No, he did not. I’ve read it 5-6 times over the years, not once did he call for genocide. You can show what you think is a call for genocide, and I’ll explain why that’s not the case at all.
Was the French Revolution a “genocide” against the Monarchy? Further, revolution doesn’t necessitate killing every member of the bourgeoisie. Further still, you are likening relations to Capital to immutable characteristics like ethnicity.
Marx divides all people into classes and then declares that people in a specific class are better than people in other classes. This is covered in his first part called “Bourgeois and Proletarians”. Direct quote:
the proletariat is its special and essential product
The second part establishes that there are even better representatives of “good people” called “Communists”. This whole section is dedicated to dehumanising everyone else and showing that Communists are the superior people to everyone else.
He then openly calls for violence multiple times finishing with:
their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
You can replace “Communists” with “Arians” and “Bourgeoisie” with “Jews” and you’ll get Hitler’s manifest. Same shit.
Even if this is true (it is not, 1 and 2 are just wrong), it does not show him calling for a genocide.
And your last line is incredibly stupid, “but what if he had written jews”, see just like Hitler. “But what if water was fire”, “but what if up was down”.
He didn’t. Bourgeoisie != Jew. If you replaced all instances of “Bourgeoisie” with “Jew” it would not make sense, as Marx is talking about classes, and their relation to the MOP not jews and arians or whatever.
Politics and Economics are interrelated, and you cannot genuinely separate them. That’s even why Marx studied Political Economy, not just Economics.
Further, Socialist states run by Communists are democratic, just in a very different manner. Here’s a diagram of how Soviet elections were handled, as an example:
I never said that they aren’t interconnected, i just said that it is possible to have a communist democratic party. If the political system is broken then no matter good how an economic system is it will fail
All Communist parties practice Democratic Centralism, and all AES states run by Communists have some form of socialist democracy. I am not sure what you are trying to say by saying it’s “possible,” rather than simply being possible, it’s by far the established norm. When you say “democracy,” do you mean the specific, say, US form of democracy, or the ability for the citizenry to have legitimate control over policy?
Communism is when you get executed for having a different opinion than the great leader.
Communism is an economic concept not political. Technically it is possible to have a democratic communist country
Marx literally calls for a genocide in his manifesto. It might not be political in your view, but communism is inherently a genocide.
Others have asked for sources. I know it’s not true. If Marx called for genocide, centrists would love him.
I posted a reply.
“He didn’t like existing systems of oppression. Therefore literally hitler.” is a shit reply.
Just like Nazis thought that Jews were oppressors. A shit reply is defending a genocidal maniac.
Imagine being such a bootlicker that you’re comparing the rich to the Jews in 1940s Germany.
The Jews were the rich in Germany in the 1930s. Imagine being so ignorant and delusional…
No, he did not.
Yes, yes he did.
No, he did not. I’ve read it 5-6 times over the years, not once did he call for genocide. You can show what you think is a call for genocide, and I’ll explain why that’s not the case at all.
I posted a comment below. It’s clear as day. Anyone arguing is delusional.
Was the French Revolution a “genocide” against the Monarchy? Further, revolution doesn’t necessitate killing every member of the bourgeoisie. Further still, you are likening relations to Capital to immutable characteristics like ethnicity.
You’re deeply unserious.
You’re deeply delusional.
Please quote that part.
You can read the full manifesto here https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf But let’s go through it step by step.
The second part establishes that there are even better representatives of “good people” called “Communists”. This whole section is dedicated to dehumanising everyone else and showing that Communists are the superior people to everyone else.
He then openly calls for violence multiple times finishing with:
You can replace “Communists” with “Arians” and “Bourgeoisie” with “Jews” and you’ll get Hitler’s manifest. Same shit.
Even if this is true (it is not, 1 and 2 are just wrong), it does not show him calling for a genocide.
And your last line is incredibly stupid, “but what if he had written jews”, see just like Hitler. “But what if water was fire”, “but what if up was down”.
He didn’t. Bourgeoisie != Jew. If you replaced all instances of “Bourgeoisie” with “Jew” it would not make sense, as Marx is talking about classes, and their relation to the MOP not jews and arians or whatever.
Wow, the delusion…
Are you American? You’re the third person that has had a very hard time reading, I have heard the american education system is really subpar.
No. As I stated before, I’m from the USSR and I know first hand what communism really is. So stop spreading this delusional bull shit, please.
Politics and Economics are interrelated, and you cannot genuinely separate them. That’s even why Marx studied Political Economy, not just Economics.
Further, Socialist states run by Communists are democratic, just in a very different manner. Here’s a diagram of how Soviet elections were handled, as an example:
According to social media, literally everything is politics.
I generally agree.
I never said that they aren’t interconnected, i just said that it is possible to have a communist democratic party. If the political system is broken then no matter good how an economic system is it will fail
All Communist parties practice Democratic Centralism, and all AES states run by Communists have some form of socialist democracy. I am not sure what you are trying to say by saying it’s “possible,” rather than simply being possible, it’s by far the established norm. When you say “democracy,” do you mean the specific, say, US form of democracy, or the ability for the citizenry to have legitimate control over policy?