ATTENTION Marxist anti-racists: Your hero Karl Marx was a racist.

[Joe McCarthy]

I posted this on one of Marinesko's threads but it bears repeating in its own thread due to its content.

I suppose what is worth noting is that in betraying his comrades Marinesko has accepted the very racist Karl Marx as his paladin. I always find it amusing how antis drool over this kike, given just how racist he was. A few examples:

Marx says Judaism has:


Quote:
"contempt for. . . art, history and man."



Quote:
"What is the object of the Jew's worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money. . . . What is the foundation of the Jew in this world? Practical necessity, private advantage. . . . The bill of exchange is the Jew's real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange."



Quote:
"emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time."



Quote:
“It is now entirely clear to me, that, as his cranial structure and hair type prove, Lassalle is descended from the Negroes, who joined Moses’ flight from Egypt (that is, assuming his mother, or his paternal grandmother, did not cross with a nigger)… The officiousness of the fellow is also nigger-like.”


It's also worth noting that Marx's vaunted 'world revolution' never encapsulated what we now regard as the third world. He focused on those nations of the industrially advanced West, thought the Slavic nations, particularly Russia, were backward feudal despotisms, and generally accepted much of the worldview we'd normally associate with the evil racists Marinesko now despises.

[Westminster]

I'm shocked at the hypocrisy :rofl:

[Empress Cheesatine]

I'll add Bertrand Russell:

“The white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the Negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence… Until that happens, the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized, and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary.” - Prospects of Industrial Civilization

[Draco]

When even Marx hates blacks.....you know they suck.

[Westminster]

When even Marx hates blacks.....you know they suck.

Are you deliberately trying to offend Cheesy-pie? (spell check uses the hyphen, I don't know how you prefer to spell that Cheesy, but rest assured when I do, I'll make sure that everyone spells your name correctly or they will suffer the consequences).

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/othercamps/images/Buchenwald%20punishment.gif

Clearly, the validity of these photographs is beyond any doubt whatsoever, even a reasonable one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bbbat::bbbat: :bbbat:

[Joe McCarthy]

The Russell quote is an oldie but goodie. It could be a fine standby when the faint of heart (such as Niccolo) offer the usual yarn about how those who 'advocate genocide' are 'mental defectives'.

[Joe McCarthy]

Also interesting is that none of the Marxists, including Marinesko, are assailing this thread. This only reinforces my view that most Marxists know little about Marxism. Marxists can basically be grouped into three categories:

1. College faculty, i.e., the ones that do know a few things about Marxism. These are by far the smallest of the bunch.

2. The under 25 set, i.e., the idiot vote most likely to vote for Obama. These types love to wear 'Che Lives' t-shirts but like most anarchists, they know next to jack about their professed ideals. I know that 'lifestyle anarchists', while they are very adept at smashing windows at protests, usually wouldn't know William Godwin if you handed them one of his books.

3. The old, and dwindling number of party regulars, who long for the salad days yet will soon improve the gene pool by removing themselves from it. These types vary in their knowledge of Marx.

[Rakhmetov]

He focused on those nations of the industrially advanced West, thought the Slavic nations, particularly Russia, were backward feudal despotisms, and generally accepted much of the worldview we'd normally associate with the evil racists Marinesko now despises.
That is incorrect. In the preface of the 1882 Russian edition of The Communist Manifesto (http://books.google.com/books?id=Q2GzsvWurCMC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=Russia+forms+the+vanguard+of+revolutionary+action+in+Europe.&source=web&ots=qdH2kL_Z0G&sig=VJ_SkvrxpEdZGg-dQ_iv_3_5MeM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result), Marx and Engels wrote that Russia forms the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe.

The analysis of Russia as a backward feudal nation in the late 19th century does not conform to reality. In his The Development of Capitalism in Russia, Lenin thoroughly proves that the country was in the capitalist stage. Russia's level of development at the time lied between Germany and Italy.

[annoying bitch]

Karl Marx cursed the Negro race for giving him his frizzy, unmanageable hair.

http://i38.tinypic.com/148q22w.gif

[Captain Marinesko]

I love when anti-Marxists think they got a hold of some secret Marxist writings, as though Marxists haven't read On the Jewish Question(it was actually one of the first Marxist texts I read after the Manifesto).

I posted this on one of Marinesko's threads but it bears repeating in its own thread due to its content.

I suppose what is worth noting is that in betraying his comrades Marinesko has accepted the very racist Karl Marx as his paladin. I always find it amusing how antis drool over this kike, given just how racist he was. A few examples:

Marx says Judaism has:

This is the best you can do? First off, Judaism is not a race. Marx's personal views on Judaism are noticeably harsh, but they were in fact pretty common in those times, and for his times that was actually quite liberal, to attack Judaism as a religion and not people labeled "Jewish". Marxists have historically seen Judaism as a religion and a type of culture, not a race. By those standards, Marx would have been attacking himself.

And in fact Judaism, like a lot of traditional religions of the time and to this day, carried with it many negative aspects.





Quote:
“It is now entirely clear to me, that, as his cranial structure and hair type prove, Lassalle is descended from the Negroes, who joined Moses’ flight from Egypt (that is, assuming his mother, or his paternal grandmother, did not cross with a nigger)… The officiousness of the fellow is also nigger-like.”

Funny that a search for this reveals only a blog from a radical black site that cites "a letter from Marx to Engels"(of course there were many). Since the word is "nigger" here, and not negro, I would like to see the original German if possible. Either way, it is a dated remark. One could also say for example that in modern times, we know that Moses and the Hebrews did not escape Egypt, and that Moses may never have existed.


It's also worth noting that Marx's vaunted 'world revolution' never encapsulated what we now regard as the third world.

No shit genius. Socialism was supposed to grow out of capitalism, not feudalism. But conditions and times change. While the Russian empire was still a somewhat feudal state with a mostly agricultural workforce in 1917, it had become one of the most rapidly growing industrial states since the beginning for the 20th century.




He focused on those nations of the industrially advanced West, thought the Slavic nations, particularly Russia, were backward feudal despotisms,

They were. That does not mean he believed they would be permanently so. Even in the Manifesto he wrote how capitalism remakes the world in its own image, that it was bringing civilization to the uncivilized parts of the globe.


and generally accepted much of the worldview we'd normally associate with the evil racists Marinesko now despises.

Actually he accepted none of your worldview, and a few dated quotes aren't going to change that fact.

It's always amusing to find some anti-Communist who thinks he's discovered some hidden knowledge Marxists don't know about, like it's some kind of secret weapon.

Lastly I should add that if you had even a basic knowledge of Marxism you would know that Marx is not seen as a "hero" by Marxists. He was a brilliant theoretician, philosopher, economist and social scientist, but at the end of the day he was just one man in one time.

Before you humiliate yourself again, let me warn you that I have never owned anything with Che Guevara on it(nor will I).

[Westminster]

Who says Commies aren't nice :rofl:

[Joe McCarthy]

That is incorrect. In the preface of the 1882 Russian edition of The Communist Manifesto (http://books.google.com/books?id=Q2GzsvWurCMC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=Russia+forms+the+vanguard+of+revolutionary+action+in+Europe.&source=web&ots=qdH2kL_Z0G&sig=VJ_SkvrxpEdZGg-dQ_iv_3_5MeM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result), Marx and Engels wrote that Russia forms the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe.

The analysis of Russia as a backward feudal nation in the late 19th century does not conform to reality. In his The Development of Capitalism in Russia, Lenin thoroughly proves that the country was in the capitalist stage. Russia's level of development at the time lied between Germany and Italy.

I can't paste directly from your link (how convenient) but if you read it in toto you will see that Marx (who was about dead) and Engels asked whether Russia could pass through the 'dissolution' needed in the West. The tone is a belief that Russia was a PEASANT-based society and that capitalism, the 'bourgeois swindle' was only in early development. They then say that a Russian revolution MAY serve as the signal for a 'proletarian' revolution in the WEST, and that Russian peasant 'common ownership' of land 'could' 'serve as the starting point for communist development'. As for whether it was backward and feudal, Marx thought it was, and need I remind you that serfdom was only finally abolished after mid-century.

None of this varies with standard Marxist dogma emphasizing focus on the proletarianized, industrialized West. I also notice that you completely avoided the actual point of this thread, that Marx was a racist.

As for Lenin, keep him off this thread. He has nothing to do with what Marx thought.

[Joe McCarthy]

This post by Marinesko is the usual waste of bandwidth, a practice in his usual 'arguing without arguing'. Only one element deserves refutation:

Lastly I should add that if you had even a basic knowledge of Marxism you would know that Marx is not seen as a "hero" by Marxists. He was a brilliant theoretician, philosopher, economist and social scientist, but at the end of the day he was just one man in one time.

Yeah, he was no hero to Marxists. They just put his portrait up in Red Square for the heck of it.

[Basil Fawlty]

This post by Marinesko is the usual waste of bandwidth, a practice in his usual 'arguing without arguing'. Only one element deserves refutation:



Yeah, he was no hero to Marxists. They just put his portrait up in Red Square for the heck of it.And the most obvious refutation of all -they name themselves Marx-ists

[Captain Marinesko]

I can't paste directly from your link (how convenient) but if you read it in toto you will see that Marx (who was about dead) and Engels asked whether Russia could pass through the 'dissolution' needed in the West. The tone is a belief that Russia was a PEASANT-based society and that capitalism, the 'bourgeois swindle' was only in early development. They then say that a Russian revolution MAY serve as the signal for a 'proletarian' revolution in the WEST, and that Russian peasant 'common ownership' of land 'could' 'serve as the starting point for communist development'. As for whether it was backward and feudal, Marx thought it was, and need I remind you that serfdom was only finally abolished after mid-century.

Time for a lesson in modal verbs retard. MAY, and COULD denote possibility. You're taking Marx's opinions and observations from one point and pretending that this means he saw those characteristics as permanent things.


None of this varies with standard Marxist dogma emphasizing focus on the proletarianized, industrialized West. I also notice that you completely avoided the actual point of this thread, that Marx was a racist.

Actually I took on your claims head on, and refuted them, and you ignored that, just like you frequently ignore inconvenient facts(such as JUDAISM IS A RELIGION). The idea that Marx embodies anything close to your ideology, because of a few dated comments that in many cases were rather liberal for his time, is simply hilarious. I believe you are the very same nutcase that wants to kill all Muslims for some reason, and you think someone you'll get off the hook because Marx said a few mean things about Judaism(things that some Jews even agreed with around that time).


As for Lenin, keep him off this thread. He has nothing to do with what Marx thought.

Actually he has a lot to do with Marx, especially when you bring up the issue of Russia, so you are going to have to just take it.


PS- Marx's portrait was put up in Red Square during political holidays, either on banners or placards. The only permanent monument to Marx near Red Square is actually located on Teatralnaya square. Isn't that strange, on political holidays, a particular figure associated with the state ideology was venerated in Red Square!!! They must have worshiped him as some kind of infallible God or Avatar!!! Just like how Turks venerate and worship Mustafa Kemal!


There's nothing funnier than a staunch anti-Communist telling real Communists what their ideology really means, arrogantly claiming that he knows it better than them. In every case, they reveal themselves as totally incompetent. This is no exception.

[Westminster]

Look, by 1950 it was obvious to Radical Marxists that they were not gonna get a revolution in The West based on class, because Capitalism had created so much wealth that everybody wanted to keep it going! Not enough discontent there to get people to start burning down their own towns and murdering anyone who opposed their great future vision of who knows what. So, they changed their "target market" to: Negros, Women, Gimps, Fags and of course, Kikes and all their little buddies, like Atheists, Trannys and Indians.
The Radicals (those seeking to fundamentally change a society) who were Marxists (disciples of Karl) sought a Cultural Revolution, instead of an Economic one.

[Westminster]

You seen one (bogus) "oppressed class," you seen em all.

All these groups feel shame. Women, because of their natural inferiority to men. Blacks, because of their natural inferiority to Whites. Gimps, physical inferiority. Kikes, Fags, Atheists and other assorted idiots all feel rejected=scorned=shame, because, to one degree or another, in a Christian society, they are. So, there is a lot of shame to work with there.

Once their pride is stirred up, if they become envious, then they'll want to tear down the object of their envy. So, once "activated" and organized, they are like an Army of Darkness out to wreak havoc on the good people that they hate. The end that they aspire to appears to be, in reality, just the destruction of their obsession and presumably, in the end, themselves.

Hence the phrase, "that Marxism is Evil!" ~Anon

[Captain Marinesko]

Look, by 1950 it was obvious to Radical Marxists that they were not gonna get a revolution in The West based on class, because Capitalism had created so much wealth that everybody wanted to keep it going! Not enough discontent there to get people to start burning down their own towns and murdering anyone who opposed their great future vision of who knows what. So, they changed their "target market" to: Negros, Women, Gimps, Fags and of course, Kikes and all their little buddies, like Atheists, Trannys and Indians.
The Radicals (those seeking to fundamentally change a society) who were Marxists (disciples of Karl) sought a Cultural Revolution, instead of an Economic one.


And which McGuffy reader did you get that from?

What I am going to write now, is an ANALOGOUS historical narrative, about a different topic, to demonstrate the level of accuracy(or lack thereof) of your paragraph here.

"In 1961 the American Civil War broke out when it was discovered that the Confederate States of the Midwest were receiving shipments of arms from the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate. Rich Arab states supported the Union, and the Soviet Union sent advisors to the Confederates to teach them how to use their AK-74s and RPG-29s. A major battle of the American Civil war took place in Topeka, KS, 1963, which was fought to a standstill with tanks, artillery, and bi-pedal "Metal Gear" tanks."



(I bet myself that this analogy will sail right over your head.)

[Jake Featherston]

The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. How many people in Europe weren't racists at that time? As Percival recently (and wisely) noted, John F. Kennedy would be considered a right-wing extremist pig in today's political climate. Judging people from the first half of the 19th century, based on the transient and insubstantial mores of the present era, is lunacy.

[Jake Featherston]

Jack London was a member of the Socialist Party Central Committee for Sonoma County (California), when the committee passed a resolution (back around 1910), calling for an end to Southern segregation. Mr. London angrily resigned his membership in the committee on the spot, and yelled "I may be a socialist, but I'm a White man first!"

[Joe McCarthy]

Fun with Marinesko....

First, let me point out the obvious: I was addressing Rak in the following and Marinesko is acting almost as if I was addressing him. At any rate, this will be relatively brief.

Time for a lesson in modal verbs retard. MAY, and COULD denote possibility. You're taking Marx's opinions and observations from one point and pretending that this means he saw those characteristics as permanent things.

I see this was COMPLETELY over your head. 'Could' referred to the fact that Marx merely saw a peasant-based revolution as possibly leading to communism. If you really knew your Marx (which of course you don't) you would have immediately noticed the distinction, viz. that Marx saw proletarian revolution as inevitable.

The idea that Marx embodies anything close to your ideology, because of a few dated comments that in many cases were rather liberal for his time, is simply hilarious.

Yes, trashing Jews and blacks bears no resemblance to 'racist' ideology, I must admit.

and you ignored that, just like you frequently ignore inconvenient facts

Your 'facts' tend to consist of insult-laden remarks that serve as implicit concessions of my arguments. Case in point:

Marx's portrait was put up in Red Square during political holidays, either on banners or placards. The only permanent monument to Marx near Red Square is actually located on Teatralnaya square.

Gee, dad gummit. You're absolutely right. Marxists don't think of Marx as a hero. What was I thinking.

LMAO.

[Roland]

@ Native German speakers: how are we to translate "Neger" in a 19th century context? Did Germans have a politically correct word for humans of African descent in the 19th century? If they did not, then the translation is misleading, because the only reason the letter might be considered racist is Marx's use of the word "nigger", which has special connotations in the Anglo world.

Marx and Engles were also notorious "homophobes".

Edit: Marx clearly thought that American slavery was economically progressive, which implies that he thought Africans were subjects of his historical dialectic, and therefore, of his political philosophy. That is, Africans, as economic actors, were equal to whites.

[Joe McCarthy]

@ Native German speakers: how are we to translate "Neger" in a 19th century context? Did Germans have a politically correct word for humans of African descent in the 19th century? If they did not, then the translation is misleading, because the only reason the letter might be considered racist is Marx's use of the word "nigger", which has special connotations in the Anglo world.

Marx and Engles were also notorious "homophobes".

This point is moot. Marx used the English word nigger even though he wrote in German.

[Roland]

Really? The reason I ask is that people often quote Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche as using the term "nigger", but when I've checked the German, all I've found is "Neger". In any case, the Marxists at Marxists.org retain nigger in this letter to Engels from Marx:

"The Jewish nigger Lassalle who, I’m glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation. The chap would sooner throw money down the drain than lend it to a ‘friend’, even though his interest and capital were guaranteed. In this he bases himself on the view that he ought to live the life of a Jewish baron, or Jew created a baron (no doubt by the countess)."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm

[Captain Marinesko]

First, let me point out the obvious: I was addressing Rak in the following and Marinesko is acting almost as if I was addressing him. At any rate, this will be relatively brief.

Pointing out the obvious is your only strong suit..well that and making an ass out of yourself.



I see this was COMPLETELY over your head. 'Could' referred to the fact that Marx merely saw a peasant-based revolution as possibly leading to communism. If you really knew your Marx (which of course you don't) you would have immediately noticed the distinction, viz. that Marx saw proletarian revolution as inevitable.

Moron, could is acknowledging the possible. Furthermore, a socialist, proletarian revolution DID occur in Russia therefore even if Marx had insisted that it was impossible he would have been wrong. (Incidentally, Marx had to revise his previous hypothesis several times in the past).



Yes, trashing Jews and blacks bears no resemblance to 'racist' ideology, I must admit.

Bears no resemblance to yours, that's for sure.



Your 'facts' tend to consist of insult-laden remarks that serve as implicit concessions of my arguments.



Gee, dad gummit. You're absolutely right. Marxists don't think of Marx as a hero. What was I thinking.

LMAO.

Yes, the moron laughs the loudest. I'm sure some see him as a "hero", but if you actually knew anything about Marxism you would know how Marxists view this whole business of heroes.

Keep trying to pull your ass out of the hole you dug, moron.

[Captain Marinesko]

Apparently I have received a complaint about McCarthy so as an act of good faith I will put him down more humanely. I think we've let McCarthy dangle on the line long enough.Time to put Joey out of our misery:

"November 5, 1880, Marx to Sorge in Hoboken.

In Russia, where Capital is more read and appreciated than anywhere
else, our success has been even greater."

October 15, 1875, Engels to Bebel in Leipzig, emphasis in original.

The country besides Germany and Austria we have to watch most remains Russia. There just as with us the government is the chief ally of the
movement. But a much better one than our Bismarck and the
Stieber-Tessendorfs. The Russian court party, which is now firmly in
the saddle, tries to take back all the concessions made during the
years of the 'new era' that was ushered in in 1861, and at that with
genuinely
Russian methods. ...

... It almost looks as if the next dance is going to start in Russia.
And if this happens while the *inevitable* war between the Prussian
Reich and Russia is in progress -- which is very likely --
reverberations in Germany are also inevitable.

September 27, 1877, Marx to Sorge in Hoboken, emphasis in original.

This crisis [the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78] is *a new turning point*
in European history. Russia -- and I have studied conditions there from
the original *Russian* sources, unofficial and official (the latter
accessible to but few persons, but obtained for me through friends in
Petersburg) -- has long been standing on the threshold of an upheaval;
all the elements of it are prepared. ... The upheaval will begin
'secundum artem' (according to the rules of the game), with some playing at constitutionalism, 'et puis il y aura un beau tapage' (and then
there will be a fine uproar). If Mother Nature is not particularly
unfavourable towards us, we shall yet live to see the fun!

The stupid nonsense the Russian students are perpetrating is merely a
symptom, worthless in itself. But it is a symptom. All sections of
Russian society are in full decomposition economically, morally and
intellectually. This time the revolution begins in the East, hitherto the unbroken bulwark and reserve army of counter-revolution.

November 5, 1880, Marx to Sorge in Hoboken.

In Russia, where Capital is more read and appreciated than anywhere
else, our success has been even greater.

[Westminster]

And which McGuffy reader did you get that from?

What I am going to write now, is an ANALOGOUS historical narrative, about a different topic, to demonstrate the level of accuracy(or lack thereof) of your paragraph here.

"In 1961 the American Civil War broke out when it was discovered that the Confederate States of the Midwest were receiving shipments of arms from the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate. Rich Arab states supported the Union, and the Soviet Union sent advisors to the Confederates to teach them how to use their AK-74s and RPG-29s. A major battle of the American Civil war took place in Topeka, KS, 1963, which was fought to a standstill with tanks, artillery, and bi-pedal "Metal Gear" tanks."



(I bet myself that this analogy will sail right over your head.)

Your response is crap.

[Westminster]

The point here is simple. Marx was no more of a racial egalitarian than President Lincoln. For Lincoln, The Slavery issue was a means to an ends. In that regard, he does not appear to be unique.

[Joe McCarthy]

The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. How many people in Europe weren't racists at that time? As Percival recently (and wisely) noted, John F. Kennedy would be considered a right-wing extremist pig in today's political climate. Judging people from the first half of the 19th century, based on the transient and insubstantial mores of the present era, is lunacy.

Imo, 'racism' was stronger in the second half of the 19th century on as it then acquired its scientific underpinnings (Wells only became a 'racist' after reading Darwin). Moreover, I think it's a bit sloppy to simply assume everyone or almost everyone was a 'racist' in those days. Many of the abolitionists, such as Garrison, held racial views that would strike most today as contemporary. Emerson, Thoreau, even John Stuart Mill held views that would arguably fit with the modern zeitgest. Mill, for example, though he regarded primitive peoples as not yet ready for liberal ideals, foresaw a day when racial barriers would be eliminated and 'equality' would reign.

[Joe McCarthy]

You have to hand it to Marinesko. No matter how bad he gets his ass kicked, he just keeps on coming. He reminds me of the boxer Joe Grimm.

The country besides Germany and Austria we have to watch most remains Russia.

Thank you for 'putting me down' by citing Marx's views on Russia where he regards it as secondary to two Western, industrialized states. I feel so humbled.

Dumbass.

'The peasants have nothing to lose but their chains' -- Captain Marxinesko.

[Joe McCarthy]

Your response is crap.

That could describe virtually every post he makes.

[Captain Marinesko]

That could describe virtually every post he makes.

As usual, ignore when your argument is blown out of the water:

1. White Nationalism is on the rise(nationalism yes, racialism, hell no).

2. Statement of the obvious: "No such ideology as Hoxhaism." (Thanks, what do you know about the color of the sky?)

3. Marx NEVER believed revolution would occur in Russia. LOL


You lose again.

[Joe McCarthy]

3. Marx NEVER believed revolution would occur in Russia. LOL

I challenge you to point out where I said that. Either do so, or be self-convicted as a liar.

Checkmate, tovarisch.

[Joe McCarthy]

Really? The reason I ask is that people often quote Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche as using the term "nigger", but when I've checked the German, all I've found is "Neger". In any case, the Marxists at Marxists.org retain nigger in this letter to Engels from Marx:

"The Jewish nigger Lassalle who, I’m glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation. The chap would sooner throw money down the drain than lend it to a ‘friend’, even though his interest and capital were guaranteed. In this he bases himself on the view that he ought to live the life of a Jewish baron, or Jew created a baron (no doubt by the countess)."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm

Nice quote. It sounds just like the folks at the Workers World Party. I should send it to them just for fun. :rofl:

[Captain Marinesko]

I challenge you to point out where I said that. Either do so, or be self-convicted as a liar.

Checkmate, tovarisch.


No no, you were the loser remember? You're not going to play Frank's "I didn't use those exact words so it's a strawman" game here. Accept your loss graciously, and realize that there are indeed people out there who are real Marxist-Leninists, and not college anarkiddies(BTW, most of those people call themselves anarchists and not Marxists anyway).

[Joe McCarthy]

No no, you were the loser remember? You're not going to play Frank's "I didn't use those exact words so it's a strawman" game here. Accept your loss graciously, and realize that there are indeed people out there who are real Marxist-Leninists, and not college anarkiddies(BTW, most of those people call themselves anarchists and not Marxists anyway).

As Diogenes used to say: 'GET OUT OF MY LIGHT!"

You, sir, are self-convicted as a LIAR.

[Captain Marinesko]

As Diogenes used to say: 'GET OUT OF MY LIGHT!"

You, sir, are self-convicted as a LIAR.


And you sir, are self-convicted as an internet loser, who may or may not live at home, and challenges people to formal debates on the internet.

And here are your words: "It's also worth noting that Marx's vaunted 'world revolution' never encapsulated what we now regard as the third world. He focused on those nations of the industrially advanced West, thought the Slavic nations, particularly Russia, were backward feudal despotisms, and generally accepted much of the worldview we'd normally associate with the evil racists Marinesko now despises."

Actually, if you are speaking of a "world revolution", Marx envisioned that it would inevitably encompass what is now called "the Third World", as capitalism was bringing civilization to those areas of the world. It was only a matter of time. Or were you so stupid as to believe that Marx thought Communist revolution would be a continuous process once sparked somewhere? The thing is that Marx initially did not put much faith in Russia as a breeding ground for revolution, but as he was able to better analyze the situation later(right around the lead up to the last Russo-Turkish war), he realized that the opposite was indeed true. And this was confirmed by Lenin, and proven by the October Revolution.

Case closed.

[Joe McCarthy]

And you sir, are self-convicted as an internet loser, who may or may not live at home, and challenges people to formal debates on the internet.

And here are your words: "It's also worth noting that Marx's vaunted 'world revolution' never encapsulated what we now regard as the third world. He focused on those nations of the industrially advanced West, thought the Slavic nations, particularly Russia, were backward feudal despotisms, and generally accepted much of the worldview we'd normally associate with the evil racists Marinesko now despises."

Actually, if you are speaking of a "world revolution", Marx envisioned that it would inevitably encompass what is now called "the Third World", as capitalism was bringing civilization to those areas of the world. It was only a matter of time. Or were you so stupid as to believe that Marx thought Communist revolution would be a continuous process once sparked somewhere? The thing is that Marx initially did not put much faith in Russia as a breeding ground for revolution, but as he was able to better analyze the situation later(right around the lead up to the last Russo-Turkish war), he realized that the opposite was indeed true. And this was confirmed by Lenin, and proven by the October Revolution.

Case closed.

Yes, every student of Marx knows how he hammered on the Communist revolution that would eventually engulf the non-existent proletariat of Burundi.

It seems you found a nominally educated Marxist to feed you lines. Why not just have him argue in your stead?

Btw, if you had any sense at all, you wouldn't have charged me with saying Russia would never have revolution. In discussing the 1882 preface, I explicitly said Marx thought it 'could' occur. Remember, dumbass?

In any case, you, sir, stand self-convicted as a LIAR.

[Captain Marinesko]

Yes, every student of Marx knows how he hammered on the Communist revolution that would eventually engulf the non-existent proletariat of Burundi.

Tard, wherever the conditions for socialist revolution exist, there can potentially be a socialist revolution there when the time is right.


It seems you found a nominally educated Marxist to feed you lines. Why not just have him argue in your stead?

Interesting theory, but ultimately incorrect.


Btw, if you had any sense at all, you wouldn't have charged me with saying Russia would never have revolution. In discussing the 1882 preface, I explicitly said Marx thought it 'could' occur. Remember, dumbass?

Yeah, which we pointed out to you.


You have lost. Get over it.

[Joe McCarthy]

I'm going to repost what I said earlier. This just keeps getting funnier, but I doubt Marinesko will think it's very funny.

You have to hand it to Marinesko. No matter how bad he gets his ass kicked, he just keeps on coming. He reminds me of the boxer Joe Grimm.

Yes, the moron laughs the loudest. I'm sure some see him as a "hero", but if you actually knew anything about Marxism you would know how Marxists view this whole business of heroes.

Oh ye expert of Marxism, does the HERO of the Soviet Union award ring a bell?

Me:

It's also worth noting that Marx's vaunted 'world revolution' never encapsulated what we now regard as the third world.

Marxinesko 'arguing without arguing':

No shit genius.

Then later disagreeing with himself:

Actually, if you are speaking of a "world revolution", Marx envisioned that it would inevitably encompass what is now called "the Third World",

2. Statement of the obvious: "No such ideology as Hoxhaism." (Thanks, what do you know about the color of the sky?)

First, this discussion was on your 'Ask Marinesko' thread. It has no place here, though I'm delighted you brought it over. It stemmed from my question asking you how many 'Hoxhites' are storming the barricades. Your response? You cited NON-'HOXHITE' groups. LOL. What adds to the fun is that YOU claim to be a 'Hoxhaist' and then concede that there is no such ideology as 'Hoxhaism'. Wait, it gets better still. As you want to bring the dialogue of other threads onto this one, I'll bring another bit of yours from your 'Ask Marinesko' thread:

LET ME KNOW IF YOU WANT ANOTHER COLOR TO DISTINGUISH YOUR POSTS FROM THOSE ADDRESSED TO THE SELF-PROCLAIMED EXPERT OF MARXISM, JOE MCCARTHY.


Watch this, tovarisch.

I CHALLENGE YOU TO POINT OUT WHERE I HAVE 'SELF-PROCLAIMED' MYSELF AS AN 'EXPERT' ON MARXISM. EITHER DO SO, OR BE SELF-CONVICTED AGAIN AS A LIAR.

'The peasants have nothing to lose but their brains.-- Captain Marxinesko.

ROFL.

[Captain Marinesko]

First, this discussion was on your 'Ask Marinesko' thread. It has no place here, though I'm delighted you brought it over. It stemmed from my question asking you how many 'Hoxhites' are storming the barricades. Your response? You cited NON-'HOXHITE' groups? LOL. What adds to the fun is that YOU claim to be a 'Hoxhaist' and then concede that there is no such ideology as 'Hoxhaism'. Wait, it gets better still. As you want to bring the dialogue of other threads onto this one, I'll bring another bit of yours from your 'Ask Marinesko' thread:




Poor loser can't deal with defeat very well, can you.

Back to the big font, looks like you need it. There are no organizations or parties that go by the name "Hoxhaite" or "Hoxhaist". I assumed you were smart enough to realize that "Hoxhaist" applies to anti-revisionists who are not Maoists, or otherwise side with Hoxha's characterization of state of Marxism-Leninism, post Stalin. All of the organizations I named conform to this standard- they are Marxist-Leninist parties and a number of them if not all had direct connections to the Albanian Party of Labor.


And if your comments about Marx at one time seeing Russia as a feudal backwater were not meant to imply that Marx never foresaw Russia as a possible birthplace of socialist revolution, then I suggest you elaborate your points a little better.

Lastly, while you may not use the word "expert" in conjunction with Marxism, you have falsely(which became quite clear regarding the word "Hoxhaism") claimed to know more about Marxism than I, and apparently more than many Marxists around the world, this thread being an example of that.


But please, keep on posting "ROFL" and talking about how fun it is posting with me, because surely you are not making a complete ass of yourself on the forum.

[calvin]

Marinesko's no dummy, but I just find the whole comic book commie act totally unconvincing. It seems to me to be all about finding a defensible ideological position instead of being about finding an ideological position worth defending.

[ScottishStalinist1]

It is actually well known throughout the communist movemen, that Marx and Engels were racists and had other reactionary views you have not mentioned. Yet the personality traits and beliefs do not have much to do with Marx and Engels science that they brought, dialectical materialism. It is irrelevant to note their individual personalities and histories to then somehow claim that this weakens the revolutionary science that is Marxism. Similarly anti-Marxists have claimed that because Mao made a male chauvinistic joke towards Chinese women infront of Nixon and Kissinger, plus his libido that brought him many sexual relationships, that China under Mao was bad for women and male chauvinistic dominated, ignoring such things like decreased in mortality rates, higher life expectancy, long maternity leaves and so on, which show China under Mao to be good for women despite Mao's personality.

To repeat: Marx and Engels being racist (plus, I would add, being sexist and weak on anti-imperialism), is irrelevant to Marxism.

Here Eldrige Cleaver from the Black Panther Party of Self-Defense writing on Marx's supposed racism:

[snip]

On the subject of racism, Marxism-Leninism offers us very little assistance. In fact, there is much evidence that Marx and Engels were themselves racists--just like their White brothers and sisters of their era, and just as many Marxist-Leninists of our own time are also racists. Historically, Marxism-Leninism has been an outgrowth of European problems and it has been primarily preoccupied with finding solutions to European problems.

With the founding of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in 1948 and the People's Republic of China in 1949, something new was injected into Marxism-Leninism, and it ceased to be just a narrow, exclusively European phenomenon. Comrade Kim Il Sung and Comrade Mao Tse-tung applied the classical principles of Marxism-Leninism to the conditions in their own countries and thereby made the ideology into something useful for their people. But they rejected that part of the analysis that was not beneficial to them and had only to do with the welfare of Europe.

Given the racist history of the United States, it is very difficult for Black people to comfortably call themselves Marxist-Leninists or anything else that takes its name from White people. It's like praying to Jesus, a White man. We must emphasize the fact that Marx and Lenin didn't invent Socialism. They only added their contributions, enriching the doctrine, just as many others did before them and after them. And we must remember that Marx and Lenin didn't organize the Black Panther Party. Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale did.

Not until we reach Fanon do we find a major Marxist-Leninist theoretician who was primarily concerned about the problems of Black people, wherever they may be found. And even Fanon, in his published works, was primarily focused on Africa. It is only indirectly that his works are beneficial to Afro-Americans. It is just easier to relate to Fanon because he is clearly free of that racist bias that blocks out so much about the Black man in the hands of Whites who are primarily interested in themselves and the problems of their own people. But even though we are able to relate heavily to Fanon, he has not given us the last word on applying the Marxist-Leninist analysis to our problems inside the United States. No one is going to do this for us because no one can. We have to do it ourselves, and until we do, we are going to be uptight.

On the Ideology of the Black Panther Party, Clever, 1970.

[Empress Cheesatine]

It is actually well known throughout the communist movemen, that Marx and Engels were racists and had other reactionary views you have not mentioned.

It shows what kind of dupes black Marxists are and it also shows how successful the selective quotation of men like Marx and Engels has worked to attract non-whites into the CPUSA, WWP, PLP, ICL and others. I guess Marxism is just like any other "black liberation" movement that so many of the black masses follow: led by Jews.

[Joe McCarthy]

A little mopping up with Mari.

[Lastly, while you may not use the word "expert" in conjunction with Marxism, you have falsely(which became quite clear regarding the word "Hoxhaism") claimed to know more about Marxism than I/QUOTE]

I did definitely affirm that I know more than you do, but that isn't saying much.


[QUOTE]Yeah, which we pointed out to you.


'We' tovarisch? The 1882 preface was posted by Rak. You had NOTHING to do with it. It seems LYING is your stock-in-trade.

You have lost. Get over it.

LMAO.

[Joe McCarthy]

Marinesko's no dummy, but I just find the whole comic book commie act totally unconvincing. It seems to me to be all about finding a defensible ideological position instead of being about finding an ideological position worth defending.

He can't defend Communism, particularly the actual component of Marx's writings. If he will dare meet me in the shoutbox, I will expose just how little he knows about Marx's writings.

[Captain Marinesko]

He can't defend Communism, particularly the actual component of Marx's writings. If he will dare meet me in the shoutbox, I will expose just how little he knows about Marx's writings.

I can most certainly defend Communism(you have yet to attack it on ideological grounds) and in case you didn't notice before, I have no need to prove anything to a sad pathetic loser like you. Moreover, simply knowing about Marx's writings does not equate to knowing Marxist-Leninist ideology. There are those who for whatever reason, sometimes because they were forced to as part of a course, read pages and pages of Marx, and have the ability to memorize quotes easily. This is not the same as understanding the ideas put forth in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Hoxha(see, all those guys are pretty important too), and applying them to real life situations.

Perhaps you were not here long enough to notice when I changed my sig, title, and avatar. There is a reason for all of that. I decided that to argue ideology with racialist morons on a forum was futile, and resolved instead to simply be a pain in the ass to the racialist population, mainly by asking inconvenient questions. In other words, I am not going to indulge jerkoffs such as yourself in ideological matters. You have no ideology, and it is ridiculous to act like your worldview can somehow compare to M-L.

Now McCarthy, you need to quit while your sucking, remember what happened that time you tried to challenge me to a formal debate and got stomped on in one post(and then kept promising some big reply that never came)? That is what happens when people "challenge" me on the internet; I humiliate you by reminding you how pathetic you have to be to issue such a challenge in the first place. See I'll piss some people off in a forum for fun, the same way I'll watch Lord of the Rings for fun. But if some fuck approaches me while wearing a wizard hat and wanting to play Dungeons and Dragons- forget it. Same with idiotic internet challenges like yours.

The various publication editors, liason people, and party members I've met from different parties in different countries seem to think I have a pretty good command of M-L ideology, and their approval goes a bit further than some anonymous racist online loser who thinks that being a Marxist means regurgitating bits of Marx's extensive writing at random intervals.

Oh by the way, did you notice that you have basically lost this argument on the point you brought up? I ask because when you get slammed you tend to just go on like nothing happened.

[Roland]

It shows what kind of dupes black Marxists are and it also shows how successful the selective quotation of men like Marx and Engels has worked to attract non-whites into the CPUSA, WWP, PLP, ICL and others. I guess Marxism is just like any other "black liberation" movement that so many of the black masses follow: led by Jews.

This isn't entirely true. As I stated earlier, Marx clearly considered the negro to be an economically self-interested actor, and therefore politically equal to the white man. I think the Cleaver quote posted by ScottishStalinist covers the issue sufficiently. It is also worth pointing out that the Black Panther party was a negro-led Marxist political movement whose historical antecedents were radical Islam and Malcolm X; in other words, not all "black liberation" movements were run by Jews.

The only compelling "Marxism is Jewish" argument I've come into contact with is presented in Francis Yockey's Imperium. I believe this is a simplification, though, for Marx's philosophy cannot fully be explained without additional reference to British political economy, German idealism, and French socialism.

[Joe McCarthy]

Continuing the annihilation....

Back to the big font, looks like you need it. There are no organizations or parties that go by the name "Hoxhaite" or "Hoxhaist".

WRONG!

http://ciml.250x.com/

Appeal to all Hoxhaist comrades!

We, the today`s Hoxhaite comrades all over the world,

are all together guided by the ideas and teachings of the 5 classics

Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha !

Let us assemble and unite!

Let us build up a Hoxhaist party in each country, which bears the name of each country !

We shall unite all our national Hoxhaist parties on each continent as an overlapping, united continental Hoxhaist party, which bears the name of the continent !

All Hoxhaist continental parties shall be centralized in our

Hoxhaist World Party

which bears the name of

the Comintern (ML)


I wish I knew as much about this stuff as you do. Wait. On second thought I don't. LOL.

I assumed you were smart enough to realize that "Hoxhaist" applies to anti-revisionists who are not Maoists, or otherwise side with Hoxha's characterization of state of Marxism-Leninism, post Stalin. All of the organizations I named conform to this standard- they are Marxist-Leninist parties and a number of them if not all had direct connections to the Albanian Party of Labor.

So let me see if I understand. There is no such thing as 'Hoxhaism', so the groups you cited are not 'Hoxhaists', however YOU ARE a 'Hoxhaist', so when asked how many 'Hoxhaists' are storming the barricades the groups you cited are 'Hoxhaists'.

I'm glad we got that straight. (my font is bigger than yours)

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by ScottishStalinist1

It is actually well known throughout the communist movemen, that Marx and Engels were racists and had other reactionary views you have not mentioned.

This I doubt. I doubt that ignorant rural peasants (many of whom are illiterate) who have fought for such gangsters as 'Uncle Ho' were or are aware that the father of their movement was a racist who thought they were too undeveloped to carry out a truly Marxist revolution. In truth, such movements are not even 'Marxist', strictly speaking, but merely peasant rebellions using Marxist rhetoric as a faux-theoretical justification.

[Joe McCarthy]

This isn't entirely true. As I stated earlier, Marx clearly considered the negro to be an economically self-interested actor, and therefore politically equal to the white man. I think the Cleaver quote posted by ScottishStalinist covers the issue sufficiently. It is also worth pointing out that the Black Panther party was a negro-led Marxist political movement whose historical antecedents were radical Islam and Malcolm X; in other words, not all "black liberation" movements were run by Jews.

The only compelling "Marxism is Jewish" argument I've come into contact with is presented in Francis Yockey's Imperium. I believe this is a simplification, though, for Marx's philosophy cannot fully be explained without additional reference to British political economy, German idealism, and French socialism.

I have a few problems with this post.

First, I was a tad puzzled by your earlier assertion in another post that Marx thought slavery was 'progressive'. I can cite a number of quotes indicating the contrary. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate.

Second, I'm unsure what significance 'self-interested actor' has. I think by definition a slave is not going to be 'politically equal' to anybody.

Third, the 'British political economy' you cite is primarily Ricardo, whom Marx relies on heavily in 'Capital'. This is a rather strange argument to use to try and rebut the idea that 'Marxism is Jewish' as Ricardo was himself Jewish.

Edit: Marx also rejected the idea that he was an Idealist, though I suppose it could be argued that he was influenced by it.

[Captain Marinesko]

Continuing the annihilation....

Self-annihilation is what you are engaging in.


WRONG!

http://ciml.250x.com/



I wish I knew as much about this stuff as you do. Wait. On second thought I don't. LOL.


Tard, I pointed out before that the term Hoxhaist is sometimes used for specific purposes. For example, there is the Hoxhaist Union, though the membership including the founders generally agree that there is no ideology known as Marxism-Leninism-Hoxhaism(in comparison to M-L-M, for example). The term is mainly to attract the right kind of people, and to show opposition to revisionism that is not of a Maoist character. Sometimes that is expressed by referring to the Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Hoxha "line", but this is really semantics. After all, sometimes people say Lenin-Stalin line, some people say Marx-Lenin-Stalin, some people say Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and even Hoxha.

You are simply playing word games, just like you are trying to use a few isolated words of Marx's opinions at one time and making it seem as though he viewed these situations as permanent. If you knew anything about Marx, you would see the obvious problem with that. But then again you don't, and you are just trying to pretend you found something that no Marxists in the world know about, so as to try to equate one man's dated opinions to your horrendous hate-filled ideology. As though Marx using the term "nigger" somehow equates to you wishing for the death of all Muslims, including ones within your own "race."


So let me see if I understand. There is no such thing as 'Hoxhaism', so the groups you cited are not 'Hoxhaists', however YOU ARE a 'Hoxhaist', so when asked how many 'Hoxhaists' are storming the barricades the groups you cited are 'Hoxhaists'.

Poor confused tard, how many times did I have to explain the same thing to you?


So how many "Hoxhaists" are "storming the barricades"? FAR more than WN organizations.

[Joe McCarthy]

A response for Marxinesko....

Moreover, simply knowing about Marx's writings does not equate to knowing Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Yeah, I agree. What possible relevance could knowing about Marx's writings have to knowing anything about Marxism?

I see that you did not take up my challenge to face me in the shoutbox. We both know why. If you do, I will make you my bitch and then pimp you to niggers for cigarettes.

Perhaps you were not here long enough to notice when I changed my sig, title, and avatar. There is a reason for all of that. I decided that to argue ideology with racialist morons on a forum was futile, and resolved instead to simply be a pain in the ass to the racialist population, mainly by asking inconvenient questions. In other words, I am not going to indulge jerkoffs such as yourself in ideological matters.

You're too funny. I was around when you were calling yourself a 'Marxist-Leninist-Hoxhaist' and we both know why you changed it. You finally became humiliated over how idiotic the 'Hoxhaist' bit is. You initially just changed it to 'Marxist-Leninist'.

Oh by the way, did you notice that you have basically lost this argument on the point you brought up? I ask because when you get slammed you tend to just go on like nothing happened.

As I've told you before, I do tend to ignore bad arguments, though in this case....

Wait. You're probably right.

“It is now entirely clear to me, that, as his cranial structure and hair type prove, Lassalle is descended from the Negroes, who joined Moses’ flight from Egypt (that is, assuming his mother, or his paternal grandmother, did not cross with a nigger)… The officiousness of the fellow is also nigger-like.”


"The Jewish nigger Lassalle who, I’m glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation. The chap would sooner throw money down the drain than lend it to a ‘friend’, even though his interest and capital were guaranteed. In this he bases himself on the view that he ought to live the life of a Jewish baron, or Jew created a baron (no doubt by the countess)."

ATTENTION Marxist anti-racists: Your hero Karl Marx was not not a racist.

[Captain Marinesko]

Yeah, I agree. What possible relevance could knowing about Marx's writings have to knowing anything about Marxism?

What's the name of the guy who came in here and said one need not know anything about Marx's writings to know about Marxism in general? I do not see him.


I see that you did not take up my challenge to face me in the shoutbox. We both know why. If you do, I will make you my bitch and then pimp you to niggers for cigarettes.

Sure you will. I don't respond to challenges for a Marx trivia contest from morons like you. Remember how you got humiliated last time that happened.



You're too funny. I was around when you were calling yourself a 'Marxist-Leninist-Hoxhaist' and we both know why you changed it. You finally became humiliated over how idiotic the 'Hoxhaist' bit is. You initially just changed it to 'Marxist-Leninist'.

That's an interesting theory 'Tard. I used the Hoxhaist label for the same reason I alluded to many times before. Then people kept referring to "Albanian Communism" or "Hoxhaism" as my ideology, so I stopped.



As I've told you before, I do tend to ignore bad arguments, though in this case....

Wait. You're probably right.

You ignore arguments when your claims are completely destroyed, as they often are.





ATTENTION Marxist anti-racists: Your hero Karl Marx was not not a racist.

Retard, this issue has already been addressed. Your "argument" here is moronic, as if somehow dated quotes like that somehow make Marx's "racism" equal to yours. Why don't you have some balls, start posting some of YOUR ideas on here, and we'll see how they compare.

[Keystone]

I decided that to argue ideology with racialist morons on a forum was futile, and resolved instead to simply be a pain in the ass to the racialist population, mainly by asking inconvenient questions. .
Why? Don't you have better things to do, living in "the Cow"?

[Captain Marinesko]

Why? Don't you have better things to do, living in "the Cow"?


Good point, I have indulged the population here a bit too much.

[Mackie]

ONLY HUMAN.

Marx to Engels - 30 July 1862

The Jewish nigger Lassalle who, I'm glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation. The chap would sooner throw money down the drain than lend it to a ‘friend’, even though his interest and capital were guaranteed. In this he bases himself on the view that he ought to live the life of a Jewish baron, or Jew created a baron (no doubt by the countess'). ...It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow’s importunity is also nigger-like.
Quote
" What is to be avoided above all is the reestablishing of 'Society' as an abstraction vis-à-vis the individual. The individual is the social being. His life…is therefore an expression and confirmation of social life." Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, p. 105

"An organization of society which would establish the preconditions and thus the very possibility of huckstering would make the Jew impossible. "
Karl Marx, Early Writings, p. 35

“In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”
Karl Marx, Early Writings, p. 54
Quote
Marx to Antoinette Philips, March 24, 1861: “This young lady, who instantly overwhelmed me with her kindness, is the ugliest creature I have seen in my entire life, with repulsive Jewish facial features.”
Quote
Marx an Engels, 12. September 1863

cleverest Pole - besides being an homme d'action [man of action] - that I have ever met. His sympathies are all on the German side, though in manners and speech he is also a Frenchman. He cares nothing for the struggle of nationalities and only knows the racial struggle. He hates all Orientals, among whom he numbers Russians Turks, Greeks, Armenians, etc., with equal impartiality.... His aim now is to raise a German legion in London, even if only 200 strong, so that he can confront the Russians in Poland with the black, red and gold flag, partly to 'exasperate' the Parisians, partly to see whether there is any possibility whatsoever of bringing the Germans in Germany back to their senses. What's lacking is money. Efforts are being made down here to exploit all the German societies, etc., to this end. You must be the best judge of whether anything can be done in this line in Manchester. The cause itself would seem to be above reproach.”
Quote
Marx to Engels,25 February 1859: "Those dogs of democrats and liberal riff-raff will see that we're the only chaps who haven't been stultified by the ghastly period of peace."

Karl Marx, "A Contribution to the Critique of Political economy" (Review by Frederick Engels), Das Volk, 30 No. 14, August 6, 1859: "The Germans have long since shown that in all spheres of science they are equal, and in most of them superior, to other civilised nations. Only one branch of science, political economy, had no German name among its foremost scholars."

[Joe McCarthy]

Karl Marx, "A Contribution to the Critique of Political economy" (Review by Frederick Engels), Das Volk, 30 No. 14, August 6, 1859: "The Germans have long since shown that in all spheres of science they are equal, and in most of them superior, to other civilised nations. Only one branch of science, political economy, had no German name among its foremost scholars."

I like this especially. I'll put it on my sig.

[Joe McCarthy]

Marxinesko:

There are no organizations or parties that go by the name "Hoxhaite" or "Hoxhaist".

Me:

WRONG!

http://ciml.250x.com/



I wish I knew as much about this stuff as you do. Wait. On second thought I don't. LOL.

Marxinesko:

You are simply playing word games

Yeah, how dare I play 'word games' with what YOU YOURSELF have said.

I notice you still haven't taken up my challenge to discuss Marx's writings in the shoutbox. It's a shame. Tyrone is getting a bit 'hungry'.

COWARD.

[cyborg]

Only one branch of science, political economy, had no German name among its foremost scholars.

Small surprise that the entire organizing principle of liberal democratic society, the new communism, orbits political economy as if all other existential considerations are of, at best, secondary importance.

[Roland]

First, I was a tad puzzled by your earlier assertion in another post that Marx thought slavery was 'progressive'. I can cite a number of quotes indicating the contrary. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate.

Please post them. Here is Marx on slavery:
Freedom and slavery constitute an antagonism. There is no need for me to speak either of the good or of the bad aspects of freedom. As for slavery, there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring explanation is the good side of slavery. I do not mean indirect slavery, the slavery of proletariat; I mean direct slavery, the slavery of the Blacks in Surinam, in Brazil, in the southern regions of North America.

Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery there would be no cotton, without cotton there would be no modern industry. It is slavery which has given value to the colonies, it is the colonies which have created world trade, and world trade is the necessary condition for large-scale machine industry. Consequently, prior to the slave trade, the colonies sent very few products to the Old World, and did not noticeably change the face of the world. Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance. Without slavery, North America, the most progressive nation, would he transformed into a patriarchal country. Only wipe North America off the map and you will get anarchy, the complete decay of trade and modern civilisation.But to do away with slavery would be to wipe America off the map. Being an economic category, slavery has existed in all nations since the beginning of the world. All that modern nations have achieved is to disguise slavery at home and import it openly into the New World.

Source: Marx Engels Collected Works Vol 38, pg 95.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...s/46_12_28.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.htm)

Second, I'm unsure what significance 'self-interested actor' has. I think by definition a slave is not going to be 'politically equal' to anybody.

That is, the negro had the potentiality to become the atom of British political economy: the self-interested economic actor. Or, in other words, that the negro could be equal to the white.

Third, the 'British political economy' you cite is primarily Ricardo, whom Marx relies on heavily in 'Capital'. This is a rather strange argument to use to try and rebut the idea that 'Marxism is Jewish' as Ricardo was himself Jewish.

Ricardo is derivative of Adam Smith, and each man espoused the tenets of classical liberalism, which is an Anglo socioeconomic perspective.

Edit: Marx also rejected the idea that he was an Idealist, though I suppose it could be argued that he was influenced by it.

I didn't say Marx was an idealist. It is beyond dispute that Marx was a philosopher in the tradition of German Idealism, even if he did add a materialist perspective to the tradition. The material and historical dialectic is pure Hegelian metaphysics.

It is for these reasons that the reduction of Marxism to Judaism is incomplete as an explanation.

[Westminster]

Marx hate the negro, he think the woman is inferior, he don't like homos, he is a funky dude, la la la, ha ha ha, tra la la, tra la la

http://richmondthenandnow.com/Images/Famous-People/Bill-(Bojangles)-Robinson-big.jpg

[Joe McCarthy]

Roland,

I'll need a day or two to gather the passages pertaining to slavery from 'Capital'. My preliminary observation is that this comment is very much in the Marxist frame of mind. He said much the same about bourgeoisie capitalism in its developmental achievements. But like slavery he still made highly condemnatory remarks. Depending on how one defines 'progressive' it's rather murky, but while it does have the flavor of moving the ball in the historical dialectic, it is still seen as oppressive. I'm unsure if oppression can be equated with 'progressive'. At any rate, here is Marx making the comments I just alluded to in the Manifesto:

Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

We see that capitalism itself is 'progressive' in that it represents a stage of historical development which if non-existent would not allow for the development of Communism.

That is, the negro had the potentiality to become the atom of British political economy: the self-interested economic actor. Or, in other words, that the negro could be equal to the white.

I've never read where Marx muses about the potential 'equality' of blacks to whites. If you have, kindly post the extract. His comments on blacks tend to be made within the existent sphere of slavery, naturally, and he in no way states or even infers that they are 'equal'.

Ricardo is derivative of Adam Smith, and each man espoused the tenets of classical liberalism, which is an Anglo socioeconomic perspective.

And Smith is derivative of Quesnay, a man in the French physiocrat tradition. We can play the 'derivative thinker' game ad infinitum. But Marx's specific reliance on Ricardo is well known to students of Marx, and is to his economic views what Hegel is to his philosophical views.

I commend your response. It's amusing that the only decently knowledgeable response on Marx I've received has come from a (presumably) non-Marxist.

[Joe McCarthy]

A few comments on this thread.

On a racial level I suppose this thread has had the effect of rehabilitating Marx somewhat. Its effect on modern Marxist riff raff is radically different. They come off like ignorant, hypocritical fanboys who have latched onto him with little understanding. It's telling that the resistance I've encountered here has been anemic at best. Of course, we have the usual ponderous absurdities from Marinesko, which are as contemptible as they are unconvincing, but few pay mind to him. I baited him and he bit. It's been particularly amusing watching him be exposed as the oafish, faux-Marxist I've suspected him of being. This clod clearly knows next to squat about Marx, and it's been revealing that his Communist buddies have left him to piss in the wind. He is thoroughly discredited.

On a broader level I think the ideas dealt with in this thread have had the following effects.

1. They discredit Marxists.

2. They discredit Marx in non-nationalist circles.

3. They drive a wedge between white and Jewish Communists and their third world toadies, thus undermining the former's attempts to make the latter into a 'revolutionary class' in Western societies.

4. In general they create chaos, division, and confusion in leftist circles.

These are all welcome happenings.

[Rakhmetov]

Marx’ greatest contribution was his creation of an integral and harmonious revolutionary theory—a mighty intellectual weapon for knowing and transforming the world and the theoretical basis for the working-class struggle for emancipation.

In Marx’ doctrine, the materialist interpretation of reality was for the first time organically linked with a genuinely scientific theory of development, with the view that all phenomena are expressions of the dialectical process of continual change in nature and society. Marx was the first thinker in history to extend materialism to the sphere of social life and to show the determining place of material production in social development and the decisive roles of the masses in history. Marx demonstrated that the historical process is an orderly succession of socioeconomic formations, inevitably resulting in a transition from an antagonistic class society to a classless communist society.

Marx’ philosophy of dialectical and historical materialism served as the methodological basis for the elaboration of the other components of Marxism—Marxist political economy and the theory of scientific communism.

Marx was the first economist to reveal the economic laws of the development of social formations, primarily capitalism, to expose the exploitative essence of the capitalist system, to analyze profoundly the economic basis of its inherent antagonisms, and to prove the inevitability of its destruction. He made brilliant scientific predictions with respect to the economic laws governing the formations and development of communist society.

Marx laid the foundation for the program, strategy, and tactics of the revolutionary proletarian movement. He provided the theoretical basis for the historic mission of the working class as the creator of the new, communist society, proving that the growing contradictions of capitalism and the intensification of the class struggle create the need for a socialist revolution to be carried out by the proletariat under the leadership of the proletarian party in alliance with other oppressed classes. Marx showed that a necessary condition for the transition from capitalism to socialism was the proeltariat’s attainment of political power and the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship as the chief means for carrying out revolutionary changes.

[Joe McCarthy]

Marx on slavery, from Capital, vol. III:

From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another.

Here we see Marx comparing slavery to capitalist wage-labor:

And exploitation , the appropriation of the unpaid labour of others, has quite often been represented as the reward justly due to the owner of capital for his work; but never better than by a champion of slavery in the United States, a lawyer named O'Connor at a meeting held in New York on December 19, 1859, under the slogan of "Justice for the South"

...the slave works under alien conditions of production and not independently. Thus, conditions of personal dependence are requisite, a lack of personal freedom, no matter to what extent, and being tied to the soil as its accessory, bondage in the true sense of the word.

More in a moment....

[Joe McCarthy]

Here we see Marx stating that the despised capitalist system is a higher or more 'progressive' (Marx's view on slavery according to Roland) form of society than slavery:

It is one of the civilising aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of productive forces, social relations, and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc.

[Roland]

Thank you for the responses, McCarthy.

I am not certain that I made myself clear on this point. My argument presupposed that "progressive" meant "in accordance with the march of history toward communism", which is roughly equivalent to "good" in Marx's "ethics". If slavery is regarded as progressive relative to some other form of socio-economic arrangement, then its elements - negros - are probably going to be regarded as legitimate actors in the march toward communism. As the serfs threw off their shackles, so shall the slaves etc. Marx's perspective on slavery led me to believe that negros were therefore relatively equal to whites, in that they were part of the process of historical evolution.

This does not, of course, rule out the possibility that Marx held blacks to be inferior by the criteria of his formula of socialist meritocracy: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

As for Ricardo, the point I intended to make by citing his intellectual antecedents was that his economic perspective and labor theory of value were not inherently Jewish. If anything, his metaphysical ground was very similar to the then-popular deistic political theology of liberalism.

[Joe McCarthy]

I want to take up several points Roland has made, including the earlier question over whether 'Marxism is Jewish'.

One could argue, I suppose, that Marxism is not Jewish simply because many of Marx's influences were not Jewish. Hegel being just the most obvious. Here is the problem with this approach: By the same standard we could argue that Thomism is not Christian, as Aquinas had non-Christian influences, most notably Aristotle. In fact, illustrating the faulty nature of this line of thinking, we could argue that Judaism itself is not Jewish as the Talmud is known to have acquired non-Jewish ideas, most notably from Babylonian mystery religions.

The verdict? Marxism IS Jewish, and the most telling evidence (besides its enunciator being Jewish himself) is that Marxism is thoroughly materialistic, which reveals how Marx continued to be influenced by his Jewish upbringing, even though he later became reprobate. At the root, Marxism can best be described as a distilled form of secular Judaism. Much the same, with a couple of exceptions, can be said for the Ricardian outlook.

This does not, of course, rule out the possibility that Marx held blacks to be inferior by the criteria of his formula of socialist meritocracy: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

This rather highlights a point I made earlier, and which Marinesko clumsily contested, that Marx simply didn't deal very often with non-Westerners (the possible exception might be India, but tellingly, only to articulate a primitive mode of economic development). "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was a statement Marx made in his The Critique of the Gotha Programme in which he was dealing with the socialist movement in Germany. Obviously in this context niggers weren't even on his radar. Far from thinking about whether this statement applied to them or not, it'd be better to ask whether Marx even considered them at all, for as is commonly known, when discussing the subject of 'man' in Western societies, blacks weren't even generally taken under consideration, particularly in Europe, in Marx's day.

[Roland]

One could argue, I suppose, that Marxism is not Jewish simply because many of Marx's influences were not Jewish. Hegel being just the most obvious. Here is the problem with this approach: By the same standard we could argue that Thomism is not Christian, as Aquinas had non-Christian influences, most notably Aristotle. In fact, illustrating the faulty nature of this line of thinking, we could argue that Judaism itself is not Jewish as the Talmud is known to have acquired non-Jewish ideas, most notably from Babylonian mystery religions.
Fair enough. You must therefore demonstrate that the *essence* of Marxism is Jewish. That is, you must demonstrate that, despite the fact that Marxism is rooted in non-Jewish metaphysical ground, it is nevertheless essentially Jewish.

The verdict? Marxism IS Jewish, and the most telling evidence (besides its enunciator being Jewish himself)
The premise concerning Marx's Jewish ancestry succumbs to the same sort of criticism you subjected my premise concerning Marx's intellectual antecedents to. A person of Jewish ancestry can espouse and elaborate upon any tradition of thought.

that Marxism is thoroughly materialistic, which reveals how Marx continued to be influenced by his Jewish upbringing, even though he later became reprobate. At the root, Marxism can best be described as a distilled form of secular Judaism. Much the same, with a couple of exceptions, can be said for the Ricardian outlook.
This will require elaboration. Marx was influenced by Feuerbach's peculiar form of materialism (I'm not sure if Feuerbach was Jewish), as well as Greek "materialists" like Democritus.

This rather highlights a point I made earlier, and which Marinesko clumsily contested, that Marx simply didn't deal very often with non-Westerners (the possible exception might be India, but tellingly, only to articulate a primitive mode of economic development). "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was a statement Marx made in his The Critique of the Gotha Programme in which he was dealing with the socialist movement in Germany.
Marx was very interested in the war of secession in America, and he openly supported Lincoln. This supports my inference concerning Marx's attitude toward negros, and also suggests that he was interested in non-European affairs.

Obviously in this context niggers weren't even on his radar. Far from thinking about whether this statement applied to them or not, it'd be better to ask whether Marx even considered them at all, for as is commonly known, when discussing the subject of 'man' in Western societies, blacks weren't even generally taken under consideration, particularly in Europe, in Marx's day.
To be certain, my conclusion concerning Marx's attitude is only an inference from his metaphysical principles and his statements concerning slavery, but it seems difficult to argue that Marx would simply avoid the negro question altogether.

It is, on the other hand, certainly possible, since Hegel did not consider negros to be "historical" in the European sense. However, if the bourgeoisie are going to chase their profits across the face of the globe, traversing national and ethnic lines, then non-western peoples will become relevant at some point, I imagine.

[Joe McCarthy]

The premise concerning Marx's Jewish ancestry succumbs to the same sort of criticism you subjected my premise concerning Marx's intellectual antecedents to. A person of Jewish ancestry can espouse and elaborate upon any tradition of thought.

Think about it. If Marx had not been Jewish, we wouldn't even be discussing whether 'Marxism is Jewish'. Granted, he could still be influenced by non-Jewish ideas, but the very fact of his Jewishness is not to be discarded.

This will require elaboration. Marx was influenced by Feuerbach's peculiar form of materialism (I'm not sure if Feuerbach was Jewish), as well as Greek "materialists" like Democritus.

I wasn't speaking of materialism in the philosophical sense, though Marx was a materialist philosophically. I was referring to materialism in the vulgar mode, i.e., the money-centered, economically obsessed sense. Philosophical materialism typically deals with non-monetary issues (Darwin was a materialist and never discussed economics) but Marx's worldview was totally permeated by economic concerns. Historical Materialism is completely premised on economic determinist dogma. This is where Judaism, with its preoccupation with material gain comes in. The only real difference between Marx and the Jews he castigated, is that their obsession was capitalistic, while his was socialistic.

Marx was very interested in the war of secession in America, and he openly supported Lincoln. This supports my inference concerning Marx's attitude toward negros, and also suggests that he was interested in non-European affairs.

He was interested in non-European affairs, but not really non-Western. He viewed America as a burgeoning industrial power and thus a candidate for proletarian revolution. His support for Lincoln had far less to do with emancipation than a recognition that Lincoln represented the industrially advanced north over the semi-feudal south.

However, if the bourgeoisie are going to chase their profits across the face of the globe, traversing national and ethnic lines, then non-western peoples will become relevant at some point, I imagine.

Maybe. Though surprisingly to most, Marx really leaves this an open question. His modern admirers seem to just assume that he thought Communist revolution, preceded by industrial development, would envelop the entire globe, but Marx didn't discuss this. His focus was on the existent conditions and he based his analysis on those conditions. As I noted in a jocular response to Marinesko, Marx spent tons of time hammering on the eventual Communist revolution that would engulf Burundi. Of course, I was kidding. He didn't, and he viewed such peoples as primitive savages. Whether he thought they could EVER advance to the level needed is unknown. At any rate, they weren't part of his considerations in fomenting 'world revolution'.

[Roland]

Think about it. If Marx had not been Jewish, we wouldn't even be discussing whether 'Marxism is Jewish'.
If Marx's Jewish ancestry is the only reason to call Marxism Jewish, then the rest of your arguments are irrelevant. Surely you cannot be claiming this.

I wasn't speaking of materialism in the philosophical sense, though Marx was a materialist philosophically. I was referring to materialism in the vulgar mode, i.e., the money-centered, economically obsessed sense. Philosophical materialism typically deals with non-monetary issues (Darwin was a materialist and never discussed economics) but Marx's worldview was totally permeated by economic concerns.
Thank you for the clarification. I suppose this returns us to the question of the Anglo roots of global free trade and "capitalism". I hold that the narrow interpretation of "economics" strictly in terms of competitive markets ("money-centrism" as you coined it), is not strictly the province of Jews (who are admittedly associated with the unnatural practice of usury) but also of the Anglo tradition.

Historical Materialism is completely premised on economic determinist dogma. This is where Judaism, with its preoccupation with material gain comes in. The only real difference between Marx and the Jews he castigated, is that their obsession was capitalistic, while his was socialistic.
This is an interesting point. I agree with you that the Marxist flavor of socialism presupposes markets, and is therefore money-centric. However, I believe that the more essential element of Marxism is the dialectical analysis of classes, which produced the political enmity - the class antagonism - that eventually unleashed the revolutions of the 20th century. This element is, I believe, more derivative of Hegel than of pure money-centric thinking; that is, its genesis is found in Hegelian civil-society thinking.

Below are sections 243-46 of Hegel's Elements of the Philosophy of Right, which Marx clearly developed and made his own. The translation is not very clear (it comes from an online source), but the seeds of Marx's class antagonism are apparent.243. When the civic community is untrammelled in its activity, it increases within itself in industry and population. By generalizing the relations of men by the way of their wants, and by generalizing the manner in which the means of meeting these wants are prepared and procured, large fortunes are amassed. On the other side, there occur repartition and limitation of the work of the individual labourer and, consequently, dependence and distress in the artisan class. With these drawbacks are associated callousness of feeling and inability to enjoy the larger possibilities of freedom, especially the mental advantages of the civic community.

244. When a large number of people sink below the standard of living regarded as essential for the members of society, and lose that sense of right, rectitude, and honour which is derived from self-support, a pauper class arises, and wealth accumulates disproportionately in the hands of a few.

Addition.—The way of living of the pauper class is the lowest of all, and is adopted by themselves. But with different peoples the minimum is very different. In England even the poorest man believes that he has his right, and with him this standard is different from that which satisfies the poor in other lands. Poverty does not of itself make a pauper. The pauper state implies a frame of mind, associated often with poverty, consisting in inner rebellion against the wealthy, against society, and against constituted authority. Moreover, in order to descend to the class, which is at the mercy of the changes and chances of life, men must be heedless and indifferent to work, as are the Lazzaroni in Naples. Hence, in this section of the community arises the evil thing that a man has not self-respect enough to earn his own living by his work, and still he claims support as a right. No man can maintain a right against nature. Yet, in social conditions want assumes the form of a wrong done to one or other class. The important question, how poverty is to be done away with, is one which has disturbed and agitated society, especially in modern times.

245. If upon the more wealthy classes the burden were directly laid of maintaining the poor at the level of their ordinary way of life, or if in public institutions, such as rich hospitals, foundations, or cloisters, the poor could receive direct support, they would be assured of subsistence without requiring to do any work. This would be contrary both to the principle of the civic community and to the feeling its members have of independence and honour. Again, if subsistence were provided not directly but through work, or opportunity to work, the quantity of produce would be increased, and the consumers, becoming themselves producers, would be proportionately too few. Whether in the case of over-production, then, or in the case of direct help, the evil sought to be removed would remain, and, indeed, would by either method be enhanced. There arises the seeming paradox that the civic community when excessively wealthy is not rich enough. It has not sufficient hold of its own wealth to stem excess of poverty and the creation of paupers.

Note.—These phenomena may be studied in England, where they occur on an extensive scale. In that country may also be observed the consequences of poor rates, of vast foundations, of unlimited private benevolence, and, above all, of the discontinuance of the corporation. In England, and especially in Scotland, the most direct remedy against poverty and against laziness and extravagance, which are the cause of poverty, has been proved by practical experience to be to leave the poor to their fate, and direct them to public begging. This, too, has been found to be the best means for preserving that sense of shame and honour, which is the subjective basis of society.

246. By means of its own dialectic the civic community is driven beyond its own limits as a definite and self-complete society. It must find consumers and the necessary means of life amongst other peoples, who either lack the means, of which it has a superfluity, or have less developed industries.
My intent is not to characterize Hegel as a Marxist, but I do believe that his historicism and dialectic became fundamental elements in Marx's revolutionary project. Carl Schmitt summs up Hegel's relationship to Marxism in his Theory of the Partisan:Hegel's philosophy was dominant in Prussia. It sought a systematic mediation of revolution and tradition. It could be considered to be conservative, and it was. But it also conserved the revolutionary sparks, and through its philosophy of history of the ongoing revolution it provided the Jacobins with a dangerous ideological weapon, even more dangerous than Rousseau's philosophy. This historical-philosophical weapon fell into the hands of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
He was interested in non-European affairs, but not really non-Western. He viewed America as a burgeoning industrial power and thus a candidate for proletarian revolution. His support for Lincoln had far less to do with emancipation than a recognition that Lincoln represented the industrially advanced north over the semi-feudal south.
I recall Marx sending a letter to Lincoln - or perhaps it was an op-ed in the NYT? - where he praised the emancipation as progressive. I might be mistaken, though.

Maybe. Though surprisingly to most, Marx really leaves this an open question. His modern admirers seem to just assume that he thought Communist revolution, preceded by industrial development, would envelop the entire globe, but Marx didn't discuss this. His focus was on the existent conditions and he based his analysis on those conditions. As I noted in a jocular response to Marinesko, Marx spent tons of time hammering on the eventual Communist revolution that would engulf Burundi. Of course, I was kidding. He didn't, and he viewed such peoples as primitive savages. Whether he thought they could EVER advance to the level needed is unknown. At any rate, they weren't part of his considerations in fomenting 'world revolution'.
These are good points, though I disagree that Marx didn't concern himself with an eventual global revolution. I also have trouble imagining what Marx would have socialists do about the immanent "negro question" in America. I suppose there is little or no evidence that he concerned himself with such issues, and I am therefore willing to accept your conclusion here.

[Joe McCarthy]

If Marx's Jewish ancestry is the only reason to call Marxism Jewish, then the rest of your arguments are irrelevant. Surely you cannot be claiming this.

Clearly, based on the rest of my post, I am not.

Thank you for the clarification. I suppose this returns us to the question of the Anglo roots of global free trade and "capitalism". I hold that the narrow interpretation of "economics" strictly in terms of competitive markets ("money-centrism" as you coined it), is not strictly the province of Jews (who are admittedly associated with the unnatural practice of usury) but also of the Anglo tradition.

I think this is the meat of the argument at this juncture. I disagree with your characterization of British political economy as money-centered for the following reasons: There were basically three titans of British political economy pre-Marx (we could count Mill but he lived in Marx's time): Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus. In the case of Smith his political economy was mostly an analysis of economic functions. In contrast to Marx he spoke in the normative scientific mode as disinterested analyst, whereas Marx was a scholar-advocate. Moreover, while Marx's thought was thoroughly materialistic, Smith's was not. He was principally an ethicist, and that was the subject he taught. In the case of Malthus, while he was an economist, his most noted theme, of course, was his theory of population. Only in the case of Ricardo, another Jew, can any of the major work of pre-Marxian political economy be said to center the world through the material.

This is an interesting point. I agree with you that the Marxist flavor of socialism presupposes markets, and is therefore money-centric. However, I believe that the more essential element of Marxism is the dialectical analysis of classes, which produced the political enmity - the class antagonism - that eventually unleashed the revolutions of the 20th century. This element is, I believe, more derivative of Hegel than of pure money-centric thinking; that is, its genesis is found in Hegelian civil-society thinking.

You are of course describing Dialectical Materialism, and while it MIGHT trump Historical Materialism in the Marxian schema, it is still formulated around economic concerns, in this case, the competition between economic classes. Wholly materialistic in sum.

I recall Marx sending a letter to Lincoln - or perhaps it was an op-ed in the NYT? - where he praised the emancipation as progressive. I might be mistaken, though.

I vaguely recall something of this sort. But no matter. Marx was interested in emancipation but he was far more interested in the kind of development requisite for the fulfillment of his predictions. Lincoln was on the right side of history in Marx's view.

These are good points, though I disagree that Marx didn't concern himself with an eventual global revolution.

I'd be inclined to disagree with it too had I not read Marx thoroughly. The only real reference to this whole business of capitalism changing the globe and 'world revolution' is in the Manifesto, and read closely, the 'world' was defined in conjunction with the 'workers', i.e. European and American proles. Third worlders weren't on the radar. The question of whether he envisioned a literal 'world revolution' is surprisingly an open question, and a fact appreciated by virtually no Marxists. A literal 'world revolution' is essentially a Leninist revision stamped onto Marx.

[Hlinkova Garda]

Good point, I have indulged the population here a bit too much. What is going on old friend

I as you can guess was on temp-ban for unwarrented action against capitalist posters FIGHT ON COMRADE

http://moldfarm.com/albums/randomImages/burn_the_rich01.jpghttp://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/redclyde/thumbs/xredcly072a.jpg

[Joe McCarthy]

What is going on old friend

I as you can guess was on temp-ban for unwarrented action against capitalist posters FIGHT ON COMRADE

http://moldfarm.com/albums/randomImages/burn_the_rich01.jpghttp://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/redclyde/thumbs/xredcly072a.jpg

What is going on is he got his ass kicked and fled the board until things cool off.

[Hlinkova Garda]

What is going on is he got his ass kicked and fled the board until things cool off.


quote: OVERWATCH
Hlinkova Garda has been tempbanned for flaming and trolling.

Yeah right Joe I have never fled in my life. not here not ever ....you on the other hand can not clame the same

[Joe McCarthy]

Yeah right Joe I have never fled in my life. not here not ever ....you on the other hand can not clame the same

I was speaking of your 'old friend' oh thick headed one.

[Hlinkova Garda]

I was speaking of your 'old friend' oh thick headed one.


Oh.......................now i see my mistake......Sorry but in my defence it is hard not to look at every action by a Capitalist as a attack for more often then not it is
http://moldfarm.com/albums/randomImages/burn_the_rich01.jpghttp://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/redclyde/thumbs/xredcly072a.jpg

[Joe McCarthy]

With apologies to August Bebel, anti-capitalism is the nationalism of fools.

Welcome back. It seems that unlike your 'old friend' you are at least racially loyal. Don't let this exchange get us off on the wrong foot.

[Hlinkova Garda]

no my views are a little differante then my "old friend''
Folk-Faith-Family come first The enemys of our faith are the same as the enemys of our race (Slavic) they are the money changers out side the temple

for my views I recomend this book http://www.aquinasandmore.com/images/items/2571sm.jpg



http://www.pospolitost.org/obrazky/pozadie.jpg

[Maponus]

Did the word racist even exist when Karl Marx was alive?

This is a rather strange ploy you racialists are trying here, in that it mirrors the very kind of liberal cultural Marxist thought policing you lot always complain about, only you've turned it on the Bolsheviki (oh the irony). It is, however, much like explaining to a teenaged Republican who posts on youtube about why "Obama is a liberalISLAMOcommunistFASCISTnazi!!!" that "Liberalism" originally meant free market capitalism. It may have some truth to it, but the bright and brilliant children of the revolution don't give a fuck.

If in order to succeed a ideology chooses to change, it changes. Marxism has survived by becoming the ideology of gun carrying third world nationalists and minority "Liberation" campaigns it is to day, not by any education of the masses utopia. The masses of the undeveloped east (and south too) proved better soldiers than the European working class (with their silly attachment to patriotism).

So, this digging up of century old quotes (though they are funny, and true, turns out Marx has a similar attitude to Judaism as Mussolini had :rofl:) but it's not terribly reverent to Marxism to day. If you want to debunk Marxism, debunk contemporary Marxism, not the "German ideology" of the 1840s. It's like preaching genocide aganist the Homo erectus.:deadhorse:

[Joe McCarthy]

Did the word racist even exist when Karl Marx was alive?

This is a rather strange ploy you racialists are trying here, in that it mirrors the very kind of liberal cultural Marxist thought policing you lot always complain about, only you've turned it on the Bolsheviki (oh the irony). It is, however, much like explaining to a teenaged Republican who posts on youtube about why "Obama is a liberalISLAMOcommunistFASCISTnazi!!!" that "Liberalism" originally meant free market capitalism. It may have some truth to it, but the bright and brilliant children of the revolution don't give a fuck.

If in order to succeed a ideology chooses to change, it changes. Marxism has survived by becoming the ideology of gun carrying third world nationalists and minority "Liberation" campaigns it is to day, not by any education of the masses utopia. The masses of the undeveloped east (and south too) proved better soldiers than the European working class (with their silly attachment to patriotism).

So, this digging up of century old quotes (though they are funny, and true, turns out Marx has a similar attitude to Judaism as Mussolini had :rofl:) but it's not terribly reverent to Marxism to day. If you want to debunk Marxism, debunk contemporary Marxism, not the "German ideology" of the 1840s. It's like preaching genocide aganist the Homo erectus.:deadhorse:

No amigo, the word 'racist' was actually coined by another German kike during the Third Reich to demonize Germany. Namely the 'sexologist', socialist, and noted pervert, Magnus Hirschfeld.

I hope you're not arguing that 'racism' didn't exist in Marx's time because the word didn't exist then. If you are, I'm going to argue that natural selection didn't exist in Plato's time because Darwin hadn't coined it yet.

[Maponus]

I hope you're not arguing that 'racism' didn't exist in Marx's time because the word didn't exist then. If you are, I'm going to argue that natural selection didn't exist in Plato's time because Darwin hadn't coined it yet.

No, but it wasn't the "OMFG shut your ears children" issue it is now, people didn't, as it was, know better. I dare say if Karl Marx was in todays Communist Movement, he might not have said it in order to make sure his articles where published.

[Mike Jahn]

Before you humiliate yourself again, let me warn you that I have never owned anything with Che Guevara on it(nor will I).

Who are the Communist leaders you do admire? I remember on VNN that you were a big admirer of both Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il.

[Joe McCarthy]

Who are the Communist leaders you do admire? I remember on VNN that you were a big admirer of both Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il.

If that is the case he has comically contradicted himself yet again, as he castigated Kim-Jong-Ill as something akin to a madman in a shoutbox debate against me when I called him on his defense of North Korea on my neo-con thread.

[Mike Jahn]

If that is the case he has comically contradicted himself yet again, as he castigated Kim-Jong-Ill as something akin to a madman in a shoutbox debate against me when I called him on his defense of North Korea on my neo-con thread.

On VNN he used to say that the strength of North Korea was the doctrine of "Juche" or self-sufficiency. Perhaps he's now saying that Kim Jong Il has betrayed this?

[Joe McCarthy]

On VNN he used to say that the strength of North Korea was the doctrine of "Juche" or self-sufficiency. Perhaps he's now saying that Kim Jong Il has betrayed this?

No. He just basically said something to the effect of, 'Notice you never see me defend Kim-Jong-Il' in reference to some comment about an equally 'psychotic' fascist bigwig. I forget all of the specifics.

[Captain Marinesko]

If that is the case he has comically contradicted himself yet again, as he castigated Kim-Jong-Ill as something akin to a madman in a shoutbox debate against me when I called him on his defense of North Korea on my neo-con thread.

Retard, notice he said "on VNN". Things were a little different then. From what I have read on here, you have a far higher frequency of ideological 180s. In case you were wondering there are others in the racialist movement that admire the nationalistic ideology of Red China and North Korea.

And my "defense" of North Korea was a defense against putting 100% of the blame for the Korean war on the DPRK. As usual you began trying to pontificate using your inadequate high school understanding of history, and I referred you to more detailed sources on Korean history by a recognized expert Bruce Cummings.

This is a far cry from defending North Korean society under Kim Jong Il or endorsing the revisionism that is Juche. Juche originated as a slogan in 1955, two years after the Korean War, and did not begin to take shape as a separate ideology until the middle of the 60s. The "official" establishment as Juche as the ideology of the DPRK came much later, with the work On the Juche Idea by Kim Jong Il. Having read the document myself, it is clearly of a highly different tone and style than any M-L document, and attacks Marxists in a back-handed way as "flunkies".

That being said, I don't believe I have ever endorsed the popular Western view of Kim Jong Il as a "madman", so that would just be another lie of yours.

[Captain Marinesko]

Who are the Communist leaders you do admire? I remember on VNN that you were a big admirer of both Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il.

Thaelmann, Stalin, Molotov, Foster, Hoxha, Dimitrov, Gottwald, Bierut.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hold much ill-will toward Che- but his image has been corrupted by idealistic college kids and wannabe rebels. How they cringe when they read the quote from Che remarking on how much Stalin was an essential inspiration to him.

[Apocales]

Capt, on various M-L or socialists-theme boards are American college kids generally taken for granted seeing as though it's mostly a college phase for them?

[Tellurocrat]

Jack London was a member of the Socialist Party Central Committee for Sonoma County (California), when the committee passed a resolution (back around 1910), calling for an end to Southern segregation. Mr. London angrily resigned his membership in the committee on the spot, and yelled "I may be a socialist, but I'm a White man first!"
There seems to be some trend among Fabian socialists to embrace elements of Nietzschean racialism.

JoeMcCarthy has a thread about Jack London, who was, as you say, a Socialist but also a (critical) Nietzschean and a racialist.

Cheesypie mentioned Russell earlier on, who was a socialist, perhaps a racialist according to that quote, probided it is accurate.. He was anti-Nietzschean though, and I'm sure he paid visit to the Chinese government to help institute progressive schools - I'm unsure where I read this, and when exactly it happened - I don't suppose China was Communist at the time, or know whether China as a nation was still stable and Imperial at this time.

George Bernard Shaw also was a socialist, a Nietzschean, and racialism. What is sure is that the first two qualities made him an eager Mussolini supporter. It was similar for George Orwell and H.G. Wells.

I can't understand how socialism and Nietzscheanism can be reconciled in any case.

[Joe McCarthy]

Retard, notice he said "on VNN". Things were a little different then. From what I have read on here, you have a far higher frequency of ideological 180s. In case you were wondering there are others in the racialist movement that admire the nationalistic ideology of Red China and North Korea.

And my "defense" of North Korea was a defense against putting 100% of the blame for the Korean war on the DPRK. As usual you began trying to pontificate using your inadequate high school understanding of history, and I referred you to more detailed sources on Korean history by a recognized expert Bruce Cummings.

This is a far cry from defending North Korean society under Kim Jong Il or endorsing the revisionism that is Juche. Juche originated as a slogan in 1955, two years after the Korean War, and did not begin to take shape as a separate ideology until the middle of the 60s. The "official" establishment as Juche as the ideology of the DPRK came much later, with the work On the Juche Idea by Kim Jong Il. Having read the document myself, it is clearly of a highly different tone and style than any M-L document, and attacks Marxists in a back-handed way as "flunkies".

That being said, I don't believe I have ever endorsed the popular Western view of Kim Jong Il as a "madman", so that would just be another lie of yours.

First, I've never done a '180'. I started as a Bircher and morphed into a racialist. I used to ally with Muslims against Jews but I still favored removing Muslims from the West. Conversely, you actually did do a complete '180'.

As usual you 'argue without arguing' in acknowledging your reversal on Kim while throwing in lots of insults.

Thanks for the concession.

[Joe McCarthy]

There seems to be some trend among Fabian socialists to embrace elements of Nietzschean racialism.

JoeMcCarthy has a thread about Jack London, who was, as you say, a Socialist but also a (critical) Nietzschean and a racialist.

Cheesypie mentioned Russell earlier on, who was a socialist, perhaps a racialist according to that quote, probided it is accurate.. He was anti-Nietzschean though, and I'm sure he paid visit to the Chinese government to help institute progressive schools - I'm unsure where I read this, and when exactly it happened - I don't suppose China was Communist at the time, or know whether China as a nation was still stable and Imperial at this time.

George Bernard Shaw also was a socialist, a Nietzschean, and racialism. What is sure is that the first two qualities made him an eager Mussolini supporter. It was similar for George Orwell and H.G. Wells.

I can't understand how socialism and Nietzscheanism can be reconciled in any case.

I opened a thread on the Russell quote as well. It is in his 'The Prospects for Industrial Civilization'.

I agree that socialism and Nietzscheanism are irreconcilable. Socialism and Darwinism are too.

[Captain Marinesko]

First, I've never done a '180'. I started as a Bircher and morphed into a racialist. I used to ally with Muslims against Jews but I still favored removing Muslims from the West. Conversely, you actually did do a complete '180'.

As usual you 'argue without arguing' in acknowledging your reversal on Kim while throwing in lots of insults.

Thanks for the concession.


Yes, in your fantasy land, everyone makes concessions, and you "win" "debates."

What specific reversal on Kim(and WHICH Kim?) are you referring to? As for the "lots of insults", does that refer to my pointing out how ignorant you are on the subject of Korean history- as you are on nearly every historical subject, seeing that you deliberately cherry pick various things so as to fit a preconceived notion?

[Captain Marinesko]

Capt, on various M-L or socialists-theme boards are American college kids generally taken for granted seeing as though it's mostly a college phase for them?

Actually I avoid any kind of "Communist" or "Marxist" discussion board just because of such college kids. Amongst Communists in the west, there is talk of such people. I do most of my correspondance with Communists via direct e-mail or face to face meetings either here in Moscow or in their countries.

[Sakura]

Capt, on various M-L or socialists-theme boards are American college kids generally taken for granted seeing as though it's mostly a college phase for them?

I'm not Comrade Slavyanski, but I will answer this anyway:

I believe that it is an excellent thing for the youth to get into Communism, but not if it is just some childish shallow rebellion against the Establishment.

[Maponus]

There seems to be some trend among Fabian socialists to embrace elements of Nietzschean racialism.

JoeMcCarthy has a thread about Jack London, who was, as you say, a Socialist but also a (critical) Nietzschean and a racialist.

Cheesypie mentioned Russell earlier on, who was a socialist, perhaps a racialist according to that quote, probided it is accurate.. He was anti-Nietzschean though, and I'm sure he paid visit to the Chinese government to help institute progressive schools - I'm unsure where I read this, and when exactly it happened - I don't suppose China was Communist at the time, or know whether China as a nation was still stable and Imperial at this time.

George Bernard Shaw also was a socialist, a Nietzschean, and racialism. What is sure is that the first two qualities made him an eager Mussolini supporter. It was similar for George Orwell and H.G. Wells.

I can't understand how socialism and Nietzscheanism can be reconciled in any case.

Socialism and Nietzscheanism fit together in the figure of the Revolutionary. The Messiah like figure who, while being of masses of course, is capable of stepping of the passive ranks of soceity and take direct control of human history. A fraction within the Russian Social Democrat Party was very admiring of the idea of a superman, and one can easily see it's appeal. Socialism and Nietzscheanism are both belief systems which allow the intellectual to express his masculinity in a way denied him by liberalism, Christianity, monarchism or conservatism which regard him as a simple scholar.

I'd drop Orwell, Orwell was completely in favour of human equality and had no interest in Nietzsche at all, as one can see from his choose of heroes.

[Tellurocrat]

I can't see how, given that Nietzsche's philosophy is anti-socialist, and considered socialism as a secularized Christian heresy. In many ways, Nietzsche's philosophy was a form of postmodern Darwinism, whereas socialism was was either pre-modern (pre-Marxist) or else ultra-modern (positivist, scientific, universalist) and egalitarian.

Nietzsche says about the socialist revolutionary that it is the battle which sanctifies the ideals in his mind, rather than vice versa.

Perhaps we should allow for the existence fruitful internal contradictions in thinkers...

You're probably right with regards to Orwell. I thought he was rather ambivalent in his condemnation of totalitarianism in 1984 though, for example. I was probably reading my own bias into it, but O'Brien represents a more conscious version of the brainless totalitarianism presented before his introduction, and parts of his expressed philosophy seems Nietzschean ("Power is tearing human minds apart and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. ... Men are infinitely malleable.") It did seem to me when reading 1984 that Orwell didn't outrightly condemn O'Brien.

[Joe McCarthy]

Bear in mind that Nietzsche is not simply warmed over Darwinism. He had real differences with both Spencer and Darwin. Naturally the Overman presumes evolution though. It has a sort of eugenic flavor to it.

[Tellurocrat]

The major problem Nietzsche had with social Darwinism and Spencer in particular was the moralistic teleology - that it (was theorized that it) would ultimately lead to a moral utopia. In this respect, Nietzsche was correct to equate social Darwinism with liberalism and Marxism.

But otherwise, he stood against pity, helping or keeping the weak alive. That's rather strong Darwinism - obviously it's not the be-all and end-all of Nietzsche's philosophy, just that in this case, it's the major element in conflict with any reconciliation with socialism.


This should send any socialist reeling with disgust:What is good? - Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.

What is evil? - Whatever springs from weakness.

What is happiness? - The feeling that power increases - that resistance is overcome.

Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but manliness (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moral acid).

The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.

What is more harmful than any vice? - Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak - Christianity....

[Joe McCarthy]

From Nietzsche's The Will to Power:

"Anti Darwin.- What surprises me most on making a general survey of the great destinies of man, is that I invariably see the reverse of what today Darwin and his school sees or will persist in seeing: selection in favour of the stronger, the better constituted, and the progress of the species. Precisely the reverse of this stares one in the face: the suppression of the lucky cases, the uselessness of the more highly constituted types, the inevitable mastery of the mediocre, and even of those who are below mediocrity. Unless we are shown some reason why man is an exception among living creatures, I incline to the view that Darwin's school is everywhere at fault. That will to power, in which I perceive the ultimate reason and character of all change, explains why it is that selection is never in favour of the exceptions, and of the lucky cases: the strongest and happiest natures are weak when they are confronted with a majority ruled by gregarious instincts and the fear which possesses the weak. My general view of the world of values shows that in the highest values which now sway the destiny of man, the happy cases among men, the select specimens, do not prevail: but rather the decadent specimens- perhaps there is nothing more interesting in the whole world than this unpleasant spectacle.

"Strange as it may seem, the strong have always to be upheld against the weak; and the well constituted against the ill constituted, the healthy against the sick and physiologically botched. If we drew our morals from reality, they would read thus: the mediocre are more valuable than the exceptional creatures, and the decadent than the mediocre, the will to nonentity prevails over the will to life, - and the general aim now is, in Christian, Buddhistic, Schopenhauerian phraseology 'It is better not to be than to be'.

I protest against this formulating of reality into a moral: and I loathe Christianity with a deadly loathing because it created sublime words and attitudes in order to deck a revolting truth with all the tawdriness of justice, virtue, and godliness....

I see all philosophers and the whole of science on their knees before a reality which is the reverse of the struggle for life as Darwin and his school understood it- that is to say, wherever I look, I see those prevailing and surviving, who throw doubt and suspicion upon life and the value of life.- The error of the Darwinian school became a problem to me: how can one be so blind as to make this mistake?"


I think Nietzsche's criticism in paragraph two is quite sound.

[Tellurocrat]

This critique of Darwinism bases itself on a value-misunderstanding of Darwinism though, namely of the idea of "survival of the fittest".

One may be an intellectual and an athlete, a firm practitioner in life and power, educated and cultured.

The other may be stupid, understands nothing about reality, is fat and sickly, etc.

If the second can procreate whereas the first cannot, then the definition of fittest applies to the second being, not to the first.

So, yes, the second paragraph there is very sound, but on the whole the argument misunderstands what Darwinism means by "fittest" and "strongest".

[Joe McCarthy]

Though evolution no longer presupposes progress, in the Victorian era progress was a watchword, and it's clear that Darwin saw natural selection as a will-to-progress if you will.

[Tellurocrat]

So as I said, Nietzsche's main problem with social Darwinism was that it had a teleology - that someday we'll end with the best, with the most good. Social Darwinism certainly presupposes progress - the only reason it reluctantly wants the poor and weak to suffer the consequences of their poverty and weakness, is so that poverty and weakness are not perpetrated into an ultimate generation. Whereas for Nietzsche it was merely that he saw pity as a devaluation of life - he never prophesied the end of the weak, or of the Last Man, in fact they will continue to return alongside the Ubermensch, in Eternal Return. Which is why socialist philosophers like Deleuze failed to grapple properly with the idea of Eternal Return - he had to warp it and theorize that the weak, the reactive he calls them, will some day not return.

[Joe McCarthy]

I agree completely with your critique of 'Social Darwinism'. That is pure Spencer.

[Maponus]

I can't see how, given that Nietzsche's philosophy is anti-socialist, and considered socialism as a secularized Christian heresy. In many ways, Nietzsche's philosophy was a form of postmodern Darwinism, whereas socialism was was either pre-modern (pre-Marxist) or else ultra-modern (positivist, scientific, universalist) and egalitarian.

Nietzsche says about the socialist revolutionary that it is the battle which sanctifies the ideals in his mind, rather than vice versa.

Perhaps we should allow for the existence fruitful internal contradictions in thinkers...

All ideas can be combined, H.G Wells and his "Liberal Fascism" for example. National Bolshevism, National Socialism and Neo-Conservatism are all abominations in the eyes of their forebears but they still exist. Bear in mind Nietzsche had bad things to say about nearly every ideology, as his views were essentially anti-statist and, funnily enough, anti-German! Therefor, in the odd nature of things, by opposing German nationalism, Christianity and bourgeois culture he can be a lefties darling, and his dislike of Socialism, equality and pity itself render him attractive to the conservative. But it's the "will to power" which makes him a favorite for everybody with a sherd of political ambition and power lust, left or right.

[Joe McCarthy]

With the possible exception of Sumner, it's hard to find a thinker harder to reconcile with socialism than Nietzsche. Even London understood this.

[Maponus]

Still, it was done, despite the contradictions. Nationalism of the racial variety is pretty hard to reconcile with Nietzsche, considering he called his nationalist step brother "part of the race swindle" and was a Philo- Semite who openly attacked his own country as the "greatest threat to culture in the world".

[Joe McCarthy]

Still, it was done, despite the contradictions. Nationalism of the racial variety is pretty hard to reconcile with Nietzsche, considering he called his nationalist step brother "part of the race swindle" and was a Philo- Semite who openly attacked his own country as the "greatest threat to culture in the world".

Socialism cannot really be reconciled with Nietzschean thought unless socialists are ridiculously selective and untrue to their own values. As for your other comment, I'll make three points.

1. Nietzsche was unquestionably a racist.

2. Though he attacked nationalism in one context, he made another statement that could be regarded as promoting triumphal nationalism.

3. Though he bashed anti-Semites, simply calling him 'philo-Semitic' is oversimplistic. He blamed Jews for slave morality and trashed them further in The Will to Power.

[Maponus]

Socialism cannot really be reconciled with Nietzschean thought unless socialists are ridiculously selective and untrue to their own values. As for your other comment, I'll make three points.

1. Nietzsche was unquestionably a racist.

2. Though he attacked nationalism in one context, he made another statement that could be regarded as promoting triumphal nationalism.

3. Though he bashed anti-Semites, simply calling him 'philo-Semitic' is oversimplistic. He blamed Jews for slave morality and trashed them further in The Will to Power.

And Fascism cannot really be reconciled with Nietzschean thought unless Fascists are ridiculously selective and untrue to their own values. But that didn't stop them.

1. I question, prove me wrong.

2. Don't deny this, you can interpret him any way you want.

3. Sounds pretty philo-Semitic to me.
"The Jews are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe."

"I have always found the Jews more interesting than the Germans."

"The Jews, with Heinrich Heine and Offenbach, approached genius in the spheres of art."

[Joe McCarthy]

And Fascism cannot really be reconciled with Nietzschean thought unless Fascists are ridiculously selective and untrue to their own values. But that didn't stop them.

1. I question, prove me wrong.

2. Don't deny this, you can interpret him any way you want.

3. Sounds pretty philo-Semitic to me.
"The Jews are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe."

"I have always found the Jews more interesting than the Germans."

"The Jews, with Heinrich Heine and Offenbach, approached genius in the spheres of art."

Selective quoting is a dishonest argument. The Nazis spoke of the 'unquestioned genius' of the Jews in getting ahead commercially. I could take that in isolation and claim Nazis were philo-Semitic. As for Fascism and Nietzsche, I'll quote from Shirer's 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich', certainly a hostile anti-Nazi source:

There was some ground for this appropriation of Nietzsche as one of the originators of the Nazi Weltanschauung. Had not the philosopher thundered against democracy and parliaments, preached the will to power, praised war and proclaimed the coming of the master race and the superman--and in the most telling aphorisms? A Nazi could proudly quote him on almost every conceivable subject, and did. On Christianity: "the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion... I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind.... This Christianity is no more than the typical teaching of the Socialists." On the State, power, and the jungle world of man: "Society has never regarded virtue as anything other than as a means to strength, power, and order. The State [is] unmorality organized... the will to war, to conquest and revenge... Society is not entitled to exist for its own sake but only as a substructure and scaffolding by means of which a select race of beings may elevate themselves to their higher duties... There is no such thing as the right to live, the right to work, or the right to be happy: in this respect man is no different from the meanest worm." (Women, whom Nietzsche never had, he consigned to a distinctly inferior status, as did the Nazis, who decreed that their place was in the kitchen and their chief role in life to beget children for German warriors. Nietzsche put the idea this way: "Man shall be trained for war and woman for the procreation of the warrior. All else is folly." He went further. In Thus Spake Zarathustra he exclaims: "Thou goest to woman? Do not forget thy whip!"...) And he exalted the superman as the beast of prey, "the magnificent blond brute, avidly rampant for spoil and victory."

And war? Here Nietzsche took the view of most of the other nineteenth-century German thinkers. In the thundering Old Testament language in which Thus Spake Zarathustra is written, the philosopher cries out: "Ye shall love peace as a means to new war, and the short peace more than the long. You I advise not to work, but to fight. You I advise not to peace but to victory.... Ye say it is the good cause which halloweth even war? I say unto you: it is the good war which halloweth every cause. War and courage have done more great things than charity."

Finally there was Nietzsche's prophecy of the coming elite who would rule the world and from whom the superman would spring. In The Will to Power he exclaims: "A daring and ruler race is building itself up.... The aim should be to prepare a transvaluation of values for a particularly strong kind of man, most highly gifted in intellect and will. This man and the elite around him will become the 'lords of the earth'."


Here is Nietzsche in 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' sounding very much like he's extolling chauvinistic nationalism:

["Many lands saw Zarathustra, and many peoples: thus he discovered the good and bad of many peoples. No greater power did Zarathustra find on earth than good and bad. No people could live without first valuing; if a people will maintain itself, however, it must not value as its neighbour valueth. Much that passed for good with one people was regarded with scorn and contempt by another: thus I found it. Much found I here called bad, which was there decked with purple honours. Never did the one neighbour understand the other: ever did his soul marvel at his neighbour’s delusion and wickedness. A table of excellencies hangeth over every people. Lo! it is the table of their triumphs; lo! it is the voice of their Will to Power. It is laudable, what they think hard; what is indispensable and hard they call good; and what relieveth in the direst distress, the unique and hardest of all,—they extol as holy. Whatever maketh them rule and conquer and shine, to the dismay and envy of their neighbours, they regard as the high and foremost thing, the test and the meaning of all else." /QUOTE]

This is a good treatment of Niezsche's racism generally. I'll quote a few passages gleaned from 'On the Genealogy of Morals' and 'Beyond Good and Evil'.

http://www.friesian.com/nietzsch.htm

[QUOTE]One must be born to any superior world -- to make it plainer, one must be bred for it. One has a right to philosophy (taking the word in its greatest sense) only by virtue of one's breeding. One's ancestors, one's "blood" decides this, too. Many generations must have worked on the origin of a philosopher; each one of his virtues must have been separately earned, cared for, passed on, made flesh and blood.

For skepticism is the spiritual expression of a certain, varied physiological quality which in common language is called nervous weakness or sickliness. It arises every time long separated races or classes are crossed in a decisive and sudden way. Everything is restiveness, doubt, experimentation in the resultant new generation whose blood inherits, as it were, different standards and different values. The best of their powers have a blocking effect on one another; even their virtues do not let one another grow and become strong; balance, ballast, and perpendicular stablility are lacking in body and soul. But it is the will that is most deeply sick and degenerated in such cross-breeds; they no longer know independence of decision, or the courageous pleasure that lies in willing; they doubt the "freedom of the will" even in their dreams. Our Europe of today, the scene of senselessly sudden experiment in class upheaval (and hence race upheadval), is for this reason skeptical in all its heights and depths.

In the Latin word malus (to which I juxtapose mélas) the common man could be characterized as the dark-skinned and especially the dark-haired ('hic niger est --'), as the pre-Aryan occupant of Italian soil who could most easly be distiguished from the blond race which had become dominant, namely the Aryan conquering race, by its colour; at any rate, I have found exactly the same with Gaelic peoples, -- fin (for example in Fin-gal), the word designating the aristocracy and finally the good, noble, pure, was originally a blond person in contast to the dark-skinned, dark-haired native inhabitants. By the way, the Celts were a completely blond race; it is wrong to connect those traces of an essentially dark-haired population, which can be seen on carefully prepared ethnological maps in Germany, with any Celtic descent and mixing of blood in such a connection, as Virchow does: it is more a case of the pre-Aryan population of Germany emerging at these points. (The same holds good for virtually the whole of Europe: to all intents and purposes the subject race has ended up by regaining the upper hand in skin colour, shortness of forehead and perhaps even in intellectual and social instincts: who can give any guarantee that modern democracy, the even more modern anarchism, and indeed that predilection for the "commune", the most primitive form of social structure which is common to all Europe's socialists, are not in essence a huge counter-attack -- and that the conquering master race, that of the Aryans, is not physiologically being defeated as well?...)

By way of comfort to the milksops, I would also venture the suggestion that in those days pain did not hurt as much as it does today; at all events, such is the opinion of a doctor who has treated Negroes for complicated internal inflammations which would have driven the most stoical Europeans to distraction -- the assumption here being that the negro represents an earlier phase of human development

[Maponus]

It's still a fact a Fascist must ignore Nietzsche hostility to the state, remember, the state is central to the Fascist idea of nationhood. Nietzsche believed the state and glorification of the past (vital to both nazism and Fascism) were enemies of "true culture". Had Nietzsche been alive during the Fascist period, he most definitely would have attracted their ire. As he was dead, Fascists could quote him all they wanted.

[Joe McCarthy]

I'm aware of Nietzsche's anti-statist comments, though like in so much else, he seemed to contradict himself, and it's possible he's been misunderstood. In 'The Will to Power' he praises the 'artist-tyrant'. There is certainly much in his philosophy that lends itself to authoritarianism, and authoritarianism is hard to come by without a strong state.

[elbwgreez]

It's still a fact a Fascist must ignore Nietzsche hostility to the state, remember, the state is central to the Fascist idea of nationhood. Nietzsche believed the state and glorification of the past (vital to both nazism and Fascism) were enemies of "true culture". Had Nietzsche been alive during the Fascist period, he most definitely would have attracted their ire. As he was dead, Fascists could quote him all they wanted.

Why must a fascist (or anyone else) accept either everything a philosopher says or none of it? No one is ever right 100% of the time.

The mathematician Einstein created a long-lasting theory of physics early in his life, yet spent the last half of his life arguing against quantum physics because it interfered with his pet theory. He was evidently both right and wrong.

[Maponus]

I think the essential thing to hold in when discussing Nietzsche's politics is that Nietzschianism is a personal creed, an individual chooses to lead their life in a Nietzschian manner (i.e embraces their own will to power) but it's never a political or collective ideology. If your Mussolini or Hitler, you keep your love of Nietzsche in the background, because widespread acceptance of the will-to-power would lead to your own downfall as Messianic leader. People would try to gain power for themselves, not worship you as a saviour. Thus, we can see the difference between the public image of the socialist leader at one with the masses, and "true" image of the Nietzschian dictator who uses his position as a socialist leader to bed lots of females and satisfy his own ambition. Like Tito, who banned sex within the partisans as a gesture of purity in public, and broke the rule repeatedly himself.

Why must a fascist (or anyone else) accept either everything a philosopher says or none of it? No one is ever right 100% of the time.

Though Fascists often think in absolutes, it's true Mussolini didn't really give a great deal of heed to the "Fascist philosophers" such as Marinetti or Gentile when they said things he didn't agree with.