Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Lenin, Marx, Engels ... Politically Incorrect Quotes

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Roderic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 22nd, 2021 @ 05:12 PM
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Lenin, Marx, Engels ... Politically Incorrect Quotes

    Lenin's “Own Words” (On the Issues of Sex, Women, Youth, Education, and Morality)

    Absorption in the Problem of Sex

    “The mention of Freud’s hypothesis is designed to give the pamphlet a scientific veneer, but it is so much bungling by an amateur. Freud’s theory has now become a fad. I mistrust sex theories expounded in articles, treatises, pamphlets, etc. -- in short, the theories dealt with in that specific literature which sprouts so luxuriantly on the dung heap of bourgeois society. I mistrust those who are always absorbed in the sex problems, the way an Indian saint is absorbed in the contemplation of his navel. It seems to me that this superabundance of sex theories, which for the most part are mere hypotheses, and often quite arbitrary ones, stems from a personal need. It springs from the desire to justify one’s own abnormal or excessive sex life before bourgeois morality and to plead for tolerance towards oneself. This veiled respect for bourgeois morality is as repugnant to me as rooting about in all that bears on sex. No matter how rebellious and revolutionary it may be made to appear, it is in the final analysis thoroughly bourgeois.” (Clara Zetkin, Reminiscences of Lenin, p. 101)

    “Glass-of-water theory”

    “You must be aware of the famous theory that in communist society the satisfaction of sexual desire, of love, will be as simple and unimportant as drinking a glass of water. The glass of water theory has made our young people mad, quite mad…I think this glass of water theory is completely un-Marxist, and moreover, anti-social. In sexual life there is not only simple nature to be considered, but also cultural characteristics, whether they are of a high or low order…Of course, thirst must be satisfied. But will the normal man in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips? But the social aspect is the most important of all. Drinking water is of course an individual affair. But in love two lives are concerned, and a third, a new life, arises. It is that which gives it its social interest, which gives rise to a duty towards the community.” (Clara Zetkin, Reminiscences of Lenin, p. 49)

    On “Free Love”

    “I feel bound to make one point right away. I suggest you delete altogether paragraph 3 dealing with ‘the demand (on the part of women) for free love.’ This is, in fact, a bourgeois, not a proletarian demand. What do you really mean by it?” (Jan. 17, 1915 letter to Inessa Armand, Collected Works vol. 34)

    Pure and Impure Kisses

    “Even fleeting passion, a passion liaison” is ‘more poetic and pure’ than the ‘loveless kisses’ exchanged as a matter of habit between husband and wife. That is what you write. And you propose writing this in your pamphlet. Excellent. Is this counterposing logical? Loveless kisses which a husband and wife exchange as a matter of habit are impure. Agreed. What do you want to make the contrary? A loving kiss, it would appear. No. You make the contrary a ‘passing’ (why passing?) ‘passion’ (why not love?). It follows logically that these loveless kisses (since they are passing) are the contrary of loveless kisses exchanged between husband and wife... strange!” (Jan. 24, 1915 letter to Inessa Armand, Collected Works vol. 34)
    Read More:
    "Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society."


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Roderic For This Useful Post:

  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Roderic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 22nd, 2021 @ 05:12 PM
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Marx in his own words

    even marx's kindly father suspected that karl was not much of a human being

    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.

    marx saw future wars as race wars

    marx, second address on the war to the members of the international working-men’s association, 1870: "if the fortune of her arms, the arrogance of success, and dynastic intrigue lead germany to a spoliation of french territory, there will then only remain two courses open to her. She must at all risks become the avowed tool of russian aggrandisement, or, after some short respite, make again ready for another “defensive” war, not one of those new-fangled “localised” wars, but a war of races — a war with the combined slavonian and roman races".

    marx: Germans should thrash the french

    marx to engels, july 20, 1870: "the french need a thrashing. If the prussians win, the centralisation of the state power will be useful for the centralisation of the german working class. German predominance would also transfer the centre of gravity of the workers' movement in western europe from france to germany, and one has only to compare the movement in the two countries from 1866 till now to see that the german working class is superior to the french both theoretically and organisationally. Their predominance over the french on the world stage would also mean the predominance of our theory over proudhon's, etc."

    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"

    marx thought war was a good thing

    marx, sept 24, 1855: "the redeeming feature of war is that it puts a nation to the test. As exposure to the atmosphere reduces all mummies to instant dissolution, so war passes supreme judgment upon social systems that have outlived their vitality".

    marx supported black slavery in america

    letter from marx to pavel vasilyevich annenkov, 1846: "as for slavery, there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring explanation is the good side of slavery. I do not mean indirect slavery, the slavery of proletariat; i mean direct slavery, the slavery of the blacks in surinam, in brazil, in the southern regions of north america.

    Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery there would be no cotton, without cotton there would be no modern industry. It is slavery which has given value to the colonies, it is the colonies which have created world trade, and world trade is the necessary condition for large-scale machine industry.

    Consequently, prior to the slave trade, the colonies sent very few products to the old world, and did not noticeably change the face of the world. Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance. Without slavery, north america, the most progressive nation, would he transformed into a patriarchal country.

    Only wipe north america off the map and you will get anarchy, the complete decay of trade and modern civilisation. But to do away with slavery would be to wipe america off the map. Being an economic category, slavery has existed in all nations since the beginning of the world. All that modern nations have achieved is to disguise slavery at home and import it openly into the new world"

    marx supported british rule over india

    marx, new-york daily tribune, june 25, 1853: "england, it is true, in causing a social revolution in hindoostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of england she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution".

    marx: Slandering both jews and negroes in one breath

    in this passage from a letter written to engels in 1862, he criticized his political opponent, the french socialist ferdinand lasalle:

    I now see clearly that he is descended, as the shape of his head and his hair clearly indicate, from the negroes who were joined to the jews at the time of the exodus from egypt ( unless it was his mother or paternal grandmother who mated with a negro). But this mixture of judaism and germanism with a negro substance as a base was bound to yield a most curious product. The importunity of the man also is of the great discoveries of this negro, which he confided to me, is that the pelasgians are descended from the semites. His main proof is that, according to the book of maccabees, the jews sent messenger to greece to ask for help and appealed to their tribal relationship..."

    marx: Negroes a degenerate type

    marx-engels correspondence 1866: "for certain questions, such as nationality, etc., only here has a basis in nature been found. E.g., he [tremaux] corrects the pole duchinski, whose version of the geological differences between russia and the western slav lands he does incidentally confirm, by saying not that the russians are tartars rather than slavs, etc., as the latter believes, but that on the surface-formation predominant in russia the slav has been tartarised and mongolised; likewise (he spent a long time in africa) he shows that the common negro type is only a degeneration of a far higher one".

    marx thought that russians were really asiatic and should be chased out of russia

    marx to engels, 1865: "it has ditto been shown geologically and hydrographically that a great ‘asiatic’ difference occurs east of the dnieper, compared with what lies to the west of it, and that (as murchison has already maintained) the urals by no means constitute a dividing line. Result as obtained by duchinski: Russia is a name usurped by the muscovites. They are not slavs; they do not belong to the indo-germanic race at all, they are des intrus [intruders], who must be chased back across the dnieper, etc."

    marx: Contempt for indians

    marx, new-york daily tribune, august 8, 1853: "indian society has no history at all, at least no known history. What we call its history, is but the history of the successive intruders who founded their empires on the passive basis of that unresisting and unchanging society. The question, therefore, is not whether the english had a right to conquer india, but whether we are to prefer india conquered by the turk, by the persian, by the russian, to india conquered by the briton.....

    The british were the first conquerors superior, and therefore, inaccessible to hindoo civilization. They destroyed it by breaking up the native communities, by uprooting the native industry, and by levelling all that was great and elevated in the native society. The historic pages of their rule in india report hardly anything beyond that destruction. The work of regeneration hardly transpires through a heap of ruins. Nevertheless it has begun.

    The political unity of india, more consolidated, and extending farther than it ever did under the great moguls, was the first condition of its regeneration. That unity, imposed by the british sword, will now be strengthened and perpetuated by the electric telegraph. The native army, organized and trained by the british drill-sergeant, was the sine qua non of indian self-emancipation, and of india ceasing to be the prey of the first foreign intruder. The free press, introduced for the first time into asiatic society, and managed principally by the common offspring of hindoos and europeans, is a new and powerful agent of reconstruction".

    marx thought that the chinese suffered from hereditary stupidity

    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".

    more talk of inferior races

    marx, "british politics" (april 7, 1853), collected works, vol. 112, p.7: "the real point at issue always is, turkey in europe--the great peninsula to the south of the save and danube. This splendid territory has the misfortune to be inhabited by a conglomerate of different races and nationalities, of which it is hard to say which is the least fit for progress and civilization."

    marx on german national superiority

    marx, 1852. "revolution and counter-revolution in germany". Collected works vol. 11, pp. 47, 71: "neither bohemia nor croatia was strong enough to exist as a nation by herself. Their respective nationalities, gradually undermined by the action of historical causes that inevitably absorbs into a more energetic stock, could only hope to be restored to anything like independence by an alliance with other slavonic nations.....

    Scattered remnants of numerous nations, whose nationality and political vitality had long been extinguished .... The same as the welsh in england, the basques in spain, the bas-bretons in france, and at a more recent period the spanish and french creoles in those portions of north america occupied of late by the anglo-american race —these dying nationalities, the bohemians, carinthians, dalmatians, etc., had tried.... To restore their political status quo of a. D. 800. The history of a thousand years ought to have shown them that such a retrogression was impossible.... This fact merely proved the historical tendency, and at the same time physical and intellectual power of the german nation to subdue, absorb, and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbors; that this tendency of absorption on the part of the germans had always been, and still was one of the mightiest means by which the civilization of western europe had been spread in the east of that continent.... And that, therefore, the natural and inevitable fate of these dying nations was to allow this process of dissolution and absorption by their stronger neighbors to complete itself".

    races exist naturally but eugenics can and should abolish them

    marx & engels, "the german ideology", chap. 3: "he has not the slightest idea that the ability of children to develop depends on the development of their parents and that all this crippling under existing social relations has arisen historically, and in the same way can be abolished again in the course of historical development. Even naturally evolved differences within the species, such as racial differences, etc., which sancho does not mention at all, can and must be abolished in the course of historical development. Sancho — who in this connection casts a stealthy glance at zoology and so makes the discovery that “innate limited intellects” form the most numerous class not only among sheep and oxen, but also among polyps and infusoria, which have no heads at all — has perhaps heard that it is possible to improve races of animals and by cross-breeding to create entirely new, more perfect varieties both for human enjoyment and for their own self-enjoyment.. “why should not” sancho be able to draw a conclusion from this in relation to people as well?"
    "Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society."


  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Roderic For This Useful Post:

  5. #3
    Senior Member
    Roderic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 22nd, 2021 @ 05:12 PM
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Engels in his own words

    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...."

    engels foresaw and welcomed world war

    engels, london, december 15, 1887: “. . . No war is any longer possible for prussia-germany except a world war and a world war indeed of an extent and violence hitherto undreamt of. Eight to ten millions of soldiers will massacre one another and in doing so devour the whole of eurepe until they have stripped it barer than any swarm of locusts has ever done. The devastations of the thirty years’ war compressed into three or four years, and spread over the whole continent; famine, pestilence, general demoralisation both of the armies and of the mass of the people produced by acute distress; hopeless confusion of our artificial machinery in trade, industry and credit, ending in general bankruptcy; collapse of the old states and their traditional state wisdom to such an extent that crowns will roll by dozens on the pavement and there will be no body to pick them up; absolute impossibility of foreseeing how it will all end and who will come out of the struggle as victor; only one result is absolutely certain: General exhaustion and the establishment of the conditions for the ultimate victory of the working class.

    “this is the prospect when the system of mutual outbidding in armaments, taken to the final extreme, at last bears its inevitable fruits. This, my lords, princes and statesmen, is where in your wisdom you have brought old europe. And when nothing more remains to you but to open the last great war dance—that will suit us all right (uns kann es recht sein ). The war may perhaps push us temporarily into the background, may wrench from us many a position already conquered. But when you have unfettered forces which you will then no longer be able again to control, things may go as they will: At the end of the tragedy you will be ruined and the victory of the proletariat will either be already achieved or at any rate (doch ) inevitable".

    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"

    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."

    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."

    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."

    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"

    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"

    engels was pro-american

    engels in deutsche-brüsseler-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"

    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"

    engels thought that the chinese suffered from 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 . . .

    our hate-filled engels despised the irish too

    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"

    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".

    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 . . . ".

    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".

    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."

    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".
    "Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society."


  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Roderic For This Useful Post:

  7. #4
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Friday, August 24th, 2012 @ 11:52 PM
    Norway Norway
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    HAHA. Great stuff!
    Thank you for those.

