Marx's German birthplace unveils controversial statue of him

[canuckamuck]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Is that a modern take on ‘the dog ate my home work’?

 

——- 

 

The paragraph you posted was not ‘word for word’ the same as that of RB.

 

If it had been you would have corrected me at the time I commented on you being played by RB and his fake Marx quote.

 

Now the dog’s eaten your homework you want us to believe it deserved a Grade A.

 

Well this is easily solved. Since you seem to be the only person in the world that feels Bradford's quote was fake. Why don't you just prove it. Otherwise you are trolling.

[blazes]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

If your wife came home pregnant, but said she had not had sex with anyone wouldn't anyone be a bit "puzzled"?

 

Actually, a virgin birth is comparatively easy to have happen.  When I was a teenager, we lads were always scared that the so-called "love-juice" that occurred in the height of making-out (without penetration) would somehow find its way into spaces unwanted.  Love-juice is fertile.  

I did once meet (platonically) a woman who had had a virgin birth in just that way.

[RickBradford]

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Leftwing and socialist thinking did not come to a shuddering halt when Marx died.

Quite so. Marxism had proved to be a total economic failure to such an extent that even Marxists couldn't deny it.

 

So some of the more committed activists performed a sleight-of-hand starting in the 1970s; no more pitting bourgeoisie vs peasant, but instead setting up the tribalist Victim v Oppressor game in every possible domain.

 

If you're female, coloured, gay, from the developing world, you score Victim points for each category.

 

The only people with zero Victim points are therefore the Oppressors; male, white, heterosexual, Western, who form what the Marxists have dubbed "the oppressive Western patriarchy" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

 

It's the same divisive tribalist Marxist identity politics game, but with different pieces on the board. Instead of the top hat and the motorcar, you have the combat jacket and the nipple rings.

 

The most urgent task for most people these days seems to be to acquire a patina of noble Victimhood, so that they can claim to be "oppressed" by the usual suspects, and demand special treatment. It's an attractive game for losers; it requires virtually no thought and instantly confers a sense of moral superiority.

 

The KGB defector Yuri Besmenov said that the first stage of defeating the West was to "demoralize" it, a process he thought would take 20 to 25 years.

 

In Germany, they put up a statue of Marx (donated by the Chinese Communists). In the UK, they agitate for tearing down statues of Admiral Nelson, on the grounds that that he was a "white supremacist." It's hard not to conclude that the demoralization is all but complete.

 

Marx is dead, but his pernicious influence lingers.

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by RickBradford

[SheungWan]

On 5/6/2018 at 8:17 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Marx was a philosopher, not a revolutionist, and there is nothing in Marx’s writings that dictates anything you’ve said.

Not that you have read a word of it. Or maybe it was a different Marx who said:

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."

And 'er this obscure quote which you might just have somehow missed, is written, wait for it, on Karl Marx's gravestone.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

Quite so. Marxism had proved to be a total economic failure to such an extent that even Marxists couldn't deny it.

 

So some of the more committed activists performed a sleight-of-hand starting in the 1970s; no more pitting bourgeoisie vs peasant, but instead setting up the tribalist Victim v Oppressor game in every possible domain.

 

If you're female, coloured, gay, from the developing world, you score Victim points for each category.

 

The only people with zero Victim points are therefore the Oppressors; male, white, heterosexual, Western, who form what the Marxists have dubbed "the oppressive Western patriarchy" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

 

It's the same divisive tribalist Marxist identity politics game, but with different pieces on the board. Instead of the top hat and the motorcar, you have the combat jacket and the nipple rings.

 

The most urgent task for most people these days seems to be to acquire a patina of noble Victimhood, so that they can claim to be "oppressed" by the usual suspects, and demand special treatment. It's an attractive game for losers; it requires virtually no thought and instantly confers a sense of moral superiority.

 

The KGB defector Yuri Besmenov said that the first stage of defeating the West was to "demoralize" it, a process he thought would take 20 to 25 years.

 

In Germany, they put up a statue of Marx (donated by the Chinese Communists). In the UK, they agitate for tearing down statues of Admiral Nelson, on the grounds that that he was a "white supremacist." It's hard not to conclude that the demoralization is all but complete.

 

Marx is dead, but his pernicious influence lingers.

 

You’re confusing Marxism with your own feelings of being a victim.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Well this is easily solved. Since you seem to be the only person in the world that feels Bradford's quote was fake. Why don't you just prove it. Otherwise you are trolling.

You made the quote, you own it, not me.

[RickBradford]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You’re confusing Marxism with your own feelings of being a victim.

No, I'm not.

[canuckamuck]

45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You made the quote, you own it, not me.

On behalf of the other members I will no longer respond to this particular distraction from the topic. Sorry I fed the troll, I knew better.

Edited May 8, 2018 by canuckamuck

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Quite so. Marxism had proved to be a total economic failure to such an extent that even Marxists couldn't deny it.

 

So some of the more committed activists performed a sleight-of-hand starting in the 1970s; no more pitting bourgeoisie vs peasant, but instead setting up the tribalist Victim v Oppressor game in every possible domain.

 

If you're female, coloured, gay, from the developing world, you score Victim points for each category.

 

The only people with zero Victim points are therefore the Oppressors; male, white, heterosexual, Western, who form what the Marxists have dubbed "the oppressive Western patriarchy" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

 

It's the same divisive tribalist Marxist identity politics game, but with different pieces on the board. Instead of the top hat and the motorcar, you have the combat jacket and the nipple rings.

 

The most urgent task for most people these days seems to be to acquire a patina of noble Victimhood, so that they can claim to be "oppressed" by the usual suspects, and demand special treatment. It's an attractive game for losers; it requires virtually no thought and instantly confers a sense of moral superiority.

 

The KGB defector Yuri Besmenov said that the first stage of defeating the West was to "demoralize" it, a process he thought would take 20 to 25 years.

 

In Germany, they put up a statue of Marx (donated by the Chinese Communists). In the UK, they agitate for tearing down statues of Admiral Nelson, on the grounds that that he was a "white supremacist." It's hard not to conclude that the demoralization is all but complete.

 

Marx is dead, but his pernicious influence lingers.

 

I know what you mean. Social Security and Medicare are 2 examples of this lingering pernicious influence.

[CharlesSwann]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

I know what you mean. Social Security and Medicare are 2 examples of this lingering pernicious influence.

 

You're confusing communism with socialism. Marx did have an admirable social conscience but the system he ushered in was utopian, requiring everyone to think and act the same way, which is, by definition, against human nature. Achieving the necessary equality involved keeping the best people down, which quickly led to repression and a closed society, and, in seeking to defend itself against normal social progression, led to the polarisation of societies and global instability. In short, communism was perhaps the most foolish idea in human history.

 

Edit: I shouldn't have said 'perhaps'.

Edited May 8, 2018 by CharlesSwann

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

I know what you mean. Social Security and Medicare are 2 examples of this lingering pernicious influence.

The list is very long.

 

Once you decide, (in harmony with Marx's divisive tribalism), that all that matters is group identity, and that some groups are Victims, and others are Oppressors, then you open a vast box of resentment and spite, mixed with entitlement.

 

It is behind the stultifying political correctness which the West is drowning in, all the no-platforming of speakers, the assault on free speech, the ban on criticizing "victim" groups, the government-enforced speech. And that's just for starters.

 

The ideologically possessed PC Left are the heirs to Marx, and many of them are quite happy to admit it. I'm sure Marx would have approved.

Edited May 8, 2018 by RickBradford

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The list is very long.

 

Once you decide, (in harmony with Marx's divisive tribalism), that all that matters is group identity, and that some groups are Victims, and others are Oppressors, then you open a vast box of resentment and spite, mixed with entitlement.

 

It is behind the stultifying political correctness which the West is drowning in, all the no-platforming of speakers, the assault on free speech, the ban on criticizing "victim" groups, the government-enforced speech. And that's just for starters.

 

The ideologically possessed PC Left are the heirs to Marx, and many of them are quite happy to admit it. I'm sure Marx would have approved.

Reallly? Tribalism is the result of Marxism? Marx was very clear that workers in the various nations of Europe should igore nationalism and unite against exploitation. They let him down bigly in that regard. So what segment of the political spectrum supports ethno-nationalism today? Don't think it's Marxists.

Edited May 8, 2018 by bristolboy

[RickBradford]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Reallly? Tribalism is the result of Marxism? Marx was very clear that workers in the various nations of Europe should igore nationalism and unite against exploitation. They let him down bigly in that regard. So what segment of the political spectrum supports ethno-nationalism today? Don't think it's Marxists.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about ethnicity when I use the word tribalism.

 

Marx divided everyone up into groups -- principally Peasants and Bourgeoisie. His aim was to set them at each other's throats. That is tribalism, of the political kind. It has nothing to do with ethnic identity. It's the class war, which many people are still fighting.

 

Ethno-nationalism is the Far Right's response to Marxian tribalism. It says: "Well, if you're going to play identity politics, then so are we."

 

There have always been ethno-nationalists around, of course, and who feel increasingly threatened by the identity politics of the Left, and thus are encouraged to grow stronger and more vocal.

 

Hence the widening political polarization you can see in the US, and across much of Europe. It's not a good situation.

 

 

 

[zydeco]

In the US, they would take your statue down if you ever said the following. But in Germany, they'er putting a statue up!  Karl Marx on Ferdinand Lassalle:

It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n—–. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. 

. -- Melvin J. Lasky, The Language of Journalism, Volume 1. 

 

It probably isn't possible to continue the quote, because Marx employs what is today referred to as the N-word more than a few times.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about ethnicity when I use the word tribalism.

 

Marx divided everyone up into groups -- principally Peasants and Bourgeoisie. His aim was to set them at each other's throats. That is tribalism, of the political kind. It has nothing to do with ethnic identity. It's the class war, which many people are still fighting.

 

Ethno-nationalism is the Far Right's response to Marxian tribalism. It says: "Well, if you're going to play identity politics, then so are we."

 

There have always been ethno-nationalists around, of course, and who feel increasingly threatened by the identity politics of the Left, and thus are encouraged to grow stronger and more vocal.

 

Hence the widening political polarization you can see in the US, and across much of Europe. It's not a good situation.

 

 

 

Clearly you haven't a clue about Marx or Marxism if you think it was about Peasants vs. Bourgeoisie.

[RickBradford]

^^

The topic is Karl Marx, not Groucho.

 

Perhaps you would care to read the Communist Manifesto, the first chapter of which is entitled "Bourgeoisie and Proletariat."

 

He begins: "The history of society in the past is the history of class struggles ..."

[bristolboy]

Just now, RickBradford said:

^^

The topic is Karl Marx, not Groucho.

 

Perhaps you would care to read the Communist Manifesto, the first chapter of which is entitled "Bourgeoisie and Proletariat."

 

He begins: "The history of society in the past is the history of class struggles ..."

And perhaps you should learn the difference between "Proletariat" and peasantry.

[RickBradford]

In response to that, I can only pinch a quote from a another poster:

 

On behalf of the other members I will no longer respond to this particular distraction from the topic. Sorry I fed the troll, I knew better.

 

 

[MaeJoMTB]

6 hours ago, blazes said:

 

Actually, a virgin birth is comparatively easy to have happen.  When I was a teenager, we lads were always scared that the so-called "love-juice" that occurred in the height of making-out (without penetration) would somehow find its way into spaces unwanted.  Love-juice is fertile.  

I did once meet (platonically) a woman who had had a virgin birth in just that way.

Technically, 25% of women in their 20s are virgins regardless of any penetration.

Because what penetrated them was physically too small to break their hymen. 

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

^^

The topic is Karl Marx, not Groucho.

 

Perhaps you would care to read the Communist Manifesto, the first chapter of which is entitled "Bourgeoisie and Proletariat."

 

He begins: "The history of society in the past is the history of class struggles ..."

Well, by your lights, any struggle between 2 groups of society is tribalism. I guess you think that the violent history of labor battling industrialists was all down to Marx and not to the abominable wages and living conditions experienced by workers in the early stages of the industrial revolution. You think labor unions wouldn't have existed if it weren't for Marx? This is what you call tribalism?

[RickBradford]

Quote

Well, by your lights, any struggle between 2 groups of society is tribalism.

Only if the group identity itself is held as more important than the individuals who make it up.

