Well, that’s Engels.. but at least you’re trying.
“…the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism**.**”
- Karl Marx, “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 7 November 1848.
“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels “Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung”, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849
“Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.”
- Karl Marx, “Forced Emigration”, New York Tribune 1853:
Better?
I got curious and started searching for English translated old archive newspaper editorials from this revolutionary newspaper from 1848.
Some interesting thoughts.
- So it seems early communists did NOT approve of disarmament or conciliation to avoid war, and did NOT approve of actions that don’t better what may be called “national interest”. One piece called “War Comedy” seems to condemn the German government for refusing to protect northern Germany from Danish occupation, and for diplomatically giving way to Danes in order to avoid aggravation of conflict.
- Another piece called “The Prague Uprising” seems to hint that Central European nationalism was a preferable choice, for it is something precisely in opposition to what Engels and Marx saw as Russian despotism. Communists seem to actually admire patriotic nationalism.
See, while Ludwig von Mises and Frederich Engels could not be any more different, both seem to have very close opinions about ongoing issues of Germany in the 19th century, especially about the German government. They also seem to share a common dislike for Russians, whom they saw as brutish.
Maybe it’s a ridiculous statement, but NRZ today could easily pass for a conservative newspaper with a few progressive ideas thrown in along with it.
Can you give us the link?
“…the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism**.**”
- Karl Marx, “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 7 November 1848.
“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels “Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung”, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849
Yes, much better. At least you’re trying. But as I have already pointed out both of these are in the context of a response to bourgie state terror. And Marx was explicitly against individual terrorist acts, seeing them as counterproductive. Also, the second quote cannot be attributed to Marx, but was an editorial in a paper edited by Marx (both of them are from the same paper, but idk whether the first was or wasn’t authored by Marx).
But I did squirt a little
"Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.
I don’t think you understand this one… the “human existence” he’s talking about is wage labor, and the classes and races are not actual people, but social constructs.
The article itself was about something else entirely - the double standards of German nationalism which did not press for the same values in neighbouring regions, and which thus drove one ethnic group into hands of the Russian monarch. M&E believed nationalism would inevitably succeed, Russian imperialism inevitably fail. Czechs would have fared better if they sided with nationalism, but the Germans were at fault for pushing Czechs away from nationalism.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/06/18.htm
"A revolutionized Germany ought to have renounced her entire past, especially as far as the neighboring nations are concerned. Together with her own freedom, she should have proclaimed the freedom of the nations hitherto suppressed by her.
And what has revolutionized Germany done? She has fully endorsed the old oppression of Italy, Poland, and now of Bohemia too, by German troops. Kaunitz and Metternich have been completely vindicated."
Later:
"But it is the gallant Czechs themselves who are most of all to be pitied. Whether they win or are defeated, their doom is sealed. They have been driven into the arms of the Russians by 400 years of German oppression, which is being continued now in the street-fighting waged in Prague. In the great struggle between Western and Eastern Europe, which may begin very soon, perhaps in a few weeks, the Czechs are placed by an unhappy fate on the side of the Russians, the side of despotism opposed to the revolution. The revolution will triumph and the Czechs will be the first to be crushed by it.
The Germans once again bear the responsibility for the ruin of the Czech people, for the Germans have betrayed them to the Russians."
You can not deduce this from the article, but I know a little bit about Engels, so I can say this has nothing to do with prefering Central European nationalisms. It has to do with who is being a nationalist. Marx and Engels were fans of Hungarian uprising, even though its success would result in Hungarian rule over Croats, Slovaks, Rusyns, Romanians and Serbs, because Hungarians were radicals (Jacobins). But they detested the Croatian patriots fighting against the Hungarian revolt, because they were conservative. The Czech patriots were liberal and anti-clerical and therefore qualified to receive sympathies of Engels. So he can be bothered about German rule over the progressive Czechs, but never about Hungarian rule over the reactionary Croats.
Read more and you will see that Engels spoke in terms of “reactionary peoples” (who happen to largely coincide with Slav peoples).
That sounds about right. It reminds me of the Nazis. They too presented themselves as centrists in the same socialism/capitalism dilemma. They too presented “socialism in one country”, i.e. a market framework with heavy intervention and depredation, as the moderate middle ground. They too were the right-wing ones among the leftists. And they too used persecution as a means to make it work.
Jack Roberts. thanks for videos. After “The tragedy of the Euro” it’s the second source I’ve come across with view on EU as socialist model.
@Laotzu del Zinn
It’s widely known and widely acknowledged that the marxists position employs an aggressive rhetorical language to make their point. Words like oppressive, exploitive, slavery, and the list goes on where words are used out of place to make a point.
All of this about Stalin contradicts his own words. He advocated using the Soviet pool of resources to incite internal revolutions all over the world.
Marko, as far as your own readings go, do you find the ancien socialists to be a cosmopolitan people? I ask, because they do seem to have a disapproval of certain ethnic groups and approval of others. It’s very confusing.
When you say, “Read more and you will see that Engels spoke in terms of “reactionary peoples” (who happen to largely coincide with Slav peoples)”, you drop an interesting hint.
I don’t know. There is a big gap in my knowledge spanning the Communists that came after Marx & Engels and before the Bolsheviks.
Laotzu, it is all detailed in Kolakowski’s 3 volume magnum opus Main Currents of Marxism.