What do you think?
Rate this book
Karl Marx, racist
Weyl's research peeled away the accumulated layers of Communist hagiography and reveals Marx to have been a bigot of the first order. He used the proverbial "N word" just the way a Klan thug would. He hated the Jews, the Slavs, the Chinese and everybody else. If he was funny and clean-shaven, he'd be Archie Bunker instead of the fearless prophet of the downtrodden working classes. Weyl passed away in 1975. Born in 1910, he was educated at Columbia College in New York and then did postgraduate work at the prestigious London School of Economics. He returned to the United States at the height of the Great Depression joined the Communist Party and got a job in one of President Roosevelt's "New Deal" agencies. He hob-nobbed with other Communists including Alger Hiss, but "found secret membership in this [Communist] cell while a US official duplicitous, and resolved my personal problem by resigning from the government." Appalled by Stalin's cynical alliance with Hitler in 1939, Weyl left the Communist Party and began to notice some of the warts on its founder, Karl Marx. This book is his gift to us and it stands as a reminder of the kind of flawed man Marx really was. It should be required reading in every history and political science course on the planet. It is original, well written, carefully researched and interesting for anybody who is a student of modern history, European history, totalitarianism, 20th century world history, especially the Cold War.
283 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1979
1 person is currently reading
84 people want to read
About the author
Nathaniel Weyl
28 books3 followersAmerican economist and author who wrote on a variety of social issues.
Weyl was a member of the Communist Party from 1931 until 1939. In later live he turned against communism and worked for an South American institute studying communism.
Two of his books received some critical coverage, one of which was "Red star over Cuba" where he claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald went to Cuba just before the JFK assassination.
Weyl was the son of Walter Edward Weyl, one of the founders of the New Republic magazine.
Weyl was a member of the Communist Party from 1931 until 1939. In later live he turned against communism and worked for an South American institute studying communism.
Two of his books received some critical coverage, one of which was "Red star over Cuba" where he claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald went to Cuba just before the JFK assassination.
Weyl was the son of Walter Edward Weyl, one of the founders of the New Republic magazine.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 6, 2021
Although being an important book to highlight Karl Marx and his racist views, it gets a little bit too much when expanded into everything bad or slightly off with him. Yes, he was no good man. Yes, his theories were all wrong. Yes, he hated humanity. But reading about every one of his personal attacks on figures he thought worthy of attack simply gets a bit too much in the long run. The book also goes slightly into more peripheral things of his theories, as well as his family relationships, not always doing the best of jobs. I would say that the first half or so of the book is the most interesting and gives you the gist.
It's not a fair book that goes into a discussion with the views of Marx admirers, rather Weyl mostly goes directly into the source material for his information which is inspiring but for us who have not read them, it remains to know what he left out. I would say, as it is a well-researched book, that it's mostly trustworthy. Weyl also does his interpretations of things he could not know, although I think he is probably close to right - all is not proven to be so. There is definitely a grudge here, but also an eagerness to reveal to the world the true person of Karl Marx.
In the end, I think this is an important book that needs to resurface in order to change the Marx narrative into what it really is rather than the sunlight and roses that communist adminerers tend to paint it as.
It's not a fair book that goes into a discussion with the views of Marx admirers, rather Weyl mostly goes directly into the source material for his information which is inspiring but for us who have not read them, it remains to know what he left out. I would say, as it is a well-researched book, that it's mostly trustworthy. Weyl also does his interpretations of things he could not know, although I think he is probably close to right - all is not proven to be so. There is definitely a grudge here, but also an eagerness to reveal to the world the true person of Karl Marx.
In the end, I think this is an important book that needs to resurface in order to change the Marx narrative into what it really is rather than the sunlight and roses that communist adminerers tend to paint it as.
August 10, 2023
A HARSH AND ‘PERSONAL’ ATTACK ON MARX
Author Nathaniel Weyl wrote in the first chapter of this 1979 book, “When Karl Marx died in 1883, a dispassionate and informed observer might have concluded that here was a genius who had achieved nothing… Most of Marx’s prophecies had been refuted by reality… As for his personal life, he caused his loyal wife so much pain and agony that in 1862… he wrote Engels: ‘My wife tells me every day that she wishes she and the children were in their graves…’ ‘a lousy life like this is not worth living,’ he once said… Fewer then twenty people attended his funeral and the event was unnoticed in the world press.” (Pg. 13)
He states, “Was one supposed to imagine that all previous philosophers had lived in ivory towers and that Karl Marx alone was destined to lead philosophy into the arena of political conflict?... How did it happen that Plato trained his aristocratic disciples in politics in the hope that, should they seize power as city tyrants, they would rule as philosopher-kings? And why did Aristotle serve as tutor to Alexander the Great?... Marx knew all this. He was not an ignoramus, but a highly competent classics scholar. However, he wrote mainly for a discontented demimonde of pseudointellectuals, people who were easily beguiled by bombastic phrases that distorted history.” (Pg. 20)
He outlines, “I propose to show that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were neither internationalists nor believers in the equal rights of all races and peoples. They opposed the struggles for national independence of those races and peoples that they despised… I am not using the term [‘racist’] to denote the belief that some races are innately more able, more vigorous, and more intelligent than others… The sort of racism I have in mind contains two separate… strands. The first is hatred and loathing… Consider the frequency with which Marx used the [‘n-word’] in his correspondence with Engels… The second .. was to justify conquest and domination of the lesser and more ‘barbaric’ breeds of the human family by the peoples of Germanic or West European origin.” (Pg. 21-22)
He states, “there is no evidence that Marx cared enough … to ever take the trouble to visit a factory. This would have involved… little inconvenience since Engels was a Manchester mill owner. Nor have biographers found any evidence that Engels used his position to improve the conditions of his own workers.” (Pg. 24)
He asserts, “Few aspects of Karl Marx’s character are more contemptible than his ferocious attacks on Jews and on Judaism at a time when anti-Semitism was still rife in Europe and massacres of Jews were a recent memory. Although Marx was of pure Jewish descent on both sides, he consistently repudiated or was silent concerning his origin.” (Pg. 83) Later, he adds, “Karl Marx is honored in the Soviet Union for his widely reprinted anti-Semitic writings. The Soviet public is not told that Karl Marx was a Jew.” (Pg. 97)
He observes, “Karl Marx’s supreme intellectual contribution, Engels hoped, would be to prove that … the capitalist system was doomed and that it would inevitably be succeeded by a Communist system… To do this, Marx had to prove the proposition that, with every increase in the productivity of capitalist society, the misery of the proletariat would rise, the consolidation of industry in the hands of a few great capitalists would advance, and the conditions for a revolutionary explosion would be enhanced. Marx had asserted these propositions… but the propositions were always stated dogmatically without giving any evidence in their support. Marx realized that he would have to do better than this if they were to arm his revolutionary followers with what they imagined was an invincible theory.” (Pg. 168)
He states, “Engels’s common-law marriages with the Burns girls aroused all of the prudish intolerance of Jenny Marx… Engels may have been emotionally incapable of any close relationship with a woman. Certainly, his most significant relationships were with men whom he placed on pedestals. Marriage would have made him the head of a family, and he preferred to be an adjunct, companion, and helpmate to the Marx family. The only time the intense friendship with Marx almost blew up was when Engels wrote Marx… that Mary Burns had died without warning of a heart attack or apoplexy. ‘I cannot tell you how it has affected me. The poor girl loved me with her whole heart.’ Marx replied, ‘The news of Mary’s death surprised me as much as it disturbed me…’ Marx then devoted two long paragraphs to his financial problems… He concluded with this postscript: ‘How will you arrange your establishment now? It is extremely difficult for you…’
“The postscript was even more unfeeling than the faint praise with which the letter began. A few days after losing the woman with whom he had lived for twenty years, Engels was neither coldly planning new arrangements nor prepared to discuss them with Marx… Engels replied… ‘All my friends… have on this occasion… shown more sympathy and friendship than I could have anticipated. You found this moment suitable for a display of the superiority of your cold way of thinking. So be it.’ Marx replied … that he had regretted his letter as soon as he posted it. His only excuse was the really desperate situation in which he and his family found themselves… This correspondence … casts an interesting light on the ways Marx manipulated other people.” (Pg. 242-243)
This book is largely based on ‘ad hominem’ attacks, but it will be of great interest to those looking for such attacks on Marx and Engels.
Author Nathaniel Weyl wrote in the first chapter of this 1979 book, “When Karl Marx died in 1883, a dispassionate and informed observer might have concluded that here was a genius who had achieved nothing… Most of Marx’s prophecies had been refuted by reality… As for his personal life, he caused his loyal wife so much pain and agony that in 1862… he wrote Engels: ‘My wife tells me every day that she wishes she and the children were in their graves…’ ‘a lousy life like this is not worth living,’ he once said… Fewer then twenty people attended his funeral and the event was unnoticed in the world press.” (Pg. 13)
He states, “Was one supposed to imagine that all previous philosophers had lived in ivory towers and that Karl Marx alone was destined to lead philosophy into the arena of political conflict?... How did it happen that Plato trained his aristocratic disciples in politics in the hope that, should they seize power as city tyrants, they would rule as philosopher-kings? And why did Aristotle serve as tutor to Alexander the Great?... Marx knew all this. He was not an ignoramus, but a highly competent classics scholar. However, he wrote mainly for a discontented demimonde of pseudointellectuals, people who were easily beguiled by bombastic phrases that distorted history.” (Pg. 20)
He outlines, “I propose to show that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were neither internationalists nor believers in the equal rights of all races and peoples. They opposed the struggles for national independence of those races and peoples that they despised… I am not using the term [‘racist’] to denote the belief that some races are innately more able, more vigorous, and more intelligent than others… The sort of racism I have in mind contains two separate… strands. The first is hatred and loathing… Consider the frequency with which Marx used the [‘n-word’] in his correspondence with Engels… The second .. was to justify conquest and domination of the lesser and more ‘barbaric’ breeds of the human family by the peoples of Germanic or West European origin.” (Pg. 21-22)
He states, “there is no evidence that Marx cared enough … to ever take the trouble to visit a factory. This would have involved… little inconvenience since Engels was a Manchester mill owner. Nor have biographers found any evidence that Engels used his position to improve the conditions of his own workers.” (Pg. 24)
He asserts, “Few aspects of Karl Marx’s character are more contemptible than his ferocious attacks on Jews and on Judaism at a time when anti-Semitism was still rife in Europe and massacres of Jews were a recent memory. Although Marx was of pure Jewish descent on both sides, he consistently repudiated or was silent concerning his origin.” (Pg. 83) Later, he adds, “Karl Marx is honored in the Soviet Union for his widely reprinted anti-Semitic writings. The Soviet public is not told that Karl Marx was a Jew.” (Pg. 97)
He observes, “Karl Marx’s supreme intellectual contribution, Engels hoped, would be to prove that … the capitalist system was doomed and that it would inevitably be succeeded by a Communist system… To do this, Marx had to prove the proposition that, with every increase in the productivity of capitalist society, the misery of the proletariat would rise, the consolidation of industry in the hands of a few great capitalists would advance, and the conditions for a revolutionary explosion would be enhanced. Marx had asserted these propositions… but the propositions were always stated dogmatically without giving any evidence in their support. Marx realized that he would have to do better than this if they were to arm his revolutionary followers with what they imagined was an invincible theory.” (Pg. 168)
He states, “Engels’s common-law marriages with the Burns girls aroused all of the prudish intolerance of Jenny Marx… Engels may have been emotionally incapable of any close relationship with a woman. Certainly, his most significant relationships were with men whom he placed on pedestals. Marriage would have made him the head of a family, and he preferred to be an adjunct, companion, and helpmate to the Marx family. The only time the intense friendship with Marx almost blew up was when Engels wrote Marx… that Mary Burns had died without warning of a heart attack or apoplexy. ‘I cannot tell you how it has affected me. The poor girl loved me with her whole heart.’ Marx replied, ‘The news of Mary’s death surprised me as much as it disturbed me…’ Marx then devoted two long paragraphs to his financial problems… He concluded with this postscript: ‘How will you arrange your establishment now? It is extremely difficult for you…’
“The postscript was even more unfeeling than the faint praise with which the letter began. A few days after losing the woman with whom he had lived for twenty years, Engels was neither coldly planning new arrangements nor prepared to discuss them with Marx… Engels replied… ‘All my friends… have on this occasion… shown more sympathy and friendship than I could have anticipated. You found this moment suitable for a display of the superiority of your cold way of thinking. So be it.’ Marx replied … that he had regretted his letter as soon as he posted it. His only excuse was the really desperate situation in which he and his family found themselves… This correspondence … casts an interesting light on the ways Marx manipulated other people.” (Pg. 242-243)
This book is largely based on ‘ad hominem’ attacks, but it will be of great interest to those looking for such attacks on Marx and Engels.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews