- Naturally, in America everyone knew that from 1846 to 1861 a free trade system prevailed, and that Representative Morrill carried his protectionist tariff through Congress only in 1861, after the rebellion had already broken out. Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place.
Civil War Quote
I removed the quote about the American Civil War being a tariff war. That was not Marx's position and he was only paraphrasing his opponents arguments before demolishing them. See http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm
Real Marx quote?
From Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts: "I do not trust any Russian. As soon as a Russian worms his way in, all hell breaks loose." (apparently written to Friedrich Engels) If this is a true quote it is a very interesting one. Oddly enough there is very little mention of it online (9 google matches). I was thinking it could be added as "Attributed" (with the creation of a sourced/attributed menu) and later moved to "Wrongly attributed" (or deleted) or "Sourced" by someone who can find out. Thoughts? 18.104.22.168 10:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I cannot say definitively if Marx wrote these words; however, as an English professor who has been reading, studying, and teaching Marx for over thirty years, I have never come across this passage in any of his writings. In many of his letters, which is where he most probably would have written the passage, Marx does assume a tone very unlike that of his books. I wish I could be more helpful. I will look through Marx's letters, and if I come across these words, I will post the source here.
i once read (can't remember where)that these were said after a speech when he was asked if he had any last words, of course he may have said them again on his death bed.
'I am not a Marxist'
I removed this quote as it is taken out of context and has been shortened in order to manipulate its meaning.
Democracy Is the Road To Socialism
What is the context of this quote, what is the source?
Second quote under Grundrisse
Is this the original German quote? I doubt that even colloquial texts of the time would refer to "electric telegraphs". As for "selfacting mules", I don't think anyone would say this English, let alone German. Sorry if I sound pedantic or patronising; I'm just curious.
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
JAI: The quote is a paraphrase (really a summation) from the New Testament. Specifically, Acts Chap 4:
And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled
together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul:
neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection
of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as
were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was
made unto every man according as he had need.
Though there are, indeed, many references and allusions to the biblical text in Marx's writings, especially in Capital, to draw a direct line of influence from chapter four of the book of Acts to Marx's proposition is quite a stretch, indeed. The proposition appears in his Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875) in which Marx, among other discussions, outlines the historical evolution of the concept of the economic "right" and the necessary societal constructs for that concept to shed the final remnants of bourgeois society in its phenomenal manifestation. Marx writes:
"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity,otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
Unlike in the book of Acts in which a hierarchical social order still exists with the "apostle" being the representative of the ruling class, in Marx's conceptualization of the "higher phase of communist society," all socio-economic hierarchies have vanished and unequal labor as a "means of life" has been transformed into equal labor as "life's prime want." As the concept of labor is absent from the passage from Acts, it is highly unlikely that Marx used the biblical text as his source text for the passage from the Gotha Programme. Of course, we must make the concession that there is no emipirical evidence to validate either position.
Quote about Lassalle
Several times, an anonymous editor has removed the following quote without explanation:
- It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses' flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow's importunity is also nigger-like.
This is a most unpleasant quote by modern standards (which I personally feel are a vast improvement over the attitudes of Marx's time). However, I verified the source, so it does appear to be a legitimate quote. (We should probably track down a hardcopy, though, so we can better source and verify it. I'm particularly wondering whether the bolding was an editorial liberty by the website, which would therefore warrant a normal weight instead.)
Wikiquote's mission is not to present its quotees in either a positive or a negative light, but to provide notable quotes of any type from that person. I imagine that the person adding this quote originally believed it to be a notable example of Marx's beliefs about race, however outrageous by modern standards. (In fact, the notability surely comes from subsequent world events, the very nature of which formed many of these standards.) Because of this, I support its inclusion. I invite discussion on this topic. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I changed "nigger" to "negro". The original German word is "Neger" [simply wrong! Nigger, niggerhaft and Neger all appear.--Radh 11:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)] which could be translated as either word. I would remove this quote because it has nothing to do with his works and little to do with his public image. (Example: Lyndon Johnson's article makes no mention of his frequent use of the racial epithet.) In any case, Marx consistently uses the word "negro" in his other works, and given the context of each usage, they do not imply a racial slur. Bolding is unnecessary.
- [this is obviously not true: Marx used Neger, but also niggerhafte Zudringlichkeit (L. an ass-kisser) and, more than once, Nigger in this letter: der jüdische Nigger L. etc. - this obviously is viciously anti-Lassalleian, strongly antisemitic and plain racist.--Radh 11:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)]
I agree pretty much with the above and would not include the quote on this page. Engels very graciously made available all of Marx's letters (the link to that particular quote does not work, however, but it does exist) and it is indeed true that Marx had those views. But it is also true that Marx was an abolitionist and an anti-racist, if you read his work. Nonetheless, he did make such comments, and others, which can be read here. But as the latter article points out, it would be absurd to include this quote on this page as it only serves to unfairly discredit Marx, at least without proper context. jonna
Can someone please find a real citation for the two quotes under "other"? They seem to me to be either highly out of context or poorly translated. The first one about the Mexicans especially seems out of context, expecially as it seems to have been posted in attempt to show Marx to have been a racist with cases other than his opposition to Lasalle.-Koba
Are we stalinist's or are we scholars? You cannot expect every second of any man's life to constantly "reflect favorably". Let the bare naked truth stand "in it's context" as a private and intimate communication between two life long friends. Now back to work..--Oracleofottawa 00:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The letter is notable for showing Marx's racism in private correspondence. It deserves mention in an encyclopedia article about Marx as a historical figure, but I don't believe this is a commonly quoted passage of Marx. I've gone ahead and deleted the entry. --Ashawley (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
My removal was reverted by Britannicus since he accused my explanation above as just being my opinion and by arguing that it is notable since it is part of his published works. I believe left-wing Marxists are earnest about exposing the racist ideology of Marx, but I don't think that is evidence that this is either an oft-quoted letter or passage of Marx's. --Ashawley (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't agree that this is not an oft-quoted passage. Here are some secondary sources that cite this letter: Robert Jutte, The Jewish Body: A History (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020), p. 33. Bob Jessop and Charlie Malcolm-Brown (eds.), Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought: Critical Assessments (Routledge, 1990), p. 37. Pierre Birnbaum, Geography of Hope: Exile, the Enlightenment, Disassimilation (Stanford University Press, 2008), p. 68. Sander L. Gilman, Jewish Self-hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), p. 206. Daniel Bell, Marxian Socialism in the United States (Cornell University Press, 1996), p. 21.
- These are reliable secondary sources, printed by university presses.--Britannicus (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for giving some examples of books citing the letter. They're reliable sources, but not for arguing about notability. I'll discuss them, but these references don't prove that the passage is often quoted. Most of them don't quote it, at all or in the same form. These academic texts may help verify the letter is real. That's important. I'm not contesting the quote isn't verified, or isn't attributable to Marx. It just doesn't seem notable per WQ:Q. Instead, it seems like all the examples you've cited are using it to level a critique of the limits of Marx's thought and work. That doesn't make it notable as a quote. Also, consider the subject of the quote itself. Nobody is using this passage to further the racial characterization or semitic heritage of Ferdinand Lassalle. That's absurd. Social progress and the passing of history has made the passage undermine itself. That it says nothing worthwhile of Lassalle is another reason it's not useful on Wikqiuote. Where it's ever quoted, if it is in full and often it isn't at all, it's part of communicating historical context or an intellectual critique of Marx. Again, the physical or genetic characteristics of Lassalle just isn't a notable subject. This site collects often quoted phrases. We can't just select every passage that is used in an academic text. Can you give a reason to include this quote per WQ:Q? What is it about the quote that is worth keeping here? Marx is an important historical figure, but simply the use of vulgar language does not make a good or memorable quote. --Ashawley (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- If secondary sources are repeatedly quoting this letter, then of course that makes it notable. Academics obviously do think it's useful in explaining Marx's views, as it witnessed by their repeated citation of it.--Britannicus (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that academics do occasionally cite the letter and some of those even quote it. I said as much in my reply above. The purpose is different, though. The Wikiquote project isn't the same as academic writing. Wikiquote is a collection of notable quotes. There's nothing memorable in what Marx said about the physical or genetic makeup of Lassalle. --Ashawley (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- It is notable and memorable if it is frequently quoted—which it is. Academics do think it says something about Marx; I have provided quite a few academic sources which cite this letter or phrase (and there are many more). It is merely your opinion that it is not notable, a view that is not shared by scholars. Your contention that the quote should not be included because WQ does not have to live up to academic standards really does your argument no favours.--Britannicus (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Academics have ever cited, or quoted part of, or quoted most of the letter. I never said WQ:Q doesn't have to live up to academic standards. While mincing my words you repeatedly avoid answering the question about notability. Whether it is referred by academics in their books or published papers does not make it a notable quote on Wikiquote. Academics have quoted Marx's writing thousands and thousands of times. We can't arbitrarily include all of them. That's why WQ:Q helps narrow the scope. There is nothing about Marx's racist tirade about Lassalle that makes it worth including on Wikiquote. The only thing that is notable is Marx's anger for Lasalle, the use of profane language and using unoriginal 19th century European race theory. As it stood, the quote is trimmed to just the mentions of vulgar language, not even the whole quote. Is that the purpose of including it? That might be important in a book about Marx's racism or his conflict with Lassalle, but that's a different purpose than collecting quotes on Wikiquote. It's not a wise, pithy, eloquent, or poetic quote. I'm not the first to raise this problem. --Ashawley (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- The whole letter is not quoted because only the notable parts should be included—that is the point of WQ. There are other pages on WQ that include vulgar and racist quotes if they are notable (e.g. Booker T. Washington's 'quotes about' section). The quote that you added from marxists.org, "Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes", brings up less results on JSTOR than the Lassalle quote. Scholars evidently believe this quote says something about Marx's character. I also note that you have shortened to one sentence a negative quote about Marx by Carl Schurz.--Britannicus (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I did shorten the Schurz quote about Marx. I had heard of it before. The rest of it is interesting, but it didn't seem worth keeping as a quote. I'm happy to discuss it further, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the current discussion.
I don't know anything about the Booker T. Washington quote you mentioned. It seems like you've evaded bringing up a rationale for including the Lassalle quote again besides the one that it is studied by academics. Academic quotes of Marx's writings could fill a room.
JSTOR is an academic database. It's not really indicative of all notable quotes of Marx. I wouldn't be surprised if a passage about Marx's racism is quoted more than a revolutionary quote. That would prove again my point that academic citations aren't a good barometer of notable quotes. It's your rule to measure quotes, not mine.
In yet another tangent, you raise the quote about a "dozen programmes" I recently added. It is well-known. You're not familiar with it? A search of the Marxists Internet Archive shows it has many mentions:  Searching for the quote widely on Google gives 75k results. By comparison, searching just a fragment of the Lassalle quote under discussion is only 15k results.. For context, "philosophers have only interpreted the world" is 85k on Google. "A spectre is haunting Europe" is 30k. "Workers of the world, unite!" is 240k. Google search results is not a reliable barometer, in my opinion, but would seem to be a metric to your liking.
There's no justification given per WQ:Q for keeping the quote. People either relish in having a slur on the site, or simply want to undermine Marx with his own words. There is no basis for the former on Wikiquote, and the latter is commendable but is not the purpose of Wikiquote. The point is to collect popular quotes of Marx, not to litigate his historical influence. --Ashawley (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a quote that I would have added to the article, but I also see no grounds for removal. The quote is verifiably sourced and the article should include a broad and wide selection of quotes, both positive and negative, not just picking the roses, otherwise it becomes hagriographical. A quote using profane language or highly critical or insulting to one of Marx's contemporaries or showing Marx's beliefs on pseudoscienctific theories can be memorable too. If this would be a quote that is quoted by others out of context to put Marx in a bad light, I would support the addition of quotes putting the quote in context, for NPOV, but this does not seem to be the case here. --ო ~ #SheSaid 13:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think you are right. Ashawley has admitted that this quote brings up 15k Google results, which is evidence that this quote is quite well known. (It also brings up more results on JSTOR than other quotes this user has added to the page.) Ashawley's history of editing this page, removing negative quotes about Marx, makes me think this user is pushing their own POV onto the article.--Britannicus (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I admitted to no such thing. Having only between 10k and 15k Google search results is very minor. Scrolling through the results, some of them are just like the academic work that discusses the racist attitude of Marx. That is an important activity, but it does not make it a notable quote for Wikiquote. Most of the search results are people trying to discredit Marx. None are quoting Marx for his words. Now User:Britannicus is making an ad hominem against me and my edits. I guess that's all that is left. I've done no such thing to them. The Schurz quote is minor, and benifited from being shortened. I've improved a bunch of flaws with this entry, and will continue to do so. I'm happy to discuss them, but separately from this topic. I'll discuss them on their merits of WQ:Q, something User:Britannicus has repeatedly refused to do. --Ashawley (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- No, it's quite different. I didn't bring up your opinions or your edits. My characterizations you've raised are assumptions about the substance of the quote and asking why it's quotable. Only "people" can add the quote to the site. The quote doesn't add itself to the site. I could change the word "people who relish" to the "quote only adds". Improving the quality on an entry on Wikiquote by deleting a quote devoid of context is hardly censorship. That's an absurd accusation. --Ashawley (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
User:დამოკიდებულება wouldn't have added the quote, because it's a poor quality quote. It's not a memorable quote. It's just as they say, an out of context quote using profane language. It is highly critical of Lassalle but in the most unoriginal way and using racist epithets. It's only the latter that is motivating its addition. Your suggestion of adding context might work for most quotes, but wouldn't produce anything useful here. The context would be of explaining who Lassalle was and what his race and ethnicity are. Does that produce anything worthwhile? No, it doesn't. Most quotes stand on their own. This one doesn't. Britannicus, is using its reference in a handful of academic works to argue it is memorable. It's not the case. This is using the authority of the ivory tower to justify making Wikiquote a bathroom stall scrawling site. The quote had a poor basis for addition, so it should be removed and it won't be missed. --Ashawley (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Great Indian Revolt Of 1857
"However, infamous the conduct of sepoys, it is only the reflex, in a concentrated form, of England’s own conduct in India, not only during the epoch of the foundation of her Eastern Empire, but even during the last ten years of a long settled rule. The characteristics that rule it suffices to say that torture formed an organic institution of its financial policy. There is something in human history like retribution; and it is a rule of historic retribution that its instrument be forged not by the offended, but by the offender himself." The most famous part of this quote is the last sentence: "There is something in human history like retribution; and it is a rule of historic retribution that its instrument be forged not by the offended, but by the offender himself."
'Alternate translation' of "Religion is the opiate of the people"
There is no reference for this so I deleted it. In the new annotated version of the Communist Manifesto by Haymarket Books, this is in fact shown to be a distortion. This distortion is even more elaborately explained by John Bellamy Foster, editor of Monthly Review, in the Introduction to How to Read Karl Marx by Ernst Fischer. (Foster's wikipedia page is consistently manipulated by hacks so I do not reference it.) In the Introduction Foster makes note of the many 'anti-introductions' that have been written to Marx's Capital, for instance by the anti-Marxists Samuel H. Beer and A.J.P. Taylor in their 'Introduction' to the Communist Manifesto (Croft Classics and Penguin editions, respectively).jonna
"Landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed."
removed this from the unsourced, if he said it he was quoting Adam Smith
Quite right!! The reference is Wealth of Nations..Book I, Chapter VI, pg.60..--Oracleofottawa 00:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
MECW has the Blos quote as follows:
"Neither of us cares a straw for popularity. Let me cite one proof of this: such was my aversion to the personality cult that at the time of the International, when plagued by numerous moves — originating from various countries — to accord me public honour, I never allowed one of these to enter the domain of publicity, nor did I ever reply to them, save with an occasional snub. When Engels and I first joined the secret communist society, we did so only on condition that anything conducive to a superstitious belief in authority be eliminated from the Rules."
Rosa Lichtenstein 16:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
"Mankind does not pose problems for itself for which it does not already have a solution."
George Friedman, of STRATFOR, ascribes the above to "Karl Marx, of all people" in his recent book _The Next 100 Years_ (p. 252). Friedman gives no source and I have found no attributions of the sentence to Marx other that people quoting Friedman. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm?
I believe this is the proper quote: "Therefore, mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve."
- No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society. Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation. 
- Eine Gesellschaftsformation geht nie unter, bevor alle Produktivkräfte entwickelt sind, für die sie weit genug ist, und neue höhere Produktionsverhältnisse treten nie an die Stelle, bevor die materiellen Existenzbedingungen derselben im Schoß der alten Gesellschaft selbst ausgebrütet worden sind. Daher stellt sich die Menschheit immer nur Aufgaben, die sie lösen kann, denn genauer betrachtet wird sich stets finden, daß die Aufgabe selbst nur entspringt, wo die materiellen Bedingungen ihrer Lösung schon vorhanden oder wenigstens im Prozeß ihres Werdens begriffen sind. 
Text used for Capital Volume I
I have used the 1906 Charles H. Kerr & Company text. Translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling as printed in 1933 by Modern Library Giant no.G26. It by far captures the "bite" of the original German and has a very special "printing history" in America. I know that some purists out there don't agree with everything...but after care full consideration this is the text of choice.. When I can acquire a reading copy of the original three volume set I will continue..--Oracleofottawa 02:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It is done...--Oracleofottawa 07:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament."
This is under 'misattributed' and it says that Lenin actually wrote it in State and Revolution. I've just looked at the online text of State and Revolution at http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm, however, and it says this:
"Marx grasped this essence of capitalist democracy splendidly when, in analyzing the experience of the Commune, he said that the oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament!" (Chapter 2)
Lenin doesn't give a reference here, so I'm not sure which of Marx's writings he's referring to. Surely it would be misleading to attribute the quote to Lenin, as it's simply a paraphrase of Marx. Obviously the best thing would be to find Marx's original phrasing, but I don't have the time to do that unfortunately.
- Marx's original statement was "Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament" referring to the commune of Paris in his "The Civil War in France". --Khaled Khalil 18:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Marx and Anti-Semitism
I have removed a quote attributed to Marx being "What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the secular cult of the Jew? Haggling. What is his secular God? Money."
Marx said that, but only as a reply to those very claims made by Bruno Bauer in his work "The Jewish Question" to which Marx replied to with "On the Jewish Question". Marx was using Bauer's own assumptions and claims against him to show him that even with such "qualities", his argument would hold no water at all. What people have done here in and on other websites is take the paraphrased line out of context and copy/paste it to show Marx as being anti-Semitic when the reality is otherwise.
A good reply and clarification on this issue as well as context can be found here: http://www.engageonline.org.uk/journal/index.php?journal_id=10&article_id=33
And the same one as a comment here: engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/book/#comment-4192
This is a case of out of context quotation, cherry picking purely for defamation.
"The Russian Loan"
A supposed quote that is attributed to Marx was removed, a single excerpt from the “The Russian Loan,” published in the New York Daily Tribune on January 4, 1856. Of course, if we take a look at the actual article in question, no credit or reference is given to Marx. The articles from the newspaper as scans can be found here:
And a readable and enlarged version can be found here:
And a copy at the Library of Congress is published here:
Marxists.org also has a list of articles written by both Marx and Engels, but nowhere can be found an entry by the title "The Russian Loan" or any content related to that entry. The list can be found here:
There is no attribution in the original Tribune issue. Years ago, bylines weren't a common practice, including in the New York Tribune.
The essay "The Russian Loan" is reprinted in the "The Eastern Question. A Reprint of Letters written 1853-1856 dealing with the events of the Crimean War", the author of which is explicitly given as Karl Marx. The editors of this edition, who compiled together the writings of Karl Marx from this period into one volume, are none other than Karl Marx's own daughter, Eleanor Marx Aveling, and her partner, Edward Aveling. The introduction to this compilation explains how the letters and articles were assembled and compiled. (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101074926989;view=1up;seq=14)
The essay "The Russian Loan" was also published again in volume 5 of the Karl Marx Library by Saul Padover in 1977.
There is some disputing of that from page 262 of Marx at the Margins by Kevin B. Anderson:
Here is the endnote from the above:
- 18. Padover has created a convenient digest of the problematic discussions by Marx on Judaism and Jews (Karl Marx Library, volume 5, 169-225). Padover errs, however, when he attributes to Marx "The Russian Loan", a particularly noxious Tribune article about Jewish bankers published on January 4, 1856 (221-25). In "Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der New York Tribune" (2001), an illuminating essay that forms part of the apparatus to Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe, section I, volume 10, the volume's editors (Hans-Jürgen Bochinski and Martin Hundt, with Ute Emmrich and Manfred Neuhaus) write that the earlier attributions of "The Russian Loan" to Marx can "definitely be ruled out", this on the basis of a close textual analysis (903).
The article "Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der New York Tribune" (2001), can be found (in German) at the following link:
"The Russian Loan" is briefly addressed on pages 902-903. The authors state:
- "Marx hat über „Börsenjuden“ und über jüdische Bankhäuser, darunter die Rothschilds, geschrieben, aber nirgends in der oben dargelegten Weise. Seine Autorschaft an diesen drei Artikeln ist deshalb mit Sicherheit auszuschließen."
The translation (by Wikiquote contributor Jacob D):
- "Marx has written about "stock market Jews" and about Jewish banking houses, including the Rothschilds, but nowhere in the manner set out above. His authorship of these three articles is therefore to be ruled out with certainty."
That's all they appear to say about the matter.
They do not address the criteria used by Eleanor Marx Aveling and Edward Aveling in assigning authorship of "The Russian Loan" to Karl Marx.
There's no doubting the attribution, but it is seemingly contested. It would be useful to have further confirmation of this.
- As it happens, the essay "The Russian Loan" is not only published in the New Tork Tribune (Jan. 4, 1856), but is reprinted in the "The Eastern Question. A Reprint of Letters written 1853-1856 dealing with the events of the Crimean War", the author of which is explicity given as Karl Marx.
- "The Russian Loan" appears on pg. 600.
- The editors of this edition, who compiled together the writings of Karl Marx from this period into one volume, are none other than Karl Marx's own daughter (Eleanor Marx Aveling) and her partner (Edward Aveling).
- The Introduction to this compilation explains how the letters and articles were assembled and compiled. (See full introduction here. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101074926989;view=1up;seq=14)
- There is nothing in the Introduction or anywhere else in this volume that would indicate that its contents were written by someone other than Karl Marx.
- As for the above-cited article "Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der New York Tribune" (2001), it can be found (in German) at the following link:
- "The Russian Loan" is briefly addressed on pgs. 902-903.
- The authors state: "Marx hat über „Börsenjuden“ und über jüdische Bankhäuser, darunter die Rothschilds, geschrieben, aber nirgends in der oben dargelegten Weise. Seine Autorschaft an diesen drei Artikeln ist deshalb mit Sicherheit auszuschließen."
- Translation: "Marx has written about "stock market Jews" and about Jewish banking houses, including the Rothschilds, but nowhere in the manner set out above. His authorship of these three articles is therefore to be ruled out with certainty."
- That's all they appear to say about the matter.
- They do not address the criteria used by Eleanor Marx Aveling and Edward Aveling in assigning authorship of "The Russian Loan" to Karl Marx.
- Jacob D (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Jacob D
- @Jacob D:
- Thanks for the translation from the article's German.
- I've made this a new section and summarized the discussion so far, since it was difficult to follow.
- Feel free to make further edits to what I summarized.
- --Ashawley (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races?
I may be mistaken but in searching for 'Neue Rheinische Zeitung (29 April 1849)' I only found mention of Polish Jews in an article of that date by Engels titled "Posen", qualifying them as "meanest of all races" in a larger sentence. So, not Marx's quote, and not a stand-alone sentence. Someone should confirm this, that Marx didn't wrote it. I will delete it until someone confirms it or denies it.
Karl Marx, the great enemy of human freedom
Karl Marx; the great enemy of human freedom. - Harry V. Jaffa, As quoted in "What Would Lincoln Think?" (20 February 2014), by Charles Kesler, The Claremont Institute. Looks worthy of this article, is it not? --2001:8003:4163:AD00:911B:E940:9BE0:66CB 21:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Jaffa is an historian of Lincoln and the U.S. Civil War, but I don't find him a notable commentator of Marx or Marxism. He became a member of the conservative movement later in his life and supported politicians like Goldwater and Reagan. It seems like this is just a provocative comment that he made. Nobody has quoted it. --Ashawley (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
The Russian Loan (cont.)
If you click the link that provides the German article disputing the attribution of the Russian Loan to Marx, you'll see that indeed they don't give enough reasoning. This is because they are in fact citing a different German article, also all about Marx's letters. This article, to be specific: https://marxforschung.de/2016/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/BzMEF-24-H.-J.-Bochinski-S.5-16.pdf Here is the full quotation, translated through Google Translate, and cleaned up by me.
"Number 8, 12, and 15 (The standing of European houses. In: New-York Tribune, No 4542, November 9, 1855, p.4, Col.4-5; The loanmongers of Europe. In: Ibid., No. 4553, November 22, 1855, p.4, col. 5-6; The Russian loan.ln: Ibid., 4590, January 4, 1856, p.4, col. 4-5): In terms of subject matter, these three articles form a unit and are believed to be by the same author. They cover the transactions by large European banks, especially in relation to government bonds. They have a number of common traits: They are only directed against the landlord and finance aristocracy. Industrial capital is completely disregarded. The causes of crises (specifically for the crisis of 1847/48) are only seen in false speculations by banks that trade in bills of exchange without having enough of their own reserves. The great wealth in the hands of a few has arisen, according to the author, through feudal exploitation and usury: "The accumulated wealth of feudal Europe is in the pockets of a small band of landowners and moneylenders." Great Britain is also included in this "feudal Europe". A list of European countries given in this context is at the top, following from Livonia. For the writer of these articles, the working people are an unconscious mass, unable to help themselves. For him, the capitalists consist of people "who have no other business beyond that of dealing in money". There is no question that such a view of the state of economic and social development in Europe can never be ascribed to Marx."
What do you think about this? Is it enough to put the quote in the disputed category? Are these views indeed contrary to Marx's beliefs?
- I didn't realize this worthless quote was put back on the page. You're suggesting it should be moved to the disputed section? I'd propose it just get removed again. The disputed quotes on a page are typically popular quotes that are simply misattributions. This web site is not for citing poorly written works with contested authorship. This is a quote site. It was put back without discussion in an undo comment last year. This page is so long it's easy to miss changes. --Ashawley (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Letter to Pavel
I've removed a large block of text that was from an 1846 letter to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov:
- But take a brief glance at real life. In present-day economic life you will find, not only competition and monopoly, but also their synthesis, which is not a formula but a movement. Monopoly produces competition, competition produces monopoly. That equation, however, far from alleviating the difficulties of the present situation, as bourgeois economists suppose, gives rise to a situation even more difficult and involved. Thus, by changing the basis upon which the present economic relations rest, by abolishing the present mode of production, you abolish not only competition, monopoly and their antagonism, but also their unity, their synthesis, the movement whereby a true balance is maintained between competition and monopoly.
Let me now give you an example of Mr Proudhon's dialectics. Freedom and slavery constitute an antagonism. There is no need for me to speak either of the good or of the bad aspects of freedom. As for slavery, there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring explanation is the good side of slavery. I do not mean indirect slavery, the slavery of proletariat; I mean direct slavery, the slavery of the Blacks in Surinam, in Brazil, in the southern regions of North America. Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery there would be no cotton, without cotton there would be no modern industry. It is slavery which has given value to the colonies, it is the colonies which have created world trade, and world trade is the necessary condition for large-scale machine industry. Consequently, prior to the slave trade, the colonies sent very few products to the Old World, and did not noticeably change the face of the world. Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance. Without slavery, North America, the most progressive nation, would he transformed into a patriarchal country. Only wipe North America off the map and you will get anarchy, the complete decay of trade and modern civilisation. But to do away with slavery would be to wipe America off the map. Being an economic category, slavery has existed in all nations since the beginning of the world. All that modern nations have achieved is to disguise slavery at home and import it openly into the New World. After these reflections on slavery, what will the good Mr Proudhon do? He will seek the synthesis of liberty and slavery, the true golden mean, in other words the balance between slavery and liberty. Mr Proudhon understands perfectly well that men manufacture worsted, linens and silks; and whatever credit is due for understanding such a trifle! What Mr Proudhon does not understand is that, according to their faculties, men also produce the social relations in which they produce worsted and linens. Still less does Mr Proudhon understand that those who produce social relations in conformity with their material productivity also produce the ideas, categories, i.e. the ideal abstract expressions of those same social relations. Indeed, the categories are no more eternal than the relations they express. They are historical and transitory products. To Mr Proudhon, on the contrary, the prime cause consists in abstractions and categories. According to him it is these and not men which make history. The abstraction, the category regarded as such, i.e. as distinct from man and his material activity, is, of course, immortal, immutable, impassive. It is nothing but an entity of pure reason, which is only another way of saying that an abstraction, regarded as such, is abstract. An admirable tautology! Hence, to Mr Proudhon, economic relations, seen in the form of categories, are eternal formulas without origin or progress. To put it another way: Mr Proudhon does not directly assert that to him bourgeois life is an eternal truth; he says so indirectly, by deifying the categories which express bourgeois relations in the form of thought. He regards the products of bourgeois society as spontaneous entities, endowed with a life of their own, eternal, the moment these present themselves to him in the shape of categories, of thought. Thus he fails to rise above the bourgeois horizon. Because he operates with bourgeois thoughts and assumes them to be eternally true, he looks for the synthesis of those thoughts, their balance, and fails to see that their present manner of maintaining a balance is the only possible one.
I'm not sure what part of it is useful here. It has some interesting analysis of monopoly capitalism, criticisms of Proudhon, discussion of slavery, and bourgeois ideology. Perhaps, parts of this passage are notable, but I'm not seeing them, and don't find any justification for including so much other supporting material. I don't object to restoring a notable quote from this letter, but hopefully it can be done in a shorter form. --Ashawley (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Quote by Lafargue
- To get to know and love the heart that beat within the breast of Marx the scholar you had to see him when he had closed his books and notebooks and was surrounded by his family, or again on Sunday evenings in the society of his friends. He then proved the pleasantest of company, full of wit and humour, with a laugh that came straight from the heart. His black eyes under the arches of his bushy brews sparkled with pleasure and malice whenever he heard a witty saying or a pertinent repartee.
He was a loving, gentle and indulgent father. “Children should educate their parents,” he used to say. There was never even a trace of the bossy parent in his relations with his daughters, whose love for him was extraordinary. He never gave them an order, but asked them to do what he wished as a favour or made them feel that they should not do what he wanted to forbid them. And yet a father could seldom have had more docile children than he. His daughters considered him as their friend and treated him as a companion; they did not call him “father”, but “Moor” — a nickname that he owed to his dark complexion and jet-black hair and beard.
This testimony by Marx's son-in-law is interesting, but it doesn't seem like a notable quote. For what it's worth, I've moved it to the article on Wikipedia. The emphasized part of the passage above is actually a quote Lafargue attributes to Marx, "Children should educate their parents". That quote might be worth adding to the main list of quotes? Since it's not quoted often, though, and it's not recognized as Marx's expertise, I don't believe so. --Ashawley (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)