web analytics

OH DEAR, HOW SAD

By Pete Moore On February 16th, 2019

Not for the first time, the Karl Marx memorial in Highgate Cemetery has been given added commentary. I’m not a fan of graffiti or damaging monuments. Then again I’m not a fan of memorials to the founding father of the greatest evil in human history. Maybe it’s best to leave the stonework as it is now, paint and all. Bolsheviks like their protest art. They can have some back.

76 Responses to “OH DEAR, HOW SAD”

  1. Karl Marx never lead any government and never oppressed or terrorised anyone. All he did was try and devise an economic system which he genuinely felt would provide the best benefits for the greatest number of people. It can be said that his system was wrong but he wasn’t an evil person. Those who used his ideology to hold and maintain power may deserve such ‘protest art’ but Mr Marx doesn’t.

  2. He Proposed confiscation of All lands and Putting all the land ( and all other important productive assets ) under government control

    How could this be seen as anything other than evil?

    How could a good person propose something that wicked?

  3. I’m not a fan of graffiti or damaging monuments.

    Then why be an apologist for it in this case? If Churchill’s statue at Westminster was treated like this you would be in full Rightworld rage mode.

  4. Marx was a radical liberal. He supported free speech, championed the rights of the individual and opposed censorship.

    Mind you, he also considered capitalism necessary; so he wasn’t perfect.

  5. I highlighted this text from primary sources a few years ago, but here’s it again from elsewhere…….

    https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/comments/483j6y/marx_is_a_jew_with_one_foot_in_the_bank_and_the/

    “Marx is a Jew and is surrounded by a crowd of little, more or less intelligent, scheming, agile, speculating Jews, just as Jews are everywhere, commercial and banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades; in short, literary brokers, just as they are financial brokers, with one foot in the bank and the other in the socialist movement, and their arses sitting upon the German press. They have grabbed hold of all newspapers, and you can imagine what a nauseating literature is the outcome of it.

    Now this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a people of leeches, a voracious parasite, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence.

    —Mikhail Bakunin, Etude sur les juifs allemands, 1869

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Robert-Minor-Dee-Lighted-1911.png

    – “Dee-Lighted!”

    Cartoon by Robert Minor in St. Louis Post-Dispatch (1911). Karl Marx surrounded by an appreciative audience of Wall Street financiers: John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Morgan partner George W. Perkins. Immediately behind Karl Marx is Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.

  6. It isn’t evil Phantom. You can call it a wrongful policy. You can call it naive And can say it won’t work, but unless Karl Marx intended to cause suffering you can’t call him evil. He believed his economic model would work best to distribute natural and economic resources most effectively to most people. He can be called wrong but in intent and ambition he wasn’t evil.

  7. For most families , a house and perhaps farm would be 99% of everything that they owned, then or now.

    Making so many people that much poorer, giving them no control of their economic life going forward, would be one of the greatest evils imaginable.

  8. He believed his economic model would work best to distribute natural and economic resources most effectively to most people.

    No – Marx was in the pay of the bankers and he created an ideology which would confiscate the wealth of ordinary people and have it placed in the hands of the greediest, most vile sect as embodied by international bankers.

    “If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs… Socialism is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.” – Gary Allen (American author and journalist)

    Nathan Rothschild had given Marx two cheques for several thousand pounds to finance the cause of Socialism. The checks were put on display in the British Museum, after Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, a trustee, had willed his museum and library to them.

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZPA_iRdmJa0C&pg=PA458&lpg=PA458&dq=marx+wealthy+rothschild+cheques+british+museum&source=bl&ots=wPPe7NNbAq&sig=PhrIKbUQaxsTQAWGR4-ndHev5cE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YCUGVdKsIMTKPbK2gcgK&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=marx%20wealthy%20rothschild%20cheques%20british%20museum&f=false

    Now several thousand pounds in those days was a great deal of money, and it is known that Marx was a player of the Stock Exchange, once boasting of winning £400 – a lot of money for ‘such a poor man’. I recall reading of those cheques but they seem to have been ‘disappeared’. Marx died poor because he was a waster, but he had been paid very well from his sponsors throughout his lifetime as his rival Bakunin stated accurately.

  9. Marx was in favour of private property for private use. He believed in freeing the individual’s gifts of production and creativity, not only for economic, but also for social and psychological reasons.

    In a way, there’s more need for a lot of Marx’ thought today than there was in the middle of the 19th C.

  10. Phantom – Marx’ theories may have been utilized by evil folks but he himself did not advocate evil. Much of the 19th Century world that he lived in clearly needed reform.

  11. Vandalism of statues is not right, whether they be Confederate, Marxist, or whatever.

  12. I think it depends on what we mean by vandalism. I also think location, intention etc… are important.

    I would support, for example, Poland removing statues commemorating Marx or Lenin, as part of their decommunization moves. I would not however support the desecration of Marx’s grave in London (something that has happened twice now in the last fortnight).

    Similarly removing Confederate statues and symbolism would be appropriate in the American South, while desecration of Confederate graves would not be.

    It shouldn’t be done by individuals but there should be a public decision that symbols such as that have no place in public spaces.

  13. Charles –

    Fair enough, but we cannot equate Confederate patriots with the founding father of humanity’s greatest evil.

  14. The statues of Marx and Lenin in Poland were put there when the nation was under the thumb of a colonial oppressor.

    They were never authentic, not for one second.

  15. Confederate patriots

    Surely you mean pro-slavery white supremacists who tried to break up the Union?

  16. The statues of Marx and Lenin in Poland were put there when the nation was under the thumb of a colonial oppressor.

    Exactly

  17. A lot of British statues in Dublin were removed, usually unofficiallz and by dynamite, in the decades after independence. Nelson’s Column is the most famous, but a fine equestrian statue to Hugh Gough was a bigger loss from an aesthetic point of view.

    Gough was the most successful military commander of his day, more successful even than that other Irishman Wellington. He is immortalised as “Paddy” Gough in Flashman and the Mountain of Light.

    It’s hard to know what to do with such statues. The people commemorated were often enemies of the Irish and the statues were not put there by popular choice. They often occupied very prominent places that should really be kept for figures who helped the nation. But at the same time it’s a pity to see so much good Victoriana destroyed.

  18. Surely you mean pro-slavery white supremacists who tried to break up the Union?

    No, I mean Confederate patriots.

  19. So patriotic they engaged in treason.

  20. But at the same time it’s a pity to see so much good Victoriana destroyed.

    My thoughts exactly. How is that different than the Taliban destroying the Standing Buddas?

  21. Statues should never be pulled down. They are a product of a country’s history good or bad and removing them is an attempt to erase facts and create a backdated ‘ fake news’ narrative.

  22. So patriotic they engaged in treason.

    Are you talking the Easter Uprising here? 🙂

    One man’s traitor is another man’s freedom fighter!

  23. Because the Buddhas were there when the Taliban found them. The statues Noel is talking about were imposed at times in living memory of the people who wanted rid of them.

  24. Colm, hear hear!

  25. “Are you talking the Easter Uprising here?”

    The two situations are a tad different. Irishmen weren’t engaging in treason as they had no loyalty to Britain during, before or after the Rising.

  26. “They are a product of a country’s history good or bad and removing them is an attempt to erase facts and create a backdated ‘ fake news’ narrative.”

    Except that keeping them up can do the same. Most Confederate memorials for example were only created decades after the Confederacy had been defeated. Stone Mountain wasn’t completed until 1972.

    They were put up not to commemorate the Confederacy but to help spread the Lost Cause myth. So the statues themselves are ‘fake news’.

  27. Seamus, no-one with an Irish name ought to doubt that secession is a right.

  28. Seamus, I’m yanking yer chain… hence the smiley thingy!

  29. I think that largely speaking countries should be allowed to determine their own destinies. The southern states of America however were not a country. The only reason they wanted to leave the United States is so they could own other people. No other reason.

  30. “Seamus, I’m yanking yer chain… hence the smiley thingy!”

    I know. 🙂

  31. I’m glad my ancestors lost that fight…but leave my statues alone! (I know, they’re not mine)

  32. I only hope hundreds of years after my death the many statues located of me globally will never be pulled down 😊

  33. Those who forget History are doomed to repeat it.

  34. Removing statues does not mean forgetting history. There are no statues of Hitler in Germany, or Nazi symbolism etc… Doesn’t mean the world has forgotten him.

  35. “I only hope hundreds of years after my death the many statues located of me globally will never be pulled down “

    Pulled off more often than pulled down…

  36. The southern states of America however were not a country.

    But they were. The US states are sovereign, above the federal government. It’s the southern counties of Ireland which were not a country. They never were. It’s a fake, uncomfortable country.

  37. “The US states are sovereign, above the federal government.”

    Nope. The US Constitution (the federal Constitution) is sovereign, not the individual state governments.

    “It’s the southern counties of Ireland which were not a country.”

    For the first time in a while you are correct. The southern counties of Ireland are not a country. The entirety of Ireland is though.

  38. Uncomfortable?

  39. The first 13 were sovereign each was their own country most with their own Charters or Constitutions they gave up their individual sovereignty the first Wednesday in March 1789.

  40. Yes, uncomfortable about Mr Moore having one of their passports 😉

  41. For the first time in a while you are correct. The southern counties of Ireland are not a country. The entirety of Ireland is though.

    no the Northern half belongs to England…….

  42. Ireland would be one of the more “ comfortable “ countries any of us has ever been in.

    That’s an exceptionally strange choice of words.

  43. Peter,

    Then why be an apologist for it in this case? If Churchill’s statue at Westminster was treated like this you would be in full Rightworld rage mode.

    You beat me to that one Peter.
    And Pete the hypocrite knows it to be true.

  44. That looks like photoshop graffiti.

  45. Colm

    Karl Marx never lead any government and never oppressed or terrorised anyone.

    And he never owned a business, employed anyone or worked, in the proper sense of the word. All he did was theorise on things he never experienced all the while he was living off of others. He was intellectual ponce !

    Marx writings supported bloody revolution. It was the blueprint for the murderous Bolsheviks to seize power and oppress the very people they claimed to want to liberate. He knew where this would all lead and it comes as no surprise to me that the same people here spring to his defence. Well all I can say to them is, spare us your white wash and go and use it on his monument, as it looks to me it really is rather need of it.

  46. // It’s the southern counties of Ireland which were not a country. They never were. //

    That’s why the entirety of Ireland seceded from the UK in 1921, not just “the southern counties”. The British law on that secession, the Government of Ireland Act, applied to the entire island.

    It was the northern counties that then broke away from Ireland; and, yes, those northern counties were definitely not a country.

  47. //The British law on that secession, the Government of Ireland Act, applied to the entire island.//

    The British law on that secession, the Irish Free State Constitution Act of 1922, applied to the entire island.

  48. ” It was the blueprint for the murderous Bolsheviks to seize power and oppress the very people they claimed to want to liberate. “

    It actually was not. Marx believed that it was a natural progression of things. Feudal agrarianism would give way to Bourgeois capitalism which would in turn give way to Proletarian communism.

    In 1903 the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party split into two factions. One group, led by Julius Martov, and the other group was led by Vladimir Lenin. The original split was over definitions in party membership but the underlying split was ideological.

    The Martov group wanted to wait. Russia was not heavily industrialised yet. It was still largely feudal. Marx’s theories were that feudalism would give way to capitalism and then communism. Russia wasn’t ready for communism as it hadn’t industrialised or established capitalism yet.

    The Lenin group wanted an immediate revolution. They didn’t want to wait for Russia to develop into a democratic capitalist state. They wanted it to immediately turn into a Communist state, and wanted to agitate and revolt to achieve it – a break ultimately with Marx.

    In 1903 Lenin’s group had a majority in the party executive, Martov’s a minority. So the two factions adopted the Russian words for Majority and Minority. Lenin’s group became the Majority, the bolshinstvo, with members being literally “one of the majority” or Bolshevik.

    Martov’s group became the Minority, the menshinstvo, with members being literally “one of the minority” or Mensheviks.

    So it would be wrong to suggest that Marx provided the blueprint for the Bolshevik takeover of Russia. In fact the Bolsheviks only came into existence due to their demand of throwing the Marx blueprint in the bin.

  49. “[The working class] must act in such a manner that the revolutionary excitement does not collapse immediately after the victory. On the contrary, they must maintain it as long as possible. Far from opposing so-called excesses, such as sacrificing to popular revenge of hated individuals or public buildings to which hateful memories are attached, such deeds must not only be tolerated, but their direction must be taken in hand, for examples’ sake.”

    From Karl Marx, Address to the Communist League (1850). Cited in E. Burns (ed.), A Handbook of Marxism (1935), p. 66 or 135ff.

  50. In which he was actually not speaking of a communist revolution, but of a liberal democratic capitalist revolution. That after that revolution takes place that the working classes should, through their own strength in numbers, agitate for better conditions for workers etc… by continuing to revolt, even after the previous ruling class had been replaced by the bourgeoisie.

  51. Its also is not part of the Bolshevik mentality. It is part of Marx’s theory of Permanent Revolution, which become more associated with Trotsky in Russia. After Stalin rose to power, and purged Trotsky, the ideas of Permanent Revolution were largely exiled with him.

  52. Seamus you are dealing with some people who don’t understand Harpo Marx, let alone Karl Marx.

  53. Your boy is saying that “ popular revenge “ is OK.

  54. I don’t seem to remember you complaining when Saddam was executed, or when they tore down buildings and statues of him.

  55. I think Seamus has been correcting those who have written what Marx wasnt. He is not advocating Marxism.

  56. Just pointing out the facts

    Marx counseled revenge, Lenin listened

  57. “I think Seamus has been correcting those who have written what Marx wasnt. He is not advocating Marxism.”

    Indeed. Most of what is “known” about Marx is simply replicating anti-Soviet ideas, despite the fact that the system of Communism as advocated by the Soviets was not what Marx advocated.

    I also don’t support what Marx advocated.

    “Just pointing out the facts

    Marx counseled revenge, Lenin listened”

    Anyone who thinks that Lenin followed Marx’s advice either a) doesn’t know anything about Marx b) doesn’t know anything about Lenin or, most likely c) doesn’t know anything about either of them.

  58. We can thank the Brits for Lennon, they thought they could control him. They had a choice to prevent Russia from going the way it did, but the British government was afraid to have a Russia under the control of Sidney Reilly.

  59. Yes Marx Had nothing to do with Lenin or the USSR, Or the movement that led to the creation of it

    Marxism can be a Dungeons and Dragons thing where Those who claim to know it will tell you that its words don’t mean what they say

  60. To take this back to something else mentioned on this thread – to link Marx to the USSR would be like linking the US Founding Fathers to the Confederacy.

    “Marxism can be a Dungeons and Dragons thing where Those who claim to know it will tell you that its words don’t mean what they say”

    Well quoting the actual text that Marx wrote or said is normally a good thing rather than misquoting.

  61. Do you claim that Marx didn’t say that?

  62. He said the general gist of it. However the direct quote you gave is not what he actually said.

    “They must work to ensure that the immediate revolutionary excitement is not suddenly suppressed after the victory. On the contrary, it must be sustained as long as possible. Far from opposing the so-called excesses – instances of popular vengeance against hated individuals or against public buildings with which hateful memories are associated – the workers’ party must not only tolerate these actions but must even give them direction. During and after the struggle the workers must at every opportunity put forward their own demands against those of the bourgeois democrats. They must demand guarantees for the workers as soon as the democratic bourgeoisie sets about taking over the government.”

    That is what he actually said. Again the general gist is included in your quote but the quote itself is not accurate.

  63. The words counseling revenge, in advance, would have found a most receptive audience in Mr Lenin and people worse than Lenin

  64. “The words counseling revenge, in advance, would have found a most receptive audience in Mr Lenin and people worse than Lenin”

    And? As I have shown, repeatedly, Lenin had no issue with breaking with Marx when he felt he needed to. So in reality Marx’s writings and directions had little impact on Lenin. Lenin did what Lenin wanted to do.

  65. And again you didn’t seem to mind when the Iraqi people took “popular vengeance against hated individuals” or when the Iraqi people took “popular vengeance … against public buildings”. So why does it concern you so much now?

  66. I only point out that Marx was a father of the abuses that followed in his name

    He told them to be abusive

  67. In what manner is it abusive?

  68. Was Saddam’s execution abusive? Was Nuremberg abusive?

  69. A disgraceful act of historical vandalism.

    We can thank the Brits for Lennon

    Indeed, he was a great songwriter.

  70. HA HA

  71. I’ve been to Highgate Cemetery on a snowy winters day. Beautiful peaceful place defaced by boneheads.

  72. Welcome back Petr.

  73. See what happens. If you say Marx three times Petr appears.

  74. it lives

  75. Nice to hear from you Petr.

  76. Thanks lads.

    Seamus, on February 17th, 2019 at 4:17 PM Said:

    See what happens. If you say Marx three times Petr appears.

    Hearty lol!