[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Martyn*)
That is the irony not in my opinion but in that of Marx. What might even say that Marx and Hitler had something in common. The real irony is that Communism was brought into Russia by a community of Jews. Communism is dinstinctively Jewish. There lies the irony.

Communism is distinctly opposite to Jewish values and was thought up by a man of Jewish descent who wanted to rid himself of the curse of being Jewish. It's as Jewish as psychoanalysis (Freud also wanted to rid himself of the Judaic curse and dreamed up something that would offer a totally different insight into the human condition than the Jewish tradition does). To say 'Communism is distinctively Jewish' is palpably absurd.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Communism is distinctly opposite to Jewish values and was thought up by a man of Jewish descent who wanted to rid himself of the curse of being Jewish. It's as Jewish as psychoanalysis (Freud also wanted to rid himself of the Judaic curse and dreamed up something that would offer a totally different insight into the human condition than the Jewish tradition does). To say 'Communism is distinctively Jewish' is palpably absurd.

Communism is distincly Jewish because it was brought to Russia by Jews only. Lenin himself, presumably part Jewish, is thought by some to be the father of Communism. But I'd say that it is dinstincly Jewish because it was brought over only by Jews. To quote H . H. Beamish: "Communism is Judaism. The Jewish Revolution in Russia was in 1918."

Moreover behind Communism lay the hand of Freemasonry, a craft which is characteristically Jewish - many of them were Russian professors and French scientists from the Bolshevik revolution.

You can read all about it here:

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/russia/go_russia.html

[Norton1]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Communism is distincly Jewish because it was brought to Russia by Jews only. Lenin himself, presumably part Jewish, is thought by some to be the father of Communism. But I'd say that it is dinstincly Jewish because it was brought over only by Jews. To quote H . H. Beamish: "Communism is Judaism. The Jewish Revolution in Russia was in 1918."

Moreover behind Communism lay the hand of Freemasonry, a craft which is characteristically Jewish - many of them were Russian professors and French scientists from the Bolshevik revolution.

You can read all about it here:

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/russia/go_russia.html

You're an antisemitic little sod aren't you? H . H. Beamish author of noted book "The Jews' who's who: Israelite finance: its sinister influence" is clearly an impeccable source on this one.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Norton1)
You're an antisemitic little sod aren't you? H . H. Beamish author of noted book "The Jews' who's who: Israelite finance: its sinister influence" is clearly an impeccable source on this one.

Criticising the sinister influences of Jewish finance (and I've not read the author) is not the same as being anti-semitic. If anything I am anti-anti-semitic. You should know better than to throw unfounded accusations at someone. Moreoever, stop trying to derail the argument.

[Norton1]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Criticising the sinister influences of Jewish finance (and I've not read the author) is not the same as being anti-semitic. You should know better than to throw unfounded assertions at someone. Moreoever, stop trying to derail the argument.

Uncritical acceptance of any smearing of Jewish people and making nonsense assertions about the "sinister influence of Jewish finance" might be construed as a tad anti-semitic.

You massive anti-semite.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Norton1)
Uncritical acceptance of any smearing of Jewish people and making nonsense assertions about the "sinister influence of Jewish finance" might be construed as a tad anti-semitic.

You massive anti-semite.

Well it should not be construed that way. To my mind the only people who throw around unfounded allegations of anti-semitism, in order to score points, at the mere whiff of anyone criticising the Jews are Zionists. You're not a Zionist, are you? It's okay. You don't need to be ashamed of it. Many people are Zionists.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by snozzle)
If a Soviet type totalitarian state is the result of the practice of Marxism does it matter at all whether it is 'real' communism or not?

How do you 'practice' historical theory and economic critique?

[snozzle]

(Original post by anarchism101)
How do you 'practice' historical theory and economic critique?

Praxis.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by snozzle)
Praxis.

I'm fully aware of the 'the point is to change it' quote but Marx really didn't say a lot in that area.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Communism is distincly Jewish because it was brought to Russia by Jews only. Lenin himself, presumably part Jewish, is thought by some to be the father of Communism. But I'd say that it is dinstincly Jewish because it was brought over only by Jews. To quote H . H. Beamish: "Communism is Judaism. The Jewish Revolution in Russia was in 1918."

Moreover behind Communism lay the hand of Freemasonry, a craft which is characteristically Jewish - many of them were Russian professors and French scientists from the Bolshevik revolution.

You can read all about it here:

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/russia/go_russia.html

I don't care about your freemasonry nonsense, nor your tenuous claims about Lenin's Jewishness (if I've ever heard a more ridiculous theory in my life). Kindly shut up.

[johnaulich]

This thread is getting ridiculous. Socialism as a stage of Marxist theory is two things: conscious economic planning combined with social (not state) ownership. Socialist ideas are much older however, and often much more pragmatic. Cooperativism, trade unionism, public ownership, the welfare state etc are all small examples of Socialist concepts and ideals.

P.S. All this "Yeah, but blah blah blah soviet blah didn't work" annoys me. As with any system, whether or not it works is subjective. It entirely depends on who you are and individual circumstances. Capitalism isn't great either, folks. We're among the richest nations in the world and yet there are people sleeping on the streets. Think about that while you bang on about your shiny shiny laptop.

[Norton1]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Well it should not be construed that way. To my mind the only people who throw around unfounded allegations of anti-semitism, in order to score points, at the mere whiff of anyone criticising the Jews are Zionists. You're not a Zionist, are you? It's okay. You don't need to be ashamed of it. Many people are Zionists.

I'm a Jew, so I would like to make it incredibly clear I'm no Zionist (which always seems to be some sort of code for a revolutionary form of super Jew)

You are anti semitic. Live with it.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Well it should not be construed that way. To my mind the only people who throw around unfounded allegations of anti-semitism, in order to score points, at the mere whiff of anyone criticising the Jews are Zionists. You're not a Zionist, are you? It's okay. You don't need to be ashamed of it. Many people are Zionists.

I'm a Zionist and I don't know of a single Zionist who calls someone an anti-Semite for merely criticising Jews. But you are criticising them because they are Jews. You are not 'merely criticising Jews', you are saying Jews control the financial system. You are no better than your communist and Nazi predecessors.

[Oswy]

(Original post by snozzle)
If a Soviet type totalitarian state is the result of the practice of Marxism...

But it isn't. As has already been pointed out, several times now, Marx's vision of Communism was one of a diminished, indeed ultimately non-existent, state which would emerge out of highly democratic socialist arrangements. That Soviet projects quickly travelled away from Marx's vision (and insofar as they were Marxist at their outset) needs to be seen in their actual, and complex, historical circumstances, just as the emergence of the KKK as a self-identified 'Christian' institution has to be - for example.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by Oswy)
But it isn't. As has already been pointed out, several times now, Marx's vision of Communism was one of a diminished, indeed ultimately non-existent, state which would emerge out of highly democratic socialist arrangements. That Soviet projects quickly travelled away from Marx's vision...

The Manifesto doesn't actually say that the state will diminish, only that it will "lose its political character". Essentially Marx defines a state as one class holding power over another, and argues then that once the proletariat is the only class left, a state is clearly impossible. A typical dialectical dodge, and quite in line with Marxism in its guise as the Soviet state religion.

[snozzle]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
The Manifesto doesn't actually say that the state will diminish, only that it will "lose its political character". Essentially Marx defines a state as one class holding power over another, and argues then that once the proletariat is the only class left, a state is clearly impossible. A typical dialectical dodge, and quite in line with Marxism in its guise as the Soviet state religion.

Marx said the state would 'wither away'. I can't remember if this is in the manifesto or not.

Of course that doesn't make it so. What Marx is doing is basically engaging in oracular prophecy, positing a 'vision' which is defined more by what is not said, than what is said and is rather vague.

That's why I'm not too interested in Marx's 'vision', but what happend (intended and unintended) when you start practising Marxist politics and social engineering.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by snozzle)
Marx said the state would 'wither away'. I can't remember if this is in the manifesto or not.

Of course that doesn't make it so. What Marx is doing is basically engaging in oracular prophecy, positing a 'vision' which is defined more by what is not said, than what is said and is rather vague.

That's why I'm not too interested in Marx's 'vision', but what happend (intended and unintended) when you start practising Marxist politics and social engineering.

He for sure argued there wouldn't be a state anymore - he just didn't mean by that what most people would mean by it, or what the dictionary definition of the words mean. In effect he believed that the policies would be self-sustaining once established because 1. we got rid of anyone who opposes them ("emigres and rebels" in the Manifesto) 2. they are self-evidently good. He doesn't actually state that there would be no need for coercion, but then most German philosophy would fall apart if it were clearly explained in specifics, so the vagueness is probably intentional.

[Oswy]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
The Manifesto doesn't actually say that the state will diminish, only that it will "lose its political character". Essentially Marx defines a state as one class holding power over another, and argues then that once the proletariat is the only class left, a state is clearly impossible. A typical dialectical dodge, and quite in line with Marxism in its guise as the Soviet state religion.

The Manifesto was a document drawn up primarily to critique and encourage opposition to contemporary capitalism and to the conditions it was generating, so it's hardly surprising that little reference to a future communism was made. Nevertheless Marx didn't have a lot to say about Communism in specific terms and that's not unreasonable, he wasn't a god. It's more important, in my view, that he saw such Communism as growing out of a resolution of class-conflict through (an albeit much resisted) radical egalitarianism.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by Oswy)
The Manifesto was a document drawn up primarily to critique and encourage opposition to contemporary capitalism and to the conditions it was generating, so it's hardly surprising that little reference to a future communism was made. Nevertheless Marx didn't have a lot to say about Communism in specific terms and that's not unreasonable, he wasn't a god. It's more important, in my view, that he saw such Communism as growing out of a resolution of class-conflict through (an albeit much resisted) radical egalitarianism.

He does talk about future communism - he describes it as being similar to the authoritarian state socialism that did in fact emerge, though he didn't discuss how political leaders to be chosen.

btw, I think that talking about Communism in specific terms in a book called The Communist Manifesto falls well short of the standards expected of a God! He was a Prophet, anyway.

[johnaulich]

(Original post by CUFCDan)

Here, I think, things get confused. We now enter the realms of the dictatorship of the Proletariat, which in my opinion is far more of a Leninist than a Marxist proposal. And I also think there is a massive void between the revolutionary zeal of the working class, the dictatorship of the Proletariat and the lack of state. Evidently all attempts at Communism has developed a grossly bloated and oppressive state.

May I intervene and just say the reason I feel Russia failed is because they attempted to force a classless society by confiscating the means of production from everybody (through nationalisation), thus making the entire general population a proletariat. Lenin seems to have been intending to give it back at a later date, to create Socialism, once some (undefined?) conditions had been met.