Religion
Would a parecon have religion – like now, or different?
The interface between religion and parecon adds no complications to what has been said above about relations between culture more generally and parecon. Whatever religions exist in a society that has a parecon, their members will of course be treated by the parecon just as those of every other religion and cultural community will be treated. They will have a balanced job complex, enjoy just remuneration, have self managing decision making influence, etc.
A parecon will have no economic reason or means to elevate or denigrate people on the basis of any cultural commitments they may have, nor will it be easy, or even possible, for people with hostile cultural intents to manifest them in a parecon. Likewise, there is nothing in a parecon that will militate against the economy respecting holidays and practices of particular communities within the broader framework of attaining economic cooperation. But the question of religions and a good society, as compared to the question of religions in a good society and a parecon, is more complex.
Many on the left think this combination is simply impossible. They believe that religion is intrinsically contrary to justice, equity, and particularly self management. For these critics of religion, parecon won’t interface with good religions in a good economy, because in a good economy there won’t be any religions at all, good or otherwise.
The anti-religion argument first looks at history and finds an endless scroll of religious violations of humane behavior–and no one can deny this sad story. Then the critics, depending on which ones we consider, may or may not go another step and look at various scriptures showing all manner of explicitly ugly prescriptions and claims. The critics may then proceed as well to highlighting instances of religion obstructing reason or art, violating not only free social relations but also honesty and dignity. And finally, at their strongest the critics will claim to clinch their case by arguing that once one invests extreme powers in a god and requires of oneself and of others obedience unto those powers, it is but a short and inexorable step to counterpoising one’s own god against others’ gods and counterpoising one’s own fellow believers against believers of some other faith, and finally to moving from obedience to a god to obedience to agents of a god and finally to obedience to authorities of all kinds.
This argument, one has to admit, is not weak either in its predictive logic or its historical explanatory power or evidentiary verification, but I think it is also, in the end, overstated because it extrapolates from some religions to all religions as well as from organized authoritarian religions to spirituality of all kinds.
My own inclination is to think that a good society will have good religion not no religion, just as a good society will have good economics not no economics, good political forms not no political forms, and so on.
As to what shape such good religions will have–I would imagine they will vary widely and broadly, emerging from religions we now know as well as arising in original and new forms, but generally having in common a desire to establish morals and a sense of place in the universe without, however, violating the morals and the agreed roles of the rest of a just society.
I can’t even begin to say more about what that will likely look like, but though it is a bit outside the bounds of this chapter and it is certainly an area where my views are far from carefully developed and tested, still, I should like to say one more thing here about religion and the left.
In my view a movement in the U.S., and no doubt in many other countries around the world as well, in which members are dismissive and even hostile toward religion, much less one denigrates those who are religious, is, put simply, a losing movement.
Even if one isn’t convinced oneself that a good religion in a good society will be a positive thing in many people’s lives, and thinks instead that the best stance will be agnostic or even highly critical of religion in any form, and even if one is not humble enough to hold that view and yet simultaneously respect that others will differ and deserve respect in doing so, surely a serious leftist ought to be able to see that denigrating all things religious is strategically suicidal in a society as religious as the U.S. Whatever views one may have, if one wants to help build a large participatory and self managing movement, one must find a way to function at least congenially and mutually respectfully with those who celebrate and worship in a religious manner. The alternative is to close off not only religion, but a huge proportion of the population that one is presumably trying to relate to. Trying to be an organizer in the U.S. if you exude disdain for religion is not much wiser than trying to be an organizer in France if you exude disdain for people who speak French.
In any event, even short of having a full convincing vision for the future cultural sphere of life, it seems we can at least deduce with rather good confidence that participatory economics will compatibly foster and benefit from such innovations, rather than obstructing them.
===
The following is an addendum to a chapter on culture and parecon from Realizing Hope…
Religion and the Left
Before closing this chapter, I would like to comment very briefly on the relation between religion and parecon and between religion and the good society.The interface between religion and parecon adds no complications to what has been said above about relations between culture more generally and parecon. Whatever religions exist in a society that has a parecon, their members will of course be treated by the parecon just as those of every other religion and cultural community will be treated. They will have a balanced job complex, enjoy just remuneration, have self managing decision making influence, etc.
A parecon will have no economic reason or means to elevate or denigrate people on the basis of any cultural commitments they may have, nor will it be easy, or even possible, for people with hostile cultural intents to manifest them in a parecon. Likewise, there is nothing in a parecon that will militate against the economy respecting holidays and practices of particular communities within the broader framework of attaining economic cooperation. But the question of religions and a good society, as compared to the question of religions in a good society and a parecon, is more complex.
Many on the left think this combination is simply impossible. They believe that religion is intrinsically contrary to justice, equity, and particularly self management. For these critics of religion, parecon won’t interface with good religions in a good economy, because in a good economy there won’t be any religions at all, good or otherwise.
The anti-religion argument first looks at history and finds an endless scroll of religious violations of humane behavior–and no one can deny this sad story. Then the critics, depending on which ones we consider, may or may not go another step and look at various scriptures showing all manner of explicitly ugly prescriptions and claims. The critics may then proceed as well to highlighting instances of religion obstructing reason or art, violating not only free social relations but also honesty and dignity. And finally, at their strongest the critics will claim to clinch their case by arguing that once one invests extreme powers in a god and requires of oneself and of others obedience unto those powers, it is but a short and inexorable step to counterpoising one’s own god against others’ gods and counterpoising one’s own fellow believers against believers of some other faith, and finally to moving from obedience to a god to obedience to agents of a god and finally to obedience to authorities of all kinds.
This argument, one has to admit, is not weak either in its predictive logic or its historical explanatory power or evidentiary verification, but I think it is also, in the end, overstated because it extrapolates from some religions to all religions as well as from organized authoritarian religions to spirituality of all kinds.
My own inclination is to think that a good society will have good religion not no religion, just as a good society will have good economics not no economics, good political forms not no political forms, and so on.
As to what shape such good religions will have–I would imagine they will vary widely and broadly, emerging from religions we now know as well as arising in original and new forms, but generally having in common a desire to establish morals and a sense of place in the universe without, however, violating the morals and the agreed roles of the rest of a just society.
I can’t even begin to say more about what that will likely look like, but though it is a bit outside the bounds of this chapter and it is certainly an area where my views are far from carefully developed and tested, still, I should like to say one more thing here about religion and the left.
In my view a movement in the U.S., and no doubt in many other countries around the world as well, in which members are dismissive and even hostile toward religion, much less one denigrates those who are religious, is, put simply, a losing movement.
Even if one isn’t convinced oneself that a good religion in a good society will be a positive thing in many people’s lives, and thinks instead that the best stance will be agnostic or even highly critical of religion in any form, and even if one is not humble enough to hold that view and yet simultaneously respect that others will differ and deserve respect in doing so, surely a serious leftist ought to be able to see that denigrating all things religious is strategically suicidal in a society as religious as the U.S. Whatever views one may have, if one wants to help build a large participatory and self managing movement, one must find a way to function at least congenially and mutually respectfully with those who celebrate and worship in a religious manner. The alternative is to close off not only religion, but a huge proportion of the population that one is presumably trying to relate to. Trying to be an organizer in the U.S. if you exude disdain for religion is not much wiser than trying to be an organizer in France if you exude disdain for people who speak French.
In any event, even short of having a full convincing vision for the future cultural sphere of life, it seems we can at least deduce with rather good confidence that participatory economics will compatibly foster and benefit from such innovations, rather than obstructing them.