• 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
Henrin said:
That claim isn't even true. It's also not true that Marx was a racist. Yes, I just defended Marx. D:
Click to expand...

Marx was wrong in his theories of course--he never allowed for the reality that the totalitarian powers given to government to create the social revolution necessary to usher in Utopia would of course become permanent. There has never been a government in the history of the world, including U.S. government, in which government voluntarily gave up power once it possessed it. And those in government become as addicted to money, power, prestige, and influence and crave more of it as do those among the presumed 'self-governing' people. Which is why Marx was also wrong that the people, once removed from the oppression of the rich and powerful and dictates of governmentl, would co-exist and live and cooperate in prosperity and peace.

So he didn't grasp the concept that a government, even one such as ours in which the government is supposed to be limited in power, is necessary to a free society just as it is necessary that the people assign the government its powers rather than the other way around.

But however wrong Marx was, he has been unfairly demonized in various ways that just don't hold up under close scrutiny. That he was racist above and beyond his culture is, IMO, one of those ways that he has been unfairly characterized.

". . .Exploitation, in the Marxist sense, can only be ended by the working class overthrowing capitalism. Workers can, however, improve their economic situation by forming unions and other organizations. The more disunity among workers, the weaker their ability to effectively challenge the employer. This insight is central to the Marxist analysis of racism, which focuses on attempts by capitalists to divide black and white workers. If white workers identify primarily as whites, rather than as workers, they will not act in their common class interests with black workers. The way to end racial oppression and class exploitation is an interracial and united working class. . ."
Marxist theory of Racism and

"
 
Ryan5 said:
Goebbels was an admitted Marxist. I know you don't know that because you lack education on these things but try to grasp it mentally from your intellectual superiors. The vast majority of Nazi ideologues were Marxist before they changed to National Socialism.
Click to expand...

You seem nice.
 
instagramsci said:
brutal regimes are ok if it makes american capitalists richer




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
Click to expand...

Venezuela doesn't have " natural resources or industry ??

Are you friken kidding me ?

They had plenty of industry and resources before Chavez gave their industries and resources " back to the people ".
 
This pretty much explains all of socialism/communism in a nutshell:

 
AlbqOwl said:
Marx was wrong in his theories of course--he never allowed for the reality that the totalitarian powers given to government to create the social revolution necessary to usher in Utopia would of course become permanent. There has never been a government in the history of the world, including U.S. government, in which government voluntarily gave up power once it possessed it. And those in government become as addicted to money, power, prestige, and influence and crave more of it as do those among the presumed 'self-governing' people. Which is why Marx was also wrong that the people, once removed from the oppression of the rich and powerful and dictates of governmentl, would co-exist and live and cooperate in prosperity and peace.

So he didn't grasp the concept that a government, even one such as ours in which the government is supposed to be limited in power, is necessary to a free society just as it is necessary that the people assign the government its powers rather than the other way around.

But however wrong Marx was, he has been unfairly demonized in various ways that just don't hold up under close scrutiny. That he was racist above and beyond his culture is, IMO, one of those ways that he has been unfairly characterized.

". . .Exploitation, in the Marxist sense, can only be ended by the working class overthrowing capitalism. Workers can, however, improve their economic situation by forming unions and other organizations. The more disunity among workers, the weaker their ability to effectively challenge the employer. This insight is central to the Marxist analysis of racism, which focuses on attempts by capitalists to divide black and white workers. If white workers identify primarily as whites, rather than as workers, they will not act in their common class interests with black workers. The way to end racial oppression and class exploitation is an interracial and united working class. . ."
Marxist theory of Racism and

"
Click to expand...

You could've saved a whole lot of bandwidth by just stating : Society did not advance pass the dictatorship of the proletariat.
 
Kobie said:
You seem nice.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out facts Sir!

How Are Socialism, Communism and Fascism All the Same? | therightplanet.com

nTxpW3M.jpg

 
Last edited:
instagramsci said:
brutal regimes are ok if it makes american capitalists richer
Click to expand...
Chile has got one of the best economies in Latin America so they definitely benefited from it.

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
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me? Venezuela used to be one of the top oil producing nations of the world until the socialists took over, now they have a severe shortage of toilet paper. If the USSR couldnt bring about communism what makes you think any nation can? :doh
 
PoS said:
Chile has got one of the best economies in Latin America so they definitely benefited from it.
Click to expand...
Their best economic performance took place well after Pinochet was forced out of office, not to mention that old correlation ≠ causation thing that seems to have slipped your mind.


Are you kidding me? Venezuela used to be one of the top oil producing nations of the world until the socialists took over, now they have a severe shortage of toilet paper. If the USSR couldnt bring about communism what makes you think any nation can? :doh
Click to expand...
Last quarter GDP growth rate in Venezuela = 6.8%. I think the US and all of Europe would kill for stats like that.

Venezuela - Economic Indicators - Actual Data - Historical Charts
 
Andalublue said:
Their best economic performance took place well after Pinochet was forced out of office, not to mention that old correlation ≠ causation thing that seems to have slipped your mind.
Click to expand...
Chile's economy has been great since the 1970's the moment Pinochet came to power and started to employ libertarian free market principles and these economic policies continued until recently so nice try at deflection.

Bret Stephens: How Milton Friedman Saved Chile - WSJ

Last quarter GDP growth rate in Venezuela = 6.8%. I think the US and all of Europe would kill for stats like that.
Click to expand...
Very misleading statement considering that the quarter before that Venezuela had a 0% growth rate (its posted a negative or less than 1% GDP growth rate in 6 of the last 12 quarters) and that these stats which are coming from their central bank may not really be accurate either.

Venezuela GDP Growth Rate | 1997-2015 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

Venezuela in Data Denial After Inflation Tops 50%: Andes Credit - Bloomberg Business

http://qz.com/362275/why-venezuela-is-the-worlds-worst-performing-economy-in-three-charts/
 
Ryan5 said:
Goebbels was an admitted Marxist. I know you don't know that because you lack education on these things but try to grasp it mentally from your intellectual superiors. The vast majority of Nazi ideologues were Marxist before they changed to National Socialism.
Click to expand...

If Nazis are fans of Marxists, then why did they target Communists and other people they deemed political enemies once they got into power?
 
ernst barkmann said:
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.
Click to expand...

You didn't really answer the question, but okay.
 
Andalublue said:
You are going to have to back your argument up with something like evidence (NB: grainy pictures of Marx and an out-of-context quote don't count) if you are going to avoid being treated with laughing disdain.
Click to expand...

The quote is not only out of context, but it isn't even a full quote. If you look closely at the picture it cites two different sources for each part of the quote.
 
Marx was quite racist. And sexist.

karl-marx-never....jpg

What most people don’t know is that Marx was an out and out racist and anti-Semite. He didn’t think much of Mexicans. Concerning the annexation of California after the Mexican-American War, Marx wrote: “Without violence, nothing is ever accomplished in history.” Then he asks, “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?” Friedrich Engels, Marx’s co-author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” added, “In America, we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will be placed under the tutelage of the United States.” Much of Marx’s ideas can be found in a book written by former communist Nathaniel Weyl, titled “Karl Marx, Racist” (1979).

In a July 1862 letter to Engels, in reference to his socialist political competitor, Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote, “… it is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother had not interbred with a nigger. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also nigger-like.”

Read more at Marx’s racism
Click to expand...
 
Simply wanted to witness the political left forum cadre come in and have their ritual mass seizure session upon being presented with actual history of Marxism being the intrinsic ideological bedrock foundation for both German Nazism and Soviet Communism ideology and sure enough they did just that, mouth spittle and all. Your average Western leftist has absolutely no conception of actual political history as this thread has evidenced. They don't know that Nazis and Communists were allies before they were enemies both in ideology and militarily. They simply don't know because they're uneducated thanks to idiotic Western educational systems that totally fail Western students of both rightist and leftist slants.

Your average Western conservative is near just as stupid as your average Western leftist. They're little Starbucks politico's whom truly believe their professors "Suggested Readings" (Lies) pass off as "history".
 
In her reading, the only thing Friedman and the Chicago Boys accomplished was to "hoover wealth up to the top and shock much of the middle class out of existence." Actual Chileans of all classes—living in the aftermath of an actual shock—may take a different view of Friedman, who helped give them the wherewithal first to survive the quake, and now to build their lives anew.
Click to expand...

Actually, she was right. Prior to Pinochet's last days in office, nearly half the country had plunged into poverty. It wasn't until those 'damned' socialist came in to redistribute that money that was being generated for decades, did things get better for the people.
 
Ryan5 said:
Simply wanted to witness the political left forum cadre come in and have their ritual mass seizure session upon being presented with actual history of Marxism being the intrinsic ideological bedrock foundation for both German Nazism and Soviet Communism ideology and sure enough they did just that, mouth spittle and all. Your average Western leftist has absolutely no conception of actual political history as this thread has evidenced. They don't know that Nazis and Communists were allies before they were enemies both in ideology and militarily. They simply don't know because they're uneducated thanks to idiotic Western educational systems that totally fail Western students of both rightist and leftist slants.

Your average Western conservative is near just as stupid as your average Western leftist. They're little Starbucks politico's whom truly believe their professors "Suggested Readings" (Lies) pass off as "history".
Click to expand...

Racial supremacy, eugenics, state sanctioned racism-all part of the ugly history of the left.
 
US Conservative said:
Marx really was a racist, he really stole from the working man (taking good and services while refusing to pay for them), and he really sexually exploited his female servant-and then had a child with her.

Is this news to you?
Click to expand...

He didn't steal from the working man, and how exactly is that racist anyway?
 
US Conservative said:
That is not racist, just stunningly hypocritical. How he referred to others, often with disparaging comparisons to minorities is very racist.
Click to expand...

Um, he was against white and black working class men (as he perceived) being divided by the capitalist. He did not refer to others with disparaging comparisons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom