• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Karl Marx the Racist. Do most people know?

Karl Marx the Racist. Do most people know?

  • No most people don't know.

    Votes: 7 100.0%
  • Yes most people know.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7
Completely contrary to what all the Starbucks Leftists here would tell you, Marx did in fact advocate racialism and genocide as his quotes and writings amply demonstrate. He was the prime ideological bedrock for the structural groundwork of Soviet Communist ideology as well as early National Socialism. Hitler read Marx as did many early Nazis then tuned Marxism, as did the Soviets, to their own nations cultures.

Goebbels even wrote a New York Times piece on how similar Nazism and Marxism actually were.



Trying to remove Nazi or Soviet ideology from Marxism is like trying to remove milk from breakfast cereal.
 
Care to refute what I wrote?

if marx was discredited then why do people still read his books and use his methodology to study financial crises today

certainly more than "naive" people or "fanatical communists" remember marx otherwise would there even be (probably) hundreds of threads with his name in the title just in this forum? or even more mentions of his name in forum posts
 
Goebbels even wrote a New York Times piece on how similar Nazism and Marxism actually were.

why are you so eager to take a nazis words to heart for one and two, after a cursory google search, i dont see anything written by goebbels in the NYT
 
if marx was discredited then why do people still read his books and use his methodology to study financial crises today

certainly more than "naive" people or "fanatical communists" remember marx otherwise would there even be (probably) hundreds of threads with his name in the title just in this forum? or even more mentions of his name in forum posts
Name me one mainstream economist who is advocating Marx's ideas. Marx is nothing more than a historical footnote for historians these days, he may be mentioned in college classes but no one in their right minds would take his ideas seriously.

As far as the Marx posts in this forum- you have a lot of naive kids here who have never been out in the world and dont have a clue as to what reality is and they are the only ones fawning over him. Only in the internet can commies and Nazis get a second life.
 
Name me one mainstream economist who is advocating Marx's ideas.

for ideas to have merit they have to be mainstream? doesnt look good for libertarianism or austrian economics either then lol

Marx is nothing more than a historical footnote for historians these days, he may be mentioned in college classes but no one in their right minds would take his ideas seriously.

Zapatista Army of National Liberation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Naxalite
Syriza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Podemos (Spanish political party) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

damn that's a lot of crazy people

As far as the Marx posts in this forum- you have a lot of naive kids here who have never been out in the world and dont have a clue as to what reality is and they are the only ones fawning over him.

there's already another anticapitalist in this thread older than I am by a long shot, so wrong again

Only in the internet can commies and Nazis get a second life.

where can i get a pretense to superiority like yours
 
why are you so eager to take a nazis words to heart for one and two, after a cursory google search, i dont see anything written by goebbels in the NYT

Goebbels on Communism with the Mask Off


Your average person is hopelessly uneducated on Marxism in relation to Nazism in general because the Western world wanted Russia to be the only "Marxist" country and wanted to "cleanse" Germany of its Socialist past after WW2 to distance it from Stalin who was still Socialist. That's intentional. It's not easy to find but if you look you will find vast evidence on Goebbels being a Marxist long before he was a Nazi even going so far as to publicly insult Hitler. In the video I've posted this is shown clearly. I think more the truth is you dislike this reality, which is fine, I understand you're going off what your Western education has told you, which is that Nazism was anti religion and anti-Marxist, both direly false ideologically speaking until the later years, though Nazism was always Christian, yet at least discover the truth for yourself.

Don't take some college kid sitting on a laptop @ starbucks word for it. They don't know what they're talking about. (99.9% of all Western "Leftists") (Nor does your average Western "Rightist" who would tell you Nazism was irreligious, it was not).
 
Last edited:
Completely contrary to what all the Starbucks Leftists here would tell you, Marx did in fact advocate racialism and genocide as his quotes and writings amply demonstrate. He was the prime ideological bedrock for the structural groundwork of Soviet Communist ideology as well as early National Socialism. Hitler read Marx as did many early Nazis then tuned Marxism, as did the Soviets, to their own nations cultures.

Goebbels even wrote a New York Times piece on how similar Nazism and Marxism actually were.



Trying to remove Nazi or Soviet ideology from Marxism is like trying to remove milk from breakfast cereal.

Yes, we know, you saw a picture on the internets and a YouTube video so you are an expert.
 
for ideas to have merit they have to be mainstream? doesnt look good for libertarianism or austrian economics either then lol
You obviously havent read a whole lot, Austrian and libertarian concepts are mainstream- in fact it was libertarian concepts that have encouraged economic booms in a number of countries.

Chicago Boys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Miracle of Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zapatista Army of National Liberation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Naxalite
Syriza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Podemos (Spanish political party) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

damn that's a lot of crazy people
Yes, they are. There's plenty of morons who still think communism will solve anything yet history and current events continues to prove them wrong. All one has to do is look at whats happening to Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
 
You obviously havent read a whole lot, Austrian and libertarian concepts are mainstream- in fact it was libertarian concepts that have encouraged economic booms in a number of countries.

Chicago Boys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Miracle of Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

brutal regimes are ok if it makes american capitalists richer


Yes, they are. There's plenty of morons who still think communism will solve anything yet history and current events continues to prove them wrong. All one has to do is look at whats happening to Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

do you really think its this simple

none of these countries on their own have enough of an industrial base nor the natural resources to bring about socialism
 
While I have nothing but disdain for Marxism and Marx himself. Let's be fair, in his time, who wasn't racist?
 
Yes, we know, you saw a picture on the internets and a YouTube video so you are an expert.



I know this thread is very hard for you Redress. I know. But you're going to make it I promise. It isn't so bad. Think about it. Your forum friends will still treat you as the resident forum leftist and never question your total lack of even basic ideological soundness in a historical context. It'll be alright I promise. I'm not going to touch your forum leftist social clique throne. Frankly you're out of your depth with people I'd consider ideological simpletons so for me to even grant you a response is really mentally revolting to me in and of itself.
 
so.... will we be racist in 200 years?

Probably not.

Any remnants of such folk will be ostracized.

At that point, even Asia will have had to grow up.

do you really think its this simple

none of these countries on their own have enough of an industrial base nor the natural resources to bring about socialism
You one of those world revolution types?
 
Probably not.

Any remnants of such folk will be ostracized.

At that point, even Asia will have had to grow up.


You one of those world revolution types?

dont agree ....every generation believes they are smarter and better then the one before them.
 
i dunno. are you one of those "any social spending is socialism" types

No, so are you gonna answer the question or nah?

dont agree ....every generation believes they are smarter and better then the one before them.

You don't think racism will be mostly archaic in 200 years, how long do you think it will take?

@bold: Holds true in some respects.
 
Perhaps the video you link has a point, but the quote that you provide here literally has no relevance to Karl Marx being a racist. Here is the entire quote from the original source.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/04.htm

ow I share neither in the opinions of Ricardo, who regards ‘Net-Revenue’ as the Moloch to whom entire populations must be sacrificed, without even so much as complaint, nor in the opinion of Sismondi, who, in his hypochondriacal philanthropy, would forcibly retain the superannuated methods of agriculture and proscribe science from industry, as Plato expelled poets from his Republic. Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way. But can there be anything more puerile, more short-sighted, than the views of those Economists who believe in all earnest that this woeful transitory state means nothing but adapting society to the acquisitive propensities of capitalists, both landlords and money-lords? In Great Britain the working of that process is most transparent. The application of modern science to production clears the land of its inhabitants, but it concentrates people in manufacturing towns.

In other words, he is not endorsing the elimination of people of certain races here, he is endorsing the idea of eliminating race as a structural barrier between peoples.
 
I know this thread is very hard for you Redress. I know. But you're going to make it I promise. It isn't so bad. Think about it. Your forum friends will still treat you as the resident forum leftist and never question your total lack of even basic ideological soundness in a historical context. It'll be alright I promise. I'm not going to touch your forum leftist social clique throne. Frankly you're out of your depth with people I'd consider ideological simpletons so for me to even grant you a response is really mentally revolting to me in and of itself.

See, here is your problem. I know my history. I did not learn it from pictures on the internets nor youtube videos, but by studying and reading a ton of books. I know that trying to claim Marx as a racist is silly, and not even remotely as silly as thinking it would matter even if he was. I am not a fan of Marx(Karl, I love Groucho and Chico and Harpo), but that does not mean I need to spread misinformation about him.
 
See, here is your problem. I know my history. I did not learn it from pictures on the internets nor youtube videos, but by studying and reading a ton of books. I know that trying to claim Marx as a racist is silly, and not even remotely as silly as thinking it would matter even if he was. I am not a fan of Marx(Karl, I love Groucho and Chico and Harpo), but that does not mean I need to spread misinformation about him.

Marx advocated (as I've shown) the mass-killing of large populations of people who he deemed too primitive to be worthy of class struggle because they were so behind. You can sit here and deny this (as you've clearly done in 75k+ posts with almost no calling out from the random wannabe leftist cadre here) but don't think I care about or am listening for a minute to your modernist leftist dribbling that Marx is being bullied and never said these things. You are wrong as wrong can be and your clueless forum cadre is just that, clueless. You do not know history.

Start watching this video at 2:24 to see that I am 100% correct and Redress is 100% wrong.
QWcK4cS.jpg





-Hitler was an admitted fan of Karl Marx. He read him extensively and is quoted as saying as much.

-Practically all prominent Nazi (and Soviet) ideologues derived their bedrock ideological framework on class and racial "control" from Marx and Engels. Nazism was nothing without its Marxian racialist class structure. So much so that Hitler became furious with Goebbels because Goebbels wouldn't stop calling Nazism Marxism (which it was). (Marxism is by default a racist ideology and no Marxist intellectual would sit here and listen to you tell them otherwise without screaming you out of the room as an abominable misguided US expletive (many expletives would be used).



Reading your posts is like reading some kid at starbucks with an apple laptop regurgitating what their Western leftist professors suggested readings say on Karl Marx. In other words, you know absolutely nothing (just by viewing your posts in this thread) about Marxism, Nazism, European nationalistic ideological slant basics, class structure, racialist underpinnings of Marxism, Engels, Marx themselves. Your posts have been some of the most intellectually historical disrespects to actual Marxian ideology that frankly I've ever read. God forbid you ever engage actual European Marxists (racists). I don't think you'd take well to them and they might attack you frankly after hearing you talk about Marx.
 
Last edited:
we can say Darwin is responsible for the holocaust ? :mrgreen:
 
Here's what another famous President had to say on the matter. You know, the only person in history to nuke innocent civilians.

In 1911, the year he turned 27, Truman wrote to his future wife, Bess: "I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman."

"(Uncle Will) does hate Chinese and Japs," Truman continued. "So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America."

Business | Truman's Racist Talk Cited By Historian | Seattle Times Newspaper
 
Strom Thurmond

 
More Strom Thurmond

"There's not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

The legend of Strom's Remorse.

Note that he may have actually said nigger.
 
You don't think racism will be mostly archaic in 200 years, how long do you think it will take?

@bold: Holds true in some respects.

i think far in the future we will look primitive to them by their standards of thinking, as many people think today that those who loved in the past were primitive.

the problem with people thinking is they do not live in the times they wish to judge, and therefore and do not understand why things were as they were.
 
Back
Top Bottom