Are there Religious Socialists/Marxists ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

I know there are Religious People that call themselves Socialists and even Marxists my question is how can they be Socialists and Marxists since Karl Marx was a Atheist ? Do these Religious Socialists just support Karl Marx's views on Economics but reject his views on Religion as just his personal opinions ?


Atheism and communism
Contemporary communism, including contemporary Christian communism, owes much to Marxist thought – particularly Marxist economics (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Marxian_economics). Not all communists are in full agreement with Marxism, but it is difficult to find any communists today who do not agree at least with the Marxist critique of capitalism. Marxism, however, includes a complex array of views that cover several different fields of human knowledge, and one may easily distinguish between Marxist philosophy, Marxist sociology and Marxist economics. Marxist sociology and Marxist economics have no connection to religious issues and make no assertions about such things. Marxist philosophy, on the other hand, is famously atheistic, although some Marxist scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, have insisted that Marxist philosophy and the philosophy of Marx and Engels are significantly different from one another and that this difference needs recognition. Jose Porfirio Miranda, in particular, found Marx and Engels to be consistently opposed to deterministic materialism and broadly sympathetic towards Christianity and towards the text of the Bible, although disbelieving in a supernatural deity.[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-6)
It is certainly possible to embrace Marxist economics, for example, or certain aspects of it, without embracing Marxist philosophy.[citation needed (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] In fact, that is what the majority of religious communists (not just Christians) have done. In their view, the different fields of Marxist thought have little in common with each other beyond the fact that they were initially proposed by the same person (Karl Marx (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Karl_Marx)). However, other communists believe that all fields of Marxist thought are interrelated, and therefore feel it necessary to subscribe to all of them. These communists are either atheists or agnostics, and they have been leading the communist movement for the past 150 years. This has given rise to the popular image of communism as an atheistic movement.
The Christian communist view of Karl Marx (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Karl_Marx) is mixed. Marx provided the solid economic and sociological foundation upon which the communist movement was built and brought it from relative obscurity to a position of significance on the international political stage. On the other hand, Marx was the first to divorce communism from Christian principles, and as a result there was a strong association during the 20th century between communism and atheism or agnosticism.
The communist movement has been highly fragmented since 1990; while Communist Parties worldwide continue to have millions of members, there is little coordination between them. As such, there is no reliable statistical data on the religious views of communists as a whole. It is commonly assumed, and likely, that the majority are still atheists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

Islamic Marxism is a term that has been used to describe Ali Shariati (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ali_Shariati) (in Shariati and Marx: A Critique of an "Islamic" Critique of Marxism by Assef Bayat). It is also sometimes used in discussions of the 1979 Iranian revolution (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Iranian_revolution), including parties such as the Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Mojahedin-e-Khalq_Organization).[14] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-13)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_Islam
Marxism and Religion (http://www.revleft.com/marxism-religion-liberation-theology220701.htm)

Written by Alan Woods Sunday, 22 July 2001

We have received quite a few e-mails from our subscribers asking about the attitude of Marxists to religion, relating not only to Marxism and Christianity, but also to Islam. For example, we have received several communications from sympathetic people who support liberation theology, in the Philippines. We are also in contact with groups who describe themselves as Islamic Marxists. This is clearly an interesting and important question, which deserves serious treatment. As an initial contribution, we are publishing an article by Alan Woods which is actually based on his replies to such letters.

http://www.marxist.com/marxism-religion-liberation-theology220701.htm

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Do you mean on here?

[Kronsteen]

I know there are Religious People that call themselves Socialists and even Marxists my question is how can they be Socialists and Marxists since Karl Marx was a Atheist ?

First of all, Marxists aren't people who try to be like Karl Marx. They're people who try to continue his cause, and maybe update his writings.

Marx was a terrible stylist, Engels was a foaming homophobe, Lenin was a lousy philosopher, and Trotsky was an incredibly arrogant man. There's no reason for us to imitate them in these respects.

