Racist Engels Quote

[RedAtheist]

Did Engels really say this?

'The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.'

According to a biography of Friedrich Engels which I have been reading, Engels said this in reference to the Slavs in 'The Magyar Struggle'.

If he did say this, did he ever negate it later on? I have heard that he did believe Russia could become capitalist and then socialist, which seems to contradict the whole 'they're all gonna die' idea. Any how if you can find a quote where Engels took back his racism let me know.

[Igor]

Probably, yeah. Or not, but even then, Engels was a noted racist, especially against the Slavs afaik. In the other hand, that really wasn't considered that odd in 19th century and a lot of really otherwise progressive-thinking people were full-on racists and homophobes because the society back then was wildly different than ours. Bakunin was blatantly antisemitic, too. But of course, it's not an excuse for that racism but it doesn't discredit his works not about race, i.e. most of his works, in any way.

[Lanky Wanker]

I highly doubt he's saying "yes, we need to kill those fucking slavs to advance our cause!"

From the viewpoint that every reactionary disappearing from the face of the earth is a good thing, it is a good thing.

P.S. – I'm stoned as fuck and don't know if that made any sense, but oh well.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I highly doubt he's saying "yes, we need to kill those fucking slavs to advance our cause!"

From the viewpoint that every reactionary disappearing from the face of the earth is a good thing, it is a good thing.

P.S. – I'm stoned as fuck and don't know if that made any sense, but oh well.

It did make some sense, however, if you read the quote again closely, you'll see that he speaks of reactionary peoples with an s, as in multiple form of a people or an ethnicity.

[Hit The North]

Having just read the article (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm), I think that Engels is guilty of using an outmoded political address that sees some connection between the political development of a people and the characteristics they have as a people. So Germans and Magyars and Poles are seen as revolutionary and Slavs are considered to be counter-revolutionary. This reflected, to a degree, the actual constellation of political forces in Eastern Europe at the time (the Poles were the cause celeb for Western revolutionaries throughout the 19th century) but I think there's a degree of German chauvinism in Engels' writing.

Throughout the article, Engels interchanges the terms 'peoples' and 'nations' and, regarding the quote that concludes the article, Engels is really arguing that certain nations will cease to exist, becoming subsumed under the rule of other more advanced nations, rather than whole peoples being made to disappear. Don't forget that he is reflecting on an age of nationalist revolutions, from the point of view of someone who opposes nation in favour of internationalism.

It is definitely an uncomfortable article to digest from the point of view of 21st century revolutionaries. But Engels, like everybody else, was a man of his time.

[Regicollis]

Like anyone else Engels was a product of his time too and back then all decent gentlemen were racists. I don't think one should give it too much thought or judge him by todays' standards.

[Igor]

Like anyone else Engels was a product of his time too and back then all decent gentlemen were racists. I don't think one should give it too much thought or judge him by todays' standards.

Agreed with the not too much thought part but we definitely should judge him. Not maybe by "today's standards" because no such thing exists, but by the standards anyone with a Marxist, materialist view of the world should have. The environment you grew up is an explanation for racist views, not an excuse for them and Engels should be called out for racist views as much as anyone else. They can't be just shrugged off, even though they're not relevant to most of Engel's works.

The idea that his racism isn't to be judged because he lived in the 19th is an idea that is dangerously close to moral relativism, which can be quite the slippery slope. Not only was Engels a product of the specific time and place he was born in, but so is the Taliban and so are the evangelical Christians of the American South. We sure as hell shouldn't be apologizing for any of their views, should we?

[Geiseric]

"And the creditors were given full freedom, so the state coffers could once again be looted by the Jews of finance," -Class Struggle in France, Marx. "The proletariat truly has no nation," -Communist Manifesto. abraham Lincoln was a racist as well, and he's one of the most progressive politicians of the 1800s. As they say, It was a "different world," but racist jokes were something that were universally accepted. As for the Engels quote, maybe he means it on a class line, peasantry meaning "reactionary peoples,".

[revolt]

can you give that quote in a fuller context? on the surface it does seem horrible.

