What do you guys think about this paper?

[HeetlarVonKlavovitz]

Friedrich Engels: Racist and German nationalist



By John J. Ray (M.A.;Ph.D.)

The reason why the Soviet version of Communism was always known as "Marxism-Leninism" is of course that Lenin "developed" Marxist doctrine in various ways. One of those developments, however, is almost never mentioned -- though it can hardly be unknown to any serious student of Marx and Engels: Although Marx and Engels were great advocates for the working class, they were also antisemitic German nationalists who took a very dim view of Russians. Lenin concentrated on the first part of Marxism and, understandably, largely ignored the latter. There was however considerable devotion to the original Marxian writings among the Bolsheviks so when Lenin said: "it is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people" but "the capitalists of all countries", it was to a degree Marx himself whom he was critcizing.

It is customary to treat Marx and Engels as a unit, failing to take any note of the individuals concerned. As they were such close collaborators, that is not unreasonable but there were nonetheless differences of emphasis between them. Marx was the most antisemitic and it was Engels who was the fervent German nationalist. I reproduce initially below the most famous antisemitic utterance by Marx (more in the archives here) by way of context but, after that, I simply reproduce a host of statements by Engels. I think they speak for themselves.

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".



ENGELS BELIEVED GERMANS TO BE A SUPERIOR RACE

Karl Marx, "A Contribution to the Critique of Political economy" (Review by Frederick Engels), Das Volk, 30 No. 14, August 6, 1859: "The Germans have long since shown that in all spheres of science they are equal, and in most of them superior, to other civilised nations. Only one branch of science, political economy, had no German name among its foremost scholars."

Context here

The German

Engels: Karl Marx' "Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie", 1859

"Auf allen wissenschaftlichen Gebieten haben die Deutschen laengst ihre Ebenbuertigkeit, auf den meisten ihre Ueberlegenheit gegenueber den uebrigen zivilisierten Nationen bewiesen. (...)"

MEW a.a.O. 13, 476.



ENGELS SUPPORTED GERMAN TERRITORIAL CLAIMS AND BELIEVED IN "GERMANIZATION" OF OTHERS

"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"

Written by Engels in 1841

The German

"...Allerdings ist es eine fixe Idee bei den Franzosen, dass der Rhein ihr Eigentum sei, aber die einzige des deutschen Volkes wuerdige Antwort auf diese anmassende Forderung ist das Arndtsche 'Heraus mit dem Elsass und Lothringen!' Denn ich bin - vielleicht im Gegensatz zu vielen, deren Standpunkt ich sonst teile - allerdings der Ansicht, dass die Wiedereroberung der deutschsprechenden linken Rheinseite eine nationale Ehrensache, die Germanisierung des abtruennig gewordenen Hollands und Belgiens eine politische Notwendigkeit fuer uns ist. Sollen wir in jenen Laendern die deutsche Nationalitaet vollends unterdruecken lassen, waehrend im Osten sich das Slawentum immer maechtiger erhebt?"



Engels liked the idea of a "Thousand year Reich" too

This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom.

Source.



ENGELS SAID GERMANS SHOULD USE TERROR AGAINST THE SLAVS

And dismissed justice and morality from consideration in the matter. And he didn't think much of brotherhood either

(...)Justice and other moral considerations may be damaged here and there; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance? (...)

Following that, Bohemia and Moravia passed definitely to Germany and the Slovak regions remained with Hungary. And this historically absolutely non-existent "nation" puts forward claims to independence? (...)

Of course, matters of this kind cannot be accomplished without many a tender national blossom being forcibly broken. But in history nothing is achieved without power and implacable ruthlessness, (...)

To the sentimental phrases about brotherhood which we are being offered here on behalf of the most counter-revolutionary nations of Europe, we reply that hatred of Russians was and still is the primary revolutionary passion among Germans; that since the revolution hatred of Czechs and Croats has been added, and that only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we, jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution. (...)

Then there will be a struggle, an "unrelenting life-and-death struggle" against those Slavs who betray the revolution; an annihilating fight and most determined terrorism -- not in the interests of Germany, but in the interests of the revolution!

Context here

The German

Engels, NRZ 15. Feb. 1849

,... die 'Gerechtigkeit' und andere moralische Grundsaetze moegen hier und da verletzt sein; aber was gilt das gegen solche weltgeschichtlichen Tatsachen? (....)

Dann kommt Boehmen und Maehren definitiv zu Deutschland, und die slowakischen Gegenden bleiben bei Ungarn. Und diese geschichtlich gar nicht existiende 'Nation' macht Ansprueche auf Unabhaengigkeit? (...)

Freilich, dergleichen lae t sich nicht durchsetzen ohne manch sanftes Nationenbluemlein gewaltsam zu zerknicken. Aber ohne Gewalt und ohne eherne Ruecksichtslosigkeit wird nichts durchgesetzt in der Geschichte, (...)

Auf die sentimentalen Bruederschaftsphrasen, die uns hier im Namen der kontrevolutionaersten Nationen Europas dargeboten werden, antworten wir, da der Russenha die erste revolutionaere Leidenschaft bei den Deutschen war und noch ist; da seit der Revolution der Tschechen- und Kroatenha hinzugekommen ist und da wir, in Gemeinschaft mit Polen und Magyaren, nur durch den entschiedensten Terrorismus gegen diese slawischen Voelker die Revolution sicherstellen koennen (....)

Dann Kampf, 'unerbittlicher Kampf auf Leben und Tod' mit dem revolutionsverraeterischen Slawentum; Vernichtungskampf und ruecksichtslosen Terrorismus - nicht im Interesse Deutschlands, sondern im Interesse der Revolution!"

MEW a.a.O. 6, 286.



ENGELS DIDN'T THINK ALL RACES WERE EQUAL

He thought the Yugoslavs in particular deserved to be wiped out .... Hmmmm

"Among all the nations and sub-nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and are still capable of life -- the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. (...)

This remnant of a nation that was, as Hegel says, suppressed and held in bondage in the course of history, this human trash, becomes every time -- and remains so until their complete obliteration or loss of national identity -- the fanatical carriers of counter-revolution, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution. (...)

Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the human trash of peoples, resulting from an extremely confused thousand years of development. (...)

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 progress.

A source in English

The German

Friedrich Engels, NRZ 13. Jan. 1849

,Unter all den Nationen und Natioenchen OEsterreichs sind nur drei, die die Traeger des Fortschritts waren, die aktiv in die Geschichte eingegriffen haben, die jetzt noch lebensfaehig sind - die Deutschen, die Polen, die Magyaren. Daher sind sie jetzt revolutionaer. Alle anderen gro en und kleinen Staemme und Voelker haben zunaechst die Mission, im revolutionaeren Weltsturm unterzugehen. (...)

Diese Reste einer von dem Gang der Geschichte, wie Hegel sagt, unbarmherzig zertretenen Nationen, diese Voelkerabfaelle werden jedesmal und bleiben bis zu ihrer gaenzlichen Vertilgung oder Entnationalisierung die fanatischen Traeger der Kontrerevolution, wie ihre ganze Existenz ueberhaupt schon ein Protest gegen eine gro e geschichtliche Revolution ist (...)

So in OEsterreich die panslawistischen Suedslawen, die weiter nichts sind als der Voelkerabfall einer hoechst verworrenen tausendjaehrigen Entwicklung. (...)

Der naechste Weltkrieg wird nicht nur reaktionaere Klassen und Dynastien, er wird auch ganze reaktionaere Voelker vom Erdboden verschwinden machen. Und das ist auch ein Fortschritt."

MEW a.a.O. 6, 176.



ENGELS SAID GERMANY HAD A "RIGHT" TO CONQUER OTHER LANDS

Because Germany was more "civilized"!

"By the same right under which France took Flanders, Lorraine and Alsace, and will sooner or later take Belgium -- by that same right Germany takes over Schleswig; it is the right of civilization as against barbarism, of progress as against stability. Even if the agreements were in Denmark's favor -- which is very doubtful-this right carries more weight than all the agreements, for it is the right of historical evolution"

Source

The German:

Friedrich Engels, NRZ 10. Sep. 1848 (NRZ = Neue Rheinische Zeitung)

,Mit demselben Recht, mit dem die Franzosen Flandern, Lothringen und Elsa genommen haben und Belgien frueher oder spaeter nehmen werden, mit demselben Recht nimmt Deutschland Schleswig: mit dem Recht der Zivilisation gegen die Barbarei, des Fortschritts gegen die Stabilitaet."

MEW a.a.O. 5, 395.

I note that the Marxists I link to above have translated the "Stabilitaet" that Engels referred to as "static stability" rather than just "stability". I wonder why? Let me guess: Stability is good once the Marxists are in charge. That is "progressive" stability, not "static stability". So the enforced inertia and uniformity of the old USSR was "progressive stability". Too bad they made such little progress that they eventually collapsed! But how sad it is that the Marxists have to mistranslate their own founding fathers to justify themselves! I can't say I am surprised, though.



ENGELS THOUGHT ARYANS WERE SUPERIOR

"The plentiful meat and milk diet among the Aryans and the Semites, and particularly the beneficial effects of these foods on the development of children, may, perhaps, explain the superior development of these two races."

No Marxist has dared to put this online yet so I cannot provide a link for context. The quotation is from Engels, "Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", Fourth revised edition, 1891, in Marx & Engels, Selected Works In One Volume, Lawrence & Wishart: London, 1980, p 464.



ENGELS ADVOCATES THAT GERMANY DEFEAT FRANCE BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE

Engels to August Bebel In Berlin, 19 September, 1891: "In any case we must declare that since 1871 we have always been ready for a peaceful understanding with France, that as soon as our Party comes to power it will be unable to exercise that power unless Alsace-Lorraine freely determines its own future, but that if war is forced upon us, and moreover a war in alliance with Russia, we must regard this as an attack on our existence and defend ourselves by every method, utilising all positions at our disposal and therefore Metz and Strasbourg also..... so our army will have to lead and sustain the main push.... So much seems certain to me: if we are beaten, every barrier to chauvinism and a war of revenge in Europe will be thrown down for years hence. If we are victorious our Party will come into power. The victory of Germany is therefore the victory of the revolution, and if it comes to war we must not only desire victory but further it by every means...."

Context here




WAR AGAINST RUSSIA A GOOD THING FOR GERMANY

Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 42, July 12, 1848: "Only a war against Russia would be a war of revolutionary Germany, a war by which she could cleanse herself of her past sins, could take courage, defeat her own autocrats, spread civilisation by the sacrifice of her own sons as becomes a people that is shaking off the chains of long, indolent slavery"

It is not clear whether it was Marx or Engels that wrote this. Context here



ENGELS MAKES IT CLEAR WHAT HE MEANS BY "NIGGER"

Marx's second daughter, Laura, married Paul Lafargue who, Engels said, had "one eighth or one twelfth Nigger blood". In 1887, Paul was a candidate for the Paris Municipal Council, in a district which contained the Jardin des Plantes and the Zoo. In a letter to Laura (April 26, 1887), Engels referred to:

"Paul, the candidate of the Jardin des Plantes - and the animals" and added: "Being in his quality as a nigger a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district."

This letter (in German translation) is in Marx & Engels Werke vol. 36, 1967, p. 645. It is not online but is mentioned here



ENGELS WAS CONTEMPTUOUS OF "NIGGERS"

Letter from Engels to Marx, October 2, 1866: "I have arrived at the conviction that there is nothing to his [Tremaux's] theory if for no other reason than because he neither understands geology nor is capable of the most ordinary literary historical criticism. One could laugh oneself sick about his stories of the nigger Santa Maria and of the transmutations of the whites into Negroes. Especially, that the traditions of the Senegal niggers deserve absolute credulity, just because the rascals cannot write! . . . Perhaps this man will prove in the second volume, how he explains the fact, that we Rhinelanders have not long ago turned into idiots and niggers on our own Devonian Transition rocks . . . Or perhaps he will maintain that we are real niggers."

(Not fully online. Source: Quoted by Diane Paul, "'In the Interests of Civilization': Marxist Views of Race and Culture in the Nineteenth Century", Journal of the History of Ideas, Jan-March 1981, p 123. [Werke, Vol. 31, p 256.])

Note that Engels uses both the neutral term "negroes" and the derogatory "nigger". So he clearly knew what the different implications of the two terms were. "Nigger" was not as verboten in the 19th century as it is now but it was still derogatory -- and it is presumably because of that aspect of the word that both Marx and Engels used what is after all an English word in their German writings.

To understand what Engels was talking about, one needs to realize that both Marx and Engels were Lamarckians -- they believed that acquired characteristics could be inherited. That fact is no doubt part of the reason why Stalin so heavily sponsored the ideas of the Lamarckian Trofim Lysenko right into the 20th century -- long after Lamarckian theories had been generally discredited in the West. And the particular strand of Lamarckian thinking that appealed most strongly to both Marx and Engels was that the type of soil and landscape in which a nation grew up could influence their national character. Just what the relationship between geology and national characteristics was, however, they did not fully agree. The following commentary on the matter may also be helpful:

To cite one final anecdote, the scholarly literature frequently cites Marx's great enthusiasm (until the more scientifically savvy Engels set him straight) for a curious book, published in 1865 by the now (and deservedly) unknown French explorer and ethnologist Pierre Tremaux, Origine et transformations de l'homme et des autres etres (Origin and transformation of man and other beings). Marx professed ardent admiration for this work, proclaiming it "einen Fortschritt uber Darwin" (an advance over Darwin). The more sober Engels bought the book at Marx's urging, but then dampened his friend's ardor by writing: "I have arrived at the conclusion that there is nothing to his theory if for no other reason than because he neither understands geology nor is capable of the most ordinary literary historical criticism."

I had long been curious about Tremaux and sought a copy of his book for many years. I finally purchased one a few years ago--and I must say that I have never read a more absurd or more poorly documented thesis. Basically, Tremaux argues that the nature of the soil determines national characteristics and that higher civilizations tend to arise on more complex soils formed in later geological periods. If Marx really believed that such unsupported nonsense could exceed the Origin of Species in importance, then he could not have properly understood or appreciated the power of Darwin's facts and ideas.

More here





ENGELS APPROVES OF ANTISEMITISM

Engels to Paul Lafargue, July 22, 1892: "I begin to understand French anti-Semitism when I see how many Jews of Polish origin and with German names intrude themselves everywhere, arrogate everything to themselves and push themselves forward to the point of creating public opinion in the ville lumiere [Paris], of which the Paris philistine is so proud and which he believes to be the supreme power in the universe."

(Not online but found in Frederick Engels, Paul and Laura Lafargue, Correspondence, Vol iii, Moscow. p 184.)



