8 Answers

  1. In fact, there is no idea of the “inferiority of peoples”in Marxism. The quotations given here are not Marx, but Engels. That is, we are not talking about the” mainstream ” teaching, but about the private opinion of a friend of the author. Moreover, there were quite a lot of complaints against the author about these articles (for example, not everyone agrees to consider the Magyars as Germans, and first of all not all Magyars, who are a Turkic people by a number of signs)

    The apogee of Marxism's attitude to the question of the contradiction of peoples, in my opinion, was formulated in Marx's Manifesto of the Communist Party:

    National separateness and opposites of peoples disappear more and more with the development of the bourgeoisie, with the freedom of trade, with the world market, with the uniformity of industrial production and the corresponding conditions of life.

    The rule of the proletariat will further accelerate their disappearance. Combining the efforts of civilized countries, at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

    To the same extent that the exploitation of one individual by another is eliminated, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be eliminated.

    Along with the antagonism of classes within nations, the hostile relations of nations among themselves will also fall.

    We see that Engels here rather contradicts Marx, argues with him. Marxism is international. They laugh at me when I talk about the Christian motives of Marxism, but the idea of “there is neither Greek nor Jew” is very clearly traced in Marxism.

  2. Speaking of their relationship, it is natural, because they are products of almost the same era and the same German way of thinking. But still, their difference is much more significant than their similarity (and otherwise it would be strange that they came together in such a deadly battle at Stalingrad).

    “Inferiority” is spoken of in various ways, however, and – yes-in some ways the quotes are really taken out of context. Nazism appeals to the genetic determination of the qualities of the individual and the people: some are capable of cultural construction and pass this ability on to their descendants, while others are not fully capable of progress – that is, in the proper sense of the word, inferior. From nature.

    In Marxism, however, a completely different word is used here: reactionary. And it means not an innate property, but a social function – which in the context of progress seems to be inertial, resisting forward movement. The self-consciousness of the people, in the opinion of Marxists, develops in the same way as formations – and industrial, capitalist, bourgeois self-consciousness is naturally more progressive (in their opinion) than agrarian and feudal. A nation that does not move civilization forward, but seeks to isolate itself from the world in its separatism and difference from others at any cost (like Ukraine from Russia, for example) – this is a naturally reactionary ethnic consciousness. It is from this point of view that we should reread the quoted quotations and Marx in general: it is not people or languages that should disappear – retrograde “national ideas” should disappear, and-as it is quite logically noted – “this will be progress”.

    And this applies only to the original Marx-Engels-and since then, communist theory has advanced far, today Marxism is no less far removed from Marx than the theory of evolution is from Darwin. We have already had Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fromm, Marcuse, and even Zizek – and this is a different, more progressive and adapted to reality Marxism, it is really more cosmopolitan (and at the same time national) than in the works of the XIX century. Marx, of course, studied all his life, but there were no Internet sites yet, and his consciousness was also limited, he didn't know history very well, he didn't get to know the Russians very well, Germany itself was just about to form a single country, so some degree of nationalism and chauvinism is quite understandable for him.

  3. No, it's not. Marxism is a left-wing libertarian ideology, well, at least real Marxism, we don't take idiots from the BLM, advocating the socialization of the means of production in order to use them for the benefit of the whole society, and not for the benefit of an insignificant minority, as well as reducing the role of the state in the economy and solving all issues through the soviet system.

    Nazism, also known as fascism, is an ultra-right ideology based, many will now be surprised, just on the concentration of capital in a very small circle of people, up to a couple of dozen, they conspire, create a totalitarian government, and then you already know.

    So, this is not only unrelated ideologies, but also radially opposite. On political coordinates, they are in different sectors.

  4. Marxism (I would call it “communism”) is the principle of dividing people according to social criteria. For example, “proletarians and capitalists” or “oppressed” and “oppressed”. If there is no division, then there is no ideology. For this reason, the division of society and confrontation become an end in themselves for communists, and the objective laws of society only hinder them.

    Nazism is the principle of dividing people according to national characteristics. All for the same purpose – to divide and rule. Divide and subtract.

    Both ideologies are similar, but communism is less toxic, less dangerous for society. Because a person can change their social status at will – for example, for the sake of survival. But you can't change your nationality at will.

    Both ideologies are flawed, as they encourage society to perform two arithmetic operations-divide and subtract. And who will multiply and add? There's no one. Therefore, any of these ideologies is doomed to wither and die when the reserves of society run out.

    Both ideologies are flawed, since the criterion for encouraging people is not their usefulness to society, but some abstract feature. As a result, society completely loses its incentives for development, that is, “multiplication” and “addition”.

  5. All ideologies are based on the image of an external and internal enemy. there is no difference in the world, only repetition. So all ideologies repeat each other.

  6. Yes, of course, there is a lot in common. As with Italian fascism, too. All of them based their teachings on the fact that there are people who are initially right, worthy of a good life and power, and there are initially wrong people who are subject to humiliation, elimination, and destruction. Marxism emphasized class, national socialism and fascism emphasized nation and race.

  7. Marxists are generally considered internationalists, that is, arguments about the inferiority of peoples should be alien to Marxism.

    But we must not forget that in Marxism there was a complete analogy to the Nazi idea of the inferiority of peoples – the idea of the inferiority of classes and social groups. As a result, the most unexpected groups could get into the “exploiters” in the USSR – from middle peasants getting up on their feet with three cows for a family to Chukchi shamans. The class of ” exploiters “was condemned to extermination,” exploiters ” together with their families and regardless of gender and age of family members were persecuted – from deportation to remote areas unsuitable for housing to imprisonment in concentration camps and executions.

    Which is worse – to destroy people on the basis of nation or class?

    It's getting worse. Both ideas are related, both ideas are cannibalistic.

  8. No
    The Nazis considered the people of individual nations to be innately inferior, and the Aryans to be innately superior (which did not prevent the Nazis from reworking racial theory to meet the needs of the political situation)
    Marx and Engels, and later the Bolsheviks, built their attitude towards certain peoples based on pragmatic considerations, political and economic conditions
    So when Marx and Engels declared a nation reactionary, when Stalin carried out expulsions of entire peoples, it was not because they considered the people of a particular nation” bad ” by nature. This is idealism.
    In the case of the Marxist materialists, something like objective imputation took place. And they considered people to be basically equal (which did not prevent Marx and Engels from making racist attacks in their personal correspondence).
    For example, why were the Terek Cossacks evicted, or why did they spend any time telling tales at all? The Bolsheviks openly admitted that the problem was not the Cossacks themselves, but that they were objectively enemies of the Soviets in their economic position.authorities
    And Hitler destroyed Jews simply because they were Jews
    So the logic is fundamentally different

Leave a Reply