EDITORIAL
China to Russia — Drop Dead!
For those Russophile scum who like to suggest some type of anti-Western alliance between China and Russia might be forming, events last week must have come as a very rude awakening.
China announced an ambitious new plan to connect itself through a massive and impressive network of high-speed rail lines to the rest of the world, specifically Asia and Europe. And Russia? Left out in the freezing Siberian cold.
Soon, you may be able to ride a bullet train at over 200 mph from London to Beijing. Moscow? Not so much.
The Chinese understand, you see dear Russophile idiots, that Russia is a land of pathologically aggressive racists who are no more capable of making true friends with the people of China than they are of landing on the moon. Accordingly, they know their future security does not lie in partnership with Russia, which in any case is a nation of hopeless failure mired in corruption and violence. Instead, China is turning its face elsewhere, wisely seeking partnership with far more stable countries in Europe and Asia, leaving Russia very much out in the cold.
La Russophobe 
Official: Volumes of Russian arms exports to China too low
“We cannot accept the Chinese practice that is based on the principle of selective purchases of arms and military equipment from Russia.
http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/61774/
“Soon, you may be able to ride a bullet train at over 200 mph from London to Beijing. Moscow? Not so much.”
Let the “experts” who write such ridiculos editorials look at the map. Will the “russophobic” London-Bejing bullet trains go through Iran or are they going to fly over Caspian sea?
LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-03/13/content_9586094.htm
That’s the OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE of the CHINESE GOVERNMENT BEING REPORTED IN A CHINESE NEWSPAPER, you idiotic ape. The point isn’t whether rail lines will PASS THROUGH remote parts of Russia, IT IS WHETHER THEY WILL MAKE STOPS IN MAJOR RUSSIAN CITIES. Learn to read before you write, things will work out better.
Bad luck Putin, it looks like the Chinese have finally woken up to your over priced shoddy goods.
Totally wrong as usual :)
http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/03/15/china-to-connect-its-high-speed-rail-all-the-way-to-europe/
Extracts :
“Additional rail lines will also be built into South East Asia as well as Russia, in what will likely become the largest infrastructure project in history”.
or
“A second HSR line will connect into Vietnam, Thailand, Burma and Malaysia. The last line to be built will connect Germany to Russia, cross Siberia and then back into China”.
Clear if you look the map :
http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/03/15/china-to-connect-its-high-speed-rail-all-the-way-to-europe/china-international-hsr-plans/
LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-03/13/content_9586094.htm
That is THE OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT being reported IN A CHINESE NEWSPAPER, you braying jackass. Your links have NO comments from the government AT ALL.
You’re a lying moron.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/03/expanding_high-speed_rail
First China, next the world
Mar 15th 2010, 16:15 by M.A. | BEIJING
More intriguingly, on Friday came confirmation that China had mooted a plan to construct a high-speed network spanning 17 countries. Reports suggest there would be three lines: one into South-East Asia; another west into Central Asia; and a third stretching north through Russian gas fields and into eastern Europe, where it could link up to western European networks.
http://china.globaltimes.cn/society/2010-03/512133.html
High-speed rail: New Silk Road
Less than two years after China’s first high-speed railway went into operation, the country is now planning to extend its rail network beyond its borders, a project that will involve 17 nations, a Ministry of Railways spokesman confirmed to the Global Times Thursday.
The information was first revealed by Wang Mengshu, a professor at Beijing Jiaotong University and a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, who said Sunday that China plans to construct a high-speed railway system that will travel across Asia and Europe by 2025.
According to Wang, a third line will connect the city of Heilongjiang in northern China with Eastern and Southern European countries via Russia.
ha ha ha ha
LR is using Chinses governemental sources to provides informations ;))))))
Go on dude you’re on a right way !
More seriously it is written :
” The exact routes have yet to be determined.”
Chinese Trains will have standard (non Moscal) gauge tracks so that they will not be compatible with the Rashan ones that were designed with wide gauge. I think this was done because, Kremlin Mascals were paranoid of invasion by the West. This reasoning is like the Rashan ammunition which is slightly wider than NATO rounds and could not be used in NATO guns, however the NATO ammunition loosely fits the Kalashnikov and can work.
Chinese will not bother with weird system to protect the Kremlin. Going on their own standard gauge tracks to run their equipment in Europe. Once again progress passes by Rashan Savoks.
No worries, Russia can alwyas bring khokhols from poor Ukraine if any problem with the trains. Ukrainians are hungry of any job including cleaning toilets and prostitution.
“Going on their own standard gauge tracks to run their equipment in Europe. Once again progress passes by Rashan Savoks.”
Hey, idiot, how the trains will avoid Russia in their Bejing-Berlin route? Do they go through Kazachstan and then Iran, you dummy khokol? Look at the map, bydlo, to see that chinese HAVE TO obey ANY RUSSIAN STANDARD if they want to pass Russia (not Rasha, pidor benderovskij).
AG,
Chinese will have their part of Rasha soon enough. Corruption works both ways!
Pootler Sh!ts in the Kremlin will be bypassed even on taxes. The East is already dependent on Chinese trade, and this will make the reality happen even faster starting in Mongolia.
Don’t worry Ukrainians will do just fine with the Chinese, as they have been exported there by your mangy kind long ago, and have no loyalty to Piz Maskva. Working with people that are hard working, civilized, and have rules, is no problem. Ukrainians already used to Moscals sense of justice, and your kind in the Kremlin.
Money talks your bullsh!t walks. Take the slow train and pederasterer pootin home with you to Maskva.
“Chinese will have their part of Rasha soon enough. Corruption works both ways!”
Блажен кто верует, тепло ему на свете. А я вот уверен что Малороссия скоро развалится на несколько частей, и несколько из них отойдут к Великой России, включая Крым и Севастополь, город Русской славы. Россия, вперед!
ha ha ha ha … You’re all so funny ..
Ok i have lost enough time on this site, i was thinking it was something serious but it’s definitly like i ve been told : without any influence and having the same bunck of people writing under pseudonym ! )))))
Cheers from Russia !
Ah Alexandre Plasta head, don’t judge us by your ruSSian stereotype, you ‘nashi – stukachi’ all make the same mistake time after time. Unlike you and your brain dead kind we have nothing to hide!
Good riddance trash heap. I cannot wait for your return to Putler’s “Vaterland”. Bon voyage, via Ramzan Kadyrov’s Chechen paradise, preferably.
PS I hope you catch the express, the quicker the”good riddance” the better.
bedlam,
What claptrap from a RaSSiyski Savok. How old are you? I suggest you be banned for stupidity, and not for just taunting LR with your nonsense.
Savoks in charge of Pootin’s Rasha did not see the need and so, no high speed trains can tie into their system. The Kremlin did not think it was important. Also Ukraine and Poland have this same wide track railroad from Savokian days. However they don’t need as much track since the are already closer to Europe and can change much faster than the Government in Moscow.
Mongolia will be glad to have this service with the Chinese of course, and it is being planned by busy people that want to save time.
The Slow Trans Siberian Vodka Express will be sidelined to the Kremlin Cesspool of wide tracks in case of invasion by fast trains. Too bad that so many good people were killed in building it for the Red Rats in the Kremlin who spend their money in London.
to LARUSSOPHOBE:
Why do you always, in fact, consistently, resort to ad hominem attacks when you disagree with a post?
You call all your detractors either apes, morons, liars, scum, etc.
LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:
We do that because we like to tell the truth. Your suggestion that we “always” do it IS ITSELF an ad hominemn attack on us, and an ABSURD LIE.
We also like to show Russophile bullies that we’re just as tough as they are and can’t be pushed around.
When we are offended by lies and/or ignorance, we express our offense. Believe it or not, part of our popularity is owing to that unique feature of this blog. Ever heard of Howard Stern, Don Imus or Rush Limbaugh? We’ve not yet been made aware of anyone offering us something of value in terms of publicity or influence by adopting a different approach. Because of the exciting and provocative nature of this blog, we have a FAR larger audience than any other Russia poltics blog in the history of the world, as the number of comments and visitation level clearly show. You can’t name another Russia politics blog that has one-tenth the level of daily comments we have.
What’s more, the risk that we will lauch a devastating attack to a wide audience keeps a large number of Russophile pundits in their place. If you compared their activity before and after this blog began operating, you’d see a marked difference in tone and quantity.
Since you’ve not show us you know how to build a more successful blog, your advice is hardly significant to us. Since you’ve not show us how you support or blog (for example, by helping to publicize its posts on services like DIGG), we don’t consider you our friend or deserving of any special attention.
just to further brickhouse’s post – does the russophobe realize that their increasingly negative, hateful posts detract readers from making informed conclusions – and to continue reading their spewed hatred in the future? they are unable to even write putin’s name without attaching to it the term ‘slimeball.’
Sure we are! Sometimes we call him “proud KGB spy”!
Thanks for your advice on how to run our blog. Unfortunately, since you haven’t built a more powerful or influential one, we’re unable to pay you heed.
for this arrogance i’ve cancelled my subscription to your blog. you’re insane.
russophobe essentially sounds like fox news – just with sometimes more interesting content.
Paul, you are right about the content being interesting, but not from the Russophiles as much.
I have learned much here from the “Phobes” and they give me hope.
I enjoy the dressing down of propaganda monkeys that have no case to make. Russophiles must change Pseudonyms, or Sock Puppets often in order to waste our time.
No courtesy is needed, when dealing with scum trolling here just to annoy.
respectfully, the dressing down can be done quite easily by anyone who understands politics and russia decently. reading this blog is not necessary, only approaching any articles and events with a healthy amount of scepticism. and the amount of hatred this one spews makes me wary. I read it not for the ‘opinions,’ only for the articles it references.
Back to the subject,
The Romans used chariots very little, and in fact their use in the downtown core of cities was generally illegal. The Romans believed that the primary purpose of streets in the daytime was for pedestrians. In that sense they antedated the idea of the modern pedestrian mall by 2000 years or so. It was only at night, when pedestrians and school children were off the street, that wheeled vehicles were permitted. Those vehicles were not chariots, but heavy four-wheeled utilitarian freight vehicles carrying foodstuffs and all manner of other merchandise for sale in the markets.
The streets being narrow and the lighting poor, grooves were deliberately cut in the pavement to guide the wheels of the heavy freight carts to avoid sideswipes and keep their wheels from striking the raised stones placed at intersections to serve as steppingstones for pedestrians.
These grooves were at the same centers as standard gauge railroad rails. The steppingstones served a double purpose. Not only did they give pedestrians a means of crossing the street dryshod in wet weather, but they forced horse-drawn vehicles to come almost to a stop at intersections while the horses picked their feet over the stones. In that way, they served to accomplish what now is done with a ‘stop’ or ‘yield’ sign.
http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/st_gauge.html
Chinese proved themselves after Stalin’s death when they,a pathetic,undeveloped,war-torn nation sought to be the leader of revolutionary world…
As soon as Putin’s scum is destroyed in Russia and the dictatorship of proletariat established under the new Communist party,Russia will blossom and will once again become the most glorious country ever,the leader of revolutionary people against reactionary block of NATO-CHINA and its allies.
Slava!
Earth to Dino….Hello?…..HELLO?……click.
Dino,
“As soon as Putin’s scum is destroyed in Russia and the dictatorship of proletariat established under the new Communist party,Russia will blossom and will once again become the most glorious country ever,” – Yes indeed – the gulags will be reopened and you Russians will march there, as usual, without resistance, like pigs to the slaughter – a glorious country indeed!!
““As soon as Putin’s scum is destroyed in Russia and the dictatorship of proletariat established under the new Communist party,Russia will blossom and will once again become the most glorious country ever,” – Yes indeed – the gulags will be reopened and you Russians will march there, as usual, without resistance, like pigs to the slaughter – a glorious country indeed!!”
I’m not Russian,i’m Croatian!
GULAGS were(contrary to your propaganda-fed idea) work camps for criminals and counterrevolutionaries.
I myself don’t approve Stalin’s misuse of GULAG,but it wouldn’t be a bad idea to reopen them for criminals have multiplied in Russia since 1990
Interesting that a Croatian supports Russian imperialism and defends Russian policy, when Russia so actively supported Serbia in its attempts to destroy Croatia….
“Interesting that a Croatian supports Russian imperialism and defends Russian policy, when Russia so actively supported Serbia in its attempts to destroy Croatia….”
I do NOT support Russian imperialism,i support Soviet-led world revolution.
How did you get that i support Russian imperialism? Where did i say that?
I’m against Putin and his retarded,xenophobic Russia-i’m for Soviet Union!
Vino brained Dino, where ever did you get that stupid idea that “GULAGS were(contrary to your propaganda-fed idea) work camps for criminals and counterrevolutionaries.” ???
For your information moron head the only difference between a Nazi death camp “Konzentration Lager” and a Soviet Union GULAG was that the Nazi scum worked their inmates to death in 3 months, whereas the Soviet Union scum worked their inmates to death in 24 months.
And as for GULAG’s being “for criminals and counterrevolutionaries.” Ha, ha, ha – you retarded, recycled Serb – just try and pass those words off to the millions of women and children that perished as well as the men in these camps. Here is a quote from “History of the Soviet Russian Gulag
The history of the Soviet Russian Gulags, forced labor camps that killed millions of people. ” “…. The Russian Gulag system of forced labor camps became a symbol of tyranny and oppression. Millions of people were imprisoned and even more lost their lives. The silent and foreboding barbwire walls of the Gulag affected a generation of Russian men, women, and children.”
You retard,Bohdan….
There were no GULAGS before 1929.
GULAG was founded in 1929 you jerk,it was Stalin’s time.
These are facts.
There were no GULAGS before that!
I want to make a difference between Stalin’s GULAG and Lenin’s camps.
I know what stalinist GULAG was,i also read Solzhenitzin,Karlo Štajner,Arthur Koestler.
But some propagandists want to extent the GULAG times throughout the whole history of Soviet Union,which is absurd!
Dino, you pathetic little teenybopper, the “re-education” and “forced labour” camps of Lenin, were different to the Gulag only in name.
In practice and execution, they were identical.
Just as the Cheka was renamed the OGPU, NKVD, NKGB, KGB, and now FSB.
Seriously child, you are making a fool of yourself.
Wrong!
If we talk about GULAGS,we talk about GULAGS.
We can’t talk about the Jewish “Final Solution” before 1942,and still retarded (american) journalists use the term for pre-1942 killings.
that ’cause you oversimplify things and make it black and white with your disgusting propaganda machine
Well simpleton, like Lenins mass murder, Hitler planned his long in advance.
By the way, Hitler based his genocidal policies on Marx and Engels too.
“Well simpleton, like Lenins mass murder, Hitler planned his long in advance.
By the way, Hitler based his genocidal policies on Marx and Engels too.”
This shows just how much of a moron you are.
Tell me where in Marx’s or Engels’s works is there a mention of a genocide based on ETHNICITY!
You’re a retard,without any knowledge of the concept of class struggle.
Lenin’s red terror is a proletarian movement against bourgeois and reactionary elements.
White army was fighting a war of life and death with Red army,can’t you bloody understand that?
Actually Engels and Marx were both racist genocidal trash, see here:
“Engels proposed genocide long before Hitler was born. Indeed, it is likely that hitler was influenced by reading Engels. To be sure, his proposed victims were not the Jews but the Slavs, except for the Poles who were good Slavs.
First here is what Engels wrote in “Democratic Panslavism,” approved by his friend and mentor, Karl Marx:
To the sentimentalist slogans of brotherhood which are here offered us in the name of the counterrevolutionary nations of Europe [including the Slavs], we reply that hatred of Russia was and still is the first revolutionary passion of the Germans; that since the Revolution [of 1848], hatred of the Czechs and Croats has been added to it, and that we, along with the Poles [= good Slavs] and Magyars [= Hungarians], will only be able to secure the Revolution through the most determined terror against these Slavic peoples. . .
Then it’s war. “A ceaseless fight to the death” [quoting the pan-Slavist Bakunin] with Slavdom, which betrays the Revolution, a battle of annihilation and ruthless terrorism — not in the interests of Germany , but of the Revolution. [p84]”Democratic Panslavism,”
Neue Rheinische Zeitung, February 1849 . The authorities Franz Mehring, Gustav Meyer, & Fernando Orlandi, attribute the above quotes to Engels.
Now here is “Hungary and Panslavism” that Friedrich Engels had published the previous month [January 1849], also approved by Marx who wrote for the same publication [Neue Rheinische Zeitung]:
These remains of nations [the Slavic peoples] which have been mercilessly trampled down by the passage of history, as Hegel expressed it, this ethnic trash always becomes and remains until its complete extermination or denationalization, the most fanatic carrier of counterrevolution, since its entire existence is nothing more than a protest against a great historical revolution. . . [p 63]
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 would be progress.
Cologne, January 1849, “Hungary & Panslavism,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 1849; p 67 — written by Engels according to Franz Mehring, Gustav Meyer, & Fernando Orlandi. English translations in Karl Marx and Friederich Engels, The Russian Menace to Europe (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press 1952 [editors: Paul Blackstock and Bert Hoselitz], page nos. from this edition).
It is doubtful that Lenin and Stalin highlighted these articles to their following in Russia and the Slavic republics of the USSR, the Soviet Union. But these quotes make it clear that today’s Judeophobic Left that in fact inclines towards mass murder of Jews is aligned with their distinguished Communist forerunner, Friedrich Engels.
Note that Marx does not advocate war on the Slavs on behalf of narrow a German interest but on behalf of a universal interest in Revolution. Hence, universalists can be mass murderers and warmongers like anyone else. It is interesting that Marx and Engels were thinking in terms of world war as long ago as 1849.
The Italian translation of most of these remarks is as follows:
Ecco “Il Panslavismo Democratico”:
Alle frasi sentimentali sulla fratellanza offerteci qui a nome delle nazioni piu` controrivoluzionarie d’Europa, noi rispondiamo che l’odio per i russi e` stato ed e` ancora la prima passione rivoluzionaria dei tedeschi; che dopo la rivoluzione si e` aggiunto l’odio per i cechi e i croati, e che noi, insieme ai polacchi e ai magiari, possiamo salvaguardare la rivoluzione soltanto con il terrorismo piu` risoluto contro questi popoli slavi. . . Lotta allora, ‘lotta inesorabile per la vita o per la morte’ [citazione del pan-slavista Bakunin] contro lo slavismo traditore della rivoluzione; lotta di annientamento e terrorismo senza riguardi — non nell’interesse della Germania, ma nell’interesse della rivoluzione!. . . . Un giorno compiremo sanguinosa vendetta sugli slavi
[Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Febbraio 1849; scritto da Engels secondo Franz Mehring, Gustav Meyer, Fernando Orlandi; K Marx, F Engels, Opere, vol VIII, pp 380-381, 377]
Ecco “Lotta dei Magiari”:
La prossima guerra mondiale fara` sparire dalla faccia della terra non soltanto classi e dinastie reazionarie, fara` sparire anche interi popoli reazionari. E anche questo e` un progresso.
[Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Gennaio 1849; scritto da Engels secondo Franz Mehring, Gustav Meyer e Fernando Orlandi. K Marx, F Engels, Opere, vol VII, p 237]
Is it just possible that these bloodthirsty remarks helped to inspire hitler? Indeed, if any capitalists or imperialists might want to kill off a recalcitrant or troublesome people, why, they would have quotes from Marx’s close ally and cothinker, Engels, at their disposal to justify such a policy. Can Marx and Engels be our moral guides for the 21st century? Can any Leftist speaking in the name of Marxism or looking up to Marx and Engels as his inspirations and mentors be seen as a moral guide today?
Just bear in mind that many more Jews have been murdered by Arab terrorists since the monstruous Oslo Accords than in the same length of time before them.
CORRECTION: We Regret Our Earlier Uncertainty over the Authorship of “Democratic Panslavism.” It Was Written by Engels according to the Authorities on These Matters.”
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/11/socialists-for-genocide-engels-and.html
http://www.lutterworth.com/lp/titles/lostpref.htm
Lost Literature of Socialism
By G.Watson
Preface
The literature of socialism is lost in the sense that it is unread. At least most of it is, and this book is a report on what I have discovered by reading it.
It is the first account of socialist literature, I believe, since the defeat of Hitler, and certainly the first since the fall of the Wall in 1989. Being a study of a lost literature, it has little to say about justly famous books like Fabian Essays or Marx’s Capital. Being essentially a literary study it is neither a comprehensive account of the socialist idea, like G.D.H. Cole’s A History of Socialist Thought (1953-60) nor of Marxism, like Leszek Kolakowski’s Main Currents of Marxism (1978) – still less a history of historical events and institutions such as the First, Second and Third Internationals or the October Revolution of 1917 – though, as so often with intellectual history, events keep breaking in, especially when genocide is in question. My object here is distinct. As a literary historian I seek to open doors to a new debate by studying revolution, class and race through largely forgotten texts in the hundred years or so that began in the 1840s, or the age that stretches from Marx to Hitler. This is a study in the unfamiliar. A lost literature is still a literature, after all, whether it survives in books, periodicals or manuscripts, and it is the business of the literary historian to read it.
Texts can surprise, especially when they are unread, and some of my conclusions may look startling. The first history of socialism, for example, a book unmentioned in any account of the subject, thought it a conservative idea. There is abundant evidence, some of which I produce in my early chapters, that socialism was not always supposed to be left-wing or favourable to the poor, whether by its adherents or its opponents. It was not always anti-racialist, what is more, and not always in favour of a welfare state. No one who reads the precursors of Marx – many of them Frenchmen of the 1840s – in addition to Marx himself, and no one who reads Ruskin and Morris, or Shaw, Wells, Tawney and Orwell, could imagine otherwise. In fact it is only as recently as the late 1930s, with the sudden emergence of the Popular Front in a dramatic, worldwide contest between fascism and communism, that socialism has been universally seen as wholly situated on the Left. As a great American humorist once said, it is better to know nothing than to know what ain’t so.
This enquiry, then, is not an act of reverence; as befits the mood of the hour, it is revisionist. In 1992, after the fourth successive Labour defeat in a British general election, Roy Hattersley declared that the day of the sacred cow was done, and it is even becoming possible, at long last, to question the assumption that Left means virtue or that Right means competence. There has been too much conservative incompetence, and there have been too many socialist crimes, to make it easy by now to believe any such thing. All that admittedly makes for a perilous enterprise, since political convictions, in practice, are not plainly and simply a form of knowledge like botany or physics. They are more often a mode of self-definition, a claim to be a certain kind of being – caring if Left, competent if Right. In its heyday socialism was above everything a claim to virtue. You were not merely mistaken if you rejected it; you were at best a cynic and at worst a moral defective. A good deal will have to be unthought if, as I hope to show, the socialist tradition was once (among other things) conservative and genocidal, and unthinking can be harder than thinking and far more painful.
Any open-minded account of socialist literature, then, is likely to look like an act of irreverence. But there is one species of reverence to which, as a literary critic, I stand ever ready to plead guilty. I revere texts. Though not a socialist myself, I accept that the great socialist and anti-socialist thinkers of the past century and a half, voluminous and unstimulating as their works sometimes are, still deserve to be attentively read and scrupulously interpreted. That, surely, is why they wrote, and in this book I do them the honour of assuming that they said what they meant and meant what they said. When Marx and Engels publicly advocated genocide in 1849, for example, they did so because they wanted whole races to be killed. They were not ironising, sounding off or showing off. Or again, when the Labour leaders opposed William Beveridge’s plans for a national health service, as he reports in Power and Influence, they did so because they were against it and because, as socialists, they believed they had good reasons to be against it. To humanise capitalism, after all, is to preserve it, and subsequent events do not suggest that their fears were misplaced. Socialist governments in more recent years that have set out to dismantle state welfare should not be thought of as behaving in untraditional ways.
In a word, I study texts for what they have to say. If some find that a sadly literal view, I can only reply that literature is above all interesting for what it says, and that if it were supposed to tell us nothing but what we already believed, or wanted to believe, it would have lost all its power to change mankind.
St John’s College
Cambridge
GENOCIDE, WHEN NECESSARY
The armed revolution of 1848 by subject nations of the Austro-Hungarian empire had failed. Both Marx and Engels were understandably disappointed, and showed their anger for the nations who had been more interested in securing national autonomy than the proletarian revolution. Friedrich Engels wrote an article titled “The Magyar Struggle” for the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 194, January 13, 1849, of which his friend Karl Marx was editor.
The tenor of Engels’ disgust with certain nationalities and his wish to see “petty hidebound nations” wiped out is reflected in these excerpts from the article:
The year 1848 first of all brought with it the most terrible chaos for Austria by setting free for a short time all those different nationalities which, owing to Metternich, had hitherto been enslaving one another. The Germans, Magyars, Czechs, Poles, Moravians, Slovaks, Croats, Rutheinans, Rumanians, Illyrians and Serbs came into conflict with one another, while within each of the nationalities a struggle went on also between the different classes. But soon order came out of this chaos. The combatants divided into two large camps: the Germans, Poles and Magyars took the side of revolution; the remainder, all the Slavs, except for the Poles, the Rumanians and Transylvanian Saxons, took the side of counter-revolution.
All the earlier history of Austria up to the present day is proof of this and 1848 confirmed it. Among all the large and small nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and still retain their vitality – the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary.
All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary.
… at the first victorious uprising of the French proletariat, which Louis Napoleon is striving with all his might to conjure up, the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. 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 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.
Lenin and Joseph Stalin agreed with Engels that wiping out “entire reactionary peoples” … “is a step forward.” Lenin was in the habit of couching his orders for criminal actions in euphemisms, or of arranging for one of his commissars to issue them. Lenin’s recommendation for eradicating recalcitrant nationalities, reported by Stalin in Foundations of Leninism (1924), typically refers to the right to self-determination as a “particle” which “must be cast off.” One can suppose that a “concrete instance” for doing so would be when the majority of a nation fights resolutely against communist take-over. Stalin writes:
In the forties of the last century Marx supported the national movement of the Poles and the Hungarians and was opposed to the national movement of the Czechs and the Jugo-Slavs. Why? Because the Czechs and the Jugo-Slavs were then “reactionary nations” in Europe, outposts of absolutism; whereas the Poles and the Hungarians were “revolutionary nations,” fighting against absolutism; … “The various demands of democracy,” writes Lenin, “including the right to self-determination, are not absolute in themselves, but are particles of the general democratic (now general socialist) world movement. In certain concrete instances a particle may contradict the whole in which case it must be cast off.” [from: Foundations of Leninism, International Publishers, New York, 1932; p. 77]
The eradication of stubbornly resistant nationalities was adopted as a policy of state in the Soviet Union. It took three forms: a) physical extermination, deportation and relocation, b) cultural genocide by suppression of national language and traditions, c) dilution of the ethnic stock by encouraging settlement of people from other nationalities on the nation’s territory. This policy was followed most rigorously against the independence-minded nations in the Caucasus region and in the Baltic states. Marx and Engels can be credited with injecting the idea of nation-killing into communist doctrine.
http://pages.interlog.com/~girbe/Engels.html
Besides, if you have read “The Gulag Archipelago”, you will know that the author blames Lenin.
I have read it,but i have my own opinion.
Solzhenitsin can blame whoever he wants,Pro-vietnam war warmonger.
i don’t expect much from an anti-communist.
he can slander whoever he wants,that’s why he got the noble prize in the end…
(Lenin set the basis for anti-reactionary camps,not stalinist GULAGS)
Boy, you are a bit slim on intelligence.
Not surprising from someone who considers communism a workable system.
Of course, communism always was the resort of deviants.
First cab off the rank;
Sincere thanks for your article Andrew, so accurate and to the point, saves me wasting too much time on that recycled Serb, ol’ Dino who cannot get off the vino.
Second cab off the rank;
Dino, you vino head (and recycled Serb), geez man you missed your calling as you should have joined Dr J. Goebbels propaganda Ministry. Can you imagine? none of us sane ones, would know to this day that that Nazi Germany had actually lost WWII.
By the way Chief Propaganda Minister Dr Vino, you don’t supply any facts with your made up trash. Sure you “have read it,but i have my own opinion.” Wowie now that’s a statement to make, something akin to a madman saying ‘I’m not mad you are’. So tell me “vinohead’ you must see the world through your ‘rose’ colored eyes – say no more as I can now understand your lopsided view of the world and that murderous Soviet criminal gang so beloved by you.
Finally bird brain, both of your heroes, Lenin and Stalin were mass murderers and irrespective of how you twist this fact will remain mass murderers. After all, it was – to his very close colleagues only, ‘Soso’ – Stalin who once said “a single death is a tragedy, but a million is a statistic.” Now that’s Soviet mentality for you.
“and will once again become the most glorious country ever”
Tell me when was russia the most glorious country ever?
After WW2?
Russia was the most glorious country ever…of course!
After destroying Germans(Europe’s last really powerful and respectful nation) and rebuilding itself again with no foreign help:25 million lost and the richest part of country totally ravaged it made it to the position of the World’s second power:a country of revolutionary proletariat,a spark of hope in a reptile word of imperialism and backwardness!
Unfortunately,capitalist managed to destroy the Glorious Union by their poltron and traitor Gorbachov
Destroying the Germans! HA! Russia’s population was wiped out, many cities erased, and a few decades later THE USSR TOTALLY COLLAPSED. You call that victory? Indeed, you have low standards.
Also, one small details – about 30-40 mln. Russians were sent to death by Stalin. Combined losses of allied forces were 800.000. Some Russians still love Stalin and think that Allies did not want to help them hence the losses. How stupid is that…
Dino,
Nazi-lover have a point. It is undeniable that the Nazis have won WW2 because they accomplished all their major goals:
1. Exterminate Jews and make Europe virtually”Juden-frei”.
2. Exterminate Roma/Gypsies.
3. Exterminate tens of millions of Russians and other Slavs.
4. Ruin Soviet economy.
5. Make USA and American Jews re-build Germany with US taxpayers’ money, aka Marshall Plan.
Face it: Nazis won, humanity lost. That’s why russophobes love the Nazis so much and take offense at the idea that the Nazis lost in WW2.
“Chinese will have their part of Rasha soon enough. Corruption works both ways!”
Блажен кто верует, тепло ему на свете. А я вот уверен что Малороссия скоро развалится на несколько частей, и несколько из них отойдут к Великой России, включая Крым и Севастополь, город Русской славы. Россия, вперед!
”
Thankfully,i can read Russian!
I don’t think that Ukrainians will merge with Russia under “Great Russia” but unite in A Brotherly Union of Peoples!
Slava druzhbi narodov!
Dino,
I don’t think that Ukrainians will merge with Russia under “Great Russia” but unite in A Brotherly Union of Peoples!
Slava druzhbi narodov!
If, by any chance, Ukrainians refuse to merge with Russia in a Brotherly Union of Peoples’ – Russians always can introduce another Holodomor or create concentration camps and slaughter Ukrainians in order to make them happy the Soviet style. Doesn’t it sound familiar???
Cretin.The great famine hit Russia TOO!(that’s Volga area)
If you think that it was a planned genocide against Ukrainians,give me some EVIDENCE.
The above mentioned fact refutes your claims.
“Destroying the Germans! HA! Russia’s population was wiped out, many cities erased, and a few decades later THE USSR TOTALLY COLLAPSED. You call that victory? Indeed, you have low standards.”
It doesn’t matter.
They did destroy the Germans!
Whose flag flew on the Reichstag? American maybe?
Russian huge sacrifice of life just magnifies it’s glorious victory! 1242-1942! Slava!
It collapsed because of Gorbachov’s treachery
Hey Dino,
Didn’t the great Russian heroes marched from the victory parade on the Red Square DIRECTLY TO THE GULAGS??
Are you stupid mcc?
Why the hell would BEST,most awarded,famous etc soldiers and officers(surely the average ones weren’t present in a high number at this solemn parade) be sent to GULAGS after?
It’s retarded to say such a thing,it doesn’ make any damn sense
Because their popularity was a threat to the Communist party.
Remember Zhukov spent many years in internal exile after the war.
Criticizing today’s Putin degenerated Russia is one thing,but denying it’s glorious past is a disgusting slander!
Death to treacherous Gorby-Yeltsin-Putin’s criminal Russia,death to capitalist criminals,glory to Soviet Union and it’s victorious peoples!
Slava KPSS!
And to deny its inglorious past is an affrontery to its people and the free world.
Dino:
Gorbachov was trying to save it with “Openness”. He was just like you, Dino. He “believed” just like you.
@Ron”Gorbachov was trying to save it with “Openness”. He was just like you, Dino. He “believed” just like you.”
Lying propaganda.His “openness” was a series of deliberate actions against plannened economy.
He did not attempt to reform it,but to destroy it.He himself said that in 90’s in some interview.
@RTR
Dino,
Nazi-lover have a point. It is undeniable that the Nazis have won WW2 because they accomplished all their major goals:
1. Exterminate Jews and make Europe virtually”Juden-frei”.
This was never their main goal.You’re stupid if you think that.They just needed jewish money,that’s about it
2. Exterminate Roma/Gypsies.
Roma were even less important…
Wars are not started because of
ethnic hatred,it just serves as a excuse
3. Exterminate tens of millions of Russians and other Slavs.
Their goal was to conquer Russia and make all Slavs their slaves.It’s the “famous” concept of Drang nach Osten or Lebensraum
4. Ruin Soviet economy.
They didn’t.Check Soviet production indexes in 41 and ’44.Compare them to Germany’s
5. Make USA and American Jews re-build Germany with US taxpayers’ money, aka Marshall Plan.
His general’s silently disobeyed Hitler’s orders to destroy Germany with scorched earth tactics.
Americans almost decided to execute Morgenthau plan… before Soviet-liberated countries turned to socialism…
Face it: Nazis won, humanity lost. That’s why russophobes love the Nazis so much and take offense at the idea that the Nazis lost in WW2.
Dino,
The gulags were filled with many innocents as Stalin wanted them to be profitable.
I don’t know why I bothered to post just now as you are clearly a 14 year old having a little testosterone surge/identity crisis.
My advice: be a good boy, go to school, finish university, don’t run up stairs and be good to your mother.
18 YO.
Spending my days studying Soviet Union.
I don’t support (Stalin’s) GULAGS,nor do i support Stalin.Only i don’t understand how GULAGS could have been profitable.
IT was a planned economy.This free workforce was a welcome addition to labor-pool but Stalin could have(and did) gather millions for huge construction works(often without pays,just food)
GULAG prisoners were just easier to control
18 years old, but obviously with the intellectual development of a 5 year old.
The Gulags did not start with Stalin, they started with Lenin.
Stalin inherited a terror apparatus that was constructed by Lenin.
Tell me moron, have you ever heard of Lenin’s policy of “Red Terror”?
The legal base and the guidance for the creation of the system of “corrective labor camps” (Russian: исправительно-трудовые лагеря, Ispravitel’no-trudovye lagerya), the backbone of what is commonly referred to as the “Gulag”, was a secret decree of Sovnarkom of July 11, 1929, about the use of penal labor that duplicated the corresponding appendix to the minutes of Politburo meeting of June 27, 1929.
Lenin’s red terror was directed against reactionary forces,it was a chaotic time of reactionary banditism and crime.
It was necessary,unlike Stalin’s GULAG syste
No child, the decree simply renamed the system of “re-ecucation” camps and forced labour camps founded by Lenin and Dzherzinsky.Early Soviet period
On the eve of the 1917 revolution, 28,600 convicts were serving sentences of hard labor. After the Russian Revolution of 1917 the Russian penal system was taken over by the Bolsheviks. From 1918, camp-type detention facilities were set up, as a reformed analogy of the earlier system of penal labor (katorgas), operated in Siberia in Imperial Russia. The two main types were “Vechecka Special-purpose Camps” (особые лагеря ВЧК, osobiye lagerya VChK) and forced labor camps (лагеря принудительных работ, lagerya prinuditel’nikh rabot). They were installed for various categories of people deemed dangerous for the state: for common criminals, for prisoners of the Russian Civil War, for officials accused of corruption, sabotage and embezzlement, various political enemies and dissidents, as well as former aristocrats, businessmen and large land owners
Lenin’s “Red Terror” was completely unnecessary, as was the French revolutions terror, in fact Lenin planned the “Red Terror” long before the Russian revolution, as evidenced by quotes from 1908 and earlier.
It’s objective was the annihilation of people based on their class. Not on their political views, but on their class.
I find it amazing that anyone in the modern day can support a system like communism, or its evil spawn the USSR, but it just goes to show a fool is born every minute.
Get a real education you foolish little brat.
Don’t bother to argue, Andrew. This “Dino” or whoever he is is merely a schoolboy. I am not responding to him because it’s below my dignity to argue such obvious things with children
Calling me brat is just your weak attempt to disqualify what i’m saying.
A tactic always used by bourgeois against against progressive critique.
GULAG(GLavnoe Upravleni Lagaryam) was founded in 1929.Before that there were no GULAGS.That’s a fact but you burgeoise misnaming has slandered communism(calling Khmer Rouge communists for example) for 100 years,and it doesn’t seem to stop.It’s your Newspeek.
You have said before:
“They were installed for various categories of people deemed dangerous for the state: for common criminals, for prisoners of the Russian Civil War, for officials accused of corruption, sabotage and embezzlement, various political enemies and dissidents, as well as former aristocrats, businessmen and large land owners”
and i don’t see a thing that’s wrong with it.
Other countries had prisons for such people,and camps were founded to rehabilitate this people by “work-therapy”.Unlike USA,where people are rotting in jails..
“It’s objective was the annihilation of people based on their class. Not on their political views, but on their class. ”
That’s the whole concept of class struggle.Class determines “political views”,not the other way around.
Lenin’s Terror was an absolute necessity,since the burgeoise will ALWAYS would try to regain power.
It’s a clash of 2 classes.McCarthy’s methods weren’t much different.
I do not support PHYSICAL extermination of a class,neither did Lenin.Even Stalin deported the majority of kulaks.
And for you RV,you can remain in capitalist lie you’ve been taught for as long as you want.
If you believe Communism is “obviously” an evil,you should get the basic facts right,and at least learn the definition of Communism(it’s not what USA propaganda falsely claims it is,you know,like calling Soviet Union a “communist country” when it never,even formally,was communist but socialist.
How do you explain the murder of Tsar Nicholas II, his wife and all of their children – four daughters and one son, – as well as the doctor and servants who lived with them, in the early morning hours of July 17, 1918.
An execution warrant that was only signed by two people, one of whom was that mass murderer (your beloved) Lenin.
Now come on you lying moron jerk, explain this atrocity in your weird disinformation manner that you so excel in.
Tsar needed to be killed,any normal person can understand that.
With Nicolas living,the Whites had a “rally point”,a justification for their fight,etc…Russian empire was still living,as it’s tzar was being held in captivity in Bolsheviks,and he still had,at least formal,sovereignty over Russia..He was the main “icon” for the white movement.
And,the Whites were approaching Tobolsk and there was a danger of whites setting the tzar free…
Well,in my opinion he shouldn’t have been killed(but be put to useful work like Pu Yi),Lenin didn’t have him killed after the Great October,he was held in captivity,but as the whites were approaching Tobolsk,there was no other option.
I surely don’t justify murder of his innocent children(although Nicholas was a criminal and a violent person,he deserved what got) ,but there was no other option i guess…
I don’t consider Lenin a saint,he made mistakes(this being one of them)
You know Dino, there was a time when I was thinking along the same lines as you are now.
That communism is a great idea, established by philosophers Marx, Engels and that its Bolshevik manifestation, lead by the great visionary Lenin, was heading towards the full materialization of that idea, but it was set on the wrong course by “false” communists Stalin and his ilk.
The truth is that the very idea of communism is flawed and incompatible with human ways of thinking and living. It cannot provide a satisfying answer to the troubles of the world.
And Lenin, as much as he is venerated as a sort of prophet that was misunderstood by his followers, was just as ruthless as Stalin. In fact, he was even worse. Because Lenin was a true believer in communism, he really wanted to bring the “dictatorship of the proletariat” to life, which in practice meant complete destruction of entire groups of Russian society, and even the society itself. It was Stalin’s deviations from true communism that saved the Soviet Union from falling apart. Lenin’s only highlight was NEP, which is simply introducing elements of capitalism into a communist economy. The exact thing China is doing now.
The only good ways for Russia are the ways of the West.
P.S. I’m Croatian too.
And now my two cents on the topic at hand. As far as I know, the entire former Soviet Union plus Finland uses the wide gauge. China and the rest of Europe use the standard gauge. How will these two systems connect? Or if the Chinese do not want to bother with the former Soviet Union, how will they build a rail to London? The only possible route would go through Pakistan, Iran and Turkey, which would be very costly, because the route is longer, the mountainous terrain demands many tunnels and bridges, which are much more expensive than the rail itself, and these countries are becoming increasingly unstable.
To me, these railroads have more political than economic sense. For how can railroads compete with ships in transporting large amounts of goods? Sea traffic is much cheaper.
But the seas are also dominated by the U.S. Navy, which has the capacity to cut of China from the rest of the world and starve it to death. The red capitalists in Beijing are aware of this.
So they will build a railroad to their friends in Europe and elsewhere so that in times of peril, when those annoying freedom-loving Americans decide that the days of Chinese dictatorship are numbered and block the seas, at least some trade can continue, and maybe bring the EU to the Chinese side.
Knowing the EU, I’m afraid many European nations would forget any ideals and gladly help China out to help their economies.
This must be realized, that by the time the RR project is completed, there will be very little left of Rasha as we know it today.
Bullet trains traveling at 2oo mph, do not make a lot of stops. Sightseeing savoks in their yurts around Moscow will not be a stop. The slow train on the Trans Siberian RR will bring the raw materials East. The pipelines from Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan don’t need Maskal directives.
Vladivostok and the East have been lost, since Rasha is simply ignored. Moscals cannot attack China since the only supply line is the slow Trans Siberian RR. There is no other highway to the East. The moscals cannot even launch missiles since their ICBM’s are all long ranged and the Chinese have the intermediate ones that would quickly wipe out the large useless population centers in Maskva.
How little will be left of Russia? Even the Chinese could grab only the easternmost bits of Russia. The Chinese people, I mean, not the Chinese state (at least not formally). Rather small and spread out cities like Vladivostok, Khabarovsk and Magadan would be an easy prey for the Chinese, and the Russians would be assimilated in time. But I can’t see this happening with large and developed (by Chinese standards) cities like Novosibirsk and Omsk. In these cities the Chinese would be Russified (assuming the racism issue fades).
So, the most densely inhabited and most developed parts of Russia would still remain, well, parts of Russia. Which means the wide gauge rails will still remain in use.
So how will the London-Beijing railway be realised? Will it have to bypass Russia, or will Russians allow building of a standard gauge rail through their territory?
And St. Petersburg and Moscow now really do seem to be too far north to be properly connected to other global cities. Maybe in the future we will see large-scale development of Volgograd, Novosibirsk and Astana?
Even as we write these words there are already
twenty five million Chinese living and working in Siberia . China has diverted the Amur river
to exploit it’s waters , the Chinese government
deals with russia as with a poor relation , and
the poor deluded moskovites think that they
will rule the world as Chinas’s partners .
They still think they have a future ! All they
do is stick their head in the sand . How long
do those ostriches think they can hang on to
Siberia and the far East when the Chinese decide
to take them ? Archi Gulag , you better start
brushing up on your mandarin .
Pretty soon no one will be speaking moskvene .
Compare the number(and military capabilities) of Russian tanks and planes with Chinese.
Chinese are 10-15 years behind Russia in military technology.
Did you forget Russian nuclear missiles? Jerk.
China can’t destroy whole Russia with their missiles,but Russia can nuke the hell out of China(hit Beijing area and it’s already 20 mil. deaths)
The Chinese didn’t invade even in 60’s and they for sure aren’t going to do that now.
They’ve got plenty of their own resources,and their population growth is minimal.
That’s why China is not going to invade Russia.
It doesn’t have a reason.
I will continued with it’s colonization of Sinkiang and Tibet,though…
Taiwan in near future
“Did you forget Russian nuclear missiles? Jerk.
China can’t destroy whole Russia with their missiles,but Russia can nuke the hell out of China(hit Beijing area and it’s already 20 mil. deaths)”
Hey moron, did you forget that the Chinese have nuclear missiles too? If the Chinese nuke Moscow and St. Petersburg, then they can potentially wipe out around 15-20% of Russia’s population, and if the Chinese lose 20 million, well, being a country of 1.3 billion, they can absorb the losses much better than your sick man of Eurasia, population 142 million. For Russia to lose that many people so quickly, taking into account all other factors such as preexisting demographics and life expectancy, it will essentially be finished.
Compare the number and technological capabilities of Chinese and Russian missiles…
Russia can turn WHOLE China into a wasteland,while China can’t.Not to mention most of it’s people and industry are on the coast.
There’s no Mutual assured destruction,and the Chinese aren’t retarded to attack Russia
“twenty five million Chinese living and working in Siberia” Full nonsense. The whole Russia has 500,000 Chinese, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese. This is much less than US, for example. You better worry about islamization of Crimea, that is your problem now. Learn tatarian, dude, would be more relevant at Okraina than your funny khokhol surgik soon.
Mr./Mrs. Hail Columbia,
the problem is, there would be no “tooth for tooth”. China’s nuclear arsenal is much smaller than Russia’s. And the Russian response would be overwhelming, precisely because they are aware of the sheer size of the Chinese manpower.
Russians would deny the Chinese the ability to use their numerical superiority.
But I agree with Dino that China will not invade Russia. In fact, besides anexing Taiwan (and some bickering with India), the PRC is not interested in territorial expansion. The Far East will remain part of Russia, although it could be dominated by Chinese bussiness.
Just think of the following example. There are 30 million Chinese in Taiwan, Malaysia and Indonesia, and they are the wealthiest and most influental part of the population of these countries. But the PRC never expressed any desire in anexing these countries, nor did the local Chinese express a desire to join China (although they maintain a strong relationship with the mainland, over the sea).
So, a Chinese-dominated Siberia does not mean that they will follow orders from Beijing. More likely, they will follow orders from Novosibirsk or Moscow.
And Oleksander, the statement that there are 25 million Chinese living or working in Siberia has no basis in reality. Where did you find such a figure?
Also, if the borders change in the East, Russia will look West. And there on its western border it will find two impoverished and significantly Russified countries, Belarus and Ukraine. If Russia decides to take eastern Ukraine, will Kyiv have the power to stop them?
Or will it completely depend on the mercy of Poland and the United States?
Hi.
I see you are one of the most intelligent people here hroboatos.
“There are 30 million Chinese in Taiwan”
You meant Thailand,right?
But i don’t see why would Russia want to take eastern Ukraine…Russians would never want to join Russia(majority of them doesn’t if i’m correct:they’re not some Krajina-Serb style “renegades”) if Kiev wasn’t dragging to the West(which is rather unnatural i must say). The real solution is a new closing-up of these 2 great states:
Ukraine will prosper in a “confederation” with Russia:cheap oil and gas for their steel mills,factories,while Russia would get shipyards and sea bases.
No need for any annexations,some kid of EU -modeled after union,or even weaker.
These countries and their economies have been so intertwined in the past that it’s a problem even today for both countries being hostile towards each other.
I have read These Marx’s writings against Slavs,and understood them.
It’s about Hungarian revolution of 1848
But it’s too complicated for your chicken brain,that won’t even start explaining….
It’s not black and white:evil vs good fight,so you never even learned it at school…(i guess you are American)?
But remember what Engels said:
Revolution will come from the East-Russia and other Slavic nations
Friedrich Engels: Racist and German nationalist
By John J. Ray (M.A.;Ph.D.)
The reason why the Soviet version of Communism was always known as “Marxism-Leninism” is of course that Lenin “developed” Marxist doctrine in various ways. One of those developments, however, is almost never mentioned — though it can hardly be unknown to any serious student of Marx and Engels: Although Marx and Engels were great advocates for the working class, they were also antisemitic German nationalists who took a very dim view of Russians. Lenin concentrated on the first part of Marxism and, understandably, largely ignored the latter. There was however considerable devotion to the original Marxian writings among the Bolsheviks so when Lenin said: “it is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people” but “the capitalists of all countries”, it was to a degree Marx himself whom he was critcizing.
It is customary to treat Marx and Engels as a unit, failing to take any note of the individuals concerned. As they were such close collaborators, that is not unreasonable but there were nonetheless differences of emphasis between them. Marx was the most antisemitic and it was Engels who was the fervent German nationalist. I reproduce initially below the most famous antisemitic utterance by Marx (more in the archives here) by way of context but, after that, I simply reproduce a host of statements by Engels. I think they speak for themselves.
“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 Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time…. We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, 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 dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry”.
ENGELS BELIEVED GERMANS TO BE A SUPERIOR RACE
Karl Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Political economy” (Review by Frederick Engels), Das Volk, 30 No. 14, August 6, 1859: “The Germans have long since shown that in all spheres of science they are equal, and in most of them superior, to other civilised nations. Only one branch of science, political economy, had no German name among its foremost scholars.”
Context here
The German
Engels: Karl Marx’ “Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie”, 1859
“Auf allen wissenschaftlichen Gebieten haben die Deutschen laengst ihre Ebenbuertigkeit, auf den meisten ihre Ueberlegenheit gegenueber den uebrigen zivilisierten Nationen bewiesen. (…)”
MEW a.a.O. 13, 476.
ENGELS SUPPORTED GERMAN TERRITORIAL CLAIMS AND BELIEVED IN “GERMANIZATION” OF OTHERS
“True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt’s: “Give back Alsace and Lorraine”. For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?”
Written by Engels in 1841
The German
“…Allerdings ist es eine fixe Idee bei den Franzosen, dass der Rhein ihr Eigentum sei, aber die einzige des deutschen Volkes wuerdige Antwort auf diese anmassende Forderung ist das Arndtsche ‘Heraus mit dem Elsass und Lothringen!’ Denn ich bin – vielleicht im Gegensatz zu vielen, deren Standpunkt ich sonst teile – allerdings der Ansicht, dass die Wiedereroberung der deutschsprechenden linken Rheinseite eine nationale Ehrensache, die Germanisierung des abtruennig gewordenen Hollands und Belgiens eine politische Notwendigkeit fuer uns ist. Sollen wir in jenen Laendern die deutsche Nationalitaet vollends unterdruecken lassen, waehrend im Osten sich das Slawentum immer maechtiger erhebt?”
Engels liked the idea of a “Thousand year Reich” too
This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom.
Source.
ENGELS SAID GERMANS SHOULD USE TERROR AGAINST THE SLAVS
And dismissed justice and morality from consideration in the matter. And he didn’t think much of brotherhood either
(…)Justice and other moral considerations may be damaged here and there; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance? (…)
Following that, Bohemia and Moravia passed definitely to Germany and the Slovak regions remained with Hungary. And this historically absolutely non-existent “nation” puts forward claims to independence? (…)
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 power and implacable ruthlessness, (…)
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. (…)
Then there will be a struggle, an “unrelenting life-and-death struggle” against those Slavs who betray the revolution; an annihilating fight and most determined terrorism — not in the interests of Germany, but in the interests of the revolution!
Context here
The German
Engels, NRZ 15. Feb. 1849
,… die ‘Gerechtigkeit’ und andere moralische Grundsaetze moegen hier und da verletzt sein; aber was gilt das gegen solche weltgeschichtlichen Tatsachen? (….)
Dann kommt Boehmen und Maehren definitiv zu Deutschland, und die slowakischen Gegenden bleiben bei Ungarn. Und diese geschichtlich gar nicht existiende ‘Nation’ macht Ansprueche auf Unabhaengigkeit? (…)
Freilich, dergleichen lae t sich nicht durchsetzen ohne manch sanftes Nationenbluemlein gewaltsam zu zerknicken. Aber ohne Gewalt und ohne eherne Ruecksichtslosigkeit wird nichts durchgesetzt in der Geschichte, (…)
Auf die sentimentalen Bruederschaftsphrasen, die uns hier im Namen der kontrevolutionaersten Nationen Europas dargeboten werden, antworten wir, da der Russenha die erste revolutionaere Leidenschaft bei den Deutschen war und noch ist; da seit der Revolution der Tschechen- und Kroatenha hinzugekommen ist und da wir, in Gemeinschaft mit Polen und Magyaren, nur durch den entschiedensten Terrorismus gegen diese slawischen Voelker die Revolution sicherstellen koennen (….)
Dann Kampf, ‘unerbittlicher Kampf auf Leben und Tod’ mit dem revolutionsverraeterischen Slawentum; Vernichtungskampf und ruecksichtslosen Terrorismus – nicht im Interesse Deutschlands, sondern im Interesse der Revolution!”
MEW a.a.O. 6, 286.
ENGELS DIDN’T THINK ALL RACES WERE EQUAL
He thought the Yugoslavs in particular deserved to be wiped out …. Hmmmm
“Among all the nations and sub-nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and are still capable of life — the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. (…)
This remnant of a nation that was, as Hegel says, suppressed and held in bondage in the course of history, this human trash, becomes every time — and remains so until their complete obliteration or loss of national identity — the fanatical carriers of counter-revolution, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution. (…)
Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the human trash of peoples, resulting from an extremely confused thousand years of development. (…)
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 progress.
A source in English
The German
Friedrich Engels, NRZ 13. Jan. 1849
,Unter all den Nationen und Natioenchen OEsterreichs sind nur drei, die die Traeger des Fortschritts waren, die aktiv in die Geschichte eingegriffen haben, die jetzt noch lebensfaehig sind – die Deutschen, die Polen, die Magyaren. Daher sind sie jetzt revolutionaer. Alle anderen gro en und kleinen Staemme und Voelker haben zunaechst die Mission, im revolutionaeren Weltsturm unterzugehen. (…)
Diese Reste einer von dem Gang der Geschichte, wie Hegel sagt, unbarmherzig zertretenen Nationen, diese Voelkerabfaelle werden jedesmal und bleiben bis zu ihrer gaenzlichen Vertilgung oder Entnationalisierung die fanatischen Traeger der Kontrerevolution, wie ihre ganze Existenz ueberhaupt schon ein Protest gegen eine gro e geschichtliche Revolution ist (…)
So in OEsterreich die panslawistischen Suedslawen, die weiter nichts sind als der Voelkerabfall einer hoechst verworrenen tausendjaehrigen Entwicklung. (…)
Der naechste Weltkrieg wird nicht nur reaktionaere Klassen und Dynastien, er wird auch ganze reaktionaere Voelker vom Erdboden verschwinden machen. Und das ist auch ein Fortschritt.”
MEW a.a.O. 6, 176.
ENGELS SAID GERMANY HAD A “RIGHT” TO CONQUER OTHER LANDS
Because Germany was more “civilized”!
“By the same right under which France took Flanders, Lorraine and Alsace, and will sooner or later take Belgium — by that same right Germany takes over Schleswig; it is the right of civilization as against barbarism, of progress as against stability. Even if the agreements were in Denmark’s favor — which is very doubtful-this right carries more weight than all the agreements, for it is the right of historical evolution”
Source
The German:
Friedrich Engels, NRZ 10. Sep. 1848 (NRZ = Neue Rheinische Zeitung)
,Mit demselben Recht, mit dem die Franzosen Flandern, Lothringen und Elsa genommen haben und Belgien frueher oder spaeter nehmen werden, mit demselben Recht nimmt Deutschland Schleswig: mit dem Recht der Zivilisation gegen die Barbarei, des Fortschritts gegen die Stabilitaet.”
MEW a.a.O. 5, 395.
I note that the Marxists I link to above have translated the “Stabilitaet” that Engels referred to as “static stability” rather than just “stability”. I wonder why? Let me guess: Stability is good once the Marxists are in charge. That is “progressive” stability, not “static stability”. So the enforced inertia and uniformity of the old USSR was “progressive stability”. Too bad they made such little progress that they eventually collapsed! But how sad it is that the Marxists have to mistranslate their own founding fathers to justify themselves! I can’t say I am surprised, though.
ENGELS THOUGHT ARYANS WERE SUPERIOR
“The plentiful meat and milk diet among the Aryans and the Semites, and particularly the beneficial effects of these foods on the development of children, may, perhaps, explain the superior development of these two races.”
No Marxist has dared to put this online yet so I cannot provide a link for context. The quotation is from Engels, “Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, Fourth revised edition, 1891, in Marx & Engels, Selected Works In One Volume, Lawrence & Wishart: London, 1980, p 464.
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….”
Context here
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”
It is not clear whether it was Marx or Engels that wrote this. Context here
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.”
This letter (in German translation) is in Marx & Engels Werke vol. 36, 1967, p. 645. It is not online but is mentioned here
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.”
(Not fully online. Source: Quoted by Diane Paul, “‘In the Interests of Civilization’: Marxist Views of Race and Culture in the Nineteenth Century”, Journal of the History of Ideas, Jan-March 1981, p 123. [Werke, Vol. 31, p 256.])
Note that Engels uses both the neutral term “negroes” and the derogatory “nigger”. So he clearly knew what the different implications of the two terms were. “Nigger” was not as verboten in the 19th century as it is now but it was still derogatory — and it is presumably because of that aspect of the word that both Marx and Engels used what is after all an English word in their German writings.
To understand what Engels was talking about, one needs to realize that both Marx and Engels were Lamarckians — they believed that acquired characteristics could be inherited. That fact is no doubt part of the reason why Stalin so heavily sponsored the ideas of the Lamarckian Trofim Lysenko right into the 20th century — long after Lamarckian theories had been generally discredited in the West. And the particular strand of Lamarckian thinking that appealed most strongly to both Marx and Engels was that the type of soil and landscape in which a nation grew up could influence their national character. Just what the relationship between geology and national characteristics was, however, they did not fully agree. The following commentary on the matter may also be helpful:
To cite one final anecdote, the scholarly literature frequently cites Marx’s great enthusiasm (until the more scientifically savvy Engels set him straight) for a curious book, published in 1865 by the now (and deservedly) unknown French explorer and ethnologist Pierre Tremaux, Origine et transformations de l’homme et des autres etres (Origin and transformation of man and other beings). Marx professed ardent admiration for this work, proclaiming it “einen Fortschritt uber Darwin” (an advance over Darwin). The more sober Engels bought the book at Marx’s urging, but then dampened his friend’s ardor by writing: “I have arrived at the conclusion that there is nothing to his theory if for no other reason than because he neither understands geology nor is capable of the most ordinary literary historical criticism.”
I had long been curious about Tremaux and sought a copy of his book for many years. I finally purchased one a few years ago–and I must say that I have never read a more absurd or more poorly documented thesis. Basically, Tremaux argues that the nature of the soil determines national characteristics and that higher civilizations tend to arise on more complex soils formed in later geological periods. If Marx really believed that such unsupported nonsense could exceed the Origin of Species in importance, then he could not have properly understood or appreciated the power of Darwin’s facts and ideas.
More here
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.”
(Not online but found in Frederick Engels, Paul and Laura Lafargue, Correspondence, Vol iii, Moscow. p 184.)
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”
Context here
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”
Context here
ENGELS WAS PRO-AMERICAN
Marx, Engels and Hitler were all favourably disposed towards their “racial brethren” in Britain and the USA. It was Slavs whom they really despised. So it is a considerable irony that a Slavic nation was the first to take up Marxism in a big way and that it was primarily the same Slavic nation that defeated Hitler
Engels in Deutsche-Bruesseler-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”
Context here
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”
Context here
BOTH MARX AND ENGELS THOUGHT THAT THE CHINESE SUFFERED FROM HEREDITARY STUPIDITY
I guess Chairman Mao did not read these bits!
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”.
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 . . .
Context for the quote from Marx is here
The latter part of the quote from Engels is online here but the rest is not freely online. See Marx & Engels On Colonialism, 6th printing, Moscow, 1976, pp. 120 & 124.
OUR HATE-FILLED ENGELS DESPISED THE IRISH TOO
(At least Engels had TWO master races in his thinking: Germans and Hungarians (“Magyars”))
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”
Context here
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”.
Context here
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 . . . “.
(Not online. From Marx-Engels, Briefe an A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht, K. Kautsky und Andere, Moscow, 1933, pp 411, 412; translation by Bertram D. Wolfe, Marxism, 1967, p 68.)
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”.
Context here
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.”
(No Marxist seems to have put this online. I can’t imagine why!)
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”.
Context here
German reference: “Brief an W. Borgius” 25.1.1894. MEW, Bd. 39, S. 205. Not apparently online.
ENGELS: NATIVE BLACKS DUMBER THAN AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD
Engels. “Notes to Anti-Duehring”: “On the other hand, modern natural science has extended the principle of the origin of all thought content from experience in a way that breaks down its old metaphysical limitation and formulation. By recognising the inheritance of acquired characters, it extends the subject of experience from the individual to the genus; the single individual that must have experienced is no longer necessary, its individual experience can be replaced to a certain extent by the results of the experiences of a number of its ancestors. If, for instance, among us the mathematical axioms seem self-evident to every eight-year-old child, and in no need of proof from experience, this is solely the result of “accumulated inheritance.” It would be difficult to teach them by a proof to a bushman or Australian negro”.
Context here
ENGELS SAW RUSSIANS AS DUMB
Engels, The Armies of Europe: “But up to the present time, the Russians of all classes are too fundamentally barbarous to find any enjoyment in scientific or intellectual pursuits of any kind (except intrigues), and, therefore, almost all their distinguished men in the military service are either foreigners, or, what nearly amounts to the same, “ostze
Context here
Some of the German
Engels, ,Die Armeen Europas”, Putnam’s Monthly, No. XXXIII, September 1855
“Aber bis zum heutigen Tage sind die Russen aller Klassen viel zu barbarisch, um an wissenschaftlicher oder geistiger Taetigkeit irgendwelcher Art (ausser Intrigen) Gefallen zu finden (…)”
MEW a.a.O. 11, 452.
ENGELS PARANOID ABOUT THE SLAVS
Engels, “Germany and Pan-Slavism”, 1855: “The Slavic race, long divided by inner struggles, pushed back to the east by the Germans, subjugated in part by Germans, Turks and Hungarians, silently re-uniting its branches after 1815 by the gradual growth of Pan-Slavism, it now makes sure of its unity for the first time, and with that declares war to-the-death on the Roman-Celtic and German races, who have ruled Europe until now.”
Listed, but with no translation here
The German
Engels, “Deutschland und der Panslawismus”, 1855
“Die slawische Race, lang geteilt durch innere Zwiste, nach dem Osten zurueckgetrieben durch die Deutschen, unterjocht, zum Teil von Deutschen, Tuerken und Ungarn, still ihre Zweige wiedervereinend, nach 1815, durch das allmaehliche Wachstum des Panslawismus, sie versichert nun zum ersten Mal ihre Einheit und erklaert damit Krieg auf den Tod den roemisch-keltischen und deutschen Racen, die bisher in Europa geherrscht haben.”
MEW a.a.O. 11, 198,f.
ENGELS DID NOT LIKE NON-GERMANS MUCH
Engels: “This miserable debris of former nations, Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks and other thieving rabble, whom the liberal Philistine raves about in the interest of the Russians, deny each other the very air they are breathing, and have to slit each others’ greedy throats.”
The German
Engels: “Diese elenden Truemmerstuecke ehemaliger Nationen, Serben, Bulgaren, Griechen und andres Raeubergesindel, fuer die der liberale Philister im Interessen der Russen schwaermt, goennen also einander die Luft nicht, die sie einatmen, und muessen sich untereinander die gierigen Haelse abschneiden.”
MEW a.a.O. 36, 390.
Source (German only)
MORE ANTISEMITIC ABUSE OF LASALLE
Engels to Marx: “The Lasalle manoeuvres have amused me greatly, the frizzy Jew-head now has to very charmingly distinguish himself in the red nightshirt and Marquis garb — from which at every movement the Polish kike looks out. Seeing it must give the impression of louse-like repulsiveness.”
(No other English translation available online)
The German
Engels an Marx, 14.April 1856
“Die Lassalliaden haben mich sehr erheitert, der krause Juddekopp mu sich ueber dem roten Schlafrock und in der Marquisen-Draperie, wo bei jeder Bewegung der polnische Schmuhl durchguckt, sehr reizend ausnehmen. Gesehen, mu der Kerl einen hoechst lausig-widerwaertigen Eindruck machen.”
MEW a.a.O. 29, 43.
Source
POLISH JEWS PARTICULARLY DESPISED
Engels: “We discovered that in connection with these figures the German national simpletons and money-grubbers of the Frankfurt parliamentary swamp always counted as Germans the Polish Jews as well, although this dirtiest of all races, neither by its jargon nor by its descent, but at most only through its lust for profit, could have any relation of kinship with Frankfurt”.
Context here
The German
Engels, NRZ 29. Apr. 1849
,… da die deutschen Nationalgimpel und Geldmacher des Frankfurter Sumpfparlaments bei diesen Zaehlungen immer noch die polnischen Juden zu Deutschen gerechnet, obwohl diese schmutzigste aller Rassen weder in ihrem Jargon, noch ihrer Abstammung nach, sondern hoechstens durch ihre Profitwuetigkeit mit Frankfurt im Verwandtschaftsverhaeltnis stehen kann (…)”
MEW a.a.O. 6, 448 f.
FINAL COMMENT
Although I am no fan of Engels, I might say that to me Engels seems a much more human and likable figure than Marx. Engels had enthusiasms. Marx had only hatreds — he hated even the workers whose cause he claimed to espouse. Even the kindly Heinrich Marx — Karl’s father — thought Karl was not much of a human being. The letter from Heinrich to Karl below was written when Karl was still only 19. Heinrich seems to have been a decent and generous guy. It must have pained him greatly to see how his son turned out.
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
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/engels.html
I maybe would have engaged in discussion with you if you haven’t previously shown your understanding of matter:calling nazis socialists,claiming 25 million Chinese in Russia etc…
It’s too complex a matter to valorize it from paradigms of western “brain-wash” education and myths about Evil…
It’ was 19th century….
Americans lynched blacks in 1960’s man! 1960’s!
And it was ” land of the free”,democratic state etc…
Andrew just totally buried and discredited Engels. Whatever low opinion I had of Friedrich, became even lower now.
Yes, and Russians murdered thousands of Georgians, Chechens, Moldovians etc in the 1990’s.
By the way, the Nazi’s were socialists, the term Nazi is a shortening of the term “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” or “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei”
Hitler based many of his social and economic programs on Marx and Engels.
Including Marx and Engels hatred of “inferior” and “reactionary” peoples.
Like I said, your education is somewhat lacking.
A man who says coldblooded that there are 25 million of Chinese in Siberia while the whole region has around 30 million people call my education lacking
Your stupid claims about NAZIS is disgustingly retarded.
It was socialist only in name,but if you knew the definition of socialism,you wouldn’t be spamming such crap here.
“National socialism” is completely antagonist to Socialism
Please source this and elaborate:
“Hitler based many of his social and economic programs on Marx and Engels.”
That’s your common American mistake:for example there are people who are calling Obama a socialist(lol) just because he’s introduced the new health reform(something Soviets had since 1920’s-that’s free health for all)
This is a policy of many socialist (ex) states,but it doesn’t make him a socialist.
I hope you understand my analogy
Andrew, calling the Nazis socialist is a bit far-fetched. Indeed they called themselves “National Socialists” but in practice their economic and social policies were hardly socialist. The name “National Socialist” comes from the early, pre-Hitler days of the party, when there was indeed a socialist-leaning tendency, but the socialist leanings in the Nazi Party evaporated gradually.
As for Engels, to be completely fair to him, many Europeans at that time shared his views. He was probably not very different in his racial views from the average middle/upper class Brit or German.
A glimpse of hope here.
Besides “A.” and my national “hroboatos’s” ones there haven’t been many intelligent posts…
Don’t set up your hopes too high Dino, my views on the Soviet Union aren’t too different from my views on Nazi Germany. If you really really have to be a Communist, why don’t you pick a more tolerable version, closer to you geographically – Titoism?
Titoism wasn’t even close to titoism
And well,naming ideologies after people is kinda stupid.
He was just an opportunist,not a visionary.
I have to set my hopes “high” because it’s a rarity to see any rational or factual comment here…