But I think what you're really asking is: Since marxism explains (in passing) why people have religious beliefs, any why these are not good reasons, how can marxists keep any religious beliefs they have?

And the simple answer is: Any religious believer can easily say, "Oh I know why believers in other religions are wrong, but that doesn't apply to my religion, because my religion's true."

The other, related answer is: Some people just aren't good at joined-up thinking, especially when they really want to believe something.

I've spoken to christian marxists, and sometimes they claim there's no contradiction between their christianity and their marxism because christianity is moral and marxism is political - or some such bullshit distinction.

Others try to fuse the two by telling themselves the way to make a workers' revolution is to convert them all to christianity.


Do these Religious Socialists just support Karl Marx's views on Economics but reject his views on Religion as just his personal opinions ?

Some adopt that strategy. Or they might decide that what Marx really meant was not about religion at all, but about corrupt churches. Or some other sophism.

Ask yourself this: How many marxists have actually read Marx? And how many christians have read the bible? How many members of the Adam Smith Institute have read enough Adam Smith to know his ideas are nothing like theirs?

[Robespierres Neck]

Yes. It's contradictory, but they exist.

[EdinSumar]

Contradictions are not anything new. Exactly like "anarcho"-capitalists. You're going to run into a few of those types.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Thank you for your posts.

[Zostrianos]

Yes we do. Religion is a personal thing, and in no way conflicts with Marxism in my view, as long as it remains personal.

[eric922]

I suppose you could call me a religious Marxist. I pratice Buddhism, but more so as a philosophy than in a purely religious sense. I have found the Eight-Fold Path to be helpful for me personally in dealing with personal problems in my life and I think there is a lot of wisdom in some of the Buddhist teachings.

On the other hand I am agnostic and apathetic to the whole karma/rebirth issue, it simply doesn't matter to me if there is another life or not.

I, also, have no desire to see Buddhism have any influence over government and don't go around preaching. As for Marx's statements on religion, I think he was right to an extent. Religion is often used as tool to control people, but that is why religion needs to abolish its internal systems of hierarchy. Unless it can do that, it won't survive in the long run. Some relgions might have harder time of that than others. Catholism and Tibetian Buddhism for instance may not be able to survive without a strict hierarchy.

[Robespierres Neck]

I believe religion should be abolished (as in religious institutions), but it's idealistic to think faith can be done the same way. The only effective way that could be done is with a bullet, but I don't think that would be needed. Through the changes of material conditions, people may come to realize that it's unnecessary, but I don't find faith to be a threat to the building of socialism, as long as it's a personal affiliation (like mentioned above).

Still, I'd like to see a developing, scientific atheist state without the divisions of religion and the selective bigotry that comes with some believers/institutions.

[Rafiq]

You can be a religious communist or socialist, but the two can't be combined (i.e. Theocracy)

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[tradeunionsupporter]

Saddam Hussein's Political Party is said to be based on Socialism but I don't understand what kind ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'ath_Party

[fabian]

I'm a religious socialist, and I consider myself extremly pious.

[Ilyich]

Saddam Hussein's Political Party is said to be based on Socialism but I don't understand what kind ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'ath_Party

Ba'athism isn't Marxist. It's a form of Arab socialism, which might be described as a combination of Arab nationalism and some kind of socialistic economic plan. The Ba'athist states (Iraq and Syria) were/are officially secular but most Ba'athist leaders have been Sunni Muslims. Ba'athism is not really a materialist ideology. Here (http://albaath.online.fr/English/index-English.htm) are some writings by Michel Aflaq, Ba'athist theorist.

[Azraella]

My husband and I are religious anarchists. Ze's Christian and I am pagan. So yeah we exist.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Since Karl Marx is said to be the founder of Socialism where does the Ba'ath Party/Ba'athism get it's Socialist ideas from ? Did Socialism exist before Karl Marx ? Thank you for the book.

http://albaath.online.fr/English/index-English.htm

[tradeunionsupporter]

Did Karl Marx ever talk about Socialism before his time in any of his books or writtings ? Did the Socialists before Karl Marx support collective/common/worker ownership of the means of production ? I have talked to Socialist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America members they seem to claim be Socialists but not Marxists how does this work thank you ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

[Ilyich]

Did Karl Marx ever talk about Socialism before his time in any of his books or writtings ?

