Classical Music Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
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?
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.

Wagner is an unfortunate victim of having his music poached by the Nazi big wigs. He didn't ask for it, and was well dead by the time his music got hijacked. True, he may have brought this upon himself with his (today) hideous opinions....... powerful stuff his music, a prime candidate for being adopted and twisted to suit whoever wishes him as their standard bearer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
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?
A civilised and erudite response, which is appreciated. I very much take your points.

That said, if someone started a thread entitled "Why is it that me and my mates in the Ku Klux Klan still enjoy the music of Hans Werner Henze", I am sure it would at least raise an eyebrow or two, and almost certainly embark several people's paridae into the bargain?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
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.
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...

Both political ideologies are based on finding someone else to blame for Society's ills. Marx (personally I don't give a flying wombat what he would have thought he was a first rate member of the Cambridge University Netball Team) based his on blaming all on "The Bourgeoisie", Nazis/KKK and their ilk on "people not like them". Find someone to hate, and hey-ho you've got yourself a political mantra. Doesn't make Marx a "philosopher" does it?

But Wagner deals with big ideas and ideals, idealised societies, idealised love stories. No wonder he's loved by the Dreamers, loved for his music, and hijacked by both the Left and the Right to peddle their sordid ideas, dressed up a Ideals. Yeah, I know, he wrote some stuff that helped the Right justify this.....

Tenets aren't that different, outcomes have been scarily similar too, but then again Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler didn't follow their causes to the letter, so tired old adherents have got themselves a get-out clause.

So they come back, marvellous how short a memory Mankind has.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
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.
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.

Yes, I think so....and I really don't think he would have cared......this is a philosophy of "them and us", bellicose vocabulary, and of hate.

Marx's words, a funny little book he wrote with a mate of his in 1848.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
Strong, vigorous verbiage to be sure. But where does Marx spell out the mechanisms--torture, mass murder, gulags, induced famine--to achieve his goals?
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?
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top