God and the State
Offline Hi there.
Although this thread is political I thought it would fit here better as it is mainly concerned with the basis of morality. I'm sure it will get moved if it is too political for this forum.
Since becoming politicized when I was younger I have always held atheism as part of my ideological beliefs. I hold idealistic and pragmatic ideological beliefs, in that idealistically I believe anarcho-syndicalism (C.N.T. like) and pragmatically in some kind of super-extreme liberalism (kinda like anarcho-syndicalism!). The most important text I've always agreed with is from On Anarchism, By Bakunin, specifically God and the State. The section in this essay entitled Authority and Science has a passage that I have always found helpful in refuting theist concepts of god-given morality: -
"What is authority? Is it the inevitable power of the natural laws which manifest themselves in the necessary linking and succession of phenomena in the physical and social worlds? Indeed, against these laws revolt is not only forbidden - it is even impossible. We may misunderstand them or not know them at all, but we cannot disobey them; because they constitute the basis and the fundamental conditions of our existence; they envelop us, penetrate us, regulate all our movements. thoughts and acts; even when we believe that we disobey them, we only show their omnipotence.
Yes, we are absolutely the slaves of these laws. But in such slavery there is no humiliation, or, rather, it is not slavery at all. For slavery supposes an external master, a legislator outside of him whom he commands, while these laws are not outside of us; they are inherent in us; they constitute our being, our whole being, physically, intellectually, and morally; we live, we breathe, we act, we think, we wish only through these laws. Without them we are nothing, we are not. Whence, then, could we derive the power and the wish to rebel against them?
In his relation to natural laws but one liberty is possible to man - that of recognising and applying them on an ever-extending scale of conformity with the object of collective and individual emancipation of humanisation which he pursues. These laws, once recognised, exercise an authority which is never disputed by the mass of men. One must, for instance, be at bottom either a fool or a theologician or at least a metaphysician, jurist or bourgeois economist to rebel against the law by which twice two make four. One must have faith to imagine that fire will not burn nor water drown, except, indeed, recourse be had to some subterfuge founded in its turn on some other natural law. But these revolts, or rather, these attempts at or foolish fancies of an impossible revolt, are decidedly the exception: for, in general, it may be said that the mass of men, in their daily lives, acknowledge the government of common sense - that is, of the sum of the general laws generally recognised - in an almost absolute fashion."
- p.226 in "On Anarchism" or online here: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/authrty.htm
I have always felt that this completely refutes Xtian and theist ideas of morality and furthermore illustrates that morality is subjective and defined by its context of society, in that morality is not solid but a fluid thing and varies from culture to culture over a long enough time period. I was wondering if anyone had any similar text from other authors or if they completely disagree or agree or find this helpful at all.
- Login to post comments
This reminds me of "The Economic Tendency of Freethought" by Voltairine De Cleyre
There is also have this part of chapter 9 of What is Anarchism? by Alexander Berkman:
They may be dated, but you can still find good stuff from them.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
I have a vintage 1968 Freedom Press edition that doesn't include the first of the three sections. It's the British re-titled ABC of Anarchism version. I'm not sure if this bit is in it, it's been a few years since i read it. Thanks for the suggestion! Will try and find it It may be dated, but compared to religious texts not so much...
Thanks for the Voltairine De Cleyre suggestion, definitely going to check that out, it sounds like a good read from that paragraph.
Welcome aboard fellow left-leaning anarchist!
It's been quite some time since I read God and the State, it's probably time I went back for a reread.
Although religion is heavily criticized in the book, am I correct in remembering that Bakunin also talks about how scientists cannot be allowed to take over the state, as they will also undoubtedly form their own oppressive bureaucracy?
For abolition, not just separation, of church and state!
Well if I was being pedantic I would say that it argues against anyone taking over the State at all and wants to abolish it. But of corse you are correct. There is a complex relation between anarchism and emotional personalities that Vernon Richards points out in "Lessons of the Spanish Revolution". Complete and unrelenting scientific rationality and anarchism do not seem to mix. Unfortunately I am not anywhere near being able to understand this point yet. Let alone able to form a legitimate opinion on it. I'm only 20 though, got plenty of time!