ENGELS: POLISH JEWS GET A BLAST

Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England, 1886 Appendix to the American Edition: "The pettifogging business-tricks of the Polish Jew, the representative in Europe of commerce in its lowest stage, those tricks that serve him so well in his own country, and are generally practiced there, he finds to be out of date and out of place when he comes to Hamburg or Berlin"

Context here



ENGELS CELEBRATED THE CONQUEST OF NORTH AFRICAN ARABS BY THE FRENCH

Engels in The Northern Star January 22, 1848: "Upon the whole it is, in our opinion, very fortunate that the Arabian chief has been taken. The struggle of the Bedouins was a hopeless one, and though the manner in which brutal soldiers, like Bugeaud, have carried on the war is highly blamable, the conquest of Algeria is an important and fortunate fact for the progress of civilisation. The piracies of the Barbaresque states, never interfered with by the English government as long as they did not disturb their ships, could not be put down but by the conquest of one of these states. And the conquest of Algeria has already forced the Beys of Tunis and Tripoli, and even the Emperor of Morocco, to enter upon the road of civilisation. They were obliged to find other employment for their people than piracy, and other means of filling their exchequer than tributes paid to them by the smaller states of Europe. And if we may regret that the liberty of the Bedouins of the desert has been destroyed, we must not forget that these same Bedouins were a nation of robbers, - whose principal means of living consisted of making excursions either upon each other, or upon the settled villagers, taking what they found, slaughtering all those who resisted, and selling the remaining prisoners as slaves. All these nations of free barbarians look very proud, noble and glorious at a distance, but only come near them and you will find that they, as well as the more civilised nations, are ruled by the lust of gain"

Context here



ENGELS WAS PRO-AMERICAN

Marx, Engels and Hitler were all favourably disposed towards their "racial brethren" in Britain and the USA. It was Slavs whom they really despised. So it is a considerable irony that a Slavic nation was the first to take up Marxism in a big way and that it was primarily the same Slavic nation that defeated Hitler

Engels in Deutsche-Bruesseler-Zeitung 1848: "In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is also an advance when a country which has hitherto been exclusively wrapped up in its own affairs, perpetually rent with civil wars, and completely hindered in its development, a country whose best prospect had been to become industrially subject to Britain - when such a country is forcibly drawn into the historical process. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will in future be placed under the tutelage of the United States. The evolution of the whole of America will profit by the fact that the United States, by the possession of California, obtains command of the Pacific"

Context here



NO PAST AND NO FUTURE FOR THE SLAVS

Engels in Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 222, February 1849: "We repeat: apart from the Poles, the Russians, and at most the Turkish Slavs, no Slav people has a future, for the simple reason that all the other Slavs lack the primary historical, geographical, political and industrial conditions for independence and viability. Peoples which have never had a history of their own, which from the time when they achieved the first, most elementary stage of civilization already came under foreign sway, or which were forced to attain the first stage of civilization only by means of a foreign yoke, are not viable and will never be able to achieve any kind of independence. And that has been the fate of the Austrian Slavs. The Czechs, among whom we would include the Moravians and Slovaks, although they differ in respect of language and history, have never had a history of their own"

Context here



BOTH MARX AND ENGELS THOUGHT THAT THE CHINESE SUFFERED FROM HEREDITARY STUPIDITY

I guess Chairman Mao did not read these bits!

Marx, "Revolution in China and in Europe" (May 20, 1853): "It is almost needless to observe that, in the same measure in which opium has obtained the sovereignty over the Chinese, the Emperor and his staff of pedantic mandarins have become dispossessed of their own sovereignty. It would seem as though history had first to make this whole people drunk before it could rouse them out of their hereditary stupidity".

Engels, "Persia and China" (June 5,1857): "... China, the rotting semi-civilization of the oldest State in the world . . . In short, instead of moralizing on the horrible atrocities of the Chinese, as the chivalrous English press does, we had better recognize that this is a war pro aris et focis, a popular war for the maintenance of Chinese nationality, with all its overbearing prejudice, stupidity, learned ignorance and pedantic barbarism . . .

Context for the quote from Marx is here

The latter part of the quote from Engels is online here but the rest is not freely online. See Marx & Engels On Colonialism, 6th printing, Moscow, 1976, pp. 120 & 124.



OUR HATE-FILLED ENGELS DESPISED THE IRISH TOO

(At least Engels had TWO master races in his thinking: Germans and Hungarians ("Magyars"))

Engels: The condition of the working class in England, 1892 "The southern facile character of the Irishman, his crudity, which places him but little above the savage, his contempt for all humane enjoyments, in which his very crudeness makes him incapable of sharing, his filth and poverty, all favour drunkeness. . . . the pressure of this race has done much to depress wages and lower the working-class. . . . That poverty manifests itself in Ireland thus and not otherwise, is owing to the character of the people, and to their historical development. The Irish are a people related in their whole character to the Latin nations, to the French, and especially to the Italians.... With the Irish, feeling and passion predominate; reason must bow before them. Their sensuous, excitable nature prevents reflection and quiet, persevering activity from reaching development -- such a nation is utterly unfit for manufacture as now conducted. . . . Irish distress cannot be removed by any Act of Repeal. Such an Act would, however, at once lay bare the fact that the cause of Irish misery, which now seems to come from abroad is really to be found at home"

Context here



ENGELS: CONTEMPT FOR SCANDINAVIANS TOO

Engels in Neue Rheinische Zeitung September 1848; "Scandinavianism is enthusiasm for the brutal, sordid, piratical, Old Norse national traits, for that profound inner life which is unable to express its exuberant ideas and sentiments in words, but can express them only in deeds, namely, in rudeness towards women, perpetual drunkenness and the wild frenzy of the Berserker alternating with tearful sentimentality".

Context here



ENGELS DESPISED THE WHOLE OF THE BALKANS -- INCLUDING THE GREEKS

Engels to August Bebel, November 17, 1885. "These wretched, ruined fragments of one-time nations, the Serbs, Bulgars, Greeks, and other robber bands, or, behalf of which the liberal philistine waxes enthusiastic in the interests of Russia, are unwilling to grant each other the air they breathe, and feel obliged to cut each other's greedy throats... the lousy Balkan peoples . . . ".

(Not online. From Marx-Engels, Briefe an A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht, K. Kautsky und Andere, Moscow, 1933, pp 411, 412; translation by Bertram D. Wolfe, Marxism, 1967, p 68.)



ENGELS: SLAVS ARE INFERIOR AND DESERVE TO BE OPPRESSED BY GERMANS AND THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE

Neue Rheinische Zeitung February 1849: "And if during eight centuries the "eight million Slavs" have had to suffer the yoke imposed on them by the four million Magyars, that alone sufficiently proves which was the more viable and vigorous, the many Slavs or the few Magyars! .... what a "crime" it is, what a "damnable policy" that at a time when, in Europe in general, big monarchies had become a "historical necessity", the Germans and Magyars untied all these small, stunted and impotent little nations into a single big state and thereby enabled them to take part in a historical development from which, left to themselves, they would have remained completely aloof! Of course, matters of this kind cannot be accomplished without many a tender national blossom being forcibly broken. But in history nothing is achieved without violence and implacable ruthlessness... In short, it turns out these "crimes" of the Germans and Magyars against the said Slavs are among the best and most praiseworthy deeds which our and the Magyar people can boast in their history".

Context here



ENGELS DESPISED THE RUSSIANS

Engels. "Democratic Pan-Slavism" (NRZ February 16. 1849), Collected Works, Vol. 8 p 378. ". . . hatred of Russia was and still is the primary revolutionary passion among Germans; that since the revolution, hatred of Czechs and Croats has been added, and that only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we, jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution."

(No Marxist seems to have put this online. I can't imagine why!)



ENGELS: RACE A DETERMINING FACTOR IN HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Engels: (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 502.): "We regard economic conditions as the factor which ultimately determines historical development. But race is itself an economic factor".

Context here

German reference: "Brief an W. Borgius" 25.1.1894. MEW, Bd. 39, S. 205. Not apparently online.



ENGELS: NATIVE BLACKS DUMBER THAN AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD

Engels. "Notes to Anti-Duehring": "On the other hand, modern natural science has extended the principle of the origin of all thought content from experience in a way that breaks down its old metaphysical limitation and formulation. By recognising the inheritance of acquired characters, it extends the subject of experience from the individual to the genus; the single individual that must have experienced is no longer necessary, its individual experience can be replaced to a certain extent by the results of the experiences of a number of its ancestors. If, for instance, among us the mathematical axioms seem self-evident to every eight-year-old child, and in no need of proof from experience, this is solely the result of "accumulated inheritance." It would be difficult to teach them by a proof to a bushman or Australian negro".

Context here



ENGELS SAW RUSSIANS AS DUMB

Engels, The Armies of Europe: "But up to the present time, the Russians of all classes are too fundamentally barbarous to find any enjoyment in scientific or intellectual pursuits of any kind (except intrigues), and, therefore, almost all their distinguished men in the military service are either foreigners, or, what nearly amounts to the same, "ostze Context here

Some of the German

Engels, ,Die Armeen Europas", Putnam's Monthly, No. XXXIII, September 1855

"Aber bis zum heutigen Tage sind die Russen aller Klassen viel zu barbarisch, um an wissenschaftlicher oder geistiger Taetigkeit irgendwelcher Art (ausser Intrigen) Gefallen zu finden (...)"

MEW a.a.O. 11, 452.



ENGELS PARANOID ABOUT THE SLAVS

Engels, "Germany and Pan-Slavism", 1855: "The Slavic race, long divided by inner struggles, pushed back to the east by the Germans, subjugated in part by Germans, Turks and Hungarians, silently re-uniting its branches after 1815 by the gradual growth of Pan-Slavism, it now makes sure of its unity for the first time, and with that declares war to-the-death on the Roman-Celtic and German races, who have ruled Europe until now."

Listed, but with no translation here

The German

Engels, "Deutschland und der Panslawismus", 1855

"Die slawische Race, lang geteilt durch innere Zwiste, nach dem Osten zurueckgetrieben durch die Deutschen, unterjocht, zum Teil von Deutschen, Tuerken und Ungarn, still ihre Zweige wiedervereinend, nach 1815, durch das allmaehliche Wachstum des Panslawismus, sie versichert nun zum ersten Mal ihre Einheit und erklaert damit Krieg auf den Tod den roemisch-keltischen und deutschen Racen, die bisher in Europa geherrscht haben."

MEW a.a.O. 11, 198,f.



ENGELS DID NOT LIKE NON-GERMANS MUCH

Engels: "This miserable debris of former nations, Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks and other thieving rabble, whom the liberal Philistine raves about in the interest of the Russians, deny each other the very air they are breathing, and have to slit each others' greedy throats."

The German

Engels: "Diese elenden Truemmerstuecke ehemaliger Nationen, Serben, Bulgaren, Griechen und andres Raeubergesindel, fuer die der liberale Philister im Interessen der Russen schwaermt, goennen also einander die Luft nicht, die sie einatmen, und muessen sich untereinander die gierigen Haelse abschneiden."

MEW a.a.O. 36, 390.

Source (German only)



MORE ANTISEMITIC ABUSE OF LASALLE

Engels to Marx: "The Lasalle manoeuvres have amused me greatly, the frizzy Jew-head now has to very charmingly distinguish himself in the red nightshirt and Marquis garb -- from which at every movement the Polish kike looks out. Seeing it must give the impression of louse-like repulsiveness."

(No other English translation available online)

The German

Engels an Marx, 14.April 1856

"Die Lassalliaden haben mich sehr erheitert, der krause Juddekopp mu sich ueber dem roten Schlafrock und in der Marquisen-Draperie, wo bei jeder Bewegung der polnische Schmuhl durchguckt, sehr reizend ausnehmen. Gesehen, mu der Kerl einen hoechst lausig-widerwaertigen Eindruck machen."

MEW a.a.O. 29, 43.

Source



POLISH JEWS PARTICULARLY DESPISED

Engels: "We discovered that in connection with these figures the German national simpletons and money-grubbers of the Frankfurt parliamentary swamp always counted as Germans the Polish Jews as well, although this dirtiest of all races, neither by its jargon nor by its descent, but at most only through its lust for profit, could have any relation of kinship with Frankfurt".

Context here

The German

Engels, NRZ 29. Apr. 1849

,... da die deutschen Nationalgimpel und Geldmacher des Frankfurter Sumpfparlaments bei diesen Zaehlungen immer noch die polnischen Juden zu Deutschen gerechnet, obwohl diese schmutzigste aller Rassen weder in ihrem Jargon, noch ihrer Abstammung nach, sondern hoechstens durch ihre Profitwuetigkeit mit Frankfurt im Verwandtschaftsverhaeltnis stehen kann (...)"

MEW a.a.O. 6, 448 f.



FINAL COMMENT

Although I am no fan of Engels, I might say that to me Engels seems a much more human and likable figure than Marx. Engels had enthusiasms. Marx had only hatreds -- he hated even the workers whose cause he claimed to espouse. Even the kindly Heinrich Marx -- Karl's father -- thought Karl was not much of a human being. The letter from Heinrich to Karl below was written when Karl was still only 19. Heinrich seems to have been a decent and generous guy. It must have pained him greatly to see how his son turned out.

Letter from Heinrich Marx to son Karl, written in Trier, March 2, 1837: "It is remarkable that I, who am by nature a lazy writer, become quite inexhaustible when I have to write to you. I will not and cannot conceal my weakness for you. At times my heart delights in thinking of you and your future. And yet at times I cannot rid myself of ideas which arouse in me sad forebodings and fear when I am struck as if by lightning by the thought: is your heart in accord with your head, your talents? Has it room for the earthly but gentler sentiments which in this vale of sorrow are so essentially consoling for a man of feeling? And since that heart is obviously animated and governed by a demon not granted to all men, is that demon heavenly or Faustian? Will you ever -- and that is not the least painful doubt of my heart -- will you ever be capable of truly human, domestic happiness? Will -- and this doubt has no less tortured me recently since I have come to love a certain person [Jenny von Westfalen] like my own child -- will you ever be capable of imparting happiness to those immediately around you?

What has evoked this train of ideas in me, you will ask ? Often before, anxious thoughts of this kind have come into my mind, but I easily chased them away, for I always felt the need to surround you with all the love and care of which my heart is capable, and I always like to forget. But I note a striking phenomenon in Jenny. She, who is so wholly devoted to you with her childlike, pure disposition, betrays at times, involuntarily and against her will, a kind of fear, a fear laden with foreboding, which does not escape me, which I do not know how to explain, and all trace of which she tried to erase from my heart, as soon as I pointed it out to her. What does that mean, what can it be? I cannot explain it to myself, but unfortunately my experience does not allow me to be easily led astray.

I find it quite interesting as it shows the hypocrisy in leftist ideologies.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

At least have the decency to post the SOURCE (http://marxwords.blogspot.co.uk/) for your bullshit cut+paste hackjob, you pathetic drive-by posting shitbrain.

But then again, maybe posting your source would have revealed that the author is a complete fucking hack with an axe to grind with anyone to the left of Thatcher (may she rest in piss).

You say that this is a "paper", but to which journal was it submitted? Of course I doubt that you will ever answer my question, being the fucking useless post-once-then-disappear chickenshit that you are.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is a list of very flimsy circumstantial quotes and excerpts from personal letters assembled to try and create a political argument - but it really does little to adress the overall and fundamental views of Marx or Engels. In half of these quotes they are not useing the nationality to even mean the people, but as shorthand for the ruling groups - it would be like if someone on RevLeft said, "The Americans are the agressors in X situation" they don't usually mean the American people (though it is sloppily conflated in mainstream politics) but the policies of it's rulers.

Marx and Engels sometimes said things that sound inflamatory or intolerant from a modern leftist perspective. Some of this is just historical context and they are reflecting some common assumption among broad swaths of people at that time (or like the use of "Barbarous" was considered the proper terminology to describe what capitalists would call "under-developed" societies today), other times, they are just being vitriolic and un-PC towards critics or being snarky in personal letters. It should be owned-up to, especially when it wasn't just some historical thing, but it should also be put into perspective. Did they organize in a discrimanatory or nationalist way, was predjudice against any ethnic group the basis of their therories - catagorically no. Their politics were emancapatory and international, even if some of their 1800s version of facebook snark in correspondances sometimes wasn't.

I feel bad for future influential revolutionaries who will have all sorts of old tweets and internet flames thrown back at them to try and discredit their overall politics.

[The Idler]

I think these kind of things presume a sort of tribal approach to politics, that socialists must all follow Marx and Engels as people.

Well actually, no, if their ideas make sense then socialists should support them, if their ideas are wrong (e.g. racism), socialists ought to oppose them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think these kind of things presume a sort of tribal approach to politics, that socialists must all follow Marx and Engels as people.

Well actually, no, if their ideas make sense then socialists should support them, if their ideas are wrong (e.g. racism), socialists ought to oppose them.

Not to mention the laughable political analysis of "Engels seemed like a nice guy, but Marx seemed like a grump and... well, so leftism sucks."

