Marxism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: questions
- Subject: Re: questions
- From: Mauro junior <mauro.jr@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 03:29:21 +0100
At 22.14 04/12/95 -0800, you wrote:
>
>In the ANSWER TO PETER BURNS Jim Miller wrote:
>Jim says,
>
> What may or may not emerge in communist society is not really a
>question for us now. We have some serious problems here and now,
>and we both agree on this. I agree that we can work jointly for
>socialism, though I maintain that religion is an obstacle to the
>achievement of class consciousness by the proletariat. The road
>ahead is full of twists and turns. We will work together when and
>where we can, but the "antagonism" between religion and socialism
>is something that will not be easily resolved. If the churches maintain
>their alliance with the ruling class (and I don't see how they can fail
>to do so), priests will be exhorted to "keep the faith" in many ways.
> At the same time, some priests and pastors will go the other way.
>This is all to the good. This is part of weakening the institutions of
>religion and diminishing their harmful role vis-a-vis the workers.
>
Mauro jr:
RP Burns wrote some times ago that I was kind for saying that for marxists
is always useful to discuss with jesuits because they are the most clever
amongst the priests and such discussions are stimulating the brain (thus
enforcing the capabilities of the marxist militants in arguing against
religion and for communism).
Now RP Burns should thank much more Miller for his not rejecting the
possibilities of a joint work between marxists and ... priests.
Following the abstract Miller's thought above one should agree. But when
Miller says "Certainly you can be in favor of communism, etc., without
being an atheist" is going beyond. Here Miller is flying far above the
concrete content of the Burns' thought.
If it is "logically" true that one can be in favor of communism without
beeing an atheist, the real Burn cannot. In fact he is in favor of the so
called market socialism which is simply a kind (!) sort of capitalism (but
to define it is an other issue).
That said, I don't think Miller was really meaning he believes in the
communist ideas of Burns. Was he?
Rev. greetings
Mauro Junior
Tel (-39)02/35.51.275 fax (-39)02/33.200.101
--- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
- Thread context:
- Re: Level of Debate: SLP, (continued)
- Jim Lawler's piece,
Chris, London Tue 05 Dec 1995, 07:27 GMT
- questions,
James Miller Tue 05 Dec 1995, 06:14 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: questions,
Robert Peter Burns Tue 05 Dec 1995, 08:30 GMT
- Re: questions,
Mauro junior Thu 07 Dec 1995, 02:29 GMT
- Jim Miller, etc--please read. Solidarity in action?,
Robert Peter Burns Tue 05 Dec 1995, 05:34 GMT
- Lou and Prozac,
Scott Marshall Tue 05 Dec 1995, 04:36 GMT
- Heidegger's bedpan,
Alex Trotter Tue 05 Dec 1995, 04:25 GMT
- CNI Action Alert: Amerian Indians,
CNI Tue 05 Dec 1995, 03:29 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]