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

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 4:19 am

First topic message reminder :

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? - Page 2 WalterWilliams

Do Leftists Know What Their Hero Karl Marx Thought of Blacks, Jews, and Mexicans? - Page 2 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 Guest Fri May 12, 2017 6:55 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Thorin wrote:

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...

Do Leftists Know What Their Hero Karl Marx Thought of Blacks, Jews, and Mexicans? - Page 2 3489511464

Sorry, I just saw a pig fly past

by 'Wolfie Fri May 12, 2017 7:00 pm

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

Churchill was a chauvinist, quite racist and a bit of a nationalist...

But he wasn't a recognised and known paedophile -- unlike his fellow war hero, the well-praised British society icon and former Oz GG, that odious scumbag and establishment darling Viscount William Slim -

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t19891-british-establishment-hides-major-sexual-pervert

by Ben Reilly Fri May 12, 2017 7:06 pm

Thorin wrote: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.

Does Marxism specifically call for races to be unequal? Does it address race at all?

And no, lots of Mexican states rebelled at that time -- not just ones that were majority White American. In addition to Texas, the Mexican states that revolted against the abolition of the constitution and rise to dictatorship of Santa Anna included San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Yucatán, Jalisco, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas and Zacatecas.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 7:10 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Thorin wrote: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.

Does Marxism specifically call for races to be unequal? Does it address race at all?

And no, lots of Mexican states rebelled at that time -- not just ones that were majority White American. In addition to Texas, the Mexican states that revolted against the abolition of the constitution and rise to dictatorship of Santa Anna included San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Yucatán, Jalisco, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas and Zacatecas.

There is nothing about racial equality in Marxism, it does not exist, for the tenth time having said.

So as stated Marxism cannot claim to have racial equality

We are not talking about other Mexican states here though, but how the US citizens after being invited to migrate rebelled against Mexico, to the point of making the Texan and Californian state part of the US.

Why do you lefties continually deflect from the actual point on history being talked about.
This was just one of a number of times where the US expanded its territory through aggression, war etc.

by Original Quill Fri May 12, 2017 8:13 pm

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

Didge, sassy isn't defending racism at all. All she is doing is distinguishing it from Marx's outstanding work in political economics.

The US black liberal professor has his own thesis. It's a separate matter. One can be a champion of Marxism and still believe Professor William's thesis. There's nothing contradictory about that.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 8:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:So your view to defend Marx's racism is to try and deligitimize a US Black Liberal Professor?

Didge, sassy isn't defending racism at all. All she is doing is distinguishing it from Marx's outstanding work in political economics.

The US black liberal professor has his own thesis. It's a separate matter. One can be a champion of Marxism and still believe Professor William's thesis. There's nothing contradictory about that.

Is that why she deflected onto a Liberal Black Professor making an unfounded claim, saying he did not care?

That is what the Far Left do, they distract from the debate at hand to try and delegitimize the author of the article, as if then their views are meaningless, proving how poor some of the left are, when debating such topics Quill.

I stated as such to Eilzel earlier the following and Sassy did exactly what I have shown happens.

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.

by Tommy Monk Fri May 12, 2017 9:33 pm

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 ?

Pure capitalism = far right... the nazis were the opposite of the list above, and they had a very tight regulatory grip over businesses, by which they controlled all the means of production...

So very left...

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 9:36 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

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 ?

Pure capitalism = far right... the nazis were the opposite of the list above, and they had a very tight regulatory grip over businesses, by which they controlled all the means of production...

So very left...

is that why they sold off national railways and steel industries?
Again you ignore history and the other glaring facts that made the nazi's Rw

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 10:43 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Didge, sassy isn't defending racism at all. All she is doing is distinguishing it from Marx's outstanding work in political economics.

The US black liberal professor has his own thesis. It's a separate matter. One can be a champion of Marxism and still believe Professor William's thesis. There's nothing contradictory about that.

Is that why she deflected onto a Liberal Black Professor making an unfounded claim, saying he did not care?

That is what the Far Left do, they distract from the debate at hand to try and delegitimize the author of the article, as if then their views are meaningless, proving how poor some of the left are, when debating such topics Quill.

I stated as such to Eilzel earlier the following and Sassy did exactly what I have shown happens.

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.

Jeez, if there was a Nobel prize for lying, you would win it by a mile. I never mentioned the Professor, who by the way, cannot be termed a 'Liberal' in any sense of the word, as at one time he was going to run for Republican choice for President, but in the end endorsed Ron Paul. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams#Economic_and_political_views) He is a complete advocate for capitalism, which for so many in the world has failed miserably. The very capitalism that all but destroyed the economies of most western nations. The capitalism that stole our wealth and made us all poorer. Time to man up Didge lol

Are you a Southern Apologist? Marx wasn't : http://isreview.org/issue/80/karl-marx-and-american-civil-war

You really are so consumed with your hatred you cannot see the wood for the trees. I'm sure Marx had a lot of faults, I'm sure Churchill had a lot of faults, I'm sure every leader in history had a lot of faults. But that doesn't mean that they don't have things that were good about them and legacies that they leave of brilliance behind them.

Capitalism is probably the most racist form of living in the world, in America it was totally interwoven with slavery, in fact most Presidents before Lincoln were slave owners and much of the wealth of many families would never have come into being without slavery.

So, are you going to apologise that Capitalists were racists and used negros unmercifully and fought to keep them slaves?

Oh, and finally, I don't revere Marx, I think he was a bloody good economist and I'm not a communist, I'm a Democratic Socialist and I think that Capitalism is on it's way out and has kept people poor while others enjoyed the fruits of their labout.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 10:47 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.

Sassy just claimed she never mentioned the Professor?

I rest my case

Now was I lying?

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 10:50 pm

Second exhibit:

She claims he can never be classed as a liberal because he was going to be running as a Republican?

WTF?

So Apparently, you are now disqualified for having Liberal views in a Liberal country to be in the Republican party?

Come again?

Lets see from her own link?

Walter Edward Williams (born March 31, 1936) is an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist and author known for his classical liberal and libertarian conservative views.^[2] His writings frequently appear on Townhall.com, WND, Jewish World Review, and hundreds of newspapers throughout the United States.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 10:52 pm

Exhibit 3:

She clearly never read this or followed the thread and did in this thread what she is wrongly accusing me of. By actually being the guilty party doing so, by attempting to deligitimize and still doing so, this Liberal Professor:

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.

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 11:10 pm

Point 4) So now Capitalism is now racist based off past history and not present history and that Capitalism is slavery?

Again WTF?

So people free to do be as inventive as they like and succeed is being a slave?

Again WTF?

But somehow forming a collective view to be sheep to an idea that wants people to conform to live a certain way, is somehow not being a slave?

Come again?

Slavery was born from ignorance and hate, not capitalism, people were sadly used as one of many things used as commodities.

To say capitalism causes racism, ignore why there is even racial hate and the causes for racial hate. It wrongly blames wealth, as if racism is the product of wealth, when those receiving racial hate are on the bottom of the racial wealth ladder today. Racism just as is any prejudice is based on unfounded fear, an irrational fear. Rome was built on accepting all walks of life to be Romans and it was based on personal wealth and collapsed.

So how do you equate to the racism under Stalin Sassy?

by Guest Fri May 12, 2017 11:28 pm

Thorin wrote:
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

Exhibit 5) countering the lie claimed by sass, that he had no issue with abuse.

You know? To the person she claimed she did not mention?

by Tommy Monk Fri May 12, 2017 11:58 pm

sassy wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Is that why she deflected onto a Liberal Black Professor making an unfounded claim, saying he did not care?

That is what the Far Left do, they distract from the debate at hand to try and delegitimize the author of the article, as if then their views are meaningless, proving how poor some of the left are, when debating such topics Quill.

I stated as such to Eilzel earlier the following and Sassy did exactly what I have shown happens.

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.

Jeez, if there was a Nobel prize for lying, you would win it by a mile. I never mentioned the Professor, who by the way, cannot be termed a 'Liberal' in any sense of the word, as at one time he was going to run for Republican choice for President, but in the end endorsed Ron Paul. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams#Economic_and_political_views) He is a complete advocate for capitalism, which for so many in the world has failed miserably. The very capitalism that all but destroyed the economies of most western nations. The capitalism that stole our wealth and made us all poorer. Time to man up Didge lol

Are you a Southern Apologist? Marx wasn't : http://isreview.org/issue/80/karl-marx-and-american-civil-war

You really are so consumed with your hatred you cannot see the wood for the trees. I'm sure Marx had a lot of faults, I'm sure Churchill had a lot of faults, I'm sure every leader in history had a lot of faults. But that doesn't mean that they don't have things that were good about them and legacies that they leave of brilliance behind them.

Capitalism is probably the most racist form of living in the world, in America it was totally interwoven with slavery, in fact most Presidents before Lincoln were slave owners and much of the wealth of many families would never have come into being without slavery.

So, are you going to apologise that Capitalists were racists and used negros unmercifully and fought to keep them slaves?

Oh, and finally, I don't revere Marx, I think he was a bloody good economist and I'm not a communist, I'm a Democratic Socialist and I think that Capitalism is on it's way out and has kept people poor while others enjoyed the fruits of their labout.

There were plenty of blacks who owned slaves too sassy... and not just black slaves as many blacks had japanese slave women as sex slaves...

it was mainly other blacks in africa who enslaved the blacks, and the Muslims enslavement of blacks was in epic proportions in comparison... and not just of blacks... and there is still much slavery going on today by blacks and Muslims... something sassy doesnt seem to care to be outraged enough about to ever mention...

by Guest Sat May 13, 2017 12:05 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
sassy wrote:

Jeez, if there was a Nobel prize for lying, you would win it by a mile. I never mentioned the Professor, who by the way, cannot be termed a 'Liberal' in any sense of the word, as at one time he was going to run for Republican choice for President, but in the end endorsed Ron Paul. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams#Economic_and_political_views) He is a complete advocate for capitalism, which for so many in the world has failed miserably. The very capitalism that all but destroyed the economies of most western nations. The capitalism that stole our wealth and made us all poorer. Time to man up Didge lol

Are you a Southern Apologist? Marx wasn't : http://isreview.org/issue/80/karl-marx-and-american-civil-war

You really are so consumed with your hatred you cannot see the wood for the trees. I'm sure Marx had a lot of faults, I'm sure Churchill had a lot of faults, I'm sure every leader in history had a lot of faults. But that doesn't mean that they don't have things that were good about them and legacies that they leave of brilliance behind them.

Capitalism is probably the most racist form of living in the world, in America it was totally interwoven with slavery, in fact most Presidents before Lincoln were slave owners and much of the wealth of many families would never have come into being without slavery.

So, are you going to apologise that Capitalists were racists and used negros unmercifully and fought to keep them slaves?

Oh, and finally, I don't revere Marx, I think he was a bloody good economist and I'm not a communist, I'm a Democratic Socialist and I think that Capitalism is on it's way out and has kept people poor while others enjoyed the fruits of their labout.

There were plenty of blacks who owned slaves too sassy... and not just black slaves as many blacks had japanese slave women as sex slaves...

it was mainly other blacks in africa who enslaved the blacks, and the Muslims enslavement of blacks was in epic proportions in comparison... and not just of blacks... and there is still much slavery going on today by blacks and Muslims... something sassy doesnt seem to care to be outraged enough about to ever mention...

That is a massive distortion of history there Tommy.

Africans captured other Africans to sell as slaves to white slave traders, because it was profitable, just like any crime syndicate you see. Nobody is denying their despicable part here in this crime, but do you think that some how excuses the slave trade by the west? Or even diminish this? Even more by side tracking to the Arab slave trade?

They are all wrong, so why not talk about how and why the slave trade by Europeans was wrong?

If you expect others to do as you do, then why do you fail to lead by example and condemn also white slave traders?

by Original Quill Sat May 13, 2017 3:05 am

Thorin wrote:Sassy just claimed she never mentioned the Professor?

Just a glance, not an in-depth analysis.

Thorin wrote:So Apparently, you are now disqualified for having Liberal views in a Liberal country to be in the Republican party?

I can confirm that.

Thorin wrote:This was posted to show up the utter hypocrisy of how people can be and you eloquently proved that.

Good show, magnificent...now, if you're done tooting your own horn, perhaps we can get back to the subject of the thread. There is simply no indication that Marx's views of race had anything to do with his economic theories.

by Guest Sat May 13, 2017 5:17 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:Sassy just claimed she never mentioned the Professor?

Just a glance, not an in-depth analysis.

Thorin wrote:So Apparently, you are now disqualified for having Liberal views in a Liberal country to be in the Republican party?

I can confirm that.

Thorin wrote:This was posted to show up the utter hypocrisy of how people can be and you eloquently proved that.

Good show, magnificent...now, if you're done tooting your own horn, perhaps we can get back to the subject of the thread. There is simply no indication that Marx's views of race had anything to do with his economic theories.

Someone gave you a green for defending dishonesty?

Wow, they must be desperate when shown up

lol!

Sassy blatantly lies for all to see, falsely and without any credibility attempts to deligitimize a Black Liberal professor because she is Far left and a Marxist etc and you avoid all the points proving this. Proving my point around the hypocrisy on the left.

Wow

You then also make yourself judge and jury to Liberals claiming some are not, based off no reason with also ruling out Lincoln as a Liberal then, even though he was a Republican.

lol!

Nothing to do with tooting horns.

Though funny how you defend dishonesty and also claim you can deny people being Liberals, proving again my point on those on the left.

Be a good chap and wait your turn.

Thanks

by Guest Sat May 13, 2017 10:38 am

You don't have the slightest idea what a Liberal Conservative Economist is do you?

He is a Republican, anti gun control etc etc, so socially he is not Liberal in any sense of the word and is a Conservative with a capital C.

As an economist he is Liberal. And from every you have said you don't have any idea what that entails. You think he is for helping the underdog etc because of the 'Liberal' in the title? Let me enlighten you:

Economic liberalism is a system of economics that describes the organization of an economy on individual lines, which means that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals or households rather than by collective institutions or organizations. It includes a spectrum of different economic policies, such as freedom of movement, but it is always based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberalism can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition.

Economic liberalism is most often associated with support for free markets and private ownership of capital assets. It contrasts with protectionism because of its support for free trade and open markets. Historically, economic liberalism arose in response to mercantilism and feudalism. Today, economic liberalism is also generally considered to be opposed to non-capitalist economic orders, such as socialism and planned economies.

An economy that is managed according to these precepts may be described as a liberal economy.

Yes, it's from Wike, because be buggered if I was going to spend my time giviing an idiot a class in economics.

In other words, the weak go to the wall and the strong get everything and the devil take the hindmost.

You really do show yourself up as an utter ignoramus.

by Guest Sat May 13, 2017 10:46 am

So according to Sassy you cannot have Liberal values if you back certain values?

PMSL

Lets allow people to decide for themselves and not as per usual you label people, based on your warped world view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

I see no admittance to your lying

Priceless

Or any response to any of my points

This again proves my point that all the left can do is constantly avoid the topic at hand and try to deligitimize the author of the article. If we used that methodology, any view you made would be immediately void based on your warped beliefs. Hence they point of taking any view based on its merit and not the individual.

At the end of the day you have to prove his points wrong on Marx, of which as seen you have instead tried to misdirect from.

Go figure

by Tommy Monk Sat May 13, 2017 5:58 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

There were plenty of blacks who owned slaves too sassy... and not just black slaves as many blacks had japanese slave women as sex slaves...

it was mainly other blacks in africa who enslaved the blacks, and the Muslims enslavement of blacks was in epic proportions in comparison... and not just of blacks... and there is still much slavery going on today by blacks and Muslims... something sassy doesnt seem to care to be outraged enough about to ever mention...

That is a massive distortion of history there Tommy.

Africans captured other Africans to sell as slaves to white slave traders, because it was profitable, just like any crime syndicate you see. Nobody is denying their despicable part here in this crime, but do you think that some how excuses the slave trade by the west? Or even diminish this? Even more by side tracking to the Arab slave trade?

They are all wrong, so why not talk about how and why the slave trade by Europeans was wrong?

If you expect others to do as you do, then why do you fail to lead by example and condemn also white slave traders?

No distortion of history from me didge... black africans were enslaving other blacks for hundreds if not thousands of years before any white european/american involvement... and that was nothing compared to the Muslims involvement in slavery... and both black africans and Muslims are still enslaving others now...!!!

by Guest Sat May 13, 2017 6:03 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

That is a massive distortion of history there Tommy.

Africans captured other Africans to sell as slaves to white slave traders, because it was profitable, just like any crime syndicate you see. Nobody is denying their despicable part here in this crime, but do you think that some how excuses the slave trade by the west? Or even diminish this? Even more by side tracking to the Arab slave trade?

They are all wrong, so why not talk about how and why the slave trade by Europeans was wrong?

If you expect others to do as you do, then why do you fail to lead by example and condemn also white slave traders?

No distortion of history from me didge... black africans were enslaving other blacks for hundreds if not thousands of years before any white european/american involvement... and that was nothing compared to the Muslims involvement in slavery... and both black africans and Muslims are still enslaving others now...!!!

Which proves again how little you know either about the Muslim slave trade or how it goes way back before either.

The slave trade by Africans is clearly not based on race is it Tommy?

Lets start with that shall we?

As for what reasons before European slavery were slaves taken in Africa?

Do you know?

by Guest Sat May 13, 2017 6:10 pm

lol clearly Tommy is busy looking up google.

Laughing

by Guest Sat May 13, 2017 6:27 pm

While we wait, I shall play Tommy's theme tune.... Smile

by Tommy Monk Sat May 13, 2017 7:07 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

That is a massive distortion of history there Tommy.

Africans captured other Africans to sell as slaves to white slave traders, because it was profitable, just like any crime syndicate you see. Nobody is denying their despicable part here in this crime, but do you think that some how excuses the slave trade by the west? Or even diminish this? Even more by side tracking to the Arab slave trade?

They are all wrong, so why not talk about how and why the slave trade by Europeans was wrong?

If you expect others to do as you do, then why do you fail to lead by example and condemn also white slave traders?

No distortion of history from me didge... black africans were enslaving other blacks for hundreds if not thousands of years before any white european/american involvement... and that was nothing compared to the Muslims involvement in slavery... and both black africans and Muslims are still enslaving others now...!!!

by Guest Sat May 13, 2017 7:10 pm

So Tommy clearly does not know.

by The Devil, You Know Wed May 31, 2017 11:13 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Thorin wrote:

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]you do know labour privatised just shy of 5% of the NHS during their time in office, the coalition added around another 1% to that total.
Now unless you are dianne abbot, 5 is bigger than 1.

by 'Wolfie Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:37 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Socialist democracies :

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

you do know labour privatised just shy of 5% of the NHS during their time in office, the coalition added around another 1% to that total.
Now unless you are dianne abbot, 5 is bigger than 1.

Britain's "New Labour" under Tony Blair was not acting as a genuine "socialist" party, as understood by international standards...

Tony Blair was a "centre right" politician, and dragged British Labour across to the centre, effectively a "Tory_lite" government -- as demonstrated by his mob keeping several Thatcherist policies in place -- including continuing on with those privitisation policies that you keep harping on about; as well as dragging you lot back into Iraq alongside GWB and John Howard.

by nicko Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:03 am

Wolfie, I think if best if you keep your laptop shut as you don't have a clue what your talking about. Brain washed leftie you are, apart from the forums "keyboard warrior".

by Original Quill Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:24 pm

nicko wrote:Wolfie, I think if best if you keep your laptop shut as you don't have a clue what your talking about. Brain washed leftie you are, apart from the forums "keyboard warrior".

To the contrary, Wolf's post is most on-point. In all radical movements there is a movement toward normalization...as more people subscribe, they bring their other associations along with them, and hence blend normalcy in.

One hopes that the process doesn't spoil the blend, and that the new (in this case Labour) doesn't get lost in the mix. Alas, that's precisely what happened with Blair's brand of a left-wing party. They sided with he right so much that they became liars along with the GWB/Cheney Republicans. One wonders, if they could foresee they were siding with forces that eventually would produce pussy-grabber Trump, would they be so quick to normalize?

So, Labour lost the way...the spirit...and the meaning. It falls to the left of Britain to put it back together. Both the UK and the US have lost their way, but the good news is that the majority of the populations are anti-regressive. Trump's favorability numbers are in the 30%-range, and while May presents a more temperate face, her policies will once again attain disfavor and the ship with right itself.

by 'Wolfie Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:34 pm

nicko wrote:
Wolfie, I think if best if you keep your laptop shut as you don't have a clue what your talking about. Brain washed leftie you are, apart from the forums "keyboard warrior".

.

Get real, nicko...

Tony Blair isn't a socialist..
"New Labour" wasn't a socialist party, when in gov't.

Do your homework, instead of blindly following Deano's and Dodge's misinformation..

You can start by actually finding out what "socialism" means -- and how it differs from communism. And why Blair's "New Labour" government isn't considered to have been a "left wing" government..

P.S. Fuck off with that fallacious "keyboard warrior" bullshit, nicko -- repeating DYKhead's, Horatio's and Sly's tired old insulting lies only makes you sound more and more of a non-thinking handpuppet, every time you repeat their FlopCave/cm trash talking propaganda.. Do Leftists Know What Their Hero Karl Marx Thought of Blacks, Jews, and Mexicans? - Page 2 919144451

Do Leftists Know What Their Hero Karl Marx Thought of Blacks, Jews, and Mexicans? - Page 2 919144451

by Guest Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:54 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
nicko wrote:
Wolfie, I think if best if you keep your laptop shut as you don't have a clue what your talking about. Brain washed leftie you are, apart from the forums "keyboard warrior".

.

Get real, nicko...

Tony Blair isn't a socialist..
"New Labour" wasn't a socialist party, when in gov't.

Do your homework, instead of blindly following Deano's and Dodge's misinformation..

You can start by actually finding out what "socialism" means -- and how it differs from communism. And why Blair's "New Labour" government isn't considered to have been a "left wing" government..

P.S. Fuck off with that fallacious "keyboard warrior" bullshit, nicko -- repeating DYKhead's, Horatio's and Sly's tired old insulting lies only makes you sound more and more of a non-thinking handpuppet, every time you repeat their FlopCave/cm trash talking propaganda..

is that why you have been unable to counter Wolfie and again insult posters who have not even debated on this topic?

Why are you bringing up Syl and Horatio?

Get a grip and get back to the debate

by nicko Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:02 pm

Wolfie' to call you a "keyboard warrior" is a lie?

What else would you call it when your every post is insulting someone, not one of your "friends " though !
Why do you call head dykface?

by Original Quill Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:38 pm

nicko wrote:Wolfie' to call you a "keyboard warrior" is a lie?

What else would you call it when your every post is insulting someone, not one of your "friends " though !
Why do you call head dykface?

And what are you doing? Praising?

by nicko Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:32 pm

No Quill, just asking why.

by 'Wolfie Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:31 am

nicko wrote:Wolfie' to call you a "keyboard warrior" is a lie?

What else would you call it when your every post is insulting someone, not one of your "friends " though !
Why do you call head dykface?

First off, if I insult anybody, they usually deserve it, and often get off lightly...

Secondly, nicko -- why are you calling DYK "head", then ?

by nicko Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:15 pm

You call deano dYK HEAD DON'T YOU?

by Original Quill Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:52 pm

nicko wrote:You call deano dYK HEAD DON'T YOU?

Frankly, I would prefer to call Dean by his given name, as that's how he is known throughout cyber-world. It's a respectable name and he's a respectable guy.

But for some reason, this site translates that nombre into "head". Since that is not what I write, I go with an approximation: Dino. There are a myriad of ways to handle this, and I don't know that one is better than another.

by nicko Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:24 pm

Sensible post Quill, calling him by anything except his real name is nonsense. Who decided this anyhow?

by Sponsored content