Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
 04 Mar 2014, 12:39
When he writes “...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”
Does that mean he is opposed to the cult of personality as he equates it with a “superstitious belief” and wants every reference to it to be eliminated from the rules. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... _11_10.htm 26 Mar 2014, 07:01
What would he have thought of all his letters being translated and published for us to comb through, I wonder?
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21 Party Bureaucrat 26 Mar 2014, 15:45
That's clearly a problem, privacy should be respected as Snowden would say. Even Marx's privacy.
 "Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred "Loz, you are like me" Yami "I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred 26 Mar 2014, 23:15
Marx knew very well that he was a huge authority, he was aware of it and acted responsibly regarding that fact, but he behaved as an authority like a cadre should. By condemning a superstitious belief in authority, he didn't say that there should be no authority. Yami should reflect on that fact.
Also I don't think Marx would give a shit about us reading his letters. Teaching us is more important than being exposed as an antisemitic homophobe, he'd acknowledge this. I think Marx would be flattered about the way Marxists treat him. He'd hate the statues and busts though. "Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Forum Commissar 28 Mar 2014, 07:00
I think that once an author is dead, much can be gleamed from his writings, even private ones. A better understanding is to take precedence over qualms about privacy, especially if they are in the public discourse. We can't compile everything everyone has ever said (even doing this for one person is impossible), so obviously, people will focus on those who "deserve it".
There is the obvious danger of an author function fetishism, but we're Marxists. We can deal with that (right?). Like somebody else has written: Quote: This would be the wrong approach, an autopsy of hidden "motives" in a persons biography to arrive at what "they really said". Obviously, this plays a part, but the point is to look at the "text itself", which already comes burdened with all of our readings of it; more text invites more readings.  "You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal Forum Rules 29 Sep 2014, 11:14
The discussion is about Hoxha's revisionism, not about Mao's revisionism (provided that Mao is a revisionist). I used this work of Hoxha not because he criticizes Mao (I don't care about that), but because he exposes his own views and his own interpretation of marxism.
zoha
16 Jan 2015, 08:17
zohaa3492 wrote:Where'd this post come from? 03 Mar 2015, 22:06
I don't think Marx would give a shit about us reading his letters. Teaching us is more important than being exposed as an antisemitic homophobe, he'd acknowledge this. I think Marx would be flattered about the way Marxists treat him. He'd hate the statues and busts though.
**SignaturE**
11 Mar 2015, 16:46
curieroy wrote:He was not an anti-semite, and the person who is accused of homophobia (insofar as he actually wrote anything about homosexuals) was Engels, not Marx. Not that Marx and Engels differed significantly in their views on the world, just saying. |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||
