Was Marx an anti-semite?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, I am Jewish by birth, and cannot for the life of me imagine why you are reading that execrable book, still less can I believe you actually agree with anything in it. As far as I'm concerned, I'd be suspicious even of the page numbering!

[Paula Marx]

You can't talk about book you haven't read, can you? So you can't know you wouldn't agree with anything.
Every Communist should definetly read it.
By the way, t has only 500 pages. Capital has over 2000.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Normally, I wouldn't, but I think an exception should be made in this case.

Anyway, what has that got to do with your claim to agree with parts of it!?

[Joshua Purcell]

You can't talk about book you haven't read, can you? So you can't know you wouldn't agree with anything.
Every Communist should definetly read it.
By the way, t has only 500 pages. Capital has over 2000.

I'm interested to know why every communist should read Mein Kampf. Pretending that is even true, I can think of a number of books we should be reading (and talking about) first. This isn't to say that there isn't anything to agree with in that book because I'm sure there is, just as there would be in ANYTHING. That is not a good reason why people should read it, and that goes for people who are fine with the label of communist. On the other hand, an actual good reason why people should read Mein Kampf is because it gives insight into how the fascists were able to take power in Germany: they hijacked the general populist movement by exploiting their large sense of nationalism, and blamed the underclass for all the problems with their perceived great nation.

And while Trotsky was initially a Menshevik, it's important to note that his political and intellectual progression led him eventually to Bolshevism. On a somewhat related note, I once considered myself a liberal (in the currently popular US definition of the term). But I'm no longer comfortable with that label. Maybe I could dedicate time to redefining that label with the world (starting with those conservatives around me) in order to drop the negative connotations, but I would rather spend my time redefining the label 'Marxist' for those who have the wrong preconception. One could pick any number of similar 'label redefining' battles, and a good example of such a battle would be taking up the label Menshvism. But the problem with the Menshevism debate is that the Menshevik label is basically exclusive to early 20th Century Russia. So while taking up the Menshevism battle is a good example of a label redefining battle, I would argue it is not as worthy of a cause as others.

But pretend Menshevism is as well-known, understood and relevant as Bolshevism is today in the interest of having a debate on the merits of each. One book I'm currently reading is Reformism or Revolution by Alan Woods. There is a line regarding Menshevism in which he briefly argues against it (while comparing its 'staged revolution' approach to the similar approach taken up by the Stalinists):

The old discredited Menshevik-Stalinist theory of revolution by stages postponed the socialist revolution to a remote future on the grounds that it is first necessary to carry out the bourgeois democratic revolution.

Now I haven't spent time looking through Woods' or any other persons' writings to find criticisms of Menshevism, but they are definitely out there, and I'm sure that Woods has written much more complete criticisms of the Mensheviks than what is given here. I mention this because it is one of the few times I've seen the word Menshevism being brought up recently other than in this forum exclusively by PM. If I do happen to find more relevant criticisms of Menshevism I'll post them.

[Paula Marx]

Menshevism has nothing to do with Stalinism and Bolshevism. Lenin and Stalin killed all Mensheviks, remember? So leave it alone with that.
Menshevism is not what Marx called "Conservative Socialism". It's Critical-Utopian Communism.

When it comes to Mein Kampf...
...every intelectual, smart, real Communist should know about his worst enemy. You can't beat someone if you don't know his strategy, right? It's just necessery to understand Nazis and Capitalists if we want to fight against them. The exception is if we're into politics, not the ideology, and if we're just one in a million who can't think with his own head - if we just follow what others say.
It's the shame to talk against someone without knowing anything about his mind and opinions. Hitler has read Capital and he killed millions of innocent Marxists and Socialists just because he thought he knew how most of them do think.
The smart one will learn from an enemy, remember?
I am completly against any kind of discrimination and violence.
Even if I would say what I agree with, what would you get from my opinion? You can't understand something if you don't do researches about other "movements".
For God's sake, Communism is not dogma or religion.

[Christopher Hill]

Lenin didn't kill the Mensheviks, and they were all gone by Stalin's time in power (But I suppose he  certainly would have) in general the main difference between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks was only in that Lenin believed in a more Centralized party based on Cadres who would educate the workers and raise all the workers to the level of cadres, while the Mensheviks such as Axelrod and Martov believed the workers would come over to the Revolution on their own, they were also it is said more friendly to collaboration with the "Liberal" currents, but who really knows what can be believed, history is written by the victors. I myself can see faults on both sides, but I myself must say that I am a "Bolshevik" as I believe that Trotsky's has expanded on the theoretical basis enough to explain what exactly went wrong, Enough so to reconcile any genuine concern which could be had by the followers of Menshevism, I will not say anything negative of it as I do not really think anything negative of it, it was an ideology was ingenious in its own way, but that does not mean that it is the correct ideology to remove the stain of inequity from this forsaken planet.

[Christopher Hill]

Paula, what do you mean by this?

