Quick insights…possible further reflections later? :)

I have recently been thinking about (and also reading a book that focuses on this issue some) the question that Marx poses of how the working class comes to move from a “class in itself” to a “class for itself”. In a sense this issue calls forth many other issues, topics. Among them; What is the place of popular education? What is the place of the intellectual (and the educator) in emancipatory struggles? In a very broad sense what is the place of ‘culture’ in the struggle to move away from Capitalist worldview and toward a more humanistic, Socialist worldview. To begin with it may be helpful to do some basic defining of terms.

For Marx the creation of the Capitalist system of production entailed the creation of a working class. In this sense all Class identity is a relational identity. There is no Working Class without a Capitalist Class or vice a versa. We frequently hear about the capacity for Capitalism to ‘create’ wealth or ‘generate’ wealth. What is frequently forgotten is that it concurrently generates immiseration and poverty. Given the length of this reflection, I don’t wish to get into the formula by which this occurs, you can find some of this in earlier reflections. The point is that the inception of Capitalism locates certain persons in roles not of their choosing. In a sense you don’t automatically ‘choose’ to be in the role of a Capitalist or Worker, and most certainly you don’t completely dictate the parameters of those roles within the economic sphere. Marx would say that to a great degree by living in Capitalism without having any ownership of the Means of Production you are automatically designated as a member of the Working Class. This means that all these individuals exist “in the Class itself”. This is not really a decision that requires any agency on the part of the individual (or even community). By the way, without totally distracting from the purpose of this entry I want to highlight that no amount of ‘positive thinking’ or ‘spiritual insights’ or even ‘knowledge’ changes this objective condition. However, there has to be a ‘shift’ that must occur for revolutionary change to proceed. This shift is the shift of the workers recognizing not only that they are part of the Working Class in Capitalism but most importantly that they have a common interest (and enemy) in their emancipatory struggle as A Member of The Working Class!

I have mentioned this before but one of the things that has truly been an obstruction in untangling this issue is that contemporary Capitalsim has generated such levels of wealth as to give certain member of the working class the illusion of ownership of their lives. I have mentioend before that this is most evident when we look at some of the members of the working class in certain industries. It is difficult to see a mult-millionair athlete in the same ‘location’ as a factory worker. Or a Oscar winning actor as a member of the same class as a cleaning lady.

What is most important to remember is that I am not being naive, I am not saying they have identical life-issues or that they are the same in some crude measure of day-to-day existence. What I am saying is that if we take seriously what it means to understand that a system critique we have to understand the needs of the system and who functions to fulfill the task reaquired by the needs of The System! One way to think of it is that a linch-pin found in an airplane bomber functions in the same way as a linch-pin found on a school desk. But obviously they are not the same thing…they operate in the same manner for the distinct item to function properly to accomplish its goal. A worker functions to generate surplus value which in Capitalism is hoarded (stolen) by the Capitalist. This is why we can say that every worker in Capitalism is underpaid! He/She generates more than they are remunerated. In fact Marx felt that there was an inverse relation between work and wealth. I will just give a simple example that might illustrate this point. I remember years (decades) ago seeing a catalogue in the faculty lounge at my high school. It was a high end dress/clothing catalogue. They had dresses in this catalogue that cost thousands of dollars. They were brand name dresses, which is to say that the designers names were the ‘selling’ point of the dress. It is highly possible that the person (probably a woman) that put in the most actual work (body movements) to create the dress got paid the least (certainly one of the lesser amounts!) This was especially true because months later I remember reading a lot about the ‘sweat shops’ being run by some of these brand name corporations. What is interesting is that I remember reading that many professional athletes make the equivalent of their salaries within the first third of their ‘season’. Again, more can be said about this but suffice to say that we can begin to understand the exploitive pattern that is inherent in Capitial accumulation.

Just simply to understand the logic of Capital accumulation would be a small step in moving from ‘class in itself’ to ‘class for itself’ consciousness. The problem is that Capitalism has also devised a million ways to divide and conquer whether that is race, gender, nationality etc. But it is also true in Class positionality. It has also devised a million diversion tactics to obscure the centrality of Class positionality in Capitalism. Lenin spoke eloquently of the Labour Aristocracy. This was a section of the working class that is easily bought off and convinced that they really do exist in rarefied reality apart from the logic of the System. We must find ways to break this brainwashing in ourselves and among our communities. I also want to end by saying something about ‘false consciousness’ which is not only a problem among the labour aristocracy but also among the poor working class. I was talking to a friend of mine and he spoke about how some ‘immigrants’ look to the middle-class U.S. citizens as existing in a ‘promised land’ of security. I certainly remember this feeling myself. My ‘white, middle-class friends seem to have it all…I am now very aware of how this ‘chasing’ the American Dream is inherent in Capitalist logic. This generating of a false consciousness is key to continued patterns of exploitation. As George Carlin was so fond of saying “It’s called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it”. I think we need to not overly romanticize the poor, and their insights, perceptions without engaging critically the question of how they are also drinking from the same poisoned well that we all are.

Here I will plead again for the need of an ongoing educational project for all members of the working class (the vast, vast majority of humanity) to seek not Capitalist (for profit) education/insights etc. but rather those that pursue the common good, public, socialist, communist, anarchist realities. This is going to be a journey whose destination can not be fully predetermined precisely because it rests on ongoing praxis and horizons not yet available to our vision. This journey for emancipation must be fought at every level…internally and externally.

Inorganic Intellectuals in the Time of Trump

This particular post was inspired by a question posed to me by my dear friend Maria. She asked me to clarify what is meant by the term ‘organic intellectual’. This was in particular to unpack the way it was used by the famous Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Maria’s primary question dealt with who could be considered an authentic organic intellectual. Did the person have to originate in the working class? or was it rather was it a manner of involving yourself in an act of solidarity with the working class (or the poor, the people etc.) that made you an organic intellectual? Did it also have to do with maintaining a close connection with the class and/or doing one’s analysis using their perspective as the base line for one’s analysis. Meaning did being an organic intellectual require that you use the hermeneutical lens of the working-class perspective to analyze all areas of social reality?

Before beginning a response to these questions, I would like to say that I am not very familiar with the work of Gramsci. I have read his Prison Notebooks, I have also read many of his supporters. I had just read a wonderful book called Using Gramsci: A New Approach by Michele Fillipini. I have also been blessed to read many others who use Gramsci’s work (including my esteemed friend Orlando Espin), I have also read some of the work done by Otto Maduro on Gramsci. As I was contemplating these issues, I found myself constantly returning to the questions or categories of marginalization vs exploitation. I have written a bit on this issue of marginalization/exploitation before, but I find that it is becoming very important to continue to highlight its relevance in the new context. I think that the distinctions between these two social relations offer us meaningful way for us to disentangle our understanding of what exactly is an organic intellectual. Particularly within the framework of a Marxist thinker like Gramsci.

It is important to begin with some of the basic features of Marxist theorie(s). These features can be seen as touchstones found in many of the traditional Marxist traditions. I want to list briefly some of these features: For Marxist

Capital is understood to be the ‘extraction’ of labor on the part of the owners in relation to the worker. In simple terms it means that all workers are ultimately ‘exploted’ labor in a Capitalist framerwork. Workers are never paid the identical amount that the worker produced in any given ‘day’. This is true wether one is a multimillionaire basketball player or a ‘piece-meal’ worker at a sweatshop.
The logic of Capital is that its primary (and overriding) motive in all issues of production will be the maximization of profit or the accumulation of wealth. This means that no matter what other motives are involved in production (Supply/Demand, status, human need etc.) the paramount force in all decisions on production will be profit (or accumulation of wealth).
The logic of Capital is transpersonal (or anapersonal) in terms of human agency. This is sometimes inadvertently expressed when a wealthy person, who is caught doing something that hints at immorality will say something like ‘If I didn’t do this, someone else would’. In one sense he is being 100% accurate. The logic of the system requires this function to occur. It will be done by someone. This is one of the way to understand Marxism as a critique of the System of Capital. It is not an attack on anyone (or two) Capitalist.
The nature of Class is always understood within a relational and dynamic reality. To speak of Class as a static entity is to completely misapprehend both the dynamic nature of Dialectical thinking and ongoing motion of all Dialectical movement. Class structure is not a static reality that is frozen in time. There are always trends, historical blocs (using a Gramscian category), alliances etc. that are part of authentic historical developement.

The reason this is so important to comprehend at the beginning of this question is to understand that within Capital(ism) there is already a center and periphery structure. This structure will be dynamic, ever evolving, chameleon like etc. This formation is not identical with the foundational feature of Capital exploitation. For me to be Anti-Capitalist is to be Anti-Exploitation. However, within any system, no matter, its level of exploitation or justice there will be some element of center and periphery. Now let us return to the place of the intellectual within any system in general and the organic intellectual in the specific place in Capitalism.

My understanding of Antonio Gramsci is that he was a Marxist. He was always a Marxist. He understood the foundational characteristic of Capitalism mentioned above. He also understood that this exploitation occurred at mutliple levels and required multi-layers of structures and institutional support. In a sense he understood that Capitialism to continue its inexorable movement towards exploitation (extraction of labor, accumulation of wealth as primary and exclusive goal of production etc.) it needed to recruit subjects at every level of social reality. This included the intellectual. All intellectuals are given certain ‘tools’ not given to others. But this is true for all workers. One can speak of organic (and inorganic auto-workers, pipefitters etc.). So what is the distinction that makes difference. My way of viewing this conundrum is to understand that we have conflated marginalization with being anti-exploitation. Let me now speak more specifically to how I view this playing out in the academy but also within broader social reality.

My experience is that Capitalism has been ‘forced’ to broaden its recruitment pool. Historically the ruling class has been White, property-owning males. This, simply put, was the make-up of the Capitalist Class at its inception. However, one of the wonderful (??) features of Capitalism is its ability to adapt to changing circumstances. At some point it needed to let member of communities that were previously marginalized (People of Color, Women etc.) into the framework of Capitalism. This did not actually change the ongoing marginalization of the communities (sexism is still very, very real, as are racialized hierarchies) What it was able to do was allow for certain members of said members of the communities to enter into the workings of the system to various degrees. It did this without in any way challenging the hegemonic elements of Capitalism. What this means is that some people might still be ‘marginalized’ within the context of larger forces but may be a reproducer and supporter of patterns of exploitation.

When we speak of what identifies an organic intellectual in the Gramscian sense we need to be clear that for him the primary (not exclusive!!) issue was to be against Capitalism. In this way he didn’t speak of the need to be marginalized or not. Gramsci was a trained journalist. He was deeply equipped, as is evidenced in his writing, with a depth and breadth of knowledge that might be the envy of many ‘intellectuals’ today! Did he ‘shy away from getting intellectual tools (weapons) to fight the enemy? I think not!

I hope and pray that I will always be marginalized from the social forces, institutions, communities etc. that are pro-exploitation in general and pro-Capitalist in particular. However, I don’t seek marginalization, nor do I hold it as a particular ‘badge’ or even an essentialized identity. I was born poor (cotton fields of Texas) but that doesn’t make me an organic (or inorganic) intellectual. What confers that degree of authenticity is my commitment to ending exploitation. I know of many people who are part of marginalized communities who have a deep loyalty to maintaining the status quo and explicitly a system that continues to exploit millions and millions of people. I remember hearing the term “sell-out” Or vendido, tio taco, uncle tom, etc. I have always wondered what that meant. I have come to realize that it indicates someone who is still a member of a marginalized group but seeks to reproduce the exploitative relations that have always hurt certain communities.

I want to end, in part, with talking about the ‘intellectual’, rather than the organic, part of organic intellectual. I think it is safe to say that certain levels of education do give us a certain degree of privilege, particularly in certain situations and institutions. This is certainly true for some of us with advance degrees. Although some of us are finally awakening to the reality of Capital logic (adjunct professors with advance degrees sleeping in cars!) we must not be seduced into the illusion that becoming in any way part of ‘the center’ in Capitalism allows you to change the foundational structure of Capitalism. It is very clear to me when you see the multi-millionaire baseball players being ‘locked-out’ of playing baseball in the same way that striking auto workers can be ‘locked-out’ of their places of employment. These auto workers are geniuses in ways that I will never be, they are in a very real sense ‘intellectuals‘ in their fields. One large difference is that they have much less of an illusion of their place in the hierarchy of Capital. What is still frustrating at time is to convince auto-workers that the multi-millionaire athlete is also part of the working class. I am under no illusion that their lifestyle is similar but lifestyle comparisons is one of the ways that Capital has been able to ‘divide and conquer’ us…not merely through race, gender etc.

For me an organic intellectual is anyone who uses his or her capacities to end the profound and inhumane exploitation that this system produces, perpetuates, etc. This will at times put you in the periphery and at other times may have you be among the center (“In the world but not of it”). However, for me what is important is to remember that Gramsci understood the logic of Capitalism and saw his work as an intellectual to ultimately overthrow this inhumane system. For me as a person of Faith this also requires that I never lose site of the deep humanity found within everyone, including in particular way the individual Capitalist. It also requires a deep commitment on my part to speak critically about the sickening level of destruction being caused by this system in relation to our environment and ecology. It also requires that I never seek to ‘get to the center’ to try to change the system, knowing that the very desire to ‘get to the center’ indicates that the system has already gained victory over me! I have already become inorganic (dead)…

Simple Recommendations

I was recently asked by a wonderful friend, colleague, fellow intellectual, comrade, activist (did I leave anything out! 🙂 LOL): What are some recommedations you would make to help people working in the academy dealing with the profound level of ignorance found within and among our citizens. I truly don’t know if there is a ‘magic bullet’ that will solve the fierce and intense level of disinformation that is being heaped upon all of us by the various institutions within society. This entry is also impelled by my reading a book entitleed Using Gramsci: A New Approach by Michele Filippini. In this work he covers many of the themes found in the work of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci spoke about the way in which hegemonic rule is predicated on ‘owning the means of production’ (He was a Marxist!). For Gramsci, an element of highly developed Capitalist societies is the bourgeoisie’s capacity to own the means of ‘mental’ production. This includes, but is not limited to, the media, the schools, the law etc. It is important to remember that the central (not exclusive!) feature distinguishing various perspectives within and among the various institution is found, in part, on their class perspective.

I recall having a discussion with a friend of mine talking about the differences and similarities between MSNBC, CNN, Fox, New York Times etc. While it would be naive to think that they are all the same it would be equally dangerous to think that they share nothing in common. One of the major qualities that they have in common is that they function to ‘produce profit’. They are, within the Capitalist ecological system, a Commodity. It is important to understand the implications of this reality. We frequently speak about the sad state of journalism in the United States; however, we fail to do a radical critique of the industry. What we frequently call Mainstream Media, whether conservative or liberal exist as profit business ventures. Their primary (not exclusive!) function is to create wealth, not to inform! ls this it’s only function?, of course not. But one should not be naive (or blissfully ignorant) of this reality. One’s world view is shaped by the options which we encounter in our daily lives. Marx famously said ““Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.” we make our informed political decisions based on the information available within our information eco-system.

I read many things, this includes various genres of writing. In terms of political/social/economic discourse (also novels…etc.) what I find is most important is the purpose of production question. Why is this thing being created. I was reminded of this very abruptly once by a student of mine years ago when I was teaching a course on Mass Media. The student noticed that virtually all the magazines that I was reading had NO ADVERTISEMENTS among their pages. I didn’t even realize this until he pointed it out. It is a profound insight to realize that the function of these pages was not to get someone to ‘buy’ something! The raison d’etre for all of the mainstream magazines is as a vehicle to get their ‘sponsors’ information out to the public. It ‘uses’ news (whatever is deemed as news!) to get viewers. This now might take the form of ‘clickbait’ language. The common slang for how this was thought of in the news game was ‘if it bleeds, it leads’. Which is a way of saying that the purpose of much news is the sensationalizing of certain elements of reality. But that is merely a description of what is happening and doesn’t answer the WHY of what is happening. Now we can get a more accurate assessment of why this occurs. It functions this way precisely because it was never meant to inform. That is not its purpose when it is produced. It is produced to sell something!

This brings me to some very simple but powerful reccomendations that I will suggest to all the readers of this blog. I would also reccomend that you suggest this to anyone else who is involved in the shaping of consciousness of communities. I am going to post a list of some of the magazines that I have read, subrscribed to, or use in my general intellectual development. I will be honest, I know that I am a single person that has a lot of extra time to dedicate to this, but I also know that given the hegemonic power exercised by the ruling class in shaping mass culture, thought and sentiment we must be willing to engage in a powerful war of positionality (to use another Gramscian concept) to strive to move beyond these elements of false consciousness into a better place. This will allow our strategies (Praxis) to become much more effective. Finally, I find that to the degree that contemporary journalism in a Neo-Liberal reality is essentially commodified stupidity used to dull the senses, build despair, cultivate hate, and misdirect attention to immobilize our movements from being more effective we must fight this by supporting alternative media. To me the criteria for alternative media is that which is against Capital (I don’t just mean against Capitialism). It cannot exist for profit in any capacity. Market logic is the death of journalistic integrity. I will repeat this statement because it is so essential to understand my thesis: Market logic is the death of journalistic integrity. One of the final benefits that I have learned about supporting Alternative Media is that these communities frequently do so much good apart from their disseminating much needed information. I know one magazine The Progressive offers free subscriptions to prison inmates upon requests. I also know that In These Times offers free subscriptions to union members. It is for me incredibly gratifying that I can be a small part of supporting these efforts by my simple act of subscribing to these publications. I tried to get some of the libraries at the universities that I worked at to carry the hard copy of these publications and to subscribe to the online version. This is so important because it is absolutely an accepted position that virtually all of the major for profit magazines should be part of the litany of publications (The New York Times, The Atlantic, etc.) found in the library. For me it is of paramount importance that the ‘hidden bias’ of these publications be called into question, challenged and critiqued. It is also important to begin to break the hegemonic hold that Market logic has on virtually all aspects of our lives. Below is only a partial list. If anyone has others titles, I would be more than happy to explore them. I am deeply aware of the way in which Capitalism pretends to speak of creating conditions of neutrality all the while cloaking its non-neutral perspective in the language of an abstract (non-historical materialist) perspective. In order to explore this issue, I would very, very, very, very strongly recommend reading Passionate Declarations by Howard Zinn. It was originally titled Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology. The reason I bring this up is because I am very aware of how many non-profit entities now serve to buttress the Capitalist system.

Below is a list. My Simple Recommendation is that every person reading this subscribe for one year to one of these magazines or at the very least make it an intentional part of ones routine to look at this source (along with New York Times, Atlantic etc.). If there is concern around being ‘labeled’ as some type of anti-American person, be aware that this risk is a small price to pay for an act of resistance that really will have immediate impact. If nothing else tell people about these magazines/publications/perspectives etc. One of the most annoying/disturbing/frightening things is that the ruling class of the United States has been allowed too long to ‘frame’ the parameters of the discussion. This is most evident in how we speak of Bernie Sanders as a completely ‘radical-left-wing’ utopian dreamer. The reality is that in relation to much of the world Sanders’ policies are at best center-left. Two years ago, I read a book which rocked my world entitled American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People’s History of Fake News-From the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror by Roberto Sirvent and Danny Haiphong. I had never seen such a clear and incisive explanation of how the United States ruling elites create such a parochial and distorted view for its citizens. We as thought leaders in one form or another (educators, professor, activist etc.) have to claim some blame for the profound level of ignorance and outright stupidity of our citizens. Many of us are bereft of anything that resembles a truly global perspective. I have been witnessed to this level of ignorance on numerous occasions. I will give only one example as a point of reference.

When I was a student at Boston College we had a political discussion which included some of the faculty of Boston College. It included member from various schools within the university. One of the professors’ spoke of how Saddam Hussein was a horrible person (no denying this) and how he was evil and could not be rationally negotiated this. He failed to mention that at one point Saddam Husein was on the CIA payroll! I can assure everyone reading this that the people of Iraq knew about this! Hussein violated many international laws when he unjustly invaded Kuwait. These were some of the same laws that the U.S. violated when we invaded Panama! Again, rest assured much of the world knows about these hypocrisies. The professor also began to speak about 9/11. The day in which ‘the world changed’. He never mentioned that for people in Chile they have their own 9/11. It is the day that the United States helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Salvador Allende. Planes destroyed the presidential palace. I was at the time of this panel discussion/presentation reading a book entitled Chile 1973: The Other 9/11. Again, we live in a ‘world’ that apparently doesn’t include Chile! It was only because I was present that these two facts were introduced into the conversation. I am not saying this to somehow give myself praise, I was able to access this information, in part, because I had other sources (and perspectives) beyond the mainstream intellectual tradition allowed by the United State setting. This should cause all of us great sadness, anger, frustration among other feelings.

As I remind my students it is not our ‘fault’ (I agree with Marx we don’t make our lives from scratch but from a historical reality that we inherited) but it is our responsibility. As I said in a previous entry. It is no longer acceptable for anyone that claims to care about our various emancipatory struggles and concurrently be ignorant of the true history of radical critique and struggle found not only in the United States, but throughout the world. I am aware that I may sound like someone that knows it all…I assure you, I do not. This journey is one that is ongoing for all of us, but it might just begin with one step (and one subscription! 🙂 ) at a time.

The List (Pending further work)

The Progressive
In These Times
Z magazine (online)
Monthly Review
Catalyst magazine
Jacobin
Sojourners
Current Affairs
Socialist Review
Spectre Journal
Dissent (kind of lightweight but good)
Red Pepper

Class Logic/Class Patterns vs Class Consciousness

I have recently begun to try and find ways to speak of how the systemic and hegemonic qualities of Capital functions in our world. The most common term used to deal with questions of individual conduct and actions within Capitalism is the language of Class Consciousness. In Leftist (particularly Marxist) circles we can speak of operating from within a place of Class consciousness. This is especially true in terms of how various communities and individuals operate in their quotidian existence. We speak of how certain communities or individuals are aware or not of their class position or interests etc. While this is still an important aspect of understanding all social reality, I will suggest that it is indispensable but insufficient in fully grasping how it operates in creating the world we inhabit. In fact, I believe one cannot truly grasp reality without a large and clear vision of class consciousness. This statement is made all the more tragic in that most academics and intellectuals in the United States have what Dr. King termed a ‘moribund fear of communism’, and anything attached to it as a tool of analysis. I also find that given our highly individualistic manner of viewing reality the language of individuals becoming or bring class conscious can also serve to obscure an important element of not only Capitalist reality but all economic reality. This obscuring becomes even more pronounced because the dominant understanding of the individual is an atomized entity who chooses to engage in various communities or social realities. So, the power, authority, and function of Class is predicated on the individuals buying into this consciousness. I think it is important to highlight the ability of Class consciousness to operate autonomous of the individual or even the community’s awareness. In this sense I like the phrase of Class Logic (or Class Patterns).

In speaking of Class Logic, we can speak of how Capital as a system operates in a hegemonic manner irrespective of how people desire or choose to relate to it. There are many reasons why, for me, this has become important to address. One of the main reasons is that I have recently noticed how people speak of how part of the problem of suffering of the world is due to certain personal (read individual) qualities have become stronger within our society. “People are so much more selfish, greedy, self-centered etc.)” then in previous eras. The reality is that, as a species, these qualities within our species have probably not changed that much in our lifetime. We have not recently grown a greediness gland that has made us extra greedy, or selfish or anything else. The reality is that as a species we are pretty much the same as we have been for hundreds if not thousands of years.

It should come as no surprise that one of the reasons that I have become interested in this issue, besides what is mentioned above, is that of reading a book entitled Using Gramsci: A New Approach by Michele Fillippini. In the book he revisits many of the key themes and insights found in the corpus of Antonio Gramsci, this obviously includes the ideas of ideology and hegemony. In the text he notes ‘that there is only one definition of ideology in the Prison Notebooks, where it is described as a ‘scientific, energetic, educational hypothesis that is verified <and criticized> by the real developement of history, that is, it is turned into a science.’ After stating this he speak of some fundamental principles that are established from this definition.

There are many implications to this definition a brief but incomplete summary of these principles is found below:

Ideology has a hypothetical character which suggests that ‘it does not contain any principle of truth…but is open to ‘truth procedures’.
It has an element of education and is linked to the transformation of the subjects it impacts
It is always linked to the ‘real development of history’ and because of this is always influx and ‘susceptible to gradual adjustments and never formalized in any doctrine’
Ideology is ‘turned into a science’ where it does, in fact, contain ‘a certain degree of objectivity (always understood as historically subjective).’

One of the wonderful developments is to understand ideology as organic and not static allows us to move away from the notion that we are just subjects who are filled with certain static characteristics like greed, kindness, selfishness, generosity etc. And that we are victims to the way in which these things have changed over historical time. Ideology becomes a very real place of contestation and struggle in the emancipatory struggle for the creation of a Beloved Community. But this is done precisely by what Gramsci terms a Philosophy of Praxis. This empowers us to understand that historical conditions have to be changed not ‘merely’ the changing the hearts of individuals. This also further clarifies what, for Gramsci means by the way in which hegemony is a totalizing process. It impacts both the inner experience of individuals and the social/political/economic realities of the moment. What for Gramsci is sometimes referred to as the Historical Bloc.

I am constantly amazed at how people wish to ‘personalize’ the political. I think this is part of the problem with our current misunderstood ‘polarized’ worldview of political discourse. I frequently hear, why do you hate Elon Musk, Bill Gates Jr. etc. I have to remind the people that I don’t know these people (nor do I suspect that the people making this observation do?). The question is not what Bill Gates or Elon Musk think or feel but in fact what these peoples ideological reality has them think or feel. If ideology functions somewhat (not totally) independent of an individuals personality or choice we can speak of a transpersonal or depersonal element to ideological formation. It is not they (Musk, Gates et al) who possess these thoughts, feelings etc. but rather given their location in this Historical Bloc they are possessed by these thoughts or feelings. To that degree it is about the necessity of altering the historical conditions under which all of us live for us to become a truly Beloved Community.

What I think we have to begin to understand is that much of what we think/feel/experience is shaped based on our location within a predetermined social environment. Yes, the primary (not exclusive) element of this environment is Class position. Teaching at many institutions I have been blessed to see the effect of ‘immersion’ experiences on a person’s foundational worldview. I am always stunned when I see a ‘business major’ student finally make it to the Frontera/Border to see how the undocumented are treated within the Capitalist (Neoliberal Free Market) system. It is for them a rude awakening how little this system which claims to aspirational claims about Freedom and Choice don’t give a damn about either of these things when it comes to these communities. Virtually no amount of them being told how Capitalism ‘Looks’ different depending on your Class location will do the trick of a day in these various realities. No amount of exposure to other viewpoints will alter one’s position but it begins us to allow a fluidity which an begin to awaken us to what Gramsci called a ‘war of positionality’ that can begin to create new layers of Class consciousness. This along with a continued application of his wonderful Philosophy of Praxis may allow us to slowly steer the course of humanity away from this death dealing system and towards a more Beloved Community.

I want to end on a very practical note. I am not naive, I am very well aware that for the Beloved Community to exist individual people who currently inhabit a certain social space (the wealthy) will cease to exist as a Class. Not the individuals but the social space they inhabit. That reality will no longer exist. To the degree that they are wedded to that identity it will be a painful experience for the individual. I have a simple example that may clarify this issue. There are certain things that I could do in my 20s, 30s even 40s that I can no longer do in my 60s (soon to be mid-60s!). I am still alive (thank God!) but certain ways that I inhabited social reality are no longer available to me. To the degree that I am wedded to that identity I must ‘die’ so that my authentic (healthy) Rene Sanchez can live at my current age. We must never lose the humanity of our sisters and brothers, but we must be honest about what it will entail for us to transform this profoundly suffering world into something more closely resembling a heaven on earth. Knowing that we will always fall short, and therefore always in need of generosity and forgiveness from our fellow creatures.