  8. #5
    Senior Member
    Berrocscir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    Friday, July 26th, 2019 @ 11:19 PM
    Oxon, Bucks and Ulster
    England England
    Wessex Wessex
    North Wessex
    Nationalism, Neoreactionary
    God the father
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    A lot of Leftist/Internationalist anarchists wouldn't like this quote from their guru Mikhail Bakunin either!

    “I demand only one thing: that every tribe, great and small, be given the full opportunity and right to act according to its will.”

  9. #6
    Senior Member
    Roderic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 22nd, 2021 @ 05:12 PM
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Karl Marx - On The Jewish Question

    Bruno Bauer,

    “The Capacity of Present-day Jews and Christians to Become Free,”

    Einundzwanzig Bogen aus der Schweiz, pp. 56-71

    It is in this form that Bauer deals with the relation between the Jewish and the Christian religions, and also with their relation to criticism. Their relation to criticism is their relation “to the capacity to become free.”

    The result arrived at is:

    “The Christian has to surmount only one stage, namely, that of his religion, in order to give up religion altogether,”

    and therefore become free.

    “The Jew, on the other hand, has to break not only with his Jewish nature, but also with the development towards perfecting his religion, a development which has remained alien to him.” (p. 71)

    Thus, Bauer here transforms the question of Jewish emancipation into a purely religious question. The theological problem as to whether the Jew or the Christian has the better prospect of salvation is repeated here in the enlightened form: which of them is more capable of emancipation. No longer is the question asked: Is it Judaism or Christianity that makes a man free? On the contrary, the question is now: Which makes man freer, the negation of Judaism or the negation of Christianity?

    “If the Jews want to become free, they should profess belief not in Christianity, but in the dissolution of Christianity, in the dissolution of religion in general, that is to say, in enlightenment, criticism, and its consequences, free humanity.” (p. 70)

    For the Jew, it is still a matter of a profession of faith, but no longer a profession of belief in Christianity, but of belief in Christianity in dissolution.

    Bauer demands of the Jews that they should break with the essence of the Christian religion, a demand which, as he says himself, does not arise out of the development of Judaism.

    Since Bauer, at the end of his work on the Jewish question, had conceived Judaism only as crude religious criticism of Christianity, and therefore saw in it “merely” a religious significance, it could be foreseen that the emancipation of the Jews, too, would be transformed into a philosophical-theological act.

    Bauer considers that the ideal, abstract nature of the Jew, his religion, is his entire nature. Hence, he rightly concludes:

    “The Jew contributes nothing to mankind if he himself disregards his narrow law,” if he invalidates his entire Judaism. (p. 65)

    Accordingly, the relation between Jews and Christians becomes the following: the sole interest of the Christian in the emancipation of the Jew is a general human interest, a theoretical interest. Judaism is a fact that offends the religious eye of the Christian. As soon as his eye ceases to be religious, this fact ceases to be offensive. The emancipation of the Jew is, in itself, not a task for the Christian.

    The Jew, on the other hand, in order to emancipate himself, has to carry out not only his own work, but also that of the Christian – i.e., the Critique of the Evangelical History of the Synoptics and the Life of Jesus, etc.

    “It is up to them to deal with it: they themselves will decide their fate; but history is not to be trifled with.” (p. 71)

    We are trying to break with the theological formulation of the question. For us, the question of the Jew’s capacity for emancipation becomes the question: What particular social element has to be overcome in order to abolish Judaism? For the present-day Jew’s capacity for emancipation is the relation of Judaism to the emancipation of the modern world. This relation necessarily results from the special position of Judaism in the contemporary enslaved world.

    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 Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.

    An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement.

    We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, 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 begin to disintegrate.

    In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.

    The Jew has already emancipated himself in a Jewish way.

    “The Jew, who in Vienna, for example, is only tolerated, determines the fate of the whole Empire by his financial power. The Jew, who may have no rights in the smallest German state, decides the fate of Europe. While corporations and guilds refuse to admit Jews, or have not yet adopted a favorable attitude towards them, the audacity of industry mocks at the obstinacy of the material institutions.” (Bruno Bauer, The Jewish Question, p. 114)

    This is no isolated fact. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.

    Captain Hamilton, for example, reports:

    “The devout and politically free inhabitant of New England is a kind of Laocoön who makes not the least effort to escape from the serpents which are crushing him. Mammon is his idol which he adores not only with his lips but with the whole force of his body and mind. In his view the world is no more than a Stock Exchange, and he is convinced that he has no other destiny here below than to become richer than his neighbor. Trade has seized upon all his thoughts, and he has no other recreation than to exchange objects. When he travels he carries, so to speak, his goods and his counter on his back and talks only of interest and profit. If he loses sight of his own business for an instant it is only in order to pry into the business of his competitors.”

    Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade, and the bankrupt trader deals in the Gospel just as the Gospel preacher who has become rich goes in for business deals.

    “The man who you see at the head of a respectable congregation began as a trader; his business having failed, he became a minister. The other began as a priest but as soon as he had some money at his disposal he left the pulpit to become a trader. In the eyes of very many people, the religious ministry is a veritable business career.” (Beaumont, op. cit., pp. 185,186)

    According to Bauer, it is

    “a fictitious state of affairs when in theory the Jew is deprived of political rights, whereas in practice he has immense power and exerts his political influence en gros, although it is curtailed en détail.” (Die Judenfrage, p. 114)

    The contradiction that exists between the practical political power of the Jew and his political rights is the contradiction between politics and the power of money in general. Although theoretically the former is superior to the latter, in actual fact politics has become the serf of financial power.

    Judaism has held its own alongside Christianity, not only as religious criticism of Christianity, not only as the embodiment of doubt in the religious derivation of Christianity, but equally because the practical Jewish spirit, Judaism, has maintained itself and even attained its highest development in Christian society. The Jew, who exists as a distinct member of civil society, is only a particular manifestation of the Judaism of civil society.

    Judaism continues to exist not in spite of history, but owing to history.

    The Jew is perpetually created by civil society from its own entrails.

    What, in itself, was the basis of the Jewish religion? Practical need, egoism.

    The monotheism of the Jew, therefore, is in reality the polytheism of the many needs, a polytheism which makes even the lavatory an object of divine law. Practical need, egoism, is the principle of civil society, and as such appears in pure form as soon as civil society has fully given birth to the political state. The god of practical need and self-interest is money.

    Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world – both the world of men and nature – of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man’s work and man’s existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he worships it.

    The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange.

    The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature; in the Jewish religion, nature exists, it is true, but it exists only in imagination.

    It is in this sense that [in a 1524 pamphlet] Thomas Münzer declares it intolerable

    “that all creatures have been turned into property, the fishes in the water, the birds in the air, the plants on the earth; the creatures, too, must become free.”

    Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself, which is contained in an abstract form in the Jewish religion, is the real, conscious standpoint, the virtue of the man of money. The species-relation itself, the relation between man and woman, etc., becomes an object of trade! The woman is bought and sold.

    The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

    The groundless law of the Jew is only a religious caricature of groundless morality and right in general, of the purely formal rites with which the world of self-interest surrounds itself.

    Here, too, man’s supreme relation is the legal one, his relation to laws that are valid for him not because they are laws of his own will and nature, but because they are the dominant laws and because departure from them is avenged.

    Jewish Jesuitism, the same practical Jesuitism which Bauer discovers in the Talmud, is the relation of the world of self-interest to the laws governing that world, the chief art of which consists in the cunning circumvention of these laws.

    Indeed, the movement of this world within its framework of laws is bound to be a continual suspension of law.

    Judaism could not develop further as a religion, could not develop further theoretically, because the world outlook of practical need is essentially limited and is completed in a few strokes.

    By its very nature, the religion of practical need could find its consummation not in theory, but only in practice, precisely because its truth is practice.

    Judaism could not create a new world; it could only draw the new creations and conditions of the world into the sphere of its activity, because practical need, the rationale of which is self-interest, is passive and does not expand at will, but finds itself enlarged as a result of the continuous development of social conditions.

    Judaism reaches its highest point with the perfection of civil society, but it is only in the Christian world that civil society attains perfection. Only under the dominance of Christianity, which makes all national, natural, moral, and theoretical conditions extrinsic to man, could civil society separate itself completely from the life of the state, sever all the species-ties of man, put egoism and selfish need in the place of these species-ties, and dissolve the human world into a world of atomistic individuals who are inimically opposed to one another.

    Christianity sprang from Judaism. It has merged again in Judaism.

    From the outset, the Christian was the theorizing Jew, the Jew is, therefore, the practical Christian, and the practical Christian has become a Jew again.

    Christianity had only in semblance overcome real Judaism. It was too noble-minded, too spiritualistic to eliminate the crudity of practical need in any other way than by elevation to the skies.

    Christianity is the sublime thought of Judaism, Judaism is the common practical application of Christianity, but this application could only become general after Christianity as a developed religion had completed theoretically the estrangement of man from himself and from nature.

