"TO SAY JESUS CHRIST WAS A SOCIALIST IS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE"
ROBERTO GIUSTI
EL UNIVERSAL
http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/02/23/en_ing_art_23A838483.shtml
"I was denied the Venezuelan citizenship during (President Rafael) Caldera's first administration for being a 'communist'. Following the mass riots of February 27 and 28, 1989 (known as Caracazo), while I was vice president (of UCAB), I was imprisoned for 'instigating' those serious rioting. It was a foolish act, but I was indeed put in jail. Now, I am accused of being a pro-coup activist for sharing a different point of view."
A Spanish-born Jesuit priest, a social activist and the president of Andrés Bello Catholic University (UCAB), Luis Ugalde answers back the accusations made against him by President Hugo Chávez. The President "claims he likes to discuss such ideas. Well, I am willing to do so, publicly or privately," Ugalde said.
Q: Setting aside President Hugo Chávez' accusations ("a pro-coup priest who has gone nuts"), does it have any importance at all for mankind by now to discuss whether or not Jesus Christ was a socialist?
A: The question should be "for Venezuela" not "for mankind." Chávez is very smart and I am certain that he does not believe in such things as Christ being a socialist.
Q: Does he intend to feed on (the life of) Christ for his political ends, then?
A: Had he said that in Cuba 30 years ago, Chávez knows he would have been forced to take back publicly or put in jail for heretic. But the situation is quite different now. There was a discussion here on the religious legitimization of Independence. People were taught, through catechism, that if they disagreed with (Spain's King) Fernando VII they were against God. And that is what the Venezuelan Government intends to do: to look for such a legitimization. If (Venezuela's Liberator Simón) Bolívar was a socialist (obviously he was not), if Christ was a socialist, and you run against that model, you are considered to be against Bolívar and Christ. Chávez is a clever communicator; he is good at making spontaneous associations. He associates socialism with love, solidarity, generosity, Bolívar and Christ, and he who disagrees with these is an evil person.
Q: So, Jesus Christ and Bolívar were not socialists, and Chávez isn't either.
A: Neither Christ nor Bolívar was a socialist. And certainly the Venezuelan Government has little, if any, of socialist.
Q: Chávez is always quoting from the Bible to claim that Christ was a socialist.
A: Jesus Christ was not a socialist because socialism, if embraced seriously, is not a mere denunciation against man's oppression (this is a Christian denunciation), but the search of a fairer society in which equal opportunities reign supreme. Socialism was a particular historical attempt to develop an economic model in the modern society -not in former times- so as to create, as propounded by Karl Marx, wealth, to eliminate what is mine and what is yours as well as the private property of means of production. Religion, and specially Christianity, was one of the handicaps both Marx and (Vladimir) Lenin faced to achieve those aims. These personalities therefore would have not considered Chávez to be a socialist.
Q: What about Fidel Castro?
A: Neither would he. Chávez was quite right when telling Venezuelan bishops that they did not know what the 21st century socialism was about and that they ought to read Marx and Lenin. For them, religion and Christianity were a great hindrance.
Q: If Christianity was an obstacle ("opium for the people") for Marx and Lenin, the Church must be another sort of hindrance for Chávez.
A: The fact is that neither Lenin nor Fidel (Castro) had a practising Christian in their respective cabinets. The Sandinistas did, but they did not set up a socialist regime in Nicaragua. In a real socialism that would be regarded as a heresy. In a social democracy people are allowed to be both militants and believers. In Cuba that would have been impossible until a few years ago. A Cuban who went to church could not study psychology or economy because he lacked "the scientific vision of life", that is, the materialistic-atheist vision. If therefore you belong to the Christian obscurantism, you are excluded. An intelligent man, President Chávez is aware of that. He, like Fidel (Castro), is able to change the external appearance. Cuba is both a big fiasco and an advertising success. If Marx were born again but in Cuba, he would say: "If the economy is the key to the modern world, then Cuba has obviously been plunged into an economic failure." And we know that if Cuba lived at the expense of the then USSR once, it is now living at the expense of Venezuela.
Q: Instead of being a failure, is not the Cuban revolution an example for Chávez to follow?
A: Attempts at imposing a socialist system date back to over a century ago. And the debate must focus on how it worked in the then USSR, China or Cuba. A way to make it sacred is just not dealing with the most important issues: the creation of an economy and a society with more jobs, equality and a better quality of life.
Q: isn't it the same idea preached by Christ?