[Crux]

I hear Engels said nice things about Swedes though, so I'm good. :rolleyes:

[Theophys]

At least have the decency to post the SOURCE (http://marxwords.blogspot.co.uk/) for your bullshit cut+paste hackjob, you pathetic drive-by posting shitbrain.

But then again, maybe posting your source would have revealed that the author is a complete fucking hack with an axe to grind with anyone to the left of Thatcher (may she rest in piss).

You say that this is a "paper", but to which journal was it submitted? Of course I doubt that you will ever answer my question, being the fucking useless post-once-then-disappear chickenshit that you are.
His post count. He can't post links. Furthermore, what's the problem here? You're mad because he got you a list of arguments made by Engels with sources from Marxists.org? So what if the website was made by an anti-Communist? Your nonsense is nothing more than an ad hominem logical fallacy targeted at the messenger rather than the arguments presented.


Not to mention the laughable political analysis of "Engels seemed like a nice guy, but Marx seemed like a grump and... well, so leftism sucks."

Actually according to the text, Marx seems like a nice guy, Engels is the grump.


This is a list of very flimsy circumstantial quotes and excerpts from personal letters assembled to try and create a political argument - but it really does little to adress the overall and fundamental views of Marx or Engels. In half of these quotes they are not useing the nationality to even mean the people, but as shorthand for the ruling groups - it would be like if someone on RevLeft said, "The Americans are the agressors in X situation" they don't usually mean the American people (though it is sloppily conflated in mainstream politics) but the policies of it's rulers.

Marx and Engels sometimes said things that sound inflamatory or intolerant from a modern leftist perspective. Some of this is just historical context and they are reflecting some common assumption among broad swaths of people at that time (or like the use of "Barbarous" was considered the proper terminology to describe what capitalists would call "under-developed" societies today), other times, they are just being vitriolic and un-PC towards critics or being snarky in personal letters. It should be owned-up to, especially when it wasn't just some historical thing, but it should also be put into perspective. Did they organize in a discrimanatory or nationalist way, was predjudice against any ethnic group the basis of their therories - catagorically no. Their politics were emancapatory and international, even if some of their 1800s version of facebook snark in correspondances sometimes wasn't.

I feel bad for future influential revolutionaries who will have all sorts of old tweets and internet flames thrown back at them to try and discredit their overall politics.
I've read these papers extensively because I was faced with the same arguments before on another forum by an anti-Communist like the one above.

On the question of the Slavs Engels was using their historical analysis (social evolutionary, class reduction, historical evolutionist, progressive, historical materialism, and so on) to make the claim that the Tsarist Russians were reactionaries, the Germans, Magyars, and Poles were progressive, and the rest of the Slavs were "trash" that needed to the assimilated by superior and more progressive nations such as Germany. That topic is quite serious and follows Marxist lines, it has nothing to do with the "facebook snark" you find in the letters, such as on the issue of black people.

A similar argument on the question of the Slavs was made on the question of the Irish as well. Engels was also critical of the Nords. There's a very fine line between racism and scientific analysis of races and I believe he broke it with the words that accompany his "analyses".

We need to own up to what has been said and must either choose to support their claim or not. Not all of us are dogmatic.

So to the OP, yes, they said the CITED parts with LINKS, but the uncited parts have no proof of ever being said, such as on the question of the article on Jews supposedly written by Marx. But after we admit this you need to properly analyze "why" they said what they did and on "what" basis was that said. That's where actual Marxists differ from your average Left Liberal Communist. We analyze shit and take into consideration context rather than superficial name calling and labeling. For example on the questions of the Slavs, they claimed that the Slavs were doomed as they were due to the many contradictions and divisions between them (see Engels on the discussion of their lack of similarities on language or otherwise) and thus needed to be assimilated into superior cultures, countries, etc. that adopted progress such as Capitalism in the case of Germany and Hungary instead of reaction as in the case of the Tsarists and the Turks that Engels criticized heavily (see his arguments on pan-Slavism). And as it turned out, Engels and Marx were correct. We saw what happened with pan-Slavism after the inevitable fall of Yugoslavia. The many contradictions that were suppressed on the thread of Tito rose to the fore after that thread was severed. The Slavs, alone, cannot be united together due to the many irreconcilable contradictions that exist based on ethnicity, culture, religion, and so on. Kosovo and Albania (not technically a part of Yugoslavia) can never be reconciled with Macedonia and Serbia just as Macedonia and Serbia cannot be reconciled with Bosnia. According to Engels, countries need to be taken out of reaction and assimilated into the progressive countries.

I know it sounds horrifying for the Left Liberal Communists, but go read the texts yourselves on marxists.org. That's actually what Marx and Engels said. Too many people claim themselves to be "Marxists" whilst knowing very little or holding very little views concerned with Marxism. Once you get that they said that in your heads, the sooner you get to actually pulling the wool out of your face and owning up to what was said or support what was said. Denying them and insulting the messenger is just ridiculous false apologism. Call me a "no bullshit Marxist" if you will.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yes, they had many of the common social views of the times. So? They were raised in 1800's Europe. Jeez. They're not perfect, but hey, for their time they were pretty damn good!

[Orange Juche]

At least have the decency to post the SOURCE (http://marxwords.blogspot.co.uk/) for your bullshit cut+paste hackjob, you pathetic drive-by posting shitbrain.

Oh be nice.

[Sasha]

What are you al doing posting in a troll thread? OP is called heetlar ffs...

[Fourth Internationalist]

What are you al doing posting in a troll thread? OP is called heetlar ffs...

Wow I didnt even notice that...

[Crux]

What are you al doing posting in a troll thread? OP is called heetlar ffs...
It's trollicious isn't it? So trash or serious discussion about Marx and Engels? I'll go ahead and ban Heetlar, troll of the Fourth Reich in any case.

[Jimmie Higgins]

His post count. He can't post links. Furthermore, what's the problem here? You're mad because he got you a list of arguments made by Engels with sources from Marxists.org? So what if the website was made by an anti-Communist? Your nonsense is nothing more than an ad hominem logical fallacy targeted at the messenger rather than the arguments presented.But the point is that this is not a real argument - it's cherry-picking quotes to "prove" the thesis of the author while totally ignoring the main aspects of these figure's ideas and conception of the world, not to mention the specific context.

Anyway I did some googling and found a link:
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/engels.html

And the benifits of this is you can actually look up the "context".

I stated with the first two quotes.


Karl Marx, "A Contribution to the Critique of Political economy" (Review by Frederick Engels), Das Volk, 30 No. 14, August 6, 1859: "The Germans have long since shown that in all spheres of science they are equal, and in most of them superior, to other civilised nations. Only one branch of science, political economy, had no German name among its foremost scholars."This is no more a claim of "german superiority" than it is "Japaneese superiority" to say that in the 1980s, Japan dominated the world of hi-tech, or today that China is formost in manufacturing. He is simply saying that: despite advanced academia in Germany, there is no german understanding of the modern economy.

Later, in the same paragraph, Engels states:


It was indeed at this time that English and French economic works began to be imported for the benefit of the German middle class. Men of learning and bureaucrats soon got hold of the imported material and treated it in a way which does little credit to the “German intellect.” The literary efforts of a hotchpotch of chevaliers d’industrie, traders, schoolmasters and bureaucrats produced a bunch of German economic publications which as regards triteness, banality, frivolity, verbosity and plagiarism are equalled only by the German novel.

Oh my lord, Engels was not a German supremacist at all, but obviously anti-German culture!:rolleyes:

And for the 2nd - this earlier piece is a little beyond my historical understanding - I'm not that familiar with the context or the monarchist figure he's talking about. But what's clear is that his view of "Germanization" is historical, not patriotic or nationalist. He explains that "German-ness" is a facade, a political construction (which I think, from skimming the piece) he says has two sides to it: a progressive side of creating a modern nation (the bourgoise as historically progressive force, and the state being their way of organizing) with laws and rights and so on, but then also a jingoism of "creating German-ness, through negation" i.e. saying "we're not like the French or the Russians".


But for that very reason Germanisation was negation, and the positive elements with which it plumed itself lay buried in an unclarity from which they never quite emerged; what did come up into the daylight of reason was for the most part paradoxical enough. Its whole world view was philosophically without foundation since it held that the entire world was created for the sake of the Germans, and the Germans themselves had long since arrived at the highest stage of evolution. The Germanising trend was negation, abstraction in the Hegelian sense. It created abstract Germans by stripping off everything that had not descended from national roots over sixty-four purely German generations. Even its seemingly positive features were negative, for Germany could only be led towards its ideals by negating a whole century and her development, and thus its intention was to push the nation back into the German Middle Ages or even into the primeval German purity of the Teutoburger Wald. Jahn embodied this trend in its extreme. This one-sidedness turned the Germans into the chosen people of Israel and ignored all the innumerable seeds of world history which had grown on soil that was not German. It is against the French especially, whose invasion had been repulsed and whose hegemony in external matters is based on the fact that they master, more easily than all nations at least, the form of European culture, namely, civilisation — it is against the. French that the iconoclastic fury was directed most of all. The great, eternal achievements of the revolution were abhorred as “foreign frivolities” or even “foreign lies and falsehoods”; no one thought of the kinship between this stupendous act of the people and the national uprising of 1813; that which Napoleon had introduced, the emancipation of the Israelites, trial by jury, sound civil law in place of the pandects, [102] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/volume02/footnote.htm#102) was condemned solely because of its initiator. Hatred of the French became a duty. Every kind of thinking which could rise to a higher viewpoint was condemned as un-German. Hence patriotism too was essentially negative and left the Fatherland without support in the struggle of the age, while it went to great pains to invent bombastic German expressions for foreign words which had long been assimilated into German. If this trend had been concretely German, if it had taken the German for what he had become in two thousand years of history, if it had not overlooked the truest element of our destiny, namely, to be the pointer on the scales of European history, to watch over the development of the neighbouring nations, it would have avoided all its mistakes — On the other hand, one must not ignore the fact that Germanisation was a necessary stage in the formation of our national spirit and that together with the succeeding stage it formed the contrast on whose shoulders the modern world view rests.

Like I said, I don't fully know the historical context of the specific arguments he's making in regards to this figure's book, but I don't think that after skimming it, anyone could sincerely argue he's making a nationalist argument. In fact he repeatedly mocks nationalism while also arguing that it has a progressive role to play.


On the question of the Slavs Engels was using their historical analysis (social evolutionary, class reduction, historical evolutionist, progressive, historical materialism, and so on) to make the claim that the Tsarist Russians were reactionaries, the Germans, Magyars, and Poles were progressive, and the rest of the Slavs were "trash" that needed to the assimilated by superior and more progressive nations such as Germany. That topic is quite serious and follows Marxist lines, it has nothing to do with the "facebook snark" you find in the letters, such as on the issue of black people. The argument about this is if countries remain under Tsarist monarchies or "assimilate" i.e. become part of the bourgoise world. The "marxist lines" it follows are that capitalism is historically progressive over feudalism - not that specific cultures are inherently superior or inferior.


A similar argument on the question of the Slavs was made on the question of the Irish as well. Engels was also critical of the Nords. There's a very fine line between racism and scientific analysis of races and I believe he broke it with the words that accompany his "analyses".


The melancholy dominating most of these songs is still the expression of the national. disposition today. How could it be otherwise amongst a people whose conquerors are always inventing new, up-to-date methods of oppression? The latest method, which was introduced forty years ago and pushed to the extreme in the last twenty years, consists in the mass eviction of Irishmen from their homes and farms — which, in Ireland, is the same as eviction from the country. Since 1841 the population has dropped by two and a half million, and over three million Irishmen have emigrated. All this has been done for the profit of the big landowners of English descent, and on their instigation. If it goes on like this for another thirty years, there will be Irishmen only in America.

I honestly don't know that much about their views on Eastern Europe, but to claim they held racist views of the Irish is absolute nonsense based on what I've read from them on this. They were both very interested and involved in developing relations with Irish revolutionaries, trying to argue that the English and Irish migrants form economic solidarity (which I wouldn't agree with - I think that's too low of an [economist] expectation, personally), and the oppression of Irish migrants in the US.


We need to own up to what has been said and must either choose to support their claim or not. Not all of us are dogmatic.We'd be dogmatists if we thought that every word written by Marx or Engels was precious and must be fully supported or fully rejected while ignoring the overall framework and spirit and substance of their views.


For example on the questions of the Slavs, they claimed that the Slavs were doomed as they were due to the many contradictions and divisions between them (see Engels on the discussion of their lack of similarities on language or otherwise) and thus needed to be assimilated into superior cultures, countries, etc. that adopted progress such as Capitalism in the case of Germany and Hungary instead of reaction as in the case of the Tsarists and the Turks that Engels criticized heavily (see his arguments on pan-Slavism). I think this formulation is all off. It wasn't some supposed superiority of "culture" that then led some groups to "adopt progress such as capitalism" it was that the "nation" in those cases could be unified under a bourgoise class who had an interest in a level of "rationalization" and reorganization that was a step forward from feudalism. If some areas were "too divided" in their view it has nothing to do with some superiority or inferiority or disunity of culture in the abstract, but that there wasn't a sort of hegemonic force (the capitalists) capable of "forging a nation". The whole concept of "nation" to them is different that common ones today where the concept is all but taken as "natural". They were writing decades after the concept of "nationalism" was even around, decades after "Germany" or "France" was in the process of being thought of as a "nation" rather than a collection of Princedoms and feudal estates. A common language (which France didn't really have - they had to teach the rest of the provances Parisian French and didn't really accomplish that until the late 19ths/early 20th!) made it easier for the bourgoiue to rally the masses to their hegemonic rule.


I know it sounds horrifying for the Left Liberal Communists, but go read the texts yourselves on marxists.org. That's actually what Marx and Engels said. Too many people claim themselves to be "Marxists" whilst knowing very little or holding very little views concerned with Marxism. Once you get that they said that in your heads, the sooner you get to actually pulling the wool out of your face and owning up to what was said or support what was said. Denying them and insulting the messenger is just ridiculous false apologism.If the messenger is making false claims, then they are fair game for criticism


Call me a "no bullshit Marxist" if you will.That's such crude language though... why not clean it up a bit and just call you "no Marxist". I mean you call yourself a Marxist, but don't believe in the LTV, but you think it's more important to fully agree or disagree with what Marx or Engels thought of some relativly obscure question during a time when Europe was reorganizing political boundaries... it's a bit silly frankly.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

His post count. He can't post links.

Plenty of other low-postcount posters have found the wherewithal to engage their brains and think of creative ways around such restrictions. This guy has absolutely no excuse.


Furthermore, what's the problem here? You're mad because he got you a list of arguments made by Engels with sources from Marxists.org?

No, I'm angry because the OP is an intellectually lazy anti-communist who relies on cutting and pasting from shitty websites written by right-wing obsessives to make their "argument", and to rub salt in the wound they do it without properly crediting the original author, making him look damn close to a plagiarist. So much for the right-wing support of intellectual property rights.

Also, I actually asked the OP a question. Maybe you were too busy being indignant on the behalf of an anti-communist to notice, but since the OP claimed in the thread title they were posting a "paper", I asked what journal the paper had been submitted to.

Since the OP is an intellectual coward, I'm not expecting an answer. Fuck you OP, you shit.


So what if the website was made by an anti-Communist?

A shit anti-communist who makes arguments in bad faith, because John J. Ray thinks all leftists of any stripe are moustache-twirling villains out to ruin the world. Surely you can recognise the difference between a sincere examination of communist ideology, and the ludicrous red-baiting employed by the likes of John J. Ray?


Your nonsense is nothing more than an ad hominem logical fallacy targeted at the messenger rather than the arguments presented.

Everything we've seen of the OP, and the many posters like him who dump a massive word salad on this board while never sticking around to actually defend whatever piece of crap they vomit forth, indicates this guy is looking to preach his political religion rather than have a debate of any kind.

