There is Sudan, there is Cambodia, there was Pol Pot and China and Vietnam fighting. There is China’s purge on muslims (which is self proclaimed to be atheist and marxist). Marxism can be used (when twisted enough) to justify horrible things. Many people thus conclude that marxism is bad (the opium of masses a quote from Marx on religion). Do the reactionary logic concluding that marxism is bad because of Stalin and Pol Pot fail? I do think so.
One of the persons I listed, Béla Tábor, a Hungarian philosopher claims that the original Christian faith of Europe disintegrated into revolution (Marx) and religion and that at the time (1945) revolution was the purer one of the two antipodes. There can be place for arguments measuring the role and purity of religion in the 21st century. But categorical arguments have nonintended consequences: marxism, religion and science were all twisted for bad aims. Claiming that religion is inherently bad is the same take as claiming marxism is inherently bad. I am critical towards science, religion and marxism. But my critique is an inner critique. Compared to nazism (or bolshevism): I am opposed to nazism alltogether without claiming that there is pure forces of freedom hidden in it. I do not see how could one make categorical bad judgement about religion (or marxism) akin to judgement about nazism without essentially lying.
The same author, Béla Tábor, a jewish thinker, if alive, would claim that the biggest actor of antisemitism today is the state of Israel itself. He would claim it from a deeply religious point. A point that is so religious that it opposes nationalism radically, very different from the shitshow going down in Israel or the US.
There is Sudan, there is Cambodia, there was Pol Pot and China and Vietnam fighting. There is China’s purge on muslims (which is self proclaimed to be atheist and marxist). Marxism can be used (when twisted enough) to justify horrible things. Many people thus conclude that marxism is bad (the opium of masses a quote from Marx on religion). Do the reactionary logic concluding that marxism is bad because of Stalin and Pol Pot fail? I do think so.
One of the persons I listed, Béla Tábor, a Hungarian philosopher claims that the original Christian faith of Europe disintegrated into revolution (Marx) and religion and that at the time (1945) revolution was the purer one of the two antipodes. There can be place for arguments measuring the role and purity of religion in the 21st century. But categorical arguments have nonintended consequences: marxism, religion and science were all twisted for bad aims. Claiming that religion is inherently bad is the same take as claiming marxism is inherently bad. I am critical towards science, religion and marxism. But my critique is an inner critique. Compared to nazism (or bolshevism): I am opposed to nazism alltogether without claiming that there is pure forces of freedom hidden in it. I do not see how could one make categorical bad judgement about religion (or marxism) akin to judgement about nazism without essentially lying.
The same author, Béla Tábor, a jewish thinker, if alive, would claim that the biggest actor of antisemitism today is the state of Israel itself. He would claim it from a deeply religious point. A point that is so religious that it opposes nationalism radically, very different from the shitshow going down in Israel or the US.