O socialismo e as igrejas: o comunismo dos primeiros critãos

by Rosa Luxemburg

O socialismo e as igrejas: O comunismo dos primeiros cristãos, um texto clássico de Rosa Luxemburgo, de 1905, é aqui publicado ao lado de outro texto seu, inédito em português, de 1902, e intitulado Anticlericalismo e socialismo. Desta forma estão aqui reunidos os dois textos mais importantes de Rosa Luxemburgo sobre o tema religião e socialismo, que tratam da questão do comunismo dos primeiros cristãos e, de uma maneira geral, da religião, igreja e luta de classes....

Genres: Religion, Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction

92 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1905

About the author

Rosa Luxemburg (Rosalia Luxemburg, Polish: Róża Luksemburg) was a Marxist theorist, philosopher, economist and activist of Polish Jewish descent who became a naturalized German citizen. She was successively a member of the Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, the Social Democratic Party of Germany(SPD), the Independent Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party of Germany.

In 1915, after the SPD supported German involvement in World War I, she co-founded, with Karl Liebknecht, the anti-war Spartakusbund (Spartacist League). On 1 January 1919 the Spartacist League became the Communist Party of Germany (KPD). In November 1918, during the German Revolution she founded the Die Rote Fahne (The Red Flag), the central organ of the Spartacist movement.

She regarded the Spartacist uprising of January 1919 in Berlin as a blunder, but supported it after Liebknecht ordered it without her knowledge. When the revolt was crushed by the social democrat government and the Freikorps (WWI veterans defending the Weimar Republic), Luxemburg, Liebknecht and some of their supporters were captured and murdered. Luxemburg was drowned in the Landwehr Canal in Berlin. After their deaths, Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht became martyrs for Marxists. According to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, commemoration of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht continues to play an important role among the German far-left.

Reviews

[Reid tries to read]

Quotes quotes quotes:

the priests of today who fight against “Communism” condemn in reality the first Christian Apostles. For these latter were nothing else than ardent communists.

The Christian religion developed, as is well known, in ancient Rome, in the period of the decline of the Empire... On one side there lived a handful of rich people in idleness, enjoying luxury and every pleasure; on the other side was an enormous mass of people rotting in poverty; above all, a despotic government, resting on violence and corruption, exerted a vile oppression. The whole Roman Empire was plunged into complete disorder, ringed round by threatening external foes; the unbridled soldiery in power practised its cruelties on the wretched populace; the countryside was deserted, the land lay waste; the cities, and especially Rome, the capital, were filled with the poverty stricken who raised their eyes, full of hate, to the palaces of the rich; the people were without bread, without shelter, without clothing, without hope, and without the possibility of emerging from their poverty.

There is only one difference between Rome in her decadence and the Empire of the Czars; Rome knew nothing of capitalism; heavy industry did not exist there. At that time slavery was the accepted order of things in Rome. Noble families, the rich, the financiers, satisfied all their needs by putting to work the slaves with which war had supplied them. In the course of time these rich people had laid hands on nearly all the provinces of Italy by stripping the Roman peasantry of their land… The people of the country-side, robbed of land and bread, flowed from all the provinces into the capital. But there they were in no better a position to earn a livelihood, for all the trades were carried on by slaves. Thus there was formed in Rome a numerous army of those who possessed nothing – the proletariat – having not even the possibility of selling their labour power. This proletariat, coming from the countryside, could not, therefore, be absorbed by industrial enterprises as is the case today; they became victims of hopeless poverty and were reduced to beggary. This numerous popular mass, starving without work, crowding the suburbs and open spaces and streets of Rome, constituted a permanent danger to the government and the possessing classes. Therefore, the government found itself compelled in its own interest to relieve the poverty. From time to time it distributed to the proletariat corn and other foodstuffs stored in the warehouses of the State. Further, to make the people forget their hardships it offered them free circus shows. Unlike the proletariat of our time, which maintains the whole of society by its labours, the enormous proletariat of Rome existed on charity.

The proletariat grumbled, and threatened from time to time to rise in revolt, but a class of beggars, living on crumbs thrown from the table of the lords, could not establish a new social order. Further, the slaves who maintained by their labour the whole of society were too down-trodden, too dispersed, too crushed under the yoke, treated as beasts and lived too isolated from the other classes to be able to transform society. They often revolted against their masters, tried to liberate themselves by bloody battles, every time the Roman army crushed these revolts, massacring the slaves in thousands and putting them to death on cross.

In this crumbling society, where there existed no way out of their tragic situation for the people, no hope of a better life, the wretched turned to Heaven to seek salvation there. The Christian religion appeared to these unhappy beings as a life-belt, a consolation and an encouragement

We have been able to observe that the Roman proletarians did not live by working, but from the alms which the government doled out. So the demand of the Christians for collective property did not relate to the means of production, but the means of consumption. They did not demand that the land, the workshops and the instruments of work should become collective property, but only that everything should be divided up among them, houses, clothing, food and finished products most necessary to life. The Christian communists took good care not to enquire into the origin of these riches

At the beginning, when the followers of the new Saviour constituted only a small group in Roman society, the sharing of the common stock, the meals in common and the living under the same roof were practicable. But as the number of Christians spread over the territory of the Empire, this communal life of its adherents became more difficult. Soon there disappeared the custom of common meals and the division of goods took on a different aspect. The Christians no longer lived like one family; each took charge of his own property, and they no longer offered the whole of their goods to the community, but only the superfluity… Soon it was only the poor Christians – and the proletarian ones – who took part in the communal meals; the rich, having offered a part of their plenty, held themselves apart. The poor lived from the alms tossed to them by the rich, and society again became what it had been. The Christians had changed nothing.

Men no longer tried to establish communism either at Constantinople or anywhere else. At the same time as Christianity expanded and became, in Rome after the 4th Century, the dominant religion, the faithful went further and further away from the example of the first Apostles. Even within the Christian community itself, the inequality of goods between the faithful increased.

In the beginning, when the number of Christians was small, the clergy did not exist in the proper sense of the word. The faithful, who formed an independent religious community, united together in each city. They elected a member responsible for conducting the service of God and carrying out the religious rites. Every Christian could become the bishop or prelate. These functions were elective, subject to recall, honorary and carried no power other than that which the community gave of its own free will. In proportion as the number of the faithful increased and the communities became more numerous and richer, to run the business of the community and to hold office became an occupation which demanded a great deal of time and full concentration. As the office-bearers could not carry out these tasks at the same time as following their private employment… Therefore, these employees of the community had to be paid for their exclusive devotion to its affairs. Thus there formed within the Church a new order of employees of the Church, which separated itself from the main body of the faithful, the clergy. Parallel with the inequality between rich and poor, there arose another inequality, that between the clergy and the people

The more numerous the Christian communities became in the cities of the enormous Roman Empire, the more the Christians, persecuted by the government, felt the need to unite to gain strength. The communities, scattered over all the territory of the Empire, therefore organized themselves into one single Church. This unification was already a unification of the clergy and not of the people. From the 4th Century, the ecclesiastics of the communities met together in Councils. The first council took place at Nicaea in 325. In this way there was formed the clergy, an order apart and separated from the people. The bishops of the stronger and richer communities took the lead at the Councils. That is why the Bishop of Rome soon placed himself at the head of the whole of Christianity and became the Pope. Thus an abyss separated the clergy, divided up in the hierarchy, from the people.

Before the formation of this order, all that the rich members of the Church offered to the common property belonged to the poor people. Afterwards, a great part of the funds was spent on paying the clergy and running the Church. When, in the 4th Century, Christianity was protected by the government and was recognized at Rome as being the dominant religion, the persecutions of the Christians ended, and the services were no longer carried on in catacombs, or in modest halls, but in Churches which began to be more and more magnificently built. These expenses thus reduced the funds intended for the poor. Already, in the 5th Century, the revenues of the Church were divided into four parts; the first for the bishop, the second for the minor clergy, the third for the upkeep of the Church, and it was only the fourth part which was distributed among the needy

As soon as the Christian religion became a State religion, the clergy demanded that gifts must be brought by the poor as well as by the rich. From the 6th century, the clergy imposed a special tax, the tithe (tenth part of the crops), which had to be paid to the Church. This tax crushed the people like a heavy burden; in the course of the Middle Ages it became a real scourge to the peasants oppressed by serfdom. The tithe was levied on every piece of land, on every property. But it was always the serf who paid it by his labor

In this way the Church acquired enormous wealth. At the same time, the clergy ceased to be the “administrator” of the wealth which the Church had entrusted it. It openly declared in the 12th Century, by formulating a law which it said came from Holy Scripture, that the wealth of the Church belongs not to the faithful but is the individual property of the clergy and of its chief the Pope, above all. Ecclesiastical positions therefore offered the best opportunities to obtain large revenue. Each ecclesiastic disposed of the property of the Church as if it were his own and largely endowed from it his relatives, sons and grandsons. By this means the goods of the Church were pillaged and disappeared into the hands of the families of the clergy.... Thus the Church accumulated enormous wealth, especially in arable lands, and the clergy of all Christian countries became the most important landed proprietor. It often possessed a third, or more than a third of all the lands of the country… Among all the mighty lords of feudal times the Church appeared as the greatest exploiter of all. In France for example at the end of the 18th century before the Great Revolution the clergy possessed the fifth part of all the territory of the country with an annual income of about 100 million francs. The tithes paid by the proprietors amounted to 23 million. This sum went to fatten 2,800 prelates and bishops, 5,600 superiors and priors, 60,000 parsons and curates, and 24,000 monks and 26,000 nuns who filled the cloisters.

At the end of the 18th Century and the beginning of the 19th Century, the people of Central Europe swept away serfdom and the privileges of the nobility. At that time, the Church allied itself afresh with the dominant classes – with the industrial and commercial bourgeoisie. Today, the situation has changed and the clergy no longer possess great estates, but they own capital which they try to make productive by the exploitation of the people through commerce and industry, as do the capitalists.

The Catholic Church in Austria possessed, according to its own statistics, a capital of more than 813 million crowns, of which 300 million were in arable lands and in property, 387 million of debentures, and, further, it lent at interest the sum of 70 million to factory owners and businessmen. And that is how the Church, adapting itself to modern times, changed itself into an industrial and commercial capitalist from being a feudal overlord

And here is the answer to all the attacks of the clergy: the Social-Democracy in no way fights against religious beliefs. On the contrary, it demands complete freedom of conscience for every individual and the widest possible toleration for every faith and every opinion. But, from the moment when the priests use the pulpit as a means of political struggle against the working classes, the workers must fight against the enemies of their rights and their liberation. For he who defends the exploiters and who helps to prolong this present regime of misery, he is the mortal enemy of the proletariat, whether he be in a cassock or in the uniform of the police.

[Nils Van Nieuwenhuyse · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rosa Luxemburg, die konnte unglaublich gut schreiben! In diesem Text hat sie Klarheit, Theorie und Humor fantastisch kombiniert. Jeder Satz ist perfekt. Übrigens ist auch das, was sie geschrieben hat sehr interessant und meiner Meinung nach sehr wichtig und relevant. Zum Schluss ist die Weise, auf die sie ihr Diskurs strukturiert hat sehr klug: sie hat überall intelligent Fragmente aus dem Bibel hinzugefügt, um ihre Argumente gegen die heutige Kirche stärker zu machen. ✊🚩

[Bassam Ahmed · Rating 5 out of 5]

كتاب مهم، على الرغم من قصره، للمفكرة الشيوعية البولندية روزا لوكسمبرغ (كتبته باسمها المستعار حينها "يوسف حمورة")، وقد صدر عنها في أعقاب الثورة العمالية الروسية سنة ١٩٠٥ - حيث كان لا يزال لرجال الدين، وخصوصا في الأرياف الروسية، تأثير كبير على المجتمع وطريقة تفكير أفراده - بعنوان "Socialism and the Churches" ، والذي قام بتعريبه بدرجة جيدة، المترجم محمد أبو زيد بعنوان "الكنيسة والإشتراكية".

تتناول روزا في مضمون كتابها، طبيعة العلاقة بين الكنيسة (رجال الدين) والمؤسسة الدينية المسيحية بالطبقة الكادحة المستغلة  ونضالها التحرري كما تتناول علاقتها كذلك بطبقة أصحاب السلطة والنفوذ والحكم (الملوك، النبلاء، الإقطاعيين، والبرجوازيين الرأسماليين في مرحلة لاحقة)، العلاقة التي انحاز في بدايتها مؤسسوا الدين المسيحي (الثوري والتقدمي بمعيار عصره، خصوصا من حيث مسألة اعادة توزيع الثروة والوعي بوجود علاقات الاستغلال ووجوب تحجيمها) إلى الطبقة الكادحة (العمال والحرفيين والعبيد) في حينه، من خلال تعزيز قيمة المشاركة والتعاضد والحد من قيمة التملك، الثراء والملكية الخاصة.

وإنقلبوا عليها حين تمأسست المؤسسة الدينية ضمن هرمية الدولة وأصبحت المسيحية دين الدولة والكنيسة كنيسة الدولة في العهد الروماني، وبذلك غدت أداة من أدوات استغلال النظام للشعب، وتكونت بعدها طبقة رجال الدين الطفيلية (أو تجار الدين والمتكسبين منه) التي سارعت في الانحياز للنبلاء والاقطاعيين والملوك ومشاركتهم في تأمين تدفق الثروة واحتكارها عبر تخدير الشعب وترهيبه بهدف استغلاله والإثراء من قوة عمله.

وهو إطار صالح لايضاح معالم ذلك المجتمع الأوروبي - الروسي المسيحي في القرن العشرين كما هو صالح الى حد كبير لإيضاح طبيعة العلاقة التي تجمع رجال الدين بأصحاب السلطة والسطوة في عالمنا العربي اليوم، حيث تعد المؤسسة الدينية الرسمية أداة من أدوات إخضاع الشعب أيديواوجيا، وتخديره وتجهيله فكريا وثقافيا لضمان سهولة التحكم فيه واستغلاله سواء من السلطات الحاكمة أو من رجال الدين أنفسهم.

كما أوضحت روزا في نصها القيم طبيعة العلاقة بين الإشتراكية والدين، أو حرية الاعتقاد، أي حرية اعتناق أي عقيدة روحية (حرية الضمير) بخلاف ما يتم الترويج له من قبل خصوم الاشتراكية، بأنها تحارب الدين وتهدف لفرض الإلحاد على الشعوب (ما إن ينجح الاشتراكيون في تسنم السلطة) بالقوة!

أما أوجه الربط بين تاريخنا وحاضرنا الاسلامي مع تاريخ وحاضر المسيحية، سواء في مرحلة النشوء أو مراحل الترسمل فهي برأيي كثيرة، منها للذكر لا الحصر: جانب المشاعية أو تقاسم الملكية الذي مثلته عمليات الإخاء بين المهاجرين والأنصار، توزيع الغنائم، مفاهيم الزهد والتكافل الإجتماعي، مفهوم إن الأموال والموارد هي ملك لله وحده وفيها حق لا منة فيه لكل عباده، مفهوم التقوى كمعيار التفضيل الديني، لا الثروة أو الطبقة ... إلخ التي سادت في مراحل الدعوة وتكوين الدولة المحمدية في فجر الإسلام وهو ما دفع شاعرا كأحمد شوقي لكتابة البيت التالي من قصيدته في مدح النبي محمد (ص) بعنوان "ولد الهوى":

"والإشتراكيون أنت إمامهم .. لولا دعاوي القوم والغلواء"

وعن التواطئ والتكسب من الدين عبر برقرطته وتدجين رجاله والذين أدمنوا السلطة والحظوة وتاجروا بمبادئ الدين وقيمه السامية وأعلوا من قدسية "طاعة ولي الأمر" وأسقطوا كل ما دونها من تعاليم وقيم وفرائض تدعوا للتكافل، الثورة ضد الظلم والتفكير، يكفي معاينة واقع المؤسسات الدينية ومواقف من يرأسها المخزية التي لا تعد وتحصى.

ملاحظتي هنا قد لا تكون على الكتاب نفسه وإنما على الناشر، الداعم والممول "مؤسسة روزا لوكسمبورغ" المدعومة من الحكومة الألمانية - وهي جهة غير مستقلة، مدعومة ومسيطر عليها من المركزية الإمبريالية الغربية الأوروبية والطبقة البرجوازية الرأسمالية الحاكمة لهذه المركزية. الشاهد هنا هو موقف المؤسسة من: الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي، الثورات العمالية في الغرب الرأسمالي اليوم، من الهيمنة الإمبريالية الغربية (الأمريكية-الأوروبية) ودكتاتورية البروليتاريا. برأيي أن هذه المؤسسة هي مؤسسة أسستها ورعتها الرأسمالية الأوروبية في مسعاها لإعادة انتاج نموذجها -ذاتها- الرأسمالي البرجوازي.

كتاب مهم، أنصح به.

اقتباسات:

"لكي ينجـح النضال مـن أجـل المزيد من العدالة الاجتماعية، ينبغي على القوى السياسية التقدمية أن تمثل صوتا لتلك الفئات من السكان الذيـن يعانون من الإستغلال والفقر، بغض النظر عـن معتقداتهم، وأن تؤسس تحالفات مـع القوى السياسية التي تشاركها هذا المبدأ." ص٣ *المقدمة - بيتر شيفر

"وبدلا مــن دعم الناس المهمومين والمعدمين بفعل حياتهم القاسية، هؤلاء الذين يذهبون بورع وتقوى إلى الكنيسة، ينتقد القساوسة بعنف العمال المضربين أو المناضلين ضد الحكومـة، ويقنعونهم بتحمل العوز والإضطهاد بهوان وصبر جاعلين مـن الكنيسة والمنبر مكاناً للتحريض السياسي."ص٥

"فالإشتراكيون الديمقراطيون يسعون إلى القضاء على هيمنة الزبانية والمستغلين الأثرياء على الشعب الفقير العامل. وبناء على ذلك، حري بالمرء القول، كان على خدم الكنيسة أن يدعموا أولا الإشتراكيين الدميقراطين وأن يمدوا لهم يدهم؛ فتعاليم المسيح، التي خدمها هم القساوسة، تقـول:”أن مرور جمل من ثقب إبرة أيسر من أن يدخل غني إلى ملكوت الله“!" ص٦

"يقف رجال الدين حين يدافعون عن الأغنياء، وعن الإستغلال والاضطهاد على النقيض وبشكل صريح من تعاليم المسيحية. إن الأساقفة والقساوسة لا يتصرفون كخدم لتعاليم المسيح، بل كخدم للعجل الذهبي وللسـوط الذي يضرب الفقراء والعزل." ص٧

"فغالبية القساوسة يقابلون الأغنياء وذوي النفوذ بوجه بشوش وانحناءات خانعة تغفر بصمت لهم كل ظلم وكل  فجور. إلا أنه في مـا يتعلق بالعمال، فليس لدى رجال الديـن غالباً سوى معاملة قاسية ومواعظ صارمة مقابل ”تطاولهـم“، إذا ما حاولوا حماية أنفسهم بعض الشيء من استغلال الرأسماليين السافر." ص٨

"وحين يمتلك أولئك، وهم حفنة صغيرة، حصرياً، جميع الأراضي والغابات والمراعي، جميع القطعان والبنية الإقتصادية، جميع الورش ووسائل ومواد الإنتاج، في حين أن الآخرين – الغالبية العظمى من الشعب – لا تمتلك شيئاً يمكنها مـن العمل، لا يمكن في مثل هذه الظروف أن تقوم مساواة بـين الناس، وعليه لا بد من وجود أغنياء وفقراء، وجود فيض وفقر." ص١٦

"نحن لانريد أن يتقاسم الأغنياء مع الفقراء، بل أن لا يكون هناك من حيث المبدأ أغنياء وفقراء. إلا أن ذلك سيصبح ممكناً فقط عندما يصبح مصدر كل غنى: الأرض وجميع وسائل العمل الأخرى ملكاً مشتركاً لكل الشعب العامل الـذي تُنتج من أجله السلع الضرورية وفق احتياجات الجميع." ص١٧

"كيف يغتني الأغنياء إذا لم يكن من خلال الإستحواذ على ما يعود للجميع. لو أن كل فرد لم يمتلك أكثر مما يحتاج للرزق، تاركاً الباقـي للآخرين، لما كان هناك لا فقراء ولا أغنياء." ص١٩-٢٠ *القديس باسيليوس للأغنياء من أبناء الطائفة - القرن الرابع الميلادي

"وبالرغم من أنهم بداية انتخبوا من بين صفوفهم مؤمنين متساويين في الحقوق من أجل تمثيل الجماعة مؤقتا في سلك الكنيسة، ما لبث أن إرتقى رجال الدين إلى منزلة طائفة تسمو فوق الشعب." ص٢٦-٢٧

"إذ كلما ازداد غنى وسطوة رجال الدين، كلما فقد جمهور المؤمنين أكثر فأكثر كل سيطرة على أملاك الكنيسة وإيراداتها." ص٢٨

"وفي القرون الوسطى حين أصبح الشعب العامل أكثر  عوزاً وفقراً مـن خلال أعمال السخرة، اغتنى رجال الدين أكثر فأكثر. إذ عوضاً عن الإيرادات الواردة مـن الأعشار وضرائب ومدفوعـات أخرى، حصلت الكنيسة في ذلك الوقت على هبات ووصايا ميراث مـن أغنياء ورعين أو من فاسقين أغنياء مــن كلا الجنسين، ممن أرادوا مـن خلال إرث وافر مقدم إلى الكنيسة في آخر أيامهم افتداء خطاياهم الحياتية." ص٢٩

"وقد كان التبتل قد استحدث في القرن الحادي عشر، إلا أنه تم العمل به، نتيجة لعناد القساوسة، بشكل عام فقط في نهاية القرن الثالث عشر." ص٣٠

"شكل رجال الدين الميسورون جداً مـع نبلاء السخرة
طبقة تسود الشعب الفقير وتعتاش مـن دمه وعرقه." ص٣٢

"كما كان رجال الدين العدو المبين لجماهير المدن والأرياف عندما ثار هؤلاء أخيراً من أجل القضاء في سياق الثورة على استغلال أعمال السخرة ولنيل حقوق الإنسان." ص٣٢

"وهكذا تحولـت الكنيسة من سيد للسخرة في القرون الوسطى إلى رأسمالية صناعية ومالية حديثة. وكما انتمت في الماضي إلى الطبقة التي اعتصرت دم وعرق الفلاحين، أصبحت الآن تنتمي إلى الطبقة التي تغتني مـن خلال استغلال عمال المصانع والزراعة، من خلال استغلال الطبقة الكادحة." ص٣٤

"القول أن الكنيسة تعيش اليوم، جنباً إلى جنب مع الحكومة وطبقة الرأسماليين، على حساب العمل الشاق للشعب المستغل." ص٣٧

"أما الشيوعية التـي تسعى إليها الإشتراكية الديمقراطية فلم تعد تلك التي تقسم الثروة التي تنتجها العبيد والأقنان بين المتسولين والأغنياء والكسالى، بل جماعة عمل مخلص واستمتاع عادل بالثمار المشتركة لهذا العمل. لم تعد الإشتراكية تعني أن الأغنياء يشاركون الفقراء، بل تعني بالذات التخلص من هذا الفرق بين الأغنياء والفقراء من خلال تطبيق ذات واجب العمل على جميع القادرين على العمل والقضاء كلياً على استغلال الفرد مـن قبل الآخرين." ص٤٠-٤١

"فجميع هذه الـثروات الضخمة التي راكمتها الكنيسة تم اسـتملاكها من خلال الإستغلال والتمييز ضد الشعب العامل." ص٤١

