Did he say ANYTHING that you agree with?

Did he say ANYTHING that you agree with?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=NmO2QldMTTM
research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/haken32.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

he died

Who's that?

He said subjugating the natives to a civilized society is a good thing.

I agree with almost everything he said user, and anybody with half a brain would too.
The problem is that Marx is a jewish trick and I don't trust his motives. Or Engels for that matter, what the fuck was his problem?

"surplus value" is a interesting concept, but used to create guilt. Its still a good measure mechanism.

"Just kidding." It was the last thing he ever said but his family kept it suppressed.

Some LARPing faggot who people took seriously.

Most of his economic analyses in "Capital" were spot on. People should actually read Marx before criticizing him. While I am not a dialectical materialist, I nevertheless agree with much of his economic theories.

on the jewish question

"I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member." was a pretty funny line.
It pops into my head a lot on pol.

He's cousins with the Rothschilds, couldn't care less about the poor. He just created that ideology to destroy Christianity and please the kike. He incorporates the worst mankind has come up with, communism and zionism. Nothing there to agree with.

Communism is a Jewish ideology for the goyim. They promise paradise but in reality communism is a way for Jews to have their "2800 slaves"

Careful with that tinfoil m8

"The hunger pains stop eventually" is pretty good advice under Jewish totalitarian regime.

With that type of honesty I won't be afraid when I have to stand against the fence blindfolded

It's all out there, even Putin admitted that their first soviet government was 85% jews, Marx is the grandson and great grandson of Rabbis on both sides.

He's only a bit groucho because the crops failed again. He will be more fun when morale improves.

>Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew... 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.

"I'm a filthy kike"

>their "2800 slaves"
Please explain.

So by that logic, the atheists whose parents and grandparents are christians are actually secret christians? Hasn't it occured to you that he might actually have been an atheist despite his grandparents' beliefs? Also, when did he support zionism? Did you know that anarchism, which is pretty much the same as communism (not marxism) existed before Marx was born? Also, do you trust the word of an ex KGB agent?

...

>did he SAY anything you agree with
>he died
This is literally a Rebbit-tier one-liner "joke".
And it doesn't even make sense. Dying is not saying something.
You're not a very smart person.

Nice quote, gonna use that "against" Marxists.

In wich way it is a problem that he didn't trust himself?
He wrote what he wrote, if you agree with what he wrote what's the problem?

So you don't believe the word of an ex communist Russia agent, ok...what about Winston Churchill?
youtube.com/watch?v=NmO2QldMTTM

Go ahead and listen to the rest of the video, it answers to your first question.

This is one of those shill/raid posters, sage and avoid responding.

research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/haken32.htm

That link answers his question.

>Marx stressed that capitalism was unstable, and prone to periodic crises.
Global economy crises, checked.

>He suggested that over time, capitalists would invest more and more in new technologies, and less and less in labour.
Checked.

> Marx believed that increasingly severe crises would punctuate this cycle of growth, collapse, and more growth.[172] Moreover, he believed that in the long-term, this process would necessarily enrich and empower the capitalist class and impoverish the proletariat
Probably.

>Jew
>Agree with
try again

"It's just a prank bro"

Many in fact. I must disagree with him in property, equality and some economic policies though.

>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.

The biggest paradox is that the shitty worker conditions that Marx bitched about so much got solved through the same capitalism. He did point out legit problems of the time, however the whole theory is just bullshit

Commies trying to subvert extra hard recently. Better dead than red

His critiques of capitalism are 100% valid, his solutions are dogshit

>2800 slaves
Apparently, when the messiah arrives, every kike will have 2800 gentile slaves. At least, that's according to jewgle

>Did he say ANYTHING that you agree with?
No.

I skimmed through Churchill's article. What about it?

His critique of Capitalism, especially 19th century version of it is spot on. I find myself aggreeing with Anarchists, Socialists, and Communists when they critique the current system. However, they get so caught up in the evils of the system and over throwing it, that they never explain in detail what they'd replace it with.

It wasn't Capitalists who made the reforms needed, but they were working within a Capitalist system. Inherently, Capitalists will try to screw everyone else over and think only of their own short term gain. This will lead to eventual collapse. Reformers are needed to counter this trend and keep the system going. It's a tug of war. Right now we need more reformers to save capitalism from itself.

what a lame ass failed attempt at being sassy and edgy

Just the stuff about the Jews.

But he plagiarized most of that from Luther.

>shitty worker conditions that Marx bitched about
Citations?
Because:
> on the other hand capitalism is also characterised by "revolutionising, industrialising and universalising qualities of development, growth and progressivity"
>Marx considered the capitalist class to be one of the most revolutionary in history, because it constantly improved the means of production, more so than any other class in history, and was responsible for the overthrow of feudalism and its transition to capitalism

The Churchill article makes a distinction between "National Jews" and "International Jews". He says most of the latter are from places where jews were persecuted on account of their race. He also says most of the latter have forsaken their forefathers' faith. He also says zionism offers a third sphere to the political conceptions of the jewish race, the title itself shows a dichotomy between Bolshevism and Zionism.

he said that "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce"
look at fascism then
look at fascism now

Ok, I'll listen to it.

Decent analysis, terrible solutions that end up even worse in practice.

Btw one of the pillars of marxist indoctrination is to make you accept bits of it as true, then up the dose until you convert. Learn to recognize that, leftypol is in full swing. It doesn't really matter tho, you faggots will just end up redpilled, because truth is on our side, what you're doing is entierly pointless and you're hurting yourself by exposing yourself to these views. The seeds have been planted and in a couple years/months you'll uncuck yourself. I love you.

He was correct about the means of production. He was wrong on just about everything else though.

I just listened to it, the guy mentions two books where jews are listed. Trotsky, for example, is mentioned as a jew. He also mentions an intelligence report that mentions how many jews there were in the Soviet government. Did they mean Trotsky was a jew in an ethnic sense? If so, that's true, but he was an atheist. Btw, Putin says jews persecuted even jews.

what was it that he said about means of production that you agree with?

Workers should own the means of production.

Having a superior class of people who live off the fruits of previous labour control it is not fair. There's no difference between capital and feudal lords.

religion is the opium of the masses

Read even the first chapter of thr gommy manifesto. He said tons of based shit.
>The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

i don't, but apparently some faggot few hours ago rellay believed that "scarcity is a concept manufactured by capitalism"

>The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
How is this stuff not right-wing?

it is, essentially. and there are a lot of ways it happens, some evil and intended, some incidental. you have a lot of learning to do to get your red pill certificate senpai.

>The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
>The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

>it is, essentially

nothing exists in an infinite quantity in the real world, you could *at best* say that capitalism forces the scarcity of certain stuff for profit, but scarcity itself is not a product of an economic doctrine

Agree.
He was spot on about the role of capital in creating class struggle.

seize the means of reproduction

that's stupid. so what do you do with companies that do not comply? you dismantle their businesses that they created because it's not the workers that own the means of production? that's absolutely moronic and if you accept this shitty idea then you are already buying into the scam of the leftie shits and redistribution of wealth. you're literally a moron so let me introduce reality and common sense to you.
#1 THE WORKERS SIGNED THE CONTRACT TO WORK FOR A FEE FOR THE EMPLOYER AGREEING WITH THE WORKING CONDITIONS.
#2 THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO SAY IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE WORKER AND THE EMPLOYER.
#3 IF THE WORKER WANTED TO OWN MEANS OF PRODUCTION HE WOULD CREATE HIS OWN BUSINESS.
#4 THE WORKER DOES NOT WANT TO OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION BECAUSE HE WANTS STABILITY OF INCOME INSTEAD OF THE RISK OF OWNING A BUSINESS.

literally your entire argument is "boohoo not fair".
no, fuck off, it makes perfect sense and what you're suggesting is taking property away from people who have legal rights to own it because they obtained it through legal means. what you're suggesting, ironically, is not fair, because it's essentially stealing something from people who created the said something, whatever *it* may be.

Well other than #2 being wrong in every country on earth, a worker without capital can never be a capitalist by definition.

Karl Marx

>#1 THE WORKERS SIGNED THE CONTRACT
Not like there's much choice. This is the AnCrap choice of starve or slave away in my sweatshop.
>#2 THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO SAY IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE WORKER AND THE EMPLOYER.
Actually it does, at least in civilized parts of the world.
>#3 IF THE WORKER WANTED TO OWN MEANS OF PRODUCTION HE WOULD CREATE HIS OWN BUSINESS.
Unfortunately, governments have put a stranglehold on who gets to do business and not via regulations and outright taxation. It's not just as simple as have a product and start producing it.
>#4 THE WORKER DOES NOT WANT TO OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION BECAUSE HE WANTS STABILITY OF INCOME INSTEAD OF THE RISK OF OWNING A BUSINESS.
Speak for yourself. Look at the Mondragon corporation. They seem to do pretty well for themselves.

I love how you're so butthurt that you had to respond with two posts to mine. "Legal means" is a joke. Whoever has enough money can buy the law. The law is not equal.

'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.'

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.

“Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?”

“… it is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother had not interbred with a nigger. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also nigger-like.”

“Being in his quality as a nigger, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district.”

‘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 (poor); 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 [European] 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 be 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.”

>Not like there's much choice. This is the AnCrap choice of starve or slave away in my sweatshop.
the choice is creating your own business you braindead imbecile. that's the entire fucking argument that you started. why is your brain defected?
#2 Actually it does, at least in civilized parts of the world.
the government does not dictate who the employer employs and where a citizen signs up to work. yes, there are regulations, but they apply to employers and to employees. they do NOT dictate whether or not an employer employs a person and whether or not the person will agree to the contract. sure my wording was wrong but that's the idea, so fuck you.
>Unfortunately, governments have put a stranglehold on who gets to do business and not via regulations and outright taxation. It's not just as simple as have a product and start producing it.
"not easy to do something" doesn't mean "let's steal from people who managed to do it". your leaps in logic are insane.
>Speak for yourself. Look at the Mondragon corporation. They seem to do pretty well for themselves.
so there are people who created a business and are now running it? GOOD, LET THEM, IT'S A FREE FUCKING MARKET. THAT'S NO A FUCKING ARGUMENT AGAINST FREE MARKET BUT RATHER AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF IT AND YOU PISS ME THE FUCK OFF WITH YOUR NONSENSE>

>Whoever has enough money can buy the law. The law is not equal.
so your argument is that we shouldn't have laws at all because they just don't work as long as people have money?
you
are
a
fucking
imbecile

His view on capitalism' mechanics: Ok
His proposals for "fixing" capitalism: Not ok

The problem with Marx is that he managed to describe capitalist society ahead of his time, but then used that as a political tool to creat communism.

So basically he's being a jew and trying to use his knowledge to fuck everything for his own gain.

I always chuckle thinking about one of the retards on this board trying to get through Das Kapital