Fresh Friday #1

So anyone who read the Inaugural Address post will know that I missed one of the features I promised (Theory Thursday). That was quite unintentional. You see, I'm recently recovered from a broken foot and will be returning to a full time schedule this upcoming week and I was trying to cram as much social time in as possible during my last long mid-week-off. For those interested, I wanted to discuss Hal Draper and his feminism. Since I did not do this, it gives me another week to go over it again and hit any points I might have missed and it will give you guys a chance to familiarize yourselves with the text as well. But, Fridays are not for theorists who are well and published and properly established. Fridays are for fresh ideas, or ideas that I at least think are new. So, without further ado, onto my first installment of Fresh Fridays.

An Evangelical Marxism: How to Approach Marxist Social Education in the Twenty-First Century

-E.M. Diderot

Under the (now) Blessed Pope John Paul II, the Catholic Church embarked on something called the "New Evangelization", the idea that the way the Church interacts with the world is out of sync with how the world has developed in the last century. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI also talked about the New Evangelization, and entered into a broader ecumenical dialogue with other Christian denominations and interfaith groups. So far I haven't seen Pope Francis say anything about the New Evangelization, but his platform centered on Social Justice and (tentative) Liberation Theology seems to be on par for the course. What does this have to do with Marxism?

First, the point of this blog is discussion on the creation of a United Left. There is no point to creating a united left unless this unification can attract new blood. In the Twenty-First Century, Marxism is suffering a crisis of relevance in the same way as the Catholic Church. Both Marxists and Catholics see themselves as fundamentally relevant to the creation of solutions for the world's endemic problems, but both are finding a hard place to gain a foothold to inspire mass cultural and social change. A lot of this is rooted in the fact that the Catholic Church still approaches its interaction with society in general and its congregants specifically from the standpoint that it did in the Nineteenth Century. Marxism is very much the same. The development of high degrees of economic specialization, technological advancement, and the birth of the internet and social networking have fundamentally changed the relationship of labor to capital in the modern economy. But much of our language and educational strategy is still firmly rooted in the romanticized notion of the flatcap Irish immigrant in a steel mill twelve hours a day. Capital is still firmly represented with top hats, and that is something WE need to appropriate. Ngyes! (Nigel Thornberry accent required)

Secondly, the language and posturings of religious institutions for (largely) religious populations has been a very effective and prolific strategy in Marxist enterprises around the world. For an in-depth look at how the Bolshevik Party appropriated religious language, attitude, and mentality for its own message in Russia, please reference Nikolai Berdayev's The Religious Foundations of Bolshevism. So, in the United States, the land of Sara Palin, Michele Bachmann, and others, a country where the fastest growing demographic are underpaid, overworked Central American Latino Catholics, why would it not be beneficial to adopt the same language and strategies as a revitalized Catholic Evanglization? Approaching Marxism in an evangelical fashion would not be limited to Catholics, either. The United States is the birthplace of Evangelical Christianity, with its roots in Southern Baptism. Adopting the same sort of apocalyptic language and charismatic posturing would do wonders to draw parallels between the theological hell being prophesied by their fire-and-brimstone preachers and the very real material hell in which they live, now.

If it is the considered opinion of a United Left that the Evangelical Strategy be promoted, it would become necessary for all Marxists to familiarize themselves with the writings of Liberation Theologians and Evangelical and Charismatic Christian authors. Principally, this is due to two factors:
1. It would allow the easy generation of arguments that clearly explain Marxist positions in language that is immediately recognizable and accessible to the masses; and
2. It would eliminate the highly academic air that much Marxist discourse has in the Twenty-First Century today.

This second point I feel is the most important thing we need to combat in approaching cross-ideological Marxist education, today. Much of our language has become increasingly technical and highly sect-specific. To an outsider, this vocabulary is not easy to understand, and it is not their responsibility to educate themselves before encountering it. How many coffee-house conversations have ended due to mutual frustration when the other person "just doesn't get it"? How many times have you had to sidetrack your main argument just to explain a term or concept that is self-evident to you? By adopting the language of the most virulently anti-Marxist populations in the country, we can make these terms and concepts self-evident, as well, and we can get the point across much, much sooner.

Problems and contradictions:

Marxists are materialists, first and foremost. Religion is not a materialist philosophy, and it must be combated. However, I hold that religion in and of itself as a concept is not harmful. Therefore, the focus should not be an offensive war against religion as a social institution, but, instead, an offensive war against the problems that force a need for religion. The religious can very easily be our allies. It was the revolutionary anti-religious attitude of the First International that received the condemnation of Marxism by the Holy See in the first place. It is why the evolution of Liberation Theology has been so troublesome. It is why concepts like "Christian Socialism" and "Christian Communism" have built-in contradictions. The generational impact of a social norm that says "Communism is Anti-Religion" implies that nothing good can come out of Marxism, therefore, its arguments, no matter their validity, must be vigorously combated even when it is against one's own self-interest to do so. Is it any wonder that the Republican Party has so effectively undermined the self-interests of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, yet continue to garner their support?

Marxists must understand that their anti-religious position must as a matter of pure necessity and pragmatism carry with it the caveat that religion will exist so long as it is necessary. Legislating it out of existence (even in a post-revolutionary hypothetical America) will not be possible. It cannot be done in the United States. The First Amendment is more inviolable than the rest of the Constitution in its entirety. What must be sought, instead, is alliance with the religious community, especially the Catholics who already make up a plurality of self-identified religious Americans, so that the reasons religion is sought out can be addressed and corrected. When all religions fade away, the First Amendment will still be there, just in case a new religion springs up.

Second issue: how to overcome anti-Communist bias and stigma among the religious right. It can be done, but it must be done in the same way one church poaches the membership of another. Marxists MUST represent themselves in a moral and an ethically positive way. This should be a matter of fact and self-evident to all Marxists whether they embrace a Marxist Evangelization or not. We seek a humanitarian end, yet we do not always behave as humanitarians. The revolutionary period of American history has not yet come, so we do not need to concern ourselves with violently ridding ourselves of the Capitalist system. To engage the world in the way that St. Paul demanded of the early Church, but with a Marxist ethic rather than a Christian one, would do more to inspire people to overcome their anti-Communist bias than anything else. And if we are already armed with the language and vocabulary of the religious right, it is simply a matter of having coffee with them, and an entirely new demographic will be added to the cause and movement of the United Left.