo Chávez that Jesus was the world’s first socialist.  Perhaps as well such a global alliance against savage capitalism involves not only Christians but all religions persons, as is indicated by the growing relations between the Latin American progressive and leftist governments and the Islamic Revolution.  There is a fundamental contradiction between capitalism at its worst and the values proclaimed by all religious traditions.  And in the terminal crisis of the capitalist world-economy, capitalism at its worst has become manifest.

       This takes us in a direction different from what is suggested by Wallerstein, who believes that complexity theory and cultural studies provide the basis for the reunification of historical social science.  As we have seen (“The terminal crisis of the world-system” 3/28/2014), complexity theory enables us to understand that physical and social realities are characterized by order, patterns, and equilibrium for a period of time, but inevitably their contradictions lead to bifurcation and a transition to a new equilibrium and a new order.  Cultural studies refers to the post-1960s movement in the humanities that rebelled against the established canons of aesthetic achievements; cultural studies has maintained that cultural works are produced and interpreted differently according to social location, thus making it necessary to deconstruct cultural works.  Wallerstein maintains that cultural studies in the humanities and complexity theory in the natural sciences recognize that knowledge is socially constructed; and that in embracing one of the claims of the social sciences, the two tendencies are moving toward the social sciences.  For Wallerstein, this provides a possible basis for the reunification of knowledge (Wallerstein 2004:54-55; 1999:213-17).

     In my view, there are important insights in complexity theory and cultural studies, which must be incorporated into universal philosophical historical social science.  However, I do not believe that these theoretical tendencies have an adequate social base for the resolution of our epistemological dilemmas. 

     Complexity theory and cultural studies have emerged from the preoccupations of scientists, social scientists, persons of literature, humanists, academics, and intellectuals of the core.  Their concerns are far removed from the preoccupations of the great majority of people on the planet, in core and peripheral zones, for whom: the real can be observed and understood; what is written and said can be understood by those who take the time to read and listen; and moral truths are self-evident.  From the point of view of the peoples of the Third World, we can know the true and the good, if we pay attention to it, and are not led astray by the pursuit of particular interests and by the defense of privilege.  I will discuss the epistemological assumptions of Third World movements in a subsequent post.

     I believe that the resolution of our epistemological difficulties will emerge from the premises of the social movements that are formed by the peoples of the planet.  And as the movements are unfolding, we are given a message from Catholic philosophy and theology: listen to what the poor are saying, and take seriously their understanding.  So here we have the key to imagining a possible path in the bifurcation of the world-system:  Through cross-horizon encounter with Third World movements, we intellectuals of the North can participate in the development of a universal philosophical historical social science that educates and informs the people and at the same time is connected to popular epistemological assumptions. 


References

Lonergan, Bernard.  1958.  Insight.  New York:  Philosophical Library.

__________.  1973.  Method in Theology, 2nd edition.  New York:  Herder and Herder.

McKelvey, Charles.  1991.  “The Cognitional Theory of Bernard Lonergan” in McKelvey, Beyond Ethnocentrism:  A Reconstruction of Marx’s Concept of Science, Pp. 127-52.  New York:  Greenwood Press. 

Wallerstein, Immanuel.  1999.  The End of the World as We Know It:  Social Science for the Twenty-First Century. 

__________.  2004.  The Uncertainties of Knowledge.  Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 

__________.  2005.  “The Catholic Church and the World,” Commentary No. 159 (corrected version), April 15, 2005.  [Available on Fernand Braudel Center Website].

__________.  2006.  European Universalism: The Rhetoric of Power.  New York: The New 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, Wallerstein, world-systems analysis, historical social science, Lonergan, cross-horizon encounter, Thomism, Catholic theology
0 Comments

Revolution and religion

12/3/2013

0 Comments

 
     We have seen that the French Revolution included the formulation of a new concept of society, based on the rights of the individual, fundamentally distinct from the feudal concept of society as a social organism with a hierarchy of strata, each with its rights and privileges (“Bourgeois revolution in France, 1787-1799” 11/25/2013).  The Roman Catholic Church in France was an integral part of the Old Regime, and it allied itself with the aristocracy in opposition to the French Revolution.  As a result, the Revolution could not avoid conflict with the Church.

     The French Revolution launched a campaign against the Church, known as dechristianization, and it included a number of specific measures.  Religious orders devoted to teaching and assistance were suppressed.  Church hospitals, universities, and colleges were appropriated and put up for sale.  Religious ceremonies outside of church buildings were prohibited, as was the wearing of religious garb, except in religious ceremonies.  Priests were required to swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution, and those who refused to do so were imprisoned and/or deported.  And although freedom of religion formally was declared, in practice most churches were closed (Soboul 1975:198-201, 266, 344-50, 581-83).

     Robespierre considered the dechristianization campaign to be a political error.  He maintained that the Revolution had sufficient internal and external enemies without stirring up opposition by abolishing religion.  And he was right: many peasants were opposed to the Revolution because of religious questions (Soboul 1975:349; Ianni 2011:52, 111).