The Grand Illusion of Capital: Capitals ultimate ‘illusion’

“Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration” (Abraham Lincoln, State of the Union, December 3, 1861)

One of the most annoying, frustrating etc. experiences in my academic, educational, and intellectual life has been the unwillingness of many of my colleagues to explore the rich history of anti-Capitalist thinking. This of course, extends specifically to the Marxist traditions, but also has a variety of perspectives.

During the Mass the priest recites the words “Fruit of the Vine and work of human hands.” in reference to what was necessary to ‘make’ the bread and wine. What is most interesting to me is that the priest doesn’t mention an ‘investor’ or ‘entrepreneur’ that was needed to make the Bread of Life. It appears that someone didn’t ‘need’ to ‘invest’ in the idea of actually making food for our species. It is interesting that in the ultimate experience of our Union (communion) with God as humans we are told what is “indispensable” in creating life is nature and human hands? One of the greatest ‘illusions’ that has been perpetrated by Capital (and the Capitalist class) is the illusion of an autonomous thing called Capital. This illusion has been obviously even more perpetrated in the newest iteration of Capital which some have chosen to term Neoliberalism.

I was recently talking to a friend of mine who is also an academic and he reminded me of how ‘nothing gets done without people willing to invest in an idea’. I had many concerns and questions for him. I would also pose them to the reader. I would be interested in how others might answer it. (1) What does the term ‘invest’ actually mean? What does it ‘look’ like? If it is giving money so that the necessary items can be bought to make the item; the obvious question is ‘where did that person get the money to begin with?” (2) Does our species actually need people to ‘invest’ in our instinct for life in a very concrete way? I find it difficult to believe that people had to be ‘convinced’ to ‘invest’ in the ideas of chairs, prior to which I assume we were all standing around getting very damn tired? 😛

We have spoken so much of the ‘erasure’ of various communities in the larger historical narrative. This includes the ‘whitewashing’ of history or history as told from a Eurocentric perspective. Or how Patriarchy has silenced the voice of women throughout history. Or the incredible silencing of the Trans perspective throughout all of history. I would like to suggest that one of the most pernicious silencing has happened towards our working class community members whose ‘work of human hands’ has allowed our species to thrive. This is especially true in relation to our capacity to work together in ways that allowed us to flourish among other groups who clearly were superior to us in many very important categories.

One of the reasons why this element of brainwashing that Capital has been able to accomplish so masterfully is of such vital importance to call out is that this illusion it truncates our capacity to respond to the situation at hand. In many ways we are constantly fighting shadows as though they were reality. I have spoken about this before but two of the ways this illusion manifests itself in our public discourse is

(1) In the ‘natural’ language of private property. We don’t realize that the concept of private property, particularly in its current iteration, is merely a functional myth to support wealth accumulation. and

(2) Because we begin from this illusion, we immediately deal with the question of life on earth and all political/economic questions from the location of ‘distribution.’ We ask ourselves “By what right do we have to ask Elon Musk, Bill Gates etc. to share ‘their’ wealth (which they of course are the sole creators of!).

Because of this error, we (the much larger percentage of our species) begin from a place of defensiveness. For me this is not a ‘personal’ attack on wealthy people. ALL OF US CREATE THINGS WITH “fruit of the vine and work of human hand(s).” This in no way would negate the incredible amount of ‘work of human hands’ done by anyone among our species. To the degree that many people are deeply concerned with being ‘woke’ during these times, I think that our capacity to awaken from the dreams (actually nightmares for most people) that Capital is trying to make us believe brought forth by this insight is an important first step in our liberation.

“Perception is Reality” and other lies found in current political discourse

Realizing that we are living in a ‘post-truth’ world I think it is important to revisit a much older debate between the Idealist (aka Hegelian) vision of the world versus the Materialist (aka Marxist) vison of the world. I am currently writing a paper for presentation in the upcoming ACTHUS conference to be held this summer in Portland, Oregon. One of the items I will be addressing is the need for many of the social science disciplines to become reacquainted with the historical-materialist philosophies in general and the Marxist tradition(s) in particular. Given the incredible times through which we are living through I think this shift is absolutely imperative.

One of the elements that made the rise of Neoliberal ideology so powerful is its ability to ‘naturalize’ things that are in fact human constructions. Some of these things are steeped in a slow and arduous historical development process undertaken by the ruling class. A resource to understand these developments would be to look at the work of David Harvey (“A Brief History of Neoliberalism”) and Quinn Slobodian (“Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism”) among so many others too numerous to mention. The point is that some of what we simply call ‘the way things are’ truly have been constructed by the owning class over a longer historical period of time than most of us are accustomed to thinking about. This has created a sort of truncated capacity among virtually all of society to imagine anything outside of a very limited and circumscribed reality. The term Capitalist Realism was coined by Mark Fisher. In his work (by the same name) he posits that the Capitalist class has created the conditions by which there is “the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it.” Part of the way this ‘false consciousness’ is achieved is by a systematic erasure of all manners by which ‘ideas’ come into existence. This especially includes the material/historical conditions that are used to create, disseminate and maintain certain ideas. This includes the very concrete manner in which certain ideas are funded, spread, re-enforced, rewarded etc. One of the greatest understandings brought forth by the rise of a historical-materialist methodology is to see how virtually all ideas and social constructs are always at the behest of certain communities and equally at the detriment of other communities.

When I was a kid working on the fields (this was true even years later) I would notice that we were paid a certain amount of money for our labor (as an example, picking apples). I would later see these very same items (apples) priced at the store. It made no sense to me how little we were paid, given how much the apples “cost” at the store. I began to wonder where did all the other “money” go to that was being made by the selling of these items. I of course later learned the tired old ‘myths’ of the risks taken by the Capitalist (Land owning) people who we worked for. I can honestly say that I never saw a landowner have seizures from working in the unrelenting heat of the fields. As a child I did, more than once see, this in my time out there. Years (decades) later I saw video of miners working some miles in the earth ‘risking’ life and limbs for their work. I suspect that to make anything many people ‘risk’. But I was always amazed at how the rewards and the risks seemed not to be proportionate in any way that seemed just/fair. The reason I bring this up is because I am constantly amused/infuriated when I hear people talk about how Karl Marx (and Marxist theory) incites or creates ‘class warfare.’ Most members of the working class don’t need a 19th century secular Jewish Brother to tell them they are being screwed! But one of the benefits of Marxism and the Historical-Materialist method is that it allows us to place words around some elements of our experience. It allows us to call forth a more cogent expression of the quotidian experiences of the working class. It also allows us some explanatory expression for the relationships that are ‘mystified’ within a Capitalist system. Including the question “How come farm workers were sleeping under bridges after working picking apples all day and the owners of the land seemed to have homes (sometimes more than one!)”? Hmmm? Truly a mystery for the ages?

Another wonderful insight from Marx and the Historical-Materialist school is the now ubiquitous notion that all ideas are historically conditioned. Marx is famous for having said that “The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.” and in another location he elaborates by saying

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”

What is most important to me about this insight is that it is so often overlooked in our historical milieu. We now sometimes laugh at the absurdity of the Divine Right of Kings, knowing that this idea was birthed, maintained, and perpetuated by the ruling class at the time. Specifically, the feudalistic aristocracy of that historical period. What is so often forgotten is that this insight is equally true now. I once saw a bumper stick that said, “If you think the system is working, asking someone who isn’t” We completely and ignorantly presuppose that the owning class (and all their ‘intellectual’ leaders/representatives) say “This is the best we can do” or “This is the best system we can come up with in all of human history” (the old End of History thesis! LOL) are somehow telling us the pure and unvarnished truth. This is the one time that the ruling class ideas are not going to ‘appear’ as the ‘natural’ ideas of this age. While at some level many people know this isn’t true the moment you bring up the possibility of how these insights are historically conditioned based on the relations of production that allow human existence to exist you are called………..you guessed it…A MARXIST. (clutch pearls to chest in a dramatic fashion!)

I can’t tell you how many times I have been heard by well educated people the phrase “That sounds like Marxism” as though that was a cogent, insightful critique or even an actual thought! My sarcastic response is that if Marx called the chair, I am sitting in at this moment a chair some people might be tempted to call this simply a “Marxist analysis” or “Marxist interpretation” which may be true, but in fact, it is also a fucking chair! You don’t have to believe everything Marx said is right (thereby being a dogmatic Marxist) but you also can’t be dismissive of a thought uttered by Marx, Marxist (or the Historical-Materialist school) simply out of hand because it contradicts your perception. Perception is not reality!

My Life Among the Books…or “A guy walks into a library….and his life is changed forever…”

I have lately been very blessed to have a lot more time to do my ongoing reading. One of the main reasons I love summer is precisely that it allows me the leisure to read throughout the day. I find that I am doing it frequently in coffess shops and more recently in my local public library. (I do a lot of reading during the school year at our school library! 🙂 Great praise to our wonderful library staff!) I have come to realize that I have learned so much not just from books but from the actual act of reading. I also realized that reading has functioned in many ways throughout my life. I would like to explore this important aspect of my life. I hope the reader will find something of value?

I always remember loving to read. One of my earliest memories is going with my sister to the public library as she went there to study (and hang out with friends). She would deposit me in the children’s section of the library and I would be completely lost in a world (really universe!) beyond all limits. I was no longer in South Park in Santa Rosa, but I was roaming with the tyrannosaurus rex or in the depth of the ocean in a submarine. I was solving mysteries with the Three Investigators (and Alfred Hitchcock!) or understanding how people built the pyramids. So many faces, places, feelings, thoughts. etc. It was truly a marvel. I also have wonderful memories of the going to the local park and getting to go into the Book Mobile. It was such a wonderful feeling to know that I could visit this magical place in my own neighborhood. It was like entering a space ship/time machine/magic ship all in one! I think at this time reading functioned both to take me away from some of the worse (and most painful experiences) of my life. It also allowed me to realize how much I was not ‘captive’ to the very apparent reality that was all around me. Reading also gave me a ‘glimmer’ of something (someone) larger. My father used to be a huge reader. In fact I have very vivid memories of him reading. I always thought that part of being a Man was to be a reader. It was just a given. My father once told me a story about how once he was asked by another farmworker why he read so much? The man said that he wouldn’t be able to ‘use’ what he read. He was just a field worker? My father responded that reading allowed him to understand the world and himself better. That we always needed to think! I now realize that reading helped develope my thinking skills. It is now fashionably called ‘critical thinking’ but back then it was just called thinking? LOL . I suspect that one of the reasons that Neoliberalism has such a chokehold on us is because we are so incapable of understanding and engaging our capacities to live in a world of our creation. I am constantly amazed how the young people (and many adults!) are truly mesmerized by the current historical moment and are incapable of placing themselves within a historical context. They “think” that this is ‘the way it is’. I remember seeing a bumper sticker in Berkeley that said “Don’t believe everything you think”. Reading challenges me to always be ‘on my toes’ when it comes to learning. It allows me to realize that the way things are is not (nor ever really was) the way it has always been (or will always be!).

The next time I remember being very much involved with books and reading in a conscious way was after high school. Before I speak about that time I must say that I had such wonderful teachers in both Jr. High and High School. It would require another blog entry entirely to do them all justice. Here, I will only briefly mention how my love of learning and discovery, curiousity etc. which began with my parents was fueled by many others throughout my life. This includes being ‘jealous’ of seeing my sister doing ‘homework’ for school. Imagine being told you had to learn…and given the time! She would get to stay up past her bedtime to do homework! I remember not being able to wait until I would be a grown up and had that job…yes! 🙂 I must admit sometimes while in school myself, the homework thing did lose some of its appeal…lol. I also will mention here Mr. Patterson, Mr. Cleek, Ms. Maeda, Mr. Fox. Mr. Latimer, Ms. Haenel among so many others! However after the time in compulsory education I went to the Santa Rosa Jr. College. I recall not finding enough satisfaction in some of the classes. I now realize I was also struggling with other issues that required some attention be brought to bear on them. I ‘dropped out’ of college at 18 and didn’t return until I was 27.

During these 9 years. I became what I would later identify as a working class intellectual. It was what Antonio Gramsci the Italian Marxist would call an ‘Organic Intellectual’. I basically worked odd jobs during the day (Sears automotive, daycare, putting up window sidings, youth minister, roofing etc.) and just read anything I wanted at night. I basically worked just to pay rent and eat. I certainly was helped by my family and especially my mom! God bless her! She never really ‘pressured’ me into doing something with my life. I did a lot of interesting things during that time in my life. I will give but 2 examples of how reading was a part of my life.

I was working as a youth minister during some part of this time in my life. It was the in many ways the first ‘real job’ that I had. It was a bit more professional (white collar) then some of the other jobs from that period. I was given a budget to run the youth program for a church. This included a budget for what was termed professional developement. This included a budget to buy books! I couldn’t believe it! They were paying me to buy books and read them! It was utterly insane (to my way of thinking at the time!) The first book that I bought was the 2 volume set by Richard McBrien entitled Catholicism. I remember reading that book(s) cover to cover. One of the most wonderful things about that book was that McBrien would make reference to various intellectuals that had shaped the Catholic theology and more broadly the Western intellectual tradition. I would find ‘ideas’ that were presented in the text that were of interest to me and then go and find those authors and read their stuff! So as an example I read about Jacques Maritain and his encounter with the Existentialist philosophy. I was lead to read many of the Existentialist philosophers etc. It was fantastic! Plus, I could use part of my ‘working hours’ to read…(professional developement!). This was actually allowed and encouraged! One of the most powerful things that came from that time was my encounter with Karl Marx and the Marxist tradition(s) This was in large part due to the confluence of many factors but especially how the Church became deeply politicized due to what was going on in Latin America. I, of course, fell in love with Liberation Theology. To this day I consider my reading of A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation by Gustavo Gutierrez on of the pivotal moments in my life. The reason I bring this up now is that during the time that I read this intellectual tradition it was a time when I was reading everything I could get my hands on. This included other economist (Hayek, Friedman, Mises, Keynes etc.) along with other ideas (I read Freud, Jung, Friedan, Steinem, Abzug,) I was also introduced to early LGBTQ movements and thinkers such as the writing of Robert Goss among so many others. What I found so wonderful about this period was that there was no ‘labeling’ for me in terms of putting people (or myself!) in boxes! I just judged each thinker on the merits of their ideas. Did it make sense?, did it seem to reflect reality (or the Real)?, did it resonate with my experience (or the experience of various communities that I was encountering)? etc. This is why years later I was astounded that people would be so dismissive of me by saying ‘you sound like a Marxist’. I never had anyone say I sounded like a Jungian? Or Maritainian? The people that were most dogmatic about putting me in a box were the anti-Marxist, this is particularly true in the academy but also in regular public discourse? I really never felt that Marx deserved any special place above other thinkers. Some of his ideas were super wonderful, some not so much. I still feel that way about viritually all of the intellectuals that I encounter (including myself! Some of my ideas are wonderful…some, not so much 🙂 😦 LOL !!!! )

The second example I give about my love for learning came during the same period of my life and also occurred while working the same job. Along with being given a budget I encountered another aspect of professional life. It was called 2 week paid vacation! I had never heard of sucha thing. You literally got paid while not having to go into work. Wild! Wild! 🙂 Because no one in my family really knew what this was about I just configured my own ‘vacation’. I asked a handful of people that I respected what books they would reccommend or has been of importance in their development. I was given a list of about 5-7 books. I bought the books. With my 2 week paycheck, I drove down to San Luis Obispo, I rented a motel 6 and did nothing but go to various beaches (Pismo, Avila etc.) and read. I finished all the books and ate Mexican food and danced at nightclubs! My 2 week pay lasted about 10 days. I went to my mom’s house and asked if I could live there for the remainder of my vacation…ahhhh the good old days! 🙂

At some point during this part of my life (and a little later) a strange phenomena becan to occur, I was asked to ‘speak’ at various events and for various audiences. Communities of various kinds (high school religion classes, confirmation groups, church youth groups , labor unions, civic organizations etc.) would ask me to speak on various topics. I would research (basically read a ton of material on said topic!) and then talk about it. I found this type of ‘work’ very gratifying. It was also wonderful because I could use my reading and nascent teaching skills to good use. For me that always meant working for the Common Good (to use CST parlance). Finally I had enough people tell me that I should just go back to school and ‘become a teacher’. Since I was doing a lot of teaching anyway. So….I did. 🙂

I realized that I wanted to be a teacher and found that the most powerful area that I was drawn to studying was theology. Here I will have to do a bit of a detour. During the period mentioned above I was doing a lot of political work (for me, not in comparison to some of the other people I was working with who I consider true political activist!). I was also doing a lot of ‘soul searching’ and asking theological questions. I felt like these two communities sometimes didn’t fully understand the need to have both issues addressed. I felt like the political activist were unaware of the need to ‘change the heart’, to use a phrase found in some spiritual literature. I also felt that some spiritual/self-improvement folks were not aware of the need to address in a very concrete manner the material conditions under which people lived. Sometimes it was not just a matter of ‘changing your mind, changing the world’. This binary reality was super difficult for me to live with. I never felt fully at home in either community. Then I read A Theology of Liberation by Gustavo Guiterrez. I do not exaggerate when I say that I wept openly when I read his words. I had never read anything that so spoke to me. It was like an entire world had been opened up to me. I remember thinking “this guy gets it”. I felt like he understood the absolute need to always be working on these two planes of existence. Or more accurately how it really was all ONE EXISTENCE! So I decided to teach and I decided to teach theology (later what this category meant got reconfigured to include a lot of other disciplines).

I began my studies at Holy Names University where I received a B.A. in History and Religious Studies. Because this is an entry on my life with books I will not spend much time on the formal education itinerary. I do recall that the wonderful professor/nuns were astounded that I had already read so much of what we were required to read. I did begin to teach at Moreau Catholic High School (after a 1 year attempt at teaching middle school). While at MCHS I was offered the ability to continue my ‘studies’ (had I ever really stopped?) by getting a Masters in Theological Studies during the summer at the University of Notre Dame. I was absolutely thrilled. Again, it was astouding to me that I was essentially getting paid to read/study! I felt like a thief….scamming people! 🙂 I loved it so much! There was an episode very near the end of my time getting this degree that I was once again reminded of how importand reading was in my life. In order to receive our M.T.S. we had to take comprehensive exams. This required us taking oral and written exams based on the selections of many, many preassignmed books. It was somewhat grueling process but one that I loved. In any case after the exams I had chosen to stay on campus the extra 2-3 weeks until graduation (rather than return to my home in Berkeley). I remember that my exams ended on Friday. On Saturday I went for a run (around the beautiful lakes on campus) and then went to the ND bookstore and promptly bought about 5-6 books to read during the ‘time off’. Some books were clearly light reading (a humor book by Janeane Garofalo and Ben Stiller entitled “Feel This Book: An Essential Guide to Self-Empowerment, Spiritual Supremacy, and Sexual Satisfaction) but others were fairly dense intellectual tomes. I remember Lawerence Cunningham finding me early in week sitting outside reading one of the books on of the more intellectual books. He was amazed and reminded me that most people who ‘survive comps’ usually don’t ‘crack a book for a year or two afterwards’. I told him that for me that made no sense. He commented on this meaning I might be a candidate for doctoral studies. I assured him that I was not interested and just wanted to go back and teach high school…..I entered the Doctoral Program at Boston college within a few years! 🙂 Throughout it all….reading, reading, reading. But I always remember feeling the need to share (teach) what I was learning with other people. I was always blessed and honored to be asked to work with various communities and contribute in some small way to their projects/movements.

