75 year anniversary of the freeing of Leningrad.

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

https://www.philosophersmag.com/opinion/30-karl-marx-s-radical-antisemitism

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/05/10/ugly-racism-karl-marx/

Hence its no wonder his views led to violence and ethnic cleansing in the Soviet Union by Stalin

Still going to stand by your deity Marx, Eilzel?

Opps

You see its not just the Communist part that many supporters of Marxs follow

Like I said his teachings are of hate and also why people have been murdered within Communist systems

Oh dear, dont you look a wally

FFS didge, you shame yourself resorting to petty insults

So, now communists are bad because they followed Marx's 'other views'.

So so far you have blamed the murder of communist regimes on the a) being nationalist too, b) following Marx's anti-Semitism and c) being totalitarian.

I'm inclined to agree with ALL your points

But I'm still failing to see a straight line from Communist literature to the murders of millions that does not first have to be a) nationalistic, b) following anti-Semitic views not found in Communist literature or c) the actions of a totalitarian regime

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

I have looked, how does the above lead to murder?

The Nazis for example looked to settle the Jews in other countries like Madagascar for example

However I think hateful views, always lead to violence and murder

Do you agree?

Superior, based on blood.
Jews and others = traitor to the nation.
Extra-national loyalties exasperating anti-Anti-semitism.
Jews a dangerous enemy.

There IS an easy line here from ideology to murder. Yes, the original concept might have been expulsion, but it isn't a big move from expulsion to genocide.

There is NO similar line drawn from the Communist literature of Marx and Engels to the murders of the Khmer Rouge and Red Guards.

I think hateful views often lead to violence and murder, but no necessarily always.

I think it is quite a big move really. Expelling people is very different to rounding them up and killing them in a systematic manner. Of course expelling people from their homeland is a rotten thing to do, but at least they're still alive.

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:Oh and as to your beloved Marx

https://www.philosophersmag.com/opinion/30-karl-marx-s-radical-antisemitism

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/05/10/ugly-racism-karl-marx/

Hence its no wonder his views led to violence and ethnic cleansing in the Soviet Union by Stalin

Still going to stand by your deity Marx, Eilzel?

You're missing the point again.

The Communist Manifesto is THE doctrine of communism.

The letter of Marx and Engels says a lot about those men at the time (and you would find similar views from many in that era, it wasn't uncommon), but are of no concern where the philosophy of communism is concerned.

There is no example in Communist literature from its founders that leads to mass murder. There just isn't.

As seen above, there is a link from Nazism.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it is quite a big move really. Expelling people is very different to rounding them up and killing them in a systematic manner. Of course expelling people from their homeland is a rotten thing to do, but at least they're still alive.

It is a big move.

But based on the above beliefs, known of Nazis at the time, it would be bizarre to witness the Holocaust and yet look back and think "shame there were no clues this might happen." When based on the views espoused at the time - the hints were there all along.

You cannot, however, read Marx and Engels book and see how that would lead to mass murder.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

You're missing the point again.

The Communist Manifesto is THE doctrine of communism.

The letter of Marx and Engels says a lot about those men at the time (and you would find similar views from many in that era, it wasn't uncommon), but are of no concern where the philosophy of communism is concerned.

There is no example in Communist literature from its founders that leads to mass murder. There just isn't.

As seen above, there is a link from Nazism.

Following Dodger's twisted logic...

We can also blame George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, et al,  for all of those corporate crimes from US-based multinational corporations murdering millions of people around the world throughout the 20th century..

To wit:
Mining companies,
Tobacco companies,
Oil companies,
Industrial pollution,
Big Pharma',
"Agribusiness,
etc. etc. etc.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it is quite a big move really. Expelling people is very different to rounding them up and killing them in a systematic manner. Of course expelling people from their homeland is a rotten thing to do, but at least they're still alive.

It is a big move.

But based on the above beliefs, known of Nazis at the time, it would be bizarre to witness the Holocaust and yet look back and think "shame there were no clues this might happen." When based on the views espoused at the time - the hints were there all along.

You cannot, however, read Marx and Engels book and see how that would lead to mass murder.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

It is a big move.

But based on the above beliefs, known of Nazis at the time, it would be bizarre to witness the Holocaust and yet look back and think "shame there were no clues this might happen." When based on the views espoused at the time - the hints were there all along.

You cannot, however, read Marx and Engels book and see how that would lead to mass murder.

I haven't read that book, but would the clues really not be there? I'm not an expert on communism, but wouldn't be quite predictable that a lot of people wouldn't want to toe the line, and that violence would be necessary to force them to do so?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it is quite a big move really. Expelling people is very different to rounding them up and killing them in a systematic manner. Of course expelling people from their homeland is a rotten thing to do, but at least they're still alive.

It is a big move.

But based on the above beliefs, known of Nazis at the time, it would be bizarre to witness the Holocaust and yet look back and think "shame there were no clues this might happen." When based on the views espoused at the time - the hints were there all along.

You cannot, however, read Marx and Engels book and see how that would lead to mass murder.

I haven't read that book, but would the clues really not be there? I'm not an expert on communism, but wouldn't be quite predictable that a lot of people wouldn't want to toe the line, and that violence would be necessary to force them to do so?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

It is a big move.

But based on the above beliefs, known of Nazis at the time, it would be bizarre to witness the Holocaust and yet look back and think "shame there were no clues this might happen." When based on the views espoused at the time - the hints were there all along.

You cannot, however, read Marx and Engels book and see how that would lead to mass murder.

I haven't read that book, but would the clues really not be there? I'm not an expert on communism, but wouldn't be quite predictable that a lot of people wouldn't want to toe the line, and that violence would be necessary to force them to do so?

+1

Its what has actually happened each time


What eilzel also fails to grasp is many of the people that implimented Marx's philospohy, caused the death of millions.

They all read and studied his philosophy

So his view that you could not take a view that leads to violence is inherantly false

History proves his claim wrong

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

+1

Its what has actually happened each time


What eilzel also fails to grasp is many of the people that implimented Marx's philospohy, caused the death of millions.

They all read and studied his philosophy

So his view that you could not take a view that leads to violence is inherantly false

History proves his claim wrong

I already said just that! You really are too stupid sometimes. I'm done.

Thor wrote:What no response Eilzel?

Blimey it took Rags to hit the nail on the head here and me to grasp she was right here

That in fact many have read his philosophy and then created systems, that were barbaric, every single time, it was implimented.

Are you going to conceed you are wrong mate?

That in reality it has always led to violence when reading Marx and implimenting his philosophy?

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:What no response Eilzel?

Blimey it took Rags to hit the nail on the head here and me to grasp she was right here

That in fact many have read his philosophy and then created systems, that were barbaric, every single time, it was implimented.

Are you going to conceed you are wrong mate?

That in reality it has always led to violence when reading Marx and implimenting his philosophy?

BS. You haven't read it, or even found quotes to suggest that. You don't know what you're talking about.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I haven't read that book, but would the clues really not be there? I'm not an expert on communism, but wouldn't be quite predictable that a lot of people wouldn't want to toe the line, and that violence would be necessary to force them to do so?

I have read the book, and the clues aren't there. I remember reading it and thinking how surprisingly boring it is. Had I not read, I wouldn't be arguing this right now.

Thor wrote:Karl Marx did not write much about the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat, with his published works instead largely focusing on analysing and criticising capitalist society. In 1848, he and Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto that "their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions". In the same year, commenting on the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, he again highlighted the role of the violence, saying 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 terror".

