Aha!
Found it:

http://reasonradionetwork.com/20110824/more-on-the-white-rioters-in-england

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/ will lead one to Marx’s “The Jewish Question.” I cannot see it as anything but a screed written by a hate-filled bigot. When it comes to Jews Marx says nothing that wouldn’t be acceptable to a Nazi. Squeers called me extremely prejudiced. Poirot castigates me because I called Marx a hate-filled bigot. I can’t see anybody but a hate-filled bigot writing the bilge in “The Jewish Question.” I will call neither of Squeers nor Poirot names nor comment on their character flaws, but I feel no obligation to keep quiet about Marxist atrocities or the theorist who inspired those atrocities. Is bigotry acceptable when Karl Marx is the bigot? I would appreciate it if other people would read the piece, especially the ending, and give their opinion.

It is crazy to be called extremely prejudiced because I pointed out that Karl Marx was a bigot. I call it as I see it. There are no excuses for the stench of bigotry.

The article Squeers suggested I read denied any responsibility of Marx for the corpses. However, the author didn’t explain why the followers of Marx were so prone to mass murder. Was it just coincidence? It seems to me a logical consequence of his recommendations.

As far as Marx’s bigoted writing the author doesn’t address that at all. Most Marxists don’t. Why should they? It doesn’t throw a very good light on the bigot. No excuse that will stand up can be made. Squeers wrote that Marx merely expressed a prejudice common at the time. To accept the prejudices of one’s time defines one as a bigot. Marx was a tremendously influential and brilliant bigot. I think humanity is much worse off because he lived.

I hope his writings will inspire no more murder machines.

Dear Jay, I am sceptical regarding the article you referred to concerning the riots in England. It may suit the establishment to blame protests and/or riots on criminals or agitators rather than social conditions. Marx protested against real oppression, but the tyrannies inspired by him merely produced more and worse oppression

From “In Praise of Marx” which Squeers recommended. The following is an example of how an ideologue ignores reality.

"Yet Marx was not foolish enough to imagine that socialism could be built in such countries without more-advanced nations flying to their aid. And that meant that the common people of those advanced nations had to wrest the means of production from their rulers and place them at the service of the wretched of the earth. If this had happened in 19th-century Ireland, there would have been no famine to send a million men and women to their graves and another two or three million to the far corners of the earth."

The famine was not caused by the means of production being in the hands of the rulers. The famine was caused by blight hitting the potato monoculture which the Irish basic diet depended on. England could have relieved the Irish suffering by sending food and supplying the Irish with seed to grow other foodstuffs, but England didn’t.

The author also wrote referring to Marx as “This down-at-heel émigré Jew.” Marx was a Jew only by ancestry, Hitler’s criterion for Jewishness. His father, Heinrich, converted to Christianity and also converted Karl Marx as a child. Karl Marx had almost no knowledge of his Jewish heritage and readily accepted Jew-hating bigotry. “The Jewish Question” was only one expression of that bigotry.

Eagleton wrote:

"Marxists were warning of the perils of fascism while the politicians of the so-called free world were still wondering aloud whether Hitler was quite such a nasty guy as he was painted."

Here Eagleton ignores history. It was Stalin who signed a pact with Nazis ushering WW2 in with the joint Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland. It was Britain and France which declared war on Nazi Germany while Soviet Russia was their ally in aggression.

There is no need to go on. The author of “In Praise of Marx” lies and lies and lies to excuse the old bigot and his followers.

davidf,
you are of course at liberty to gloss over or read whatever you like into "On the Jewish Question", or any other text. You would be hard pressed to show me any text that is not imbued with the unconscious prejudices of its day. Marx's text uses the Jew stereotype as a trope and it is not bigoted if read sympathetically. Indeed there is nothing in it based on such a superficial reading. If it offends at all it is against political correctness, which was not then invented.

Eagleton is quite right to say that Marxists (the Frankfurt School for instance) were warning the West about Hitler while a great many anglo-Nazi sympathisers agonised and Chamberlain prevaricated, preferring to mollify and curry favour with Hitler than seek an alliance with the Soviets and the ideology he, as a conservative, despised. In the meantime the rapprochement between Hitler and Stalin was effected instead.

However, in his article Eagleton is at pains to urge that
"Almost all followers of Marx today reject the villainies of Stalin and Mao, while many non-Marxists would still vigorously defend the destruction of Dresden or Hiroshima. Modern capitalist nations are for the most part the fruit of a history of genocide, violence, and extermination every bit as abhorrent as the crimes of Communism. Capitalism, too, was forged in blood and tears, and Marx was around to witness it. It is just that the system has been in business long enough for most of us to be oblivious of that fact".

You say, "The author of “In Praise of Marx” lies and lies and lies to excuse the old bigot and his followers"

I can only say rubbish! and counter that your condemnations look like conscious lies in their omission of vital context and salient facts.

I can only urge others to look at the evidence.

David f,.

Correction - I wasn't castigating you for calling Marx a hate-filled bigot. I couldn't give a toss about your particular penchant for name-calling (loonies, scum, hate-filled bigot, etc, etc) You seem to enjoy applying nasty epithets up and down the threads when it suits you...and I accept that some people get their jollies from such behaviour.

However, I was merely calling you out on your hypocrisy. Your little pronouncement about it being fair to disagree with ideas, but not being fair to ascribe negative characteristics because you disagree with a person...rings somewhat hollow when it is only applied contingent on whether or not you're feeling precious.

But don't let me spoil your fun....your previous post was a veritable frenzy of name calling....continue.

Dear Squeers,

I see no way I can look at "On the Jewish Question" sympathetically and see no reason why I should. Political correctness? Nonsense! It is arrant bigotry.

I think in every period of history there have been men and women who could override the prejudices of their day. Marx was not one of them.

Trope, schmope, Marx was a hater.

Wherever there is conflict people are on different sides. When you forget the person on the other side is human you have made it easier to commit atrocity. What the Marxist tyrannies did was murder people by class identification rather than by race or ethnicity. Marx furthered class enmity and set the stage for the slaughter.

"On the Jewish Question" is a sample of Marx's hate.