Marxism and religion

This article discusses the tradition of Western Marxism-focusing upon key differences between Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School-in an effort to suggest what it is about this tradition that accounts for its widespread appropriation in contemporary Christian political thought. The work of the Frankfurt School and Gramsci is representative of the shift within Marxism toward a concern with the politics of consciousness, the political-ideological role of intellectuals, the relation of theory and praxis, and the theorization of domination in advanced capitalist societies. These are concerns that serve as a bridge between Western Marxism and the Christian political ethics of such writers as Jose Miguez Bonino, Cornel West, and Charles Davis. Yet there remain important differences between the Frankfurt School and Davis on the one hand and Miguez Bonino, West, and Gramsci on the other. These differences can be seen in their divergent understandings of the nature and purpose of thought and in their divergent analyses of the relation between the state and civil society.

In the early decades of the twentieth century, as Japanese society became engulfed in war and increasing nationalism, the majority of Buddhist leaders and institutions capitulated to the status quo. At the same time, there was a stream of ‘resistance’ among a few Buddhist
figures, both priests and laity. These instances of progressive and ‘radical Buddhism’ had roots in late Edo-period peasant revolts, the lingering discourse of early Meiji period liberalism, trends within Buddhist reform and modernisation and the emergence in the first decade of the twentieth century of radical political thought, including various forms of socialism and anarchism. This essay analyses the roots of ‘radical Buddhism’ in Japan by analysing the life and work of three distinctive figures: Tarui To¯kichi (1850–1922), Takagi Kenmyo¯ (1864–1914), and Uchiyama Gudo¯ (1874–1911). While noting their differences, I argue these three collective represent both the problems and possibilities of radical Buddhism in an East Asian and specifically Japanese context.

Wie hältst du’s mit der Religion?  Kate Davison über das Verhältnis von Atheismus, Säkularismus und Religionsfreiheit oder warum »Opium des Volkes« eine von Linken wohl am häufigsten falsch zitierten und interpretierten Textstellen des Marxʼschen Werkes ist. >> Short version: https://www.marx21.de/atheismus-saekularismus-und-religionsfreiheit/

This paper critically examines the liberation theology of José Porfirio Miranda, as expressed in his Marx and the Bible (1971), with a focus on the central idea (and subtitle) of this work: the “Critique of the Philosophy of Oppression.” Miranda’s critique is examined via certain key tropes such as “power,” “justice,” and “freedom,” both in the context of late twentieth-century Latin American society, and in the state of the “post-Christian” and “post-Marxist” world more generally, vis-à-vis contemporary liberal justice theory. Close examination of the potentialities, paradoxes and subtle evasions in Miranda’s critique leads not to the conclusion that Miranda does not go far enough in his application of Christian principles to justice theory.

This article offers an analysis of the relationships among Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's thought, transhumanist philosophy, and the doctrine of the Catholic Church. In the first section, we will show the essential features of three different forms of Catholicism, the last of which can be traced back to the theological reflection of the Jesuit priest. In the second section, we will present some salient aspects of Teilhard de Chardin's scientific and political thought, showing how they are perfectly in line with the postulates of contemporary transhumanism. In the third section, we will trace the reception of Teilhard de Chardin's ideas by the ecclesiastical hierarchy, by paying major attention to the official documents of the Catholic Church and to the statements of pontiffs and high prelates. Finally, in the fourth and last section, we will cross the borders of the history of ideas to venture into some general pedagogical reflections.

