God and the State

Rating:
Summary: A Polemic Against Religion
Review: According to Bakunin, the State cannot exist without some form of religious body. Since Anarchism denounces the State, it must necessarily follow that Anarchism also rejects religion.

In the history of socialist thought, suspicion, or outright rejection and violence towards the church is commonplace. It was Bakunin's dream that self-governance without religion would lead to a more egalitarian society. Looking back over the events of the 20th century, we can say he was deluded. Stalin's purges and massacres, Pol Pot's genocide, and Mao's "cultural revolution" were crimes against humanity, all committed by governments which rejected spiritual authority. There was only one thing worse than religious oppression and intolerance, and that was an athiestic state which did not recognize the inviolate nature of human dignity.

As Anarchism rejects the idea that there are no human rights that we are compelled to respect (since rights are enforced), and that private ownership of property is in fact "theft" (as Prodhoun, a contemporary of Bakunin points out), it becomes a pretty dangerous politic. At its worst, it becomes a kind of collective mob action with nihilistic impulses.

This book is interesting for any student of government, but too many people become fascinated with Anarchism while missing the logical implications of such a radical philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: A Polemic Against Religion
Review: According to Bakunin, the State cannot exist without some form of religious body. Since Anarchism denounces the State, it must necessarily follow that Anarchism also rejects religion.

In the history of socialist thought, suspicion, or outright rejection and violence towards the church is commonplace. It was Bakunin's dream that self-governance without religion would lead to a more egalitarian society. Looking back over the events of the 20th century, we can say he was deluded. Stalin's purges and massacres, Pol Pot's genocide, and Mao's "cultural revolution" were crimes against humanity, all committed by governments which rejected spiritual authority. There was only one thing worse than religious oppression and intolerance, and that was an athiestic state which did not recognize the inviolate nature of human dignity.

As Anarchism rejects the idea that there are no human rights that we are compelled to respect (since rights are enforced), and that private ownership of property is in fact "theft" (as Prodhoun, a contemporary of Bakunin points out), it becomes a pretty dangerous politic. At its worst, it becomes a kind of collective mob action with nihilistic impulses.

This book is interesting for any student of government, but too many people become fascinated with Anarchism while missing the logical implications of such a radical philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: Bakunin's Atheistic Priesthood
Review: Mikhail Bakunin is often called the father of anarchism. To say the father of a theory, based on pure unrestricted freedom, is a man who has no belief but in socialism and the necessity to tear down religion/faith brings shame to anarchism. Many great quotes and thoughts can be taken from this book; on the other hand a multitude of delusion can be taken as well. To have the freedom of faith, to live as you choose; that is anarchism in its purest form. Bakunin's main attack against god(s) is their usefulness to the ruling party. A party that rules will pervert anything to keep that rule. So should a party use the name of anarchism, is that to say Anarchism is a tyrannical theory? Anarchism, faith, and religion are but words. The intention behind the belief is where a man should look. In Bakunin's world we would not have religion, or faith; we would not own property; we would work for the good of the whole at the expense of the individual. Our world would enter an atheistic priesthood, forfeit of all individual rights. Tyranny wears many masks. Bakunin's anarchy, his socialism, is nothing more than control. The greatest oppression an anarchist can ever force upon his/her person, is the belief that anarchism and socialism go hand in hand. In every theory, in every great thought for freedom, there will always be those who pervert a name, a word, a doctrine. I recommend this book as an example of such perversion.

Rating:
Summary: Nice stuff
Review: My "predicted rating" was 4.5 stars, so let's call it 4.5 stars.

Bakunin was Marx's biggest (or so they say) rival in the Socialist Party back in the 19th century. So, yes, many of the ideas here are 19th century. There's some altruistic stuff (slavery=bad) that has survived but this book is really just a socialist primer footnote, extra reading for Grad Students or debaters.

Bakunin was no writer, he was an activist. He doesn't believe in God, and thinks the State has supplanted God as the means to effectively rail in the rabble. He's not the guy you would invite to the democratic fundraiser.

Anyway, sooner or later you may decide to put the book down and actually get out there and do something. Bakunin would have wanted it that way.

Rating:
Summary: Evergreen words...
Review: Next to "Atheism: a case against god" by G.Smith, this book by Bakunin is among the essential readings if you are set out to get rid of the mythology of "god".
People like to refer to this as an "anarchist" book , and i guess in a sense it is, since it is written by one of anarchism's most important and effective leading figures. However, i don't think you need to be anarchist to reach Bakunin's conclusions, you need first to respect your own intelligence. The fact that this might lead you eventually to anarchism is another matter.
Bakunin deals with the "god" issue as he should from his position: he examines how religion is used by the ruling classes to manipulate us, to keep people ignorant and believing in theological myths. A person that lives on the doctrine of "believe without evidence" is a person destined to be a slave and Bakunin's fiery rhetoric does a good job to drive this point home.
This book might seem polemic to some , especially those not acquainted with the equation religion=slavery, but then again this is exactly the point. Bakunin is merciless in his critique because in order to free slaves you need to first free their minds.
As close as any book can come to being explosive...

Rating:
Summary: Evergreen words...
Review: Next to "Atheism: a case against god" by G.Smith, this book by Bakunin is among the essential readings if you are set out to get rid of the mythology of "god".
People like to refer to this as an "anarchist" book , and i guess in a sense it is, since it is written by one of anarchism's most important and effective leading figures. However, i don't think you need to be anarchist to reach Bakunin's conclusions, you need first to respect your own intelligence. The fact that this might lead you eventually to anarchism is another matter.
Bakunin deals with the "god" issue as he should from his position: he examines how religion is used by the ruling classes to manipulate us, to keep people ignorant and believing in theological myths. A person that lives on the doctrine of "believe without evidence" is a person destined to be a slave and Bakunin's fiery rhetoric does a good job to drive this point home.
This book might seem polemic to some , especially those not acquainted with the equation religion=slavery, but then again this is exactly the point. Bakunin is merciless in his critique because in order to free slaves you need to first free their minds.
As close as any book can come to being explosive...

Rating:
Summary: an analysis worth reading
Review: This book features Bakunin's unfinished essay of the same title. It is an excellent exploration of the psyche and motivations of one of history's more influential also-rans. Bakunin's ideas eventually evolved into what became known as anarchism -- the idea that the only way to a just society is through a society where no one rules over another...where all are equals.

This short book provides a window into the underlying ideas that came to be anarchism. Bakunin was an excellent pamphleteer and polemicist, but wasn't able to write a complete book. Perhaps this was ultimately better for anarchism.

Bakunin's historical contributions to political radicalism are largely overshadowed by Marx, his contemporary, even though Bakunin's core critique of Marx -- that socialism could never be forced on people and remain socialism -- was essentially correct. History, represented by the former USSR, Cuba, North Korea, etc. has vindicated Bakunin, and repudiated Marx. Where socialism was imposed by way of a political vanguard, it ceased to be socialism.

Thus, at this time, it's good for people to read Bakunin to realize there was an alternative vision of socialism in his ideas -- namely, anarchism. Marx successfully blocked Bakunin's ideas in his day, but I think that with the collapse of faux-communism, Bakunin may finally get the reading he deserved.

Bakunin represented in his time the very embodiment of radical revolution, and this book lets the reader get a sense of this.

Rating:
Summary: Anarchy in Russia
Review: This book offers a glimpse into the mind of a great 19th century anarchists. The book is fascinating in its argument against both god and the state. It is at times unreadable and borish which could be owed to the difficulty in translating from Russian to English. It didnt sell me on anarchism anymore than 200 Grateful Dead shows could but it is a compelling read for any thinker wanting to have their ideas challenged.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, Inspiring, Useful, Flawed
Review: This is a brief, but remarkably potent polemical tract against religion and the state. Bakunin never minces his words, expressing his inexhaustible contempt for religion and state in bitterly cynical language that very strongly resembles that of Nietzsche. I was, quite frankly, impressed with Bakunin's case against the state - a perfectly artificial construction that invariably and disastrously achieves the status of divinity. An immediate example is conveniently furnished by crude American patriotism. I also accept his case against illegitimate forms of authority (parental authority offers but one example of a generally legitimate form) and the sacrosanct value one must place upon human liberty.

That said, a few critical observations concerning Bakunin's scattered ideas are in order:

1) His case against God and the state largely makes sense in the Western historical context. The nation-state system is a Western political construct (an idol, for that matter, as Bakunin would rightly have it), which only recently was imposed upon the non-Western world. Thus, this historical facet of the non-Western world is critical, but overlooked. Bakunin insists that states cannot exist without religion (he obviously had not anticipated the rise of Communist states, though one may argue that those states had a unique religion of their own), thereby attempting to show an inextricable link between religion and power. His discussion of religion and power in the Christian West, valid as it is, is contrasted by a near-total void on the question of religion and power in the non-Western world - hardly an insignificant matter. Which leads me to my second point:

2) Bakunin's grasp of religious history is severely limited; in fact, to the detriment of his argument. He claims, for instance, that religion necessarily corrupts, dehumanizes, and debases humanity. The example he offers, with no modest amount of justification, is the impact of Christianity on Europe. The rise of the Christian faith was logically coterminous with the rise of the Dark Ages, from which Europe only awoke by shaking off its Christian shackles, first during the Renaissance and later during the Enlightenment. However, the universality of this historical model of religion is betrayed by one obvious example - that of Islam. The rise of Islam led to the very opposite of the Dark Ages - a civilization so advanced and so rich in the arts and sciences (all of which Bakunin affirms is the very goal of humanity) that it actually paved the way for the European Renaissance. Consider, for example, Bakunin's remark:

"At the close of the Middle Ages, during the period of the Renaissance, the fact that some Greek emigrants brought a few of those immortal books into Italy sufficed to resuscitate life, liberty, thought, humanity, buried in the dark dungeon of Catholicism. Human emancipation, that is the name of Greek civilization." (p. 43)

This is obviously based on the impoverished contemporary historical scholarship Bakunin had at his disposal. We now know that Islam inherited classical Greek learning and made a vast number of original contributions to multiple fields of knowledge, even inventing whole new fields of knowledge. The Muslim intellectual heritage, of which Greek classical learning was but a fraction, was translated into Latin and other European languages by Christian scholastics, such as Gerard of Cremona. Thus, the remark that Greek civilization singularly awakened Europe is simply erroneous; it's actually a staple of antiquated Orientalist scholarship.

Furthermore, Bakunin insists that because religion debases human beings, the progressive abandonment of religion is necessary for the realization of humanism. However, humanism itself is the product of a deeply religious civilization - that of Islam (see George Makdisi, The Rise of Humanism in Classical Islam and the Christian West. Edinburgh University Press, 1990). Moreover, the university, which thrives off of its integral components of intellectual innovation, critical thinking, and dialectical disputation, was also a product of classical Islam (see Makdisi's other notable study, The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West, Edinburgh University Press, 1981). Hence, these historical facts greatly challenge Bakunin's philosophy of history. Which, in turn, leads me to my next point.

3) Bakunin's polemic against religion, effective as it is in exposing the detrimental consequences of one particular religion in one particular context, is based not on a systematic philosophical argument, but rather on pragmatic grounds; i.e. since religion debases, corrupts, and oppresses, it must be abandoned to actualize liberation. The pragmatic efficacy of this argument thus rests on contextual factors, not scientific or philosophical ones.

4) Bakunin's scientific materialism leads him to some dangerously racist conclusions:

"The idealists, all those who believe in the immateriality and immortality of the human soul, must be excessively embarrassed by the differences in intelligence existing between races, peoples, and individuals." (p. 66)

Granted, certain individuals are obviously of decidedly inferior intelligence. However, to charge that entire races are different from one another in intelligence provides the very basis of modern, scientific racism, i.e. racial theory. Furthermore, Bakunin advances typically racist notions about the "Oriental", such as the Oriental's corrupting influence on thought (see p. 74). I find it very difficult to reconcile Bakunin's racist ideas with his staunch quest for human equality and liberation.

-------------

In conclusion, God and the State is a very interesting read. I would certainly recommend getting a copy, since it's an integral document in the history of revolutionary thought. Bakunin's scorn for status and privilege is admirable, as is his intractable opposition to tyranny and oppression. The combination of religion and power has a notoriously guilty history behind it, thus providing much justification for his opposition to both. However useful his criticisms, though, one must concede the severe shortcomings in Bakunin's thinking. What he puts forth as universal criticisms of religion and state are not as universal as they would seem. It would have been interesting to see how Bakunin would have dealt with these questions, had he been given a more accurate reading of religious history, not to mention a more humane view of humanity.

Rating:
Summary: Good overview of Bakunin
Review: This is one of the first books I have read on anarchism, and it certainly makes some very powerful points, especially on issues of "divine authority" and the church in general. Bakunin also reveals some novel ideas about religion, its origins and most importantly of all, how church and state support one another to have power over the masses. I have read some of Bakunin's essays but this short book (although incomplete) is good overview of his thought, and a rich overview of some of anarchism's core beliefs.

I also recommend Emma Goldman's "Anarchism and Other Essays" and if you are willing to search for out of print titles "Bakunin on Anarchism".