[Anarpest]

He just seems to be referring to certain forms of nationalism which would be essentially reactionary in their implementation at the time. This wouldn't seem too far off from his and Marx's position on, for example, supporting Polish national liberation because of the revolutionary implications which its history has foisted upon it, eg. here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/03/24.htm). Likewise:


We must co-operate in the work of setting the West European proletariat free and subordinate everything else to that goal. No matter how interesting the Balkan Slavs, etc., might be, the moment their desire for liberation clashes with the interests of the proletariat they can go hang for all I care. The Alsatians, too, are oppressed, and I shall be glad when we are once more quit of them. But if, on what is patently the very eve of a revolution, they were to try and provoke a war between France and Germany, once more goading on those two countries and thereby postponing the revolution, I should tell them: Hold hard! Surely you can have as much patience as the European proletariat. When they have liberated themselves, ,Ion will automatically be free; but till then, we shan’t allow you to put a spoke in the wheel of the militant proletariat. The same applies to the Slavs. The victory of the proletariat will liberate them in reality and of necessity and not, like the Tsar, apparently and temporarily. And that’s why they, who have hitherto not only failed to contribute anything to Europe and European progress, but have actually retarded it, should have at least as much patience as our proletarians. To stir up a general war for the sake of a few Herzegovinians, which would cost a thousand times more lives than there are inhabitants in Herzegovina, isn’t my idea of proletarian politics.

They don't seem to have had an absolute position on the national struggles of 'oppressed peoples' and the like, but rather judged them based on their position in relation to world revolution. Hence, some could be reactionary, some revolutionary in nature.


I have heard that he did believe Russia could become capitalist and then socialist, which seems to contradict the whole 'they're all gonna die' idea.

How you could with a straight face read that sentence as saying 'they're all gonna die' eludes me.

[Peoples' War]

Even if Engels was directing this at groups of people, I don't think he was saying: "These slavs are reactionary because they are slavs!" or that "all slavs are counter revolutionary!".

No, he was referencing groups of people which were, like the Balkan Slavs in Turkey who were, at the time, fighting a national liberation struggle in the name of Tsarism against the more progressive system Turkey had. Marx and Engels, as a result of this, opposed the Balkan Slavs struggle for self-determination.

Had this group been struggling for progress, then we would never have seen opposition to their national liberation, and we wouldn't be discussing his alleged racism.

[Blake's Baby]

Poles are of course ethnically and culturally 'Slavic'. So when Engels refers to 'Slavs' as being reactionary, but 'Poles' as being progressive, what can he possibly mean? Is he merely being Zen-like to fuck with our minds?

No, obviously not. Obvious confusion is obvious.

'Slavs' does not mean 'ethnically Slavic people' because Poles are specifically exempted and not just in a '...but not Poles' way, they are specifically counterposed to Slavs; so Engels meant something outside of the realms of 'ethnicity'. What could that possibly be?

Well, what seperated the Slavs in Poland from pretty much all of the other 'Slavic peoples' in Central and Eastern Europe? Could it be their politics?

Poland was at the time (as Anarpest and The Dude have indicated) a territory attempting to break free from the Russian Empire, seen by most of liberal Europe as the fount of reaction. It was a cause of the 'progressive' bourgeoisie.

The Czechs and other 'Slavic peoples' in Eastern and Central Europe however tended towards a pro-Russian or pan-Slavic political outlook: most were subjects of the Austrian Empire - in which Engels saw the Germans and Magyars as being 'progressive' as they tended to oppose Russian hegemony.

'Slavs' here means 'Slavophiles/pan-Slavs/supporters of Tsarism'. The people who do not support Russian hegemony, the Poles (who are Slavs in an ethnic and cultural sense but not 'political' Slavs), Germans and Magyars (neither group are Slavs at all) are progressive; those who do support Russian hegemony (the Czechs etc - all the Slavic groups not already suffering under Tsarist oppression) are 'reactionary' for supporting a reactionary feudalistic Empire in the name of ethnic solidarity.

So; in short, there is no 'anti-Slav racism' - otherwise the Poles could not be included in the progressive camp; this alone should prove that there's no 'original racial sin' involved here - and neither is there 'pro-German racism' - otherwise neither the Poles, nor the Magyars to whom the Germans were less closely-related biologically and culturally than to the Slavs including Poles, Russians and Czechs, would be included.