Although Marx and Engels were definitely influenced by the socialists who came before them, especially Henri de Saint-Simon (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/s/a.htm#st-simon), Robert Owen (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/owen/index.htm), and Charles Fourier (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/fourier/index.htm), they usually denounced them as utopians. The first mention of utopian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism) by Marx and Engels was in The Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/), first published in 1848. Engels later expanded on the topic of utopian socialism vs. scientific socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism) (his term for Marxism) in his 1880 book Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm)(originally part of his 1878 polemic Anti-Duhring (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/index.htm)). There were, of course, other non-Marxian socialists that existed before (Thomas More (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/m/o.htm#more-thomas)(?), the True Levellers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers), Gracchus Babeuf (http://www.marxists.org/history/france/revolution/conspiracy-equals/index.htm), etc.) and during (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/index.htm), Louis-Auguste Blanqui (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/blanqui/index.htm), Mikhail Bakunin (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/index.htm), etc.) Marx's time.


Did the Socialists before Karl Marx support collective/common/worker ownership of the means of production ?

The pre-Marxian socialists were not a homologous group. Most supported that kind of ownership over the means of production though. What separated utopian socialists from scientific socialists, however, is partly the fact that utopian socialists never or rarely discussed seriously how to achieve and maintain the society they envisioned. For example, while Marx held that the inevitable and necessary proletarian revolution would achieve socialism, Owen, a disillusioned industrialist, thought that socialism could be built if enough people, both workers and capitalists, were convinced of its merits and worked to build communes all over the world.


I have talked to Socialist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America members they seem to claim be Socialists but not Marxists how does this work thank you ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

The DSA is not really a socialist organization. They are, at best, social democratic reformists. Of the SPUSA members who are legitimate socialist, some refer to themselves as Marxists. Some, however, are not Marxists. It is possible, even in modern times, to be a non-Marxian socialist.

[The Young Pioneer]

I consider myself a pretty religious person (E. Orthodox Christian), but that in no way effects my views on how society/politics should go. I think in a communist world, people should have freedom of religion (or from, if they so choose).

I guess I'm different than my fellow church members in that I don't give money there often, unless the church has done me personally a service (cooking, festivals, a baptism, etc.). I also don't condemn homosexuality and a few other fundamental beliefs that my church community largely does, but as far as the belief in afterlife, Jesus, etc., you'll find me among them. *shrug*

I dislike the (what I view as) intolerance among the left for religious believers. I'm not trying to convert anyone, and I don't share my beliefs unless I'm asked about them. It's a very personal thing and has no bearing on how I feel about Marxism. I really don't think it makes me a hypocrite to be both.


To add to Engel's homophobic nature, I also see him as a Slavophobe.

[eyeheartlenin]

Yes we do. Religion is a personal thing, and in no way conflicts with Marxism in my view, as long as it remains personal.

I would think there must be some contradiction between religion and Marxism, given that materialism and atheism are components of Marxism, aren't they? I personally think there is something out there, a benign force, at the very least, so that we are not alone in the universe, and I hold that conviction based on a couple of impressive close calls, one involving a bolt of lightning, and the other two, close encounters with automobiles.

At the same time, as a worker, from a working-class family, for me, class struggle is an undeniable reality, and Marxism is the best explanation of class society I have found. Living with the apparent contradiction is not a problem.

[eric922]

I would think there must be some contradiction between religion and Marxism, given that materialism and atheism are components of Marxism, aren't they? I personally think there is something out there, a benign force, at the very least, so that we are not alone in the universe, and I hold that conviction based on a couple of impressive close calls, one involving a bolt of lightning, and the other two, close encounters with automobiles.