 

George Orwell is rather good on this subject; while researching the utterly appalling conditions of 1930s industrial workers in the north of England, he naturally looked to the Socialists for solutions. But he found that the Socialists did not love the poor and wish to help them; they simply hated "the rich."

 

To take a modern example, there has been much venom directed at certain African Americans who voted for President Trump and publicly support him. They have violated the group identity shibboleth which mandates that they oppose the president. This makes them 'race traitors'. That's deliberate tribalism.

 

Of which Marx was an enthusiastic supporter.

 

 

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Only if the group identity itself is held as more important than the individuals who make it up.

 

George Orwell is rather good on this subject; while researching the utterly appalling conditions of 1930s industrial workers in the north of England, he naturally looked to the Socialists for solutions. But he found that the Socialists did not love the poor and wish to help them; they simply hated "the rich."

 

To take a modern example, there has been much venom directed at certain African Americans who voted for President Trump and publicly support him. They have violated the group identity shibboleth which mandates that they oppose the president. This makes them 'race traitors'. That's deliberate tribalism.

 

Of which Marx was an enthusiastic supporter.

 

 

Well, if  Orwell's assessment of the socialist take on industrial workers in the north is accurate, that's actually an argument against your contention that Marxism created a kind of tribalism of worker against capitalist.. Despite the Socialists' contempt. workers saw themselves as a group fighting against their industrialist bosses. But thank you for the example.

 

And these kind of unproveable generalization of how African American supporters of Trump are viewed as "race traitors" is just the cheapest kind of demagoguery. Who are your scare quotes referring to?. What percentage of African Americans actually believe this? I guess when you've got nothing, this is the kind of inflammatory tripe you have to resort to. 

 

"They have violated the group identity shibboleth which mandates that they oppose the president. This makes them 'race traitors'. That's deliberate tribalism.

"Of which Marx was an enthusiastic supporter."

Obvious piece of circular reasoning. 

[RickBradford]

Quote

And these kind of unproveable generalization of how African American supporters of Trump are viewed as "race traitors" is just the cheapest kind of demagoguery.

 

*Sigh*

 

That's why I didn't make it a generalization. I deliberately said "certain" African Americans.

 

If you want an example, the African American rapper Kanye West provides it. He has publicly supported President Trump, calling him his "brother." He has been widely and vociferously criticised for this, with the clear allusion by many commentators that this a breach of racial solidarity.

 

For example, in response, the African American rapper Snoop Dogg replied on social media: " That’s mighty white of u Kanye. !N____ if u don’t snap out of it Get out part 2." (Note: Mr Dogg used the full word, which is not allowed here)

 

Another clear example is the hostility shown in some quarters to Candace Owens, an African American conservative speaker and blogger. You'll have to do your own research on that, if you're actually interested in this subject.

 

And now back to the odious Karl Marx, I think.

[CharlesSwann]

Marx looked at the world and saw only one thing: oppressed workers. (Right, he wasn't interested in the peasantry.) His system was devised essentially to liberate the workers (not understanding that they were effectively a nascent middle class) from the yoke of private industrialists. The result was to throw them into the yoke of public industrialists and their five-year plans, which was in many ways an even worse kind of thraldom - both because there was no longer the potential to get ahead (assuming you had the talent), but  because the work ethic itself became the tool of oppression, once the inevitable set of autocrats hijacked the system for their own benefit.

The whole thing failed due to Marx's basic misunderstanding of human nature, and I don't think you can make a bigger mistake.

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by CharlesSwann

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

 

*Sigh*

 

That's why I didn't make it a generalization. I deliberately said "certain" African Americans.

 

If you want an example, the African American rapper Kanye West provides it. He has publicly supported President Trump, calling him his "brother." He has been widely and vociferously criticised for this, with the clear allusion by many commentators that this a breach of racial solidarity.

 

For example, in response, the African American rapper Snoop Dogg replied on social media: " That’s mighty white of u Kanye. !N____ if u don’t snap out of it Get out part 2." (Note: Mr Dogg used the full word, which is not allowed here)

 

Another clear example is the hostility shown in some quarters to Candace Owens, an African American conservative speaker and blogger. You'll have to do your own research on that, if you're actually interested in this subject.

 

And now back to the odious Karl Marx, I think.

You're the one who introduced the extraneous topic of black supporters of Trump. Own it.

Anyway, let's get back to George Orwell's observations about the socialists' view of northern workers, which you also introduced.

[SheungWan]

6 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Quite so. Marxism had proved to be a total economic failure to such an extent that even Marxists couldn't deny it.

So some of the more committed activists performed a sleight-of-hand starting in the 1970s; no more pitting bourgeoisie vs peasant, but instead setting up the tribalist Victim v Oppressor game in every possible domain.

If you're female, coloured, gay, from the developing world, you score Victim points for each category.

The only people with zero Victim points are therefore the Oppressors; male, white, heterosexual, Western, who form what the Marxists have dubbed "the oppressive Western patriarchy" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

It's the same divisive tribalist Marxist identity politics game, but with different pieces on the board. Instead of the top hat and the motorcar, you have the combat jacket and the nipple rings.

The most urgent task for most people these days seems to be to acquire a patina of noble Victimhood, so that they can claim to be "oppressed" by the usual suspects, and demand special treatment. It's an attractive game for losers; it requires virtually no thought and instantly confers a sense of moral superiority.

The KGB defector Yuri Besmenov said that the first stage of defeating the West was to "demoralize" it, a process he thought would take 20 to 25 years.

In Germany, they put up a statue of Marx (donated by the Chinese Communists). In the UK, they agitate for tearing down statues of Admiral Nelson, on the grounds that that he was a "white supremacist." It's hard not to conclude that the demoralization is all but complete.

Marx is dead, but his pernicious influence lingers.

Some of what you say is fair. Some. For sure large elements of the Left have effectively abandoned Marxism based on proletarian revolution for that of ethnic and gender and Third World identity politics. What Marxists would call 'Substitutionism'. And this includes organisations which still claim they are Marxist. A messed up picture for anybody on the outside who can even be bothered to get a get a grip on latter-day Left Wing politics. But this thread is prompted not just by a statue of Marx erected in Trier (which for the record I have visited. Roman ruins the big deal in town). The thread is prompted by the statue being paid for from China. It is the significance of communism (in whatever form) for China which should be the focus of this discussion rather than the marginalised sects and grouplets in the West. Now that issue is not so easily thrown into the trash. Please continue............................

Edited May 8, 2018 by SheungWan

[SheungWan]

12 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

Marx looked at the world and saw only one thing: oppressed workers. (Right, he wasn't interested in the peasantry.) His system was devised essentially to liberate the workers (not understanding that they were effectively a nascent middle class) from the yoke of private industrialists. The result was to throw them into the yoke of public industrialists and their five-year plans, which was in many ways an even worse kind of thraldom - both because there was no longer the potential to get ahead (assuming you had the talent), but  because the work ethic itself became the tool of oppression, once the inevitable set of autocrats hijacked the system for their own benefit.

The whole thing failed due to Marx's basic misunderstanding of human nature, and I don't think you can make a bigger mistake.

 

Actually no. Marx did not just see one thing. If oppression was the sole thing then you have to ask why would he focus on the proletariat and distinguish them from the peasantry who were not only more numerous at that time but also oppressed? As for 5 year plans and the rest that is one big fast-forward!

[Ahab]

"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

~Karl marx
Final Issue Neue Rheinische Zeitung May 1849
5 paragraphs from the end.
 

Sounds like a nice guy, what could possibly go wrong following his teachings?

[underlordcthulhu]

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."

After all the dead bodies piled up in the 20th century(continuing into the 21st) as a result of socialism, attempt after attempt we can only assume socialists are absolutely insane. The only other way to make sense of it is that it's intentional which makes them evil. 

Insane or evil, this world doesn't need more of either.

[SheungWan]

15 hours ago, underlordcthulhu said:

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."

After all the dead bodies piled up in the 20th century(continuing into the 21st) as a result of socialism, attempt after attempt we can only assume socialists are absolutely insane. The only other way to make sense of it is that it's intentional which makes them evil. 

Insane or evil, this world doesn't need more of either.

So much hot air when actually trading with China nowadays. And by the way this so-called evil was easily absorbed by the West supporting Pol Pot when it suited them so go easy on the evil label not boomeranging back.