The fact that Engels can link Poles, Germans and Magyars (who come from three different ethnic groups) as 'progressive' while dismissing as 'reactionary' other members of the same ethnic group that constitutes one of his 'progressive' groups, should prove that actually there's no 'ethnic' element to this at all - beyond the ethnically-based claims of Tsarist Russia to act for 'the Slavic peoples', which is precisely what Engels is contesting.

[Deicide]

Baltic Slavs

Baltic slavs? Who the hell are they? People from the Baltic states are not slavs. They're not Eastern European either. Unless you're referring to the Slavic minority groups that exist there due to emigration. Which was forced by the Tsar's, during the existence of the Russian Empire, and by the party bureaucrats, primarily by Stalin and his goons, in the Kremlin for their ''Russification'' policies. But there was also natural emigration throughout history.

It's one of the reasons why people in Lithuania hate ''Communism'' today. They believe the ''Russification'' policies employed by the Kremlin was destroying Lithuanian 'identity', 'culture', blah, blah, etc. Some people view the conversion of Lithuania into the Lithuanian SSR as an occupation by the Russians. Which is true in some regards. There was no Revolution here. The USSR annexed the Baltic states, implemented Kremlin puppets, and forced their state-capitalism with a red flag and lip-service to Socialism/Communism.

[Peoples' War]

Baltic slavs? Who the hell are they?
Slavs in the Baltic region...of which there was, to my understanding, a significant minority population.

I meant Balkan Slavs in Turkey however.

[TrotskistMarx]

Disappearance of a class or dissapearance of reactionary people, might mean reactionary people becoming socialists. Engels didn't say "The next world war will result in the killing of all reactionary people".

Although I am a realist, and there are no humans as sacred-cows, and puritan , saints and 100% altruists and nice. Humans are not a piece of cake, and most humans even today are still in the egocentric-paradigm, in the individualist, selfish, greedy paradigm. Even in The Socialist Party of USA, I've had experience with some very egocentrical, people lacking any friendliness, love, compassion, caring, cooperative, un-selfish, altruist solidarity worry about the plight of others.

So trying to see a great socialist world with altruist honest socialist leaders is going to be real real hard. Humans are naturally diabolical, people are very easilty corruptable. There is even burocratic corruption in The Venezuelan Government. I am not anarchist, but however I agree with anarchist in their basic theory that governments are naturally corrupt, and mafia-cartels. And that the only way we will see a democratic world is with a world without anybody governing anybody, a world without authorities


.



Did Engels really say this?

'The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.'

According to a biography of Friedrich Engels which I have been reading, Engels said this in reference to the Slavs in 'The Magyar Struggle'.

If he did say this, did he ever negate it later on? I have heard that he did believe Russia could become capitalist and then socialist, which seems to contradict the whole 'they're all gonna die' idea. Any how if you can find a quote where Engels took back his racism let me know.

[Rafiq]

Marxism is not simply Marx and Engels. It includes those followers of Marx and Engels which radically changed Marxism and adjusted it to different times accordingly. This is why I consider a lot of Lenin's writings, which were contradictory to Marx, as valid.

[RedAtheist]

"The proletariat truly has no nation," -Communist Manifesto.

I fail to see how this is an example of racism, but I'm not of a minority race, so I have probably said racist things without meaning too and would like to be corrected on it. I think Marx/Engels are simply saying that the working class as a whole does not belong to a specific nation (e.g. you can't say the proletariat is British because there are proletarians in Germany) and that the loyalty of workers should be towards members of their class in other nations, as opposed to the ruling class of their nation. I don't think this is racist quote, but if you think it is please tell me why, so I can avoid racism in the future.

[Devrim]

No, he was referencing groups of people which were, like the Balkan Slavs in Turkey who were, at the time, fighting a national liberation struggle in the name of Tsarism against the more progressive system Turkey had. Marx and Engels, as a result of this, opposed the Balkan Slavs struggle for self-determination.

Both Marx and Engels did see Russia as particularly reactionary. I would be very surprised though to learn that they saw the Ottoman Empire as in any way progressive.

Devrim

[Omsk]

Around 1850 when these words were written, it was to early to speak of a South-Slav 'federation' or an 'alliance with Russia' - things started to boil after the Berlin Congress of 1878. And after that, when they reached the culmination in 1914. (Sarajevo.)

The history of the Balkans national-liberation struggles is quite interesting to read about, so i must suggest that you comrades try to get some reading material on that, and i have to mention a famous work of the Titoite revisionist Vladimir Dedijer, "Sarajevo 1914".

And, it is true that the major Slav political organizations and pro-Tzarist movements were mostly reactionary.

[Book O'Dead]

Having just read the article (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm), I think that Engels is guilty of using an outmoded political address that sees some connection between the political development of a people and the characteristics they have as a people. So Germans and Magyars and Poles are seen as revolutionary and Slavs are considered to be counter-revolutionary. This reflected, to a degree, the actual constellation of political forces in Eastern Europe at the time (the Poles were the cause celeb for Western revolutionaries throughout the 19th century) but I think there's a degree of German chauvinism in Engels' writing.

Throughout the article, Engels interchanges the terms 'peoples' and 'nations' and, regarding the quote that concludes the article, Engels is really arguing that certain nations will cease to exist, becoming subsumed under the rule of other more advanced nations, rather than whole peoples being made to disappear. Don't forget that he is reflecting on an age of nationalist revolutions, from the point of view of someone who opposes nation in favour of internationalism.

It is definitely an uncomfortable article to digest from the point of view of 21st century revolutionaries. But Engels, like everybody else, was a man of his time.

A thoughtful and well-informed response. Thank you.

[Peoples' War]

Both Marx and Engels did see Russia as particularly reactionary. I would be very surprised though to learn that they saw the Ottoman Empire as in any way progressive.

Devrim
Indeed, my phrasing it as progressive was wrong. Perhaps "less reactionary", would be more accurate?

Point remains, they opposed the south slav movement for national self determination.

[Lucretia]

So if I call peasants or the petty bourgeoisie "reactionary," does that make me racist also?

[Blake's Baby]

How could that possibly make you a racist?

It's not the calling of some people 'reactionary' that's the problem. It's apparently ascribing characteristics to ethnic groups. 'Peasants' are not an ethnic group.

[Lucretia]

How could that possibly make you a racist?

It's not the calling of some people 'reactionary' that's the problem. It's apparently ascribing characteristics to ethnic groups. 'Peasants' are not an ethnic group.

An "entire people" (or at least the vast majority) can be reactionary. I don't see Engels saying that their being reactionary is the result of being of a particular race, or has some biological cause. Let's try not to stretch the definition if racism so much that it loses meaning, and dilutes the charge where it is actually appropriate.

[Blake's Baby]

Have you read any of the rest of the thread?

If you had, you would know that I've already argued that where he appears to regard certain ethnic groups as reactionary, he is in fact commenting on the ethnically-based politics of Pan-Slavism, otherwise Poles (who are Slavs) would not be exempt from his condemnation of Slavs in general.

So, what is the point of you saying 'if I call peasants reactionary does that make me racist?'

No it doesn't. Saying 'Bulgarians are reactionary' might be an indication you're a racist. But it might be an indication that (as an example) people in Bulgaria had overwhelmingly supported some kind of reactionary policy or group.

[Thirsty Crow]

Both Marx and Engels did see Russia as particularly reactionary. I would be very surprised though to learn that they saw the Ottoman Empire as in any way progressive.

Devrim
I don't think that this isse is that simple, in terms of the dichotomy of reactioanry and progressive (in relation to the Ottoman Empire).
From what I can remember, it seems that the Ottomans were seen basically as a bulwark against Russian expansion, which explains the relationship to national movements which were seen as supportive of Russian hegemony and relaint upon it. A bit of realpolitik, it seems.

[Devrim]

Indeed, my phrasing it as progressive was wrong. Perhaps "less reactionary", would be more accurate?

Point remains, they opposed the south slav movement for national self determination.

On this point you are right, but I think that the central point here is their whole attitude towards national movements. Marx and Engels came out with what would be considered today, a whole host of reactionary phrases about things such as 'lazy mexicans', 'niggers', and the 'French needing a kicking'.

I don't just think that these things seem wrong looking back on them now, but that they were wrong at the time.

I don't believe for example that the Prussian side was 'progressive' in any way in 1870, and I think that communists were wrong to have supported it.

Another thing which comes from this discussion is that neither Marx nor Engels (nor incidentally later Lenin) believed in an abstract right of national self determination, as much of today's left does, but it judging these things according to what they saw as the interests of the working class.

In the case of the Slavic nationalist movements in the Ottoman Empire, I don't think they saw either side as progressive.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

In terms of black self determination and mexican american self determination in the U.S, self determination is a very progressive step. The reactionary peoples thing is refering to the backwards petit bourgeois layers of eastern europe, not everybody including the working class I think.

[Lucretia]

Have you read any of the rest of the thread?

If you had, you would know that I've already argued that where he appears to regard certain ethnic groups as reactionary, he is in fact commenting on the ethnically-based politics of Pan-Slavism, otherwise Poles (who are Slavs) would not be exempt from his condemnation of Slavs in general.

So, what is the point of you saying 'if I call peasants reactionary does that make me racist?'

No it doesn't. Saying 'Bulgarians are reactionary' might be an indication you're a racist. But it might be an indication that (as an example) people in Bulgaria had overwhelmingly supported some kind of reactionary policy or group.


You're simply not responding to my follow-up, and instead are just repeating your response to my first post in the thread.

It's not racist to say "black people tend to be poor or oppressed." Or if this were in the 19th century US, it would not be racist to say "black people can't read." It's a generalization that is made based on observation, and sometimes, experience. Now, if I say, "black people are poor because they are genetically programmed to be lazy," or "black people can't read because their brains aren't wired right," instead of pointing out the obvious culprit - slavery and its legacy - then I am clearly making a racist remark.

Engels saying, "the slavs are a reactionary people," is not necessarily racist. Knowing Engels, the comment was probably linked to his analysis of their role in the global division of labor, and how that role conditioned the Slavs toward certain forms of behavior. I doubt Engels was making the racist point that the Slavs have some genetic or deeply ingrained ethnic mechanism that makes them reactionary - a comment that would be racist.

[Blake's Baby]

As I had already argued in post 12.

But you 'doubt' that Engels was making a point about ethnicity.

As I've already pointed out (in post 12), he cannot be making a point about ethnicity, as, if he were, he wouldn't differentiate between the 'Poles' on the one hand and the 'Slavs' on the other. I don't think there's any racial theory in the world that seperates the Poles from other Slavic-speaking peoples.

However, it looks like he's making a racist remark. He makes a generalisation about a whole supra-national ethnic group-cum-linguistic community (though excluding the Poles of course). So to perceive Engels' comment as racist is not to 'stretch the definition of racism so much that it loses meaning' at all (as you did when you perhaps somewhat rhetorically asked 'is saying peasants are reactionary racist?').

It's just to misunderstand Engels' point, and the basis on which he made it, which was a reaction to Pan-Slavism, Russophilia and support for Tsarism.

[A Marxist Historian]

Agreed with the not too much thought part but we definitely should judge him. Not maybe by "today's standards" because no such thing exists, but by the standards anyone with a Marxist, materialist view of the world should have. The environment you grew up is an explanation for racist views, not an excuse for them and Engels should be called out for racist views as much as anyone else. They can't be just shrugged off, even though they're not relevant to most of Engel's works.

The idea that his racism isn't to be judged because he lived in the 19th is an idea that is dangerously close to moral relativism, which can be quite the slippery slope. Not only was Engels a product of the specific time and place he was born in, but so is the Taliban and so are the evangelical Christians of the American South. We sure as hell shouldn't be apologizing for any of their views, should we?

There is nothing as such "racist" about the statement, he is not saying Slavs are inferior or anything like that. His analysis is, that in the particular moment of 1948, Slavic national aspirations in the Hapsburg monarchy and the Balkans were reactionary, and Slavs rather than aspiring to national independence, which under the circumstances would make them cats paws for Tsarist Russia, the main reactionary force, instead should join the general German, Austrian, Hungarian and Polish revolutionary movements and forget about their own particular national identity.

Was he correct? Well, we can let the historians argue about that one, I think in fact some strong arguments can be made for that position, in that particular context.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Both Marx and Engels did see Russia as particularly reactionary. I would be very surprised though to learn that they saw the Ottoman Empire as in any way progressive.

Devrim

They didn't see the Ottoman Empire as "progressive," rather that, since it was the historic enemy of Tsarist Russia, the fundamental reactionary force, it should be supported. It was basically a "the enemy of the enemy is my friend" deal.

-M.H.-