Karl Marx left a strong antireligion inheritance to generations of socialists, but why are religions so incompatible with socialism? Because socialism constitutes is a religion itself.
Years ago, my mother was telling me about the history of our family when she mentioned that both her father and grandfather, apart from being non-believers, would refuse to step inside a church. I struggled understanding why, at first, until I paid attention to another thing they had in common: both were fervent supporters of the French Communist Party (‘Parti Communiste Français’ or PCF). My grandfather would keep a bust of Lenin on his shelf, would read ‘l’Humanité’, and, of course, would join his fellow comrades for the ‘fête de l’Humanité’, a huge celebration organised by the journal itself, annually, in his city, which had a mayor from the PCF and where most of the people were supporters of the party.
Their socialist beliefs were obviously the cause of their rejection of religion as there are indeed many antireligion incentives in the socialist ideology, which root themselves in Karl Marx’s ideas. Marx qualified religion as ‘the opium of the people’, and simply called for the abolition of what was for him a mere illusion; a reaction due to the suffering of the proletariat, and an instrument of domination for the bourgeoisie (‘the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.’ It is, then, no surprise to see religious groups being constantly persecuted under socialist authoritarian regimes promoting state atheism. A good contemporary example is that of China, who is currently brainwashing its citizens from their early childhood into seeing religion as an enemy, and repressing religious minorities such as Christians and Muslim Uyghurs on an organised and extremely violent way.
Of course, we can ask ourselves: Why did socialists declare such a war on religions? Why are those beliefs such a threat to the state? Well, first, let us try to define what is the state (or government), the state in its contemporary form can be defined as a group of people whether elected democratically or having reached power through a coup-d’état, that has the monopoly of coercion to issue policies and set arbitrary rules, as well as to appropriate itself the fruits of the work of the rest of society through taxation, but yet many people personify the state as an entity with endless resources. French economist Frédéric Bastiat, had observed this phenomenon in his days: ‘[…] you have a profound illusion in your head that there are two factors in society: first, the men who make it up, and second, a fictional being known as the state or the government to which you attribute a cast-iron moral code, a religion, credit and the ability to spread benefits widely and provide assistance […]’
Continue reading at our website
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário