7 ms·

So how do you deal with the following quote? "The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes an

So how do you deal with the following quote? "The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward." - Friedrich Engels A quick google search shows that this one is NOT hard to find: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm http://books.google.com/books?id=Mdj3AXU2YEEC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=%22The+next+world+war+will+result+in+the+disappearance%22&source=bl&ots=_32YnN3BOl&sig=2I7SxFOy4WKIOX88aUhaO-3HfgY&hl=en&ei=NUcFTdb5IKOxnAfV7InlDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22The%20next%20world%20war%20will%20result%20in%20the%20disappearance%22&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Mdj3AXU2YEEC&pg=PA167&#... Engels was the co-founder of Marxism, and there is a great deal of evidence that the Soviet Union murdered tens of millions of its own citizens. Given these facts, any reasonable person will conclude that Marxism is an ideology that leads to mass murder.

applicative 16y ago
The quote from Engels (1820-1895) dates from 1849. But whatever the text may mean, it would be absurd to claim that it is an expression of 'Marxism', whatever in turn that may mean. (I would have thought that Engels invented "Marxism" -- about 30 years after writing this newspaper article.) I don't care to defend Engels early middle or late, but this text doesn't have the murder-favoring aspect you are pretending it does. It is a commentary on ultra-complicated post-1848 politics; there is little here that wouldn't have been accepted by an American observer of the time. Interpretation is again helped by the preceding sentence (at a bare minimum) which might be thought just as creepy: "The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names." The disappearance of a 'reactionary class' evidently means: the coming to a social order in which that is not one of the classes. The disappearance of a 'dynasty' doesn't mean murder of the ruling family. The disappearance of 'nations' (Nationen) and 'peoples' (Voelker) is the same: not the destruction of individuals, but the formation of some wider social unity, in which those distinctions of Volk don't arise. It is like the disappearance of the Confederacy. The language Engels is employing is indeed ugly. But it is impossible to believe that he or anyone in the mid 19th c. would be arguing for something in the nature of genocide. They were simply too naive to envisage such a thing. That the Soviet Union was a death machine that murdered millions is obvious. It has nothing to do with the materials quoted, from Marx or Engels. The question why you continue to fabricate connections is still open.
- maxharris 16y ago
  > I don't care to defend Engels early middle or late, ... > The language Engels is employing is indeed ugly. You agree that Engels was a philosopher, and his philosophy is not defensible. But here's where we probably disagree: I believe that philosophy is something that does have an impact on the world. A vast number of people (both powerful and not) read Engels (and Marx - and Kant), and this played a major role in the decisions they made in their lives. There's definitely a trickle-down effect here: learned people get the ideas first, and apply those ideas to their own fields. Less-educated people don't read philosophy, but they get the gist of it this way. (And, of course, there are shades in between.) This is consistent also with the fact tha philosophical ideas take a relatively long time to permeate the culture. Summary: in a sense, philosophy determines the course of history. Kant originated the ideas that Marx and Engels applied to politics, which influenced Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao. (It is true that many other politicians were also influenced by Marx and Engels, but they were either not running big countries, or had countries that were behind the philosophical forefront of the era, such as the USA.) Is it any surprise that blood-soaked ideas lead to mass death? I don't think that Kant, Hegel, Marx and Engels were idiots that didn't know what they were doing or what their ideas actually meant.
  - applicative 16y ago
    Again, I don't think there is any evidence for these claims; they are bald assertions evidently made with an ulterior motive, which is what makes this all unjust. It would never have occurred to Kant or Marx that anything like the genocides and purges of the 20th century were even possible. They were, if you like, naïve. It was better times. It was by slow degrees that these things did become possible. The savagery of the First World War, and the sick character of the Tsarist regime, are together quite enough to explain the blood-curdling aspects of the Bolshevik regime, and its Stalinist development. Any number of 'ideologies' could have filled the vacuum; in Russia, Marxism was the least likely given what it seems to say, but so it was. The suggestion that Kant has blood on his hands in this connection is so completely outrageous and evil -- it puts one in mind of LaRouchites putting everything down to Aristotle and Bertrand Russell and the change in attunement of instruments. This is nonsense which serves to disable the listener's sense of reality. Once one is willing to blame Kant for Russian barbarism, one will stop at nothing. But the truth is, the same holds for Marx, who held to an entirely conventional moral system, basically that of Aristotle.

applicative 16y ago

The quote from Engels (1820-1895) dates from 1849. But whatever the text may mean, it would be absurd to claim that it is an expression of 'Marxism', whatever in turn that may mean. (I would have thought that Engels invented "Marxism" -- about 30 years after writing this newspaper article.) I don't care to defend Engels early middle or late, but this text doesn't have the murder-favoring aspect you are pretending it does. It is a commentary on ultra-complicated post-1848 politics; there is little here that wouldn't have been accepted by an American observer of the time. Interpretation is again helped by the preceding sentence (at a bare minimum) which might be thought just as creepy: "The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names." The disappearance of a 'reactionary class' evidently means: the coming to a social order in which that is not one of the classes. The disappearance of a 'dynasty' doesn't mean murder of the ruling family. The disappearance of 'nations' (Nationen) and 'peoples' (Voelker) is the same: not the destruction of individuals, but the formation of some wider social unity, in which those distinctions of Volk don't arise. It is like the disappearance of the Confederacy. The language Engels is employing is indeed ugly. But it is impossible to believe that he or anyone in the mid 19th c. would be arguing for something in the nature of genocide. They were simply too naive to envisage such a thing. That the Soviet Union was a death machine that murdered millions is obvious. It has nothing to do with the materials quoted, from Marx or Engels. The question why you continue to fabricate connections is still open.

maxharris 16y ago
> I don't care to defend Engels early middle or late, ... > The language Engels is employing is indeed ugly. You agree that Engels was a philosopher, and his philosophy is not defensible. But here's where we probably disagree: I believe that philosophy is something that does have an impact on the world. A vast number of people (both powerful and not) read Engels (and Marx - and Kant), and this played a major role in the decisions they made in their lives. There's definitely a trickle-down effect here: learned people get the ideas first, and apply those ideas to their own fields. Less-educated people don't read philosophy, but they get the gist of it this way. (And, of course, there are shades in between.) This is consistent also with the fact tha philosophical ideas take a relatively long time to permeate the culture. Summary: in a sense, philosophy determines the course of history. Kant originated the ideas that Marx and Engels applied to politics, which influenced Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao. (It is true that many other politicians were also influenced by Marx and Engels, but they were either not running big countries, or had countries that were behind the philosophical forefront of the era, such as the USA.) Is it any surprise that blood-soaked ideas lead to mass death? I don't think that Kant, Hegel, Marx and Engels were idiots that didn't know what they were doing or what their ideas actually meant.
- applicative 16y ago
  Again, I don't think there is any evidence for these claims; they are bald assertions evidently made with an ulterior motive, which is what makes this all unjust. It would never have occurred to Kant or Marx that anything like the genocides and purges of the 20th century were even possible. They were, if you like, naïve. It was better times. It was by slow degrees that these things did become possible. The savagery of the First World War, and the sick character of the Tsarist regime, are together quite enough to explain the blood-curdling aspects of the Bolshevik regime, and its Stalinist development. Any number of 'ideologies' could have filled the vacuum; in Russia, Marxism was the least likely given what it seems to say, but so it was. The suggestion that Kant has blood on his hands in this connection is so completely outrageous and evil -- it puts one in mind of LaRouchites putting everything down to Aristotle and Bertrand Russell and the change in attunement of instruments. This is nonsense which serves to disable the listener's sense of reality. Once one is willing to blame Kant for Russian barbarism, one will stop at nothing. But the truth is, the same holds for Marx, who held to an entirely conventional moral system, basically that of Aristotle.