I continue to read and teach. I have been blessed and honored to do both in a variety of contexts! I most recently have realized something about how reading has function to make me a better teacher. In fact it was, in part, this realization that made me begin this entry. I have met some teachers who lose patience with their students because they are amazed at how slow the students are or how they don’t seem motivated. I think what we forget to realize is the incredible amount of WORK IT IS TO LEARN SOMETHING FOR THE FIRST TIME. To encounter, engage and try to comprehend completely new material is truly an onerous task. I am currently reading a book entitled Mute Compulsion: A Marxist Theory of the Economic Power of Capital by Soren Mau. It is absolutely brutal! I will read entire pages and not know what the hell the Brother is talking about! It is sooooooooo unnerving. I consider myself intelligent but it can be humbling, frustrating and also, yes incredibly exciting. But I can only hand that level of intellectual challenge for a bit of time. I can only imagine what it would be like to inhabit that space for hours, and hours at a time. I think it is salutory for all teachers to periodically find ways to remind themelves what it feels like to be an absolute neophyte at something. I find that just having this ongoing reminder allows me to look at my students with a bit more patience, love, compassion and humanity. I suspect that for me reading has always function to make me, and the world around me more humane, and ultimately more Divine. Thank you God for the gift of reading.

Fundamental Shift(s) in Political Discourse: Lessons for the 21st century

Early this week we witnessed the first of the 2024 Presidential Debates in the United States. It was seen by many of the for-profit media conglamorates and their talking heads as an absolute disaster for Presidential incumbent Biden. He appeared incoherent and in a mental fog. His ‘opponent’ was the more openly fascist Donald Trump. He was, as always, good for his entertainment value as a huckster. Besides his dangerous political ideology he is the living embodiment of the ‘amusing ourselves to death’ reality spoken about many years ago by Neil Postman. In recovery they have a ‘joke’ that goes something like;

“How can you tell if an active addict is lying?” “How”, “His lips are moving”.

In a sense that is how Trumpian reality is best explained. Rather than talk about how often he lies, it is best to see how often he tells the truth. I actually believe some of his appeal is precisely that he is able, for whatever reason, to say ‘truths’ that others in the ruling class are disallowed from articulating. Before Trump supporters get too ‘happy’ about my support for Brother Trump, please go back and read my comment. “others in the ruling class”. Please make no mistake…Donald Trump is a member of the ruling class. If you think he gives a shit about you because of the color of your skin or your ‘flag decal’ you are too stupid to really get it. By the way, don’t be mad at me, he of course famously said “I love the poorly educated people”. By the way, note that he is intelligent (to some extent), he didn’t say ‘uneducated’ You can have a very strong steady diet of shitty ideas fed to you, and be ‘well educated’ and stupid as a wooden post. Many middle-class U.S. citizens fit in this category. Remember what I said above, it is very important to take seriously when he speaks truthfully, especially because it is so insightful and rare.

The second thing to note about the debate was how evident it was that it simply illuminated the decay and rot of a system whose entire existence was predicated on lies, mendacity and delusional assertations. If you read my piece on Neoliberalism it does begin to express my understanding of the way the system has essentially bullshitted the vast majority of people in the United States. The lies of Neoliberalsim, probably did not effect the majority of the world, but certainly much of the global North and some elements of the rest of the world. There are too many assumptions that were/are treated as assertations by anyone trying to defend this system to create a complete list but here are a few:

Capitalist are ‘job creators’. This is a super powerful lie precisely because, in fact, Reality is diamtrically oppossed to this assertion. During the pandemic it was astounding how quickly the whole of society was able to ‘pivot’ and see who are true ‘essential’ workers! Then of course, after the crisis, we are told to ‘forget about it’ (to paraphrase a folk song “I was taken again, my friend”…ugh!)
Rich people are individually gifted in some special way. This also was packaged for exploited (and marginalized) people as a lie. Somehow my individual success was suppose to help other people without there being any need to change the actual social conditions under which people lived. I sometimes call this the ‘representation’ myth. Examples abound in the way the culture views Oprah Winfrey, and Beyonce or any individual who comes to represent success for ‘the group’ (exactly how this occurs is never explained very well? :P)
All reality is really a product of natural forces. This is actually somewhat accurate but only operates in a salutory fashion if we take seriously the Marxist quote which goes something like this;
- The “ruling ideas” of a given epoch are, however, those of the ruling class: “The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas ..

The reason that the ‘natural fallacy’ position holds such sway, as I mentioned in a previous post was, in part, (no, not totally, but a helluva lot!) because the minute you bring up how the common sense ideas sure seem to echo the necessary ideas to continue the status quo you are accused of relativism and/or worse Marxist Ideology! (OH NO!) or worse of all, you are accused of being A Marxist (Gasp, holding my pearl necklace). We don’t see how our current political, economic, cultural, technological existence is predicated on some very concrete historical events. Can it all be explained in perfect ‘scientific’ terms? No of course not, but to treat something as obviously historical as our current houselessness issue as a ‘disaster’ or ‘tragic’ as something which we can do nothing about is beyond stupid. I remember a series of pieces which speak to this reality. This was a headline found in the wonderful satirical source The Onion.

“‘No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens” is the title of a series of articles perennially published by the American news satire organization The Onion satirizing the frequency of mass shootings in the United States and the lack of action taken in the wake of such incidents.

Given the constraints of this post, I can’t fully elaborate the way in which each of the ‘ideas’ mentioned abover were in display on the debate stage but I would like to just give one obvious example. I am certain everyone reading this blog is conscious that there are many, many political parties in the United States….or are there??? 😛 You see, the difference between a blind man, a man who has a blindfold, a man whose eyes are willfully closed is indistinguishable in terms of capacity to engage in reality. It is odd that we have multiplied by an astronomical amount the way in which the debate could be viewed (streaming, tv, computer, phone etc.) and yet we get the same two dumbshit idiots spewing out nonsensical ideas! Our conception of the possible hasn’t been thwarted at all, has it!? Rather it has been shaped in a very precise manner. It allows us to ‘develope’ options…or does it!? 😛

As I close this piece I am reminded of an important element in the title of this post. I want to give a least some lessons for the 21st century. I will only speak briefly of some of the things I have learned or been reminded of in recent times. When I say recent, I will say probably within the last 20 + years! I am sooooooooooooo old! Ugh! 😦

I realized that I have to let go of the idea (and feeling) that the representatives/leadership of the Democratic Party are on ‘my team’. I now realize that they are not on my team, nor do they want what I want. This may have always been the case, that is up for some discussion. What is clear is that anything that represents the vast majority of people’s experience, aspirations in the United States was not to be found on the debate stage that evening. We have to accept that those who have willfully disengaged of the current political process may have something to teach us. I don’t believe their word can be the last word in the discourse. I don’t think the solution is disengagement, but I do think their response is a key piece of the conversation that we need to hear. I remember the great Prophet George Carlin saying “They don’t care about you” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aiFp-XqV_M). By the way, I know some people will view this as cynicism. let me be very, very clear I am not only not cynical, I am profoundly hopeful. I know that those two men on the debate stage represent only an absolutely miniscule portion of our species. In many ways, they represent the worse elements of ourselves. They are also victims to a system that is far beyond their capacity to control or transcend. We are remarkably lovely creatures. One of the ‘big lies’ told by the system is to make us deeply suspicious of each other. For those of you that know that I subscibe to many not-for-profit news magazines know that one of the most obvious difference is how human experience is covered. Millions will march against a war and get no coverage, a tragic mentally ill brother goes on a killing rampage…guess which event the for-profit media is going to cover? You hear so many ‘educated’ people talk about the ‘if it bleeds it leads’ rule in journalism, but no one asks, why does that have to be the rule!? Remember this is not an arbitrary decision! “I love my poorly educated people”…indeed they do! 😛

The second idea/feeling that I have to begin to reconfigure is how to understand my identity. I have spoken to my dear brother (and Brother) Al about how he views the world. He speaks about inhabiting a world called ‘Turtle Island’. I find myself drawn towards other geographies, topographies, ways of inhabiting the world also. The creation of the Beloved Community. Kindom of God, (no not Kingdom!). No one term will ever fully capture this Grand Mystery of which we are only a small part. It is a place that is sovereign in a manner that demands that I surrender some very foundational elemens of my existence and identity. Here I am reminded of a lovely quote by the great Jesuit thinker Karl Rahner. I think here is where I find myself.

It is a floating island, and it might be more familiar to us than the sea, but ultimately it is borne by the sea and only because it is can we be borne by it. Hence the existentiell question for the knower is this: Which does he love more, the small island of his so-called knowledge or the sea of infinite mystery? (Karl Rahner S.J.)

From this new location, the debate stage that had Donald Trump and Joe Biden is not so despairing a location or even much of a place to stay ‘stuck’. I prayerfully move forward.

