If you didn't know, "Four Israelis traveling in a vehicle were gunned down by unknown assailants at the entrance to the Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba, near the West Bank city of Hebron. The attack comes two days before the United States is set to host a meeting between Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu." (Stratfor)
And Later, "A spokesman for Hamas’ military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, claimed responsibility for the Aug. 31 West Bank attack that killed four Israelis — two men and two women, one of whom was pregnant. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and al-Haq also have claimed responsibility for the ambush...At least two gunmen opened fire on the victims’ white, older-model station wagon. Reports indicate the vehicle was riddled with bullets, a sign that the gunmen first disabled the vehicle. A paramedic at the scene said the victims had been dragged from the vehicle and shot in vital organs, execution-style...Hamas, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and al-Haq also have been known to collaborate on such attacks, so the multiple claims of responsibility are not necessarily in conflict." (Stratfor)
Ok. Hamas and its allies attacked 4 Israeli civilians in the West Bank. The purpose is obvious, the derail the upcoming summit, which is with Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian National Authority, which is controlled by Fatah. A little history, Fatah was Yassir Arafat's party and very hostile to Israel, but has since become much more tolerant, and the PNA has run the West Bank very successfully and peacefully. Hamas, the other party in Palestinian politics, controls the Gaza Strip, from where all the rockets and terrorist attacks come from. Fatah and Hamas DO NOT coordinate political moves, and are generally opposed to each other. In this case, Hamas is trying to make the point to Israel that Abbas is the wrong person to talk to, and to make a point to the Palestinians that Abbas does not have the West Bank entirely secured. Simple enough. So what's to be done?
I think, I hope, I pray the Israelis do not react against the West Bank. The West Bank has been a peaceful for a long time, and has been rightly rewarded with Israeli with greater freedom than their kin in the Gaza Strip. The West Bank and its government had nothing to do with this attack - it would be like attacking Saudi Arabia for 9/11, just because many of the terrorists were Saudi. No, the reaction must be against the Gaza Strip and Hamas.
I don't know what it should be, I'm not sure what all the possible options are, but the West Bank is not responsible and must not suffer from this event. If Israel wants to move the Palestinians away from terrorism, they must punish terrorists and NOT in any way inhibit those who do not use terror, and in fact reward them when possible. Abbas is not a particular effective leader, and I'm not sure he's exactly a friend of Israel, but he's at least renounced terror and is willing to live as a neighbor of Israel. That is all Israel wants, and honestly all they have the right to ask for (peace and tolerance).
Moving against Hamas (without tightening the blockade, which will only intensify support for Hamas, as it will isolate the whole of Gaza) is necessary to show they cannot avoid responsibility just by changing the location of their actions. This will force the people of the Gaza Strip (who elected Hamas) to question whether their choice of government truly supports their cause, compared against Fatah, which avoids conflicts and whose West Bank realm (for lack of better word) thrives (at least compared to the Gaza Strip). And if the people of the Gaza Strip insist on supporting terror, well, that is their choice. In that case there should be a secured route for refugees fleeing the Gaza Strip, if any, to flee not to Egypt or Israel, but to the West Bank. Then as Gaza is defending itself against the Israeli armed forces, the West Bank will enjoy peace, and those who fled will inform their friends and families back in Gaza, and the people will understand it is possible and preferrable to live in harmony with one's neighbors, and not violently opposed to them.
And perhaps soon, very soon, the West Bank should be granted its independence. Then what, Hamas? Then their fight becomes as meaningless as it has been inhumane, and attempts to keep Palestinians trapped in Gaza City will be seen for what they are: a terrible betrayal of the government against its own people, who would sooner see civilians die for propaganda than the actual victory of their people in their quest for independence.
Or maybe Hamas will disarm and everyone will move to the West Bank and be peaceful. Who knows!
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Why Marx is like Jesus (and why I'll never agree with either of them)
Some of you know that I like to listen to college lectures on my commute to and from work from the Teaching Company (http://www.teach12.com/). It's a great service, and I highly reccomend buying at least 1 lecture series from them sometime in your life. Really, it's wonderful. Anyway, I'm now listening to a series about Capitalism, and two excellent lectures about Marx. The lectures are not in favor of Capitalism, and so Marx is presented very fairly and very thoroughly. The lecturer brought up an interesting point, though he did it incidentally. Marx' essential logic is very similar to Jesus. And after some thought, I agree. And now I know why I've never liked Marxism, and the reason is identical to my problem with Biblical (or perhaps Apocalyptical) Christianity.
