Do Leftists Know What Their Hero Karl Marx Thought of Blacks, Jews, and Mexicans?

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 4:19 am

May Day celebrations were held all across the fruited plain, with leftist radicals and unionists worshipping the ideals of communism. Communism is an ideology calling for government control over our lives. It was created by Karl Marx, who — along with his collaborator, Friedrich Engels — wrote a pamphlet called “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” In 1867, Marx wrote the first volume of “Das Kapital.” The second and third volumes were published posthumously, edited by Engels. Few people who call themselves Marxists have ever even bothered to read “Das Kapital.” If one did read it, he would see that people who call themselves Marxists have little in common with Marx.

For those who see Marx as their hero, there are a few historical tidbits they might find interesting. Nathaniel Weyl, himself a former communist, dug them up for his 1979 book, “Karl Marx: Racist.” For example, Marx didn’t think much of Mexicans. When the United States annexed California after the Mexican War, Marx sarcastically asked, “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?” Engels shared Marx’s contempt for Mexicans, explaining: “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.”

Marx had a racial vision that might be interesting to his modern-day black supporters. In a 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 who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n---er. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also n---er-like.” Engels shared Marx’s racial philosophy. In 1887, Paul Lafargue, who was Marx’s son-in-law, was a candidate for a council seat in a Paris district that contained a zoo. Engels claimed that Lafargue had “one-eighth or one-twelfth n---er blood.” In a letter to Lafargue’s wife, Engels wrote, “Being in his quality as a n---er, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district.”

Marx was also an anti-Semite, as seen in his essay titled “On the Jewish Question,” which was published in 1844. Marx asked: “What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man — and turns them into commodities. … The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. … The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.”

Despite the fact that in the 20th century alone communism was responsible for more than 100 million murders (http://tinyurl.com/zafgs5p), much of the support for communism and socialism is among intellectuals. The reason they do not condemn the barbarism of communism is understandable. Dr. Richard Pipes explains: “Intellectuals, by the very nature of their professions, grant enormous attention to words and ideas. And they are attracted by socialist ideas. They find that the ideas of communism are praiseworthy and attractive; that, to them, is more important than the practice of communism. Now, Nazi ideals, on the other hand, were pure barbarism; nothing could be said in favor of them.” That means leftists around the world will continue to celebrate the ideas of communism.

Do Leftists Know What Their Hero Karl Marx Thought of Blacks, Jews, and Mexicans? WalterWilliams

Do Leftists Know What Their Hero Karl Marx Thought of Blacks, Jews, and Mexicans? WalterWilliams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

http://blackcommunitynews.com/do-leftists-know-what-their-hero-karl-marx-thought-of-blacks-jews-and-mexicans/

by Original Quill Fri May 12, 2017 4:36 am

What a blow to find out our intellectual predecessors were actually human beings. Who knew that Newton was a plagiarizer, Jefferson was a slave owner, Henry Adams was antisemitic, or that Karl Marx--himself a Jew--held the same views on race as most European-Americans in the late 1800's.

That we expect such perfection out of them is testimony that we have yet to rid ourselves of religion, and the casting of our heroes as deities.

by Eilzel Fri May 12, 2017 4:44 am

A famous figure from the 19th century was racist and anti-Semitic? Shock horror :O

You will find many famous politicians, philosophers and historic heroes had view that we'd find abhorrent today. Those were different timss. People were decades ahead on some issues but very much of their time on others.

Do I condone Marx's view on ethnic groups? No. Does that undermine his political philosophy? No.

Why do people still admire the ideals of communism and socialism? Because whether we think them practical or not the idea all people should have equal opportunities and support each other is inately a positive idea.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 4:54 am

Eilzel wrote:A famous figure from the 19th century was racist and anti-Semitic? Shock horror :O

You will find many famous politicians, philosophers and historic heroes had view that we'd find abhorrent today. Those were different timss. People were decades ahead on some issues but very much of their time on others.

Do I condone Marx's view on ethnic groups? No. Does that undermine his political philosophy? No.

Why do people still admire the ideals of communism and socialism? Because whether we think them practical or not the idea all people should have equal opportunities and support each other is inately a positive idea.

Well you may ask yourself why you still admire a failed philosophy?
Communism or Socialism has never worked in practice and its doubtful it ever will.

The fact is though which you are missing is those on the left do admire him, when he was in fact as racist as any you would find on the Far Right.

Its all well and good to admire the philosophy he had on economics, but his views racially was appalling.

You might as well say you admire the economic philosophy of Hitler.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 5:03 am

Also how can you equate Marx's to equality based on his racial views?

Clearly the equality he spoke of was around class and not ethnic groups.

by Original Quill Fri May 12, 2017 5:07 am

Socialism is a very practical and successful operating system. The United States Military--perhaps the most successful organization of the past century--is a completely socialist enterprise...owned by the society, existing for the society and made up of the society.

I daresay, whenever a nation wants a unit or arrangement that it really, really needs for its survival, it turns to socialism. That includes not just the army, navy and air force, but civilian units like the police, fire and rescue. It's related to the old maxim: If you want to do it right, you do it yourself. Socialism is society doing it itself.

And you admire famous contributors for their contributions, not as deities. Karl Marx was a brilliant political-economist; we need make no judgments as to other aspects of his life.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 5:12 am

Original Quill wrote:Socialism is a very practical and successful operating system. The United States Military--perhaps the most successful organization of the past century--is a completely socialist enterprise...owned by the society, existing for the society and made up of the society.

I daresay, whenever a nation wants a unit or arrangement that it really, really needs for its survival, it turns to socialism. That includes not just the army, navy and air force, but civilian units like the police, fire and rescue. It's related to the old maxim: If you want to do it right, you do it yourself. Socialism is society doing it itself.

And you admire famous contributors for their contributions, not as deities. Karl Marx was a brilliant political-economist; we make no judgments as to other aspects of his life.

That is nonsense

Its based on Capitalism

Again how can you admire someone whose philosophy was not based on equality, as it conflicts?

Clearly the equality of Marx was based around class and not ethnicity.

Its about having equality for all under the law. This would not happen under any system by Marx himself and I have no doubt, if he had ever been elected to power. We would be reading about his crimes against racial groups. You can admire a failed philosophy all you like, but people should rightly condemn the man. The point being missed here.

We live today in the west based off a secular society, which has a combination of both left and right wing views. Its not perfect, but it allows for the individual to thrive and succeed, where at least we strive to have equality.

by Eilzel Fri May 12, 2017 5:24 am

Thorin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:A famous figure from the 19th century was racist and anti-Semitic? Shock horror :O

You will find many famous politicians, philosophers and historic heroes had view that we'd find abhorrent today. Those were different timss. People were decades ahead on some issues but very much of their time on others.

Do I condone Marx's view on ethnic groups? No. Does that undermine his political philosophy? No.

Why do people still admire the ideals of communism and socialism? Because whether we think them practical or not the idea all people should have equal opportunities and support each other is inately a positive idea.

Well you may ask yourself why you still admire a failed philosophy?
Communism or Socialism has never worked in practice and its doubtful it ever will.

The fact is though which you are missing is those on the left do admire him, when he was in fact as racist as any you would find on the Far Right.

Its all well and good to admire the philosophy he had on economics, but his views racially was appalling.

You might as well say you admire the economic philosophy of Hitler.

I admire it because it sees a better vision of the future for all than capitalism does. It may or may not be practicable, but capitalism requires a huge number of people to be at the bottom and is inherently unfair.

Marx was racist. So were countless other political heroes of the 18th and 19th centuries.

And saying you support someone's economic philosophy is NOT the same as saying you support every view they have.

I supported the Tories introducing same sex marriage. I still find their economics terribme though.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 5:29 am

Eilzel wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Well you may ask yourself why you still admire a failed philosophy?
Communism or Socialism has never worked in practice and its doubtful it ever will.

The fact is though which you are missing is those on the left do admire him, when he was in fact as racist as any you would find on the Far Right.

Its all well and good to admire the philosophy he had on economics, but his views racially was appalling.

You might as well say you admire the economic philosophy of Hitler.

I admire it because it sees a better vision of the future for all than capitalism does. It may or may not be practicable, but capitalism requires a huge number of people to be at the bottom and is inherently unfair.

Marx was racist. So were countless other political heroes of the 18th and 19th centuries.

And saying you support someone's economic philosophy is NOT the same as saying you support every view they have.

I supported the Tories introducing same sex marriage. I still find their economics terribme though.

Does it?
That is merely an opinion, where again it has never worked in practice.

So again you downplay the fact he was racist and do this based off the fact some others were racist in the 18th and 19th century?

So what about those who were not?

You are simply unable to condemn him, when you should, which is the double standards often seen by the left.

How can you admire his economic philosophy, when it would have discriminated racially against others?

Again his philosophy is based on class but would be racist

Capitalism allows for people to achieve for themselves a better future, where there is little stopping them from doing so. Hence why people have and can rise up to be very successful. Socialism takes away the incentive to want to succeed or be ambitious and why it will always be a failed philosophy.

by Eilzel Fri May 12, 2017 5:42 am

I obviously condemn all racist. I condemn George Washington for owning slaves. I condemn the William Wilberforce for not considering black people equal. I condemn nearly every great politician before 1967 for upholding or supporting homophobic laws. I condemn Plato for having slaves too.

That doesn't mean I don't also acknowledge the great things they did.

Communism and socialism themselves are nothing to do with race.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 5:46 am

Eilzel wrote:I obviously condemn all racist. I condemn George Washington for owning slaves. I condemn the William Wilberforce for not considering black people equal. I condemn nearly every great politician before 1967 for upholding or supporting homophobic laws. I condemn Plato for having slaves too.

That doesn't mean I don't also acknowledge the great things they did.

Communism and socialism themselves are nothing to do with race.

Well done, you see its not hard to condemn, which you should have done from the start, the point you keep missing. Instead you poorly tried to downplay his racism, saying there were others. That was poor to say the least and you know it.

You still failed to tell me how you still continue to admire this philosophy, that was inequality though and was racist?

Again in practice even under Communism there was countless racism, including under Stalin. So to attempt to separate them is ignoring history and it working in practice.

by Eilzel Fri May 12, 2017 5:53 am

I said I didn't condone racism in my first post actually. Do you really need the obvious spelling out for you?

And no the philosophy of socialism and communism is not racist. Have you read the Communist Manifesto? It is entirely about wealth and economics. Marx was racist, his manifesto on communism was not. Communism and socialism as we know them are not.

I admire any philosophy, policy, idea or belief that is rooted in ensuring everyone has equal opportunities in life. I do not support Soviet or Maoist style authoritarian communism, but I do believe in the principles of communism and socialism. Just because the forms practiced in the 20th century failed and were so terrible, does not mean no form of communism or socialism can ever work.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 6:00 am

Eilzel wrote:I said I didn't condone racism in my first post actually. Do you really need the obvious spelling out for you?

And no the philosophy of socialism and communism is not racist. Have you read the Communist Manifesto? It is entirely about wealth and economics. Marx was racist, his manifesto on communism was not. Communism and socialism as we know them are not.

I admire any philosophy, policy, idea or belief that is rooted in ensuring everyone has equal opportunities in life. I do not support Soviet or Maoist style authoritarian communism, but I do believe in the principles of communism and socialism. Just because the forms practiced in the 20th century failed and were so terrible, does not mean no form of communism or socialism can ever work.

Actually you first went, "oh shock" and condoning is not the same as condemning, or would you like me to educate you on the meaning of the words? You then tried to downplay his racism saying others were racist. This is what the left do. When we have someone today, who is say racist, this is then used by the left to discount any view they have. Showing how again the left use the same double standard, but when its reversed they do as you do and downplay that racism.

This was posted to show up the utter hypocrisy of how people can be and you eloquently proved that. As each views and policies should be based on their standing and not of that of some poor and appalling views they may have.

Again the philosophy under Marx would have been racist in practice the point you keep glaringly missing.
So are you trying to convince me if Marx was in power there would have been equality under his philosophy?
So would it have brought about equal opportunities under Marx?

No and in fact in every example of Socialism and Communism, there has never been equality.

Stop telling porky pies Eilzel, I respect you better than that.

They will never work, because you failed to understand the variety of beliefs held by humans. There is a natural instinct for humans to better their life, that is how and why we have risen up to be the dominant species on the planet.

by Eilzel Fri May 12, 2017 6:24 am

You haven't 'proven' anything didge. You are wrongly asserting that it is not possible to detach a philosophical ideology from a man and his opinions. Communism and socialism are not only Marx.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 6:25 am

Eilzel wrote:You haven't 'proven' anything didge. You are wrongly asserting that it is not possible to detach a philosophical ideology from a man and his opinions. Communism and socialism are not only Marx.

Really?
What you are doing is attaching later philosophy to Marx and socialism.
As there was no racial equality under his philosophy, hence why his philosophy was based around class and not race.

by Eilzel Fri May 12, 2017 6:36 am

Thorin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:You haven't 'proven' anything didge. You are wrongly asserting that it is not possible to detach a philosophical ideology from a man and his opinions. Communism and socialism are not only Marx.

Really?
What you are doing is attaching later philosophy to Marx and socialism.
As there was no racial equality under his philosophy, hence why his philosophy was based around class and not race.

I have done no such thing. I have never called myself a Marxist. I just acknowledge his major influence on LW political ideology. I admire his utopian vision laid out in TCM, but I do not subscribe to all of it as a workable system (what TCM lays out is anarchy).

My response in this thread was simply to dismiss the idea that Communism is racist and that supporting Marx is equal to supporting Hitler. It isn't.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 6:42 am

Eilzel wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Really?
What you are doing is attaching later philosophy to Marx and socialism.
As there was no racial equality under his philosophy, hence why his philosophy was based around class and not race.

I have done no such thing. I have never called myself a Marxist. I just acknowledge his major influence on LW political ideology. I admire his utopian vision laid out in TCM, but I do not subscribe to all of it as a workable system (what TCM lays out is anarchy).

My response in this thread was simply to dismiss the idea that Communism is racist and that supporting Marx is equal to supporting Hitler. It isn't.

I never claimed it was equal to Hitler. I see the point has gone way over your head. The point is people can admire the economics of Hitler with employment say, it would not make them racist, yet many on the left would class them as racist for doing so. Of course I would argue that many of his economic policies were still racist.

No where did I say communism was racist, but Marx's philosophy, was certainly not based around equality on ethnicity, but class. So communism can hardly be championing racial equality and in practice has never done so.

Again his Utopian vision would have discriminated against ethnic groups, the point again you keep missing.

Like I say socialism and Communism has always failed to understand humans themselves and in what they strive to achieve. It starts with the need to feed yourself, a roof over your head, maybe a family, then to live a better quality of life. The scale always goes up and Communism stands in the way of this, by placing brakes on what people can achieve.

by veya_victaous Fri May 12, 2017 6:51 am

I hope to hear what Thorin thinks about that Racist Churchill?
You do realize you can never say a nice word about him or else you are admiring his racism Rolling Eyes

Socialism is the most successful system, besides mixed market that is more socialist than capitalist

Having read this thread Elizel Wins the debate hands down

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 6:54 am

veya_victaous wrote:I hope to hear what Thorin thinks about that Racist Churchill?
You do realize you can never say a nice word about him or else you are admiring his racism

Socialism is the most successful system, besides mixed market that is more socialist than capitalist

Having read this thread Elizel Wins the debate hands down

Well that shows where you have failed to see where I have posted about how he was appallingly racist, especially towards Indians. Like where he stood by and allowed Millions to starve to death in India.
Did you miss that thread I posted.

You are not the judge to say who wins and its not a competition either

Socialism as I say is flawed and has never worked nor will it work in practice

As seen humans always strive to achieve a better life

by veya_victaous Fri May 12, 2017 6:59 am

So your point is moot by your own argument about the duality of Churchill.
Eilzel WINS cheers

UK Australia France Etc are all socialist in comparison t the USA, there is no pure socialist nations like there is No Pure Capitalists (closest thing to true capitalism in the black market) ,

all the most successful nations when combining social and economic outcomes are mixed market with leaning toward socialism

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 7:03 am

veya_victaous wrote:So your point is moot by your own argument about the duality of Churchill.
Eilzel WINS

UK Australia France Etc are all socialist in comparison t the USA, there is no pure socialist nations like there is No Pure Capitalists (closest thing to true capitalism in the black market) ,

all the most successful nations when combining social and economic outcomes are mixed market with leaning toward socialism

1) Really? Which shows you did not read the thread

Doh

2) So Eilzel does not win and a self confessed socialist is always going to back another based on confirmation bias. Ruling you out to be able to judge

3) The Uk, Australia, France are all Capitalist countries.

4) It shows that you have no idea what socialism is

Ask Eilzel if he thinks those countries are socialist systems?

Take your time

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 7:27 am

You see the main point here is the left from the start downplayed the racism. We had Quill go, "what a blow to find that our intellectual predecessors were human beings." To then Eilzel going "Oh shock horror" and "others were racist at the time".

What both should have rightly said was that its appalling Marx was racist, but, his views (to them) on class equality are also inspiring. Both instead did what the left do always when its someone who is a hero to the left. They went onto the defensive.

I have never downplayed Churchill's racism and have always stated it was appalling what he did to the Indians in WW2 where millions starved. I would have never gone with. "What a blow to find that our Great leaders were human beings." To then going "Oh shock horror" and "others were racist at the time".

I have come out on the issue that Churchill was racist, but I still admired how he brought the country together to fight against Nazi Germany.

I hope this shows how and why people can show the worst double standards.

by Eilzel Fri May 12, 2017 8:18 am

Nonsense didge. You don't get to dictate how people respond to posts. By not outright condemning Marx just because that was what you wanted us to do does NOT equate to defending anyone.

Your intent with the OP was clear. By posting it you were trying to make out that Marx's racism makes anyone subscribing to Marxism or admiring of Marx's philosophy must condone his racism. Or at the very least, you wanted us to say we disagreed with Marxism because Marx was racist.

It goes without saying that I condemn racism. My interest in this post was to point out that Marx's racism is irrelevant to wider debate on the vitues or not of communism and even Marxism.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 8:41 am

Eilzel wrote:Nonsense didge. You don't get to dictate how people respond to posts. By not outright condemning Marx just because that was what you wanted us to do does NOT equate to defending anyone.

Your intent with the OP was clear. By posting it you were trying to make out that Marx's racism makes anyone subscribing to Marxism or admiring of Marx's philosophy must condone his racism. Or at the very least, you wanted us to say we disagreed with Marxism because Marx was racist.

It goes without saying that I condemn racism. My interest in this post was to point out that Marx's racism is irrelevant to wider debate on the vitues or not of communism and even Marxism.

Thank you again for eloquently proving my point.

When I show up your hypocrisy, you get even more defensive, angry and dismissive.

I only had one intent here. To show the left as per usual have the worst double standards and I was right.

So again you are completely wrong on why I posted this.

I never stated that you do not condemn racism, the point is you downplayed his racism, as if to render it meaningless. Hence why else go "oh shock" and "others were racist"? Marxism has nothing to do with racial equality, in fact in Marxism, its non-existent

So you even further now admit you see his racism as meaningless, even though his socialist utopia would have been racist, because his socialism is based on class and not race.

You have only proved what a hypocrite you are.

by Eilzel Fri May 12, 2017 9:00 am

I didn't downplay his racism though, that was just you jumping to conclusions based on what you had wanted people to say to this.

And at no point have I been hypocritical here. You are just setting up straw men to argue with.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 9:07 am

Eilzel wrote:I didn't downplay his racism though, that was just you jumping to conclusions based on what you had wanted people to say to this.

