[lbo-talk] In God's country

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

On 11/8/06, Jerry Monaco <monacojerry at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/7/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 7, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> >
> > > Is it possible that religion is more popular in the most (e.g., the
> > > USA) and least capitalist (e.g., Afghanistan) areas than the areas
> > > that fall inbetween ( e.g., the EU, Japan, China, etc.)?
> >
> > The U.S. is an outlier on this one, and it's unsound to base models
> > on outliers. You can call it the "most" capitalist country, but the
> > other "advanced" countries are pretty capitalist too, and they're
> > very little like the U.S. god-wise. And the U.S. has religion-
> > besotted from the outset, when it was less capitalist than England.
> >
> > Doug
>
> This is just a guess -- and an unoriginal guess at that -- but isn't it
> possible that the simple lack of other support institutions, secular outlets
> for solidarity and for solidaristic action, partially explains why the U.S.
> is an "outlier"?
>
> My thought is that solidarity and cooperation with others is a basic human
> need that cannot be completely fulfilled within the family, as currently
> structured.  We need various kinds of support institutions, and it brings
> hope to believe that we can cooperate with others, and that we have "others"
> to turn to, others with whom we do not have to compete and who are not our
> "enemies".
>
> If we don't find this "solidarity" in a union or a Masonic lodge or a
> softball team, then we will fulfill our need for "solidarity" in some other
> place or organization.  Further these institutions of solidarity have to
> help us to "explain" our world to ourselves and others or else they will not
> seem that "important."  Churches and organized religions have always
> fulfilled this "positive" role, along with all of the negative roles they
> fulfill.
>
> But why the U.S. does not provide most of us with secular outlets for
> solidarity or solidaristic action is, I suppose, the bigger question.

What makes the USA an outlier is the absence of a labor movement and
the Social Democratic and Communist parties (which are now right and
left social democratic parties), all of which the EU and Japan have.

In the USA, some of the roles of social democratic parties are now
played, when played at all, by a combination of (A) mainline
Protestant denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), the
Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of
Christ, and so on (reinforced by smaller but like-minded religious
denominations without creeds, like the the Society of Friends, the
Unitarian Universalist Association, etc.), (B) Black churches, and (C)
pro-Latino Catholic priests and lay leaders.

(D) The Union for Reform Judaism has and still plays some of the
social democratic roles, but it, alas, is to the right of (A), (B),
and (C) on foreign policy.

(E) A large majority of Muslims, Black and non-Black, are also part of
this religious social democratic ensemble, but they, like many Black
Christians and pro-Latino Catholic priests and lay leaders, are not
quite as good as mainline Protestants and Reform Jews on gender and
sexual issues, though most Muslims, like most Black Christians and
many Catholics, are capable of subordinating their positions on gender
and sexual issues to their positions on economy, civil rights and
liberties, foreign policy, and other more important issues for them.

Theoretically, it is possible that churches, synagogues, and mosques
on the Left + organized labor = a social democratic party equivalent
in the USA, but they don't quite add up, because organized labor in
the USA is weak and still wedded -- unlike (A), (B), (C), and (E) and
probably much more so than even (D) -- to support for US imperialism
at the level of the highest leadership (though not at the level of the
rank and file, mid-ranking staffers, etc.).
-- 
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>