>Doug:
> >>In a communist society, if human beings ever achieve it, historical
> >>materialism is not likely to be an indispensable tool, and thus it can
> >>imagine its own future irrelevance and hopes to achieve it (and that is why
> >>Marx & Engels refrained from speaking in detail about what communism will
> >>be like, except in a negative manner, "limited for the most part to what
> >>will disappear").
> >Wow, this sounds almost religious - a Paradise on earth
>
>I don't think the elimination of capitalism -- a specific constraint upon
>possibilities of free development of human beings -- makes for a Paradise.
>The abolition of capitalism in itself, I think, is not likely to make root
>canals disappear, to take just one example.
No, but it's also not likely to make struggles over power and resources disappear. The notion that historical materialism wouldn't be needed after the abolition of capitalism makes it sound like they would. That's what struck me as religious. I think Foucault had a point when he said that Marxism was a dream of an end to History.
>Christianity mainly owes its global reach to the history of imperialism; it
>originally came to Asia, Africa, and Latin America as a tool of oppression
>(and that is why Japan, never directly colonized by any European power, has
>few Christians). Christianity in the Third World has hence been redefined
>by some left-wing Christians, but those are in the minority.
True, but that doesn't mean that Christianity - like Marxism, like nationalism - hasn't become deeply embedded in the cultures of the colonized.
> Marxism is an
>indispensable tool for the liberation of humanity from capitalism and
>imperialism.
I agree.
> Further, Christianity legitimates sexism in theory and
>practice, and many of the believers encourage homophobia. Look at what
>happened to the Polish women, for instance, after the end of socialism
>(such as it was) and the coming into power of a Christian-influenced
>movement.
Of course. All these things are true, though they don't exhaust the full range of Christianity.
>Anyhow, if you think that a combination of Marxism and Christianity is
>wonderful, why don't you start with yourself. Noone is stopping you from
>trying (that would be the fourth conversion: Marx - the Party of the Right
>- Marx [from anti-pomo to pro-pomo] - Marx + Christianity +
>Postmodernism!!!).
I have no interest in becoming a Christian, or any kind of religion, though I will confess I haven't completely shaken the aesthetic appeal of Catholic ritual and imagery. I think Zizek's right that Christianity has contributed to a notion of social transformation. It's had many noxious influences too. I don't have a problem with things having contradictory influences, do you?
> Enjoy your symptom!
Don't we all?
Doug