Neoliberalism

I am still learning to understand what it means to live in an age of unprecedented uncertainty. I believe that the ideology which can go by many names, including Neoliberalism has so ‘distorted’ reality in such a manner that it may be beyond repair. In one sense Neoliberalism is just another iteration of Capitalism. Yet, I can’t help but feel that this iteration is of a particularly damaging mode precisely because it operates at such a subtle level. This means that, like the great Italian Marxist much of our oppression and exploitation now occurs by ‘consent rather thatn coericion’. I am also aware that this is an ongoing struggle. In this entry I would like to point out somethings that I think might help us fight the old/new patterns of exploitation which plague not only our species but the precious planet.

I would say that the first task is our need to be very explicit in our position as Anti-Capitalist. I also think that our critique towards the system has to be precise without being pedantic. I think we have to be willing to embrace an element of more traditional categories and understandings around political-economic theories. There is a famous story told of how Karl Marx once said “I am not a Marxist”. It was, I believe, given in the spirit of not wanting to be dogmatic in ones understanding of Marxist tradition(s). I think that it is very, very important to be vigilant to avoid dogamtic thinking, however I also believe that it is important to truly engage any and all intellectual traditions in a way that shows that we are sincere and serious about their content. I think we are waaaaaaaaaay to ‘cautious’ about not wanting to appear ‘like Marxist’! So much so, that I know many United States intellectual that are profoundly ignorant of Marx. I honestly believe that this is completely unexcusable given that he is without question one of the best, most precise critics of Capitalism. I wish to state that I am not saying agree with him (or don’t agree with him!). I am saying that, given that we live in world that is profoundly shaped by Capitalist logic, reality, concepts etc. it is imbecilic to be ignorant of the work of one of its seminal critics. One of the danger of this degree of ignorance in the United States can be seen in the example of a recent book written by Mark R. Levin entitled American Marxism. To say that this work is a tragic waste of paper is to be a bit too generous. I do feel sad that natural resources were used to produce this work. However, I have talked to some people who have read it and think that, in doing that, they have a ‘grasp’ of Marx and the Marxist tradtion(s). We, particularly the educated elite have to be willing to familarize the general population enough with Marxism to know when a intellectual hack is doing a butcher job. It is not enough to say. “I don’t like Mark Levin”. You will just be told that you are against his political perspective. It is very important to be clear that he is categorically and factually incorrect in his understanding of the Marxist tradition(s). The other benefit of familiarizing yourself with Marxist thought is that it will make it ‘less scary’ for the lay person. I will end this section by reccommending the work of Richard Wolfe. This includes his online presence. He is a remarkable economist that is within the Marxist tradtion. Unlike some academics (you know who you are! LOL) he is able to ‘talk regular’ so that he can explain Marxist theories with a great facility. Great work!!! I would also reccomend the work of Hadas Thier.
I have spoken about this earlier in various formats, but I think we must move away from our ‘silo’ liberation mentality. This includes a very intentional and ongoing commitment to the Other. Here I will go back to some of my work that I did in writing my dissertation. I did some study on the work of Emmanuel Levinas for my doctoral project. Levinas spoke eloquently about the deep commitment to the Other. He spoke of the birth of Ethics as beginning with the encounter with the Other. I certainly found his work incredibly convincing. I was also deeply moved by the Cuban-American theologian, Justo Gonzalez as describing Jesus as embodying the life of a “man for others’ in the most profoundest sense of that phrase. I believe that the best way to manifest this ethical insight expressed as a deep commitment in solidarity with the Other we must be willing to rethink some traditional categories of liberation struggles. Pope Francis speaks of the ‘hyper individualism’ that is so toxic to our world today. I would argue that this ‘hyper-individualistic’ worldview is sometimes carried into our liberation struggles. To give a simple example I obviously don’t just see myself as Dr. Rene Sanchez but I view myself as a proud Chicano Theologian/Ethicist. I take seriously how my accomplishment of a Ph.D. is also helping (in some form) the larger struggle of Raza to dismantle the shackles of White Supremacist existence. But I also am aware that in one sense my focus on my Chicanismo is another form of ‘hyper-individualism’! Only now I have defined the ‘individual’ within the context of the Chicano/Raza experience. It is still in the end about me, in some iteration. I used to joke with my students about how Justice (Just Us) could never be about Just Us! 🙂 But I now realize it can also never be about any Just Us. So that Chicano Justice can never be about Just Us Chicanos! Catholic Justice can never be about Just Us Catholic’s. etc. I believe Levinas’ insight is correct. Ethics (or Justice) begins with the Other! Simply put, no iteration of ‘me’ is acceptable to do the work necessary to liberate us from our current predicament. I think we have to begin to create IN EVERY SOCIAL MOVEMENT a particular aspect of that movement whose sole purpose is to concern themselves (as a community/movement) with the well being of another community. The key, is to do this with great intention. This would include giving material support to the other communities. This will require a massive shift in our priorities. I recall Bernie Sanders in some of his early presidential rally’s asking everyone in atttendance to commit to ‘fight’ for people that didn’t look like them, think like them etc. This call for deep solidarity is an absolute must for the struggles ahead.
The third feature will appear to be a reversal of all that is said above…lol. Just see it as ‘dialectical move’. 🙂 . I think we have to create alternative communities and resources etc. outside of the circuitry of Capitalist structures. I see this especially in 2 areas. The first is in education. The Right has been absolutely brilliant at understanding the importance of attacking the foundation of an educated citizenry by attacking the education system. Their attack on public education is a clever and smart way to create the necessary preconditions for exploitation and domination. We need to create an entire way of speaking to the need for popular education. This would entail the creation of some new strategies and a reinvigoration of older strategies; here I will only give two projects that I see as indispensable as we move forward. What I mean by this is that these projects wil have to be worked on in order to liberate ourselves from our current level of ignorance/intellectual torper.
- We must be clear that education should not (and can not ) properly function within the logic of the Market. There are certain things that are destroyed by placing them within Market parameters. This will go against the foundational logic of Neoliberalism. It is one of the “Big Lies” that we have been sold. Simply put, it is a load of crap. We must be willing to openly admit that all education is a kind of indoctrination. There is no ‘neutral’ education. That is a myth. There is no ‘source’ of knowledge that exists outside of human experience. Because this is the case, all education is ultimately a profoundly contested terrain. We only weaken our position when we try to speak of a ‘good education’ that doesn’t take sides. To paraphrase Howard Zinn; “You can’t be neutral on a moving train”. One of the ways we will have to confront this reality is in the painful way in which education, particularly private education (especially Cathloic schools which I am so familiar with) is beholden to wealthy endowments and corporate structures. The very nature of this relationship creates conditions that make genuine liberative education impossible.
- The second area that needs a strong reimagining and reconceptualizing is the area of government. We must be clear about the need to reinvigorate faith in politics in general and specifically in the State. There are many ways to understand this question. I have found the work of Quinn Slobodian, and Ellen Meiksins Wood among so many others to be helpful in better understanding this issue. One of the fundamental features, and another of the big lies of Neoliberalism is the ongoing ‘bad mouthing’ of Government. This intentionally opaque term has been used to discredit one of the only instruments found in society that can combat the evils of Capital. We seem to hear about how ‘the government’ is always a inefficient, bureaucratic, regulatory monster which only exists to impede our freedoms and invade our lives. Making our lives a living hell. The subtlety with which this concept has been introduced to the ‘common sense’ of the people is incredible. Taking the form of comedic jibes offered by everyone from late night hosts to ‘liberal’ pundits that claim to be for liberation. This has allowed the rise of many dangerous ideologies to appear rational, this includes but is not limited to the most absurdist Libertarian positions having some cache and gravitas in our political discourse. I wish to be clear that I am deeply troubled by how the Capitalist Class has captured the functioning of all aspects of the State. However the fact that the government is working remarkably well for the Ruling Class is precisely why I know it can work so well for the common good. One of the ideas conveyed in the writing of Slobodian is that the Ruling Class actually ‘encases’ itself in the government in order to protect its actions and execute some of the necessary actions for it to continue to exploit, accumulate wealth etc. The State also functions to not only protect property, but to give them an easy scapegoat when it comes to explaining the contradictions found in Capitalism (over-regulation is the problem, or government interference etc.). This disallows the larger population to marshall evidence for a more accurate critique of why things are as they are. So much more could be said about this, but suffice to say that we must find a way to speak of the government, and the State in a way that shows our ongoing support for its importance in creating a beloved community. We have to articulate a vision of the government as an instrument that is indispensable in the creation of a more just social order. We can do this in such a way that avoids the mistakes made in the past, including the ‘state-run’ Capitialist enterprise that has at times been mistaken for an authentic Socialist State.

One of the insights brough to forefront by Antonio Gramsci is that the ruling class who is in part defined by ‘owning the means of production’ would eventually own the ‘means of mental production’. This of course would include the ideas that were circulated among the population. This comes in the form of realizing who. in fact, controls the media, education, social content (both entertainment and informational). This would include understanding the profound way in which ownership begats perspective and interpretation. It is always astounding to me how truncated our vision of the possible is in the United States. But this is true all over the world to varying degrees. One of the ways that Neoliberalism has succeeded is that it has been a master at creating a seamless ‘natural’ world in which this is ‘just the way it is’. This includes re-writing history, science, culture etc. The absolute most cogent and precise artculation of this issue is found in an article written by George Monbiot in The Guardian entitled “Neoliberalism-the Ideology at the Root of All Our Problems. (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot). In this article he does a masterful job of summarizing the way in which Neoliberalism has ‘hijacked’ virtually all social discourse and reality all while staying ‘invisible’. I think one of the great functions of Marxism (among other Radical critiques) is that it denaturalizes the social reality in which we find ourselves. I remember that a famous line by the comedian/Prophet George Carlin is that “It’s called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it”. I think it is time we wake up from our slumber.

The Authority of Our Master

“Do we believe in God? or do we believe in our beliefs about God and, in so doing, perhaps really believe only in ourselves or in what we would like to think about ourselves?”

Johann Baptist Metz: A Passion for God, Theology as Theodicy.

I sometimes write impelled by rage. This is one of those times. I am writing as I contemplate the full repercussions of the overturning of Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court. I am also speaking not only to the secular forces but also to the religious forces that allowed this to occur. Because I believe that they are, in a phrase made popular by Cornel West, “inseparable but not identical”. I am very conscious that this event occurred sometime ago. I began this entry back then but have recently come back to it. Particularly given that this an election year and that I know these issues (like it or not) will have some visibility in public discourse.

I am a very proud Theologian/Ethicist who is formed (and informed) within the broad Catholic tradition. I always seek to shape my conscience (I aspire to a ‘properly formed conscience’) using the tools of this broad and inclusive tradition. When I teach the proper formation of conscience, I remind my students that they are to always engage three sources in making am moral decisions: Scripture, Tradition, and Experience. In the debate or discussion about two particular issues that are seen as so significant in importance I am constantly amazed at the way in which all Faith has been lost, this is particularly true among some of the religious hierarchy.

I remember Alan Jones in his wonderful work entitled Soul Making writes that ‘The opposite of faith isn’t doubt it’s certainty’. I find this to be a deep, wise, and significant insight. I have always found that my authentic Faith has sprinkled in a healthy dose of lingering doubt. The doubt comes not from my lack of belief in there being an actual Truth but in my acknowledgment of my inability to fully grasp this, Truth. I have faith in God/Truth/Reality not in my beliefs about God!

I am constantly amazed that the two vital issues that have shaped Catholic/Christian political discourse in the United States is abortion and homosexuality! What is most staggering, and I truly mean utterly stunning is that neither of these issues is ever addressed by Jesus. The Master of our Religion. The person we claim is God on Earth! In the entire corpus of Gospel writings (and even the apocryphal writings, to my knowledge) Jesus never, ever, ever, ever (yeah, I know…. a lot of ever!) ever, ever, ever, ever brings up either of these issues. This is not a matter of trying to ‘interpret’ what he means on this issue! I mean that he never speaks about this at all! In the ‘language’ of the young folks that I teach….wtf!!! How in the hell did inclusion into a Faith tradition that is explicitly based on the life of one person (The Scandal of Particularity!) have been hijacked by idiots who can claim, with a large degree of impunity that the central tenet of Faith is something which the Master never spoke of! How is this possible?

I would like to briefly go through some of the dumbest ‘lines of defense’ that many folks who defend these positions speak about. I also want to be exceedingly clear about where I stand on these issues. I obviously think that as a person of Faith, and even particularly as a disciple of Jesus, I am called, as we are all called, to have positions (and dispositions) on various issues. This will include a variety of issues not addressed in the Gospel texts, and even within the larger Living Tradition. I also want to be very clear that we are, thanks to the great advancements in Biblical Scholarship, more aware than ever before of the wariness one can have on exactly what ‘Jesus said’. I am sympathetic to the danger in getting completely wedded to the ‘words’ of Jesus. That being said, when I teach the use of Scripture I teach the students to think thematically, or what I informally call the ‘big ideas’ found in Scripture. These idease include, part are not limited to; Covenant, Widows, Orphans, and Sojourners, the place of God’s Sovereignity amon many others.

I also remind the students that the Tradition is much, much larger than its remarkable moral wisdom, heritage and insights. I obviously have a deep love for this component of the Tradition. My favorite classes during my theological education were always the ones that dealt with ‘moral issues’; although I still have love (and curiousity) for all areas of the Tradition (Sacramental understandings, Christian Anthropology etc.) I am also deeply aware that all components are deeply imbricated in practice.

In terms of the experience piece of the moral method, I remind the student to be particularly atune to the various individuals, communities etc. that are involved in any moral issue. I remind them of the particular attention that we as Christians give to ‘the least among us’. This was articulated in liberation theological writings succinctly at a ‘preferential option for the poor’. This will require a being in constant vigilance towards the ‘signs of times’. This is particularly true in a commitiment to the best of social analysis and pastoral practice.

With all this foundational work. I want to address the frequently stated concern and defense given to the way in which the Catholic Church addresses the issue of Abortion and Homosexuality.

In common language the concern or defense might be articulated like this: “Yes, Rene you are correct, Jesus didn’t address either abortion or homosexuality however there are many things he didn’t address. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about these. Or worse, not take a moral position on these important issues of our day”

I absolutely agree with the latter portion of this statement. I do think there is so much which Jesus didn’t talk about nor truly could address given the nature of historical reality. I know he didn’t say anything about nation-state ideology, Capitalism, Communism, labor unions mass media, the internet, invitro fertilization etc. I also equally believe that we are called to respond; as followers of the Master on every one of these issues and many others. I openly acknowledge that there is literally nothing in my life that is not influenced by my Faith and my commitment to follow Jesus. I think my entire world view is deeply formed (and informed) by my Faith. I also know that there are ‘layers’ to the certitude that I would give to certain moral positions and insights. In general I try to hold my moral perspectives with some degree of humility and openness. So in addressing things not spoken of in somewhat ‘explicit’ terms I would be humble in my appraisal. Let me give just one example. I am certain I am not alone in this, but nonetheless it might serve as a model. I for much of my life have been called as Communist, Socialist, Marxist etc. I will be honest, I have deep love for all of these labels. I don’t run away from identification with any of these identities but I can say with 100% assurance that my political, economic, social etc. worldview is most deeply influenced by my attempt at trying to live the Gospel values. This may shock people but I would say that given our historical juncture the best (maybe only) way to truly live out the Gospel value is to have a Socialist/Communist/Anarchist world view and to be explicitally anti-Capitalist. Obviously there would be many caveats I would put on this perspective but my for mY purspose of this entry I will just allow this simplistic articulation of my position to be stated in this manner. This being said, I would never, ever, ever say that this is THE CATHOLIC POSITION. It is precisely because Jesus didn’t talk about Capitialism or Communism or Socialism or Finance Capital or Extraction of Surplus Labor etc. that I would humbly say that this is the best articulation that I have of how to live the Gospel values given this historical period in these areas and on these specific issues. I believe that what grates me the most about how the Catholic Church (specifically elements within the Magesterium) and certain members of the Body of Christ speak to the issue of abortion and homosexuality is the profound arrogance and certitude with which they speak about these issues. Again, the opposite of Faith is not doubt but certitude. I also would never allow myself to even entertain the idea that I could dictate participating in the Sacramental life of the Church on ones position on Labor Unions ! Or that mebership in the Body of Christ (not Body of Rene!!) is based on your being in lock step with me on the proper functioning of the State in regulating the excesses of Financial Capitialist formations in 21st century reality! It is not that I think you should be ‘Pro-Choice’ (a label that I frankly detest) to be Catholic but rather that I think to speak of this issue with such a truncated and distorted understanding of the complexity of, not only the issue itself, but the entire Living Tradition is morally shallow, and lacking in critical engagement with both the issue and the Tradition.

The second issue that I have with this defense is that it consciously or unconsciously allows (or disallows us) from engaging in things that are addressed in the Gospel and teachings of Jesus. It is very true that he did not speak explicitly about abortion or homosexuality but he is said to have said the following words.

¹²Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. ¹³But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, ¹⁴and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” (Luke 4:12-14)

24″No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. (Matthew 6:24)

¹²My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. ¹³Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. ¹⁴You are my friends if you do what I command. (John15:12-24) (Here it is important to note that it is not to take somones life in defense of another but rather to die….lay down one’s life! for the defense of another)

I wish to be very clear; I am opposed to the proof texting in defense of one’s political position but nonetheless these are actual words credited to being spoken by the Master. The God/Man we are told to follow. To show the profound hypocrisy and distortion in our claim to be following the Gospel let me site two statistics. (1) The United State possesses the largest military budget in the world. In fact, at one point, we spent more than the number 2-10 countries combined. (2) We have many leading church members regularly engage in fellowship with the moneyed class. This includes our current Catholic University systems deeply beholden to wealthy donors to continue their various programs. I think it is somewhat apparent why it rings so hollow to speak with such assurance of our need to ‘protect the innocent unborn child’ (which I am in agreement with) while we give a ‘pass’ at other situations found in our current milieu. Particularly when it doesn’t take much hermeneutical expertise to figure out what Jesus’ teaching might mean for today’s situations!

I want to remind people again that even with the level of clarity offered by the texts mentioned above (among, many, many others) I would still be resistant to saying ‘this is the Catholic position’ on wealth, military spending etc. I certainly think I can make a strong case for certain positions and would challenge other positions as not as tenable. But in the end if we are serious about the Primacy of Conscience then we must be willing to submit in humility to something larger than one’s own position. This is not only true of each individual member of the Body of Christ, but I would argue that it is even more of an imperative for the entire Body of Christ. For we must remember we are members of the Body of Christ, not the Body of Rene, Cardinal X or Pope Y. At our best we are a Pilgrim People helping each other along the road.

I will close with the beautiful quote by Rumi who reminds us that in the end “We’re all just walking each other home”