And at no point have I been hypocritical here. You are just setting up straw men to argue with.

Mate I respect you loads, but to claim on an article about Marx's racism, that you have not downplayed it. After going "shock horror" and "others were racist at the time" in regards to his racism. Is out right downplaying his racism..

You clearly do not know what a straw man argument is, with invoking a straw man here. That is just desperation to deflect on a thread about his racism.

The fact is both Quill and yourself downplayed his racism, because you both admire Marxism, even though Marxism, does not back racial equality.

Have a good day, am off to work

by 'Wolfie Fri May 12, 2017 10:11 am

Thorin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
A famous figure from the 19th century was racist and anti-Semitic? Shock horror :O

You will find many famous politicians, philosophers and historic heroes had view that we'd find abhorrent today. Those were different timss. People were decades ahead on some issues but very much of their time on others.

Do I condone Marx's view on ethnic groups? No. Does that undermine his political philosophy? No.

Why do people still admire the ideals of communism and socialism? Because whether we think them practical or not the idea all people should have equal opportunities and support each other is inately a positive idea.

Well you may ask yourself why you still admire a failed philosophy?
Communism or Socialism has never worked in practice and its doubtful it ever will.

The fact is though which you are missing is those on the left do admire him, when he was in fact as racist as any you would find on the Far Right.

Its all well and good to admire the philosophy he had on economics, but his views racially was appalling.

You might as well say you admire the economic philosophy of Hitler.

Stop spouting your personal opinion as if it was fact, Thorin...

The terms "socialism" and "communism" are not the same thing, nor are the terms interchangeable.

Communism is a failed ideology; as is capitalism..

Socialism is still more successful than pure capitalism; despite all the problems..

Pure "Capitalism" means :
* no social welfare 'safety nets'
* no old age pensions
* no public education -- all schools must ne privatley owned
* no public health system -- all hospitalls must be privately owned and run
* no public transport systems
* no public housing -- all real estate should be privately owned and controlled
* police, military, fire brigades and ambo' services must be privately run -- only those wealthy enough to subscribe to them, should have access to them
* no public housing, no welfare, no public health system -- the poor must be left to starve in the streets !!!
* no environmental protections
* no workplace safety laws
* no laws against usury, exploitation, discrimination, child abuse -->> totally "laissez faire" free markets..

Why do you prefer Capitalism, with all it's flaws, over Socialism, aiming for more fairness and equality, Thorin ? Do Leftists Know What Their Hero Karl Marx Thought of Blacks, Jews, and Mexicans? 2113235493

Do Leftists Know What Their Hero Karl Marx Thought of Blacks, Jews, and Mexicans? 2113235493

by 'Wolfie Fri May 12, 2017 10:19 am

Thorin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:So your point is moot by your own argument about the duality of Churchill.
Eilzel WINS

UK Australia France Etc are all socialist in comparison t the USA, there is no pure socialist nations like there is No Pure Capitalists (closest thing to true capitalism in the black market) ,

all the most successful nations when combining social and economic outcomes are mixed market with leaning toward socialism

1) Really? Which shows you did not read the thread

Doh

2) So Eilzel does not win and a self confessed socialist is always going to back another based on confirmation bias. Ruling you out to be able to judge

3) The Uk, Australia, France are all Capitalist countries.

4) It shows that you have no idea what socialism is

Ask Eilzel if he thinks those countries are socialist systems?

Take your time

You're the one who doesn't understand what socialism is, Thorin..

You cannot rewrite economic and political definitions simply to fit your myopic agendas..

by Eilzel Fri May 12, 2017 11:04 am

Thorin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:I didn't downplay his racism though, that was just you jumping to conclusions based on what you had wanted people to say to this.

And at no point have I been hypocritical here. You are just setting up straw men to argue with.

Mate I respect you loads, but to claim on an article about Marx's racism, that you have not downplayed it. After going "shock horror" and "others were racist at the time" in regards to his racism. Is out right downplaying his racism..

You clearly do not know what a straw man argument is, with invoking a straw man here. That is just desperation to deflect on a thread about his racism.

The fact is both Quill and yourself downplayed his racism, because you both admire Marxism, even though Marxism, does not back racial equality.

Have a good day, am off to work

Your strawman is the 'typical lefties' who wo't acknowledge racism from other lefties and who you 'cleverly caught out' with your nifty little OP Laughing

No one here downplays or condones racism. Neither me nor Quill did that in our posts. We responded based on the suggested implications of the OP.

I admire Marxism due to the principles of equality which are the basis of The Communist Manifesto. Though I am not a Marxist.

Anythung beyond that is pure conjecture on your part.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 11:15 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Thorin wrote:
Well you may ask yourself why you still admire a failed philosophy?
Communism or Socialism has never worked in practice and its doubtful it ever will.

The fact is though which you are missing is those on the left do admire him, when he was in fact as racist as any you would find on the Far Right.

Its all well and good to admire the philosophy he had on economics, but his views racially was appalling.

You might as well say you admire the economic philosophy of Hitler.

Stop spouting your personal opinion as if it was fact, Thorin...

The terms "socialism" and "communism" are not the same thing, nor are the terms interchangeable.

Communism is a failed ideology; as is capitalism..

Socialism is still more successful than pure capitalism; despite all the problems..

Pure "Capitalism" means :
* no social welfare 'safety nets'
* no old age pensions
* no public education -- all schools must ne privatley owned
* no public health system -- all hospitalls must be privately owned and run
* no public transport systems
* no public housing -- all real estate should be privately owned and controlled
* police, military, fire brigades and ambo' services must be privately run -- only those wealthy enough to subscribe to them, should have access to them
* no public housing, no welfare, no public health system -- the poor must be left to starve in the streets !!!
* no environmental protections
* no workplace safety laws
* no laws against usury, exploitation, discrimination, child abuse -->> totally "laissez faire" free markets..

Why do you prefer Capitalism, with all it's flaws, over Socialism, aiming for more fairness and equality, Thorin ?

Who said it was pure capitalism?

You really spout rubbish at times

Its still capitalism

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 11:20 am

Eilzel wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Mate I respect you loads, but to claim on an article about Marx's racism, that you have not downplayed it. After going "shock horror" and "others were racist at the time" in regards to his racism. Is out right downplaying his racism..

You clearly do not know what a straw man argument is, with invoking a straw man here. That is just desperation to deflect on a thread about his racism.

The fact is both Quill and yourself downplayed his racism, because you both admire Marxism, even though Marxism, does not back racial equality.

Have a good day, am off to work

Your strawman is the 'typical lefties' who wo't acknowledge racism from other lefties and who you 'cleverly caught out' with your nifty little OP

No one here downplays or condones racism. Neither me nor Quill did that in our posts. We responded based on the suggested implications of the OP.

I admire Marxism due to the principles of equality which are the basis of The Communist Manifesto. Though I am not a Marxist.

Anythung beyond that is pure conjecture on your part.

1) WTF ha ha ha. You did fail to condemn (until I brought this up), got defensive, trying to defend him. You downplayed the racism, as I keep saying. That is not even a strawman. Seriously do you know what one is?

2) You and Quill did in this debate. Seriously why can hardly any on here admit things they do or when wrong?

3) So you admire a system that denies individualism, motivation, success etc and is based on equality in class a flawed system. Which denies people their brilliance and work ethics.

4) How is it conjecture. You both got over defensive to an article on Marx being a racist

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 11:22 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Thorin wrote:

1) Really? Which shows you did not read the thread

Doh

2) So Eilzel does not win and a self confessed socialist is always going to back another based on confirmation bias. Ruling you out to be able to judge

3) The Uk, Australia, France are all Capitalist countries.

4) It shows that you have no idea what socialism is

Ask Eilzel if he thinks those countries are socialist systems?

Take your time

You're the one who doesn't understand what socialism is, Thorin..

You cannot rewrite economic and political definitions simply to fit your myopic agendas..

Wow a post saying I am wrong with being unable to reason why.

lol!

Show me a socialist system that has ever worked?

by Eilzel Fri May 12, 2017 11:37 am

I didn't 'fail' anything. If you had asked me if I condemned racism from Marx I would have. But you didn't. I'm sorry, I thought the OP was opening a discussion, not some silly little test in which only you knew the conditions for passing....

PS: why do you have 2 accounts?

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 12:25 pm

Eilzel wrote:I didn't 'fail' anything. If you had asked me if I condemned racism from Marx I would have. But you didn't. I'm sorry, I thought the OP was opening a discussion, not some silly little test in which only you knew the conditions for passing....

PS: why do you have 2 accounts?

Because someone has unlocked my old one when I came back

I sometimes forget and log in as didge and its my old account, which is active

Stop making poor excuses, you jumped in, as did Quill downplaying the racism.

You now make more excuses because i predicted how some lefties would react
Smile

by Eilzel Fri May 12, 2017 12:32 pm

Does it make you feel clever that you predicted people would not condemn something they weren't asked to? Good for you, you achieved something today Smile

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 12:34 pm

Eilzel wrote:Does it make you feel clever that you predicted people would not condemn something they weren't asked to? Good for you, you achieved something today

You even get what I predicted the left would do here as wrong lol

Remember double standards... Laughing

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 12:49 pm

So dodgy one, you are so politically illiterate that you don't realise Marx is admired for his economics. Indeed, event he most RW economist will class him as being on the list of those they admire. Not completely RW, but Vince Cable had him on his list:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2014647/Karl-Marx-John-Maynard-Keynes-Ten-greatest-economists-Vince-Cable.html

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 12:51 pm

sassy wrote:So dodgy one, you are so politically illiterate that you don't realise Marx is admired for his economics. Indeed, event he most RW economist will class him as being on the list of those they admire. Not completely RW, but Vince Cable had him on his list:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2014647/Karl-Marx-John-Maynard-Keynes-Ten-greatest-economists-Vince-Cable.html

So more unfounded immature childish responses?

Was he racist?

Yes

Does marxism back racial equality?

No

Is Marxism a flawed philosophy?

Yes

has it ever worked in practice?

No

Take your time

by Eilzel Fri May 12, 2017 2:49 pm

Thorin wrote:
sassy wrote:So dodgy one, you are so politically illiterate that you don't realise Marx is admired for his economics. Indeed, event he most RW economist will class him as being on the list of those they admire. Not completely RW, but Vince Cable had him on his list:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2014647/Karl-Marx-John-Maynard-Keynes-Ten-greatest-economists-Vince-Cable.html

So more unfounded immature childish responses?

Was he racist?

Yes

Does marxism back racial equality?

No

Is Marxism a flawed philosophy?

Yes

has it ever worked in practice?

No

Take your time

What is your point with this post?

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 2:51 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So more unfounded immature childish responses?

Was he racist?

Yes

Does marxism back racial equality?

No

Is Marxism a flawed philosophy?

Yes

has it ever worked in practice?

No

Take your time

What is your point with this post?

Do you do drag now mate, as my post was to sassy? Laughing

I thought you were Eilzel?

I think the point is blatantly obvious

You really do not like where beliefs you have are shown to be poor.

Kind of makes you religious like Laughing

by Eilzel Fri May 12, 2017 4:43 pm

No. It isn't. Spell it out. I'm interested.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 4:50 pm

Eilzel wrote:No. It isn't. Spell it out. I'm interested.

What did you fail to understand?

I mean this thread is about Marx's and his racism

I have also pointed out his philosophy is flawed, as its only based on class, which denies incentive and individualism

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 4:58 pm

I think this needs to be pointed out again:

Despite the fact that in the 20th century alone communism was responsible for more than 100 million murders (http://tinyurl.com/zafgs5p), much of the support for communism and socialism is among intellectuals. The reason they do not condemn the barbarism of communism is understandable. Dr. Richard Pipes explains: “Intellectuals, by the very nature of their professions, grant enormous attention to words and ideas. And they are attracted by socialist ideas. They find that the ideas of communism are praiseworthy and attractive; that, to them, is more important than the practice of communism. Now, Nazi ideals, on the other hand, were pure barbarism; nothing could be said in favor of them.” That means leftists around the world will continue to celebrate the ideas of communism.

by Original Quill Fri May 12, 2017 5:36 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Mate I respect you loads, but to claim on an article about Marx's racism, that you have not downplayed it. After going "shock horror" and "others were racist at the time" in regards to his racism. Is out right downplaying his racism..

You clearly do not know what a straw man argument is, with invoking a straw man here. That is just desperation to deflect on a thread about his racism.

The fact is both Quill and yourself downplayed his racism, because you both admire Marxism, even though Marxism, does not back racial equality.

Have a good day, am off to work

Your strawman is the 'typical lefties' who wo't acknowledge racism from other lefties and who you 'cleverly caught out' with your nifty little OP

No one here downplays or condones racism. Neither me nor Quill did that in our posts. We responded based on the suggested implications of the OP.

I admire Marxism due to the principles of equality which are the basis of The Communist Manifesto. Though I am not a Marxist.

Anythung beyond that is pure conjecture on your part.

Well said, Les. Discriminating minds can separate the economics of Marx, from any sinful ideas he had. Anything else is the fallacy of association: Ie, Because he held questionable ideas about race, we might as well condemn (by association) his ideas about economics.

I find a more insulting vein in this argument, in that it involves the RW idea of elitist disdain for the unwashed masses. The masses can be fooled, it says, because they are not discerning enough to differentiate Marx's economics from his views on race. It's the kind of argument that Donald Trump makes all the time, and that has me particularly riled these days.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 5:40 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Your strawman is the 'typical lefties' who wo't acknowledge racism from other lefties and who you 'cleverly caught out' with your nifty little OP

No one here downplays or condones racism. Neither me nor Quill did that in our posts. We responded based on the suggested implications of the OP.

I admire Marxism due to the principles of equality which are the basis of The Communist Manifesto. Though I am not a Marxist.

Anythung beyond that is pure conjecture on your part.

Well said, Les. Discriminating minds can separate the economics of Marx, from any sinful ideas he had. Anything else is the fallacy of association: Ie, Because he held questionable ideas about race, we might as well condemn (by association) his ideas about economics.

I find a more insulting vein in this argument, in that it involves the RW idea of elitist disdain for the unwashed masses. The masses can be fooled, it says, because they are not discerning enough to differentiate Marx's economics from his views on race. It's the kind of argument that Donald Trump makes all the time, and that has me particularly riled these days.

lol so now its turned to the right

How predictable.
Why are the left so scared to talk about problematic ideologies that have failed?

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 5:51 pm

Something you probably don't know Dodge

Karl Marx is a hero to the workers in Mexico commemorating the revolution that overthrew the corrupt elitist that ruled the country through greed taking all the wealth for themselves https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/sullivanm/mexico/mexicocity/rivera/class.html

You need to look at this. Some of these comic strips appeared in British publications. Yep, in capitalist Newspapers and comics. Most people accept it was a sign of times and no different to what Marx or anyone else was saying.

http://www.historyonthenet.com/authentichistory/diversity/african/3-coon/6-monkey/

Walter Williams has twisted Marx's view on racial issues completely how of shape. Williams actually had no problem with Us soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners saying they were only guilty of stupidity. Stupidity for allowing for pictures of themselves not stupidity for what they did.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 12, 2017 6:22 pm

Is racism an actual tenet of Marxism, or was it just a personal belief of Marx's? Do racist theories appear in the Manifesto?

Also wanted to address this:

Marx didn’t think much of Mexicans. When the United States annexed California after the Mexican War, Marx sarcastically asked, “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?” Engels shared Marx’s contempt for Mexicans, explaining: “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.”

The stereotype of Mexicans as lazy that exists today might have evolved from attitudes like these, but people back then weren't necessarily being "racist" -- for one thing, these people are all Mexicans:

Do Leftists Know What Their Hero Karl Marx Thought of Blacks, Jews, and Mexicans? Afro-Mexican_girls

Do Leftists Know What Their Hero Karl Marx Thought of Blacks, Jews, and Mexicans? Mexafr2

"Mexican" is not a race any more than "American," "Australian" or "British."

In the mid-to-late 1800s, Mexico was frequently criticized for "doing nothing" with the vast tracts of viable land it held. The truth was, Mexico claimed more territory than it ever could control -- it didn't have enough citizens. Under Mexican control, Texas for example only had about 150,000 residents at the height of its population -- too few by far for the nation to do much with all that land. That was why Mexico invited American settlement of its northern territories in the first place.

Back to the topic, I think conservatives often miss the fact that we lefties don't idolize people the way they do. Take Martin Luther King -- liberals know he was a womanizer, but we don't see what that has to do with his views on racial and economic equality.

by 'Wolfie Fri May 12, 2017 6:47 pm

Thorin wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

You're the one who doesn't understand what socialism is, Thorin..

You cannot rewrite economic and political definitions simply to fit your myopic agendas..

Wow a post saying I am wrong with being unable to reason why.

Show me a socialist system that has ever worked?

Socialist democracies :

Australia, Canada, Filand, France, New Zealand, Swesen, the United Kingdom with its pre-Cameron NHS, old age pensions and "comprehensive" schools...

[/quote]

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 6:50 pm

sassy wrote:Something you probably don't know Dodge

Karl Marx is a hero to the workers in Mexico commemorating the revolution that overthrew the corrupt elitist that ruled the country through greed taking all the wealth for themselves https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/sullivanm/mexico/mexicocity/rivera/class.html

You need to look at this. Some of these comic strips appeared in British publications. Yep, in capitalist Newspapers and comics. Most people accept it was a sign of times and no different to what Marx or anyone else was saying.

http://www.historyonthenet.com/authentichistory/diversity/african/3-coon/6-monkey/

Walter Williams has twisted Marx's view on racial issues completely how of shape. Williams actually had no problem with Us soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners saying they were only guilty of stupidity. Stupidity for allowing for pictures of themselves not stupidity for what they did.

So your view to defend Marx's racism is to try and deligitimize a US Black Liberal Professor?

As to what he actually said on the abuse:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595062465/Prison-abuse-doesnt-rise-to-level-of-torture.html

Typical far Left misdirection

Quelle surprise

Now back to Marx's racism?
Show me then a socialist system that has worked

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 6:54 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Is racism an actual tenet of Marxism, or was it just a personal belief of Marx's? Do racist theories appear in the Manifesto?

Also wanted to address this:

Marx didn’t think much of Mexicans. When the United States annexed California after the Mexican War, Marx sarcastically asked, “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?” Engels shared Marx’s contempt for Mexicans, explaining: “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.”

The stereotype of Mexicans as lazy that exists today might have evolved from attitudes like these, but people back then weren't necessarily being "racist" -- for one thing, these people are all Mexicans:

"Mexican" is not a race any more than "American," "Australian" or "British."

In the mid-to-late 1800s, Mexico was frequently criticized for "doing nothing" with the vast tracts of viable land it held. The truth was, Mexico claimed more territory than it ever could control -- it didn't have enough citizens. Under Mexican control, Texas for example only had about 150,000 residents at the height of its population -- too few by far for the nation to do much with all that land. That was why Mexico invited American settlement of its northern territories in the first place.

Back to the topic, I think conservatives often miss the fact that we lefties don't idolize people the way they do. Take Martin Luther King -- liberals know he was a womanizer, but we don't see what that has to do with his views on racial and economic equality.

Well based on the answers here its clear some here idolize him lol
Back to your point
Marxism does not have racial equality, as its based on class equality

As to your history, Mexico actually called for immigration off Americans as you say, who repaid them by rebelling against them, and ceding their land through war.

by Sponsored content