Can anyone verify/falsify these quotes?

Economics Economics Questions
1

“Until its complete extermination or loss of national status, this racial trash always becomes the most fanatical bearer there is of counter-revolution, and it remains that. That is because its entire existence is nothing more than a protest against a great historical revolution… The next world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties, but also entire reactionary peoples, to disappear from the earth. And that too is progress.” -Karl Marx, 1849, Neue Rheinische Zeitung.

“The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way… They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust.” -Karl Marx (Marx People’s Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981)

Anyone?

2

The first quote appears to be from an article (Hungary and Panslavism) written by Friedrich Engels and approved by Marx who wrote for the same publication (Neue Rheinische Zeitung), in January 1849.

In Ralph Waldo Emerson’s journal he attributes the second quote to Marx. He is generally dependable. I don’t have any Marx books to double check it though.

3

Try Rev Left. At least it will be entertaining to see the responses.

4

I’m guessing someone watched that recent documentary about Russia and Germany (THE SOVIET STORY). Anyway; yes, Marx advocated genocide; as did Bernard Shaw; and more often than that.

Marx also wrote quite a few antisemitic pamphlets (because it was the thing to do to make himself popular). The Left always are the first racists. Google anti-semitism and the Soviet Union. You’ll get lots of stuff from Lenin and his circle as well (lets not mention Stalin at this point). There is plenty of literature on that, in fact (although much of it is in Russian).

I suggest reading Victor Suvorov’s works, since that has been translated. If you know Russian, or they get translated, then Mark Solonin and the rest of Victor Suvorov’s stuff.

5

The Marxists are obviously denying it–I need actual evidence.

6

I am sorry that I can not find the Engels quote about how Croats should have a church bell tied around their necks and be drowned in the Danube. I always thought that was a colorful one.

Lenin as an anti-semite? That is a fresh one. Actually the first generation of Communists in the Soviet Union was anti-zionist, anti-anti-semitic and disproportionately Jewish (and disproportionately made up of minorities in general). Lenin himself was to a minor degree of Jewish descent. The famous examples being Trotsky and the butcher Kaganovich.

But hey, lets not let historical accuracy get in the way of a good story.

Any other clowns to recommend? Solzhenitsin wrote a book on it (200 Years Together), but hey lets not mention that and instead recommend a certified moron.

7

This may be of some help: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/index.htm.

8

I’m unable to verify the quotes, so they should be dismissed. But here’s Engles:

“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. We know where the enemies of the revolution are concentrated, viz. in Russia and the Slav regions of Austria, and no fine phrases, no allusions to an undefined democratic future for these countries can deter us from treating our enemies as enemies. Slav nationality leaves the revolution entirely out of account, then we too know what we have to do” –Engles, Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 223, February 16, 1849

9

Do you have a specific month for the first quote? I have all the articles but they span several years.

10

No.I just went through about 60 articles from that year, and came up with nothing.

11

Yes this quote is authentic.

12

Where did you find the quote? Was it a digital source or a written source?

13

I heard it on a youtube video and then googled it–a lot came up. I can’t find the article, Hungary and Panslavism (1849) anywhere, and it’s where the first quote supposedly comes from.

14

The closest I got was reference to an article by George Watson in a 1984 edition of the Encounter which is a Christian theology journal. Do you have the link to youtube where it says this?

15

Marko wrote the following post at 12-20-2009 4:25 AM:

Lenin as an anti-semite? That is a fresh one. Actually the first generation of Communists in the Soviet Union was anti-zionist, anti-anti-semitic and disproportionately Jewish (and disproportionately made up of minorities in general). Lenin himself was to a minor degree of Jewish descent. The famous examples being Trotsky and the butcher Kaganovich.

But hey, lets not let historical accuracy get in the way of a good story.

Any other clowns to recommend? Solzhenitsin wrote a book on it (200 Years Together), but hey lets not mention that and instead recommend a certified moron.

You haven’t lived in Russia eh?

First of all, its Solzhenitsin who himself often blames Jews and the West for Socialism. He hated Anatoly Kuznetsov, who wrote Babi Yar (and Kuznetsov disliked Solzhenitsin, so he denounced him to build trust in himself with the authorities to get out into the West, where he instantly defected and published his unabridged magnum opus–the point of his defecting).

Secondly, Suvorov knows what he’s talking about, to the best of his ability. As a military worker he is on solid ground. Solonin is a professional historian.

Thirdly, Lenin had many Jewish advisers. But they are the same quality Jews as George Soros, who resent the fact they are Jewish. Like Marx himself. They are proud to be communists. Lenin often attacked Trotsky for his Jewishness. In Russia, Soviet or not Soviet, antisemitism in the open was always part of society. For instance, a doctor goes to a job, and she is told Djidi Nam Ne Noogjni. And this in the twenties.

Solzhenitsin in public blamed the West for Socialism; he blamed Jews in general, and Western civilization specifically. He was a Russophile, so of course, if you like him, you won’t like Suvorov, who says twenty four million dead on the Russian side is the pragmatic equal of losing the (“Great Patriotic”) war.

Hell, here’s Mises in Planned Chaos on the topic:

“Neither were the Soviets afraid of a Nazi aggression… they were certain that such a new world war, in which they themselves planned to stay neutral, would result in a German defeat. And this defeat, they argued, would make Germany—if not the whole of Europe—safe for Bolshevism. Guided by this opinion Stalin already in the time of the Weimer Republic aided the then secret Germen rearmament” (Mises 1947:52-53).

This is the “controversial” Icebreaker thesis of Suvorov. (For those that don’t have it, summary by Richard Ebeling:http://www.fff.org/freedom/1191d.asp ;but the next two books of his on that topic require knowledge of Russian, and are also worth reading if you do know the language.)

16

The relevance being?

So they were not Jewish nationalists. That is not in dispute. But you were claiming they were anti-semites.

Also it is lame to have every Jew you don`t like declared as not “really” Jewish. Soros is very much Jewish from where I am standing as were the Jewish Bolsheviks. The Russian Bolsheviks were equally not Russian nationalists and what is more hated this sentiment and later on helped enact de-Russifying policies, but it does not make them non-Russians.

Yeah exactly. In society. Not in the state. You were saying that official Soviet Union was anti-semitic as per its doctrine. Not that the natural soiciety in the territory of the Soviet Union was anti-semitic.

The relevance, what is the relevance?

His “thesis” is that the USSR was going to launch an attack on the Third Reich on July 1941. That qualifies him as a dilettante.

17

As for Jewish communists; you have obviously never argued with these idiots. They will even call for the defeat of Israel if you argue that the Arab-Israel conflict is a question of class conflict, or “anti-imperialism”. You said it yourself: “anti-zionist”. In Russia, “Zionism”, “Cosmopolitanism”, etc, are just catchwords for “Jew-Bourgeois”.

They really do not see themselves as Jewish, and are proud of it. They have overcome their “class bias”, they suppose. Read Levin’s “Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of People Under Siege”: http://www.amazon.com/Oslo-Syndrome-Delusions-People-Under/dp/1575254174

When society is part of a political party, then the social becomes the official.

As for Suvorov (and his real name is Rezun, btw), Soviet plan to attack Germany eventually is a part of his Icebreaker thesis, and a no less correct than the other part. It all has to do with geography.

If Germany didn’t attack in 1941, the Soviet Union would have been able to attack Germany with impunity (it was expanding its Eastern Borders all the way up to the summer of 1941, to take strategic oil reserves, while Germany was fighting in the West from 1939-1941). As each side relied on tanks, this would have meant defeat. Each side planned to attack the other (“defect” from the alliance) prior to the end of the “game”: this is a well known game theory result today.

Rezun argued for that date in 1941, because evidence points to it. Whether the exact date is correct or incorrect can hardly be know, but: eventually in 1941. One or the other would attack (they both drew up plans as rational actors). It could be not be any other way to explain the massive loss on the Soviet side in 1941, except that offense and defense are very different strategies, and Stalin screwed up his timing. Otherwise, he had numerical and mechanical superiority.

Neutrality was out of the question following rapidity of German success against the West.

As for specific evidence, Mark Solonin, who is not military but a historian, has done monumental research recently after opening of archives in Eastern Europe after fall of the Soviet Union. For evidence see his work, and the boatload of references therein. Just because you don’t read in Russian doesn’t mean what is written in Russian is not “evidence.” This is quite a big topic in Eastern Europe.

18

I see you have written nothing to argue your initial claim that the the circle around Lenin and the Soviet Union even before Stalin were anti-semitic. Good, I will take that as you coming to your senses.

Excellent. Then they are quite in tune with Murray Rothbard: War Guilt In The Middle East

Wether that is true is irrelevant. The question is how was anti-zionism understood by the Bolsheviks, the self-proffessed opponents of anti-semitism.

July 1941 = Clown. Period.

You can appeal to authority on the account of being a Russian speaker if you want, but your appeal fails, because the July 1941 “thesis” is not actually taken seriously by anyone, the least of which serious Russian historians. Either quote something or desist from making appeals to your linguistic ability.

BTW, I find it interesting how sensitive you are when it comes to Jews, seeing anti-semitism even among the circle around Lenin and recommending a book so apologetic of Israel as The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege that it apparently chastises Israelis for seeking peace in Oslo. While on the other hand you are so insensitive when it comes to Russians as to advance wild, clownish theories about the genocidal Nazi invasion being a five-minutes-before-midnight type pre-emptive attack and recommending a piece of propaganda from the hands of Latvian nationalists (The Soviet Story) that carefully weaves historical fact (slightly readjusted) about the Soviet Union in with a malicious Russophobic spinn.

19

I like your refutations. “Clown. Period.” How convincing! (Although you admit to having read nothing about it. But I’ll take your word for it, seeing as you are from the proper circles of Moscow. And you don’t have to read books: authors should read your books, seeing as you have so much evidence yourself.) I linked to Solonin’s works, and told you to look at through references. But obviously I have expected to much. Books require reading. That is my fault.

I like your petitio principi argument, by calling Jews who are pro-Israel (i.e. pro-not-getting-wiped-into-the-ocean) “Jewish Nationalists”, but Jews like Soros, Trotsky, and “anti-zionists” as “seeking peace.” In what way have Nasser, Arafat et al sought peace? Because Nasser and Arafat have won the Noble Peace Prizes.

I like your calling the producers of The Soviet Story “Latvian Nationalists”. After all, you say, they didn’t like being ruled by Russia: What is wrong with them? Don’t they know that Latvia “belongs” to Russia in the same way as Frederich List once claimed Belgium “belongs” to Germany. List’s claim is that such “facts” are as much a law of economics as supply and demand. Historic-economic law. You seem to agree. (And what heartwarming agreement that is, to be in the company of Bismark, Schmoller, and Goering.) Marx also believe in the Law of history. As Trotsky understood it, all the republics around Russia “belong” to the USSR.

You have obviously convinced me. Such arguments are bound to convince anybody, if they overcome their “touchiness” or “class bias.” Just about anybody! (Except people who know first hand that Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Nasser, Mao, etc, are all of the same profession: bandits.)

Official Soviet historians, who made their careers in the Brehznev era, showing his greatness, you trust. Because they are not “clowns.”

Of course, you might as well say Mainstream Economists don’t like Austrian Economists. Yes, Keynes, Samuelson, Krugman, Soros with his “reflexive economics”, Gailbraith, are correct… (“In what way” is apparently a faux pas question.) Because they are not “clowns.”

You have convinced me; I will now go throw away Rezun et al, and go pour myself a bronze statue of Stalin (because the one that was in Moscow got thrown out a while back.) Because Stalin was honest. He trusted Hitler, whom he never met (although he never trusted anyone else, but that is a minor quibble). Hitler betrayed Stalin.

Its impossible they were both shit. After all, as Stalin said to Feuchtwanger, you must choose a side: either you are a Communist or you are a Nationalist. Hitler agreed. I find it absolutely heartwarming that the youth of today, such as yourself, still agree with such honest and upstanding people as Stalin and Hitler.

(I hope you notice my sarcasm. Books are not usually expensive; go buy them. And if not, then how can you argue? As far as English language publications, I hope you don’t think United States generals and other officers are “clowns” to publish Rezun. http://www.usni.org/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1746 .)

20

You are starting to babble.

And how would you characterise the Tēvzemei un Brīvībai/LNNK?

No I think they are Russophobes.