Nothing is above criticism (except possibly certain moderators on certain message boards).
Do you regard Marx's comments, quoted above, as an even vaguely accurate or fair-minded account of Jews and what they do?
In fact, do the comments have any value other than having provided some grumpy old sod the opportunity to vent his anti-semitic spleen?
OK after googling away I have found a book called the Diaspora Entrepreneurial Networks which sites this article. The authors Ina Baghdiantz McCabe, Gelina Harlaftis and Iōanna Pepelasē Minoglou see it as "anti-semitic" and "overstated" but nevertheless "with respect to family ties [between Jew loan mongers in Europe] he [Marx] has a point, as we shall see, and he was well-informed, as van den Berg (1992: 135-41) has shown."
http://books.google.com/books?id=yd0tfH6KrrIC&pg=PA196&dq="the+russian+loan"+marx&lr=#PPA196,M1
So there is no reason to assume that it is inaccurate, and these authors at least see some value in it. Whether it is a fair-minded is perhaps open to question. However it is not an account of Jews and what they do, it is explicitly an account of "loan-mongering Jews of Europe".
Furthermore, let's look at this sentence:
The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, and that the moneychangers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence.
At a glance, the religious immagery and the suggestion of historical continuity might bring to mind anti-semitic tracts such as the Protocols of Zion. But if you look at what Marx says, he is denying any profound ahistorical nature of Judaism - ie. the similarities between the moneychangers in Christ's time and the moneychangers of Marx's age "is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence". Marx continues by pointing out that others (non-Jews) engage in loan-mongering but that it is the organisation of Jews which makes them strong. This last is confirmed by McCabe et al.
The difference with anti-semitism is that it spreads false rumours - it tells demonstrably false lies. It exagerates the economic and political role of Jewry rather than documenting it. Notice that nobody has criticised the factual content of the article. The anti-semite presents Judaism as an ahistoric entity imposing itself on the world - a thesis directly opposed to Marx's historical materialism. Notice here that Marx is not an anti-semite for far more important reasons than platitudes about a commitment to an egalitarian communist future, rather the very core of Marx's theory makes a mokery of anti-semitic ideas.
The problem with this modern politically correct anti-racism is that it neglects content in favour of style. It neglects real oppression in favour of policing language. The modern zionist distracts from the very real and brutal oppression of Palastinians by focusing attention on the mere words of the oppressed (Hamas etc.)