A: We, Christians, can accept neither exploitation nor third class citizens. We must make the most of our talents to create an inclusive society. But that is no socialism; that is just the effort (we have to make). Socialism is only the means. A Christian cannot wish a child to die. But, how can the child be cured? A physician prescribes the child one particular treatment; another, a different one.
Q: Many priests found in socialism a means, including the armed war, to fight injustice and poverty across Latin America.
A: I have taken part in this debate for 40 years and have not given up. In the 1970s, when religion was said to be the opium for the people, the growing Catholic Liberation Theology movement denied it. The Christian theology does not legitimate domination; it legitimates a process. The point is how to reduce poverty, and that is not achieved through utopias but through employment, education and health. Intellectual laziness is unacceptable for any Christian, and therefore we must analyze not only what happened in countries where there was a real socialism, but also what happened in Germany, Norway and Sweden. We need to assess and use facts as guides. This is a debate among 21st century Christians about finding a way for Latin America to have fairer and inclusive societies. In this regard, socialism does fit in this debate, and that is quite different from saying that Christ was a socialist. That is absolute nonsense.
Q: In such a debate, isn't freedom a key issue?
A: In the liberation stage (employment, safety, welfare) there must be much more freedom of speech and thought and plurality. But if you are put in the Cuban mousehole and are told that you cannot read a letter from your mother without the government first reading it, that you have to watch only the TV shows they want you to watch and that you cannot think but what they think, that is like being in jail; that is not a superior stage for mankind. In the 19th century, Juan Germán Roscio (a leading lawyer in the emancipation movement in Venezuela) showed in his book "El triunfo de la libertad sobre el despotismo" (The Triumph of Freedom over Despotism), that he wrote while in prison, that the Holy Bible does not legitimate oppression, but awakens spiritual forces for mankind to grow in freedom, equality and justice. It is a mere manipulation to claim that is socialism.
Q: Is it also a manipulation to assume that you can find there the germ of all freedoms and equality?
A: Long before Jesus Christ, prophets warned that "God shall vomit you out of His mouth because you sell the poor for a pair of shoes." One thing is the denunciation and another thing the ability to build. The influential politician in the early days of the Soviet Union Leon Trotsky wrote: "We will make the equality proclaimed by Christians come true because Marx discovered some scientific laws that, once they have cured economy, will make individualism and egotism to vanish into thin air." That was the big mistake and the main reason behind the failure.
Translated by Servio Viloria
ROBERTO GIUSTI
EL UNIVERSAL
http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/02/23/en_ing_art_23A838483.shtml
"I was denied the Venezuelan citizenship during (President Rafael) Caldera's first administration for being a 'communist'. Following the mass riots of February 27 and 28, 1989 (known as Caracazo), while I was vice president (of UCAB), I was imprisoned for 'instigating' those serious rioting. It was a foolish act, but I was indeed put in jail. Now, I am accused of being a pro-coup activist for sharing a different point of view."
A Spanish-born Jesuit priest, a social activist and the president of Andrés Bello Catholic University (UCAB), Luis Ugalde answers back the accusations made against him by President Hugo Chávez. The President "claims he likes to discuss such ideas. Well, I am willing to do so, publicly or privately," Ugalde said.
Q: Setting aside President Hugo Chávez' accusations ("a pro-coup priest who has gone nuts"), does it have any importance at all for mankind by now to discuss whether or not Jesus Christ was a socialist?
A: The question should be "for Venezuela" not "for mankind." Chávez is very smart and I am certain that he does not believe in such things as Christ being a socialist.
Q: Does he intend to feed on (the life of) Christ for his political ends, then?
A: Had he said that in Cuba 30 years ago, Chávez knows he would have been forced to take back publicly or put in jail for heretic. But the situation is quite different now. There was a discussion here on the religious legitimization of Independence. People were taught, through catechism, that if they disagreed with (Spain's King) Fernando VII they were against God. And that is what the Venezuelan Government intends to do: to look for such a legitimization. If (Venezuela's Liberator Simón) Bolívar was a socialist (obviously he was not), if Christ was a socialist, and you run against that model, you are considered to be against Bolívar and Christ. Chávez is a clever communicator; he is good at making spontaneous associations. He associates socialism with love, solidarity, generosity, Bolívar and Christ, and he who disagrees with these is an evil person.
Q: So, Jesus Christ and Bolívar were not socialists, and Chávez isn't either.
A: Neither Christ nor Bolívar was a socialist. And certainly the Venezuelan Government has little, if any, of socialist.
Q: Chávez is always quoting from the Bible to claim that Christ was a socialist.
A: Jesus Christ was not a socialist because socialism, if embraced seriously, is not a mere denunciation against man's oppression (this is a Christian denunciation), but the search of a fairer society in which equal opportunities reign supreme. Socialism was a particular historical attempt to develop an economic model in the modern society -not in former times- so as to create, as propounded by Karl Marx, wealth, to eliminate what is mine and what is yours as well as the private property of means of production. Religion, and specially Christianity, was one of the handicaps both Marx and (Vladimir) Lenin faced to achieve those aims. These personalities therefore would have not considered Chávez to be a socialist.
Q: What about Fidel Castro?
A: Neither would he. Chávez was quite right when telling Venezuelan bishops that they did not know what the 21st century socialism was about and that they ought to read Marx and Lenin. For them, religion and Christianity were a great hindrance.
Q: If Christianity was an obstacle ("opium for the people") for Marx and Lenin, the Church must be another sort of hindrance for Chávez.
A: The fact is that neither Lenin nor Fidel (Castro) had a practising Christian in their respective cabinets. The Sandinistas did, but they did not set up a socialist regime in Nicaragua. In a real socialism that would be regarded as a heresy. In a social democracy people are allowed to be both militants and believers. In Cuba that would have been impossible until a few years ago. A Cuban who went to church could not study psychology or economy because he lacked "the scientific vision of life", that is, the materialistic-atheist vision. If therefore you belong to the Christian obscurantism, you are excluded. An intelligent man, President Chávez is aware of that. He, like Fidel (Castro), is able to change the external appearance. Cuba is both a big fiasco and an advertising success. If Marx were born again but in Cuba, he would say: "If the economy is the key to the modern world, then Cuba has obviously been plunged into an economic failure." And we know that if Cuba lived at the expense of the then USSR once, it is now living at the expense of Venezuela.
Q: Instead of being a failure, is not the Cuban revolution an example for Chávez to follow?
A: Attempts at imposing a socialist system date back to over a century ago. And the debate must focus on how it worked in the then USSR, China or Cuba. A way to make it sacred is just not dealing with the most important issues: the creation of an economy and a society with more jobs, equality and a better quality of life.
Q: isn't it the same idea preached by Christ?
A: We, Christians, can accept neither exploitation nor third class citizens. We must make the most of our talents to create an inclusive society. But that is no socialism; that is just the effort (we have to make). Socialism is only the means. A Christian cannot wish a child to die. But, how can the child be cured? A physician prescribes the child one particular treatment; another, a different one.
Q: Many priests found in socialism a means, including the armed war, to fight injustice and poverty across Latin America.
A: I have taken part in this debate for 40 years and have not given up. In the 1970s, when religion was said to be the opium for the people, the growing Catholic Liberation Theology movement denied it. The Christian theology does not legitimate domination; it legitimates a process. The point is how to reduce poverty, and that is not achieved through utopias but through employment, education and health. Intellectual laziness is unacceptable for any Christian, and therefore we must analyze not only what happened in countries where there was a real socialism, but also what happened in Germany, Norway and Sweden. We need to assess and use facts as guides. This is a debate among 21st century Christians about finding a way for Latin America to have fairer and inclusive societies. In this regard, socialism does fit in this debate, and that is quite different from saying that Christ was a socialist. That is absolute nonsense.
Q: In such a debate, isn't freedom a key issue?
A: In the liberation stage (employment, safety, welfare) there must be much more freedom of speech and thought and plurality. But if you are put in the Cuban mousehole and are told that you cannot read a letter from your mother without the government first reading it, that you have to watch only the TV shows they want you to watch and that you cannot think but what they think, that is like being in jail; that is not a superior stage for mankind. In the 19th century, Juan Germán Roscio (a leading lawyer in the emancipation movement in Venezuela) showed in his book "El triunfo de la libertad sobre el despotismo" (The Triumph of Freedom over Despotism), that he wrote while in prison, that the Holy Bible does not legitimate oppression, but awakens spiritual forces for mankind to grow in freedom, equality and justice. It is a mere manipulation to claim that is socialism.
Q: Is it also a manipulation to assume that you can find there the germ of all freedoms and equality?
A: Long before Jesus Christ, prophets warned that "God shall vomit you out of His mouth because you sell the poor for a pair of shoes." One thing is the denunciation and another thing the ability to build. The influential politician in the early days of the Soviet Union Leon Trotsky wrote: "We will make the equality proclaimed by Christians come true because Marx discovered some scientific laws that, once they have cured economy, will make individualism and egotism to vanish into thin air." That was the big mistake and the main reason behind the failure.
Translated by Servio Viloria
