Nazism, on the other hand, by most definitions has anti-semitism and racism as core constructs, which are inherently violent.

Yeah exactly, it's a dumb argument.

Marx, though, did explicitly call for the armed overthrow of capitalism. In an address to the Communist League in 1850 he said that "under no pretext" should the working class surrender their arms to the bourgeoisie.

Despite that, violence is not an aspect of marxist theory, despite marx calling for violence. I guess I'm saying his words in specific context are not the same as his principled writings.

and we don't define "marxism" as "anything Marx said"

Why not? An address he gives to an ideological club on his political analysis is just as valid as anything he wrote down in a book or pamphlet.

That would be like saying a speech a politician gives isn't indicative of their beliefs.

It could be, but it could also be that he was addressing a specific time and event, in which violence was necessary. That's unrelated to the broader aspects of Marxism.

Sure, but politician's beliefs range on many topics. I'm saying "Marxism" is about the transition from capitalism to socialism, and does not specify violence. It may be, or it may not be, depending on the situation.

He is talking about specific events, the revolutions of 1848, but is doing so speaking to the broader need for the left to be armed: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

If Marx said "This transition will always have to be violent" then I would chang emy mind.

" _ In the coming revolutionary struggle, which will put them in a dominant position_ "

In this section he elaborates: "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising."

Yeah, it's in reference to a specific moment and uprising.

And analyzing those events to call for broad political action.

In fact, it is in this speech that Marx describes his ideas about permanent revolution.

Which is a tenant of Marxism, with this address to the Communist League serving as a comprehensive insight into his ideas around that.

Which, if Marxism is the study of the philosophical teachings and thoughts of Karl Marx, I would think that this would be perfectly acceptable as "a part" of Marxism.

Compelling. You've given me some stuff to think about. Do you think Marx would advocate for peaceful transition if he thought it was possible?

Marx himself wasn't exactly a "violent" person insofar as he called for the beheading of capitalists and actively organized armed insurrections, but I think he understood that revolution would inevitably bring with it violence.

And that in such a conflict, the working class must be prepared and organized to respond and win.

Marx was a supporter of the Union and believed that they were just in their conquest of Southern states to defeat the institution of slavery. He and Lincoln corresponded many times throughout his presidency.

Interesting. So to get back to the original question, does that make the ideology violent? Like I said about the other ideology referenced, Nazism, the goal is violence towards those deemed as inferior or other. So are they both violent, and Nazism just far more violent, or are they both violent in that violence will be a means to the end?

It's a pointless question since all ideologies are violent.

An anarchist interpretation of that question would be that violence exists so as long as a state apparatus exists.

Differing ideologies simply dictate and prioritize what violence occurs, for what reasons, and to which people.

I dig it. Thanks for the nuanced answer. @hatmam12345 this answer is fantastic.

i agree, if i understand correctly. ideologies are only as violent as their rhetoric and how violent people choose to make them

I mean, no, they're all violent. One would consider socialism's public ownership of the means of production to be violent because it would involve the redistribution of wealth and seizure of some private enterprises, others would consider capitalism to be violent in how it exploits the value of labor in order to generate a profit on the behalf of capital and creates a system whereby you must sell your labor to capital to live.

they are all violent but for example Nazism is inherently violent while say liberalism is less so, because the rhetoric is less violent so the actions taken dont to proceed in the ideology's goals dont need to be as violent

the only redistribution of wealth under socialism wools be transferring the MOP from the bourgeois to the workers

Fun fact.

There are only 2 genders.

And your born with said Gender.

Getting a gender change is denouncing god.

HE made you who you are.

YOUR denouncing him.

California = What they were talking about in Malachi 4:1

do all the hurricanes in the South also mean something Biblical

Rising sea levels

Random things happen