Vatican thumbs up for Karl Marx after Galileo, Darwin and Oscar Wilde

[FarCenter]

Richard Owen in Rome

Karl Marx, who famously described religion as “the opium of the people”, has joined Galileo, Charles Darwin and Oscar Wilde on a growing list of historical figures to have undergone an unlikely reappraisal by the Roman Catholic Church.

L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, said yesterday that Marx’s early critiques of capitalism had highlighted the “social alienation” felt by the “large part of humanity” that remained excluded, even now, from economic and political decision-making.

Georg Sans, a German-born professor of the history of contemporary philosophy at the pontifical Gregorian University, wrote in an article that Marx’s work remained especially relevant today as mankind was seeking “a new harmony” between its needs and the natural environment. He also said that Marx’s theories may help to explain the enduring issue of income inequality within capitalist societies.

“We have to ask ourselves, with Marx, whether the forms of alienation of which he spoke have their origin in the capitalist system,” Professor Sans wrote. “If money as such does not multiply on its own, how are we to explain the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few?”

With reassessments such as these it may be wondered which formerly unacceptable figure could be next. Last year the Vatican erected a statue of Galileo as a way of saying sorry for trying the astronomer in 1633 for his observation that the Earth moved around the Sun; in February a leading official declared Darwin’s theory of evolution compatible with the Christian faith, and in July L’Osservatore praised Oscar Wilde, the gay playwright, as “a man who behind a mask of amorality asked himself what was just and what was mistaken”.

Professor Sans argues that Marx’s intellectual legacy was marred by the misappropriation of his work by the communist regimes of the 20th century. “It is no exaggeration to say that nothing has damaged the interests of Marx the philosopher more than Marxism,” he said.

<SNIP>
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6884704.ece

[Democracyinkind]

1. Interesting... Nice find... rec...

“It is no exaggeration to say that nothing has damaged the interests of Marx the philosopher more than Marxism,”

Now that's one hell of an observation. That's one of the two reasons why the world's millionaires bought the russian revolution for Lenin et al.

btw I feel 0,1% less embarrassed by my catholic heritage after having read this.

[Sinti]

5. Few people realize that RE: Lenin.

I'm happy to find someone else out there that does :toast:

For the curious and unaware:
http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/museum/his1c.htm

[Democracyinkind]

9. I grew up in Zurich so when I came to the age of reason I traced Lenin's steps there...

... and I was rather surprised to find out that Lenin wasn't really what he is made to be. Talk about a pseudo-marxist... Then I learned about the sealed train wagon, the tons of cash, Trotsky in New York, the American Red Cross Mission and how Stalin loved GE .... Crazy history... Can't make that shit up. Makes you wonder about Hegel's dialectic and all that .

Your reply was very uplifting.. I just love when this happens here, it isn't that much...

Have a nice evening!

[nilram]

14. ah, What?

Oh, my brain hurts.

... and I was rather surprised to find out that Lenin wasn't really what he is made to be. Talk about a pseudo-marxist... Then I learned about the sealed train wagon, the tons of cash, Trotsky in New York, the American Red Cross Mission and how Stalin loved GE .... Crazy history... Can't make that shit up. Makes you wonder about Hegel's dialectic and all that.

I might have had a history class or two in my mostly-technical college education, but I'm basically history-impaired. If you have any references to share, I welcome them. Not doubting you--I'm bookmarking this thread and hope to look up as much of it as I can. Fascinating.

[Democracyinkind]

15. Start with the link of the guy who I responded to. Pipe's isn't neutral, but he has a good grasp of

the history of the Russian Revolution.

If you are really interested, I can mail you a list with the books I have read on the subject. I assure you that I am not some kind of hidden RW kook or anything, I am pretty far left of the center.

I have a Master's Degree in history and I specialized in German, Russian and American history. Granted, it might be confusing to read the post I made when not familiar with the subject... (it was a response to someone who is "in" on the story)

...

So I'll explain what I posted.