At the same time, as a worker, from a working-class family, for me, class struggle is an undeniable reality, and Marxism is the best explanation of class society I have found. Living with the apparent contradiction is not a problem.
To address your regarding materialism and atheism being components of Marxism, I'm not convinced that is entirely true. Historical Materialism is certainly a requirement for Marxism, but it is more of a way of looking at history, society, etc. It isn't the same as as Ontological Materialism which holds that the physical world is the only thing that exists. At least that's how I understand Ontological Materialism, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

As to, atheism. Well, yes, Marx was an atheist, but I don't view atheism as a necessary part of his theories. If a God exists or the law of karma governs everything, that doesn't change anything in regards to capitalism, which was what Marx and Marxism is concerned with.

Maybe, it's just because it's so late, but my post feels kind of jumbled to me, so if anyone wants me to clarify anything just ask and I'll do so after I've gotten some sleep.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I'm sure they do, some people can readily seperate faith from their politics or don't see the potential contradictions
One that I know for sure is Tony Benn (is certainly a leftist of some kind and very much beliefs in Jesus and regards Him as a socialist and teacher to be respected)

[eyeheartlenin]

eric922 wrote: [As for] ... materialism and atheism being components of Marxism, I'm not convinced that is entirely true. Historical Materialism is certainly a requirement for Marxism, but it is more of a way of looking at history, society, etc. It isn't the same as as Ontological Materialism which holds that the physical world is the only thing that exists.

* * *

Dear Eric: Thank you for your comment; the distinction you made is really very helpful. The expression, "ontological materialism" sounds a little funny [amusing] to me, almost like an oxymoron, but that is probably because I majored in language, not philosophy. Is there such a discipline as ontology, if one is a materialist? :) That is, does materialism allow for the possibility of metaphysics?

As for atheism, I think I remember something by Lenin to the effect that the Bolsheviks would accept believers as party members, but I could be mistaken. The tendency I work with has an apparently strict rule that to be a member, you have to be a non-believer, but that has not impeded my collaboration with them.

[Commiekirby]

Personally, my two cents on the issue of how religion should be handled is just to keep it to yourself (Especially inside a Socialist society) but I'd call myself a very devoted Paganist that's still an active believer in the Communist system regardless of state atheist ideas.

[Azraella]

Personally, my two cents on the issue of how religion should be handled is just to keep it to yourself (Especially inside a Socialist society) but I'd call myself a very devoted Paganist that's still an active believer in the Communist system regardless of state atheist ideas.


Not...all communists support state atheism. I certainly don't. On the same grounds I oppose state religion.

[Igor]

Fun fact: globally there's a very solid chance most socialists/communists are believers. The more you know!

[Imposter Marxist]

There is nothing actually contradictory in being religious and a marxist, it just traditionally is not that way.

[Azraella]

Fun fact: globally there's a very solid chance most socialists/communists are believers. The more you know!


That's interesting. I know locally, all of the anarchists I personally know are Christian. But that might be because of the work my husband does with hir church might have attracted some memebers to anarchism. Who knows?

[KingoftheSwing]

I am an atheist but i don't see why religion should be contradictory to marxism. I can see for example that a lot of anti-clerical christians find themselves in communism if they also find themselves in (biblical) moral values such as equality and solidarity.

[Zostrianos]

The first (pre-Marxist) socialists in the mid 1800's were largely Christians who interpreted Jesus' message as one of revolution and egalitarianism. Notably Alphonse Esquiros (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri-Fran%C3%A7ois-Alphonse_Esquiros), who wrote extensively on Christianity and socialism, and the occultist Eliphas Lévi, a former Catholic priest who also saw Christianity as a form of socialism, preached equality for women, and wrote a small work on the subject, l'Émancipation de la femme, in collaboration with the socialist activist Flora Tristan. The linking of Socialism with atheism seems to have started with Marx.

[Regicollis]

Of course there are religious socialists. Socialism and religion are - for the most part - non-overlapping magisteria. Socialism is a political and economical system, not a metaphysical one.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Thank you for replying.