      The Revolution attempted to develop a revolutionary civil religion, and here it was on solid ground.  A revolution ought to have public acts that recall and celebrate martyrs and heroes of the revolution and that commemorate important dates and events in the history of the struggle.  Such rituals pertain to all of the people of the nation regardless of their religious beliefs.  They function to establish and maintain national identity, national solidarity, and revolutionary consciousness.  The Cuban Revolution, for example, has developed public acts that fulfill these functions.  And in the United States, there has emerged in a similar form an American Civil Religion, which has been described by the sociologist Robert Bellah.  

     But the French Revolution went too far in its efforts to establish a national civil religion.  It sought to eliminate and replace the Catholic religion, instead of accepting traditional religious beliefs and practices as private customs that would exist alongside national celebration of the Revolution.  In its efforts to eliminate and replace the Catholic Church, the French Revolution decreed the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul, thus erroneously moving into a terrain that pertains to personal beliefs (Soboul 1975:377-79).

      Marx considered religious conceptions to be a consequence of human alienation and to be functional in the legitimation of the established order.  Marx’s view was typical among radical European intellectuals of the nineteenth century, and it made a great deal of sense, given the actual role of the Church in legitimating the feudal social order.  But it was an understanding that reflects a particular social context.  Marx did not know of popular expressions of religiosity that do not involve a legitimating function and that even would legitimate popular rebellion against the established order.  With advances in the scientific study of religion since Marx’s time, we today can appreciate the diverse forms of popular religiosity as well as the role that religion can play as a liberating force.

     We now are able to see, therefore, that religion is adaptable.  It can legitimate social stratification or it can point the way to human liberation.  The religion of ancient Judaism was formulated by a band of escaped slaves who wondered for forty years in the desert and who understood God as the one who acts in history to defend the oppressed and the marginal.  The religion of Moses subsequently was modified to adapt to the Kingdom of Israel in the time of David.  Jesus later gave renewed emphasis to the God who was with the poor, and the Church established by his followers subsequently became an integral part of the Roman Empire and later the feudal order, functioning to legitimate social stratification.  In our time, the liberating components of the Judeo-Christian tradition have been appropriated by Third World movements in opposition to the global system of social stratification.  Third World liberation theology affirms that, in the global struggle between the rich and the poor, God is on the side of the poor.

      The extensiveness of religious expressions in human societies perhaps suggests that spirituality is a fundamental human need.  Even in Cuba, where the people have a relatively advanced revolutionary consciousness, the importance of spirituality among the people can be observed.  But expressions of spirituality include a tremendous variety of religious beliefs and practices, and they can include what we generally categorize as art or culture.  God can be found in a church or temple, in a poem, or in the dignified struggle of the poor and the oppressed for a more just world.

       Taking into account the extensiveness and variety of religious expressions among the people, the correct revolutionary strategy is the separation of religion from the state.  Religion ought to be understood as a private matter that should not in any way affect one’s participation in the construction of a just and democratic society.  This implies an attitude of religious tolerance, where religious beliefs of all kinds, from religious fundamentalism to liberation theology to atheism, are socially acceptable.  Meanwhile, revolutionary consciousness among the people can be developed in national celebrations, in schools and universities, in art and literature, and in the mass media.  It is an error for popular revolutions to wage war on religion.  If the people want to light a candle or leave a glass of water to obtain the support of the saints or to protect themselves from harm, let it be.


References

Ianni, Valera.  2011.  La Revolución Francesa.  México: Ocean Sur.

Soboul, Albert.  1975.  The French Revolution 1787-1799: From the Storming of the Bastille to Napoleon.  New York: Random House, Vintage 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, French Revolution, religion
0 Comments

    Author: Charles McKelvey

    Retired professor, writer,  and Marxist-Leninist-Fidelist-Chavist revolutionary

    Categories

    All
    American Revolution
    Blog Index
    Bolivia
    Charismatic Leaders
    China
    Critique Of The Left
    Cuban History
    Cuba Today
    Ecuador
    Environment
    French Revolution
    Gay Rights
    Haitian Revolution
    Knowledge
    Latin American History
    Latin American Right
    Latin American Unity
    Marx
    Marxism-Leninism
    Mexican Revolution
    Miscellaneous
    Neocolonialism
    Neoliberalism
    Nicaragua
    North-South Cooperation
    Presidential Elections 2016
    Press
    Public Debate In USA
    Race
    Religion And Revolution
    Revolution
    Russian Revolution
    South-South Cooperation
    Third World
    Trump
    US Ascent
    US Imperialism
    Vanguard
    Venezuela
    Vietnam
    Wallerstein
    Women And Revolution
    World History
    World-System
    World-System Crisis

    Archives

    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    December 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    January 2013

    RSS Feed

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

More Ads


website by Sierra Creation