Uploaded by UserAccount 
2408x2456 PNG 2.77 MB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Source
not provided yet
On the contrary, they highly appreciated the emotional and explosive power of Marxism, which led them to power and which would lead them (as they had reasonably hoped) to power all over the world. Summarizing in a nutshell: how science is nonsense; as a method of revolutionary leadership of the masses - indispensable. “
(с) Boris Bazhanov - Memoirs of the former Secretary of Stalin
Well, it’s closer then OP’s version.
This raises concerns.
You know who I am!
He believed in holocausts. Yes, he said some peoples deserve to be extinguished, because appearantly they don’t die out by themselves. Exactly like how workers don’t rise up by themselves.
This makes one think, doesn’t it?
I’d just like to say this first, that I very much appreciate you giving me a reasoned response, and as such, I will attempt to give you one also.
The reason I say he was particularly racist is because for a man living in England so long, he had a rather particular disdain for non-whites, referring to, for example, black people using the n word, even in German writings in which that word does not exist (he just used the English word). Let’s compare with two prominent British scientists for example: Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley. Darwin believed that the races were mostly equal in intelligence and that the primary reason for their apparent difference was arbitrary sexual selection based on attractive features. Huxley on the other hand believed that there were significant differences in mental faculties, but as opposed to using this as a justification to judge them as being bas, as Marx did, he supported their right to be integrated into society on the highest levels they could achieve, even if he didn’t believe they could achieve the highest levels of society and described them as “our dusky cousins” as opposed to a slur or other such language, specifically humanizing them and putting them into a conception of a greater human family. Obviously, I don’t expect perfection from people of that time, but for an intellectual living in England, his behavior about that was rather poor.
He was also particularly antisemitic for the time, having written much against Judaists and the Jewish Question, which was also rather abnormal for mid to late 19th century England, which was quite tolerant of Judaists (most negativity towards the Jews in England eas because of association with the Germans in fact; Parliament had many practicing Jewish members throughout those years.)
About Marx and terror, I do think he mellowed a bit nearing the end of his life, however, he was still quite hostile to the so called capitalist and bourgeoisie classes, and seed of hostility, intentionally or not, led to the mass terror of the Soviet Union and Red China, and the Khmer Rouge and many others. I think that willingly or not, he did cause the later terror inflicted by his use of words of disdain, rather than for example pity or understanding, for the bourgeoisie and capitalist classes. I personally disagree that they are even a problem (bourgeoisie can refer to anywhere from the owner of a multi billion dollar corporation to a farmer who owns a couple acres on which he farms rice and vegetables and sells the surplus, to a small store owner; the latter two I think are mostly well liked by common people, but were still targeted intentionally in attacks, verbal and physical, on the bourgeoisie); additionally Marx’s opposition to immediate Worker’s revolution in the mid 19th century was not the human cost but the fact that he thought it would fail if they didn’t start by implanting ideas of workers revolution into the zeitgeist.
Hearing Marx was racist isn’t not even remotely a surprise. Nearly anyone that pushed forward the rights of other races was sexist, and anyone that pushed forwards the rights of the sexes was a homophobe. We rarely get someone from those times that’s perfectly good. Because those times were incapable of allowing such a person to exist. But if we had a second Marx, one born in this time. I think we’d be in for a treat. Though, I’ve not seen that terror quote before. That is concerning.
Equalism was stupid and inefficient. Like a parody of communism at best. I guess if she used a better communism, it actually wouldnt make sense, as it would be so different from her original idea.
Unless… She used her powers to swap people’s cutie-marks. Let ponies choose their talent and destiny. Though that doesn’t quite sound like communism either… It does sound more equalist though!
tl;dr Marx was a rather unpleasant guy but old man Marx was a bit more mellow.
“The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” Karl Marx, 1848
I somewhat doubt that Karl Marx would be a particularly pleasant person. Depending on the meaning of the statement; if he was born now and did not exist then, well, the internet probably wouldn’t exist; the cold war is what drove a lot of communications technology forward, and was caused by the ideological differences between the communist eastern bloc and the capitalist western bloc. If he was coming back from the past like one of those goofy movies, he’d probably be rather unpleasant, given his hatred or distaste for the bourgeoisie, Judaists, blacks, Mexicans, etc.
A lot of olden day progressiveness is rather decent in my opinion; if you look at many of the founders of, for example, the United States, some, like Alexander Hamilton, had relatively modern ideas, such as abolitionism and the equality of other races in their integration in a republic.
Additionally, Karl Marx did not believe in rights. There is no conception of anyone having the right to anything in communism. Rights are an inherently liberal idea because they require the agency of individuals and the inherent value of that agency to be protected; it requires one place value on a non-physical concept, which is rather in conflict with the ideas of materialism, but quite applicable to humanity, being that we think in abstractions so frequently.
People will also often claim that the dictatorships of the 20th century are not real communism; this is in fact true. They are the described intermediary between capitalism and communism in Marxism-Leninism, and in light of Marx’s frequent writings of violent revolution, he probably would not find much problem with it. These dictatorships of the proletariat are quickly corrupted by lust for power and ideological fervor and paranoia. Even apparently democratic socialists lead to hardship and pain, such as Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro.
I don’t think it is sad that Glimmer is no longer a “communist” if what she was doing can even be called communism; it was less communism and more abolition of the proper division of labor and ability, more akin to some of the ridiculous societies described by Vonnegut in Harrison Bergeron and The Sirens of Titan. It is nothing to look up to whether one appreciates communism or not, as abolishing the division of labor is simply put, inefficient. Her idea was stupid in the first place, because making everyone equal just makes everyone inefficient. I personally loathe communism, its proponents having hurt many of my relatives, but even I can say that representing Glimmerism as even on the same tier as communism is silly.
EDIT: I really should put this effort into creative writing rather than stuff like this shouldn’t I.
Edited
Although the coparison with Starlight doesnt’s quite work, as she’s not got an improved version of her equalist idea anymore. She’s thrown the entire thing out completely. Her connection to communism’s sadly totally gone. And given her fear of leadership I imagine she’ll never try it again. It’s sad, as she has never been in a better position to be a leader.
…Maybe Twilight can give her wings to Starlight in the finale. Princess Starlight, that’d be nice.
Ah. Alright, I was just making sure because there is a common misconception that Lenin was some sort of nice guy.
Im saying Stalin is worse and more popular. No point that im saying Lenin is a saint.
@Background Pony #1FAA
Lenin was no saint, in fact he was a genocidal man. Have you heard of Decossackization? There was a secret order in the Bolshevik party that went thus: “carry out mass terror against wealthy Cossacks, exterminating all of them; carry out merciless mass terror against any and all Cossacks taking part in any way, directly or indirectly, in the struggle against Soviet power.” The Communist Party under Lenin led a genocidal campaign against the Cossacks in Russia, continued under the Stalinist regime.
They also had the Cheka, operating as secret police. “Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands, let them drown themselves in their own blood. This is a description of the Red Terror by a Red Army journalist (one who would be for it lest he not be a victim of it): “For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky … let there be floods of blood of the bourgeoisie – more blood, as much as possible”
Stalin was worse, but Lenin was a pretty horrible person too.”
@CountColtnackh
That quote is actually likely apocryphal as the earliest reference to it was decades after Marx’s death and even years after Stalin’s.
I can’t say much about Marx himself as I haven’t read his works, most of what I know of him is general information and some more notorious personal correspondences (such as the letter to Engels discussing “that Jewish ****** Lassalle”, and some of his discussions of the Jews.)
I meant who kind of people thinks the most oppresive communist leaders and not even a mention of Stalin.
It’s just reeks on just searching on “communism” and pick the founder because “more early = bad”.
OP must be “that” kind of special, huh
I have a Copy of the Communist manifesto, and yeah Marx did call for violence. At very end he admits he sees the revolution as a forceable overthrow of the existing society. Marx was a slacker who never worked a day in his life and was a self-hating Jew.
I haven’t actually seen the comment untill you mentoined it (I’ve unsubscribed from that pic a while ago, mostly because mods asked to end the discusion about political topics).
Everything is fine. I don’t take small “dissagreements” personally, so I don’t get offended over comments from from (not meaning to offend you) “random people on the internet”. It was really good to hear someone else’s opinion on the matter, as I don’t hide the fact that my belief on some subjects are subjective and may (or may not be) completly wrong. If anything, I’d prefere people to take my comments as a “food for toughts” more than “shitstorm starter” as I tend to take on the role of devil’s advocate in alot of discussions. My views aren’t from the perspective of someone “extreamly knowlegable in the topic” but more of the perspective of someone who has an open mind to concider every (even if the most nonsensical) option and give it some tought.
Even if I concider what you said as an offence, It still wouldn’t stop me from “defending” your picture here, as I belive that essentialy labeling you (OP) as a “duck” is wrong. Putting labels on people is a hurtful thing and doesn’t feel right to me. You have made a funny, yet very inteligent comparasing and you shouldn’t be essentially called a “troll” for that.
TL:DR
Everything is alright. Keep posting awesome stuff ^^
Revolutions are not inherently violent. Try actually reading his work sometime instead of taking what others say about it at face value.
@AWGear
Ah yes, because the man who advocated for an all-out revolution in the name of his ideology definitely didn’t want capitalists to hang.
Yes, thank you.
Although, I should take this opportunity to apologize if anything I said to you in the She’s All Yak image was too personal. I disagreed with what you said there, but I didn’t mean to be too harsh about it. I’m agreeing with you here, so I feel like I might’ve been too rude. Sorry if I was. :X
@CountColtnackh
That quote is obviously just saying that Capitalism will be its own undoing, not literally calling for mass-hangings. It seems pretty clear to me.
Edited
By pulling short sentences out of context you could prove any theory, you know that?
>”Lenin corrupted Marx’s ideas”
>Marx: “The last Capitalist we hang is the one who sold us the rope.”
Sure, buddy.
It’s basicly Starlight’s “corrupted” view of friendship and equality and it’s change being compared to how Lenin corrupted Marx’s ideas. There is no “inciting strong negative feelings” with this one, just a toughtfull comparasing.