Nice pre-emptive declaration of "silence" there, champ. Most Internet chest-puffers at least wait two to three minutes and then make such a bold declaration of victory in a separate post.
well, one can hope when what all one hears is bull**** that silence will follow. so much for "Hope", eh?
Notwithstanding, he WAS awfully fond of the word "n_gger."
notwithstanding the lack of a single attribution.... again... lots of radical rightwing claims... not a single citation, though. close as anyone comes is the term "itzig" used in reference to La Salle. It was a stereotyping, to be sure, in that it was the name of one of Austria's wealthiest families who happened to be Jewish. The term became a pejorative under the Nazis, but, of course, Marx predated Hitler by a few years.
I hesitate to speculate as to where YOU got the idea.
And lets see, he hated Jews (he really, REALLY hated Jews) . . .
yeah? and you think you make the point? well, let's check out the two quotations you cite....
i'll allow as to how I half-expected that you might post such drivel. I had half hoped that, in the interest of "intellectual honesty", we could avoid the predictable rightwing regurgitation. but....
let's take these one at a time, but, if you will overlook the impertinence of my suggesting it, you really should change the cut 'n paste 'extracts' a LITTLE... otherwise it becomes too easy to find the precise phrasing you employ, editorial ellisions included, on such sites as STORMFRONT. org (the nazis hate marx, slogan "White Pride Worldwide!")), GUYWHITE.org (more nazis) and suchlike places.
Marx was not anti Jew as such. He WAS a jew... his grandfather was a rabbi as whas his great and greatgreat grandfather.
Marx was antireligious (the opiate of the masses", remember?). his criticism of "Judaism" is an academic criticism of religion. How can we know this. well, we can actually READ his criticism, rather than take self serving snippets from right wing ideoblogs.
but, don't get all upset, you won't have to read very far. He makes his intent explicitly clear in the first paragraph:
Criticism here is criticism of theology, a double-edged criticism of Christian theology and of Jewish theology.
Hence, we continue to operate in the sphere of theology, however much we may operate critically within it.
- Karl Marx On The Jewish Question
now, we may find his antireligionism as unsavory as racism, but there is a very real difference.
in the above, "here" meant Germany. the 'Jewish Question', he says means different things in different places. In the U.S. which had no state sanctioned religion, he sees a difference:
the relation of the Jew, and of the religious man in general, to the political state, and therefore the relation of religion to the state, show itself in its specific character
no, his argument does not change - it is still an argument against religion in the state.
the displacement of religion from the state into civil society, this is not a stage of political emancipation but its completion; this emancipation, therefore, neither abolished the real religiousness of man, nor strives to do so...political emancipation from religion leaves religion in existence, although not a privileged religion.
Marx, ibid
sorta jeffersonian, innit?
his argument is not with Judaism (either ethnic or religious), as such, but with his predecessor Bruno Bauer who argued that:
If the Jews want to become free, they should profess belief ...., in the dissolution of religion in general, that is to say, in enlightenment, criticism and its consequence, free humanity.
- Bruno Bauer - The Capacity of Today's Jews and Christians to Become Free
trouble is, Bauer thought this not possible:
The Jew contributes nothing to mankind if he himself disregards his narrow law, if he invalidates his entire Judaism.
Bauer, ibid
Marx disagreed:
Therefore, we do not say to the Jews, as Bauer does: You cannot be emancipated politically without emancipating yourselves radically from Judaism. On the contrary, we tell them: Because you can be emancipated politically without renouncing Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation.
real, human emancipation, thought Marx, obliged emancipation from religion, as well. I would disagree as i disagree with many of his criticisms and conclusions, but i would not mislabel it as racism simply because i had no valid arguments to make.
I will dispense with the second "The Russian Load" quotation briefly. Although we will find this in a number of places (including !SURPRISE! Stormfront.org) attributed as an article published in the New York World Tribune, the trib, on their page dedicated to articles by Karl Marx does not list it and I can find no other reference to it.
you fail to provide any citation at all for the 'antislav' quote. again, we can find the exact pharsing, editorial ellisions included, without attribution in a number of places... places i would not visit, normally. i will not thank you for the offense checking up on your putative quotes have done to me.
so, if you can demonstrate that either article ever actually appeared... anywhere... i will address it as well as i can
geo.