.

Dear david f,

.

« Marx was not only an political thinker and philosopher but was also a political figure. We condemn Hitler for his acts although he may never have personally killed anyone. However, he was a political figure who led others who committed vile acts under his guidance. Analogously I condemn Marx. »
.

William L. Shirer, “The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich” :

Hitler was Chancellor of Germany. He won the approval of the Reichstag, on 23 March 1933, by 441 votes to 84, despite his party's lack of parliamentary majority, for it to "temporarily" delegate, (and subsequently renew), its powers to him, under what became known as the "Enabling Act", granting him dictatorial rule, free from all legislative and constitutional constraints.

Wikipedia :

[ On 22 February 1942, Hitler was recorded saying, "we shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jews". Although no direct order from Hitler authorising the mass killings has surfaced, his public speeches, orders to his generals, and the diaries of Nazi officials demonstrate that he conceived and authorised the extermination of European Jewry. He approved the Einsatzgruppen - killing squads that followed the German army through Poland, the Baltic, and the Soviet Union - and he was well informed about their activities.

Hitler ruled autocratically by asserting the Führerprinzip ("Leader principle"). The principle relied on absolute obedience of all subordinates to their superiors; thus he viewed the government structure as a pyramid, with himself - the infallible leader - at the apex.

He assumed the role of supreme commander of the armed forces during 1938, and subsequently made all major decisions regarding Germany's military strategy.

The military did not challenge Hitler's dominance of the war effort, and senior officers generally supported and enacted his decisions. ]

Karl Marx, by comparison, never held any position of political power in his life and was never in a position to order or authorize anybody to kill anybody.

The only persons he may possibly have commanded were his wife, seven children and his housemaid. None of them ever killed anyone either.

.

Dear Banjo,

I agree. Marx never killed anyone or had anyone killed as far as I know. However, I don't think it was for want of trying. The First International did not have the success in carrying out the Marxist program that the Third International had. Marx was not as successful as Hitler and Lenin in rising to power.

The time was not ripe for a Marxist takeover during his lifetime. I think he was no better than Hitler and Lenin - just less successful.

https://archive.org/stream/selectedworksofs030023mbp/selectedworksofs030023mbp_djvu.txt

contains "The Curfew Tolls". It is a short story by Stephen Vincent Benet and tells of a retired French army officer. It's a good story so even if I tell you the plot it won't spoil it for you. The protagonist is Napoleon born at a time that was not ripe for him to rise to power. As you read the story you become aware of the identity of the retired French army officer.

IMHO Alexander, Julius Caesar, Attila, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Lenin and Hitler were all successful monsters. I didn't include Stalin and Mao since they merely continued the work of Lenin and the program of Marx.

There may be millions who would have been similar monsters had they been able to gain the power that Alexander, Julius Caesar, Attila, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Lenin and Hitler did. We don't know the names of most of them. However, from what I have read of the political strivings and writings of Karl Marx he was one of the unsuccessful monsters.

.

Dear david f,

.

« There may be millions who would have been similar monsters had they been able to gain the power that Alexander, Julius Caesar, Attila, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Lenin and Hitler did. We don't know the names of most of them. However, from what I have read of the political strivings and writings of Karl Marx he was one of the unsuccessful monsters. »
.

Well, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that he (Karl Marx) may have been a “monster” if he had had the opportunity?

The principal piece of evidence of his “intentions of mass murder” appears to be contained in the phrase you cited in the Manifesto :

« In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat. »

Does "violent overthrow" necessarily imply the mass murder of tens of millions of innocent people? If we reply "yes" to that question, at most it means that it is a threat of civil war. In which case the next question is "who would be to blame if it materialized", the insurgents or the dominating, ruling class, who exploited the laborious masses?

Who was to blame for the French revolution, for example? The insurgents, the common people who suffered from hunger and injustice, or Louis XVI and the rich aristocracy who exploited them?

It seems to me that that remains a matter of conjecture. I doubt that anybody will ever be able to provide conclusive, incontestable proof of responsibility of either one or the other. Who is there to judge?

And what about the possible responsibility of the socio-political philosopher? Are there sufficient grounds for condemning Karl Marx, beyond reasonable doubt?

I vote “no”. Do you maintain your “yes” vote?

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

There's a saying - The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Marx was aware of the suffering of the working class so he had the good intentions of relieving that suffering. The expression of his good intentions were the blueprints for the activities of the monsters.

Marx like Wagner was a genius. Wagner was an inspiration to Hitler, but he made beautiful music. Marx was an inspiration to Lenin, but he made a wonderful analysis of nineteenth century capitalism.

I have enjoyed listening to Wagner's music and reading Marx. However, they both inspired monsters. Wagner didn't produce a program for tyranny. He merely expressed his bigotry. Marx produced a program for tyranny.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/robertson-ann.htm tells about the conflict between Bakunin and Marx which resulted in the breakup of the First International. From that: Bakunin believed that “... the instinct of liberty is lacking in him [Marx]; he remains from head to foot, an authoritarian”

The monsters, idealists and fools who followed Marx were not as perceptive as Bakunin.

.

Dear david f,

.

« Bakunin believed that “... the instinct of liberty is lacking in him [Marx]; he remains from head to foot, an authoritarian” »
.

That is correct. Subsequent events have proven that the only way Marxism can work is by an authoritarian government ruling a largely subservient population.

If I may (exceptionally) be so pretentious as to cite myself from a previous post on this thread:

« In my view, anybody would have to be a religious fanatic to voluntarily accept to live the life of a colony of ants, or a swarm of bees or wasps, renouncing his individuality (and accepting another form of enslavement) in exchange for the security of the community. »

Which brings me back to my original thesis (here I go again):

« Many animal species practice “private capitalism” (individual accumulation and storage of food) but some rare species practice a form of “state capitalism” (sharing of resources among the community). Ants, bees and wasps are typical examples of the latter.

Both systems, “private capitalism” and “state capitalism” (socialism) seem to co-exist quite harmoniously in nature. Both appear to be equally efficient and give satisfaction to the particular species which practices either one or the other.

These two natural phenomena obviously find an echo in Adam Smith’s free market economic theory on the one hand and Karl Marx’s theory of communism on the other. »

I have a lot of affinity with Bakunin’s philosophy of liberty but I think we have a long way to go (probably several million years) before we could envisage doing without the state and living in complete anarchy. I see that he is quoted as having admitted: “I am a fanatical lover of liberty....”. In that he too was, perhaps, a potential “monster”.

I tend to think that, at least for the next few million years, we should realistically continue to apply Rousseau’s bourgeois liberalism which considers the rights of all, represented by the State, as a limit for the rights of each …

Thank you for the link to that interesting analysis.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

One of the things that I have observed on olo and other places that my views which seem perfectly reasonable to me are opposed to the views of other people whose views seem perfectly reasonable to them. No matter how long we continue to discuss the matter we will each maintain our own position.

You wrote: "And what about the possible responsibility of the socio-political philosopher? Are there sufficient grounds for condemning Karl Marx, beyond reasonable doubt?

I vote “no”. Do you maintain your “yes” vote?"

Why would you think otherwise?

I maintain that Karl Marx was the evil genius of the nineteenth century and Napoleon was the greatest monster of that century. They both ostensibly favoured liberation.

There is one point of view which maintains that everything that happens has a purpose. That purpose may be determined by God, historical necessity or something else. This purpose leads to an end which may be the millennium, the classless society or something else. I think things that happen are constrained by the natural laws of physics, chemistry and biology, and there is no purpose except in our minds. The only end I am sure of is eventual extinction and the heat death.

Do you favour either point of view?