‘Changing my religion’: an ad hominem update on Christian-Marxist dialogue
Hugh Williams
‘Changing my religion’: an ad hominem update on Christian-Marxist dialogue
As you may well know this whole situation somewhat captured in the trope of ‘changing my religion’, has resulted of late in a close (almost compulsive) study of the Marxist tradition of thought. My recent reading/study of John Bellamy Foster’s “Capitalism in the Anthropocene” (2022) is reaching similar depths or is of a similar scope to what I believe I was able to accomplish with the tradition of Thomistic thought (Gilson, Lonergan, and others). (Some of these ‘findings’ and insights did manage to get published over the years.)
What has become quite clear to me is that the Marxist critique of capitalism is unsurpassed. If one wants a deep understanding of capitalism and of our political-economic situation and its historical-materialist implications for our times then, in my view, one needs to come to grips with Marxism at least to some serious degree.
But then there is this significant remainder – Marxism’s undeniable strength is in its critique but where it is limited is in its prescriptions for some way out, or beyond, capitalism’s dead end - it’s dreadful ‘burning house’, for which with recent ecological Marxist research and analysis, such as in Foster and others, now is inescapably compelling.
The constructive general prescription (alternative) that comes out of this analysis is ecological-socialism. It is a prescription, to be honest, that remains largely inchoate, emergent, and a matter of great hope, i.e., something that becomes a matter of serious praxis. It is in this area where the dialogue with Christianity can become most genuine and mutual, and even fortuitous (i.e., a matter of both good fortune and grace) because here amidst these real challenges and opportunities having to do with implementation, these two traditions of thought with their significant differences in principles and horizons are equal in my view.[1] In facing this future – they are equal in ‘not knowing-wanting to know’.
This for me is now a perspective of some resolution and it comes in part (moving closer to ‘home’) out of reading Bryan Palmer’s very recent work in Canadian history – “Capitalism and Colonialism” (2025) and especially his sections on the period following WWII towards the present which parallels my own life-time for the most part. A close look at this ‘local’ history reveals a real uncertainty in the face of our future challenges and opportunities, irrespective of the relative confidence and certainty of our analyses of this stubborn and troubled fact of our recent past.
This does speak to an ever-present possibility of novelty and of potential creative advance in any respectful/mutual engagement and agency with others along the way. This for some of us, like myself, has to be kept in mind all the while ‘we’, as more or less reflective thinkers, will always depend upon some hopefully helpful ideological orientation, whether it be informed by Lonergan or Marx, or some synthesis of the two.
Hugh
[1] As for the differences in principles (and horizons of meaning) between these two traditions one can consider Marxism’s ‘capital and labor’ and their interrelationship, and Christian-Thomism’s ‘essence and existence’ and their interrelationship. The first set of principles, ‘capital and labor’, sets out a horizon that is definitely concerned with what we call political-economy; then one can consider Christian-Thomism’s ‘essence and existence’ and the philosophical-metaphysical horizon for which this set of principles gives some measure of definition. However, one should not mistakenly assume that Marx’s thought and principles do not go as deep as Thomas’ thought, because there is a philosophical-metaphysical dimension to Marx’s principles, it is just that this is not his foremost concern.
Doug Mounce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lonergan_L" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lonergan_l+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/0f4aabe8-c337-46d9-8135-6cc733bbefe1%40nbnet.nb.ca.
Hugh Williams
Doug,
this is very good stuff in the sense of general and novel pointers that try to move us forward in this challenging area, and doing so in some constructive manner. Raymaker and Whalon in AIRR (2023) and their Appendix G "Blockchains and Democracies" finally do provide their readers with a condensed yet coherent and accessible representation of the central economic questions that have been essential for their complex text’s extensive speculations.[1] They express these questions as - how are ‘we’ as a society to implement the proper investment of pure surplus income, i.e., those savings above the profits needed for any enterprise-(economy) to maintain its operations, … how are we to implement these savings in innovative (developmental) goods and services? Who determines what to invest in, and how will these investment funds be appropriated? (P277) These are technical policy and program questions that also have a deeper philosophical dimension. And yes, we have many things to learn. I’ve contended that China’s socialism with Chinese characteristics is an area where ‘we’ can learn. I note that Warwick Powell is said to know a great deal about 'blockchains' which Raymaker and Whalon briefly speak of in their 'Appendix G"as an instrument for a more effective process of empowered democratic economic direction and control. I confess knowing little of such things and would be interested in hearing more on this ...
thanks
Hugh
[1] John Raymaker and Pierre Whalon, “Appendix G: Blockchains and Democracies” in Attentive, Intelligent, Rational, and Responsible: Transforming Economics To Save The Planet (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2023) pp.277-280.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/CALaFOMuF9b9R4MW8CbZtEAgGm4vyjXdrno1br0%2BmQtyCgv1MnQ%40mail.gmail.com.