• Create Account

    In less than 1 min, By registering, you'll be able to discuss, chat, share and private message with other members of our community. All 100% free

    SignUp Now!

Marx a Racist?

Observer

Experienced Poster
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]Marx's racism

[/SIZE][/FONT]
Karl Marx is the hero of some labor union leaders and civil-rights organizations, including those who organized the recent protest against proposed immigration legislation. It's easy to be a Marxist if you haven't read his writings. Most people agree that Marx's predictions about capitalism turned out to be dead wrong.

What most people don't know is that Marx was an out and out racist and anti-Semite. He didn't think much of Mexicans. Concerning the annexation of California after the Mexican-American War, Marx wrote: "Without violence, nothing is ever accomplished in history." Then he asks, "Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?" Friedrich Engels, Marx's co-author of the "Manifesto of the Communist Party," added, "In America, we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will be placed under the tutelage of the United States." Much of Marx's ideas can be found in a book written by former communist Nathaniel Weyl, titled "Karl Marx, Racist" (1979).

In a July 1862 letter to Engels, in reference to his socialist political competitor, Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote, "... 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."

Engels shared much of Marx's racial philosophy. In 1887, Paul Lafargue, who was Marx's son-in-law, was a candidate for a council seat in a Paris district that contained a zoo. Engels claimed that Paul had "one-eighth or one-twelfth nigger blood." In an April 1887 letter to Paul's wife, Engels wrote, "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."

Though few claim him as their own, such as leftists claim Karl Marx, Thomas Carlyle is another unappreciated historical figure. Carlyle is best-known for giving economics the derogatory name "dismal science," an inversion of the phrase "gay science," which at the time (1849) referred to life-enhancing knowledge. Most people have incorrectly learned that the term "dismal science" had its origins in reference to Thomas Malthus' gloomy predictions that the global population would grow faster than food supplies, condemning mankind to perpetual poverty and starvation. My George Mason University colleague, professor Davy Levy, and his co-author, Sandra Peart, tell the true story in their 2001 book, "The Secret History of the Dismal Science: Economics, Religion and Race in the 19th Century."

Carlyle first used the term "dismal science" in his 1849 pamphlet entitled "An Occasional Discourse on the Nigger Question." He attacked the ideas of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and other free market, limited-government economists for their belief in the fundamental equality of man and their anti-slavery positions. The fact that economics assumes that people are all the same and are equally deserving of liberty was offensive to Carlyle and led him to call economics the dismal science. Carlyle argued that blacks were subhuman, "two-legged cattle," who needed the tutelage of whites wielding the "beneficent whip" if they were to contribute to the good of society. Carlyle was by no means alone in denouncing economics for its anti-slavery and pro-equality position.
No less a historical figure and a Christmastime favorite, Charles Dickens, author of "A Christmas Carol," shared Carlyle's positions on slavery and blacks as subhuman.

Marx, Engels, Carlyle and Dickens all share one belief prevalent throughout mankind's history down to today: the belief that some people are endowed with superior intelligence and wisdom, and they've been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the masses.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50724
 
Marx, Engels, Carlyle and Dickens all share one belief prevalent throughout mankind's history down to today: the belief that some people are endowed with superior intelligence and wisdom, and they've been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the masses.


And that would be ME! ;)
 
Well, I agree that there are those who are innately more intelligent than others, but I do not agree--for the most part--that anything should be forced upon people. Neither Greater intelligence nor greater strength gives the right to forcibly coerce others--that's my opinion anyway.
 
Racism was a very normal thing in the 1800s. Hell even Abraham Lincoln was a racist yet we still have pictures of him in our elementary schools and in our pennines.

My point is that his racism should be excusable because those were the standards of that time and we shouldn't judge him with our current, politcally correct, standards we have today. Racial equallity was something still not yet introduce at the time also.

I completely disagree with this guy's beliefs but I still think he was a man with a great mind.

That is my great opinion. or that is just my opinion, pick whichever one you like better.

[YOUTUBE]KZ9JMUFIVqE[/YOUTUBE]
 
Last edited:
Racism was a very normal thing in the 1800s. Hell even Abraham Lincoln was a racist yet we still have pictures of him in our elementary schools and in our pennines.

My point is that his racism should be excusable because those were the standards of that time and we shouldn't judge him with our current, politcally correct, standards we have today. Racial equallity was something still not yet introduce at the time also.

I completely disagree with this guy's beliefs but I still think he was a man with a great mind.

That is my great opinion. or that is just my opinion, pick whichever one you like better.

[youtube]KZ9JMUFIVqE[/youtube]

Those are exactly things my Mom says.
 
My point is that his racism should be excusable because those were the standards of that time and we shouldn't judge him with our current, politcally correct, standards we have today. Racial equallity was something still not yet introduce at the time also.
Standards of the time? Wo makes these standards you're talking about? Anti-Semitism was rampant in Europe in the 1930s, so do you also excuse Nazism?
 
Standards of the time? Wo makes these standards you're talking about? Anti-Semitism was rampant in Europe in the 1930s, so do you also excuse Nazism?

What are you talking about? Nazism was not excusable.

Nazism and the spread of it was not excusable at the time and so that is why the United States deployed 15 million troops, liberated France, England, Germany and North Africa, invented the atomic bomb all under 4 years in order to put a stop to Nazism.
 
What are you talking about? Nazism was not excusable.
Oh so you excuse a racist because of the "standard of the time," but not an Anti-Semite? Why not, Nazism was the "standard of the time" in Germany, was it not? After all, the Germans voted Hitler into power after he wrote Mein Kampf.
 
What are you talking about? Nazism was not excusable.

Nazism and the spread of it was not excusable at the time and so that is why the United States deployed 15 million troops, liberated France, England, Germany and North Africa, invented the atomic bomb all under 4 years in order to put a stop to Nazism.

Like Darfur isn't excusable now, and many say Iraq is not acceptable. Things go on in all time periods. How will people look back on this time two hundred years from now? If it's all still here. Maybe we'll be in another Dark Ages.
 
Oh so you excuse a racist because of the "standard of the time," but not an Anti-Semite? Why not, Nazism was the "standard of the time" in Germany, was it not? After all, the Germans voted Hitler into power after he wrote Mein Kampf.

The Romans too, slaughtered many other groups and types of people and I heard that at least 1/4 of its population were made up of slaves, yet we don't consider the Roman Empire as being evil because this happen in the acient world.

Even the Aztecs did their own share of senseless human killing and slavery yet we don't consider them as evil.

Nazi Germany we DO consider it as evil because it existed in a time frame closer to ours.

Watch the video, it gives another good example.
 
Nazi Germany we DO consider it as evil because it existed in a time frame closer to ours.
lol Let's move past your failure to argue why your "standard of the time" line of reasoning is ok to excuse a racist, but not an Anti-Semite and talk about your newly added condition of time.

Ok so now you make a time condition as to when racism and anti-Semitism can be excused. When would you not excuse a racist, and why? I mean, why is it excusable to be a racist in 1883, but not 1963? And when did it stop being excusable: in 1920, 1930, 1950...when? And why at that time?
 
lol Let's move past your failure to argue why your "standard of the time" line of reasoning is ok to excuse a racist, but not an Anti-Semite and talk about your newly added condition of time.

Ok so now you make a time condition as to when racism and anti-Semitism can be excused. When would you not excuse a racist, and why? I mean, why is it excusable to be a racist in 1883, but not 1963? And when did it stop being excusable: in 1920, 1930, 1950...when? And why at that time?

Did you watch the video at least?

I made a time condition since the begining when I said that in the 1800s racism was the norm.

Because, as I have already stated, the civil rights movement didn't yet happen so the moral standards of men, or what was considered to be right and wrong, was different during those times.


How many times are you going to ask this question?
 
Did you watch the video at least?

I made a time condition since the begining when I said that in the 1800s racism was the norm.

Because, as I have already stated, the civil rights movement didn't yet happen so the moral standards of men, or what was considered to be right and wrong, was different during those times.
Ok first you say "we shouldn't judge [historical figures] with our current, politcally correct, standards we have today," but you want to apply a movement (Civil Rights Movement) that was in the States and in the 1950s to Hitler who came in to power in 1930s and in Germany? You're doing exactly what you said shouldn't be done--you're not being consistent. Again, you wont excuse a anti-Semite , but you will excuse a racist. If you're not a lap dog for those whites who try to belittle the history of white racism, then you're doing a pretty damn good imitation of one.
 
Yes, I will excuse some guy saying some bad shit about Mexicans in 1800s

No, I will not excuse the holocaust act where 6,000,000 - 12,000,000 million jews were murdered.

I guess thats just me not being consitent. I guess most historians aren't consitent either since they see things like me, in this case.

A lot of famous people, who were considered great in America, were racist. I am surprised you only mentioned one. Look at what Darwin wrote about black people.
 
Yes and let's not forget what sexists all those all farts were too. That was a given. Most all men back then were sexist and the laws backed it up.
 
Yes and let's not forget what sexists all those all farts were too. That was a given. Most all men back then were sexist and the laws backed it up.

Would you excuse all men's sexists attitudes Rose or would you consider all of them as evil?
 
Would you excuse all men's sexists attitudes Rose or would you consider all of them as evil?

I consider the "ignorance of the times". I'm thankful to the women who helped to change it and to men that eventually became "elightened" enough to see beyond the archaic ideas and change the laws, and it was such a gradual process. No, I don't hate them or think less of the men of the past because of the way they thought about women or the fact that they didn't allow them equality. It doesn't detract from the things that the men accomplished.
 
Registrarse / Join The Forum

Mexican Forums

Ad

Back
Top