On 1 January 1852, the communist journalist Joseph Weydemeyer published an article entitled "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in the German language newspaper Turn-Zeitung, where he wrote that "it is quite plain that there cannot be here any question of gradual, peaceful transitions" and recalled the examples of Oliver Cromwell (England) and Committee of Public Safety (France) as examples of "dictatorship" and "terrorism" (respectively) required to overthrow the bourgeoisie. In that year, Marx wrote to him, saying:

Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society

— Karl Marx, 1852


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

And Eilzel cannot make the connect that always has led to violence and murder

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I haven't read that book, but would the clues really not be there? I'm not an expert on communism, but wouldn't be quite predictable that a lot of people wouldn't want to toe the line, and that violence would be necessary to force them to do so?

I have read the book, and the clues aren't there. I remember reading it and thinking how surprisingly boring it is. Had I not read, I wouldn't be arguing this right now.

OK, but had you not read it, would you not agree that communism is bound to lead to violence because some people are not going to toe the line?

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

OK, but had you not read it, would you not agree that communism is bound to lead to violence because some people are not going to toe the line?

Not bound to, but that it does, due to the expectations it places on populations leading to upheaval.

Had I not read Marx I'd also falsely believe something he'd written led to the violence.

Karl Marx did not write much about the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat, with his published works instead largely focusing on analysing and criticising capitalist society. In 1848, he and Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto that "their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions". In the same year, commenting on the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, he again highlighted the role of the violence, saying 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 terror".

On 1 January 1852, the communist journalist Joseph Weydemeyer published an article entitled "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in the German language newspaper Turn-Zeitung, where he wrote that "it is quite plain that there cannot be here any question of gradual, peaceful transitions" and recalled the examples of Oliver Cromwell (England) and Committee of Public Safety (France) as examples of "dictatorship" and "terrorism" (respectively) required to overthrow the bourgeoisie. In that year, Marx wrote to him, saying:

Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society

— Karl Marx, 1852


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

OK, but had you not read it, would you not agree that communism is bound to lead to violence because some people are not going to toe the line?

Not bound to, but that it does, due to the expectations it places on populations leading to upheaval.

Had I not read Marx I'd also falsely believe something he'd written led to the violence.

You say I have not read Marx, when its clear to me you really have not

How did you skip over what he said about using violence?

You have been exposed for being utterly dishonest here mate and I proved it

In his own words, he called and backed violence

Karl Marx did not write much about the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat, with his published works instead largely focusing on analysing and criticising capitalist society. In 1848, he and Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto that "their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions". In the same year, commenting on the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, he again highlighted the role of the violence, saying 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 terror".

On 1 January 1852, the communist journalist Joseph Weydemeyer published an article entitled "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in the German language newspaper Turn-Zeitung, where he wrote that "it is quite plain that there cannot be here any question of gradual, peaceful transitions" and recalled the examples of Oliver Cromwell (England) and Committee of Public Safety (France) as examples of "dictatorship" and "terrorism" (respectively) required to overthrow the bourgeoisie. In that year, Marx wrote to him, saying:

Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society

— Karl Marx, 1852


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

At least i can admit when i am wrong

Its why i once questioned my beliefs in Catholocism and in regards to homosexuality

I saw i was being mislead and saw through the hate I was taught

Why on earth cannot you do the same on Marxism?

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

You say I have not read Marx, when its clear to me you really have not

How did you skip over what he said about using violence?

You have been exposed for being utterly dishonest here mate and I proved it

In his own words, he called and backed violence




At least i can admit when i am wrong

Its why i once questioned my beliefs in Catholocism and in regards to homosexuality

I saw i was being mislead and saw through the hate I was taught

Why on earth cannot you do the same on Marxism?

Again, nothing on violence from the Communist Manifesto.

As you said, and I agreed with, many people, especially in that time, had abhorrent views. And that Marx himself harboured violent ambitions toward certain groups in society is not surprising.

My point was on the manifesto in itself.

And yes, there is A line from Marx and Engels to the violence of the Communist regimes; but not a straight one. One cannot ONLY read the Communist Manifesto and come away thinking "yes, we need to kill lots of different nationalities and ethnic groups." Cannot.

In 1848, he (Marx) and Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto that "their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions".