Marxist Roots of Modern Anti-Semitism
Whereas Hitler saw ‘race’ as the primary instrument of social struggle, Marx saw class as the key to such a struggle. And yet, Marx wasn’t entirely averse to the idea of a ‘master race’. On the contrary, as Marx himself pointed out: ‘The classes and the races,
too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way … They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust’.
[50] Marx supported English imperialism in India simply because he thought the Indians were racially inferior to their colonizers. Although ethnically Jewish, Marx often resorted to racist phrases such as ‘dirty Jew’ and ‘Jewish Nigger’
in order to describe his political adversaries.
[51] Of the German socialist Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx commented:
It is not perfectly clear to me that, as the shape of his head and the growth of his hair indicates, he is descended from the Negroes who joined in Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or grandmother on the father’s side was crossed with a nigger). This union of Jew and German on a Negro base was bound to produce an extraordinary hybrid.
[52]
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/05/adolf-hitlers-debt-karl-marx/#_ftn52
In
On the Jewish Question Marx endorsed the anti-Semitic leader of the Hegelian Left, Bruno Bauer, who demanded that the Jews should immediately abandon Judaism. In his essays Marx attacked free enterprise for apparently ‘Judaizing’ the whole of Europe, and, in effect, ‘dissolving earlier forms of solidarity and turning the Christians of Europe into this own caricature of Jews’.
[53] For Marx, the ‘money-Jew’ was ‘the universal anti-social element of the present time’. ‘To ‘make the Jew impossible’, Marx contended, it was necessary to abolish the ‘very possibility’ of the kind of money activities which allegedly produced Judaism.
[54]
Marx believed that Judaism would have to disappear before capitalism could be finally eradicated. For the Communist utopia to become a reality, Marx thought, it is necessary to eliminate ‘the Jewish attitude to money’. ‘In emancipating itself from hucksterism and money, and thus from real and practical Judaism, our age would emancipate itself’, Marx proclaimed.
[55] Such a theme is repeated over and over throughout Marx’s writings; and so much so
that it is perfectly possible to demonstrate that modern anti-Semitism is actually a derivative of Marxist ideology. According to Paul Johnson:
Anti-Semitism seems to have made its headway at a time when the determinist type of social philosopher
was using Darwin’s principle of Natural Selection to evolve ‘laws’ to explain the colossal changes brought about by industrialism, the rise of the megalopolis and the alienation of huge, rootless proletarians. Christianity was content with a solitary hate-figure to explain evil: Satan.
But modern secular faiths needed human devils, and whole categories of them. The enemy, to be plausible, had to be an entire class or race. Marx’s invention of the ‘bourgeoisie’ was the most comprehensive of these hate-theories and it has continued to provide a foundation for all paranoid revolutionary movements, whether fascist-nationalist or Communist-internationalist. Modern theoretical anti-Semitism was a derivative of Marxism, involving a selection (for reasons of national, political or economic convenience) of a particular section of the bourgeoisie as the subject of attack.
[56]
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/05/adolf-hitlers-debt-karl-marx/#_ftn56
It was rather natural for Marx to call his political adversaries ‘vermin’ and ‘reactionaries’, who deserved to be punished for retarding the ‘march of history’.
[57] Marx asserted that dialectical materialism could be used to describe not only the evolution of economic systems (each with its own social contradictions produced by ongoing class conflict), but also the evolution of the different human races.
[58] A rigid doctrinaire, Marx made no secret of his intolerant attitude towards anyone who dared to disagree from him. ‘Criticism’, wrote Marx, ‘
is not a scalpel but a weapon. Its object is the enemy it wishes not to refute but to destroy’.
[59]
Marxist Roots of Modern Genocide
The goal of Marxism is not to promote human rights but to criticise the putative structures of socio-economic domination. In such a context, in
Principles of Communism Engels
described the idea of human rights as a ‘fraudulent mask’ to legitimise socio-economic exploitation. Indeed, all the most cherished values of democratic societies, including personal freedom and the rule of law, were denounced as nothing but ideological tools for legitimising an exploitive socio-economic system.
