Scan barcode
andredias's review against another edition
adventurous
informative
reflective
slow-paced
2.75
"God and the State" by Mikhail Bakunin is a provocative and influential work that elicits both praise and criticism for its bold ideas and uncompromising stance. On the positive side, Bakunin's critique of religious authority serves as a passionate call to question established norms and challenge oppressive structures. His argument against organized religion as a tool for maintaining power and control resonates with those seeking intellectual liberation and autonomy. Bakunin's emphasis on the need for individuals to emancipate themselves from religious dogma is a powerful message that encourages critical thinking and self-discovery.
However, the book has its shortcomings, particularly in its sweeping condemnation of all forms of religion without acknowledging the diversity of beliefs and practices. Bakunin's broad generalizations may alienate readers who find value in their individual spiritual or religious journeys. A more nuanced exploration of the positive aspects of personal faith and its potential role in fostering ethical behavior could have added depth to his argument.
Similarly, Bakunin's rejection of the state as an oppressive force is both a strength and a weakness. On one hand, his call for immediate and complete revolution reflects a deep commitment to dismantling hierarchical power structures. On the other hand, the lack of a detailed and practical alternative to replace the state leaves a significant gap in his argument. A more comprehensive exploration of alternative social structures or transitional measures could have strengthened his case and made his vision more tangible.
In conclusion, "God and the State" is a thought-provoking work that challenges established norms and encourages critical examination of authority. While Bakunin's passionate critique of religious and political oppression resonates with many, the book could benefit from a more nuanced approach that recognizes the diversity of human experiences and explores practical alternatives to the structures it seeks to dismantle.
However, the book has its shortcomings, particularly in its sweeping condemnation of all forms of religion without acknowledging the diversity of beliefs and practices. Bakunin's broad generalizations may alienate readers who find value in their individual spiritual or religious journeys. A more nuanced exploration of the positive aspects of personal faith and its potential role in fostering ethical behavior could have added depth to his argument.
Similarly, Bakunin's rejection of the state as an oppressive force is both a strength and a weakness. On one hand, his call for immediate and complete revolution reflects a deep commitment to dismantling hierarchical power structures. On the other hand, the lack of a detailed and practical alternative to replace the state leaves a significant gap in his argument. A more comprehensive exploration of alternative social structures or transitional measures could have strengthened his case and made his vision more tangible.
In conclusion, "God and the State" is a thought-provoking work that challenges established norms and encourages critical examination of authority. While Bakunin's passionate critique of religious and political oppression resonates with many, the book could benefit from a more nuanced approach that recognizes the diversity of human experiences and explores practical alternatives to the structures it seeks to dismantle.
astroemi's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
3.5
First of all it’s an unfinished and chaotic book, but let’s not go there. Second, it gives a series of arguments and history lessons that may be informative to anyone who reads them.
The value I see in this book is in positing freedom of thought (which is hindered by religious faith), as intrinsically connected to freedom of action (which is hindered by the state).
The value I see in this book is in positing freedom of thought (which is hindered by religious faith), as intrinsically connected to freedom of action (which is hindered by the state).
briandice's review against another edition
4.0
Very accessible treatise on anarchism, the perils of religion and the hopeful, ongoing pursuit of the improvements of humanity.
Great background text for understanding more of Vollmann's worldview and bedrock for Vol 1 of "Rising Up and Rising Down"
Great background text for understanding more of Vollmann's worldview and bedrock for Vol 1 of "Rising Up and Rising Down"
rotorguy64's review against another edition
2.0
I read God and the State back when I was interested in left-wing anarchist theory, and believed that the anarchocommunists, anarchosocialists, anarchosyndicalists and us libertarian capitalists could come to a mutual understanding. Alas, I was wrong.
I did not know what I was getting myself into. I read it, and I do not remember, for the love of it, a single occasion where I could apply what I read. It was uninspired, it offered no positive vision, or even a coherent whole. Bakunin offered no compelling proof or argument for his own position, only a disjointed critique of others. I will focus on what Bakunin has to say on Christianity, because that is of the most relevance to me, and because it is sufficient to demonstrate his lack of academic virtues.
The book begins with a critique of the account of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis. He paints God as an arbitrary tyrant, and titles Satan "the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds". I don't think [a: Origen|299395|Origen|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1393697301p2/299395.jpg] spelled out how allegorical exegesis works so that Bakunin could forget all about it, but in between trying to ruin the economy and trying to ruin the economy, I suppose it is not so easy to find the time to actually read about the very thing that you're criticizing.
Bakunin also offers his critique of the doctrine of original sin:
Everyone who has bothered to read the theologians knows that there are various perspectives on original sin. Moral guilt does not feature in all, or perhaps even most of them. What Bakunin here is doing is a common feature of anticlerical propaganda: Take the Christian ideas that you find most repugnant, ignore all others, criticize those. Like other anticlerical ideologues, Bakunin has never heard of charitable interpretation, or of the faithful representation of Christian doctrines.
Then Bakunin offers his opinion on soteriology:
Not just that a good number of theologians rejected the idea that hell is everlasting, it is also well-known that an even greater number believed that those who died before Christ arrived could also reach Heaven, or at least everlasting life in Limbo, just without the bliss of being with God. I have never even read the Divine Comedy and I know that last part is in there.
Bakunin goes on and on like this, and I do not feel like debunking all of his wild claims. I believe I have shown that he has nothing to offer against sound doctrine or the Scriptures. He is simply ignorant of his subject matter. Should I criticize every single one of his claims, on the off-chance that one of them carries some weight? I don't think so. But what I think I should do is warn people who have little knowledge of Church history, theology or religious philosophy against reading this work. In fact, I don't think anyone should read this, except for research purposes. Its lies and falsehoods are poison for ignorant minds, and an insult to those who are more knowledgeable.
The book gets a bit better when he picks the positivists and statists as a target. Still, I don't remember it being in any way extraordinary. There are better critiques of positivism and statism from more honest and learned characters.
I did not know what I was getting myself into. I read it, and I do not remember, for the love of it, a single occasion where I could apply what I read. It was uninspired, it offered no positive vision, or even a coherent whole. Bakunin offered no compelling proof or argument for his own position, only a disjointed critique of others. I will focus on what Bakunin has to say on Christianity, because that is of the most relevance to me, and because it is sufficient to demonstrate his lack of academic virtues.
The book begins with a critique of the account of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis. He paints God as an arbitrary tyrant, and titles Satan "the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds". I don't think [a: Origen|299395|Origen|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1393697301p2/299395.jpg] spelled out how allegorical exegesis works so that Bakunin could forget all about it, but in between trying to ruin the economy and trying to ruin the economy, I suppose it is not so easy to find the time to actually read about the very thing that you're criticizing.
Bakunin also offers his critique of the doctrine of original sin:
We know what followed. The good God, whose foresight, which is one of the divine faculties, should have warned him of what would happen, flew into a terrible and ridiculous rage; he cursed Satan, man, and the world created by himself, striking himself so to speak in his own creation, as children do when they get angry; and, not content with smiting our ancestors themselves, he cursed them in all the generations to come, innocent of the crime committed by their forefathers.
Everyone who has bothered to read the theologians knows that there are various perspectives on original sin. Moral guilt does not feature in all, or perhaps even most of them. What Bakunin here is doing is a common feature of anticlerical propaganda: Take the Christian ideas that you find most repugnant, ignore all others, criticize those. Like other anticlerical ideologues, Bakunin has never heard of charitable interpretation, or of the faithful representation of Christian doctrines.
Then Bakunin offers his opinion on soteriology:
Then, remembering that he was not only a God of vengeance and wrath, but also a God of love, after having tormented the existence of a few milliards of poor human beings and condemned them to an eternal hell, he took pity on the rest, and, to save them and reconcile his eternal and divine love with his eternal and divine anger, always greedy for victims and blood, he sent into the world, as an expiatory victim, his only son, that he might be killed by men.
Not just that a good number of theologians rejected the idea that hell is everlasting, it is also well-known that an even greater number believed that those who died before Christ arrived could also reach Heaven, or at least everlasting life in Limbo, just without the bliss of being with God. I have never even read the Divine Comedy and I know that last part is in there.
Bakunin goes on and on like this, and I do not feel like debunking all of his wild claims. I believe I have shown that he has nothing to offer against sound doctrine or the Scriptures. He is simply ignorant of his subject matter. Should I criticize every single one of his claims, on the off-chance that one of them carries some weight? I don't think so. But what I think I should do is warn people who have little knowledge of Church history, theology or religious philosophy against reading this work. In fact, I don't think anyone should read this, except for research purposes. Its lies and falsehoods are poison for ignorant minds, and an insult to those who are more knowledgeable.
The book gets a bit better when he picks the positivists and statists as a target. Still, I don't remember it being in any way extraordinary. There are better critiques of positivism and statism from more honest and learned characters.
primslim's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.5
While I do agree with most of the things Bakunin argues about the idea of banishing the concept of a God from our minds as a means of separatin us from systems that utilize idealistic or diestic thinking to supress us, as well as his many arguments on ways in which we can abolish unjust heirachies, I find that his shameless anti-semitism is hard to get around. His arguments are less for it, as anti-semitism is (like all bigotry) intellectually bankrupt, and some of his points about the Judeo-christian god are based in the anti-intellectualism of anti-semitism.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Antisemitism
cinaedussinister's review against another edition
4.0
Ok king you're saying you like and appreciate science, which is great, but could you actually back up your work with science please? Please? Eh, he includes some history; that's empiricist enough for me, I guess. Good conclusions, though.