Hitler had strong opinions and it's really truth if you put a capitalist instead of Jew

While I was reading Mein Kampf, there were some things I agreed with. There were also some neurotic, idiotic nonsenses like stuff against Jews. I am quarter Jew and I really can't stand Nazis.
While I was thinking about their politics, I tried to put an Imperialist on some places where it's written Jew and it does make sense.
You can think about that as a metaphor. If there wasn't World War 2, I would definetly believe that Hitler wrote in metaphors because I wouldn't understand it this way it is.

I think that perhaps this is more wishful thinking on your part than anything else, the only thing I can say Hitler was good at is painting, certainly he was insane and had no great writing abilities.

[MalcolmX]

I recall reading that Marx referred to a German politician (can't remember his name) as the 'Jewish Negro' or some such. Whether Marx the person was racist is, utimately irrelevant considering he developed the method and theory which permits us not only to identify the root causes of racism but also how to drop it into the abyss along with Louis XV and the Market Economy.

[Pie]

Well, I am Jewish by birth, and cannot for the life of me imagine why you are reading that execrable book, still less can I believe you actually agree with anything in it

Actually, I'm not surprised that Paula can find something to agree with-early Naziism often went on and on about how they were anti-capitalist, even their party was called the " National Socialist German Workers Party." Of course, in 1933 and afterwards they showed to be anything but anticapitalist. But anyways I don't know why we should read that Nazi rag- I've always heard it was just full of demagogic garbage. If we should learn about about fascism rather than reading their gutter "literature" we should learn about their history-their class base, class relations, and their actions.

nd while Trotsky was initially a Menshevik, it's important to note that his political and intellectual progression led him eventually to Bolshevism. On a somewhat related note, I once considered myself a liberal (in the currently popular US definition of the term). But I'm no longer comfortable with that label. Maybe I could dedicate time to redefining that label with the world (starting with those conservatives around me) in order to drop the negative connotations, but I would rather spend my time redefining the label 'Marxist' for those who have the wrong preconception. One could pick any number of similar 'label redefining' battles, and a good example of such a battle would be taking up the label Menshvism. But the problem with the Menshevism debate is that the Menshevik label is basically exclusive to early 20th Century Russia. So while taking up the Menshevism battle is a good example of a label redefining battle, I would argue it is not as worthy of a cause as others.

Regarding Trotsky and the Mensheviks, I also think its important to note that the division between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks grew over time. When they initially split, it was over a relatively trivial matter, but by 1917 the Mensheviks supported the Provisional Gov't while the Bolsheviks overthrew it, and later many Mensheviks would even join the whites in the Civil War. Trotsky left the Mensheviks very early after they started allying with the liberals.

As for "redifining" liberalism, don't. It is thoroughly a capitalist ideology. We should want nothing to do with it. In fact, liberals probably more dangerous than the conservatives because they are insidious and tricksy. While conservatives don't even pretend to be friends of the working class, liberals do. But liberals have shown they are "friends" by championing NAFTA. Or, now, many liberals claim to "support" single-payer healthcare, but when it is time to show this "support" they abandoned it and are now leaving the US healthcare system as is with a little bit of tinkering; actually, probably the biggest change is the gigantic cuts to Medicare. Some "friends" they are. Or, when it comes to wages, the most liberals will do is raise the minimum wage a little bit; we seek to abolish wages. Or, take a look at the feminists who measure the success of women in the workplace by measuring how many women CEOs there are. Or , gun control, they believe the only people who should be armed are the police and military. The pacifists, believe that in the face oppression we should limit ourselves to "peaceful demonstrations." Liberalism has never challenged capitalist property, in fact it champions it. Liberals want us to live in a gilded cage, they want us chained but in a position where we don't get rid of capitalism. Liberalism is full of lies and hypocrisy; you were right to abandon it as I once did.

in general the main difference between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks was only in that Lenin believed in a more Centralized party based on Cadres who would educate the workers and raise all the workers to the level of cadres, while the Mensheviks such as Axelrod and Martov believed the workers would come over to the Revolution on their own

I don't think this is the main difference between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. It may have been what initially split them, but later the main difference was that the Mensheviks believed in the mechanical "stage theory," that in order to have a proletarian revolution we must go through a capitalist stage, which means that they supported the Russian Provisional Gov't and defended it against the October revolution. In short, they betrayed the proletarian revolution.

Enough so to reconcile Bolshevism and Menshevism

What do you mean by this?

Anyways I don't think Bolshevism and Menshevism are reconcilable, nor should we want it so.

[Christopher Hill]

I don't think this is the main difference between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. It may have been what initially split them, but later the main difference was that the Mensheviks believed in the mechanical "stage theory," that in order to have a proletarian revolution we must go through a capitalist stage, which means that they supported the Russian Provisional Gov't and defended it against the October revolution. In short, they betrayed the proletarian revolution.

Most of that is the natural progression and outgrowth  of the points which I had put forth before (They stem from them), I did not however know the specifics and so I thank you.

Enough so to reconcile Bolshevism and Menshevism

What do you mean by this?

Anyways I don't think Bolshevism and Menshevism are reconcilable, nor should we want it so.

[/quote]
I suppose I worded that badly, what I meant to say was that any legitimate concerns which the Mensheviks could have possessed have been reconciled by Trotsky's theory.