- The sealed car: The trip that Lenin and his acolytes made from Switzerland to Russia was essentially a german war measure. They provided him with the means of transportation and made sure he arrived secure. They hoped that Lenin et. al would destabilize the Russian Government and eventually force them out of the war. They helped out with gold and cash in addition.

- Tons of cash: Studying the monetary contributions that the Bolsheviks received yields quite surprising results: Most of the funds came from European and American millionaires who are presumed to have had a leftist perspective. Great Britain and America covers about 80% of that, while French, Swedish and Swiss contributions make up the rest. Especially the US/GB funds came overwhelmingly from people who belong to the top 5% of wealthy people.

- Trotsky in New York: Just as Lenin was only able to reach Russia with german help, Trotsky only made it to Russia with help from the Americans. He boarded a boat in 1917 with his followers and suitcases full of cash, when they made their first stop in Canada, authorities arrested him since he was "working for the other side" (GB was part of the Entente, as was the Russian Regime, whom Trotsky wanted to topple). Trotsky was only able to go on with his voyage because certain Americans pressured the Canadians into releasing him.

- If you look up the make-up of the American Red Cross mission (1918+) you will be mildly surprised. It is a literal who's who of the American East coast elite. It is generally accepted that the American Red Cross mission was involved in politics (and in giving out funds) that gave the Bolsheviks critical help during the civil war against the Whites (Czarists) and other (Liberals, Mensheviks).

-- Stalin once said that the Soviet Union is "Communism plus electrification". A little known fact of the electrification is that it wasn't achieved by investing in building a Soviet Scientific community and implementing that knowledge, but rather through cooperation with the world's largest corporations (such a G.E., who made a killing in the 20's and 30's while making deals with the Stalin regime). Although Stalin despised these companies and tried everything to limit their actual influence, it is inconceivable how Stalin would have achieved the great leap forward without the willing help of said corporations. (the "concession system")

I called Lenin a pseudo-Marxist because he was simply not interested in implementing Marxist policies, or policies based on the research Marx had done. Lenin wanted power, and once he got it, he was preoccupied with keeping that power, not with transforming the Soviet Union to something truly communist. The concession system is a case in point for this. So was his unwillingness to collectivize agriculture in a coherent way (at least Stalin tried to do that, which is one of the only genuine"communist"/"marxist" policies that he implemented). Also, neither Lenin nor Stalin were anti-imperial, especially Stalin wasn't. But Marx was pretty clear on that: A true Socialist ("marxist", after his death) state can not be imperial, even if it wanted to. The mechanisms of capital that lead to imperialism just wouldn't exist, something that surely can't be said about the Soviet Union. Also, capital itself was never abolished, there were forms of capital exchange between commercial entities, and most importantly, as Lenin himself has written, Soviet relations to other countries still took place within a capitalist framework - credits, deposits, guarantees etc. These are all things that can be considered inherently anti-communist if you go by the book. I for one believe that power and nationalism (both concepts that would be abolished within a communist system if Marx was followed) were the true pillars of the SOviet Union, not communism. I could expand this notion indefinitely, and surely I or someone else could have made a better case for it than I just did.

I'll be happy to answer any questions that I can though, just ask.
If what I have written has awoken your interest, there is tons of good literature on the subject - I'd love to compile a list for you if you're interested.

Just to not confuse you - I didn't try to make a coherent case here, I just tried to expand on the short list I compiled in my previous post that you replied to. It is a very complex issue, and I didn't want to give someone the impression that the Soviet Union was some kind of grand international conspiracy by American millionaires (something the John Birchers still believe today) - just that there are many more shades of color than just black/white to this whole story.

I hope I gave you something in the vicinity of what you asked for. Thanks for your interest.

[damntexdem]

2. Just imagine: not being reported in a US paper.

I've long said that Marx was a great diagnostician but a lousy clinician.

But as to "religion is the opium of the people":
1) Marx's view was compatible with that of many scientists of the day;
2) much of organized religion, including the RC Church, was so identified with the power-that-be that an attack on capitalism, on existing governments, on those in power in general was seen as tantamount to an attack on religion, anyway.

[FarCenter]

7. I ran across the story first at "The Hindu", where it was front page

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article37253.ece?homepage=true

Marx gets Vatican thumbs up

PTI - Amid the worst recession in generations, Karl Marx, who famously described religion as “the opium of the people”, got a thumbs up from the Vatican overturning a century of Catholic hostility to his creed.

Marx, who predicted that capitalism would be destroyed by its internal contradictions, has joined Galileo, Charles Darwin and Oscar Wilde on a growing list of historical figures to have undergone an unlikely reappraisal by the Roman Catholic Church, The Times newspaper said on Thursday.

The British daily, quoting the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, said Marx’s early critiques of capitalism had highlighted the “social alienation” felt by the “large part of humanity” that remained excluded from economic and political decision-making.

Amid signs of recovery in global financial markets, Christian leaders have flayed the capitalist system for displaying a lack of moral values, arguing that ethical debates needs to be given greater prominence.

Georg Sans, a German-born professor of the history of contemporary philosophy at the pontifical Gregorian University, argues that Marx’s work remained especially relevant today as mankind was seeking “a new harmony” between its needs and the natural environment.

The report quoted Prof. Sans as saying that Marx’s theories may help to explain the enduring issue of income inequality within capitalist societies.

<SNIP>

[leanderj]

3. Now that the evolution-loving earth-going-around-the-sun Catholic church is ok with amoral gays and

socialists, I can't wait for the next announcement about atheism and secularism.

[demosincebirth]

8. Don't hold your breath

[eridani]

4. Don't forget that in Marx's era, opium was not considered to be a bad thing

A fuller version of the quote which makes his take on the functionality of religion clearer--

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

[FarCenter]

6. Good point -- Laudanum (tincture of opium) was a '19th century cure-all

It was available without prescription and widely used for a variety of ailments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum

[Toucano]

17. +1

Very important point.

How different words read when taken out of context!

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

10. Karl Marx: "I am not a Marxist."

[struggle4progress]

11. About 30 years ago, in response to Latin American liberation theology, Fidel Castro reportedly said,

with some amazement, All the Christians are becoming Communists, and all the Communists are becoming Christians!

Marx was an important and substantial nineteenth century thinker. He was as enraged by social inequality as any Old Testament prophet; he read philosophers carefully and often thought they confused the real and the ideal (Philosophers have solved the world, but the problem is to change it); he paid close attention to politics and tried to understand it in terms of both local history and the conflicts beteen interest groups; and he had an astonishing ability to see actual conditions through dry economic reports. He was a talented (and bitterly sarcastic) polemicist. He was not the ideological idiot that some other people became after reading his work -- which is why he once famously informed one of those idiots: I am not a Marxist. His view seems to have been that social outrage must be coupled with both a scientific effort to understand the actual situation and a willingness to engage in practical political work

If one accepts that social issues are a legitimate religious concern, then it is natural to try to bring some of Marx's insights to the reading of religious texts and to the application of religious ideals. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Latin American liberation theologists attempted such a program for Christianity; it was, of course, not the first instance of such cross-talk. Certain tensions will inevitably remain in such an effort, since (for example) Marxian analysis is in some ways profoundly skeptical of religion. On the other hand, the work of the liberation theologists suggests that it may be worth the effort to explore that dialogue, not merely abstractly but in practice

[DailyGrind51]

12. The Pope actually called for "redistribution of wealth", this summer!

Pope Benedict on Economic Justice

THIS CATHOLIC'S VIEW

By Thomas J. Reese, S.J.

Pope Benedict's long awaited encyclical calls for a radical rethinking of economics so that it is guided not simply by profits but by "an ethics which is people-centered."

"Profit is useful if it serves as a means towards an end," he writes in Caritas in veritate (Charity in Truth), but "once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty."

He decries that "Corruption and illegality are unfortunately evident in the conduct of the economic and political class in rich countries...as well as in poor ones." He also says that "Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers."

Benedict, like Paul VI, whose encyclical Populorum Progressio (Development of Peoples) he is commemorating, is concerned about the "The scandal of glaring inequalities." Both Benedict and Paul hoped that economic development would "produce real growth, of benefit to everyone and genuinely sustainable." Benedict disappointedly acknowledges that "The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase" .

"The dignity of the individual and the demands of justice require," he affirms, "that economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an excessive and morally unacceptable manner, and that we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone."

In his encyclical, Benedict calls for charity guided by truth. "Charity demands justice: recognition and respect for the legitimate rights of individuals and peoples," he says. "Justice must be applied to every phase of economic activity, because this is always concerned with man and his needs," he writes. "Locating resources, financing, production, consumption and all the other phases in the economic cycle inevitably have moral implications. Thus every economic decision has a moral consequence."

The encyclical notes the globalization that has taken place since Paul's encyclical was issued over 40 years ago. Alas, "as society becomes ever more globalized, it makes us neighbors but does not make us brothers." True "development of peoples depends, above all, on a recognition that the human race is a single family working together in true communion, not simply a group of subjects who happen to live side by side." The goal of such development is "rescuing peoples, first and foremost, from hunger, deprivation, endemic diseases and illiteracy."

Sounding like a union organizer, Benedict argues that "Lowering the level of protection accorded to the rights of workers, or abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution in order to increase the country's international competitiveness, hinder the achievement of lasting development."

Rather the goal should be decent employment for everyone, which "means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labor; work that permits the workers to organize themselves freely, and to make their voices heard; work that leaves enough room for rediscovering one's roots at a personal, familial and spiritual level; work that guarantees those who have retired a decent standard of living."

The pope disagrees with those who believe that the economy should be free of government regulation. "The conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from 'influences' of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way," he writes. "In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise."

Benedict even supports "a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago."

While Benedict acknowledges the role of the market, he emphasizes that "the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy." He unflinchingly supports the "redistribution of wealth" when he talks about the role of government. "Grave imbalances are produced," he writes, "when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution."

Although Benedict's emphasis in the encyclical is on the theological foundations of Catholic social teaching, amid the dense prose there are indications, as shown above, that he is to the left of almost every politician in America. What politician would casually refer to "redistribution of wealth" or talk of international governing bodies to regulate the economy? Who would call for increasing the percentage of GDP devoted to foreign aid? Who would call for the adoption of "new life-styles 'in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments'"?

Benedict believes that if people understood God's love for every single human person and his divine plan for us, then believers would recognize their duty "to unite their efforts with those of all men and women of good will, with the followers of other religions and with non-believers, so that this world of ours may effectively correspond to the divine plan: living as a family under the Creator's watchful eye."

Thomas J. Reese, S.J., is Senior Fellow at Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.

By Thomas J. Reese | July 7, 2009; 1:14 AM ET
| Category: Georgetown/On Faith , This Catholic's View

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2...

[Brigid]

19. The Catholic Church has always taught about . . .

what is often called "God's preferential concern for the poor." To a right-winger, this does sound positively socialist. But it is what the Church -- and Jesus himself -- taught. Catholic social teaching is one of its best-kept secrets, obscured, I guess, by the horrible sins that are also part of its past and the controversial issues that divide us today. I think it is high time that this much more positive side of Catholicism is highlighted. :)

[ljm2002]

13. So who's gonna tell Justice Scalia...

...that he is out of step with his own Church's teachings.

[Viking12]

16. ...or Hannity?

Who claims to be a 'good Catholic'

[Toucano]

18. "...marred by the misappropriation of his work..."

Whenever I ask if an anti-socialist has ever read any of Marx's works, the answer is always and indignant "no".

The demonization is so complete, they think merely reading his book is on par to committing a crime.

It is so apt that he be placed alongside Galileo, Darwin, and Wilde.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

20. -Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

-Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy