Jesus the communist
Laurie Smith reports and Zuri Zurowski comments on a meeting attended by Christians and communists
On December 8, Jack Conrad of the CPGB spoke on ‘Jesus: prophet, son of god, or revolutionary?’ at the School of Oriental and African Studies, addressing a meeting organised by Communist Students. It was attended by around 25 people from a wide variety of backgrounds.
Comrade Conrad argued that in all probability Jesus was a real historical figure, and could well have presented himself and his prophetic mission in terms of being the ‘son of David’: ie, of the legitimate royal line of ancient Israel. That is what two gospels of the Bible detail.
A convincing account of Jesus and his mission can be constructed. Jesus would have urged the non-payment of taxes to the Romans and class retribution. Not compliance and turning the other cheek. Comrade Conrad referenced Jesus’s repeated attacks on the rich and his championing of the poor. The rich were told to give away their wealth or face everlasting damnation. In god’s kingdom Jesus envisaged a type of communism, a monarchical communism – “not of production, but consumption”.
Israel in the 1st century was riven with profound class contradictions and subversive anti-Roman leaders, guerrilla groups and salvationary parties had the active support of the masses. Given the times, all demands for national freedom and class retribution were cloaked in religious terms, references and doctrines. Jesus was part of the popular revolutionary movement against Roman rule which culminated in the great Jewish revolt from 66-70.
Jesus himself banked on god’s intervention and 12 legions of angels to deliver Israel from the Roman yoke. He clearly failed. Executed by the Roman authorities – there would have been no baying Jewish mob demanding his crucifixion – what is remarkable about Jesus is that his followers were able to convince themselves that he lived on and was just about to return.
The ability of the Roman empire to turn Jesus into his opposite should not surprise us. Ruling classes, especially in conditions of decline, often compromise or buy off opposition movements and make them their own. Christianity became the official religion of the empire under Constantine and he took a leading role in fashioning a theology which preached meek acceptance of exploitation and state power.
In the discussion afterwards, several Christians disputed parts of what comrade Conrad had said. One stated that there was often an “arrogant” attitude on the left towards those of a religious bent. Tina Becker of the CPGB argued that Marxists would be foolish to adopt an attitude like that of atheist Richard Dawkins. He could truly be described as arrogant and actually failed to understand why religion is still such a powerful force in society. We must have a more nuanced analysis than “it’s all rubbish”, and be ready to engage with the many people who hold religious beliefs.
The talk on Jesus was filmed and will be available to watch on the CS website soon. Communist Students are now registered as a society at SOAS and our London branch meetings are moving to this more central location. At next week’s meeting – the last of this year- we will be giving a short introduction to the politics of CS for the benefit of new students, and discussing our plans for 2010. All are welcome.
Zuri Zurowski comments on the meeting
Perhaps contrary to the expectations of most communists in the room, including myself, the Christians that attended the event were very eloquent and perfectly capable of carrying an argument without getting overtly defensive or emotionalistic. Far from fitting the stereotype of scared and backward ‘dupes’, they appeared to know their way around biblical history very well, were familiar with the most common arguments put forward by atheists, and knew how to respond in a rational manner when, for instance, biblical inconsistencies were pointed out.
I was almost a bit saddened to hear the same people making the insane claim that “every single word in the Bible” was “true”. No doubt that these were bright and passionate individuals, and I could not help but feeling that it was a terrible waste to dedicate their enthusiasm to a superstition when they could use it to make a difference in the real world.
One of our Christian guests made a quite impressive and unexpected move when she attempted to discredit atheism by way of identity politics: according to her, our presumed arrogance towards believers betrayed a “typically European sense of superiority” over the the belief systems of the “naive, uncivilised tribes” from the developing countries who would eventually come around to our enlightened ways. Apparently, we also neglected the fact that religious people have been massively involved in anti-imperialist struggles, the civil rights movement, et cetera.
It was wise of comrade Tina Becker to point out in response that our approach differed – or should differ – to the patronising attitude of one Richard Dawkins, and Jack Conrad himself showed himself essentially in agreement with the fundamental Christian ethic of loving one’s neighbour. This was all good and well, however I think that in the midst of these benevolent assurances one important aspect got lost and remained undiscussed: the by and large reactionary role that organised Christianity has been playing in modern history, its unerring alliances with the political right, and the hostile and divisive attitudes towards various groups within the working class that it regularly nurtures.
Is Christianity inevitably intolerant and in league with the forces of reaction? As Jack Conrad noted in his presentation, the Romans turned Christian philosophy into its opposite when they declared it their official state religion. In this respect, it might have been interesting to explore how the Old and the New Testament present us with two entirely different Gods: one jealous, vengeful and fearsome – the other forgiving, caring and loving. In the New Testament, the Jesus character even goes as far as to render the Old Testament redundant, replacing the Ten Commandments with only two, one of them being the famous “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Lv 19:18). Despite nominally adopting the Christian narrative, one may well claim that the Roman Catholic church, as well as all major Christian churches in its wake, felt it more suitable for their purposes to revive the God character of the Old Testament.
Can you be a faithful Christian who believes that “every word” in the Bible is true and be a communist at the same time? Is atheist propaganda a necessary component of our struggle? Unlike a comrade I spoke to over a drink after the event, I don’t believe it is a good idea to liken our vision of a future society to a ‘paradise on earth’ in order to appeal to the Christian mindset. Our society will be a better, truly democratic, classless society that will assure a dignified existence to every human being. But because we are human rather than divine, it will no doubt confront us with a new set of problems that will need to be solved. As the CPGB puts it in their ‘What We Fight For’ statement, communism is not the end of human history, as ‘paradise’ is in the Christian narrative, but its true beginning. There was no time to discuss these and other questions, but I’m excited at the prospect of exploring them in a follow-up session.
OH really????!!! So you are attempting to berate and patronise the world’s biggest religion now into thinking that it’s prophet would have approved of a red organisation that has failed at every level of logic, and is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths of innocents??? To follow communism show absolute delusion and folly. In the same token, why do you not use your energies on speaking up against ‘fascism’ or extreme cruelty/murder/persucution that minority christians face in Islamic countries??? Indeed. Why not. Hypocrisy at it’s most sinister form.
persecution. typo error.
persecution of christians in islamic countries is surely not something that you reds can stay silent on? surely.
For someone posting as common sense, you evidently have very little.
First off we are against all discrimination or persecution of minorities in any country whether it is based on religion, gender, disability, ethncity or sexuality.
Secondly, communism has nothing to do with what Stalin did in the Soviet Union or what Mao did in China. Socialism is a project of human liberation and democracy given a social content.
Thirdly, we are not berating christians at all, read the text, quite clearly we believe in a serious engagement with religous people and their doctrines not arrogance. It is important to see Jesus as constructed by the Roman church and what he and his Jewish sect was actually about. Which was non-violent resistance to Roman occupation. I think you should wait until the video is posted up, or you coudl watch a previous talk by Jack Conrad: http://vimeo.com/6188856
Assuming that the summary did a good job at representing the position of Jack Conrad, then i would like to hail him as a bigger Genius that I.Newton.
After all Jack Conrad Looked Far, and did it WITHOUT standing on the shoulders of giants.
My beef particularly lies with the implied claim from mr. Conrad concerning the ability to discern the difference with Jesus’original words and their later distortion in the new testament of the bible.
He appearently succeeded where hundred of serious scientists did not succeed in their historical text research.
Or perhaps he merely resorted to “Inlegkunde” I.E. the art of reading meaning INTO texts.
It seems more likely that mr. Conrad put on his Marxist glasses and started correcting the texts he read to fit his purposes. This is not an honest way to deal with any text.
If he cannot deal what the text really says, that let him not deal with the text. At least he’ll keep his dignity.
JPvB, you can listen to the voice files now: http://cpgb.podbean.com/2009/12/14/jesus-son-of-god-or-revolutionary/
I would also say that some historical inquiry on what is in the Bible and what got cut is important in understanding christianity as a political tool to prop-up the declining Roman state.
I think the idea that Christianity started of as a religious form of a ‘working class’ communist movement of the oppressed came from Engels himself;
Works of Frederick Engels 1894
On the History of Early Christianity
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm
The idea had some history as regards its development etc and started off with Feuerbach’s ‘Essence of Christianity’.
The idea was, trying to wrap up complex analysis in a few sentences, was that christianity was an escapist phantasy which attempted to fulfil or express a set of ideas, values, wants and desires etc.
As well as presenting, as an antithesis, a criticism of the opposite of those ideas, values and desires etc.
The format in which this was done ie in perhaps an allegorical and metaphorical way ie in the gospel documents, was to a certain point irrelevant to Feuerbach. What the point was, was not the literal truth of those documents, one way or the other, but the appeal that it had to the followers eg the first early Christians as it expressed the way ‘they felt about things’.
As we are on Stalinist Russia etc, it is irrelevant in this context to the assessment of Orwells book ‘Animal Farm’ as an allegory of the Russian revolution as to what extent it was ‘true’.
It has a kind of resonance and appeal as the story represents or reflects a set of general values and understanding about the real world and it can have an impact even with readers who are oblivious to the fact that it is in fact a allegory for the Russian revolution.
In other words popular fiction, and religions, can give us a ‘psychological’ insight into the value systems with whom it is popular.
Feuerbach, and Marx followed him, thought that the essential ideas in the gospel documents of universal love, looking after each other and opposition to hierarchical self serving oppression etc was fundamentally the communist philosophy.Eg
Marx To Ludwig Feuerbach In Bruckberg Paris, August 11 1844
I don’t attribute any exceptional value to this essay but I am glad to have an opportunity of assuring you of the great respect and — if I may use the word — love, which I feel for you. Your Philosophie der Zukunft, and your Wesen des Glaubens, in spite of their small size, are certainly of greater weight than the whole of contemporary German literature put together.
In these writings you have provided — I don’t know whether intentionally — a philosophical basis for socialism and the Communists have immediately understood them in this way. The unity of man with man, which is based on the real differences between men, the concept of the human species brought down from the heaven of abstraction to the real earth, what is this but the concept of society!
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_08_11.htm
Engels did a ‘positive’ assessment of christian communist below;
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm
i myelf hate stalin and lenin but the idea of communism is something as a christian i support because capitalism has changed into something dark and oppressive against the people. the idea of a marxist Britain with faiths such as christianity and jewdaism being valued is one of genious but that would be very hard to achievbe as a country that is renowned for capitalism and poverty.
oh sorry for that spelling mistake there.
actually no i dont stay silent on it i am heavily opposed to islamic persucution of christians and jews.Im volunteering in israel next year as a socialistic christian i believe in not only helping other christians, jews, people in general but defending the weak such as christian families in islamic nations.