    Only then could Judaism achieve universal dominance and make alienated man and alienated nature into alienable, vendible objects subjected to the slavery of egoistic need and to trading.

    Selling [Veräußerung] is the practical aspect of alienation [Entäußerung]. Just as man, as long as he is in the grip of religion, is able to objectify his essential nature only by turning it into something alien, something fantastic, so under the domination of egoistic need he can be active practically, and produce objects in practice, only by putting his products, and his activity, under the domination of an alien being, and bestowing the significance of an alien entity – money – on them.

    In its perfected practice, Christian egoism of heavenly bliss is necessarily transformed into the corporal egoism of the Jew, heavenly need is turned into world need, subjectivism into self-interest. We explain the tenacity of the Jew not by his religion, but, on the contrary, by the human basis of his religion – practical need, egoism.

    Since in civil society the real nature of the Jew has been universally realized and secularized, civil society could not convince the Jew of the unreality of his religious nature, which is indeed only the ideal aspect of practical need. Consequently, not only in the Pentateuch and the Talmud, but in present-day society we find the nature of the modern Jew, and not as an abstract nature but as one that is in the highest degree empirical, not merely as a narrowness of the Jew, but as the Jewish narrowness of society.

    Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.

    The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.
    "Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society."


  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roderic For This Useful Post:

  11. #7

  12. #8


    "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it." – Lenin.

    “While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State.” – Lenin.

    The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them. - Lenin


    Joseph Stalin Comments On Adolf Hitler Post WW2 This quote is mentioned in an article in The Barnes Review magazine Volume XVII Number 2 March/April 2011. (The Barnes Review has a website ) The quote is on page 61-62 and is taken from a book called "Stalin:The Court of the Red Tsar" by Simon Sebag Montefiore. When asked after world war 2 whether Adolf Hitler had been an adventurer or a madman Joseph Stalin replied -

    "I agree he was an adventurer but I can't agree he was mad. Hitler was a gifted man. Only a gifted man could unite the German people. Like it or not, the Soviet army had to fight it's way into German lands...and reached Berlin without the German working class ever striking against the Fascist regime. Could a madman so unite his nation?"
    Joseph Stalin.

    Of course he could never have said this to the general population of the USSR. But it does prove one thing - what people say in public and what people say in private can be very different.

    "The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. The public will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened." Josef Stalin.

    "Capitalists will sell you the very rope you use to hang them". Stalin

    “We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?” Joseph Stalin.

    “Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”- Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.

    “The writer is the engineer of the human soul.” - Joseph Stalin.

    "Print is the sharpest and the strongest weapon of our party." -- Joseph Stalin.

    “Gratitude is a sickness suffered by dogs. - Joseph Stalin.

    “Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than dry water or wooden iron” - Joseph Stalin.

    “It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” - Joseph Stalin.

    History shows that there are no invincible armies.
    -- Joseph Stalin.

    “You cannot make a revolution with silk gloves.” -- Joseph Stalin.

    "To choose the victim, to prepare the blow with care, to slake an implacable vengeance, and then to go to bed...there is noting sweeter in the world." Joseph Stalin.

    “I trust no one, not even myself. - Joseph Stalin.

    "Numbers are like people, torture them enough and they'll tell you anything."- Joseph Stalin.

    "Death is the solution to all problems - no man, no problem." -- Joseph Stalin.

    "The only real power comes out of a long rifle." -- Joseph Stalin.

    "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." Josef Stalin.

    "We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?" -- Joseph Stalin.

    ""America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within" (Joseph Stalin)

    The Russians destroyed over 500 German aircraft by ramming them in midair (they also sometimes cleared minefields by marching over them). “It takes a brave man not to be a hero in the Red Army”. Joseph Stalin.

    Bring me the man and I will find the crime. -- Joseph Stalin.

    “If it had’nt been for Eisenhower, we wouldn’t have succeeded in capturing Berlin.” Stalin said remembered Nikita Khruschev.

    "No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance." ~ Alan Bullock.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:

  14. #9

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:

  16. #10

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A Politically Incorrect Dictionary
    By Nordraserei in forum The Hearth
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 01:07 PM
  2. The Death of the State in Marx and Engels
    By Aptrgangr in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 08:40 PM
  3. "He Made War on Islam: No Altars for Mark d'Aviano"
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Christianity
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, November 1st, 2004, 11:47 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts