To what extent did Marx endorse violence? Did he endorse genocide?

Does Karl Marx support violence? Yes. genocide? This can be called "yes" or "his legacy is being revealed"

Karl Marx wrote a book entitled "Anti-Revolutionary Victory of Vienna" in the report of Newline in 1848. "The brutal death of old society and the occurrence of bloody newborn babies is the only way society can shorten, simplify and concentrate, this is a revolutionary fear."

As Michael David Pollano wrote in a paper on heirs supporting Marx violence (Wean State University, 2017): "For Lenin and Stalin, Marx's words are clear, concise and undisputable, or explain

In the first sentence above, "revolutionary fear" refers to the most likely pessimistic plot of the French Revolution, especially two tragic events. One of them is extensive killing of Vendée War - Wikipedia. It is voted by members elected by the regular army planned by modern political agencies. Technically, some historians think it is the prototype of modern genocide. Another reference is Robespierre's "La Terre" systematically used anti-revolutionary violence and mass murder in France from 1793 to 1794.

Marx agrees with violence. There are still mad anti-utopian people who brought up suspicious agenda, perhaps to avoid hurting anti-law. to understand

Marx supports violence and the rest is history. NKVD, Tcheka, Holodomor, Great Leap Forward, Senderoso Luminoso, Khmer Rouge, your name. They all found a good reason for Marx 's work. Of course, Engels and Lenin have developed further, but they all refer to Marx's work. Domestic and foreign socialism not only legalizes violence but also beautifies it. Yes, the national socialists are the core of socialists. The two beasts at the end of the world (Nazis · Germany and the Soviet Union) fought and died. But they are all based on the same fake science, deadly political utopia

In other words, in the current situation, supporting the fight with the Nazis is essentially a violent act against the people from the opposition. Strictly agree with violence against them for their faith. In accordance with this idea, we have reached the conclusion that to support such violence means to support the right of violence against those who do not agree with you. You can get whatever Winona Ryder has. That leads us to a conclusion - a conclusion with serious consequences. Even if the opponent who was condemned has become tolerable, but there is no basis and simply being opposed to using violence against opponents, even if we are allowed to use violence against those who object to us I hope that you can use it. Please do not agree. We can label people they want (without affecting ourselves). And if they give something obnoxious, they can prove that they are shaking them

I will take Nelson Mandela as an example. You knew that Mandela was called a terrorist by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, and he is known to recognize political violence as a means to the end. From a modern perspective, the head of the "terrorist organization" will eventually become an excellent figure in peace and understanding around the world. Public opinion changed Mandela but he adjusted his way over time to adapt better to the tribes he led and the results they wanted to achieve. Many of us remember him as heroic and as an affair from prison, but the background is that he is imprisoned as an angry activist. When they need it, he will be what South African people need.

Let's go against the facts. Josh Hader is a black man. His Twitter account revealed that he supports white people as "breakers" and supports organizations abusing white people. One of his tweets contains a black boxing picture that was stuck out. Black pitchers expressed hate towards homosexuality and drawn graphics that disliked women's remarks. Even if he apologized and accused young rash, I tried to imagine that thousands of white fans stood up and gave him a standing ovation. Or it has failed. We know what happened when some of the black football players protesting the police violence against black Americans protested. They were fooled by the US President and did not receive a standing ovation.