[60] Along with Engels, Marx advocated that that the idea of individual rights and freedoms are ideological constructs that make people more selfish. What Marx had in mind was explained by a well-known Marxist theorist of the last century, George Lukacs:
The ‘freedom’ of the men who are alive now is the freedom of the individuals isolated by the fact of property which both reifies and is itself reified. It is a freedom vis-à-vis the other (no less isolated) individuals. A freedom of the egoist, of the man who cuts himself off from others.
[61]
Coming from such a premise the idea of human rights can be approached as a class-conditioned category. These rights are not fixed
but evolve according to the progressive stages of class warfare. In
On the Jewish Question, Marx boldly stated: ‘The so-called rights of man are simply the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community’. These rights are not God-given or unalienable, but founded upon the ‘separation of men from men; it is the right of such separation’.
[62] Thus Marx stated that they rest ‘not on association of Man with Man, but on the separation of Man from Man’.
[63] ‘If power is taken on the basis of rights’, he wrote in
The German Ideology:
… then right, law, etc, are merely the symptoms of other relations upon which state power rests. The material life of individuals … their mode of production and form of interest which eventually determine each other … this is the real basis of the State … The individuals who rule in these conditions, besides having to constitute their power in the form of the State, have to give their will …
a universal expression as the will of the State, as law.
[64]
Can Marxists therefore believe in the universality of human rights? After all, Marx himself argued that the ‘narrow horizon of bourgeois right’ should be entirely eliminated. He fiercely denied that any right could have a practical meaning apart from its own historical context. In other words,
a given right exists in so far as the dominant class decides to create it, to accept it, and then to allow it to exist.
[65] As noted by François Furet,
What … Marx criticized about the bourgeoisie was the very idea of the rights of man as a … foundation of society’. Marx regarded such rights as ‘a mere cover for the individualism governing capitalist economy. The problem was that capitalism and modern liberty were both subject to the same rule, that of freedom or plurality … and he impugned it in the name of “humanity’s lost unity”.
[66]
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/05/adolf-hitlers-debt-karl-marx/#_ftn66
Instead of supporting the universality of human rights, Marxism
declares the abolition of objective morality.
[67] Marx despised any objective standard of ethical or moral behaviour.
[68] In
The German Ideology Marx actually mocked the whole idea of objective morality, as an ‘unscientific’ obstacle to the advancement of revolutionary socialism. Rather, he elevated socialism as the only ‘basic good’ that, accordingly, would have ‘to eliminate the conditions of morality and circumstances of justice’.
[69] This amounts, in practice, to an attack on non-relativist ethics that ‘undermines the sense of personal responsibility, and of duty towards a settled and objective moral code, which was at the centre of nineteenth-century European civilization’.
[70] That being so, ‘Marx, and subsequent Marxists have singled out morality as ideological and relative to class interests and particular modes of production’.
[71] According to Marx, writes legal philosopher Michael Freeman,
… all that ‘basic laws’ would do is furnish principles for the regulation of conflicting claims and thus serve to promote class compromise and delay revolutionary change. Upon the attainment of communism the concept of human rights would be redundant because the conditions of social life would no longer have need of such principles of constraint. It is also clear (particularly in the writings of Trotsky) that in the struggle to attain communism
concepts like human rights could be easily pushed aside — and were.
[72]
In this sense, the undercurrent of violence manifested by Communist regimes represent a mere projection of the Marxist foundations of moral relativism and lawlessness. As noted by law professor Martin Krygier,
the very notion that law should be used to restrain government power is utterly ‘alien to Marx’s thought about what law did or could do, alien to his ideals, and alien to the activities of communists in power’.
[73] As Krygier also explains, the disdain of such Communist regimes for the rule of law ‘is no mere accident
but is theoretically driven. The writings of Marx had nothing good to say about the rule of law; it generated no confidence that law might be part of a good society; it was imbued with values which made no space for those that the rule of law is designed to protect’.
[74]
In countries governed by Marxist principles the normative context has invariably resulted in the absolutisation of power. Communist regimes do not answer to a higher law or principle apart from the idea of ‘advancing socialism’. Such regimes are controlled by a small elite of Marxist political rulers who ultimately decide who shall live and who shall die for ‘belonging to an enemy class’ or for being ‘socially undesirable’.
[75] These mass killings are justified by the Marxist dogma
that a new world is coming into being so that everything that assists its difficult birth is morally allowable.
[76] Marx himself contended that ‘the present generation resembles the Jews whom Moses led through the wilderness. It must not only conquer a new world, it must also perish in order to make room for the people who are fit for a new world’.
[77]Seen from this perspective, ‘
existing humanity was debris, the refuse of a doomed world, and killing it off was a matter of no consequence’.
[78] In Russia and elsewhere Marxists were therefore prepared to sacrifice millions of human lives for the Marxist ideal of a ‘new man’. To realise such utopian goals,
everything is valid including the physical elimination of ‘the sorry specimens that populate the corrupt world’.
[79]
In Nazi Germany, the first targets of mass extermination were the crippled and the retarded, and then the Jews. In the Soviet Union, by contrast, the primary victims were the so-called ‘enemies of the people’, a broad and completely abstract category of people who included not just the alleged opponents of the regime
but entire social groups and ethnicities, ‘if they seemed (for equally ill-defined reasons) to threaten the Soviet state’.
[80] These ‘enemies’ should be arrested and executed
for what they were and not for what they had done.
[81] The Soviet propaganda described them as ‘half-animals’ and something ‘lower than two-legged cattle’. Just as Nazi propaganda associated the Jews with images of vermin, parasites, or infectious disease, the Soviet regime referred to those it wished to dstroy as vermin, pollution, and as ‘poisonous weeds needing to be uprooted’.
[82] As Stéphane Courtois points out:
In Communism
there exists a socio-political eugenics, a form of social Darwinism. … As master of the knowledge of the evolution of social species,
Lenin decided who should disappear by virtue of having been condemned to the dustbin of history. From the moment that a decision had been made on a ‘scientific’ basis … that the bourgeoisie represented a stage of humanity that had been surpassed, its liquidation as a class and the liquidation of the individuals who actually or supposedly belonged to it could be justified.
[83]
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/05/adolf-hitlers-debt-karl-marx/#_ftn83
A good example of such dehumanisation followed by genocide was the treatment of the kulaks in the Soviet Union. Kulak was a term used to cover both better-off peasants and any peasant who dared to resist forced collectivisation. Those peasants would have their belongings entirely confiscated and be deported to either hard labour camps or, along with their families, be sent into Siberian exile. The destruction of kulaks during the collectivisation campaigns in the former Soviet Union
is analogous to the Nazi genocidal politics against ethnic groups deemed to be sub-human and racially inferior.
[84] Similar to Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Lenin’s Soviet Union created entire categories of ‘parasites’ to be ultimately destroyed. These enemies were conveniently dehumanised in order to be mercilessly destroyed on a massive scale. In a speech dated August 1918, Lenin stated:
‘The kulaks are the most beastly, the coarsest, the most savage exploiters … These bloodsuckers have waxed rich during the war on the people’s want … These spiders have grown fat at the expense of peasants … These leeches have drunk the blood of toilers … Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them!’
[85]
According to Vladimir Tismaneanu, a Romanian and American political scientist and sociology professor at the University of Maryland,
The persecution and extermination of the Jews was as much a consequence of ideological tenets, held sacred by the Nazi zealots, as the destruction of the ‘kulaks’ during the Stalinist collectivization campaigns. Millions of human lives were destroyed as a result of the conviction that the sorry state of mankind could be corrected if only the ideologically designated ‘vermin’ were eliminated. This ideological drive to purify humanity
was rooted in the scientistic cult of technology and the firm belief that History (always capitalized) had endowed the revolutionary elites … with the mission to get rid of the ‘superfluous’ populations …[86]
It was the Soviet Union, not Nazi Germany, the first European country to establish concentration camps in the ‘old continent’.
[87] As early as October 1923, there were 315 of them spread all over the Soviet Union. From 1929 to 1951
at least one Russian adult male in five had passed through these concentration camps. Over that period no less than 15 million Russian people were brought into forced labour, with more than 1.5 million dying in prison. Six million people were deported on grounds of family ties and indeed ethnic identity.
[88] Hitler knew about those Soviet camps and he learned from them in order to create his own concentration camps in Nazi Germany. As Kaminski pointed out:
The leaders of Soviet communism were the inventors and creators of … the establishments called ‘concentration camps’ … [They] also created a specific method of legal reasoning, a network of concepts that implicitly incorporated a gigantic system of concentration camps, which Stalin merely organized technically and developed.
Compared with the concentration camps of Trotsky and Lenin, the Stalinist ones represented merely a gigantic form of implementation … And, of course, the Nazis found in the former as well as the latter ready-made models, which they merely had to develop.
The German counterparts promptly seized upon these models.
[89]
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/05/adolf-hitlers-debt-karl-marx/#_ftn89
{It should be noted that concentration camps were well developed (reservations) in the US to hold at bay the North American Indian - this was known and there is evidence the ideas were utilized in Nazi Germany, and perhaps firstly in Soviet Russia?}
One of the most disturbing characteristics of Marxist regimes is not the amount of victims arrested, tortured and killed,
but rather the principle on which such atrocities can be justified. Once power is achieved, the repressive apparatus
can be used to hunt people down, to destroy their lives not for what such people have done but because of their social ‘category’. As Johnson puts it, once the idea of personal guilt is abolished, t
hen a government can more easily eliminate entire categories of individuals on grounds of occupation or parentage. There is actually no limit to the extent to which this deadly principle might be applied. Indeed, entire groups can be classified as “enemies” and then condemned to imprisonment or slaughter. There is no real difference between destroying a social class and destroying a race. The modern practice of genocide had been born.
[90]
Marx did not reject terrorism if it suited his ideological goals. Despite the history of the French Revolution during its ‘Terror’ stage, Marx gave its method unqualified endorsement. There was, according to Marx, ‘
only one means to curtail, simplify and localize the bloody agony of the old society and the bloody birth-pangs of the new, only one means — the revolutionary terror’.
[91] Thus he warned the Prussian government, in 1849: ‘
We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism.’
[92] When Marx heard about the unsuccessful attempt by a radical anarchist to assassinate German Emperor Wilhelm I, in 1878, a fellow communist recorded his outburst of anger and indignation, ‘heaping curses on this terrorist who had failed to carry out his act of terror’.
[93] As Paul Johnson points out:
That Marx, once established in power, would have been capable of great violence and cruelty seems certain. But of course
he was never in a position to carry out large-scale revolution, violent or otherwise, and his pent-up rage therefore passed into his books, which always have a tone of intransigence and extremism. Many passages give the impression t
hat they have actually been written in a state of fury. In due course Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung practiced, on an enormous scale, t
he violence which Marx felt in his heart and which his works exude.
[94]
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/05/adolf-hitlers-debt-karl-marx/#_ftn94
Final Considerations
History shows beyond doubt that the class genocide carried out by Marxist regimes has been aided and abetted by a political philosophy that encourages, inadvertently if not explicitly,
policies that turned out to be profoundly genocidal. The problem is not so much that Marxism pays no attention to policies that turn out to be inevitably genocidal, but rather that Marxist ideology
has prepared the mindset and paved the way for the implementation of government-sanctioned assassination in a massive scale. In the 20th century alone, Marxist regimes and revolutionary movements killed more than 100 million people.
In addition,
the notion that Nazism and Communism are polar opposites on the political spectrum hides the fact that they are actually kindred spirits. There is a remarkable convergence of ideas between these two ideologies. Such a convergence was made evident even before the Nazis and the Communists turned into allies during World War II.
[95]
Marxism, in both its original and more orthodox guises, inspired both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis to establish their concentration camps in order to exterminate their political opponents or other ‘undesirable’ individuals. Such an ideological drive in both Communism and Nazism is patently genocidal
but it is nonetheless a derivative of the Marxist contempt for the rule of law and, above all, for basic human rights and freedoms.
[96] In both public and private conversations, Hitler himself
was quite willing to concede his great debt to Marxism, claiming even to have ‘learned a great deal from Marxism’. Above all, Hitler wasn’t so wrong when he candidly confessed: ‘Basically, National-Socialism and Marxism are the same’.
[97].
This is probably the only instance where I can say that I actually agree with him.
Dr Augusto Zimmermann LLB, LLM, PhD is Professor of Law at Sheridan College in Perth, Western Australia, and Professor of Law (Adjunct) at the University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney campus. He is also President of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA), and a former Commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia (2012-2017).
Curiously, Soviet Russia actually collaborated with Nazi Germany against Poland through the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, which was signed in August 1939.
[42] So much so that Stalin even returned to Nazi Germany the German Communists who sought refuge in the Soviet Union.
[43] The Nazi regime found in its Soviet counterpart ‘a ready model for the one-party state’.
[44] Back in those days, all over the world, ‘Communist Parties reversed their anti-Nazi policy, preaching peace with Germany at any price, and actively sabotaging the war-effort when it came: at the height of the Nazi invasion of France, Maurice Thorez, head of the French CP, broadcast from Moscow begging the French troops not to resist’.
[45]
One of the the factors exploited by Hitler in the elections of 1932–33 was the general fear amongst the German people of a communist takeover.
One of the reasons as to why Hitler aimed first to eliminate the ‘Left’, before he went after the ‘Right’, was the Nazi appeal to the same social base as Communism, as well as the use of similar language and the same categories as their Communist counterparts.
[46] Back in those days it seemed as if German society
was politically splitting apart as support not just for the Nazis but also for the Communists increased.
[47] By January 1932, more than six millions Germans were unemployed.
[48] And when a workman was unemployed at that time, then there was only one thing left, said Johannes Zahn, then a young economist, ‘
either he became a Communist or he became an SA man [i.e., a Nazi Storm Trooper].’
[49]
[1] John Stone, ‘EU President Juncker Defends Karl Marx’s Legacy’,
The Independent, May 5, 2018, at
EU president Juncker defends Karl Marx’s legacy
[2] Paul Johnson,
Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties (New York/NY: HarperPerennial, 2001), p 57.
[3] Benito Mussolini,
Opera Omnia, 36 vols, Florence 1951-63, Vol.II, pp 32 and 126, quoted in Johnson, above note 1, p 57.
[4] Ibid, p 57.
[5] François Furet,
The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century (Chicago/IL: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p 22.
[6] Johnson, above note 2, p 37.
[7] Johnson, above note 2, p 96.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Thomas Sowell, ‘Socialist or Fascist’,
The American Spectator, June 12, 2012, at <
www.spectator.org/archives/2012/06/12/socialist-or-fascist>
[10] Johnson, above note 2 p 96.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid, p 57.
[13] Ibid, p 58.
[14] For a comprehensive analysis of the Nazi platform, see Jonah Goldberg,
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change (New York/NY: Three Rivers Press, 2009) pp 410–13.
[15] Adolf Hitler, Public Speech, Munich, 1st May 1927. Quoted from John Toland,
Adolf Hitler (New York/NY: Doubleday & Co., 1976), p 306.
[16] Tom G. Palmer, ‘Bismarck’s Legacy’, in Tom G. Palmer (ed.),
After the Welfare State (Ottawa/IL, Jameson Books, 2012), p 34.
[17] Ibid., p 35.
[18] Tom Palmer comments: ‘The National Socialist welfare state, which instituted such an embracing system of patronage, dependence, and loyalty among the German population, was financed … by means of stripping the Jews of their wealth (from their money, businesses, and homes down to their dental fillings, children’s toys, and even their hair), confiscating the assets of enemies of the state, and looting the rest of Europe through requisitions and deliberate inflation of the currencies of occupied countries . It was also a pyramid scheme that required an ever-greater base of people paying into it to channel the loot upwards. Like all pyramid schemes, the Third Reich was doomed to fail’. – T G Palmer, ‘Bismarck’s Legacy’, in Palmer, above n.16, p 36.
[19] Götz Aly,
Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State (New York/NY: Henry, Holt & Co., 2006), p 6.HiHhh asdaf asdf
[20] Walter J Rinderle and Bernard Norling,
The Nazi Impact on a German Village (Lexington/KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1993), p 148.
[21] R. C. van Caenegem,
An Historical Introduction to Western Constitutional Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p 287.
[22] Richard Pipes,
Russia under the Bolshevik Regime (New York/NY: Vintage Books, 1995), p 260.
[23] Adolf Hitler, Speech in Celebration of Workers’ Day, 1st May 1934. Quoted from Richard Weikart,
Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress (New York/NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p 113.
[24] Adolf Hitler, Speech of 7th October 1933. Quoted from Leonard Peikoff,
Ominous Parallel: The End of Freedom in America (New York/NY: Stein and Day Publishers, 1982), p.3.
[25] Caenegem, above n. 21, p 282.
[26] George Watson,
The Lost Literature of Socialism (2nd ed., Cambridge/UK: Lutterworth Press, 1998. Watson’s book details Hitler’s praise of Marx and Stalin.
[27] Adolf Hitler, Public Speech, Munich, November 1941. Cited in
The Bulletin of International News, Royal Institute of International Affairs, XVIII, No 5, 1941, p 269.
[28] Hermann Raushning,
Hitler Speaks (London: Thornton Butterworth, 1939), p 134.
[29] Karl Dietrich Bracher,
The German Dictatorship: The Origins, Structure and Effects of National Socialism )New York/NY: Praeger Publishing, 1970), p 10. In fact, as noted Jonah Goldberg: ‘In Germany the aristocracy and business elite were generally repulsed by Hitler and the Nazis. But when Hitler demonstrated that he wasn’t going away, these same elites decided it would be wise to put down some insurance money on the upstarts. This may be reprehensible, but these decisions weren’t driven by anything like an ideological alliance between capitalism and Nazism. Corporations in Germany, like their counterparts today, tended to be opportunistic, not ideological … The Nazis rose to power exploiting anti-capitalist rhetoric they indisputably believed. Even if Hitler was the nihilist cipher many portray him as, it is impossible to deny the sincerity of the Nazi rank and file who saw themselves as mounting a revolutionary assault on the forces of capitalism. Moreover, Nazism also emphasized many of the themes of later New Lefts in other places and times: the primacy of race, the rejection of rationalism, an emphasis on the organic and holistic — including environmentalism, health food, and exercise — and, most of all, the need to “transcend” notions of class’. – Goldberg, above n. 14, pp 58–9.
[30] Richard Pipes,
Communism: A History of the Intellectual and Political Movement (London/UK: Phoenix Press, London, 2003), p 75.
[31] Ibid, p 96.
[32] Goldberg, above n.14, p 77.
[33] Laurence Rees,
The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler: Leading Millions into the Abyss (Croydon/UK: Ebury Press, 2013), p 95.
[34] Johnson, above note 2, p 282.
[35] Max H. Kele,
Nazis and Workers: National Socialist Appeals to German Labor 1919–1933 (Chapel Hill/NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1972), p 93.
[36] Ibid, p 92.
[37] Rees, above n.33, p.66.
[38] Friderich A Hayek,
The Road to Serfdom [1944] (London: Routledge, 2008), p 173.
[39] ibid, p 5.
[40] Hitler speech of 12 April 1922. Quoted from Rees, above n.32, p.30.
[41] Rees, above n.33, p.31.
[42] Caenegem, above note 21, p 279.
[43] Pipes, above n.22, p 76.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Johnson, above n.2, p 361.
[46] Goldberg, above n.14, p 70.
[47] Rees, above n.33, p 80. Rees then gives the account of Fritz Arlt, an 18-year old student in the 1930s. Influenced by an older brother, Fritz initially flirted with Communism but eventually decided to embrace National Socialism once he felt that the ‘solidarity’ of International Socialism across national boundaries wasn’t possible because of the individual countries effectively pursuing their own national self-interests.
[48] Ibid., p.79.
[49] Ibid., p.80.
[50] Karl Marx, ‘Forced Emigration’,
New York Tribune, March 22, 1853. Available at Marxist Internet Archives, at
Karl Marx in the New York Tribune 1853
[51] Johnson, above n.2, p 62.
[52] Marx and Engels, Vol XXX, p 259 cited in Johnson, above note 1, p 62.
[53] Palmer, above n.16, p 38.
[54] Johnson, above n.2, pp 57–8.
[55] T. B. Bottomore,
Karl Marx: Early Writings (New York/NY: McGraw-Hill, 1963), pp 34–7.
[56] Johnson, above n.2, p 117.
[57] Dinesh D’Souza,
What’s So Great About Christianity?, Regnery, Washington/DC, 2007, p 220.
[58] Richard Overy,
The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia, Allen Lane, London, 2004, p 266.
[59] Pipes, above n.30, p 10
[60] J. M. Kelly,
A Short History of Western Legal Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992) p 330.
[61] Georg Lukacs,
History and Class Consciousness (Cambridge/MA: MIT Press, 1971), p 315.
[62] Bottomore, above n. 55, pp 24–6.
[63] Karl Marx,
On the Jewish Question – Volume 3 (New York/NY: International Publishers) pp 162–4.
[64] Kark Marx and Friedrich Engels,
The German Ideology, available at
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf
[65] E. A. Harriman, ‘Review of Enemy Property in America’ (1924) 1
The American Journal of International Law 202.
[66] Furet, above n.5, pp 10–11.
[67] M.D.A. Freeman, Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence (8th ed., London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2008), p 1151. Objective morality is, for instance, what one finds in Christian jurisprudence and the Western legal tradition of God-given inalienable rights of the individual.
[68] Ibid.
[69] Ibid., p 1152.
[70] Johnson, above note 1, p 11.
[71] Freeman, above n.67, p 1150.
[72] Ibid, p 1153.
[73] Martin Krygier, ‘Introduction’ in Martin Krygier (ed),
Marxism and Communism: Posthumous Reflections on Politics, Society, and Law (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994), p 14.
[74] Martin Krygier, ‘Marxism, Communism, and Rule of Law’ in Krygier, above n. 73, p 117.
[75] Thus stated the editorial of the Soviet newspaper, in 1918: ‘We reject the old system of morality and ‘humanity’ invented by the bourgeoisie … Our morality has no precedent, and our humanity is absolute because it rests on a new ideal … To us, everything is permitted, for we are the first to raise the sword not to oppress races and reduce them to slavery, but to liberate humanity from its shaklers … Blood? Let blood flow like water! Let blood stain forever the black pirate’s flag flown by the bourgeoisie, and let our flag be blood-red forever! For only through the death of the old world can we liberate ourselves from the return of those jackals!’ – Nicolas Werth, ‘A State Against its People: Violence, Repression and Terror in the Soviet Union’ in Stephane Courtois et al,
The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge/MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), p 102
[76] Ibid.
[77] Karl Marx,
The Class Struggles in France 1848–1850 (New York/NY: International Publishers, 1964), p 114.
[78] Pipes, above n.30, p 68.
[79] Ibid, p 68.
[80] Anne Applebaum,
Gulag: A History (New York/NY: Anchor Books, 2003). ‘At different times Stalin conducted mass arrests of Poles, Chechens, Tartars, and — on the eve of his death — Jews’, p xxxvi.
[81] Ibid.
[82] Ibid, p xxxvi.
[83] Stephane Courtois, ‘Conclusion: Why?’ in Courtois, above n.75, p 752.
[84] Raymond Aron,
Democracy and Totalitarianism (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1968), p 168.
[85] Vladimir Lenin,
Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii, Vol 37, pp 39–41. Quoted from Pipes, above n.30, p 162.
[86] Vladimir Tismaneanu, ‘Communism and the Human Condition: Reflections on the Black Book of Communism’ (2001) 2(2)
Human Rights Review 130.
[87] Ibid.
[88] Werth, above n.75, p 73.
[89] A. J. Kaminski,
Konzentrationslager, pp 82–3. Quoted from Pipes,
The Russian Revolution (New York/NY: Vintage Books, 1997), p 836.
[90] Johnson, above n.2, p 71.
[91] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,
Historisch-Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Quoted from cited in Johnson, above n.2, p 66.
[92] Ibid., p 71.
[93] Johnson, above n.2, p 71.
[94] Ibid., p 72.
[95] Hayek, above n.38, p 174.
[96] Tismaneanu, above n.86, p 130.
[97] Adolf Hitler, Public Speech, Munich, November 1941. See: The Bulletin of International News,
Royal Institute of International Affairs, XVIII, No. 5t, p 269.
