religion and marxism?

Mervyn Hartwig mh at SPAMjaspere.demon.co.uk
Mon Jan 1 13:30:52 MST 2001


George:

You have said both that Nietzsche was incorrect ('missed the target') to
have

>thought that the problem was that Christians were defined by "sympathy."

and yet that

>>Nietzsche was correct about Christianity being a denial of life.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways - When Nietzsche says that
Christianity is defined by 'sympathy' he means precisely that it is 'a
denial of life' - it is the morality of slaves and the weak.

You now go on to say that

>the real problem with Christianity is its accommodation with
>the existing order of capitalism.

This is like saying that the real problem with Marxism in the Soviet era
was its accommodation with actually existing socialism.
(Nor is this of course at all what Nietzsche meant by 'a denial of
life'.)

Imo, to equate intellectual or religious ideas with their
institutionalized forms within class society is rather like equating
labour power with labour. What intellectual or religious tradition ever
existed that couldn't be put to reactionary uses?

In attacking Christianity (and socialism), Nietzsche at any rate knew
which was the more important to discuss.

--
Mervyn Hartwig
13 Spenser Road
Herne Hill
London SE24 ONS
United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7 737 2892
Email: mh at jaspere.demon.co.uk





More information about the Marxism mailing list