> We call that "Hansonism" here. So you think that perhaps the "fundies"
> as you call them are partly a reactionary political movement, as much
> as a religious movement?
Sure, right-wing fundamentalists do make up a sizable fraction of the reactionaries in the US public (of course there are quite a few fundamentalists who are not right-wing, and lots of non-fundamentalist reactionaries). I think the thing that makes a lot of US leftists fixate on them so much is that their world-view is so repellent to us -- their very existence is like the aching tooth that you can't help probing with your tongue, even though it makes the pain worse.
> I suppose it depends whether that's the only language they speak. In
> my experience it isn't, Fundamentalist Christians aren't any more
> one-dimensional than the rest of us. The ones I know are
> environmentalists, into Elvis Presley music, body-building, as well as
> some bad stuff. I don't have any inclination to confront people
> personally about their religion (unless like the Jehova's Witnesses
> the do it to me first) but I'm not going to hide my opinions if it
> comes up either. That would be sheer hypocrisy.
That's a wise approach, which I try to follow, also. But the problem with the reactionary conversion-minded Christians (which is the term I propose to use for the folks under discussion -- "fundamentalists" or "evangelicals" or whatever they call themselves) in this country, at least (I don't know about the Australian variety), is that they tend to bring their religious convictions into any political discussion, so you can't avoid a religious confrontation if you want to talk politics. They really don't make a distinction between religion and politics; it's all one to them. They demand that everyone agree with them both politically and religiously, and either get very aggressive trying to convert you, or the conversation ends abruptly if they see that they can't succeed. At least that's the way they appear to me.
> You're entitled to your point of view, but in the context of working
> towards socialism (which was the context I had in mind) this business
> of class is rather unavoidable. Socialism requires the abolition of
> class privileges, its hard to see how the people can do that unless
> they can recognise class privilege when they see it.
Sure, but the RCCs (reactionary conversion-minded Christians) who happen to be working-class already have a way of recognizing and interpreting class privilege. They are very well aware that they belong to a working class which is separated from the owning class, but they don't ordinarily use that language. (Keep in mind, also, that Americans in general tend to be much less focused on class differences than people in a lot of other countries, including, I would suppose, Australians.) They would say, I suppose, that they are only temporarily "working class" -- until they get that "big break" that will make them rich. Or if not them, at least their children or grandchildren. It's the old American myth that anyone can become a Rockefeller by clean living and hard work -- in this respect, they are no different from most other working-class Americans.
>> Usually, it seems to me, "class consciousness" means "what *our*
>> political party or grouplet thinks the working class *should* think."
>
> Rubbish. It just means being conscious of class interests.
In theory, yes. I'm thinking about the history of most Marxist groups that have tried to foster "class consciousness" in the working masses. It seems to me that usually the way they do it is by trying to inoculate the masses with their own theories, rather than allowing the masses to develop their own theories.
When you let people try to develop their own theories, it generally happens that they are much too apt to come up with a "trade union consciousness" at best (which Lenin despised), and something like reactionary religionism at worst. Hence the impatience of revolutionary socialist groups -- their tendency to patronize actual workers as stupid, deluded victims of capitalist propaganda, who will never get anywhere unless they respect their intellectual betters (the revolutionary cadres).
Yes, there are revolutionaries who don't adopt this self-defeating approach, but much too few. And with respect to the RCCs, it would mean feigning willingness to be converted to their world-view (since that is the only way you can keep them interested in talking to you about political matters), and that would be too much of a sacrifice for most secular revolutionaries to make (certainly too much for me). So I think that only people who shared their religious convictions, at least to some degree, but were also politically radical would be able to have meaningful dialogues with them.
> Well, Jesus and the early Christians were sort of utopian socialist I
> suppose. In that the socialism they preached took no account of the
> fact that the material conditions for socialism weren't present. You
> think I should try to explain to them where Jesus went wrong? (Lacked
> a materialist perspective.) I have tried one or two times, but they
> just look at me blankly.
As I say, this is not a job that I think I am qualified for, but it seems to me that the Gospels are not consistently "socialist." Whether Jesus himself could be legitimately described by that term or not, I can't say; nor can anyone else, given the paucity of historical information. The books of the New Testament were written at least a century after him, when the Christian movement was trying to make headway in the Roman Empire and had to appeal to the rich as well as the poor, so they seem to be written so as to sound good to people of all economic strata. You find strong excoriations of the rich side by side with exhortations for slaves to obey their masters, etc. (the latter especially in the letters of Paul, who was an ass-licker of the upper classes like nobody's business -- hence his appeal down through the centuries to bastards like Luther).
> Is there some language in the Bible I could use to get the point
> across do you think? ("Render unto the working class what is the
> working class's", instead of "seize the means of production".)
The problem is that reactionary Christians, since they think of the whole Bible as the "revealed Word of God," take it as a single unit, so they are not used to picking out the "blessed are the poor" segments of it and ignoring the others. Seeing it as a single unit, they tend to interpret it the way they were taught, which is of course in a very reactionary manner.
On top of that, they are unalterably convinced that their way of interpreting the Holy Word is the only correct one. Some years ago, I used to amuse myself occasionally by visiting the corners of the Internet where these folks engage in discussing matters of doctrine with each other, and was amazed by the vicious vituperations they flung at each other -- never mind at the liberal Christians or even the "secular humanists," who are supposed to be their worst enemies. In their view, no one is more deserving of eternal barbequing in hell than someone whose beliefs are only a millimeter away from theirs. That's why I don't think that most of us who are outside their circle stand much of a chance of having a productive discussion with them, no matter how we try to come up with clever approaches. Perhaps others have had more success than you or I, however.
> I'm a little unclear about exactly what "Left
> fundamentalist/evangelical ideas" are myself.
Well, you could start by studying the collected or uncollected writings of Jim Wallis, who seems to be the main figure in this area. I myself can't understand what he is driving at a lot of the time, which may mean that the RCCs *can* understand him.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ When I was a little boy, I had but a little wit, 'Tis a long time ago, and I have no more yet; Nor ever ever shall, until that I die, For the longer I live the more fool am I. -- Wit and Mirth, an Antidote against Melancholy (1684)