During the late summer I placed several posts on my blog entitled “Presbyterians Dancing with Karl Marx.” Just about a week ago I placed some correspondence on my blog between myself and Stephen Bartlett, Coordinator for Constituency Education, with Agricultural Missions Inc. an organization affiliated with several mainline Christian denominations including Presbyterian Women and Presbyterian Hunger Program.1
One of my points in the posts was that Agricultural Missions Inc. was too deeply affiliated with a new movement which includes both the World Social Forum and the United States Social Forum . Both of these movements are related and have their roots in extreme socialism and Marxism. I asked Mr. Bartlett some questions about statements he had made including his statements about the 2006 World Social Forum which was:
"How socialism is defined and envisioned today goes beyond rigid Marxist Leninist or even Maoist concepts, and seeks for its roots in indigenous cosmovision and collective governance practices, in a radically decentralized vision for a world in which, as the Zapatistas demand, all worlds fit."
All of Mr. Bartlett’s essay about that forum can be found here: [reflections from the AMI (Agricultural Missions, Inc) Agrarian Delegation to the World Social Forum, Jan 19-31, 2006].
As I stated in the last post, on this subject, my main interest is to now pull together some of the ideas sweeping through these grassroots socialist movements and look at them through the lens of history. Finally I want to look at the Church of Jesus Christ in relation to these groups and movements.
But first some observations about some of Mr. Bartlett’s thoughts which he was very gracious to share in the last post found here: Presbyterians, Karl Marx, Cosmovision and Letters. I asked Michael Kruse of Kruse Kronicle, who writes a great deal on economics, if he would read the letter and the essay and comment. He has given permission for my use of material from his e-mail.2
The first comment I have is that in reading Mr. Bartlett’s letter I found his distinctions between capitalism and socialism a bit murky. It was hard to understand which was which, almost as though one was bleeding over into the other. I think the reader will find more clarification about capitalism by reading Michael Kruse’s definitions:
“What do we mean by capitalism? Here are some basic elements I would include:
* Privately owned business enterprises
* Relatively free markets
* Players in pursuit of endless win-win transactions
* Investment of wealth in productive activities
* Long-term future returns oriented
* Circumscribed in a strong juridical framework governing property rights and transactional justice”
Another problem I had was Bartlett’s push for what he calls 'Collective governance practices' and/or consensus decision making. He pointed to the Zapatista’s indigenous communities (a revolutionary group in Mexico) as one example and to the town hall meetings in New Hampshire as another example. The Zapatistas are attempting to forge their own territory with their own laws and economy within the country of Mexico; the people of New Hampshire are attempting to take part in the democratic practices of the United States by participating in local government. (Part of the murkiness I was referring to.)
In Kruse’s e-mail he complements Bartlett, “In some ways Bartlett is on the right track. Things need to be done through experimentation at the local level.” And here I agree. Bartlett is writing about farmers who make contracts with people in the city to buy their food directly from them. In reality the people have bought into the farm and are paying those who labor on the farm.
It is an exchange which is helpful to both sides. This is a popular practice in California where I live. But it is not socialism, it is instead localized capitalism. I can choose to buy from the farmer, buy from the farmer’s market, go to my favorite small grocery store or go to a supermarket. As for the favorite small grocery store, recently one of the butchers bought out the owner and is expanding the products selection including the wine section which was already exceptional. This is a picture of capitalism at its best and it has a lot to do with freedom.
Kruse continues, “But the aim should be for markets to emerge along with a just system of law and property rights. As wisdom from these experimentations is learned and multiplied, each nation should be able to emerge its own particular forms of economic freedom limited by certain other concerns just as they are limited in developed nations.”
But as far as such decisions about markets being made by collective governance practices Kruse has this to say:
“But the idea that a healthy national economy can be run by an expertocracy or consensus model of decision-making, is not only misguided, it will damn the population to poverty perpetually. Markets and genuine economic freedom are essential. The idea that collective economic decision making could even be possible comes from the communitarian wing of the Enlightenment/Modernist era, with its belief that sufficient reason applied by an expertocracy can lead us to a utopian common or social good. Marx was, of course, the poster boy for such
visions.”
There are other areas that are just touched on in both Bartlett’s letter and essay which I want to address using other material. One is the concept of cosmovision and indigenous peoples; here the problem of freedom of religion for the individual is emerging. Another issue is the changing world of socialism and Marxism. A postmodern debate is developing within socialism.
I also want to write about the conflicts arising because of the green movement which in its extreme forms is blending fascist socialism with leftist socialism. It is also of interest to know that there is a rising anti-Semitism in both extreme left and extreme right.
See Also: Presbyterians Dancing With Karl Marx! Part 1
(1 )In answer to a question I asked Ms Ann Ferguson, Program Coordinator, of Presbyterian Women, she stated in an e-mail to me that none of the line items in the PW budget were included in the money given to AMI. Rather the money came from the offering taken at the Presbyterian Women’s Gathering in 2006. The Editors of Horizon’s magazine reported in their Sept/Oct 2006 edition, that, “The Gathering Offering, collected during Sunday morning’s plenary session, totaled $54, 363. 61. This money will support women farmers, rangers and farm workers thanks to two organizations—Agricultural Missions, Inc. and Rural Coalition.” They go on to explain that it will also go to the Widening the Circle Fund. (27)The AMI front page of their web site has this information: Rural Women's Gathering planned for Nov 1-5, 2007 in Mexico City and Oaxtepec, Mexico. 25 women from partner organizations of both Agricultural Missions and Rural Coalition, from the U.S., Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean will gather to envision the future of rural community and economic life, to plan for future consciousness raising and to help create educational materials for people of faith. The planning process includes AMI board members Lorette Picciano, Marta Benavides, Shirley Sherrod, Shelly Vendiola and Sherry Flyr. AMI staff Stephen Bartlett and Mozzie Johnson have been accompanying this planning process. This has been made possible through the generous support of Presbyterian Women. (Bold Mine)
(2 )Michael Kruse is at this time doing a series on Christian “Economic Fallacies.” He has finished two: Economic Fallacies: "Work is Instrumental" and Economic Fallacies: "Biblical Redistribution". They are both very important reading for Christians and I am sure the rest of them will clarify errors about economic thinking from a Christian point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment