Re: [Marxism] Theocracy

[Greg McDonald <sabocat59@xxxxxxx>]

Haines Brown wrote:

<But it _is_ a secular version. People act if they have hope in real
change, and a party (or hero) can create that sense of possibility by
in fact doing something that is both important and innovative. We see
this phenomenon around us all the time. One hero inspires others to be
heros as well, and before you know, there's a movement that has real
power over the future. A "role model" or teacher inspires; a coach
inspires. This inspiration is not due to anything supernatural, but to
quite natural events. I don't know the quote from Lenin, but I assume
he is not saying that the party is god in disguise, but that the party
and god have a comparable psychological effect. Two things having the
same effect cannot be presumed at all similar.>

I SAID secular.  I wasn't speaking about anything other than Lenin's  
notion of the party coming in from the outside and directing the  
working class toward more mature and realistic class consciousness.  
And yes, we are speaking in a more psychological, metaphorical  
manner. I certainly was not saying that the party becomes the hand of  
god operating among the affairs of men and women. Quite the contrary.

However, in a so-called secular society the need to create myths anew  
does not disappear, but rather becomes sublimated and shows up in a  
pseudo-secular manner. Let us become a bit more sophisticated in our  
theological discussion. By talking about god, I presume we are not  
referring to some wise old dude with a grey beard up in the sky  
somewhere. Personally I don't think we've transcended the need for  
myths, which are just stories we tell ourselves to give our lives  
meaning, symbolic myth narratives if you will. When the impulse for  
the creation of new myths is denied, then the myth-making becomes  
increasingly irrational and alienated from its source, and so can  
serve reactionary ends. You can read Marty's and Bellah's books on  
civil religion, and discern a movement in the USA since 1980 tying a  
more overt religious fundamentalism to the public expression of civil  
religion. The last great expression of civil religion was the civil  
rights movement, but the Straussians have done their job too well in  
the meantime. They've co-opted the creation of a "sacred realm" in  
the public sphere FROM BELOW, and redirected the impulse in a  
reactionary FROM the TOP expression.  The public myths legitimize  
concrete political activity and create the boundaries and rules for  
whatever kind of new legislation is adopted.  King and the civil  
rights movement created new norms from which flowed new legislation.  
Reagan, Bush, Leo Strauss and the neo-cons have done the same thing  
from the opposite political pole. In the meantime we have the new  
religion of mass participation in the gladiatorial sports arena, with  
all of the proto-fascistic ceremony and symbology that goes along  
with it.  Personally, I don't go to church or pray or believe in a  
personal god. But certainly the sociology and anthropology of  
religion needs to be incorporated into our analyses, because the  
practices of institutional and civil religion are indeed rooted in  
the material world and have definite socio-political consequences.

In terms of the old/new testament metaphor, I was simply suggesting  
that whatever mass party or movement from the left emerges in the  
future should be careful about demonizing its opponents in its desire  
to create a more perfect society. I was being a bit facetious.

Greg McD
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism