CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Would Marx have loved Hitlers socialist views?
Marx told the working class to seize control of the Machinery of the capitalist class and take control , Jews were mainly the capitalist class in Germany Hitler followed Marx to the letter .....I think Marx would have been impressed
Here we have Hitler in his own words on Marxism .......
. Hermann Rauschning, , a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.
I believe capitalism is a “Jew” plot - I wholeheartedly do. I don’t believe Hitler was racist in genetics - he just realized that Jews dominated the capitalism scheme
the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed by their followers to form the basis for the theory and practice of communism.
So, today the billionaires dominate the capitalism scheme, AND the major part of the treasure of MANY nations. Why are they any better?? Many of THEM are Jews, many aren't, some communists (Putin), some authoritarian dictators, some "religious leaders", some crooks (maybe ALL)?
Capitalism MUST BE CONTROLLED! The "rumor" that they are what improves the world is a "convenient" phrase they spread around to make some people believe we can't get along without them, and a lot of people DO believe. WE, the people, need to be in control OF capitalism. To a "reasonable" extent!
AL you don't know SHIT because your doctor explained you have SHIT FOR BRAINS !!!!!!!
Marx·ism
the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed by their followers to form the basis for the theory and practice of communism.
To environmentalists across Australia, it is a baffling anachronism in an era of climate change: the construction of a 4,000-acre mine in New South Wales that will churn out carbon-laden coal for the next 30 years.
The mine’s groundbreaking, in a state forest this year, inspired a veteran to stand in front of a bulldozer and a music teacher to chain himself to a piece of excavation equipment.
But the project had an unlikely financial backer in the United States, whose infusion of cash helped set it in motion: Tom Steyer, the most influential environmentalist in American politics, who has vowed to spend $100 million this year to defeat candidates who oppose policies to combat climate change.
Mr. Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund manager, emerged this election season as the green-minded answer to Charles G. and David H. Koch, the patrons of conservative Republican politics, after vowing that he would sell off his investments in companies that generate fossil fuels like coal.
But an examination of those investments shows that even after his highly public divestment, the coal-related projects his firm bankrolled will generate tens of millions of tons of carbon pollution for years, if not decades, to come.
Over the past 15 years, Mr. Steyer’s fund, Farallon Capital Management, has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into companies that operate coal mines and coal-fired power plants from Indonesia to China, records and interviews show.
AL this shows how FUCKIN STUPID you are !!!!!!!!!!!!! ROTFFLMMFAO !!!!!!!!!
GODDAMN BOY you cannot use the Amazing Al Gore Internet ???????
I’m not saying all rediculously rich people are Jews or even that all Jews are rich and evil. I’m saying that Jews INVENTED the usurious / parasitic system that allows the small percentage to suck off the majority. Simple.
>>>but killing the Jews wAs the wrong tactic. A much better tactic would be to KILL their BOOK!! Kill the Bible
I believe capitalism is a “Jew” plot - I wholeheartedly do. I don’t believe Hitler was racist in genetics - he just realized that Jews dominated the capitalism scheme
You're making real socialists look bad. Hitler wasn't a fucking national socialist he was a far right wing fascist dickhead which is proven by his actions and how he simply co-opted left wing ideas to gain the support of the working class.
Here we have a founding father in his own words on capitalism:
Adam Smith, who wrote THE book on capitalism, "The Wealth of Nations", in 1776 Wrote:
"The necessities of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent getting it."
"The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities they possess."
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in PROPORTION to their revenue, but something MORE than that proportion."
MY kind'a guy! Sounds a BIT like what today's cons call "socialism" doesn't it??
That was capitalism THEN (When America was Great??). The man who "says" he want's to "make it great AGAIN", does just the opposite … takes from the poor and gives to the rich!
SCREW "national socialism", SCREW "Marxism", SCREW "capitalism", as they've been corrupted. We need to put together the best parts of the best systems and make our own "democratic" social/capitalistic system that takes FROM the founders of them, their well meaning ideas, and makes something FAIR!
-Second, the quote appears (only appears) to be a progressive tax, which is not socialism.
-Third, the context of the quote shows that he is talking about property rents. Smith argues for luxury tax, and not a tax on necessities. Since property is a necessity at the lower end which becomes a luxury at the higher end, property rents would fall to the wealthy in more than the proportion that it would fall to the poor.
-Fourth, Smith’s first maxim on the topic of taxation indicates a preference for a flat tax, wherein each pays “in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy”. If there is a flat tax on luxuries, the the rich would naturally pay more than their proportion. While Smith’s first maxim might seem to stand against this circumstance, Smith nonetheless finds it “not very unreasonable”, hardly a ringing endorsement.
The point is, capitalism ain't what it used to be. Smith WAS a prominent figure when he was around. He may not be LISTED as a founding father, but, those who had prominent things to do WITH the founding of this nation, to me, is a founding father. HE is more a founding father than Trump is a President, for instance. HE helped with the founding, HE never cavorted with the enemy.
If you want the rich to keep running the government, being able to write their own laws and tax rules, if you wantU.S. to "like" secret meetings between our "President" and those who would LOVE to see U.S. collapse, you have that right. If you trust the ma … guy doing those things, you have a nice life! I WANT CHANGE (back to when America WAS great), THAT is NOT going to come from one who cares for himself, only.
Smith was a British subject before, during, and after the American Revolution.
If you want the rich to keep running the government
Poor people are often not qualified.
being able to write their own laws and tax rules
Which laws are the rich people laws they wrote for themselves, and why did they write tax code to give themselves such an out-sized tax burden?
But you're right, a very simple (almost no exemptions) flat tax starting at middle class income would be much better.
if you wantU.S. to "like" secret meetings between our "President" and those who would LOVE to see U.S. collapse
I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. President's have always had secret meetings with all kinds of people. The Red Phone between the White House and the Kremlin was established in 1963. It probably helped keep the world from ending.
AL that was a BEAUTIFUL rant from a BRAIN DEAD IDIOT !!!!!!!!!!!!
Marx·ism
the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed by their followers to form the basis for the theory and practice of communism.
Are you COMMUNIST there AL that is the question !!!!!!!!!!
As always, I can trust a right winger to cherry pick something and use it to flip reality face down ass up. But I will not let you molest the truth this time, because the greatest enemy of the Nazis was actually Marxism.
The Nazis co-opted Socialist and Marxist ideas but did not put them into practice.
"The political views of Adolf Hitler have presented historians and biographers with some difficulty. His writings and methods were often adapted to need and circumstance, although there were some steady themes, including anti-semitism, anti-communism...Hitler personally claimed he was fighting against Jewish Marxism"
"Hitler and the Nazis promoted a socially conservative view concerning many aspects of life, supported by harsh discipline and a militaristic point of view.[73] Conservative opinions about sexuality amid the Nazis led to extreme homophobia which resulted in the systematic persecution of homosexuals"
"Since democratic ideals espoused equality for all men, it represented to Hitler and his Nazi ideologues the notion of mob rule and the hatred of excellence"
"Although Hitler realized that his ascension to power required the use of the Weimar Republic’s parliamentary system (founded on democratic principles), he never intended for the continuation of democratic governance once in control. Contrarily, Hitler proclaimed that he would "destroy democracy with the weapons of democracy."[99] The rapid transition made by the Nazis once they assumed control clearly reveals that Hitler succeeded in this regard."
"In Hitler's mind, communism was a major enemy of Germany, an enemy he often mentions in Mein Kampf. During the trial for his involvement in the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler claimed that his singular goal was to assist the German government in "fighting Marxism".[102] Marxism, Bolshevism, and communism were interchangeable terms for Hitler as evidenced by their use in Mein Kampf"
"Later in his seminal tome, Hitler advocated for "the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms."[104] According to Hitler, Marxism was a Jewish strategy to subjugate Germany and the world and saw Marxism as a mental and political form of slavery."
"Because Nazism co-opted the popular success of communism among working people while simultaneously promising to destroy communism and offer an alternative to it, Hitler's anti-communist program allowed industrialists with traditional conservative views (tending toward monarchism, aristocracy, and laissez-faire capitalism) to cast their lot with, and help underwrite, the Nazi rise to power.[114][115]"
The whole of national Socialism was based on Marx , why can you commies only take praise from certain people?
Hitler was full of admiration for yous accept it and lat Marx take the praise .
Your attempt at a defence is laughable a copy and pasted opinion piece from wiki, here you have it in Hitlers own words try researching next time buddy
Hitlers differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.
You need to be insane to accept any of them ALONE, with their "inefficiency's". We have to move forward and improve. Kind'a stupid to not be "progressive". The word "Again" suggests going backward, why? WE want to LEARN and move forward … PROGRESS! ;-)
the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed by their followers to form the basis for the theory and practice of communism.
Hitler wasn't a Marxist, or a socialist by the Marxist definition. The only thing "socialist" about Nazism was the party's name. Nothing in their policies was representative of socialism, which is a necessarily democratic, not tyrannic, state of rule.
Hitler wasn't a Marxist, or a socialist by the Marxist definition
What exactly is a Marxist can you give one clear cut example?
. The only thing "socialist" about Nazism was the party's name.
Really ? Yet Hitler claimed he took Marxist theory one step further and acknowledged a debt to Marxist thinking
Nothing in their policies was representative of socialism, which is a necessarily democratic, not tyrannic, state of rule.
A sizable percentage of Jews controlled the banks and industry in Germany Hitler did exactly as Marx advocated as in seizing control from the capitalist class
Again you seem to be playing the favoured Socialist game as in The no true Scotsman’s fallacy , no one or nothing is ever a socialist or socialism unless it fits the ever changing Utopian definition of the term
Give me one example of a Socialist state or person that would fit your criteria?
The dictionary definition suffices: political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Nazism was not this. Nazi production, distribution and exchange was taken into the remit of the tyrannical Nazi government and/or military, not of the German citizenry. This is tyranny, not social ownership.
As for Hitler's claims, Hitler claimed quite a lot of things, many of which happened to be false. Hitler claiming to practice political Marxism or socialism is irrelevant to what he actually practiced. I could claim I am a head of broccoli but it would not be true as I am neither green, nor a plant.
To believe Hitler practices socialism based entirely on the claims he makes, without examining the evidence to the contrary, is akin to believing that I am a head of broccoli, and ignoring the evidence that I can write and respond to you.
Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists , particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their programs called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen
It's quite clear that you didn't read the definition properly. Nationalisation is not inherently or necessarily the same as socialisation. If the control of the nationalised entities rests solely in the hands of a few chosen autocrats then that is not socialisation, but fascism.
The Nazi ideology in fact rejected the Marxist idea of class warfare as it was a threat to the subordination of the populace (this is perfectly illustrated in the various times protests were quelled with ferocity and violence by the Nazi government). Hitler used the "rich Jews" as a scapegoat to fool the lower-classes into revolt, which lent him support, but once he had control, Hitler did not keep to his rhetoric about struggling against the upper class (of which he had just become a part of). Hitler, openly disdained liberal democracy (illustrated in the making of himself the Führer, rather than merely "the Chancellor" as his predecessor had been). Hitler then attempted to redefine socialism by impregnating it with populism, social Darwinism and nationalism, quite clearly with much success considering your views on the matter.
Regardless, it is quite apparent, for all to see, that Hitlerian socioeconomics did not give power over infrastructure, production and exchange to the German people, but rather to Hitler himself, and to the upper echelons of the Nazi party, who benefitted handsomely with their various houses and material possessions. Again, this is a form of tyrannical statism (not unlike Stalinism in various respects), where the populace is explicitly made subordinate to the state and more specifically the state's officials.
How many good German citizens were terrorised and executed by the SS for opposing the Nazi ideologies? It is hardly a country built on the ideas of community control of the country whenever the community are persecuted by a rigid, regimental, statist government of elites.
The Social Democratic party (a much more "socialist" German party than the Nazis) were imprisoned by the Nazis and put in concentration camps along with the Jews, the disabled, homosexuals and the elderly. The Nazis also completely banned trade unions (which in Marist ideology are vital bridges towards socialist society) and then eventually every other political party apart from the Nazis.
Thus, the claim that the Nazis were a socialist government (facilitators of the community ownership and control of production and exchange) is ludicrous. Hitler was anti-democracy, anti-worker's rights, anti-union, anti-freedom of expression, anti-disabled rights. The populace became entirely subordinate to Hitler and his close allies.
In socialism, the populace are the state, for all intents and purposes. Socialism is a necessarily bottom-upwards democracy, where the people of the country directly shape its socioeconomic policy by direct participation and popular consent: they control the country.
Do you think the German populace, upon Hitler making himself "Führer" and witnessing and feeling the despicable horror that followed, felt in control of their country?
You totally ignored my original question as in what’s a Marxist and can you give me an example?
Was Marx a Marxist?
Definitions for Socialism are forever changing as the socialist does the usual dance as in The no true Scotsman fallacy anything that’s unpalatable is never Socialism is it?
You also neatly avoided what I said by claiming the Jews were merely scapegoats , but the Jews were the Capitalist class mostly so it seems by Hitler following Marxist tradition he’s not following Marxist theory only if the capitalist class is non Jewish?
You’re obviously totally unaware of what Marx said regards Jews .......
Karl Marx
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".
Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry ("Judentum" in Marx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx's essay in German was "Zur Judenfrage", which -- while not necessarily derogatory in itself -- is nonetheless exactly the same [removed]"Jewish question") that Hitler used in his famous phrase "Endloesung der Judenfrage" ("Final solution of the Jewish question").
Nor much difference there again on the Views Of Hitler and Marx on Jews is there?
Adolf Hitler
"Stalin and I are the only ones who envisage the future and nothing but the future. Accordingly, I shall in a few weeks stretch out my hand to Stalin at the common German-Russian frontier and undertake the redistribution of the world with him. "
Adolf Hitler
National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.
You obviously don't get satire lol. I suggest you read the entire text of Marx's Zur "Judenfrage" (On "the Jewish Question") for yourself, which was for the first part a scathing response to the highly antisemitic vitriol of Bruno Bauer's Die Judenfrage (the Jewish Question). As you'll find in the text, Marx heavily criticises the antisemitic writings of Bauer by extrapolating his arguments to absurdity (as in the example you've given above).
It is a piece of sarcasm, with a brilliant point: Marx points out near the end that Jews, in fact, are entitled to the same economic and social emancipation as every other German.
He also wasn't against the ownership of private property, or the abolition of religion, as is often erroneously claimed.
"The political annulment of private property not only fails to abolish private property, but even presupposes it. The state abolishes, in its own way, distinctions of birth, social rank, education, occupation, when it declares that birth, social rank, education, occupation, are non-political distinctions [ie. political and social equality and empowerment, beyond race, age, education and social rank -- the very biases which led to the Holocaust in the first place], when it proclaims, without regard to these distinctions, that every member of the nation is an equal participant in national sovereignty, when it treats all elements of the real life of the nation from the standpoint of the state. Nevertheless, the state allows private property, education, occupation, to act in their way".
Socialism isn't Nazism, or serf-ism, or tyranny. It's free and equal participation.
I don’t think you’re in a position to judge the “obvious “ as it totally eludes you as your reinvention of Marx’s views clearly demomstrate ....Lol
I suggest you read the entire text of Marx's Zur "Judenfrage"
I have read it so your assumption is incorrect
On "the Jewish Question") for yourself, which was for the first part a scathing response to the highly antisemitic vitriol of Bruno Bauer's Die Judenfrage (the Jewish Question). As you'll find in the text, Marx heavily criticises the antisemitic writings of Bauer by extrapolating his arguments to absurdity (as in the example you've given above).
Now that’s funny , you’re speaking absolute bullshit take your Marxist glasses off and do a bit of research Marx’s hatred for the Jews ,Mexicans and Blacks is a given to most except people like you who reinvent Marx into the ideal socialists imagine he was, incidentally the millionaire “socialist “Engels also detested Jews, Blacks and Mexicans although maybe when he said so in his correspondence with Marx he was being “satirical”
It is a piece of sarcasm, with a brilliant point: Marx points out near the end that Jews, in fact, are entitled to the same economic and social emancipation as every other German.
Nonsense , your use of the term satire regarding Marx’s views on Jews strongly suggests you’re merely parroting the revisionist Marxist views of Professor Robert Fine who is yet another Marxist apologist who spouts bullshit.
From Philosophers mag
In fact, so commonly held is the view that Marx was an anti-Semite that in 1964, Shlomo Avineri, a leading commentator on Marx, stated (“Marx and Jewish Emancipation,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 1964) “That Karl Marx was an inveterate antisemite is today considered a commonplace which is hardly ever questioned.” Despite the opinions of numerous commentators, for Professor Fine, Marx’s stated views are not anti-Semitic but “witty” and “ironic.” In On the Jewish Question, Marx discusses the “practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world.” I am not sure whether this is “witty” or “ironic.” Perhaps Professor Fine would like to explain. Marx’s essay also contains accusations against the Jewish religion which Marx says has “Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself.” Witty? Ironic? I think not.
To the credit of Professor Fine, he does not exonerate the left: “modern, political anti-Semitism is a creature of the left as well as the right” but what he does seem to do is disassociate left antisemitism from Marx.
Ulrike Meinhof of the Marxist Red Army Faction posed the question “How was Auschwitz possible, what was anti-Semitism?” and stated the opinion that “Auschwitz means that six million Jews were murdered and carted on to the rubbish dumps of Europe for being that which was maintained of them—Money-Jews.” As far as she was concerned, hatred of Jews was actually the hatred of capitalism and hence the murder of the Israeli Olympic team, at 1972 Munich Olympics, was not only justified but something that could be praised. Whilst Meinhof’s explanation is perverse, it seems to me that such an interpretation can be explained if one’s understanding of how Marxists should view Jews is obtained from Marx’s own essay,On the Jewish Question.
When considering Marx and his views towards Jews, one must go further than his infamous essay, his correspondence also needs to be considered. Marx used the Bambergers to borrow money but showed contempt for them. In a derogatory fashion he referred to the father and son as “Jew Bamberger” or “little Jew Bamberger.” Similarly, Spielmann, whose name appears frequently in correspondence between Marx and Engels was referred to as “Jew Spielmann.” When on holiday in Ramsgate in 1879, Marx reported to Engels that the resort contained “many Jews and fleas.” In an earlier letter to Engels, Marx referred to Ferdinand Lassalle as a “Jewish nigger.” Professor Fine has not discussed this but I do not see such comments as “witty” or “ironic,” they are simply racist.
If they are not ignoring such expressions, apologists for Marx will even try and whitewash them. In a 1942 Soviet English language publication of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Selected Correspondence, 1846-1895, such terminology could not be ignored and the following note (cited by Diane Paul, “‘In the Interests of Civilization’: Marxist Views of Race and Culture in the Nineteenth Century,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 1981) was included:
With reference to the use of the word “nigger” which occurs in this book: Marx used the word while living in England, in the last century. The word does not have the same connotation as it has now in the U.S. and should be read as “Negro” whenever it occurs in the text.
The excuse seems to be along the lines of: “Yes, a racist term is used, but pretend that a non racist term was used instead.” It is a simply ludicrous excuse and it exposes the depths to which apologists of Marx will sink.
It was in his article, “The Russian Loan,” published in the New-York Daily Tribune on January 4, 1856, that the grotesque antisemitism of Karl Marx’s writing was on full display:
Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.
… the real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loanmongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securities… Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a traveler’s valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader… The language spoken smells strongly of Babel, and the perfume which otherwise pervades the place is by no means of a choice kind.
… Thus do these loans, which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah. This Jew organization of loan-mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners… The fortunes amassed by these loan-mongers are immense, but the wrongs and sufferings thus entailed on the people and the encouragement thus afforded to their oppressors still remain to be told.
… The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, and that the moneychangers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence. The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose and stigmatize their organization.
He also wasn't against the ownership of private property, or the abolition of religion, as is often erroneously claimed.
"The political annulment of private property not only fails to abolish private property, but even presupposes it. The state abolishes, in its own way, distinctions of birth, social rank, education, occupation, when it declares that birth, social rank, education, occupation, are non-political distinctions [ie. political and social equality and empowerment, beyond race, age, education and social rank -- the very biases which led to the Holocaust in the first place], when it proclaims, without regard to these distinctions, that every member of the nation is an equal participant in national sovereignty, when it treats all elements of the real life of the nation from the standpoint of the state. Nevertheless, the state allows private property, education, occupation, to act in their way".
Yes , yes I’ve heard all this tripe before Marx seems to have changed positions more times than a cheap hooker on a Saturday night
Socialism isn't Nazism, or serf-ism, or tyranny. It's free and equal participation.
Yeah sure heaven is full of happily people , laughter , fun and music it’s easy for Marx to suggest these Utopian societies maybe try giving a sample of one .....or two?
Okay Michael Ezra ... here's an idea. Learn to speak German, and do your own reading, instead of plagiarising someone else's.
Okay comrade Stalin ...Here’s an idea. Instead of quoting the ideas of Robert Fine to justify your racist opinions why not admit you just hate Jews?
Because you learned German no doubt to study the finer details of Mein Kampf I think I’ll pass
B T W I gave full credit for the piece I posted which you ignored in a failed attempt to justify your racism , I post below the definition of plagiarise maybe you would like it in German so you re -invent what you think it means?
plagiarize
/ˈpleɪdʒərʌɪz/
verb
gerund or present participle: plagiarizing
1. take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own."he was fined $6,000 for having plagiarized the song"
4 3 copy, pass off as one's own, infringe the copyright of, pirate, steal, poach, borrow, appropriate; More
* ◦ take the work or an idea of (someone) and pass it off as one's own."the author claims she was plagiarized"
I have absolutely no problem with Jews, or indeed black people, Asians, Buddhists, Taoists, Zulus, Afrikaans, Incas, Mexicans or Muslims.
I just find it incredible that anybody who considers themselves well-read can look at On the Jewish Question and not see it as a rebuttal of Bauer's work. It's quite plainly so. It's even in the title.
I also find it incredible that anybody can conflate Stalinism and Marxist Socialism. Id' suggest you read some Christopher Hitchens to help rectify that error. And for goodness sake, is it possible that someone has a different perspective on something without being a fundamentally racist Jew-hater? You are always so quick to jump on the offensive "Oh he obviously hates Jews". No lol I hate idiots, people with victim mentalities, manipulators, aggressors, people who twist things and jump to the extremis of insult and defamation in order to attempt to win a debate.
I have actually said nothing racist. I've given you my reading of Marx's work as being a rebuttal to the actual anti-Semitism of Bruno Bauer. That's an interpretational disparity between you and I. And all of a sudden, I'm a Mein Kampf reading, Jew-hating, Stalinist, Nazi?
Can you answer the question: When did I say you were lying about being a Jew?
Hello again, sean:
is it possible that someone has a different perspective on something without being a fundamentally racist Jew-hater?
There are Jew haters on this site. They change their names like I change underwear.. So, I dunno if you're one of them, or just SOUND like one of them.. They think hate is a perspective too.
So, you're either a Jew hater, sound like a Jew hater, or an apologist for Jew haters.. It makes no difference to me.
I have absolutely no problem with Jews, or indeed black people, Asians, Buddhists, Taoists, Zulus, Afrikaans, Incas, Mexicans or Muslims.
Yet you say a man who openly detested Jews was merely being satirical, Marx’s detestation of Jews can be evidenced in his correspondence your failure to acknowledge this is telling
I just find it incredible that anybody who considers themselves well-read can look at On the Jewish Question and not see it as a rebuttal of Bauer's work.
I find it incredible that anyone who considers themselves well read on reading Marx’s can not admit his detestation of Jews.......from your piece .......
What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.
Great piece of “satire” isn’t it?
It's quite plainly so. It's even in the title.
I guess his correspondence likewise with its contemptible anti Jewish sentiments eludes you also even though it’s quiet” plainly so”?
I also find it incredible that anybody can conflate Stalinism and Marxist Socialism.
You seem to find all differing opinions “incredible”
Id' suggest you read some Christopher Hitchens to help rectify that error.
I’m more than familiar with Hitchens work your appeal to authority is noted though
And for goodness sake, is it possible that someone has a different perspective on something without being a fundamentally racist Jew-hater?
It is possible but if you deny the words of Marx’s correspondence you’re defending his blatant racism as in on Mexicans “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it “
Again from Philosophersmag can you explain how this is not an example of Marx’s racism or is it more “satire”...........
When considering Marx and his views towards Jews, one must go further than his infamous essay, his correspondence also needs to be considered. Marx used the Bambergers to borrow money but showed contempt for them. In a derogatory fashion he referred to the father and son as “Jew Bamberger” or “little Jew Bamberger.” Similarly, Spielmann, whose name appears frequently in correspondence between Marx and Engels was referred to as “Jew Spielmann.” When on holiday in Ramsgate in 1879, Marx reported to Engels that the resort contained “many Jews and fleas.” In an earlier letter to Engels, Marx referred to Ferdinand Lassalle as a “Jewish nigger.” Professor Fine has not discussed this but I do not see such comments as “witty” or “ironic,” they are simply racist.
You are always so quick to jump on the offensive "Oh he obviously hates Jews".
Offensive? No I’m merely pointing out what you’re defending that which is racism because it’s just fine once Marx is doing it isn’t it?
No lol I hate idiots
The mirror must be your mortal enemy so
, people with victim mentalities, manipulators, aggressors, people who twist things and jump to the extremis of insult and defamation in order to attempt to win a debate.
Why are you using all these tactics so? You’re a racist you call the naked racism of Marx satire do you deny this?
I have actually said nothing racist. I've given you my reading of Marx's work as being a rebuttal to the actual anti-Semitism of Bruno Bauer. That's an interpretational disparity between you and I.
You’ve defended baked racism do you deny it?
And all of a sudden, I'm a Mein Kampf reading, Jew-hating, Stalinist, Nazi?
Wow.
You sneeringly suggested I learned German so as in some way make a point that the text had to be read in German for what is beyond me , you then went on to call me Mark Ezra what do you expect back you idiot?
It's quite clear that you didn't read the definition properly.
It’s quiet clear you didn’t understand my reply as in ......Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists , particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their programs called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen
That's socialism plain and simple
End of story
Nationalisation is not inherently or necessarily the same as socialisation. If the control of the nationalised entities rests solely in the hands of a few chosen autocrats then that is not socialisation, but fascism.
The Nazi ideology in fact rejected the Marxist idea of class warfare as it was a threat to the subordination of the populace (this is perfectly illustrated in the various times protests were quelled with ferocity and violence by the Nazi government). Hitler used the "rich Jews" as a scapegoat to fool the lower-classes into revolt, which lent him support, but once he had control, Hitler did not keep to his rhetoric about struggling against the upper class (of which he had just become a part of). Hitler, openly disdained liberal democracy (illustrated in the making of himself the Führer, rather than merely "the Chancellor" as his predecessor had been). Hitler then attempted to redefine socialism by impregnating it with populism, social Darwinism and nationalism, quite clearly with much success considering your views on the matter.
Regardless, it is quite apparent, for all to see, that Hitlerian socioeconomics did not give power over infrastructure, production and exchange to the German people, but rather to Hitler himself, and to the upper echelons of the Nazi party, who benefitted handsomely with their various houses and material possessions. Again, this is a form of tyrannical statism (not unlike Stalinism in various respects), where the populace is explicitly made subordinate to the state and more specifically the state's officials.
Thank you for that piece directly from the Socialists Workers Party latest definition of Socialism
How many good German citizens were terrorised and executed by the SS for opposing the Nazi ideologies?
How many good Russians were terrorized for opposing Socialism?
It is hardly a country built on the ideas of community control of the country whenever the community are persecuted by a rigid, regimental, statist government of elites.
The Social Democratic party (a much more "socialist" German party than the Nazis) were imprisoned by the Nazis and put in concentration camps along with the Jews, the disabled, homosexuals and the elderly. The Nazis also completely banned trade unions (which in Marist ideology are vital bridges towards socialist society) and then eventually every other political party apart from the Nazis.
Thus, the claim that the Nazis were a socialist government (facilitators of the community ownership and control of production and exchange) is ludicrous. Hitler was anti-democracy, anti-worker's rights, anti-union, anti-freedom of expression, anti-disabled rights. The populace became entirely subordinate to Hitler and his close allies.
In socialism, the populace are the state, for all intents and purposes. Socialism is a necessarily bottom-upwards democracy, where the people of the country directly shape its socioeconomic policy by direct participation and popular consent: they control the country.
I’ve heard all this nonsense before regarding what Utopian Socialism is about its pure bullshit Hitler like Marx believed in destroying the “machinery of oppression” as in the capitalist class who were mainly Jews Marx was on the exact same page suck it up accept it and move on.
Do you think the German populace, upon Hitler making himself "Führer" and witnessing and feeling the despicable horror that followed, felt in control of their country?
Ask the same of the Russian population regarding Stalin maybe?