Karl Marx Was A Racist - Sargon of Akkad

All you have to do is realize people like Sargon are actually legitimately uneducated idiots. We're smarter. One day one of our YouTube ideologues will debate with him and win.

That will never happen. Sargon is a pussyass little bitch.

meant for

Sargon of sjwism

No the way to do it is to push him further and further right until he goes full nazi so that he loses mainstream appeal.

This.
Anytime he engages you on twitter, he pusses out the moment it starts looking like he hasnt read enough.

WTF i hate marx now

/thread

Right-wingers: Your feelings don't matter in an argument.

Also Right-wingers: Marx was rayciss.

If Marx's racism was just a product of the times does this mean your anti racism is merely a product of the times as well?

In America, being full Nazi gives you lots of mainstream appeal, because being a Nazi is mainstream now. Lots of children today definitely questioning whether or not the Nazis did anything wrong. Same phenomenon as young leftists today, we weren't born with the Red Scare or Nazism.

It's a product of advanced scientific philosophy determining that race and ethnicity is superficial when it comes to mental development, and if everyone is equal on a class level, education is essentially equal as well. There will always be retarded people.

Reactionaries exist solely to defend capitlaism. They do not really care for the truth and will use any means necessary to defend their cherished socioeconomic system. Devoting large amounts of time to engaging them is pointless, though obvious lies should be countered. Meanwhile the left should be focusing on ruining these people's careers in other ways.

Yeah probably. I don't exist in a vacuum.

Just because kids are made to learn times tables, that doesn't invalidate the truthfulness of multiplication.

Into the trash you go, Mr. Thread

I actually love this idea.
Purging Holla Forums just like in 1930's from cucks would be Amazing.
Ancom's are weakest links (basically modern beta antifa tier)
Soc Democrats were always liberal cucks pretending to be socialist
Maoist are homosexual degenerates

sure…..

...

I'm impressed, I felt so embarrassed from the retardation in that that thread I had to take a two-minute break from the computer.

wat

I know what you mean user, I used to wonder why people became tankies but every day I'm closer to seeing why

...

...

Isn't most of Cuckkad's fanbase racist?
Shouldn't they like Marx now?

They are libertard racists who cannot decide whether or not they are racial supremacists or just hate niggers.

Don't they feel slightly conflicted for shitting on someone for being racist while being racist?
Or am I giving these mongs too much credit?

No. They don't even think of themselves as "racist." They will be the first to tell you that they don't mind black people (as long as they agree with them and don't act out.) They are really only racist because they support racist policies and racist institutions. They see racism as a sort of personal sin rather than the result of government action.

I imagine they are the kinds of people that think communism fails everytime, but the Roman empire only fell because of allowing inferior races to live there

they're liberal centrists who don't recognize their own racism.

are you referring to the anglo?

These people are total morons.

I smell a continental. Smells like manure and envy.

no

Lol, the delusions of these pseudopsychologists is too much to bear.

Well in Europe the left often allies with neoliberals in order to stop "evil racists" from taking over and ruining their plans for fiscal austerity. So they aren't totally wrong.

Hmm, I wonder who could be behind this post…

That is a literal fact.

Are you not sure those are not usually centre-leftists that suck up to neolibs? France is the most recent example, Hamon bent over to Macron like a bitch he is while Melenchon refused to do so.

the KKE is NazBol. Die Linke will be NazBol soon as well.

Yes, that's a very good example user.

And your post reply is built on the false premise that fascists don't entrench capital, just like libs

loud and dumb continental scum

Hmm, I wonder who could be behind this post…

So was honest Abe.
Didn't stop him from liberating slaves though.

k

lol, I bet this is because of Shaun.

Abe didn't want to free slaves though. He simply wanted the war to end and even said that he'd keep slavery if the war ended. The only union leader that was based was sherman.

Uhhh if Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and didn't want to abolish slavery and didn't think of it as a blight on America, he would not have allied with radical abolitionist Republicans who had a minority in the house and then abolish slavery by executive order.

1. True, and that was wrong of him

2. Who fucking cares he probably only saw black people in literal human zoos so considering thats the society he lives in cut him a break

3. Even if he was a terrible person it would have no bearing on his theory at all

do you have a single fact to back that up?

Question for those who know about Marx, because I don't but my Grandfather, who fled a Baltic country because of the Soviets closing in, once said of Marx "He was right about everything except one thing". He didn't say what that thing was, and I particularly did not care at the time many moons ago. But, I think about this one thing often now as the culture wars rumble away.
So, help an user out, what was this one thing?

You should have asked your grandpappy.

Google if Abe was an abolitionist

It's literally the old liberal "UR RASIIIIST!!1!!1" card.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery
Inb4 mobile posting

Might be this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_mode_of_production

Marx confirmed for brocialist

Why start the war in the first place?
Abolitionism was a huge topic back then.

Yeah a typical reformist in his natural habitat, but even this was too radical for Southern autists.
In the end they forced the issue and there was no reason to pussyfoot around it anymore.

Some states wanted to leave the union as it was stepping over state matters. Lincoln didn't want to lose more than half of his tax money and forced them to stay.

More like "the slave states had failed in their efforts to bypass muh states rights and force the north to catch their slaves for them" and where worried that Lincoln would prevent new slave states from joining the union (which he ended up doing.) Basically he wanted to kill the slave owning bourgeoisie and fucking did.

This always pisses me off
They complain about state rights but at the same time demanded the north catch their slaves for them.

How many socdems do you think would act analogously in a similar position?

t. college campus SJWs, unironically

probably hooman nature or another meme

Does he honestly unironically think that Fascism is favorable to Socialism? I know he ends up implying it all the time, but is that his actual literal opinion? Is he a white nationalist? Just seems like a very weird position for a supposed classical liberal to take. Also, if he has no problem with white nationalists, and respects their freezed peaches, then why do Nazbols bother him at all? Also, generally speaking, why do white nationalists spend so much time trying to prove other people are racist? Seems like a strange use of time for people who's main grip with SJWs is that they want to endlessly ad hom people about being racist.

That's really why I'm confused. For alt-right people, his current audience, this is meaningless, most of them are rabid white nationalists, for everyone else this is hardly an argument "oh wow, Marx was racist?? guess I have to become an alt-right faggot now"

Nazbols threaten their property. Nazis don't.

College-aged working class kids with no opportunity for work own the means of production?

I think the idea is he wants to make us out to be hypocrites and/or turn off normies who may look into Marxism.

Libertards and other classcucks identity with the bourgeoisie.

I get that, but I don't think that hypothetical normie exists, anyone who's drawn to Socialism wouldn't be deterred by this, anymore then someone drawn to Fascism is deterred by the long history of atrocities done in it's name. This video is pure circle jerk fodder for other alt-right faggots to echo chamber over. Also, for someone so obsessed with "logic" and "argumentation", this video reaches insane levels of bad faith and hypocrisy itself. Pointing out that Marx is a racist isn't an argument against anti-racists, even if Marx was some kind of anti-racist crusader in his own lifetime and he was secretly extremely racist, that wouldn't actually be an argument against his ideas or actions, because that's not the way arguments work, Sargon is being a retard here.

They certainly think that way.

...

He's been arguing a lot of xexizy a lot on twitter lately. They've talked about doing a live discussion a few times so I can see it happening in the near future. I doubt it will make much a difference though since most of his followers never watch him debate.

Identity is fluid, political identity is not genetic and can be altered with relative ease if you understand cognition. Shouldn't be hard to flip them if you stop talking shit, be quiet for a minute and then come back as a peaceful gentleman.

They aren't.

Class isn't an identity, it's a concrete relation to Capital and the means of production, most people are born into their class, the reason people act outside of their own class interests, and by extension their own self-interests is because they take on the ideology, as in the cultural logic, of the Bourgeoise.

you need to go back nigga >>>Holla Forums

youtube.com/watch?v=6aLXVRfWmgw

Is Xexizy a good debater?

He's gotten a lot better tbh

Best we got so far, unless someone better wants to step it up

I don't understand.

Marx and Engels were racist as fuck. And there is nothing wrong with that.

youtube.com/watch?v=c4Vbi7uKqiA

*hides face in shame*

all of these egoist e-personalities get on my fucking nerves. they just make these clickbait videos and articles so they gain a tiny bit more relevancy.

TRS?

therightstuff.biz

I know, that why you need to go >>>Holla Forums

Site run by nazi libertarians who imagine themselves as white ubermenschen when in reality they are all fat, 30-something white software engineers who are married to literal jews.

Slave isn't a race.

Nice is-ought infused with ideology you have there.

How is that an is-ought conflict? Do you even know what that means?

Because it states that being working class has an ideological implication that follows from the fact.

There is no state of "being" working class in a literal sense, it is a classification in the literal sense. It is determined by observation.

Which means that the fact speaks for itself and says "you should be a communist"?

Talk about ideology.

When did this happen? Is there audio/video of it?

youtube.com/watch?v=ZiiOz6V-9N8>>1627642

...

I literally just used the dialectic to flip a Republican to the Industrial Workers of the World in a few YouTube comments, bro.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure you did.

Did he just prove horshoe theory here?

this guy constantly complains about sjws crying about racism and the second he gets to cry about MUH RACISM regsarding a real leftist he immediately jumps on it. This uneducated fat cunt needs to be gulaged

If you accept that a group is well-defined, as is one determined by an objective classification with regards to concrete things, and you accept that a well-defined group's material interests are well-defined, at least insofar as they are the shared material interests possessed by virtue of membership in that group, then define communism to mean "the political self-interest of the whole proletariat" and establish equivalence of this definition with "the real movement which abolishes the present state of things."

None of this is to say you SHOULD act ultimately in your own self-interest, however, so there is no is-ought problem here. We speak exclusively of the is of society and the is of its revolutionary transformation.

The video in question is on his shit-posting channel. That channel is basically him laughing at shit he finds funny. The video in OP is not an attempt at a serious critique, I mean the entire thing is about a black man calling the ANC racist.

There are spooks and there are also useful spooks. The scope of an analysis of biological characteristics is rarely the same as that of economic circumstances. If this is not the case, then the data would still be interpreted as an analysis of economic circumstances given that the biological would have an effect on the economic. The fact that biological characteristics such as a few alleles only increase tendencies towards the expressions of certain behaviours to limited extents negates the idea that well-defined biological differences have a pronounced effect; ill-defined characteristics and differences (such as 'whiteness') have similar problems to lesser extents but because of issues with definitions, they are open to many more interpretations.

This 'biological' analysis is much less useful than determining what economic circumstances are for its own use; pic related briefly discusses why utility cannot be ignored within the scope of practical reason. One can reject identity politics using utility and yet also argue for even individually 'socialist' measures let alone socialism from the same stance. In many cases, an individual stands to gain more from even relatively-egalitarian social democracy than capitalism; look at how successful socdem nations have been before their inevitable destructions.

History also shows us that identity politics has never been tried; look at what's happened to the groups of people corresponding to bourgeois feminism, white nationalism, black racial struggles and muh badriagree. Everything appears to be just fine as long as it's in the in-group's interest, even if it means members of this group exploiting their peers.

I don't really understand how the linguistic convenience of something being "well-defined" raises it's status or importance. This enframing is pure ideology and ultimately begging the question.

Communism is good, because communism defines communism as being good!

Holy shit, I love Marx now. :^)

I'll be watching the video soon, but I find anything Sargon makes on socialism to be fucking shit. I'm expecting him to be going full SJW in his criticism.

"HE'S A RACIST AND A TERRIBLE HUMAN-BEING!"

Spam arguments and buzzwords.

SJWs and Antifa go "RACIST, FASCIST, HOMOPHOBIC" and want to violate people's democratic liberties through hate speech laws and Antifa violence to protect muh individual right to be a scab or faggot.

Lolberts and alt-lites go "COLLECTIVIST, COMMUNIST" and want to violate people's democratic liberties through chucking people off helicopters to protect muh individual right to own private property.

Individualism inherently leads to autistic screeching and antidemocratic authoritarianism.

Again, begging the question.

Such is the paradox of economics: collectivist economies permit individual liberty while individualist economics lead to repressive collectivist cultures.

Is this channel, "The Thinkery", Carl's new channel, or is it someone uploading Carl's dumbest videos?

Recently youtube has been recommending me the channel all the time, and every time I click it's Carl saying something stupid

...

Explain how economic analysis isn't useful.

You sound like you google "logical fallacies" in the middle of an argument. Economics are not a hard science, and hard science is not the sole source of useful information, whether or not you'd prefer if it was.

It is useful in the sense that you have a use for it, this argument is circular.

...

Communism is wrong because it's unnatural. Communism is wrong because it's invented by a jew. Your post sucks because you are gay.

I'll post a pic of a fedora if you call this post fallacious.

…and others don't? Where did I imply that I solely do? It just shows that you're not reading.

inb4 trilby

You don't get the point, you can't just spout the names of logical fallacies and expect people to take you seriously.

This must be what they call pants on head retarded

What's unnatural about wanting your fair share for the work you do?

Who decides what's fair?

People do, and as it is, it is being decided by Machiavelli that literally do not see most people as human.

Where did I imply that you solely do? Marxism is useful, according to the marxist worldview. This however can be said of any ideology whatsoever, they all find themselves "useful".

My issue with the marxist version of use is that it imagines people as the machines that they build. ssbothwell.com/documents/ebooksclub.org__The_Question_Concerning_Technology_and_Other_Essays.pdf

Nothing, just making a point to the people who complain about fallacy namedropping.

Which people, and how often do they vote to decide what's fair? Is it just people in that industry, would it be everyone in society?

...

That depends on who you ask, obviously.

Do you mean Sargon or Uncle Joe?

And what is wrong with that? All machine labor is, indirectly, the labor of whoever is designing, manufacturing and maintaining the machines.
You failed miserably.

Read the link. You might be a toaster, but I'm not, nor do I wish to be addressed as one.

No, you just didn't like, which is my point exactly.

Marxism is geared to be scientific, particularly in rejecting classical-liberal assumptions regarding the ways in which the economies work.

Tell me that science isn't currently useful or prove to me that Marxism is not scientific and not useful for mutual benefit. Your criticism is moral and is vulnerable to a Stirnerian argument; we must figure out the best way of explaining what actually happens within the bounds of practical reason to advance science.

Again, a moral argument based upon your feelings. However, it also shows that you're not familiar with Marx's notion of the species-essence. What part of Heidegger's essay here applies to your argument?

Brainlets should google what they don't understand.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-defined

It's not because it's unfalsifiable and neither does it have any predictive power. It's as scientific as tarot card reading, a craft that is better at predicting the future than marx was with his historical materialism.

Give me one argument for communism that isn't based upon your feelings.

I'm not very familiar with marx's notion of species essence, what I know is that he got buttblasted at stirner because stirner didn't believe in a historical, machinistic species essence.

Read it in whole, it's not a specific quote or part.

There we go.

I don't catch your meaning. The concept applies without loss of generality.

Language isn't mathematical, so no, it doesn't.

Literally zero evidence for this. Only by today's standard of racism - pointing out superficial differences - is Marx a "racist". Compare Marx to Bankunin and you'll see what real 19th Century antisemitism looked liked.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Even so, who cares if it applies to "language" in the first place? That point isn't even relevant to your malformed objections. And regardless, "language isn't mathematical" is both a highly spurious and highly debatable claim. That is, if you even bother to first unambiguously define what you mean by "language" and "mathematical" in the first place. Which you apparently not only won't but can't do, since you allege precision and the lack of ambiguity can't actually apply to any concept outside of math ever. So go figure.

It's clear you've seriously misunderstood me and are covering with sophistry at this point.

anyone who's actually read Marx and Lenin could win that argument

not an argument. It's racist by today's standards and still racist and insensitive as fuck by their standards

Science. That's not based on feeling.

Personal incredulity does not justify your argument. Try again.

And?

Also you're not giving me whatever is relevant about Heidegger's essay.

Marx is NAZBOL

I'd argue that the entire epoch of colonialism and fate of the postcolonial third world vindicate Marx (and the latter, Trotsky) as well. The only other proposed reasons for the arrested development of local bourgeois liberal democratic rule over the rest of the world besides the machinations of international capital and its intervention/power projection towards its own ends are cultural ("democracy doesn't work with their culture!") or racial ("their genes make them too stupid to produce things efficiently or do things democratically.") It's still something the neocons are scratching their heads about after the Iraq debacle.
Also the "Four Dragons" became capitalist superstars not through their choice to "do capitalism," which the rest of the world was "too stupid" to follow, but rather the massive intervention by international capital in the name of geopolitics - creating client states from a powerless bourgeoisie to pressure those who'd challenge it, though not necessarily on the basis of proletarian liberation.
The modern history of Japan, especially. You can easily characterize the entire period from Perry's arrival to the end of WWII (and further if you like) as internal responses to external capital. The Zaibatsu's role in their rather punctuated development is also fascinating.
Modern history of east asia is probably the one course a Marxist majoring in an unrelated field must take

…not to mention the effects of globalisation and the effects that this has on the labour markets. Porcine masters will do anything to extract labour, almost for its own sake.

Marx's theories hold true independently of the whole species-essence thing and have explanatory power, hence why he who disregards all is a fool to disregard it because there is little else that is currently as useful.

I'll admit I'm not very familiar with this, because I haven't read all the minutiae of Marx. Is this similar to Nietzsche claiming that the "will to power" was found/expressed in bacteria, because cumulative change of heritable characteristics in a population depends on the selective pressures it experiences, and we can personify these pressures and the "antagonistic" response to them, for whatever reason?

Marx predicted communist revolutions in western europe, a self-fulfilling prophecy that can't even fulfill itself. TRPF didn't happen -marxists have been predicting it destroy capitalism in the next 20 years for the past 150 years- monopolies aren't a prediction, "processes being subdued by capital" is not a prediction either but the marxist tendency to shoehorn everything into their great misstrust (x is akshually a bourgeois plot to stop communism!)

This is because "bourgeois" aren't a class at all, meaning that they don't act as marxism claims they act by favor of being bourgeois.

You can easily shoehorn every piece of history into marxist mechanics, it's always ad hoc. It's just as easy to characterize the entire history of the world as god's plan.

He still has to learn that socialism isn't just "workers ownership of the MoP", and a few similar points, but other than that he's fine.

was for

Wait wait, how can cultural marxism be about destroying white culture and enforcing minorities into power, if Marxism as founded by a racist?

L O G I C

Ass hurt anglo scum, don't worry, you will be euthanized in the revolution.

The TRPF is a general tendency.

No, I'm saying that most if not all economic actions are able to serve capital. Class traitors from the bourgeois class have contributed a lot to the movement. It just shows that all that you think you know about Marx is from a liberal ideologue's rambling.

Marx underestimated how much power social-democratic movements could have and he didn't foresee the exact nature of the transition to Keynesian economics. He certainly wasn't wrong about the existence of reformism, which this is a great example of.

If Marxism cannot explain something inside its scope, then Marxism is intrinsically flawed as a method. That is not your charge against it; you merely assert that everything can fit its political worldview in some sort of manner; I can taste the pomo in your words.

How do you think that we prove the fascists and the racialists wrong if everything can be explained to suit them in such a complete and repetitive manner that places like Stormfront exist? We refute the causalities and the tendencies which they put foward while outlining those which we use to explain the ways in which society works in a far more effective manner.

The whole species-essence thing can be replaced with psychological assessments based on the useful philosophical creation that is science. Alienation exists and is not contended by reformist social-liberals; they only seek to alleviate it through what is a temporary measure given the tendencies of capitalists to remove them over time because they simply aren't profitable.

I gather that Marx tries to use an existential basis for revolutionary action, though the egoistic-scientific basis can operate independently of it.

As for your question, I know too little about Nietzsche to make a considered comment about the comparison, though for Marx it is the basis of his humanism. He distances humans from other creatures. Read pic related.

Do I need to remind you all about Che's views on Niggers

Not all of us like Che, m8. Besides, most of us would prefer Sankara to him.

t. Holla Forums

they should have just picked one…

It's the channel for his videos that are even more shittier than the ones on his main channel.

Funny thing is I tend to enjoy the ones on The Thonkery more.

Che was a racist Holla Forumsyp when he was young, but grew out of this phase when he got older.

Oops shitpost flag was on

...

Back when Marx was alive everyone was racist,

Feels bad, man. Their memes were pretty funny.

what the fuck did you just fucking say about me you little bitch?

Nigga you stupid.

One does not simply co-opt Nazbol, it requires a very specific level of shitposting ability.

Karl Marx also supported the freeing of the slaves in America and hated the idea of Racial Struggle

Ah so Che wasn't a wet behind the ears idealist when he was young and didn't say those racist things when he was older and had led a revolution?

Maybe you should ask the South African that is accusing the ANC of being racist because they are Marxists?

BAWAHWHAWHAHWHAHWAHWHAHHWHAHWHAHWHHAHAWHAHWHHAHWHAHHAWHHAHWHAHWHAHWHWHAHHWHAHWHAHWHAHWHWHAHW…. [inhales] AWBABWHAHWHAHWHAHWHAHWHAHHWHAHHAWHAHWAHHAHWHAHHWHAHWHAHHWHWAHWHA.

embarrassing

Can I get the source of those graphs pretty please?

I didnt know karl max had a video camera.

Also, he called them negers, not niggers. It means negro, its not an inherently derogatory term, you fucking anglo.

...

...

what is the webm from?

...

Wow you're a Marxist now, welcome aboard.

sargon is shit and has never won anything