Catholicism and capitalism

[Era Might]

As for "indigenous societies" (whatever that means exactly), that phrase can cover a wide range of different human societies, most of which would not be "communist" in the Marxist sense.  "Indigenous" or "primitive" societies also include many that practice things such as extermination of other enemy societies, slavery, torture, rape, cannibalism, infanticide, black magic, and a lot of other ugly stuff.  Not that many of these can't be found in "advanced" or "civilized" societies too, but "indigenous" or "primitive" cultures are far from being all idyllic peaceful utopias.

​Marxism is a modern ideology, but as a species of communism (i.e., living communally rather than individually) it did not invent communistic societies, and the emergence of "the individual" was part of a long historical process. The point is not that Marxist Communism is good because it is based on a very ancient and natural form of living (communally), but that the problems with Marxist Communism are problems also with Capitalis Individualism, because both are modern, industrial ideologies.

[Era Might]

A good overview of Jacques Ellul's thought (he was a radical Christian). What I like about his social critique is he tries to get to the root of modern societies, and he identifies it as technique, which operates the same regardless of ideology, communist or capitalist, because technique lies behind modernity itself:

http://www.ojccc.org/2013/10/the-technological-society-by-jacques-ellul/

For technique, nothing is sacred, thus, technique itself  becomes the new sacred. Ellul defines the sacred as what man decides unconsciously to respect. Whereas science explains the “how,” of mysteries, technique desacralizes mystery by putting it to use. For the working man, there is no mystery, but only that which has not been technicized. Ellul says, “The technician uses technique perhaps because it is his profession,but he does so with adoration because for him technique is the locus of the sacred” (Ellul 144). Because technique puts to use all it comes into contact with, humanity replaces the sacred with it’s captor; technique.

Technique affects all aspects of humanity, from economics and politics to “human techniques” of education, propaganda and sport. A large part of The Technological Society explores these effects to their limits.

For Ellul, the most characteristic of all modern technical instruments is the clock. Because of the clock, humans are no longer ruled by natural rhythms, but mechanical. Whenever technique comes into contact with a natural obstacle, it either modifies nature with a machine or transforms nature’s preference through the use of other techniques (Ellul 135). Technique is rational and it must be applied, which creates an artificial reality.

Modern technique is inescapable and creates artificial happiness. Political ideologies, social revolutions and even individual art cannot escape technique. Ellul does not trust democracy. He goes to great lengths to show that the same political technique guides communism toward power and capitalism toward money. State technique is dominated by planning that takes into consideration outlets for revolution, all for its own interest.

Even personal expressions of angst against technique, as seen in modern art, are proof of the pervasive hold of technique over humanity. Technique coerces humanity by utilizing integrated techniques of entertainment and propaganda. In the forward, Robert Merton says, “The technological society requires men to be content with what they are required to like; for those who are not content, it provides distractions– escape into absorption with technically dominated media of popular culture and communication” (Ellul viii). By so systematically studying and exploiting human nature, technique guides humanity towards its own ends of efficient organization.

[Socrates]

This is fundamentally where we differ. I don't consider government separately from other forms of social power and control. They all share in the same processes. I don't consider a society where business and industry micromanages people's affairs separately from a society where government does so. We're all part of a micromanaged economy, down to the shoes you wear and the phrases you use and the music you listen to. It is an assumption of modern society that we must be "homo economicus," economic man...even in a "free economy" there is still the transformation of man into an economic unit, just as totalitarianism made man a political unit. Modern economy and industry is NOT natural, and that's what makes it so productive...you have to learn the greed and hunger it takes to live in a "free economy," man is not born that way. The liberalization of politics and the economy, in my view, was half a revolution, and has replaced one dominating system with another. We have gone from a society where a small group of nobles and churchmen determined what you have to believe, to a society where marketing department determines it.

The difference is in a free society, you are free to ignore the marketing hype.  No one will throw you in prison if you don't buy the latest "cool" gizmo or doohickey.

You are also free to kill your television, ditch teh interwebz, and live off the land on a "back to nature" farm.

 

Like most leftists, you seem in reality less concerned about the freedom to live your own life than you are with government forcing others to live as you think they ought.

[Era Might]

The difference is in a free society, you are free to ignore the marketing hype.  No one will throw you in prison if you don't buy the latest "cool" gizmo or doohickey.

You are also free to kill your television, ditch teh interwebz, and live off the land on a "back to nature" farm.

 

Like most leftists, you seem in reality less concerned about the freedom to live your own life than you are with government forcing others to live as you think they ought.

You're the one who goes on and on about the constitution. I don't post much about the government as an existing political order.

You are wrong that a person is free to ignore the marketing hype, not because of government coercion, but because the marketing hype is our reality, it is what is packaged to us in everything we do, from our social services to our ideas about education to our foreign policy. Our marketing hype is just how we package the values of our political/economic/social system.

I do not share your modern, liberal, individualist conception of freedom. The purpose of freedom is not "to live your own life" but to have space in which to be human, and being human involves community and all that goes with it. I'm an anarchist, not meaning that I cannot live under any authority, but that I assert my right to be human over any authority...and because being human takes so many forms, I can adapt and see value in many different ways of living.

But you are correct that I am not concerned with "the freedom to live my own life," because I am not an anti-social animal whose only goal in life is to make sure everyone is left alone to buy and sell. My goal in life is not to make sure everyone is properly American, but to assert my existence as a human being, whether that lines up with American ideologies or not.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Era Might

[Anomaly]

"My goal in life is not to make sure everyone is properly American, but to assert my existence as a human being, whether that lines up with American ideologies or not."

Reference my earlier post in the gay marriage thread, be thankful you live in a modern society where you have the luxury to stare at your naval, snort at the burgoise, and dream of the noble savage life.  You're coddled in the lap of luxury and seem to have no idea of the reality of the work that is done and needed to maintain our society and whine about your trudge through this life.  

[Era Might]

"My goal in life is not to make sure everyone is properly American, but to assert my existence as a human being, whether that lines up with American ideologies or not."

Reference my earlier post in the gay marriage thread, be thankful you live in a modern society where you have the luxury to stare at your naval, snort at the burgoise, and dream of the noble savage life.  You're coddled in the lap of luxury and seem to have no idea of the reality of the work that is done and needed to maintain our society and whine about your trudge through this life.  

No, I will not be thankful for anything other than what matters to me. I'm thankful to be alive and human. I'm thankful for many things. But I'm also thankful that I do not have to be thankful for the sake of being thankful. And you're absolutely right, I benefit from the accomplishments and struggles of many. But one thing they struggled for was the right to be unsatisfied and to say so.

And I maintain the right to not know everything, but to whine when something does not add up to me. I maintain the right to reject anything while recognizing that I am always subject to the necessities of the world I live in.

And I maintain the right to change my mind and be a better person, something that can never happen if I accept things the way they are because that's the way they are and because it's unbelievably advanced. I maintain the right to tell society how I think it should be, and I maintain the right to learn from how things used to be.

[Era Might]

By the way, some of the best people who have ever lived only became that way because they liberated themselves from the "lap of luxury" (Buddha, notably). Tolstoy was a noble, but by the end of his life he saw things very differently (of course, after he enjoyed freely of the lap of luxury).

[Era Might]

And just to be clear: I don't care what work is done to maintain our society. I was born into this world, I didn't create it, and I won't end it. If you want to spend your life being happy because stockbrokers slave away to make sure the GDP stays up, that's your business, not mine.

[Kia ora]

A good overview of Jacques Ellul's thought (he was a radical Christian). What I like about his social critique is he tries to get to the root of modern societies, and he identifies it as technique, which operates the same regardless of ideology, communist or capitalist, because technique lies behind modernity itself:

http://www.ojccc.org/2013/10/the-technological-society-by-jacques-ellul/

 

I used to read quite a bit of Jacques Ellul. Learning that he was an Islamophobe really put me off him. Kinda like Heidegger, who had a lot of good things to say, but was a fervent Nazi. Spoiled the rest of what he was saying for me.

[Era Might]

I used to read quite a bit of Jacques Ellul. Learning that he was an Islamophobe really put me off him. Kinda like Heidegger, who had a lot of good things to say, but was a fervent Nazi. Spoiled the rest of what he was saying for me.

What's an Islamophobe?

[Kia ora]

Hated Islam. Also hated Muslims. 

[Era Might]

Hated Islam. Also hated Muslims.

That's a pretty broad definition. Highly doubt either is true about Ellul. How does a person hate Islam?

[Catlick]

Hated Islam.

Sounds logical, every Christian is called to hate Satan's lies, which includes Islam. 

Edited June 27, 2015 by Catlick

[Kia ora]

Every Christian is called to love.

Personally, I find Islam to be reflective of God's love and truth, as the Catholic Church itself affirms.

How much of his work have you read Era Might? He blames Islam for infecting Christianity with serfdom, slavery, mysticism, Canon Law (oh yeah, the last two should tell you what he thinks of Catholicism), colonisation, Holy War, mistreating women etc etc. As if Christians couldn't have come up with that on their own. I stopped reading his books long ago, but read this for example. Sounds like something straight out of Front National:

« La seule mesure juridique valable, c’est de passer avec tous les immigrés un contrat comportant :
la reconnaissance de la laïcité du pouvoir,
la promesse de ne jamais recourir au djihad (en particulier sous forme individuelle, (terrorisme, revendications religieuses, etc.),
le renoncement à la diffusion de l’islam et du coran en France. »
« Et si un immigré, beur ou pas, désobéit à ces trois principes, alors, qu’il soit immédiatement rapatrié dans son pays. »

 

 

Edited June 27, 2015 by Kia ora

[Kia ora]

All that I accused him of there can be found in 'La subversion du Christianisme', one of his most famous books.