This volume explores seven distinct cases of radical Buddhism, providing a comparative overview of the diverse interactions of different types of Buddhism and various forms of political radicalism. Contributors to this special issue focus on Buddhist radicalism as a general phenomenon, but some of them specifically explore movements that were inspired by socialist ideologies in the broadest sense and therefore conceptualize these as examples of specific cases of radicalism. By examining the individuals (monks, scholars, and laypeople) and movements (both inside and outside the sangha) responsible for the creation and promotion of radical Buddhism, this volume deals with an area of Buddhist modernism that has hitherto been neglected in research. The contributions also examine the various ways in which the Buddhadharma and radical ideas were conceptualized as an integral part of the emergence of Asian “modernity,” both in response to and in resistance to Western imperialism and the forces of incipient globalization. By focusing on specific nonwestern conceptions of modernity, the volume allows for a decentering of notions of a “universal” (or purely Western) modernity. Finally, as noted above, by understanding Buddhist socialist movements as “radical,” this volume allows for a broader conception of Buddhist resistance, and puts into question the definition of terms such as “socialist,” “anarchist” and “communist” when used in a non-western and specifically Asian Buddhist context. Covering examples from Theravāda Buddhism (Thailand, Sri Lanka, India) as well as various regions of Mahāyāna Buddhism (China, Korea and Japan), the volume will explore the heterogeneity of these movements, but will also highlight the continuities that mark the connections and conjunctures between Buddhism and radical political theories and practice. While mainly historical in its outlook, the articles will approach the relevant topics and materials from a variety of innovative perspectives, exemplifying a broad range of academic viewpoints and methods; e.g., historical, philosophical, anthropological, textual and cultural.

Marx’s critique of religion is complete only insomuch as religion is characterized as an ideology - as false consciousness. Marx arrays religion along modern establishments - social institutions such as family, community and law - as ideas not only determined by material conditions but also as a cycle that reproduces the very illusions that perpetuate this reality. Religion is a form of self-alienation - a symptom of a failed system - for what man cannot achieve in the concrete world, he does so through religion. By conjuring a power beyond, religion functions as an escape; taking man to a paradise of fantastic and illusory happiness. For religion exists through layers of illusions and disillusions, it is tantamount to the idolatry of the very fetishes and inversions created by the system. Given these general premises, Marx posits that only by escaping the present state of affairs by totally abolishing it - through a revolution towards a communist state - can a pure religion be achieved. While Marx provides a compromise by asserting that a pure religion can be found only within a communist state, this notion still undermines the very existence of religion, primarily Christianity, for Marx still dismisses it as illegitimate, ideological and even fictitious under the present system.

There is a great need, however, to reexamine Marx’s categorization of religion as ideology. When is an idea non-ideological? This equally is a crucial meta-question that Marxism in itself faces. Through a thorough reading of four commentaries on Marx’s four most important works - namely, Communist Manifesto, The German Ideology, On the Jewish Question and the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts - this paper ultimately argues that ideological fallibility can only be transcended through one prerequisite: a revolutionary thinking - a theoretical framework that is self-conscious of the material reality that it is subjected to, and so, seeks to change this. With this (re)characterization of ideology, this paper aims to relocate Christianity today - albeit still within the locus of Marxist thinking - by positing Christianity as God’s revolution with Jesus Christ as the transpolitical salvation continually transforming and revolutionizing individuals, society and the world. The aim of this paper is not so much to provide parallelisms between Marxism and religion - as dominant narratives incessantly insist upon - and more so, not to examine Marx’s pure religion in the new state of affairs for this concept is recognized for its ambiguity. Instead, the heart of this paper shall focus on (re)examining religion in a renewed sense of ideology by looking at its revolutionary dimension. That, ultimately, religion escapes not to escape but only to be able to return and redeem.

“Science of Religion”, “Scientific Atheism”, “Religious Studies”: Actual Problems of the Academic Study of Religion in Russia in XX – the beginning of XXI Century.
The publication presents the results of collective research of the history of the study of religion in Russia in XX - – the beginning of XXI century. The authors used not only traditional methods of the history of ideas, but also a number of untraditional for this domain of knowledge approaches, such as discourse analysis of M. Foucault, the conception of scientific-research programs of I. Lacatosh, sociological approaches of R. Merton and R. Collinns, institutional analysis and so on. The main purpose of the work is to put in question established approaches and opinions, formed around the phenomena of soviet scientific atheism, its roots and forms and ways of its impact on modern religious studies in Russia. There are so attempts of general characteristics of development of study of religion in Russia in XXth century as case studies devoted to concrete episodes and aspects of its history in the monography. We also raise the question about the relationship between “scientific atheism” and the practice of atheistic propaganda and the persecution of believers in the USSR. The book includes historical and bibliographical section, which consist of the materials on editions and periodicals devoted to study of religion in modern Russia and the index of Russian-language literature on the history and theory of the religious studies in the USSR.
The book is intended for specialists and students in the study of religion, history of science and humanities, history of Russia of XX century. It may be interesting for everybody who is learning the spiritual life of Russia of XX – the beginning of XXI century.
Key words: scientific atheism, history of religious studies, ethos of science, sociology of science, Moscow State University, sects, second Vatican Council, E. Durkgheim, W. Schmidt, atheistic propaganda, atheistic education, militant atheism.

While it is only in recent decades that scholars have begun to reconsider and problematize Buddhist conceptions of “freedom” and “agency,” the thought traditions of Asian Buddhism have for many centuries struggled with questions related to the issue of “liberation”—along with its fundamental ontological, epistemological and ethical implications. With the development of Marxist thought in the mid to late nineteenth century, a new paradigm for thinking about freedom in relation to history, identity and social change found its way to Asia, and confronted traditional religious interpretations of freedom as well as competing Western ones. In the past century, several attempts have been made—in India, southeast Asia, China and Japan—to bring together Marxist and Buddhist worldviews, with only moderate success (both at the level of theory and practice). This paper analyzes both the possibilities and problems of a “Buddhist materialism” constructed along Marxian lines, by focusing in particular on Buddhist and Marxist conceptions of “liberation.” By utilizing the theoretical work of Japanese “radical Buddhist” Seno’o Girō, I argue that the root of the tension lies with conceptions of selfhood and agency—but that, contrary to expectations, a strong case can be made for convergence between Buddhist and Marxian perspectives on these issues, as both traditions ultimately seek a resolution of existential determination in response to alienation. Along the way, I discuss the work of Marx, Engels, Gramsci, Lukàcs, Sartre, and Richard Rorty in relation to aspects of traditional (particularly East Asian Mahāyāna) Buddhist thought.

Abstract: On the face of it Marx and Engels have a radically different account of religion to that offered by Wittgenstein in the 1930s and 1940s. Marx and Engels accepted Enlightenment criticisms of religion and thought of religion as being in direct conflict with science whereas Wittgenstein thought that religion and science involved very different kinds of activities and different kinds of belief, such that they could not come into direct conflict. It seems likely that Marx and Engels’s account would be viewed as scientistic by Wittgenstein. However, there are many commonalities between the understanding of religion found in the work of Marx and Engels and the understanding of religion found in Wittgenstein’s later work. Neither the Marxist account nor the Wittgensteinian one is wholly rationalistic. Both stress the role of practice in religion. Both stress commonalities between religious believers and those who are not religious. By combining insights from Marx, Engels, and Wittgenstein we can give an account of religion that overcomes problems found in the work of recent thinkers, such as the New Atheists. If we combine their insights we will be more likely to attend to things like power and oppression and to do justice to the oppressed and we will also be more sensitive to differences between the practices of scientists and religious believers. https://www.peterlang.com/view/9783631857519/html/ch19.xhtml

First, a close reading of Judith Butler's The Psychic Life of Power underscores the ways in which Butler's account of power liquidates issues of political economy and problematically ontologizes Freudianism as a kind of first philosophy of the subject. Second, drawing largely from secondary sources, the religious studies reader is introduced to the life and work of Ernest Dicther, the father of motivational research, an influential American mid-twentieth century psychoanalytic school of marketing that Freudianized marketing discourse and transformed it into the present day. Third, drawing from primary sources in Dichter's published archive, a comparative reading of Butler and Dichter reveals strong points of confluence around the psychology and performativity of (consumer) ritual, concomitantly highlighting scholars' hidden participation in the American religious history Kathryn Lofton figures according to the terms of 'consuming religion'.

La religión en nuestro mundo se ha convertido en la religión de las cosas. El análisis del fetichismo de la mercancía realizado por Marx anticipa ya este paso, y así, su crítica de la religión sigue resultando más que actual para confrontar el mundo construido por el neoliberalismo, pero esta vez, haciendo un análisis acerca de qué son las «cosas» en el pensamiento marxiano.

Abstract: On the face of it Marx and Engels have a radically different account of religion to that offered by Wittgenstein in the 1930s and 1940s. Marx and Engels accepted Enlightenment criticisms of religion and thought of religion as being in direct conflict with science whereas Wittgenstein thought that religion and science involved very different kinds of activities and different kinds of belief, such that they could not come into direct conflict. It seems likely that Marx and Engels’s account would be viewed as scientistic by Wittgenstein. However, there are many commonalities between the understanding of religion found in the work of Marx and Engels and the understanding of religion found in Wittgenstein’s later work. Neither the Marxist account nor the Wittgensteinian one is wholly rationalistic. Both stress the role of practice in religion. Both stress commonalities between religious believers and those who are not religious. By combining insights from Marx, Engels, and Wittgenstein we can give an account of religion that overcomes problems found in the work of recent thinkers, such as the New Atheists. If we combine their insights we will be more likely to attend to things like power and oppression and to do justice to the oppressed and we will also be more sensitive to differences between the practices of scientists and religious believers. https://www.peterlang.com/view/9783631857519/html/ch19.xhtml

Abstract: On the face of it Marx and Engels have a radically different account of religion to that offered by Wittgenstein in the 1930s and 1940s. Marx and Engels accepted Enlightenment criticisms of religion and thought of religion as being in direct conflict with science whereas Wittgenstein thought that religion and science involved very different kinds of activities and different kinds of belief, such that they could not come into direct conflict. It seems likely that Marx and Engels’s account would be viewed as scientistic by Wittgenstein. However, there are many commonalities between the understanding of religion found in the work of Marx and Engels and the understanding of religion found in Wittgenstein’s later work. Neither the Marxist account nor the Wittgensteinian one is wholly rationalistic. Both stress the role of practice in religion. Both stress commonalities between religious believers and those who are not religious. By combining insights from Marx, Engels, and Wittgenstein we can give an account of religion that overcomes problems found in the work of recent thinkers, such as the New Atheists. If we combine their insights we will be more likely to attend to things like power and oppression and to do justice to the oppressed and we will also be more sensitive to differences between the practices of scientists and religious believers.
https://www.peterlang.com/view/9783631857519/html/ch19.xhtml

This essay traces the notion of abstraction through the works of Gillian Howie as a means of thinking through the nature of critique within philosophy of religion. In particular, it argues that Howie’s recovery of a more productive conception of abstraction in her late Between Feminism and Materialism is closely linked to the resurgence of real abstraction in recent Marxist theory. From these shifts, one can derive both an enriched conception of religion as real abstraction and a method of critical history that offers a genuine alternative within the contemporary study of philosophy of religion.

The uploaded version is merely a preliminary draft; please follow the link for the published version: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11841-014-0411-7

In the early decades of the twentieth century, as Japanese society became engulfed in war and increasing nationalism, the majority of Buddhist leaders and institutions capitulated to the status quo. One notable exception to this trend, however, was the Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei (Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism), founded on 5 April 1931. Led by Nichiren Buddhist layman Seno’o Girō and made up of young social activists who were critical of capitalism, internationalist in outlook, and committed to a pan-sectarian and humanist form of Buddhism that would work for social justice and world peace, the league’s motto was “carry the Buddha on your backs and go out into the streets and villages.” This article analyzes the views of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism as found in the religious writings of Seno’o Girō to situate the movement in its social and philosophical context, and to raise the question of the prospects of “radical Buddhism” in twenty-first century Japan and elsewhere.

In The Principle of Hope (1954-9) and Atheism in Christianity (1968) Ernst Bloch outlined his meta-religious interpretation of the biblical figures of Moses and Job. Bloch interpreted the Bible as the coded representation of a conflict between theocratic foundationalism and messianic-apocalyptic dynamism, i.e., a tension between conservation and utopia. The «underground Bible» hides a utopian and Promethean fil rouge, which aims at a progressive liberation from authoritarian and archaic forms of awe and alienation, ultimately leading to an exodus from Yahweh himself. This process of liberation began with Moses’ intuition: for him, Yahweh ceased to be a volcanic divinity, as was the case for the Midianite tradition that had influenced the primitive Jewish religiosity, and became the exodus God, i.e., the idea of a path of awareness and liberation. But the exodus would lose its raison d’être if it remained crystallized in a ritual memory (even if it were that of the Covenant). The exodic perspective cannot be but a critical and restless look at things. Thus, the exodic questioning finds a new voice in the book of Job, where the Mosaic faith is denied and overcome. In a culmination of the tradition of protest within the Bible, Job questions the morality of God’s authoritarianism, thus revealing that «a human person can be better, and behave better, than God».

Contemporarily there is a resurgence of religion as a major phenomenon in politics across the world. This research examines the different theoretical lenses from which this phenomenon is viewed. In this research we use the terms religion and tradition interchangeably, as most traditions in the developing countries are religious traditions. Currently there is the

Karl Marx’s hostility toward religion masked the religious and millenarian aspects of his own thinking, yet behind Marx’s political theories stands a distinctly eschatological reading of history. The Shining Path insurgency in Peru represented a coherent development of Peruvian Left political culture and orthodox Marxist concepts of violent struggle in the name of ‘progress’. The senderistas were not an irrational Maoist cult, as they have sometimes been depicted, but an ideologically driven movement led by intellectuals and university students who sought to rigorously apply Marx’s ideas while rejecting political compromise with the reactionary state. The suffering inflicted upon the Peruvian peasantry as a result of the senderistas’ uncompromising stance reveals some of orthodox Marxism’s internal contradictions, while the rise of the peasant resistance movements – especially led by evangélicos and women’s groups – highlights the importance of categories of belief and human agency in discussions of the relationship between underdevelopment and conflict.

" وصل المعزي، وصل إلي الأرض، في جسم إنسان وباسم إنسان:  لينين "

بالنظر للصورة الاجتماعية للمجتمع الفلسطيني في زمن يسوع، تتضح ملامح تلك المعالجة السياسية للدين عند لينين.
فالمسيحية الأولى قلبت النظام السابق للعالم. وفتشت عن أنصارها بين المنبوذين، الفقراء، البؤساء، العبيد الأرقاء. الذين ازدروا الأغنياء والأقوياء
وكان المسيحيون الأوائل، هؤلاء المحرومون من الحقوق، الخاضعون لقوانين استثنائية، الذين أخضعتهم روما وشتتت شملهم. وثورتهم علي الرومانيين كانت في الوقت نفسه، ثورة الفقراء الذين رفضوا البؤس القائم على الأغنياء الخائنين و الكفار. فالخيانة كانت لتعاملهم مع الرومانيين، والكفر لأنهم عاشوا حياة الترف ذات الأسلوب الوثني.

" وقف  يصيح: “المحبة.. المحبة !  والجثث تتساقط من حوله ، والحقد يأكل القلوب ، والرغبة في القتل تعيد الإنسان إلى جده الغابر -الغوريلا -

Debates in Germany in recent years around the wearing of the hijab, Islamic religious instruction in schools, circumcision and claims of a “Salafist” threat continue to demonstrate the importance for Marxists to be clear on the question of religious freedom. Under the cover of defending “Western” culture—always “defined” as “Christian-Jewish” or Christianity-based—these controversial discussions have created an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion, offering renewed opportunities for racists and reactionaries. In the wake of the events of 2015—the sexual assaults in Cologne and elsewhere on New Year’s Eve, the terrorist attacks in Paris in November, and the Charlie Hebdo shootings in January—voices calling for tighter controls on non-citizens from Muslim backgrounds have grown ever louder. These events have reinvigorated the confidence of new racist movements such as Pegida (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamification of the West) and their electoralist counterparts the new AfD (Alternative for Germany) party, to demand restrictions on immigration and refugee intake and on Muslim religious expression.

Yet the attacks on Islam have not been confined to right-wing racist movements and parties. They have been either explicitly or tacitly supported by the governing Christian Democrat Union (CDU), the Social Democrats (SPD) and some of the smaller parties. Even within the left, and specifically within the party Die Linke (The Left), there have been doubts about the extent to which solidarity should be extended towards Muslims in the face of wide-scale demonisation. Given the large influx of new refugees fleeing Syria and the Middle East who are overwhelmingly Muslim, it is more important than ever that the left adopts a clear and principled stance on religious freedom in order effectively to deal with conflicts over religion that are surely on the horizon. By exploring some of the debates that have taken place over recent years within Germany and the German left, this article asserts that a properly Marxist understanding of religion demands the unconditional support of religious freedom for religious minorities.

Abstract: Thinking from Bailey's work (2009) and Camurça´s study (1998), this article addresses the symbolic dimension of the Marxist culture, here called implicit or secular religion. With this in view, we will use the psycho-sociological concept of religious conversion to observe that the adherence to Marxism can be interpreted as a conversion. Therefore, the emic or internal discourse of Marxists on adherence to Marxism is put in evidence. Also, we exposed some Marxist accounts on websites where these social actors narrate their own adherence to Marxism. In addition to a typology of discourses on accession to the Marxist tradition, we also raised some hypotheses about the importance of meta-empirical elements for the entry and maintenance of the socialist experience. The hypotheses suggested about the symbolic elements present in the adhesion and socialist experience point to the possible existence of a Marxism conversion process, as occurs in conversions to religions. This helps support the notion that Marxism/socialism can be experienced as a secular religion.
Resumo: Partindo da obra de Bailey (2009) e do estudo de Camurça (1998), será abordada aqui a dimensão simbólica da cultura marxista, chamada aqui de religião implícita ou secular. Tendo isso em vista, será utilizado do conceito psicossociológico de conversão religiosa para observar se a adesão ao marxismo pode ser interpretada como uma conversão. Para tanto, levantou-se o discurso êmico ou interno dos marxistas sobre a adesão ao marxismo. Bem como, foram expostos alguns relatos de marxistas em websites, onde estes atores sociais narraram sua própria adesão ao marxismo. Além de uma tipologia dos discursos sobre adesão à tradição marxista, levantamos também algumas hipóteses sobre a importância dos elementos metaempíricos para a entrada e manutenção da vivência socialista. As hipóteses levantadas sobre os elementos simbólicos presentes na adesão e vivência socialista apontam para a possível existência do processo de conversão ao marxismo, assim como ocorre nas conversões às religiões. Isso ajuda sustentar a noção de que o marxismo/socialismo pode ser vivido como uma religião secular.

Abstract: On the face of it Marx and Engels have a radically different account of religion to that offered by Wittgenstein in the 1930s and 1940s. Marx and Engels accepted Enlightenment criticisms of religion and thought of religion as being in direct conflict with science whereas Wittgenstein thought that religion and science involved very different kinds of activities and different kinds of belief, such that they could not come into direct conflict. It seems likely that Marx and Engels’s account would be viewed as scientistic by Wittgenstein. However, there are many commonalities between the understanding of religion found in the work of Marx and Engels and the understanding of religion found in Wittgenstein’s later work. Neither the Marxist account nor the Wittgensteinian one is wholly rationalistic. Both stress the role of practice in religion. Both stress commonalities between religious believers and those who are not religious. By combining insights from Marx, Engels, and Wittgenstein we can give an account of religion that overcomes problems found in the work of recent thinkers, such as the New Atheists. If we combine their insights we will be more likely to attend to things like power and oppression and to do justice to the oppressed and we will also be more sensitive to differences between the practices of scientists and religious believers. https://www.peterlang.com/view/9783631857519/html/ch19.xhtml

This volume explores seven distinct cases of radical Buddhism, providing a comparative overview of the diverse interactions of different types of Buddhism and various forms of political radicalism. Contributors to this special issue focus on Buddhist radicalism as a general phenomenon, but some of them specifically explore movements that were inspired by socialist ideologies in the broadest sense and therefore conceptualize these as examples of specific cases of radicalism. By examining the individuals (monks, scholars, and laypeople) and movements (both inside and outside the sangha) responsible for the creation and promotion of radical Buddhism, this volume deals with an area of Buddhist modernism that has hitherto been neglected in research. The contributions also examine the various ways in which the Buddhadharma and radical ideas were conceptualized as an integral part of the emergence of Asian “modernity,” both in response to and in resistance to Western imperialism and the fo...

This major work offers a historical description and systematic analysis of the root causes of this global economic crisis, which the authors understand as a crisis of western civilization. Secondly, they assume (and prove) that the religions of the Axial Age were shaped by the suffering of people, deepened by the emergence of a new economy – based on money, private property and interest. They assume that the proven convergence of the Axial Age religions in responding to the social, psychological (and already ecological) consequences of the new economy can inform, motivate and empower faith communities and their members to join hands with social movements towards a new personal and collective culture of life. In part I they show the linkage between the contexts of antiquity and modernity concerning the role of money, private property and the related structures and mentalities of greed, producing suffering, and psychological, social and ecological destruction. They show how the religions of the Axial Age responded to this context in similar ways but with interesting specific emphases. In relation to today's situation we also raise the question of psychological hindrances to change in the different social classes, affected by neoliberalism, and how to overcome them. Before drawing the conclusions for present-day alliance-building between faith communities and social movements for alternatives to neoliberal globalization in Part III they offer a fundamental critique of the ambivalence of modernity in Part II.

"Ulrich Duchrow and Franz Hinkelammert's Transcending Greedy Money is a timely, pertinent and brilliant analysis and critique of modernity and western civilization. The current economic crisis and the consistent and continuing impoverization of people requires a courageous and alternative strategy to combat global greed and neoliberalism which produces suffering, loss, and exclusion. Duchrow and Hinkelammert chart a way forward by casting a critical eye on the modern economic system based on money, private property, and interest, and persuasively argue that religion can be a proactive impetus and liberatory mechanism for social movements and faith communities to forge a new future outside the shadow of neoliberal economics. This volume is indispensable reading for anyone concerned about socio-economic equality in a world dominated by profit and greed." - Farid Esack, Professor and Head, Department of Religion Studies, University of Johannesburg, South Africa

"Transcending Greedy Money: Interreligious Solidarity for Just Relations is a brilliant challenge to the materialism and selfishness that have accompanied the triumph of capitalist values in many contemporary religious traditions. Duchrow and Hinkelammert confront the misuse of the Bible to condone acts of injustice and destructive violence, the spread of the property-money-interest economy, coupled with imperial political structures, leading to increased material and psycho-spiritual suffering in advanced capitalist societies, and show how these very conditions are leading to new and potentially revolutionary developments that may bring us closer to the world both religious and secular people yearn for and spiritual progressives fight for! Challenging the spiritual void in leftist thinking, this book is indispensable for any religious or spiritual person who wants to see the world healed and transformed." - Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun Magazine www.tikkun.org, chair of The Network of Spiritual Progressives, and author of 11 books, most recently Embracing Israel/Palestine

"With diverse Biblical, Buddhist, and Islamic perspectives, Duchrow and Hinkelammert critique modernity (without falling into postmodernism) to build a radical new paradigm of collective human life on the planet." - François Houtart, professor emeritus, Catholic University of Louvain UCL, founder and advisor, CETRI ( Centre Tricontinental, a Belgian non-governmental organization), co-founder, World Social Forum, Fundación Pueblo Indio del Ecuador