Claiming allegiance to Communism is just as reprehensible as doing the same for Fascism. No difference whatsoever.
Really? I would have thought that with starting a thread which effectively states "I am an adherent to a discredited and toxic political philosophy responsible for the deaths of countless millions across the world, and yet I admire a composer whose perceived political sympathies are also toxic and responsible for the deaths of countless millions across the world" , this is a perfectly valid point/opinion to bring up.Neither of these comments are essential contributions to the subject of the OP. Can't we keep personal attitudes to politics out of this, please?
A civilised and erudite response, which is appreciated. I very much take your points.Shhh! As you know, we're not supposed to discuss politics except clearly in the context of music. This is because of the risk - already increasing in this short thread - that we stray off the topic - Wagner's politics - onto another - our politics, and plunge into vitriolic dispute. The OP may have erred in using the thread title they did, but your counter about communism (which may be true), but is no more necessary to the debatewhat than to know that the OP is a communist. It's more important to read the article and offer relevant comment.
Otherwise, you and I will end up sharing contrary opinions about Communism (I don't agree with your analysis), DavidA and I will fall out - not for the first time - as we trade opinions about 'lefties' and who knows where we end up.
If this thread is worth keeping, wouldn't it be preferable to keep it going without requiring mod intervention because of the dread 'P' word?
I'm not quite sure Wagner would have approved of his music being used by a regime that wiped out most of Europe's Jews either...I am not a close student of communism, but I'm wondering if equating it--as originally formulated by Marx and Engels--with the tenets of the KKK or of Mein Kampf is accurate. Its subsequent history under Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin is another story, and I'm not certain Marx would have approved. I am prepared to be instructed.
The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air. Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat. (...) The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; (...) The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.So my question remains: Is it historically accurate to impute to Marx and his writings the horrors later perpetrated by sociopaths? ..... I don't think the old gent would have approved.
I think he qualifies for "incitement to violence" through this. If not, then being charitable to the fat beardy git for a second, shall we say he's "quite easy to misinterpret". Besides, I don't recall Hitler ever spelling out the nitty-gritty of how Auschwitz was meant to function. I am sure we aren't going to make excuses for him, are we?Strong, vigorous verbiage to be sure. But where does Marx spell out the mechanisms--torture, mass murder, gulags, induced famine--to achieve his goals?