[Che a chara]

Should Christians be Anarchists? (http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/should_christians_be_anarchists)

by Alexandre Christoyannopoulos

In The Kingdom of God is Within You, Leo Tolstoy wrote that: “Christianity in its true sense puts an end to the State. It was so understood from its very beginning, and for that Christ was crucified.”[1] (http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/should_christians_be_anarchists#_ftn1) This illustrates the main idea behind Christian anarchism, which is that when it comes to politics, “anarchism” is what follows (or is supposed to follow) from “Christianity”. “Anarchism” here can mean, for example, a denunciation of the state (because through it we are violent, we commit idolatry, and so on), the envisioning of a stateless society, and/or the enacting of an inclusive, bottom-up kind of community life. And “Christianity” can be understood, for example, in the very rationalistic way Leo Tolstoy interprets it, through the Catholic framework Dorothy Day approaches it, or through the various Protestant eyes of people like Jacques Ellul, Vernard Eller, Dave Andrews or Michael Elliott. There can therefore be many ways “Christianity” is interpreted, and equally there are many facets to this “anarchism”. But one way or the other, Christian anarchists hold the view that, properly understood, what Jesus implicitly calls us to in today’s political sphere is some form of anarchism.

There are many scriptures from the New Testament which provide the foundation for such a view, and I can only mention the main ones here (I’ve tried to cover all those commented on by Christian anarchists in my book). Arguably, all those passages that touch on politics point to facets of anarchism. The most famous must be the Sermon on the Mount, but much of its content is repeated in the many passages in which Jesus, James, Peter or Paul talk of forgiveness, of being servants or of not judging one another – the state does not do that (or rather we don’t do that through it), and if we did it then the state would anyway become redundant. There is also the third temptation in the desert, a prety clear condemnation of state idolatry. Or the Temple Cleansing, where Jesus’ direct action clearly implies a denunciation of the concentration and abuses of religious, political and economic power (and most Christian anarchists insist the action was nonviolent, by the way). Then there are all the bitter criticisms of the Pharisees as hypocrites in their application of divine law, criticisms that don’t seem that inapplicable to some church authorities today. Jesus’ arrest and trial also exemplify his attitude with respect to political authorities, and his crucifixion embodies both his condemnation of state violence and his forgiving alternative to overcome it. Then there is the Book of Acts, the many Epistles, and of course the Apocalypse – all of which one can find convincing Christian anarchist exegeses on. In other words, according to quite a few passages in the New Testament, Jesus' teaching and example tend towards anarchism broadly defined.

The two passages that are most frequently brought up as “clear evidence” against such Christian anarchist interpretations are Romans 13 and “render unto Caesar”. Neither can be discussed in enough depth here. But to hint at the explanation of these offered by Christian anarchists, regarding the former, Paul (who didn't, by the way, always strictly obey the authorities of his day) is really just offering his interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, of Jesus’ call to forgive and love even the worst of enemies – just as he did by submitting to the Cross. Romans 13 does not legitimise authorities but calls to submit to them as a way of turning the other cheek, to overcome their evil not through violent resistance but with an exemplary attitude that seeks to patiently understand and forgive. As to “render unto Caesar”, the coins are Caesar’s to claim back, but beyond that, little else “belongs to Caesar”. What is not Caesar’s but God’s, however, includes life and indeed pretty much anything but coins and public monuments. Hence Jesus here calls us to clearly distinguish what really matters a lot from the fickle things that are technically Caesar’s. Again, this is just a very brief summary of what can be said about these passages, but it provides a taster to their Christian anarchist interpretation. The other New Testament passages raised against Christian anarchists are usually those where Jesus is said by some to have been violent or to condone violence, yet a careful (Christian anarchist) reading suggests that these allegations don’t really stand – or certainly don’t hold the monopoly over the truth about these passages.

But, you might ask, if when it comes to politics, an anarchist stance is what Christ’s teaching and example demands from its followers, why are so few Christians also anarchists? There are many elements to this answer. For one, what Jesus asks of us is seen by many as simply too demanding, too ambitious, too utopian. Several layers of official theology have also claimed that Jesus didn’t really mean this for us here and now, but only for the hereafter (as if there would be any point voicing such demands if that was the case, to convey but one response to this copout). Indeed, it’s difficult not to agree with Christian anarchists that Jesus’ radical political demands were betrayed by almost all official churches and their theologians as they became more established and institutionalised. What Jesus calls us to is scary in that it is unknown. It seems easier to “stay with the devil we know”. To follow Jesus requires faith in love, faith in the power of love to transform human relationships. In short: it seems near impossible, and the official churches have worked hard to convince us that Jesus didn’t really call us to such a radical political path anyway.

Despite this, however, there are many examples of Christian anarchist political action, including over the past few years. Since 9/11, for instance, Christian anarchists have conducted public “liturgies”, taken part in direct action and joined broader coalitions to denounce the many angles of “War on Terror”, from Afghanistan and Iraq to domestic restrictions on civil liberties. So, for example: they have “turned into ploughshares” US military warplanes passing through Shannon airport; poured blood outside the DSEi Arms Fair; blockaded Northwood and Faslane; read names of war victims outside Downing Street; “exorcised” the MoD; and campaigned in support of wiki-whistleblower Bradley Manning. But they've been just as engaged in denouncing the origins of the financial crisis and the consequences of “our” government's reactions to it; the worsening global environmental catastrophe; the continuing tragedy which sees human beings die in the thousands to seek a better life at the heart of the empire only to be beaten back, imprisoned and sometimes killed while being deported; and of course the globalised political economy which relentlessly produces all this and seems so difficult to truly reform. All this, they have done at huge personal costs – with many arrested and tried, sometimes imprisoned and fined, while the mainstream media are busy pumping adverts and looking elsewhere.

But you can find examples of if not anarchism, at least anarchist tendencies right back to the first Christians. The early churches were persecuted at least in part because they were politically subversive, though they were later co-opted by the Roman authorities and turned into instruments of imperial power. In the late Middle Ages, several millenarian movements and protestant sects (such as the Anabaptists, the Mennonites, the Hussites and the Quakers) endeavoured to apply some of the radical political aspects of Jesus’ teachings. Some of these survive today, although they often compromised their goals in the face of persecution. There are also both ancient and more recent examples of conscientious objectors inspired by Jesus’ example of love and non-resistance. More recently, the Catholic Worker movement, founded by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin in the 1930s, has strived to embody the Christian anarchist society that Jesus described through its network of houses of hospitality, through its regular publications and through its involvement in public demonstrations. In short, there are plenty of examples, past and present, of radical Christians whose politics tends towards anarchism.

Many Christian anarchists point out that the “church” was meant to be an intentional community (willingly joined through baptism and only upon repentance) of people who chose to take up their cross and follow Jesus, a community bound to be as threatening to contemporary authorities as Jesus was, a radically different community of love, care and justice which would enlighten an otherwise very dark world. That cannot unfortunately be said of that many churches to date. And yet radical Christian offshoots have arisen over the centuries, inspired by one another and by Jesus’ anarchist teaching and example. For Christian anarchists, these Christians are the ones who really are the salt of the earth, who sow the seeds of love and forgiveness, whose political engagement follows the subversive path which Jesus calls the church to.

This text is partly adapted from interviews given to The Mormon Worker (issue 10, 28 April 2011, available here (http://themormonworker.net/past-issues/mw-issue-10/an-introduction-to-christian-anarchism/)) and to the BBC’s William Crawley (17 May 2011, available here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2011/05/was_jesus_an_anarchist.html)). For a list of Alexandre’s publications and further details on Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel, see his website: www.christoyannopoulos.com.

Notes
[1] (http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/should_christians_be_anarchists#_ftnref1) Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God Is within You," in The Kingdom of God and Peace Essays, trans. Aylmer Maude (New Delhi: Rupa, 2001), p. 259.