Why show any consideration when the OP has plainly done nothing to warrant it?


I've read these papers extensively because I was faced with the same arguments before on another forum by an anti-Communist like the one above.

...

I know it sounds horrifying for the Left Liberal Communists, but go read the texts yourselves on marxists.org. That's actually what Marx and Engels said. Too many people claim themselves to be "Marxists" whilst knowing very little or holding very little views concerned with Marxism. Once you get that they said that in your heads, the sooner you get to actually pulling the wool out of your face and owning up to what was said or support what was said. Denying them and insulting the messenger is just ridiculous false apologism. Call me a "no bullshit Marxist" if you will.

Well, since you seem to be convinced that the OP is actually looking for a debate and isn't just a drive-by political preacher, and since you also seem familiar with the general thrust of the OP, why didn't you dissect his nonsense rather than having a go at me?

[Paul Cockshott]

The most serious of these is the 1891 document by Engels where he says that in the comming war with France the social democrats should support the war. I have long thought that the actual policy of the social democrats in 1914 could easily have been justified by this document. I dont know if the social democrat press reprinted it during the war.

[Theophys]

Plenty of other low-postcount posters have found the wherewithal to engage their brains and think of creative ways around such restrictions. This guy has absolutely no excuse.
Bullshit. You actually want him to bypass the censor on links for new posters or else you'll verbally abuse him? Disgusting.


No, I'm angry because the OP is an intellectually lazy anti-communist who relies on cutting and pasting from shitty websites written by right-wing obsessives to make their "argument", and to rub salt in the wound they do it without properly crediting the original author, making him look damn close to a plagiarist. So much for the right-wing support of intellectual property rights.
The cutting and pasting from shitty websites is an argument he is trying to use. To resort to verbal bashing is to show that you are not capable of addressing what has been presented and instead are mad because you are completely unable to do so. Your entire post is an ad hominem logical fallacy and nothing more. Oh and are you kidding me? You also attack him for not giving a source? So what the fuck if he did not give a source? Is he writing a thesis or attempting to write a "paper" of his own? Oh and by the way, not all Right-Wingers support intellectual property rights.


Also, I actually asked the OP a question. Maybe you were too busy being indignant on the behalf of an anti-communist to notice, but since the OP claimed in the thread title they were posting a "paper", I asked what journal the paper had been submitted to.
I do not care if he's an anti-Communist or a Communist, I only care that you actually verbally bashed the guy whilst almost completely ignoring his point. If you think you're actually engaging in a debate/discussion with the OP by asking him, mockingly, "what journal the paper had been submitted to" then I seriously question your sanity.


Since the OP is an intellectual coward, I'm not expecting an answer. Fuck you OP, you shit.
More verbal bashing instead of arguments. I hope you do realize that many lurkers are reading this and may very well be curious and wanting an answer to what the OP posted, all they're seeing is some kid throwing around insults at the OP for being an anti-Communist, calling it a "paper" and not giving a source. Seriously, have you ever been to another forum and noticed the intellectual levels on there? Compare them to your posts here. Is that what we are to expect from a Communist? You're better off joining the neo-Nazis with that logic and intellectual "bravery" of yours.


A shit anti-communist who makes arguments in bad faith, because John J. Ray thinks all leftists of any stripe are moustache-twirling villains out to ruin the world. Surely you can recognise the difference between a sincere examination of communist ideology, and the ludicrous red-baiting employed by the likes of John J. Ray?
Do you have any idea what an ad hominem logical fallacy is which you keep resorting to? You are not attacking the OP's point nor John J. Ray's arguments, you are attacking THEM PERSONALLY. This is completely unacceptable without any argument whatsoever. I personally do not know nor do I care who John J. Ray is, but if he has any arguments I will deal with them properly, not bash him for being an anti-Communist.


Everything we've seen of the OP, and the many posters like him who dump a massive word salad on this board while never sticking around to actually defend whatever piece of crap they vomit forth, indicates this guy is looking to preach his political religion rather than have a debate of any kind.
Is it the one dumping the text trying to preach his religion or is it the one replying with a word salad of insults rather than arguments to destroy the other rather than the other's arguments?


Why show any consideration when the OP has plainly done nothing to warrant it?
Because the OP may link this thread to others who will read it and because this thread is open to the public who will read it and be curious for an answer which you have not come up with.


Well, since you seem to be convinced that the OP is actually looking for a debate and isn't just a drive-by political preacher, and since you also seem familiar with the general thrust of the OP, why didn't you dissect his nonsense rather than having a go at me?
I do not care about the OP. The OP never delivers. I care about the lurkers and readers, such as myself previously, who actually read these threads and want to know answers by Marxists to defend Marxism. I did dissect his "nonsense", but I admitted that his "nonsense" is mostly genuinely and explained them and claimed that the unsourced ones online we cannot prove to even exist. I also spoke of the piece of the Jews supposedly written by Marx, which was actually not written by Marx. Next time actually bother to read my post. I barely gave you two line of my post.


But the point is that this is not a real argument - it's cherry-picking quotes to "prove" the thesis of the author while totally ignoring the main aspects of these figure's ideas and conception of the world, not to mention the specific context.
And what then? We all know this and yet are we to result to verbal abuse and mud slinging as Noxion did? No.



-snip-

I wonder why you replied with all that seeing that that was what I had already said.



Like I said, I don't fully know the historical context of the specific arguments he's making in regards to this figure's book, but I don't think that after skimming it, anyone could sincerely argue he's making a nationalist argument. In fact he repeatedly mocks nationalism while also arguing that it has a progressive role to play.

The argument about this is if countries remain under Tsarist monarchies or "assimilate" i.e. become part of the bourgoise world. The "marxist lines" it follows are that capitalism is historically progressive over feudalism - not that specific cultures are inherently superior or inferior.
And where did I ever speak of "specific cultures" being inherently superior or inferior? What you are saying is just a repeat of what I have already said.



I honestly don't know that much about their views on Eastern Europe, but to claim they held racist views of the Irish is absolute nonsense based on what I've read from them on this. They were both very interested and involved in developing relations with Irish revolutionaries, trying to argue that the English and Irish migrants form economic solidarity (which I wouldn't agree with - I think that's too low of an [economist] expectation, personally), and the oppression of Irish migrants in the US.
Bullshit apologism. Developing relations with Irish revolutionaries has NOTHING to do with commenting on the Irish as a "race" (as said by Engels). Oppression of Irish migrants in the US? As we can see below it was Engels who harshly criticized the Irish for acting as a destructive competition to the English proletariat. Read the entire text, it's interesting as you seem to know little about what has been said. Here's what Engels said in "Condition of the Working Class in England, by Engels, 1845" in the "Irish Immigration" section:

"The worst dwellings are good enough for them; their clothing causes them little trouble, so long as it holds together by a single thread; shoes they know not; their food consists of potatoes and potatoes only; whatever they earn beyond these needs they spend upon drink. What does such a race want with high wages? The worst quarters of all the large towns are inhabited by Irishmen. Whenever a district is distinguished for especial filth and especial ruinousness, the explorer may safely count upon meeting chiefly those Celtic faces which one recognises at the first glance as different from the Saxon physiognomy of the native, and the singing, aspirate brogue which the true Irishman never loses"

"Such occupations are therefore especially overcrowded with Irishmen: hand-weavers, bricklayers, porters, jobbers, and such workers, count hordes of Irishmen among their number, and the pressure of this race has done much to depress wages and lower the working-class. And even if the Irish, who have forced their way into other occupations, should become more civilised, enough of the old habits would cling to them to have a strong, degrading influence upon their English companions in toil, especially in view of the general effect of being surrounded by the Irish. "

In fact read the entire source which deals with the issue of foreign immigration (such as that of the Irish in the past) acting as a destructive force for the native proletariat: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch06.htm

Sounds so Marxist to you, right?


We'd be dogmatists if we thought that every word written by Marx or Engels was precious and must be fully supported or fully rejected while ignoring the overall framework and spirit and substance of their views.
To reject something by Marx and Engels is not dogmatism, to act as an apologist for what is blatantly in your face is apologism and dogmatism.


I think this formulation is all off. It wasn't some supposed superiority of "culture" that then led some groups to "adopt progress such as capitalism" it was that the "nation" in those cases could be unified under a bourgoise class who had an interest in a level of "rationalization" and reorganization that was a step forward from feudalism. If some areas were "too divided" in their view it has nothing to do with some superiority or inferiority or disunity of culture in the abstract, but that there wasn't a sort of hegemonic force (the capitalists) capable of "forging a nation". The whole concept of "nation" to them is different that common ones today where the concept is all but taken as "natural". They were writing decades after the concept of "nationalism" was even around, decades after "Germany" or "France" was in the process of being thought of as a "nation" rather than a collection of Princedoms and feudal estates. A common language (which France didn't really have - they had to teach the rest of the provances Parisian French and didn't really accomplish that until the late 19ths/early 20th!) made it easier for the bourgoiue to rally the masses to their hegemonic rule.
Are you unable to read? Engels clearly stated that these countries could not be unified under a nation of their own, they needed to be entirely disintegrated and dispersed THEN assimilated. They needed to abandon their cultures, language, and so on and adopt the German ones. Actually yes, division did indeed have to do with being superior or inferior, progressive or reactionary, etc. as can be seen here:

"And if during eight centuries the "eight million Slavs" have had to suffer the yoke imposed on them by the four million Magyars, that alone sufficiently proves which was the more viable and vigorous, the many Slavs or the few Magyars!

But, of course, the greatest "crime" of the Germans and Magyars is that they prevented these 12 million Slavs from becoming Turkish! What would have become of these scattered small nationalities, which have played such a pitiful role in history, if the Magyars and Germans had not kept them together and led them against the armies of Mohammed and Suleiman, and if their so-called oppressors had not decided the outcome of the battles which were fought for the defense of these weak nationalities! The fate of the "12 million Slavs, Wallachians, and Greeks" who have been "trampled underfoot by 700,000 Osmans" (p.8), right up to the present day, does not that speak eloquently enough?

And finally, what a "crime" it is, what a "damnable policy" that at a time when, in Europe in general, big monarchies had become a "historical necessity", the Germans and Magyars untied all these small, stunted and impotent little nations into a single big state and thereby enabled them to take part in a historical development from which, left to themselves, they would have remained completely aloof! Of course, matters of this kind cannot be accomplished without many a tender national blossom being forcibly broken. But in history nothing is achieved without violence and implacable ruthlessness, and if Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon had been capable of being moved by the same sort of appeal as that which pan-Slavism now makes on behalf of its ruined clients, what would have become of history!"

"And what nations are supposed to head this great Slav state? Precisely those nations which for a thousand years have been scattered and split up, those nations whose elements capable of life and development were forcibly imposed on them by other, non-Slav peoples, those nations which were saved from downfall in Turkish barbarism by the victorious arms of non-Slav peoples, small, powerless nationalities, everywhere separated from one another and deprived of their national strength, numbering from a few thousand up to less than two million people! They have become so weak that, for example, the race which in the Middle Ages was the strongest and most terrible, the Bulgarians, are now in Turkey known only for their mildness and soft-heartedness and set great store on being called dobre chrisztian, good Christians! Is there a single one of these races, not excluding the Czechs and Serbs, that possesses a national historical tradition which is kept alive among the people and stands above the pettiest local struggles?"

"Pan-Slavism was at its height in the eighth and ninth centuries, when the Southern Slavs still held the whole of Hungary and Austria and were threatening Byzantium. If at that time they were unable to resist the German and Magyar invasion, if they were unable to achieve independence and form a stable state even when both their enemies, the Magyars and Germans, were tearing each other to pieces, how will they be able to achieve it today, after a thousand years of subjection and loss of their national character?"

Oh and you said it yourself: "They were writing decades after the concept of "nationalism" was even around, decades after "Germany" or "France" was in the process of being thought of as a "nation" rather than a collection of Princedoms and feudal estates. "

Ergo I do not see the problem if they are writing about national decades after such a concept came into existence, although that is untrue as nationalism can bring us back to the "nationalism" of kingdoms, monarchies, and territories. At the time of writing Engels considered Germany and France to be nations, not princedoms or feudal estate.


If the messenger is making false claims, then they are fair game for criticism
I don't see any false claims being made except a long copy/paste of another source which sites Marxists.org.


That's such crude language though... why not clean it up a bit and just call you "no Marxist". I mean you call yourself a Marxist, but don't believe in the LTV, but you think it's more important to fully agree or disagree with what Marx or Engels thought of some relativly obscure question during a time when Europe was reorganizing political boundaries... it's a bit silly frankly.
The last thing I need here is another Revleft Commie calling someone else a "no Marxist" as if they are the bearers of "true" Marxism. I don't believe in the LTV anywhere except in theory, not practically. I bet, in fact, that you know nothing about the LTV. Yes, it is important to agree or disagree with what Marx and Engels said rather than act as a religious apologist of dogmatism. I do not care if you subjectively consider such issues to be "Some relativly [sic] obscure question during a time when Europe was reorganizing political boundaries". The issue is what it is, what has been said has been said, you cannot change any of that no matter how hard you attempt to act as an apologist. Deal with it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Bullshit. You actually want him to bypass the censor on links for new posters or else you'll verbally abuse him? Disgusting.

No, what's disgusting is intellectual cowardice. The guy's here to preach, not to debate, so why the fuck should I bother if he won't?


The cutting and pasting from shitty websites is an argument he is trying to use. To resort to verbal bashing is to show that you are not capable of addressing what has been presented and instead are mad because you are completely unable to do so. Your entire post is an ad hominem logical fallacy and nothing more.

No it fucking isn't, pay attention to what I wrote. Insults and intemperate language are not the same things as an ad hominem.


Oh and are you kidding me? You also attack him for not giving a source? So what the fuck if he did not give a source? Is he writing a thesis or attempting to write a "paper" of his own?

No he's not, he's obviously cut+pasting bullshit from somewhere else and for some reason he didn't want to show us exactly where from.


Oh and by the way, not all Right-Wingers support intellectual property rights.

I'm betting that John J. Ray does.


I do not care if he's an anti-Communist or a Communist, I only care that you actually verbally bashed the guy whilst almost completely ignoring his point. If you think you're actually engaging in a debate/discussion with the OP by asking him, mockingly, "what journal the paper had been submitted to" then I seriously question your sanity.

I seriously question your fucking sanity, mate. Why are you making excuses for that dweeb?


More verbal bashing instead of arguments. I hope you do realize that many lurkers are reading this and may very well be curious and wanting an answer to what the OP posted, all they're seeing is some kid throwing around insults at the OP for being an anti-Communist, calling it a "paper" and not giving a source.

I'm not the one who called it a paper, it was the OP. Look at the fucking title of this thread, for fuck's sake.


Seriously, have you ever been to another forum and noticed the intellectual levels on there? Compare them to your posts here.

Most boards are far worse than Revleft.


Is that what we are to expect from a Communist? You're better off joining the neo-Nazis with that logic and intellectual "bravery" of yours.

No thanks, I'm not a racist fuckstick.


Do you have any idea what an ad hominem logical fallacy is which you keep resorting to? You are not attacking the OP's point nor John J. Ray's arguments, you are attacking THEM PERSONALLY. This is completely unacceptable without any argument whatsoever. I personally do not know nor do I care who John J. Ray is, but if he has any arguments I will deal with them properly, not bash him for being an anti-Communist.

What arguments? The guy is mindlessly parroting bullshit. I don't give a fuck what Marx thought of the Prussians or whatever the fuck, because it's completely irrelevant to my concerns as a 21st century proletarian. Prussia doesn't even fucking exist any more!


Is it the one dumping the text trying to preach his religion or is it the one replying with a word salad of insults rather than arguments to destroy the other rather than the other's arguments?

Dumping a text is not making an argument.


Because the OP may link this thread to others who will read it and because this thread is open to the public who will read it and be curious for an answer which you have not come up with.

Because there's nothing to fucking answer. The guy is dumping shit and running away, you can't debate someone who refuses to respond.


I do not care about the OP.

Liar.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And where did I ever speak of "specific cultures" being inherently superior or inferior? What you are saying is just a repeat of what I have already said.That is what is being implied by the "paper" -
ENGELS THOUGHT ARYANS WERE SUPERIOR
I didn't really think there was a grey area or nuance to the argument in the OP.

Your arguments seemed to suggest that "yes, Egeles did believe in inferirority and superiority of races... we need to own up to that and support it to be a marxist" and maybe I misunderstood you... but then in this last post you deney you make this arguent and then proceede to MAKE THAT ARGUEMENT in regards to Engels views of inferiority of the "Irish race".


Bullshit apologism. Developing relations with Irish revolutionaries has NOTHING to do with commenting on the Irish as a "race" (as said by Engels).As said by Engels... and was COMMONLY BELIEVED BY EVERYONE AT THAT TIME! This would be an example of the historically anacronistic language such as "barabarous" that was considered the proper language at the time and have since taken on different connotations.



Oppression of Irish migrants in the US? As we can see below it was Engels who harshly criticized the Irish for acting as a destructive competition to the English proletariat. Read the entire text, it's interesting as you seem to know little about what has been said. Here's what Engels said in "Condition of the Working Class in England, by Engels, 1845" in the "Irish Immigration" section:

"The worst dwellings are good enough for them; their clothing causes them little trouble, so long as it holds together by a single thread; shoes they know not; their food consists of potatoes and potatoes only; whatever they earn beyond these needs they spend upon drink. What does such a race want with high wages? The worst quarters of all the large towns are inhabited by Irishmen. Whenever a district is distinguished for especial filth and especial ruinousness, the explorer may safely count upon meeting chiefly those Celtic faces which one recognises at the first glance as different from the Saxon physiognomy of the native, and the singing, aspirate brogue which the true Irishman never loses"


You should maybe take your own advice and read the chapeter... you will find the line directly BEFORE the quote above states:

If we except his exaggerated and one-sided condemnation of the Irish national character, Carlyle is perfectly right.In effect he is saying, yes, the Irish are impoverished, the Irish and the English workers are pit against eachother and the English capitalists take advantage of the Irish because of the extreeme poverty.

He does indeed go on to negativly charaterize the rural Irish immigrants and it's probably one of the weaker points of this early work by Engels. But it should also be seen in the context to the quote by Carlyle.



In fact read the entire source which deals with the issue of foreign immigration (such as that of the Irish in the past) acting as a destructive force for the native proletariat: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch06.htm

Sounds so Marxist to you, right?
No, he clearly states in the opening that English industry depends on a reserve army of impoverished Irish who then compete with the English workers which puts a downward pressure on wages.

That's the "marxist" (though they had not begun collaborating yet) kernal in that chapter - and the whole point of it, not "irish drunkeness" and the other stereotypes (again, commonly held) employed in that chapeter.

I honestly don't know how anyone could sincerely look at their political ideas on this issue over the years and claim it's one of racial or cultural basis, and not a class and colonial basis. Someone would also have to ignore that Engels was in major romantic relationships with two Irish women - including when he wrote the book quoted above; that he wanted to write a history of Irish struggle--in Irish which was a supressed language at that time; and that he actually really liked Irish culture and praised it's poetry and even food (for some reason).

The actual "Marxist" arguments they made early-on that I disagree with have to do with the idea that the Irish basically have to support English workers and have a revolution in England in order to both gain material reforms and accesss to education and decent housing and jobs inside England and accomplish the liberation of Ireland. They changed their view of this later, arguing that anti-Irish sentiment in England was a barrier to liberation for the English working class and that the Irish movement in Ireland could actually help hasten both the struggle against colonialism in Ireland and the working class struggle in England.


To reject something by Marx and Engels is not dogmatism, to act as an apologist for what is blatantly in your face is apologism and dogmatism.No, my point is that you claim to be a Marxist while saying the baby isn't important, but the bathwater is essential! The LTV is fundamental to a Marxist view, whereas some off-handed things and early arguments (which don't actually correspond to their overall argument on the subject) are pretty insignificant to the overall Marxist view.

Engels said some pretty nasty things about a political opponent who liked same-sex relationships... there's really no defense of it, but it also should be seen in historical and overall context. Homophobic mocking in a personal letter written before homosexuality as a sexual preference was concieved of in that way, before there were any movements against restrictions on homosexuality, really dosn't give much insight into the overall views they had on sexuality... views which in modern times are very applicable and informative when applied to the struggle for full sexual liberation.

What Engels said about Irish drunkeness is also a stereotype, common at that time, and should not be supported -- but it really reflects nothing to the overall view of his politics and certaintly not for the overall view of Irish people or struggles.


Yes, it is important to agree or disagree with what Marx and Engels said rather than act as a religious apologist of dogmatism. I do not care if you subjectively consider such issues to be "Some relativly [sic] obscure question during a time when Europe was reorganizing political boundaries". The issue is what it is, what has been said has been said, you cannot change any of that no matter how hard you attempt to act as an apologist. Deal with it.There are two things at play here - the statements themselves and the statments as used as the OP's argument. I totally reject the claim that Engels was a nationalist in the way implied in the OP. I don't think that's apologism at all. As for the statements themselves (the ones which are not mis-interpretations or taken out of context) well I politically reject some of the larger framework that the early Marx and Engels had regarding the relationship of opressed and oppressor nations among a number of other things. Some of their positions changed as they developed their ideas and as world histroy developed, some were rejected or corrected or expanded by others later.

But all this is besides the point of the OP, which is just to take a bunch of quotes and make some hay.


The last thing I need here is another Revleft Commie calling someone else a "no Marxist" as if they are the bearers of "true" Marxism. I don't believe in the LTV anywhere except in theory, not practically. I bet, in fact, that you know nothing about the LTV.

Ok, what do you think defines you as a Marxist since I have seen no arguments from you which support such a claim - other than stating that you are a Marxist.

What is your argument in this thread? You calim that Engels was not a national-chauvanist, but then also argue that he was. You miss entirely that his arguments - correct or not - were not about "what's best for Nations" but in the context of National formations developing in Europe at that time, what may or may not put workers in a better position to fight their own battle.

[Theophys]

I'm not addressing the child (Noxion) above due to the nature of his post being nothing short of insults and verbal abuse with no content whatsoever.


That is what is being implied by the "paper" -
W Hat the "paper" said is different from what I said as you quoted me in your post trying to argue against my claims.

I didn't really think there was a grey area or nuance to the argument in the OP.


Your arguments seemed to suggest that "yes, Egeles did believe in inferirority and superiority of races... we need to own up to that and support it to be a marxist" and maybe I misunderstood you... but then in this last post you deney you make this arguent and then proceede to MAKE THAT ARGUEMENT in regards to Engels views of inferiority of the "Irish race".
I did not make that argument initially, as I have already said. I only made that argument later on to show you he did in fact speak f cultures and races.


As said by Engels... and was COMMONLY BELIEVED BY EVERYONE AT THAT TIME!
Bandwagon logical fallacy. Just because everyone at the time believed that then it does not justify them nor make them right. Marx and Engels were revolutionary Marxists that opposed a LOT of what was commonly believed at that time. This is not an excuse.


This would be an example of the historically anacronistic language such as "barabarous" that was considered the proper language at the time and have since taken on different connotations.
Barbarism was never considered proper language. Barbarism was and still is barbarism, an inferiority to what is civilized. It was and still is an insult, even since Roman times.


You should maybe take your own advice and read the chapeter... you will find the line directly BEFORE the quote above states:
In effect he is saying, yes, the Irish are impoverished, the Irish and the English workers are pit against eachother and the English capitalists take advantage of the Irish because of the extreeme poverty.
What are you trying to imply? That does NOT change what I have already quoted and what he later on said. He said that the Irish are impoverish and bashed them on that basis. He claimed that the Irish and the English were pitted AGAINST each other, he shows that these different workers are not united by a common struggle but divided by it and thus the Irish workers are in general detrimental as a competition to the English workers.


He does indeed go on to negativly charaterize the rural Irish immigrants and it's probably one of the weaker points of this early work by Engels. But it should also be seen in the context to the quote by Carlyle.
The context of Carlyle quote which he agreed with and used as a basis for his argument. That does not by any means justify him. Again, see the bandwagon logical fallacy and above.



No, he clearly states in the opening that English industry depends on a reserve army of impoverished Irish who then compete with the English workers which puts a downward pressure on wages.
No? How do you say "no" and then continue to restate what I have already said? I said that the Engels claimed that "foreign immigration (such as that of the Irish in the past) acting as a destructive force for the native proletariat" and then you say "No" as if you disagree and then say "he clearly states in the opening that English industry depends on a reserve army of impoverished Irish who then compete with the English workers which puts a downward pressure on wages.".

Good job. Very smart.


That's the "marxist" (though they had not begun collaborating yet) kernal in that chapter - and the whole point of it, not "irish drunkeness" and the other stereotypes (again, commonly held) employed in that chapeter.
Did I say it is Irish drunkeness that is detrimental on the English above? No, in fact, I said this: "In fact read the entire source which deals with the issue of foreign immigration (such as that of the Irish in the past) acting as a destructive force for the native proletariat".


I honestly don't know how anyone could sincerely look at their political ideas on this issue over the years and claim it's one of racial or cultural basis, and not a class and colonial basis.
The quotes speak for themselves, both racial and cultural basis. You are an apologist attempting to cower away from that fact, I do not and instead own up to it. You need to learn to do the same instead of resorting to various cop-outs.


Someone would also have to ignore that Engels was in major romantic relationships with two Irish women - including when he wrote the book quoted above; that he wanted to write a history of Irish struggle--in Irish which was a supressed language at that time; and that he actually really liked Irish culture and praised it's poetry and even food (for some reason).
Irrelevant. We know what he wrote and I already explained what he wrote. IF he was in a romantic relationship with Irish women then that does not by any means make us disregard what was written, as you seem to do. Praising poetry and food has nothing to do with the text above, as we have seen clearly, when it comes to the bashing of the Irish and their way of life and destructive.


The actual "Marxist" arguments they made early-on that I disagree
Good, you disagree with them, weren't you the one who criticized me for owning up to them and disagreeing or agreeing with them? Here's what you said: "I mean you call yourself a Marxist, but don't believe in the LTV, but you think it's more important to fully agree or disagree with what Marx or Engels thought of some relativly obscure question during a time when Europe was reorganizing political boundaries... it's a bit silly frankly."


with have to do with the idea that the Irish basically have to support English workers and have a revolution in England in order to both gain material reforms and accesss to education and decent housing and jobs inside England and accomplish the liberation of Ireland. They changed their view of this later, arguing that anti-Irish sentiment in England was a barrier to liberation for the English working class and that the Irish movement in Ireland could actually help hasten both the struggle against colonialism in Ireland and the working class struggle in England.
Right.


No, my point is that you claim to be a Marxist while saying the baby isn't important, but the bathwater is essential! The LTV is fundamental to a Marxist view, whereas some off-handed things and early arguments (which don't actually correspond to their overall argument on the subject) are pretty insignificant to the overall Marxist view.
I hope you do realize that exploitation can be explained without the LTV, right? The LTV is only useful for theoretical and logical proof for the origin of value, but useless for empirical or real-life price determination as I have previously explained. The off-handed things and early arguments are indeed sidelined issues, that's why they are rarely mentioned, but they cannot by any means be disregarded or done away with insults as that Noxion above does. They need to be replied to even if they are merely a part of the entire argument.


Engels said some pretty nasty things about a political opponent who liked same-sex relationships... there's really no defense of it, but it also should be seen in historical and overall context. Homophobic mocking in a personal letter written before homosexuality as a sexual preference was concieved of in that way, before there were any movements against restrictions on homosexuality, really dosn't give much insight into the overall views they had on sexuality... views which in modern times are very applicable and informative when applied to the struggle for full sexual liberation.
At least you understand that they said such things and there is no defense for it. We need to own up to it, as I have previously said. You attempting to cop-out as you do above is ridiculous dogmatic apologism that is nothing more than fallacious. You cannot by any means justify the actions of someone "just because everyone else did it". If Marx and Engels lived in Nazi Germany and started kicking and killing Jews, then we are to justify them because "everyone else did it" and because "it was the norm at the time"? Bullshit. for revolutionaries such as Marx and Engels, we are to expect much more from them than following the norm. They fucked up and we need to accept that fact.


What Engels said about Irish drunkeness is also a stereotype, common at that time, and should not be supported -- but it really reflects nothing to the overall view of his politics and certaintly not for the overall view of Irish people or struggles.
It doesn't reflect the overall view of his politics, indeed, this is the only thing we agree about here, but he said it and it needs to be addressed. He was wrong on this issue but he did say it.


There are two things at play here - the statements themselves and the statments as used as the OP's argument. I totally reject the claim that Engels was a nationalist in the way implied in the OP. I don't think that's apologism at all.
Indeed, he was not a nationalist in the sense of the OP, but he did defend nations based on the historical process. I use this argument when defending the USSR for acting based on historically progressive national lines. This you may disagree with and we shall discuss it should you wish. I believe we are to defend the USSR and its actions in the same light that Engels defended the Germans and Magyars against Tsarist reaction in the name of the historical process and evolution.


As for the statements themselves (the ones which are not mis-interpretations or taken out of context) well I politically reject some of the larger framework that the early Marx and Engels had regarding the relationship of opressed and oppressor nations among a number of other things. Some of their positions changed as they developed their ideas and as world histroy developed, some were rejected or corrected or expanded by others later.
I do not outrightly reject them, I believe they were actually justified and even correct in their claims. The Germans held the advanced historical progression of possessing a bourgeoisie. The Tsarist Russians were holding back the historically progression and sending the world back into Feudalism and serfdom. Engels was correct in his criticism of the Tsarist Russians, but he used a lot of unacceptable words, terms, and classifications such as on the question of the Slavs.


But all this is besides the point of the OP, which is just to take a bunch of quotes and make some hay.
Yes but the lurkers and readers would be interested in the quotes even if the point of the OP was to "troll". We need to give them answers.


Ok, what do you think defines you as a Marxist since I have seen no arguments from you which support such a claim - other than stating that you are a Marxist.
I support Marx, Engels, and Lenin on their historical materialism, their views on revolution, their views on a transitional period, their views on vanguard parties (Lenin's), class society, stance on contradictions, criticisms of Capitalism, and so on and so forth. See my other posts in the other threads.


What is your argument in this thread? You calim that Engels was not a national-chauvanist, but then also argue that he was. You miss entirely that his arguments - correct or not - were not about "what's best for Nations" but in the context of National formations developing in Europe at that time, what may or may not put workers in a better position to fight their own battle.
I explained my position and reasons for being this thread clearly in my first post above. Read it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not addressing the child (Noxion) above due to the nature of his post being nothing short of insults and verbal abuse with no content whatsoever.

Why don't you tell us the real reason?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why don't you tell us the real reason?

And yet he whines about others "copping out" :rolleyes:

[Baseball]

Like I said, I don't fully know the historical context of the specific arguments he's making in regards to this figure's book, but I don't think that after skimming it, anyone could sincerely argue he's making a nationalist argument. In fact he repeatedly mocks nationalism while also arguing that it has a progressive role to play.


He is not mocking nationalism; he is suggesting it had gone somewhat awry.
He is wrestling with the fact that nationalism, far from being a "reactionary" force, was in fact highly progressive. Its problems pale in comparison to its benefits.

The specific, historical context he is talking about is German unification, which had dominated central Europe from 1830s to 1860s.