"فالشعب المستنير، الذي يناضل من أجل حقوقه والمساواة بين الناس، مكروه من قبل القساوسة بقـدر مـا هـو مكروه من جميع الرأسماليين المتطفلين، لأن تطبيق المساواة والقضاء على الإستغلال هو بمثابة رصاصة الرحمة بالأخص لرجال الدين الذين يعيشون على الإستغلال وعدم المساواة." ص٤٢

"وكما زج الرأسماليون عقول الشعب في سجن العوز والعبودية، حبس رجال الدين روح الشعب من أجل مساعدة الرأسماليين بهدف سيطرتهم عليه، خشية أن يقوم شعب متعلم ورشيد بالنظر إلى العامل والطبيعة من خلال عيون رفع العلم الغشاوة عنها." ص٤٢

"يحاول رجال الدين المعاصرين إقناع الشعب بأن ما يعانيه مــن عوز وإذلال لا يعود إلى الظروف الإجتماعية المشينة، بل إلى أمر السماء، إلى قضاء وقدر العناية الالهية. ومــن خلال ذلك بالذات تقتل الكنيسة الروح في الإنسان العامل، تقتل فيه الأمل والإرادة في مستقبل أفضل، تقتل فيه الإيمان بذاته وقواه واحترام الكرامة الإنسانية الذاتية." ص٤٣

"لا تسلب الإشتراكية الديمقراطية أحداً عقيدته ولا تحارب الدين! فعلى النقيض هي تطالب بحرية الضمير الكاملة للجميع واحترام كل عقيدة وكل إيمان. ولكن إذا أراد القساوسة استغلال المنابر كوسيلة صراع سياسي ضد طبقة العمال، سيتعامل العمال معهم كما مع جميع أعداء حقوقهم وتحررهم. فمن يدعم المستغلين والمضطهدين ويحاول تكريس النظام المجتمعي المشين القائم اليوم، هو عدو لدود للشعب، سواء ارتدى جبة القسيس أم بزة الشرطي." ص٥٠

[future_compost ☭ ⋆｡ °✩ ⋆˚]

“But people do not steal, rob or get drunk at all, because they like to do so or insist upon it.
It is poverty and ignorance that are the causes of it.”

[Sergie Mayfield · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting discourse on the history of the churches, from its inception to the time of Rosa, allowing us to view churches at that time from her perspective. Many of the arguments against the Church can still be applied today, especially the greediness and the power the Catholic institution holds over people. Overall, a very good booklet.

[Barbara Woodke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very clear historical review of the evolution of religion, especially Roman Catholicism. It covers the impact of the economic evolution of society, such as Serfdom and Capitalism, on Christianity, and covers the initial attempts of early Christianity to follow the teachings of Christ by dispersal of goods based on the needs individuals.

[Matheus]

Audiobook gratuíto da Audioteca Crítica

[Hungry Rye · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent critique of the churches and how they’ve worked historically with the oppressing class.

[Lourens Van Hoorn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vrij luchtig maar slaat de spijker op de kop

[bruna · Rating 4 out of 5]

obrigada por tudo Audioteca Crítica!!

[renee · Rating 4 out of 5]

rosa rosa rosa thank you as always. not anything of substance i didn’t already know, but so poignantly written and helped me organise my thoughts in a more chronological order <3

[·:*¨༺ ♱✮♱ ༻¨*:· bonnie · Rating 3 out of 5]

based

[Hout · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nesta obra(um pequeno texto), Rosa Luxemburgo argumenta a respeito da constante rejeição da igreja perante ao avanço do movimento socialista. Em sua visão, a rejeição, perseguição e condenação promovida pela igreja sobre o crescente movimento socialista não faz sentido, visto que, para ela, não apenas o Cristianismo e o Comunismo compartilham de consideráveis semelhanças, como também os primeiros cristãos supostamente teriam adotado um sistema político, moral e econômico semelhante a uma espécie de comunismo primitivo.

Para sustentar sua tese, Rosa faz um apanhado histórico a respeito do Cristianismo no Império Romano, como também a respeito das doutrinas econômicas supostamente defendidas pelos primeiros cristãos – que, de acordo com ela, foram “adeptos fervorosos do comunismo”.
Para Rosa, os primeiros cristãos estabeleceram um sistema baseado na propriedade comum(ou seja, um comunismo) para os bens acabados – ou seja, um comunismo para com os produtos acabados que seriam distribuídos entre a comunidade, mas sem a propriedade comum da comunidade sobre os meios de produção. Ela também realiza uma crítica e ressalta os motivos de este sistema não ter prevalecido nos séculos posteriores.

Como evidências para sua tese, Rosa Luxemburgo cita palavras ditas por cristãos como S. Basílio e S. Crisóstomo. É claro, ela também cita versículos e frases retiradas da Bíblia que podem ser encontradas no uso comum.

Entretanto, seus argumentos em geral são fracos e pouco fundamentados. Há pouca fundamentação sobre por quê tal sistema poderia ser comparável ao comunismo marxista, tampouco cita evidências históricas realmente convincentes. Ela parece desconhecer boa parte dos ideais cristãos, e não dá espaço suficiente para contestações cristãs à sua filosofia política. Além disso, ela parece carecer de interpretação de boa parte das citações colocadas em seu texto.
Devido a estes fatores, acredito que o trabalho mereça 2 estrelas(o que seria equivalente a uma nota 4 em minha opinião); falta de fundamentação real, evidências históricas insuficientes e não muito convincentes, falta de espaço para contestações e críticas, e uma possível falta de interpretação das citações colocadas pela autora com o objetivo de comprovar sua tese.

Acredito que uma leitura crítica, especialmente caso feita por um historiador da religião e filosofia cristãs(como a Patrística e a Escolástica), seja o suficiente para derrubar grande parte dos argumentos levantados por Rosa Luxemburgo neste trabalho. Não recomendo.
Mesmo um não-marxista como eu pode admitir que ela possui algumas obras consideravelmente boas e dignas de nota e atenção mais rigorosa; esta, entretanto, não é uma dessas.

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gearing up for seminary, I had to take the Graduate Record Examination. Grinnell, Iowa didn't have a nearby test site so I arranged to take the thing during Christmas break at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb where two of my high school friends, now roommates in nearby Sycamore, studied history. Thanks to the recent rise in oil and heating prices, the college had much lengthened winter break, so I had a week, maybe nine days, to visit, "prepare" for the exam and write up the many essays Union Theological required as part of its application process.

As it happens, I did the essays, but neglected to prepare for the exam. Instead, Arthur, Walter and I did a lot of studying during the days, staying up late to talk or go out drinking at night. I got loaded the night before the GRE, slept very little, but thanks to Maine South high school preparation for such things, the exam was easy enough. The essays, there must have been about twenty of them, were far more important. Here I was, not even baptised, applying to seminary.

My friends were concerned. Both were Marxists, both knew me as a socialist. Planning theological education raised eyebrows and led to much discussion. Walter, in a kind gesture, gave me a copy of Luxemburg's conciliatory pamphlet to read as well as a draft of his master's thesis, "Oh, Liberty! Oh, My Country!"--a study of the popular imagination of the colonial footsoldier during the American revolution. Naturally, much of their thinking was along moral and religious lines just as my own socialism had always stemmed from ethical considerations.

[Xico Pedro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ai rosinha rosinha, matas-me com palavras belas, deixo aqui este mel, alimentem-se:
"O comunismo que os sociais democratas têm em vista não consiste na distribuição entre pobres, ricos e preguiçosos da riqueza produzida por escravos e servos, mas no trabalho comum honesto e unido e no gozo honesto dos frutos comuns desse trabalho. O socialismo não consiste em dádivas generosas feitas pelos ricos aos pobres, mas na abolição total de toda a diferença entre ricos e pobres, obrigando todos igualmente a trabalhar de acordo com a sua capacidade para se suprimir a exploração do homem pelo homem"

[Xle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Maravilhoso. Uma visão extremamente atual das contradições do que se entende por exército e religião no Estado republicano moderno.