Care to refute what I wrote?
Goebbels even wrote a New York Times piece on how similar Nazism and Marxism actually were.
Name me one mainstream economist who is advocating Marx's ideas. Marx is nothing more than a historical footnote for historians these days, he may be mentioned in college classes but no one in their right minds would take his ideas seriously.if marx was discredited then why do people still read his books and use his methodology to study financial crises today
certainly more than "naive" people or "fanatical communists" remember marx otherwise would there even be (probably) hundreds of threads with his name in the title just in this forum? or even more mentions of his name in forum posts
Name me one mainstream economist who is advocating Marx's ideas.
Marx is nothing more than a historical footnote for historians these days, he may be mentioned in college classes but no one in their right minds would take his ideas seriously.
As far as the Marx posts in this forum- you have a lot of naive kids here who have never been out in the world and dont have a clue as to what reality is and they are the only ones fawning over him.
Only in the internet can commies and Nazis get a second life.
why are you so eager to take a nazis words to heart for one and two, after a cursory google search, i dont see anything written by goebbels in the NYT
Completely contrary to what all the Starbucks Leftists here would tell you, Marx did in fact advocate racialism and genocide as his quotes and writings amply demonstrate. He was the prime ideological bedrock for the structural groundwork of Soviet Communist ideology as well as early National Socialism. Hitler read Marx as did many early Nazis then tuned Marxism, as did the Soviets, to their own nations cultures.
Goebbels even wrote a New York Times piece on how similar Nazism and Marxism actually were.
Trying to remove Nazi or Soviet ideology from Marxism is like trying to remove milk from breakfast cereal.
You obviously havent read a whole lot, Austrian and libertarian concepts are mainstream- in fact it was libertarian concepts that have encouraged economic booms in a number of countries.for ideas to have merit they have to be mainstream? doesnt look good for libertarianism or austrian economics either then lol
Yes, they are. There's plenty of morons who still think communism will solve anything yet history and current events continues to prove them wrong. All one has to do is look at whats happening to Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.Zapatista Army of National Liberation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Naxalite
Syriza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Podemos (Spanish political party) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
damn that's a lot of crazy people
You obviously havent read a whole lot, Austrian and libertarian concepts are mainstream- in fact it was libertarian concepts that have encouraged economic booms in a number of countries.
Chicago Boys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Miracle of Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, they are. There's plenty of morons who still think communism will solve anything yet history and current events continues to prove them wrong. All one has to do is look at whats happening to Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
Yes, we know, you saw a picture on the internets and a YouTube video so you are an expert.
so.... will we be racist in 200 years?
You one of those world revolution types?do you really think its this simple
none of these countries on their own have enough of an industrial base nor the natural resources to bring about socialism
Probably not.
Any remnants of such folk will be ostracized.
At that point, even Asia will have had to grow up.
You one of those world revolution types?
You one of those world revolution types?
i dunno. are you one of those "any social spending is socialism" types
dont agree ....every generation believes they are smarter and better then the one before them.
ow I share neither in the opinions of Ricardo, who regards ‘Net-Revenue’ as the Moloch to whom entire populations must be sacrificed, without even so much as complaint, nor in the opinion of Sismondi, who, in his hypochondriacal philanthropy, would forcibly retain the superannuated methods of agriculture and proscribe science from industry, as Plato expelled poets from his Republic. Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way. But can there be anything more puerile, more short-sighted, than the views of those Economists who believe in all earnest that this woeful transitory state means nothing but adapting society to the acquisitive propensities of capitalists, both landlords and money-lords? In Great Britain the working of that process is most transparent. The application of modern science to production clears the land of its inhabitants, but it concentrates people in manufacturing towns.
I know this thread is very hard for you Redress. I know. But you're going to make it I promise. It isn't so bad. Think about it. Your forum friends will still treat you as the resident forum leftist and never question your total lack of even basic ideological soundness in a historical context. It'll be alright I promise. I'm not going to touch your forum leftist social clique throne. Frankly you're out of your depth with people I'd consider ideological simpletons so for me to even grant you a response is really mentally revolting to me in and of itself.
See, here is your problem. I know my history. I did not learn it from pictures on the internets nor youtube videos, but by studying and reading a ton of books. I know that trying to claim Marx as a racist is silly, and not even remotely as silly as thinking it would matter even if he was. I am not a fan of Marx(Karl, I love Groucho and Chico and Harpo), but that does not mean I need to spread misinformation about him.
In 1911, the year he turned 27, Truman wrote to his future wife, Bess: "I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman."
"(Uncle Will) does hate Chinese and Japs," Truman continued. "So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America."
Perhaps the video you link has a point, but the quote that you provide here literally has no relevance to Karl Marx being a racist. Here is the entire quote from the original source.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/04.htm
In other words, he is not endorsing the elimination of people of certain races here, he is endorsing the idea of eliminating race as a structural barrier between peoples.
"There's not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."
You don't think racism will be mostly archaic in 200 years, how long do you think it will take?
@bold: Holds true in some respects.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?