The logical leader for a unified Germany was Austria, as it had been the dominant German state for a thousand years. However, a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-racial, multi-religion Austrian Empire was not an appealing prospect German nationalists. They rallied around the largely homegonous kingdom of prussia. The struggle between those countries the politics of central europe. Being highly progressive, Marx and Engels backed Prussia. I suspect some of those letters about the Slavs et. al.had to do with explains why Germans should not saddle themselves with non-Germans.

As nationalism basically would level Europe in about 50 years after Engels (his death and WW II is closer in time than WW II and today, and the death of Marx is equivalent in time from WW II), Engels praise of the benefits of nationalism is shown to be wrong.

[Jimmie Higgins]

He is not mocking nationalism; he is suggesting it had gone somewhat awry.
He is wrestling with the fact that nationalism, far from being a "reactionary" force, was in fact highly progressive. Its problems pale in comparison to its benefits.That seems to be the case, though I don't think he suggests it has gone "awry" from being an abstractly progressive force, I think he sees it as part of capitalist modernization with all the contradictions involved with that. Specifically he seems to be speaking of why in Germany it wasn't the same capitalist nationalization route as in France or so on, why it has gone "awry" from wider expectations among progressives of various sorts from a path like that of the French Jacobins or whatnot.

There are problems with their views at various points on this and later radicals, often with the benifit of heinseight or new historical events to draw conclusions from, expanded on their ideas about the relationship between capitalist nations and grappled with imperialism and so on.

But their essential arguments have to do with "nationalism" that is "progressive" in the sense of capitalism developing over feudalism (BECAUSE it would make class struggles for liberation more powerful and possible) and also progressive in the sense of "national liberation" like the Irish.

Any claim that the basis of their views is nationalism in an abstract sense or nationalism as people use the term today when it comes to fully developed capitalist nations, as in the OP, would be to turn their worldview on its head. The connected argument is that they also thought capitalism was historically progressive - now, would the OP likely argue: Marx and Engels were Capitalists! You wouldn't even need to dig up older or more obscure texts or personal letters to find snippets of quotes to back that up.


As nationalism basically would level Europe in about 50 years after Engels (his death and WW II is closer in time than WW II and today, and the death of Marx is equivalent in time from WW II), Engels praise of the benefits of nationalism is shown to be wrong.
But they did not evaluate nationalism abstractly as is suggested in the OP and this is an anarchonistic claim that the nationalism they were talking about or the mationalism of the oppressed is the same as the nationalism of fully developed capitalist powers in the 20th centrury in competition with eachother.

They evaluated the existing nationalist movements as 1) contradictory 2) and evaluated their potential for "progressivness" based on their best guest at what these developments might mean for eventual class struggle.

[Theophys]

Why don't you tell us the real reason?
Kid, that is the real reason. I am not scared of debating you nor anyone else as I have shown time and time again. The reason why I do not reply to your useless post is because it contains nothing other than insults rather than any arguments at all. The last thing I'd like to do is take part in a flame war with your flame baiting. Here you go:

"No, what's disgusting is intellectual cowardice. The guy's here to preach, not to debate, so why the fuck should I bother if he won't?"

"No it fucking isn't, pay attention to what I wrote. Insults and intemperate language are not the same things as an ad hominem."

"No he's not, he's obviously cut+pasting bullshit from somewhere else and for some reason he didn't want to show us exactly where from."

"I seriously question your fucking sanity, mate. Why are you making excuses for that dweeb?"

"I'm not the one who called it a paper, it was the OP. Look at the fucking title of this thread, for fuck's sake."

"No thanks, I'm not a racist fuckstick."

"What arguments? The guy is mindlessly parroting bullshit. I don't give a fuck what Marx thought of the Prussians or whatever the fuck, because it's completely irrelevant to my concerns as a 21st century proletarian. Prussia doesn't even fucking exist any more!"

"Because there's nothing to fucking answer. The guy is dumping shit and running away, you can't debate someone who refuses to respond."

"Liar."

What does that child expect me to reply with? A "fuck you" or a "no, you"? That is the reason why I do not bother with such people. If I wanted to "debate" a drunken 10 year old, I'd do it on the EA forums.


And yet he whines about others "copping out" :rolleyes:
Oh look who it is, I wonder why he disappeared. Nevertheless, when one cops-out, he runs away from a debate or argument. There is no debate nor an argument to be had with a 10 year old spewing nothing but verbal abuse and insults with absolutely no argument at all. There's a reason why we have something called an "ad hominem logical fallacy", that's when one resorts to insults targeted at the person rather replying to the arguments presented.

[Jimmie Higgins]

W Hat the "paper" said is different from what I said as you quoted me in your post trying to argue against my claims.

I didn't really think there was a grey area or nuance to the argument in the OP.

I did not make that argument initially, as I have already said. I only made that argument later on to show you he did in fact speak f cultures and races.Ok, fine I've been unclear as to what you are arguing. But, again, speaking of the "Irish race" in the Victorian age is no differnet than saying "The Irish" today. This was the common conception irregardless of people having any positive or negative views of the people or culture.


Bandwagon logical fallacy. Just because everyone at the time believed that then it does not justify them nor make them right. Marx and Engels were revolutionary Marxists that opposed a LOT of what was commonly believed at that time. This is not an excuse.When it comes to common language, I don't think this is the case at all. We can not fault people for using terms like "barbarous" based on contemporary standards - they would have to have existed outside of history to not use such terms. Someone saying "Negro" in 1948 does not tell us much about their politics, a black activist saying "Negro" (as opposed to Black or Afro-American) in 1968 probably tells us a little about their views on civil rights movement (i.e. more moderate or more inclinded to more militant politics). A white person saying "Negro" in 1948 does not tell us much about their politics (other than they were somewhere in a range from supporting black freedom to they are at least polite enough of a bigot not to say the n-word or "darkie" or something in public)... a white person saying Negro in 1988 tells us a lot about their political views.

As for some nasty insults directed at someone who had homosexual relationships and things like that... well this is less excusable as just anacronistic terminology because it was definately used in a malicious way as an insult and discrimanatory. This is where the "facllacy" you claim might apply, but I would say, that considering that homosexuality wasn't really a concept (rather than "the act of homosexual sex"... the concept of homosexuals as a group of people who are defined by their sexuality didn't really become a reality until the end of the 1800s) and while there were sort of gay networks, there was no consiousness - even among gay people - of a "gay community". Repression directed at homosexuals specifically also didn't begin until the end of the 1800s.

By contrast while "everyone" was generally anti-gay in the 1960s, the emergance of both "gay communities" and a conception of homsexuals as a social group, and most importantly the emergance of struggles against sexual oppression by gays and lesibians made it possible for someone like Huey Newton to realize that blacks and lgbt people have a common oppressor and should have solidarity.

Still, in the big picture, Engels' sexual politics, despite the attitude expressed in his correspondance, is based on eliminating the social-hierarchy and economic organization of personal relationships. This overall view, rather than leading to homophobic ideas, leads to sexually liberating ideas and a framework that can now incoporate lgbt sexual liberation as a major part of an overall struggle for sexual liberation.


Barbarism was never considered proper language. Barbarism was and still is barbarism, an inferiority to what is civilized. It was and still is an insult, even since Roman times.Engels uses "Barbarism" to mean a stage of proto-class society and also uses it in the more common context of simply "lack of civilization". As for the context, well again it's not used in quite the same abstract "superiority" and "inferiority" as Victorians of a chauvanist outlook: Civilization is more "advanced" than "barbarism" in it's ability to be more repressive, better at war, and better at enslaving people, as Engels argued, for example.

Again, they could see on the one hand the "historical" advance of the rise of capitalist relations while at the same time fully condemning the slavery and warfare and colonization and encolsures that cause mass suffering as part of the process. Capitalism is "progressive" to Marx and Engels, but also "comes into the world dripping with blood and dirt". The language is problematic - especially to modern ears - in that there are Victorian assumptions mixed in (anthropology was a very new concept and there wasn't a whole lot of understanding, not to mention the interest by official science to justify colonialism and so on), but if you get beyond the language and see the bigger picture it's easy to see that capitalism's "progressiveness" does not have a abstract moralistic connotation in their writings.


What are you trying to imply? That does NOT change what I have already quoted and what he later on said. He said that the Irish are impoverish and bashed them on that basis. He claimed that the Irish and the English were pitted AGAINST each other, he shows that these different workers are not united by a common struggle but divided by it and thus the Irish workers are in general detrimental as a competition to the English workers.The Irish WERE impoverished by and large. Group competition in capitalism, influxes of "reserve labor" do allow capitalists to depress wages. His arguement was that the extreeme poverty and oppression in Ireland meant that economic refugees were willing to work for shit - this implies nothing about their "character". I quoted his line about unfairly attributing this poverty to the "Irish character" to show that he was speaking about the state of Irish people conditionally, not as some kind of inherent biological (race) inferiority.

I'm not sure about his specific answers when he wrote that book, but in things he wrote about Ireland just a year or two later, it's clear that his answer to the "Irish Question" was not restricting immigration to get rid of the Irish or repressing them, but through a working class movement which could then end the colonial relationship causing the poverty and misary in Ireland. I don't agree with that either, but that is far from the kind of racial essentialism that seems to be implied by your argument here. Marx and Engels later changed their views on this and saw colonial struggle as possibly ignighting class struggle and anti-Irish sentiment among English workers being a barrier to working class progress.


The context of Carlyle quote which he agreed with and used as a basis for his argument. That does not by any means justify him. Again, see the bandwagon logical fallacy and above.You miss my point - not that, hey this guy said it, it's OK - but that he seems to specifically adress the "low" state of Irish based on claims made in the quote... they are drunken, Engels says and suggests, why wouldn't they be when they have little other access to enjoyment and have only the worst labor available.


No? How do you say "no" and then continue to restate what I have already said? I said that the Engels claimed that "foreign immigration (such as that of the Irish in the past) acting as a destructive force for the native proletariat" and then you say "No" as if you disagree and then say "he clearly states in the opening that English industry depends on a reserve army of impoverished Irish who then compete with the English workers which puts a downward pressure on wages.".The Marxist argument here is that the COMPETITION, not the existance of Irish in the abstract is the problem. And capitalist profits at various points DO RELY on a big influx of people with little choice but to work for shit... this is true of immigration and migration from the Enclosures to today. Again, you are turning the meaning of Marxism on its head, suggesting that they are making nativist arguments when they are doing nothing of the sort.


The quotes speak for themselves, both racial and cultural basis. You are an apologist attempting to cower away from that fact, I do not and instead own up to it. You need to learn to do the same instead of resorting to various cop-outs.You need to be able to see the forrest and not look at one dead tree and tell everyone that there is not living vegitation in the area.


Good, you disagree with them, weren't you the one who criticized me for owning up to them and disagreeing or agreeing with them?No I am criticizing you for emphasizing minuta over the larger thrust of the argument and turning their political arguments on their head. A reading of the New Testament by you might result in a synopsis of the life of Jesus which goes like this: "It's the tale of a man who got lost in the desert for a little over a month and miraculously survived!"


I hope you do realize that exploitation can be explained without the LTV, right?Exploitation in capitalism can not - in that other thread you showed no understanding of the MARXIST conception of capitalist exploitation - it seemed like you reduced it to not geting paid enough. If I'm wrong, correct me in plain english - you spend a lot of time explaining what you "didn't say" without ever being clear of what you are actually saying.

As to believe the theory, but not "the pracice" - well LTV explains value, not price. Capital doesn't state that the LTV will tell you exact the price of things or that there are not many other social and circumstantial variables at play in specific real-world examples.


We need to own up to it, as I have previously said. You attempting to cop-out as you do above is ridiculous dogmatic apologism that is nothing more than fallacious.Owning up to something can mean: this was an essential part of their argument, but it's wrong or right... or it can mean, "yes they said that, but the context is this..."/"Yes they said that, it is ugly but doesn't mean much in relation to their overall theory." I have no interest in apologism, but I'm also not going to sweat, or treat credibly, political opponents who quote-mine in a dishonest attempt to "muddy the well".

I'm saying that we need to look at the overall views and the thrust of these arguments and you are saying we need to consider every line written irregardless of things like context or their later political ideas and development of these ideas... and yet you accuse me of dogmatism. No, their words are not holy texts to me which is why I see no need to count the angels at the head of a pin so to speak.


Yes but the lurkers and readers would be interested in the quotes even if the point of the OP was to "troll". We need to give them answers. If someone came in and said, "My sociology professor said Marx and Engels were euro-centric and racist..." then it would most likely be adressed. I would make the same argument that I've tried to make here - that some of the specific things they said have to be taken in context - often it's just sort of anacronims, but they did say crude things - especially in personal letters where they were mocking people. But this is the bathwater, not the baby. I see no need to get defensive about some shit they said because it really is historical foot-note stuff and not fundamental to their views and definately not fundamental to the project of self-emancipation.

This, on the other hand, is a "so what do you think of McCain's black baby" sort of post.

There are much more serious examples of real chauvanism and sexism and racism in the labor and socialist movements over the decades which was often connected to some larger fucked-up views (like right-wing Socialist Party members in the US supporting a sort of jim-crow social-democractic set-up) and throwing oppressed groups under the bus in movements and so on.

This kind of quote-mining is just an attempt to discredit the big picture with a lot of noise, frankly.


IF he was in a romantic relationship with Irish women then that does not by any means make us disregard what was written, as you seem to do. Praising poetry and food has nothing to do with the text above, as we have seen clearly, when it comes to the bashing of the Irish and their way of life and destructive.

If...



Mary Burns (1823-1863)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Burns#cite_note-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Burns#cite_note-2) was an Irish woman, best known as the lifelong partner of Friedrich Engels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Burns#cite_note-3)
Burns lived in Salford, near Manchester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester), England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England). She met Engels during his first stay in Manchester, probably early 1843. The working class woman guided Engels through the region, showing him the worst districts of Salford and Manchester for his research. She introduced him to working class circles.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Burns#cite_note-4) Without Burns, Engels may never had written "The Condition of the Working Class in England".[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Burns#cite_note-5)

So his hatred of the Irish race was just a really passive-agreessive argument he was having with his partner or something?

[Theophys]

Ok, fine I've been unclear as to what you are arguing. But, again, speaking of the "Irish race" in the Victorian age is no differnet than saying "The Irish" today. This was the common conception irregardless of people having any positive or negative views of the people or culture.
I don't see how "race" in the past is different from "race" today. They still have the same meaning and connotations. If Engels used the term the "Irish race" then he's referring to the Irish race rather than "the Irish". Engels used the terms "the Irish" AND "the Irish race", I don't see how he would thus have used them to mean the same thing except in meaning that one refers to the race (he specified this by referring to the Irish as the Celtics in other papers) while the other to the people rather than the race. The question of race back then was indeed different from today, back then it was quiet commonplace amongst the intellectuals of the time to speak of races, but we cannot thus deny that they said it or what they meant, but we need to "own up to it" as saying "Yes, he actually spoke of races, but we do not agree with what was said, he was wrong on that point".


When it comes to common language, I don't think this is the case at all. We can not fault people for using terms like "barbarous" based on contemporary standards - they would have to have existed outside of history to not use such terms. Someone saying "Negro" in 1948 does not tell us much about their politics, a black activist saying "Negro" (as opposed to Black or Afro-American) in 1968 probably tells us a little about their views on civil rights movement (i.e. more moderate or more inclinded to more militant politics). A white person saying "Negro" in 1948 does not tell us much about their politics (other than they were somewhere in a range from supporting black freedom to they are at least polite enough of a bigot not to say the n-word or "darkie" or something in public)... a white person saying Negro in 1988 tells us a lot about their political views.
Barbarism meant the same back then as it means today. Although we need not disagree with this as this is a classification of what he perceived to be uncivilized people in the negative sense. Marx and Engels praised Capitalism for its advancements and industrialization away from the backwardness and barbarism of Feudalism and other systems of reaction. I agree with Engels on this point that the Slavs at the time were quite barbaric as were many other countries taht were not on the level of the European historical development.

Yes, using such terms need not by any means speak of their politics. If Engels did not push forward racism, and so on then they do not speak of his politics, but they do speak of his personal opinion or even private beliefs concerning such issues. THis means when someone adopts Marxism, he need not abide by these specific views and yet he can still be a Marxist if he rejects such minimal views. It does not show that they were nationalists and racist theoreticians, but it shows that Engels used such words and depending on the context of such words (not the historical or social context, but the context of the text) he may or may not have held racist VIEWS. Views are not representations of politics. What one person says in private need not at all be adopted in his own public life and politics. This can be seen in the case of Communists and Socialists making sexist and racist jokes in private and yet still condemning serious sexism and racism in public whenever they meet racial supremacists and their ilk.


As for some nasty insults directed at someone who had homosexual relationships and things like that... well this is less excusable as just anacronistic terminology because it was definately used in a malicious way as an insult and discrimanatory. This is where the "facllacy" you claim might apply, but I would say, that considering that homosexuality wasn't really a concept (rather than "the act of homosexual sex"... the concept of homosexuals as a group of people who are defined by their sexuality didn't really become a reality until the end of the 1800s) and while there were sort of gay networks, there was no consiousness - even among gay people - of a "gay community". Repression directed at homosexuals specifically also didn't begin until the end of the 1800s.

By contrast while "everyone" was generally anti-gay in the 1960s, the emergance of both "gay communities" and a conception of homsexuals as a social group, and most importantly the emergance of struggles against sexual oppression by gays and lesibians made it possible for someone like Huey Newton to realize that blacks and lgbt people have a common oppressor and should have solidarity.

Still, in the big picture, Engels' sexual politics, despite the attitude expressed in his correspondance, is based on eliminating the social-hierarchy and economic organization of personal relationships. This overall view, rather than leading to homophobic ideas, leads to sexually liberating ideas and a framework that can now incoporate lgbt sexual liberation as a major part of an overall struggle for sexual liberation.
Homosexuals existed every since the first ages of recorded history. Homosexuality was even common in the case of many civilizations, even the Greek. There does not need to be a "gay community" for there to be insults based on the act or tendency towards homosexuality and thus turning homosexuality into an insult in and of itself. They do not need to be oppressed socially to be insulted or made an insult. In fact, homosexuality, due to being unorganized with no "gay community" was much more socially unacceptable in the conservative and traditional society of Engels' time. If he were to attack someone based on his sexuality then there isn't much of an excuses. Homosexuality was not acceptable at the time, the repression was social repression and it did exist, especially in the conservative and traditionalist religious countries of Euope.

Yes, Engels' politics is different from his private views when used as an insult. As you can see here, we're owning up to it and then offering justification whilst still stating clearly that his views here stated as such and yet we find them unacceptable. We also state that Engels did not use them in his politics.


Engels uses "Barbarism" to mean a stage of proto-class society and also uses it in the more common context of simply "lack of civilization". As for the context, well again it's not used in quite the same abstract "superiority" and "inferiority" as Victorians of a chauvanist outlook: Civilization is more "advanced" than "barbarism" in it's ability to be more repressive, better at war, and better at enslaving people, as Engels argued, for example.
Actually it is used in the "superiority" and "inferiority" exactly if it is "more 'advanced' than 'barbarism' in it's ability to be more repressive, better at war, and better at enslaving people, as Engels argued, for example."

I do not see a reason for any excuse on this question. Barbarism was used by Engels to refer to the uncivilized countries which he believed to be inferior to the more advanced and civilized countries that had adopted Capitalism such as Germany and Hungary (even Poland).


Again, they could see on the one hand the "historical" advance of the rise of capitalist relations while at the same time fully condemning the slavery and warfare and colonization and encolsures that cause mass suffering as part of the process. Capitalism is "progressive" to Marx and Engels, but also "comes into the world dripping with blood and dirt". The language is problematic - especially to modern ears - in that there are Victorian assumptions mixed in (anthropology was a very new concept and there wasn't a whole lot of understanding, not to mention the interest by official science to justify colonialism and so on), but if you get beyond the language and see the bigger picture it's easy to see that capitalism's "progressiveness" does not have a abstract moralistic connotation in their writings.
Yes, and thus Engels justified the assimilation of the Slavs into Germany and Hungary.


The Irish WERE impoverished by and large. Group competition in capitalism, influxes of "reserve labor" do allow capitalists to depress wages. His arguement was that the extreeme poverty and oppression in Ireland meant that economic refugees were willing to work for shit - this implies nothing about their "character". I quoted his line about unfairly attributing this poverty to the "Irish character" to show that he was speaking about the state of Irish people conditionally, not as some kind of inherent biological (race) inferiority.
Yes they were impoverished, but as we can see here:

"That poverty manifests itself in Ireland thus and not otherwise, is owing to the character of the people, and to their historical development. The Irish are a people related in their whole character to the Latin nations, to the French, and especially to the Italians.

"With the Irish, feeling and passion predominate; reason must bow before them. Their sensuous, excitable nature prevents reflection and quiet, persevering activity from reaching development -- such a nation is utterly unfit for manufacture as now conducted."

"Whenever a district is distinguished for especial filth and especial ruinousness, the explorer may safely count upon meeting chiefly those Celtic faces which one recognises at the first glance as different from the Saxon physiognomy of the native, and the singing, aspirate brogue which the true Irishman never loses."

So yes, this has to do with their character, "owing to the character of the people" AND "to their historical development". It would have been easy to hide the character part if we were to claim that it was due to historical development, but Engels clearly differentiates between the two in the very same sentence. You speak of a quoted line about "unfairly attributing this poverty to the Irish character", when it was not the case. Engels merely stated that Carlyle was a bit extreme in his attacks on the Irish but that his argument was correct. Although I honestly don't see much difference between what Engels said and what Carlyle said except that the latter was more "descriptive" of the actions of the Irish. Engels essentially makes the same points that Carlyle himself made, be it on the "nature" of the Irish, the "character" of the Irish, or whatnot.

Engels did, thus, include an "inherent biological" feature, one that is unicivilized and filthy.

"And even if the Irish, who have forced their way into other occupations, should become more civilised, enough of the old habits would cling to them to have a strong, degrading influence upon their English companions in toil, especially in view of the general effect of being surrounded by the Irish."


I'm not sure about his specific answers when he wrote that book, but in things he wrote about Ireland just a year or two later, it's clear that his answer to the "Irish Question" was not restricting immigration to get rid of the Irish or repressing them, but through a working class movement which could then end the colonial relationship causing the poverty and misary in Ireland. I don't agree with that either, but that is far from the kind of racial essentialism that seems to be implied by your argument here. Marx and Engels later changed their views on this and saw colonial struggle as possibly ignighting class struggle and anti-Irish sentiment among English workers being a barrier to working class progress.
Racial essentialism implied by me? Here's the quoted part which you replied to, "What are you trying to imply? That does NOT change what I have already quoted and what he later on said. He said that the Irish are impoverish and bashed them on that basis. He claimed that the Irish and the English were pitted AGAINST each other, he shows that these different workers are not united by a common struggle but divided by it and thus the Irish workers are in general detrimental as a competition to the English workers."

No racial "essentialism" there.

Nevertheless, I'm interested in what Engels had to say later on as his answer. Can you link me?


You miss my point - not that, hey this guy said it, it's OK - but that he seems to specifically adress the "low" state of Irish based on claims made in the quote... they are drunken, Engels says and suggests, why wouldn't they be when they have little other access to enjoyment and have only the worst labor available.
And yet he spoke of their "character", their "race", them being "Celtic" rather than "Saxons", spoke of their "nature", spoke of there "characteristics" that arose from their "character" AND "historical development". He did not solely speak of their wealth and historical development, but also of their inherent character which he differentiated from their historical development.


The Marxist argument here is that the COMPETITION, not the existance of Irish in the abstract is the problem. And capitalist profits at various points DO RELY on a big influx of people with little choice but to work for shit... this is true of immigration and migration from the Enclosures to today. Again, you are turning the meaning of Marxism on its head, suggesting that they are making nativist arguments when they are doing nothing of the sort.
Yes, the competition generated by the existence of Irish workers living off of poverty. Engels was making arguments in favor of the Englishman against the Irishman on the basis of the Irishman's inherent character and historical development. That is by every means a specific "nativist" argument.



You need to be able to see the forrest and not look at one dead tree and tell everyone that there is not living vegitation in the area.
That would only be the case if I claimed that their entire politics can and should be defined by their views expressed above.


No I am criticizing you for emphasizing minuta over the larger thrust of the argument and turning their political arguments on their head. A reading of the New Testament by you might result in a synopsis of the life of Jesus which goes like this: "It's the tale of a man who got lost in the desert for a little over a month and miraculously survived!"
I am not emphasizing anything. I am clearly stating that these were said and as such must be owned up to. I never stated that they are major points within Marxism, that Marxists must agree and abide by them without rejecting them, or that they are the central points behind Marxism. If I ever did so then I challenge you to show me where I did. I did not at all turn anything on its head, you did by trying to act as an apologist.


Exploitation in capitalism can not - in that other thread you showed no understanding of the MARXIST conception of capitalist exploitation - it seemed like you reduced it to not geting paid enough. If I'm wrong, correct me in plain english - you spend a lot of time explaining what you "didn't say" without ever being clear of what you are actually saying.
First of all, which "other thread"?

Secondly, there you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_marxism#Exploitation


As to believe the theory, but not "the pracice" - well LTV explains value, not price. Capital doesn't state that the LTV will tell you exact the price of things or that there are not many other social and circumstantial variables at play in specific real-world examples.
Which is exactly why it's only to be used in theory as opposed to practice, as I earlier claimed. Some people actually attempt to use it to explain real-life market prices using the LTV and fall flat on their face as in the case of the "Exploitation (http://www.revleft.com/vb/exploitation-t180724/index.html?t=180724)" thread which I posted in and explained the issue from an LTV point of view.


Owning up to something can mean: this was an essential part of their argument, but it's wrong or right... or it can mean, "yes they said that, but the context is this..."/"Yes they said that, it is ugly but doesn't mean much in relation to their overall theory." I have no interest in apologism, but I'm also not going to sweat, or treat credibly, political opponents who quote-mine in a dishonest attempt to "muddy the well".
You treat "yes they said that, but the context is this..." as being the same as "Yes they said that, it is ugly but doesn't mean much in relation to their overall theory." That is not the case at all. You used the former justification, I used the latter one. In fact, you didn't even actually use the former one, instead you tried to show that they did not say it and meant something else by attempting to resort to the issue of context. I, on the otherhand, argued with you that they actually said that and meant what they did REGARDLESS of the HISTORICAL CONTEXT but not the text context.


I'm saying that we need to look at the overall views and the thrust of these arguments and you are saying we need to consider every line written irregardless of things like context or their later political ideas and development of these ideas... and yet you accuse me of dogmatism. No, their words are not holy texts to me which is why I see no need to count the angels at the head of a pin so to speak.
Lol? We need to take into consideration every line and word said by them, but we must not attempt to resort to cop-outs in an attempt to show that they didn't actually say that or mean what we think them to mean. Context within the text IN THIS CASE is fine. Their later revisions of said ideas I never had an issue with nor denied, merely stated that these words were said and we need to admit that they were said and that they were wrong ON THESE POINTS.


If someone came in and said, "My sociology professor said Marx and Engels were euro-centric and racist..." then it would most likely be adressed. I would make the same argument that I've tried to make here - that some of the specific things they said have to be taken in context - often it's just sort of anacronims, but they did say crude things - especially in personal letters where they were mocking people. But this is the bathwater, not the baby. I see no need to get defensive about some shit they said because it really is historical foot-note stuff and not fundamental to their views and definately not fundamental to the project of self-emancipation.
I would not make the context argument but say that "They were Eurocentric indeed, but that is in terms of the historical process and historical development in that the Western European countries had adopted progressiveness by adopting Capitalism whilst the Eastern Europeans had adopted reaction. This has nothing to do wit any superficial nationalism based on birthplace." and that "Engels was racist, yes, in his personal letters but not by any means racist in his politics, theories, or historical analysis." I am not stating that you should be "defensive" but that you need to say that they did indeed say them and choose whether to agree with what was said or not. AFTER that you can justify them all you want.


This, on the other hand, is a "so what do you think of McCain's black baby" sort of post.
Which other people will read, realize some of the quotes are real, and thus want a reply to that question.


There are much more serious examples of real chauvanism and sexism and racism in the labor and socialist movements over the decades which was often connected to some larger fucked-up views (like right-wing Socialist Party members in the US supporting a sort of jim-crow social-democractic set-up) and throwing oppressed groups under the bus in movements and so on.
Yes indeed, but I do not recall us being members of the right-win Socialist Party in the US but actually being Marxists. We need to defend and own up to what was said by Marx and Engels.


This kind of quote-mining is just an attempt to discredit the big picture with a lot of noise, frankly.
Yes it is, but they are STILL valid arguments even if the OP never delivers. People will thus still want answers to this "noise".


So his hatred of the Irish race was just a really passive-agreessive argument he was having with his partner or something?
No. Read what I have said: "IF he was in a romantic relationship with Irish women then that does not by any means make us disregard what was written, as you seem to do. Praising poetry and food has nothing to do with the text above, as we have seen clearly, when it comes to the bashing of the Irish and their way of life and destructive."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Kid, that is the real reason. I am not scared of debating you nor anyone else as I have shown time and time again.

Did I say you were scared? Nope. I just think your stated reasons are not the same as your real reasons.


The reason why I do not reply to your useless post is because it contains nothing other than insults rather than any arguments at all.

Not true and you know it.


The last thing I'd like to do is take part in a flame war with your flame baiting. Here you go:

"No, what's disgusting is intellectual cowardice. The guy's here to preach, not to debate, so why the fuck should I bother if he won't?"

The "intellectual cowardice" I was attributing to the OP, not you. As for the rest, I was using intemperate language but that is not "flame bait" unless you're too immature to read past swear words.


"No it fucking isn't, pay attention to what I wrote. Insults and intemperate language are not the same things as an ad hominem."

Not flaming you here either. You're really reaching.


"No he's not, he's obviously cut+pasting bullshit from somewhere else and for some reason he didn't want to show us exactly where from."

I wasn't even referencing you here, so why did you include this? More grasping at straws.


"I seriously question your fucking sanity, mate. Why are you making excuses for that dweeb?"

This was in response to your questioning of my sanity. Quid pro quo and all that.


"I'm not the one who called it a paper, it was the OP. Look at the fucking title of this thread, for fuck's sake."

Not flaming you here, unless setting you straight and telling you to pay attention now constitutes flaming.


"No thanks, I'm not a racist fuckstick."

What was the point of including this? I wasn't calling you a racist fuckstick, I was saying that I wasn't one.


"What arguments? The guy is mindlessly parroting bullshit. I don't give a fuck what Marx thought of the Prussians or whatever the fuck, because it's completely irrelevant to my concerns as a 21st century proletarian. Prussia doesn't even fucking exist any more!"

"Because there's nothing to fucking answer. The guy is dumping shit and running away, you can't debate someone who refuses to respond."

Here I am countering your points using intemperate language, but not flaming you. Are you actually going to engage my statements, or are you going to use my choice of language as an excuse to ignore me?


"Liar."

What does that child expect me to reply with? A "fuck you" or a "no, you"? That is the reason why I do not bother with such people. If I wanted to "debate" a drunken 10 year old, I'd do it on the EA forums.

If you truly don't care about the OP, then why do you appear to be giving every indication of being offended on their behalf?

The swearing and the insults were used either for emphasis or were aimed mostly aimed at the OP. True, I questioned your sanity and called you a liar, but that was only after you had your spasm over my language, rather than concentrating on my points or answering my questions.

If someone calls you a liar, the mature response is to point out why one is not a liar.


Oh look who it is, I wonder why he disappeared. Nevertheless, when one cops-out, he runs away from a debate or argument. There is no debate nor an argument to be had with a 10 year old spewing nothing but verbal abuse and insults with absolutely no argument at all. There's a reason why we have something called an "ad hominem logical fallacy", that's when one resorts to insults targeted at the person rather replying to the arguments presented.

Allow me to illustrate the difference between an ad hominem and an argument with insult:

Ad Hominem:
"You're wrong because you're an idiot!"

Argument with insult:
"You're wrong because XYZ. You idiot!"

Can you see the difference?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Oh look who it is, I wonder why he disappeared. Nevertheless, when one cops-out, he runs away from a debate or argument. There is no debate nor an argument to be had with a 10 year old spewing nothing but verbal abuse and insults with absolutely no argument at all. There's a reason why we have something called an "ad hominem logical fallacy", that's when one resorts to insults targeted at the person rather replying to the arguments presented.

Aside from the fact that his argument included both substance and insults, not just insults as you claim, do you think you calling him a ten year old verbal abuser (which btw is a very serious thing to compare something like this to) is NOT an ad hominan?

[Theophys]

Very well, I'll address him since he seems persistent. He made absolutely NO argument and merely attacked in all directions, any attempt to address his points would not be a discussion of the subject of the thread but a degeneration into a conflict. He does not even realize that I did not want to address his post because I did not want this to degenerate off-topic and into a flame war, but so be it.



Did I say you were scared? Nope. I just think your stated reasons are not the same as your real reasons.
No, the thing you did not even state anything. The only logical statement would be that you would accuse me of being scared by not stating the "real reason". Since that is not the case I am still curious what you mean by "real reason". My stated reasons ARE my reasons, you cannot by any means prove otherwise except take my word on it. Since you are not willing to take my word on it then that is your OWN damned problem, not mine.




Not true and you know it.
No, I know it is true and you shall see exactly why. Again, this is MY reason for it, MY intentions, and unless you can read my mind then you CANNOT prove otherwise. You cannot state that I know that it's not true as if you're a sidewalk fortuneteller.



The "intellectual cowardice" I was attributing to the OP, not you. As for the rest, I was using intemperate language but that is not "flame bait" unless you're too immature to read past swear words.
Actually I'm not too immature to read past swear words as compared to someone being too immature to not be able to post anything but swear words and claim that his post actually had any arguments at all. Intemperate language with no arguments at all is flame baiting and leads to a flame war. If the OP had replied to you, what the FUCK would you think he would have said? If I had replied to your statements in kind, what would you even fucking think I would say? That we would argue on the question of the Slavs and the content of the OP? Fuck no, we'd argue back and forth of what you said, what I said, what the OP intended, and all that senseless bullshit. You do not wish anything but this then so be it, as I have already said.



Not flaming you here either. You're really reaching.
What would honestly expect as a reply to that statement of yours? An in-depth intellectual analysis of how your argument is wrong? You MADE NO ARGUMENT. The only reply to such a statement would be either an insult or explaining to you what an ad hominem is. Any person engaging in a debate should know what an ad hominem is, especially since he should be able to google it when needed.



I wasn't even referencing you here, so why did you include this? More grasping at straws.
I included this not because you were referencing me or flaming me but because your entire posts were nothing more than insults and flamebaiting with no content or arguments whatsoever.



This was in response to your questioning of my sanity. Quid pro quo and all that.
Again, need not at all be directed at me. Calling the other person a "dweeb", questioning my sanity for questioning your post of nothing more than insults, etc. is unacceptable for any proper debate to take place. You made NO ARGUMENTS, only insults at all directions.



Not flaming you here, unless setting you straight and telling you to pay attention now constitutes flaming.
You call that a proper sentence that anyone would bother to address without degenerating into a back and forth flame war? Actually, YOU need to pay attention because I did not say that YOU said it's a paper. So as you said yourself, look at the fucking post, for fuck's sake. Here's what I said:

"More verbal bashing instead of arguments. I hope you do realize that many lurkers are reading this and may very well be curious and wanting an answer to what the OP posted, all they're seeing is some kid throwing around insults at the OP for being an anti-Communist, calling it a "paper" and not giving a source."

I accused YOU of throwing around insults at the OP for:
- Being an anti-Communist
- Calling it a "paper"
- Not giving a source

Nowhere did I ever say that YOU called it a paper. Look again at my fucking post, for fuck's sake.



What was the point of including this? I wasn't calling you a racist fuckstick, I was saying that I wasn't one.
Look at my fucking post again and realize that I did NOT say that aimed it at me but that you were resorting to nothing but insults instead of arguments and thus that one cannot answer insults by arguments but only by more insults and thus I showed that there is nothing to address in your post but ignore it for being the useless and flame baiting post that it is. To call someone a "racist fuckstick" without any single counter-argument is an ad hominem and flame baiting which would have degenerated into a flame war had the OP replied.



Here I am countering your points using intemperate language, but not flaming you. Are you actually going to engage my statements, or are you going to use my choice of language as an excuse to ignore me?
YOU MADE NO ARGUMENTS. What is there to engage but statements of ridicule filled to the brim with insults and verbal abuse at the OP? Ignore you? An excuse? I already informed you and you seemed to understand that the only reason I chose to ignore you was because:
1) You made absolutely no argument at all
2) I did not want to go off-topic as your posts were nothing more than that
3) I did not want to take part in a flame war
4) Your posts were a waste of my time

You countering my point on the use of intemperate language shows exactly the entire point of your posts. They are not arguments concerning the OP but points on the use of intemperate language in your posts. The flaming, again, was not directed at me but at the OP. They. Were. Still. Flaming.



If you truly don't care about the OP, then why do you appear to be giving every indication of being offended on their behalf?

I am offended when an individual resorts to verbal bashing and ad hominem in the place of PROPER ARGUMENTS in an attempt to entirely disregard the arguments and arguments put forward by someone else (OP in this thread). The OP's arguments and quotes were VALID and CITED, we need to address those arguments for anyone who may be reading this and would be quite interested in a proper answer. What did you do? You insulted the OP. You insulted the author of the citations. You resorted to NOTHING BUT AD HOMINEM. You DISREGARDED HIS ENTIRE POST and instead insulted the PERSON, both the OP and the John J. Ray. I do not take kindly to such people and that is why I took "offense on their behalf" even though I do not give a shit about the OP personally.



The swearing and the insults were used either for emphasis or were aimed mostly aimed at the OP. True, I questioned your sanity and called you a liar, but that was only after you had your spasm over my language, rather than concentrating on my points or answering my questions.

The thing is, which you seem unable to grasp, is that you made NO ARGUMENTS NOR COUNTER-ARGUMENTS AT ALL except baseless ad hominem attacks against the person (OP and John J. Ray) instead of ATTEMPTING to address their arguments and points. Your questions? What questions? The ONE AND ONLY QUESTION which was nothing more than a question that was ENTIRELY besides the point and the arguments made in the OP? THIS WAS YOUR QUESTION: "You say that this is a "paper", but to which journal was it submitted?"

You want me to address your ridiculous and stupid question that had nothing to do at all with the arguments and point of the ENTIRE OP? This is nothing more than ad hominem. You are doing nothing more than attacking the person rather than his arguments and point whilst entirely ignoring those arguments and points.




If someone calls you a liar, the mature response is to point out why one is not a liar.
When it comes to objective things, yes, but no something as subjective as me saying that I do not care about the OP. I cannot prove to you objectively that I do not subjectively care about the OP. Get it now? Oh and seriously I do not care either about being called a liar just as I do not care about the many blanket and false labels used on this forum by many users.




Allow me to illustrate the difference between an ad hominem and an argument with insult:
Let's see.



Ad Hominem:
"You're wrong because you're an idiot!"


Argument with insult:
"You're wrong because XYZ. You idiot!"

Can you see the difference?

Are you kidding me? Seriously, are you kidding me? Is THAT your justification as to why your posts are not ad hominem? Let's see below how your nonsense will be destroyed:


"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely an irrelevance.[6]"


"Ad hominem is an attack on the person, not the person's arguments,[7] though mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument, however, is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.[6]"


Since there was an argument made by the OP, then it it an ad hominem logical fallacy.


There's also the Association Fallacy which you resort to when you mention John J. Ray and the source.

"Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.[8]
This form of the argument is as follows:
Source S makes claim C.
Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.
Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is."


Then you also make a Circumstanial Fallacy when you also attack the source and John J. Ray for being biased with no arguments at all:

Circumstantial [edit]
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).[8]
The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[9]

Oh and don't bother justifying yourself, John J. Ray used actual links to marxists.org to support many of the arguments made rather than false argument.

Let's examine your first post.

"At least have the decency to post the SOURCE for your bullshit cut+paste hackjob, you pathetic drive-by posting shitbrain."

Argument here? None. Insults? Yes. Ad hominem? Yes. Attacking the OP rather than his arguments in order to dismiss his argument.



But then again, maybe posting your source would have revealed that the author is a complete fucking hack with an axe to grind with anyone to the left of Thatcher (may she rest in piss).

Argument here? No. Ad hominem? Yes. Attacking not the arguments from the source but attacking the person behind the source. Attacking the OP rather than his arguments in order to dismiss his argument. Insults? Yes.



You say that this is a "paper", but to which journal was it submitted? Of course I doubt that you will ever answer my question, being the fucking useless post-once-then-disappear chickenshit that you are."

Argument here? No. Ad hominem? Yes. Attacking the OP rather than his arguments in order to dismiss his argument.

Post taken as a whole?
Argument here? No. Insults? Yes. Ad hominem? Yes. Attacking the OP rather than his arguments in order to dismiss his argument.

How about his second post?



Plenty of other low-postcount posters have found the wherewithal to engage their brains and think of creative ways around such restrictions. This guy has absolutely no excuse.

Insults, no arguments. Still attacking the person rather than his arguments, this time because he didn't bypass the restrictions. Lol.



No, I'm angry because the OP is an intellectually lazy anti-communist who relies on cutting and pasting from shitty websites written by right-wing obsessives to make their "argument", and to rub salt in the wound they do it without properly crediting the original author, making him look damn close to a plagiarist. So much for the right-wing support of intellectual property rights.

Insults, no arguments. Still attacking the person rather than his arguments. Resorts to attacking the source too and the author of the source as well. Completely disregards the point of the OP and the arguments made. Ad hominem, circumstantial ad hominem, guilt by association, attributing minor properties, etc. I like how he automatically lobs the OP with "right-wing support of intellectual property rights". That guilt by association ad hominem. Lulzy.



Also, I actually asked the OP a question. Maybe you were too busy being indignant on the behalf of an anti-communist to notice, but since the OP claimed in the thread title they were posting a "paper", I asked what journal the paper had been submitted to.

No arguments here, ridiculing me for "being indignant on the behalf of an anti-Communist to notice". The question asked he uses as a proof of argument when it had nothing to do with an argument at all. Insults, calls the OP an "anti-Communist" purely as an insult.



Since the OP is an intellectual coward, I'm not expecting an answer. Fuck you OP, you shit.

Resorts to insults, attacks the OP, calls him an intellectual coward, says "fuck you OP, you shit", all that whilst entirely forgetting that at least the OP made actual arguments which Noxion did not even bother to do. Ad hominem.



A shit anti-communist who makes arguments in bad faith, because John J. Ray thinks all leftists of any stripe are moustache-twirling villains out to ruin the world. Surely you can recognise the difference between a sincere examination of communist ideology, and the ludicrous red-baiting employed by the likes of John J. Ray?

No arguments here. Does not even bother to address the arguments in the OP or the point of the OP. Ad hominem, circumstantial ad hominem, guilt by association, and attributing minor properties.



Everything we've seen of the OP, and the many posters like him who dump a massive word salad on this board while never sticking around to actually defend whatever piece of crap they vomit forth, indicates this guy is looking to preach his political religion rather than have a debate of any kind.

No arguments there. Does not even address the arguments of the OP. Ad hominem, circumstantial ad hominem, guilt by association, and attributing minor properties. Especially guilt by association.



Why show any consideration when the OP has plainly done nothing to warrant it?

Forgets that at least the OP made arguments and has a valid point.



Well, since you seem to be convinced that the OP is actually looking for a debate and isn't just a drive-by political preacher, and since you also seem familiar with the general thrust of the OP, why didn't you dissect his nonsense rather than having a go at me?

No arguments here. Does not even bother to address the arguments of the OP, instead wants others to do it for him when they already did it before that question.


Do I even need to go on, Noxion? Isn't this embarrassment enough for you? :laugh:



Aside from the fact that his argument included both substance and insults, not just insults as you claim, do you think you calling him a ten year old verbal abuser (which btw is a very serious thing to compare something like this to) is NOT an ad hominan?

Why do you show up in every thread just to TRY to attack me and fail every time? Oh well...

Find me the substance in his post. He made nothing but ad hominem and insults whilst entirely ignoring the arguments made in the OP and the point of the OP. Read above what I had said to Noxion and the analysis of his posts.

Calling him a ten year old verbal abuser is NOT an ad hominem as there was no argument, it is merely verbal abuse in kind. See this:
"Ad hominem is an attack on the person, not the person's arguments,[7] though mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument, however, is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.[6]"

The OP made arguments which Noxion did not address and instead attacked the OP, the source, the author of the source, and so on. That is nothing other than ad hominem in its purest form.

[Baseball]

That seems to be the case, though I don't think he suggests it has gone "awry" from being an abstractly progressive force, I think he sees it as part of capitalist modernization with all the contradictions involved with that. Specifically he seems to be speaking of why in Germany it wasn't the same capitalist nationalization route as in France or so on, why it has gone "awry" from wider expectations among progressives of various sorts from a path like that of the French Jacobins or whatnot.

Apparently he believed that the growth of nationalism accompanied the capitalism.
But he was incorrect. Nationalism burst on the world scene as part of the french Revolution, endorsed by the more radical types. In earlier centuries when it appeared it always accompanied "progressive causes" leveling the feudal system, opposition to the church, opposition to foreign rulers ect.




But their essential arguments have to do with "nationalism" that is "progressive" in the sense of capitalism developing over feudalism (BECAUSE it would make class struggles for liberation more powerful and possible) and also progressive in the sense of "national liberation" like the Irish.

Well yes, it is far easier to organise workers who share a common language, a common religion, a common history than otherwise. The contradiction is that such stress national as opposed to class relationships. Marx thought revolution would be more plausible if say Germans were unified only with other Germans, as opposed say Serbians or Albanians, under the Hapsburg flag.


Any claim that the basis of their views is nationalism in an abstract sense or nationalism as people use the term today when it comes to fully developed capitalist nations, as in the OP, would be to turn their worldview on its head.

Their "worldview" on the subject, however, was incorrect.


The connected argument is that they also thought capitalism was historically progressive

Yes-- and they thought nationalism was a byproduct of capitalism. They were wrong. It is a byproduct of socialism. They were unleashing the demons, no matter how unwittingly.




But they did not evaluate nationalism abstractly as is suggested in the OP and this is an anarchonistic claim that the nationalism they were talking about or the mationalism of the oppressed is the same as the nationalism of fully developed capitalist powers in the 20th centrury in competition with eachother.

The "nationalism of the oppressed" was the problem in the 20th century. That's the common theme. The Communists argued this no less than did the National Socialists (who after all argued that the Germans race had been oppressed for centuries by foreigners. Their argument was not simply limited to Versaiilles).

[Craig_J]

I stopped reading half way through. I would be all up for reading a well informed and fairly balanced critcism of Engels, for what ever reason, but this is so ridiculously wrote for the purpose of one agenda. It goes way over the top and at some points I actually expected to read "ENGELS ORCHESTRATED 9/11"