Happy Labor Day

‘John Paul II thought that idea was backwards, upside-down, stupid and evil. He was right about that.’
But when it came down to supporting the government or the people when it came down to the question of the people being able to change their government, and thus change their relation to capital, Pope John Paul II clearly placed the Catholic Church on the side of the oppressors, and not the oppressed, at least while he was stamping out even a whiff of liberation theology being considered respectable.

Oh, and look – a hatched job on liberation theology, just in time for Labor Day -
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/berger/2011/08/31/liberation-theology-with-chopsticks/
‘But a number of individuals in other Latin American countries,
including Brazil, contributed to the formation of this school of
thought. Theology was supposed to be undertaken from the perspective of
the poor and it was also supposed to lead to practical activity to
achieve social justice. The political instrument for the latter were
the so-called “base communities”, which had the educational goal of
“raising the consciousness” of the masses, in order to mobilize against
the forces exploiting and oppressing them. Needless to say, these
forces were identified with capitalism and imperialism, the “root
causes” of the poverty of the Third World. True liberation would lead
to socialism. Some believed that this goal could be achieved by
political activism, others (probably a minority) believed in violent
revolution. In any case, there was enormous sympathy with the Cuban
revolution and then with the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. For a
while it looked as if the movement unleashed by Liberation Theology was
the wave of the future in the Catholic world. The wave, if it ever was
that, was turned back by Pope John Paul II, whose experiences in Poland
made him immune to any quasi-Marxist interpretations of reality. He
systematically appointed conservative bishops throughout Latin America
who opposed the movement. Today Liberation Theology in the region is
anything but the wave of the future.’

The article almost has that looking glass feel that I increasing get when reading such things – as if ‘social justice’ is a bad thing, or a theology based on this background is a bad thing – ‘Minjung Theology originated in the 1970s, when South Korea was under a
military dictatorship. Ahn Byung Mu (1922-1996) is considered the
father of Minjung Theology. He studied sociology at Seoul National
University, there founded the Christian Students Union. After obtaining
a doctorate in Germany, Ahn returned to Korea and became very active in
resistance to the dictatorship. He spent a year in prison under very
harsh conditions.’

And to continue that looking glass feeling -
‘In 1968 CELAM, the Catholic Conference of Latin American Bishops met in
Medellin, Colombia. Among other things, it proclaimed a principle which
has since then become a mainstay of Catholic social thought: The
“preferential option for the poor” (“la opcion preferencial para los pobres”). This phrase can be taken apart. There is, first of all, a whiff of patronizing in the formula: It is a preference for the poor, not of
the poor—a preference, that is, of those who are not themselves poor.
But I don’t think that there was a patronizing intent, so I will not
pursue this. There is then the theological assumption that Jesus had a
particular concern for the poor and those on the margin of society, an
assumption strongly supported by the New Testament. There is
furthermore the ethical assumption that a society should be morally
judged by the way it treats its weaker members—this is an assumption
that is eminently plausible, though it cannot be empirically falsified.
All of this, in 1968, was strongly influenced by the nascent Liberation
Theology. But then there was the implication by many in Latin America
and elsewhere that, therefore, socialism was the way to go. “Preferential option for the poor”—one can agree with the phrase. But then one must ask: What is good for the poor? One thing is clear: Socialism is not. Wherever
large masses of the poor have been moved out of degrading misery into a
decent level of material life, it has been in the context of a
capitalist economy (lately, ironically, even in China).’

See? Capitalism is what Jesus could never be – the way to make sure that the rich remain rich, while bestowing their blessings on the working man. And the ending of the article -
‘In 1969 I met Sergio Mendes Arceo, the Catholic bishop of Cuernavaca,
in Mexico. He was a very impressive man, with a passionate commitment
to the poor. He was also a courageous man. In 1968, when the Mexican
military fired into a peaceful crowd of protestors in Mexico City,
Mendes Arceo was the only bishop who denounced this action from the
pulpit. He was even then opposed to the church’s taking any specific
political stand. When we met, he startled me with his view of the
church’s relation to politics. He said: “The church must never bless.
It can only condemn”. The next year Mendes Arceo changed his mind.  He
returned from the Medellin bishops’ conference, convinced that the
church should embrace socialism. In an interview with a journalist he
said: “There is no other way out.” (“No hay otra salida.”) He was wrong.’

I live in a country with a significantly lower rate of unemployment than the U.S., with strong unions, strong environmental laws, and a dedication to the idea that ownerships brings responsiblity written right into its constitution. A country where the socialists just won another state level election, by the way, where many citizens are proud to call themselves socialists. But hey, who cares about the real world when we can make up a scary monster called socialism represented by socialist fools, and prove that Jesus would never have anything to do with such disgusting people, who only claim to care for the sick and poor, while forcing rich people to actually pay taxes to make such a system work.

Sickening – but really, shouldn’t it be called ‘Productivity Day,’ where everyone with a job should work for their beneficient overlords for free for a day to show their gratitude that socialism is something that they will never have to worry about?

Abraham Lincoln said that you can’t have capital with first having labor. In 1861.
The current Republican party would kick him out just for that.

It’s technically true, though. Cleveland made it a federal holiday in an attempt to appease labor unions after the bloody Pullman strikes of 1894, in which the US military killed thirteen strikers and injured dozens of others. In a sense, you could say that if not for the US military, Congress and the President wouldn’t have felt compelled (by the guilt and horror at what they authorized) into making Labor Day an official federal holiday.

See? It all works!

Aw, I’d hoped someone had put John McCutcheon’s “The Young Ones Don’t Remember” on YouTube, but it looks like the best I can do is link to the lyrics.

http://www.folkmusic.com/lyrics/young-ones-dont-remember

Guest-again, I really appreciate what you wrote.  What country do you live in?

They might readmit him for taking potshots at habeas corpus though.

 They might readmit him for taking potshots at habeas corpus though.  

No. They only approve of violating Constitutional protections in service of their causes. When it’s done for reasons they don’t like (such as arresting secessionists) then they’re all about law & order and the Original Intent of the Founders and blah, blah, blah. 

That’s not to say that Lincoln suspending habeas corpus was the right thing to do, just that the current version of his party wouldn’t applaud him for it. 

Oh look, I found a modern union song! (One that is on YouTube.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P38VM7IwCI

Excellent! Once again, Australia brings the good stuff!