I say Marxism and not Socialism or Communism because I favor Socialism (as in Social Democracies like in Europe) and oppose Communism (because it is necessarily fascist). But Marxism, as in what Marx believed and wrote, bothers me significantly. And as for Christianity, I mean Biblical Christianity as in most of what the Bible says, and those fundamental, the end is nigh Christians. I have no problem with Christians as a whole, but that's because most of them believe something fairly different from what the Bible says (That's for a different post entirely).
Let's start off easy. The basis of Biblical Christianity is that the world has been corrupted and that God is coming to punish the evil-doers, and that those who have faith in God (who are suffering under the oppression of evil-doers) need only be patient and steadfast in their faith and God will deliever their enemies to doom and bring His people to paradise.
God also sent his Son open the gates to Heaven to those who sinned but wished to repent. This was because, in the New Testament's view of Judaism, repentence was impossible, and faithfulness to the Jewish laws was impossible (because they were so numerous and intricate). Jesus' death and ressurection allowed for those who had sinned to be saved. This also meant those who had done evil did not need to despair their fate, for they could repent (instead of doing one evil deed, realizing they were doomed, and sinning in excess because, well, they could).
Among the sins spelled out, Jesus emphasized heavily on money. I'll list the relevant parables and quotes later on. Before we get too focused on the Bible, let's turn to Marx.
Marx believed that capitalists (by which he meant anyone with money not earned by physical labor) by definition exploited workers. Marx' belief was this: If 1 man made a good and sold it to another, he would be entitled to all that money. If two men made a good together, they would be entitled to shares of that money (based on the amount of and type of labor each did). If 10 men in a factory built something, therefore, they should be entitled to the selling price of every item. But Marx saw that there were managers, who did not work on the factory floor, and these managers made a profit from the goods of the factory that were sold. Marx claimed, because he did no physical work, he did not deserve the money. Therefore, he was stealing the money. Therefore, he was exploiting the workers. Marx also believed the manager would pay as little as possible, and because there is always some unemployment, he can always find others to work for less money, which means he can exploit the workers even more. He also benefits by pitting the workers against each other for a limited number of jobs. All the while, he makes more and more money, while the proletariat make less (both as a whole and individually).
Marx believed at some point the proletariat would realize their situation and stage an international revolt, taking over the factories, and creating a Communist Utopia. It is important to see Marx did not write how one should go about revolting, nor even suggest anyone in particular revolt. He saw it as a historical inevitability: The proletariat would revolt. He also never described how such a Communist Utopia would actually operate, merely that it would be a Utopia.
"How are these two philosophies similar?" You might ask. "Marx thought religion was the opiate of the masses. How do his words mirror any religion whatsoever?"
Let's go back to Jesus. Jesus constantly railed against the evils of money. He insisted it tied one down to this life, which contradicted the desire to go to the afterlife (where Paradise was). It was impossible to love God and have money. Early Christians drew a difference between loving money and making enough money so that you not starve, but Jesus was very clear: Money necessarily doomed one to miss the afterlife. Let's look at some parables:
Just as Marx believed the very relationship between managers and workers was exploitive, Jesus believed money is necessarily evil. Marx coined (no pun intended) the term Capitalist to mean anyone who made money without doing their own physical labor. Marx did not believe managerial skill was worth money, only those labors that created sweat on the brow. And who did the sweat of the brow? Those workers who suffered. And who would be redeemed in the Communist utopia? Those workers who had suffered.
Similarly, who would be suffering in Jesus' (or anyone's) time? The poor. Why were the poor suffering? Because they were not rich. But while the rich enjoyed life now, the poor would inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, while the rich would be damned. So while being poor meant suffering, the solution was not to make money but to trust in God for eventual salvation. Similarly, Marx did not believe the proletariat should become managers (for then they would be the evil capitalists), but simply that they would eventually become tired of their condition and revolt. And then everything would be utopian.
Neither Marx nor Jesus explain how their utopia would work, only that it would, and it would redeem those who suffered.
It seems to me Marx and Jesus are preaching the same kind of thing. Life sucks, but something will happen, and then it will be awesome. Problem is, both of them are faith-based beliefs. For Jesus, you need to believe in an afterlife. For Marx, you need to believe in the coming international Proletariat revolution. Neither says what one can do to improve one's life, merely that it will get better after something out of their control occurs.
Their ideologies are also similar in that "the first will be last." Whoever is oppressed will eventually win out. Don't try to better yourself - that only dooms you. Just suck it up and you'll be rewarded.
I'm not sure I need to go into too much detail to explain why there ideologies bother me. First, it strikes me quite a bit of time has passed and neither has happened. Jesus insisted the world would end soon ("Even this generatio will not have passed..." ), and it clearly hasn't. Further, 150 so years have passed since Marx and no revolution has occured, and those that did either corrupted themselves or simply failed. Not to say workers are as bad off as before - indeed they are certainly better, with labor unions and minimum wage and health benefits and the like - but the proletariat revolution as imagined has not happened, and I am sure, never will. Unless you consider the evolution of Social Democracies and the emergence of the Welfare state to be the revolution, but I'm not sure that's accurate. Surely it has benefitted workers and in some cases harmed managers, but it isn't a revolution, and we certainly aren't in a utopia, Communist or other.
But mostly I disagree with this because I feel it takes away the motivation to live well. I see no sin in making money, I see no harm in managing workers, and I think one should enjoy life because, well, why the heck not? Perhaps I'm faithless and will go to hell, or maybe I'm a Capitalist and therefore part of the problem Marx saw, and if so, then I'm OK with that. Surely we should be kind to one another and surely workers shouldn't be exploited or oppressed, but certainly we don't need extreme ideologies to tell us that......... Right?
James Thomas must be disbarred, or made to eat Colorado's disgusting meat, which I'm sure is infected with E. coli and made with a heaping serving of cow manure.
Thanks to this site for providing me with some of the Jesus quotes...
https://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/stewardship
I say Marxism and not Socialism or Communism because I favor Socialism (as in Social Democracies like in Europe) and oppose Communism (because it is necessarily fascist). But Marxism, as in what Marx believed and wrote, bothers me significantly. And as for Christianity, I mean Biblical Christianity as in most of what the Bible says, and those fundamental, the end is nigh Christians. I have no problem with Christians as a whole, but that's because most of them believe something fairly different from what the Bible says (That's for a different post entirely).
Let's start off easy. The basis of Biblical Christianity is that the world has been corrupted and that God is coming to punish the evil-doers, and that those who have faith in God (who are suffering under the oppression of evil-doers) need only be patient and steadfast in their faith and God will deliever their enemies to doom and bring His people to paradise.
God also sent his Son open the gates to Heaven to those who sinned but wished to repent. This was because, in the New Testament's view of Judaism, repentence was impossible, and faithfulness to the Jewish laws was impossible (because they were so numerous and intricate). Jesus' death and ressurection allowed for those who had sinned to be saved. This also meant those who had done evil did not need to despair their fate, for they could repent (instead of doing one evil deed, realizing they were doomed, and sinning in excess because, well, they could).
Among the sins spelled out, Jesus emphasized heavily on money. I'll list the relevant parables and quotes later on. Before we get too focused on the Bible, let's turn to Marx.
Marx believed that capitalists (by which he meant anyone with money not earned by physical labor) by definition exploited workers. Marx' belief was this: If 1 man made a good and sold it to another, he would be entitled to all that money. If two men made a good together, they would be entitled to shares of that money (based on the amount of and type of labor each did). If 10 men in a factory built something, therefore, they should be entitled to the selling price of every item. But Marx saw that there were managers, who did not work on the factory floor, and these managers made a profit from the goods of the factory that were sold. Marx claimed, because he did no physical work, he did not deserve the money. Therefore, he was stealing the money. Therefore, he was exploiting the workers. Marx also believed the manager would pay as little as possible, and because there is always some unemployment, he can always find others to work for less money, which means he can exploit the workers even more. He also benefits by pitting the workers against each other for a limited number of jobs. All the while, he makes more and more money, while the proletariat make less (both as a whole and individually).
Marx believed at some point the proletariat would realize their situation and stage an international revolt, taking over the factories, and creating a Communist Utopia. It is important to see Marx did not write how one should go about revolting, nor even suggest anyone in particular revolt. He saw it as a historical inevitability: The proletariat would revolt. He also never described how such a Communist Utopia would actually operate, merely that it would be a Utopia.
"How are these two philosophies similar?" You might ask. "Marx thought religion was the opiate of the masses. How do his words mirror any religion whatsoever?"
Let's go back to Jesus. Jesus constantly railed against the evils of money. He insisted it tied one down to this life, which contradicted the desire to go to the afterlife (where Paradise was). It was impossible to love God and have money. Early Christians drew a difference between loving money and making enough money so that you not starve, but Jesus was very clear: Money necessarily doomed one to miss the afterlife. Let's look at some parables:
- Luke 12:13-34 A man asks Jesus to settle a dispute about inheritance money. Jesus rebukes the man for being greedy, and then tells this parable of the rich man. There was a very rich man who found he did not have enough room to house his belongings, so he plans to knock down the buildings on his property and replace them with bigger ones. Then God comes down and tells him "Your soul is required of you this very night - who now owns what you have cared for?" Jesus concludes this proves God dispises the rich (or perhaps: the rich cannot properly love God)
- Mark 10:17-30 A man comes to Jesus asking how he can inherit eternal life. He says he has kept all the important commandments. Jesus tells him to sell all his possesions, and the man becomes sad and leaves, for (as the text says), he owned much property (and was apparently attached to it). Jesus then complains to his disciples that it is difficult for the wealthy to go to paradise, and that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy man to enter the kingdom of God." Jesus then says only those with God can be saved, but that their reward in the afterlife will be a hundred times what they gave up.
- In Matthew 6, during the Summit on the Mount, Jesus warns people to give charity in secret, "not as the sounding of trumpets... for God who sees secrets will repay you." If one has a lot of money, and one wishes to get rid of it (to get into the afterlife), one must do so quietly. Giving to the poor in a loud fashion is, basically, like buying attention. That is not giving away your money, that is using it to boost your Earthly reputation. And any attachment to Earth necessarily conflicts with the love of God.
- Mark 12:12-17 Some enemies of Jesus come to him with a question, meaning to trap him. They ask if one should pay taxes. Jesus asks for a Roman coin, points out that Caesar's head is on the coin, and replies "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." The text says his enemies were amazes by the reply. I've always found this to be a joke. Jesus senses the trap, knows Caesar's head is on the coin, and simply points to the coin and says: "God wants nothing to do with this money, it has Caesar's head," (who was believed to be part of the Roman Divine family tree (At the time of this quote, the Caesar was probably either Tiberius or Caligula, both of which believed in their own Divinity)). It would also be safe to assume that "what is God's" is not money, and as we've seen Jesus thought money was a barrier to God, giving it all to Caesar as tax seemed like a great way to absolve yourself. You don't cheat your ruler, you give him what he desires, and you can enter heaven. Why not?
Just as Marx believed the very relationship between managers and workers was exploitive, Jesus believed money is necessarily evil. Marx coined (no pun intended) the term Capitalist to mean anyone who made money without doing their own physical labor. Marx did not believe managerial skill was worth money, only those labors that created sweat on the brow. And who did the sweat of the brow? Those workers who suffered. And who would be redeemed in the Communist utopia? Those workers who had suffered.
Similarly, who would be suffering in Jesus' (or anyone's) time? The poor. Why were the poor suffering? Because they were not rich. But while the rich enjoyed life now, the poor would inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, while the rich would be damned. So while being poor meant suffering, the solution was not to make money but to trust in God for eventual salvation. Similarly, Marx did not believe the proletariat should become managers (for then they would be the evil capitalists), but simply that they would eventually become tired of their condition and revolt. And then everything would be utopian.
Neither Marx nor Jesus explain how their utopia would work, only that it would, and it would redeem those who suffered.
It seems to me Marx and Jesus are preaching the same kind of thing. Life sucks, but something will happen, and then it will be awesome. Problem is, both of them are faith-based beliefs. For Jesus, you need to believe in an afterlife. For Marx, you need to believe in the coming international Proletariat revolution. Neither says what one can do to improve one's life, merely that it will get better after something out of their control occurs.
Their ideologies are also similar in that "the first will be last." Whoever is oppressed will eventually win out. Don't try to better yourself - that only dooms you. Just suck it up and you'll be rewarded.
I'm not sure I need to go into too much detail to explain why there ideologies bother me. First, it strikes me quite a bit of time has passed and neither has happened. Jesus insisted the world would end soon ("Even this generatio will not have passed..." ), and it clearly hasn't. Further, 150 so years have passed since Marx and no revolution has occured, and those that did either corrupted themselves or simply failed. Not to say workers are as bad off as before - indeed they are certainly better, with labor unions and minimum wage and health benefits and the like - but the proletariat revolution as imagined has not happened, and I am sure, never will. Unless you consider the evolution of Social Democracies and the emergence of the Welfare state to be the revolution, but I'm not sure that's accurate. Surely it has benefitted workers and in some cases harmed managers, but it isn't a revolution, and we certainly aren't in a utopia, Communist or other.
But mostly I disagree with this because I feel it takes away the motivation to live well. I see no sin in making money, I see no harm in managing workers, and I think one should enjoy life because, well, why the heck not? Perhaps I'm faithless and will go to hell, or maybe I'm a Capitalist and therefore part of the problem Marx saw, and if so, then I'm OK with that. Surely we should be kind to one another and surely workers shouldn't be exploited or oppressed, but certainly we don't need extreme ideologies to tell us that......... Right?
James Thomas must be disbarred, or made to eat Colorado's disgusting meat, which I'm sure is infected with E. coli and made with a heaping serving of cow manure.
Thanks to this site for providing me with some of the Jesus quotes...
https://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/stewardship
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)