Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "The REAL ‘life’ of KARL MARX" video.

Critics make 15-35 minute long videos often relying on a handful of sources and resort almost entirely on reciting often without context. TIK makes book long video essays of 30min-5 hour long videos with a welcomed amount of citations and a hefty sum of sources. Not just reciting but also explaining and discussing. Then they wonder why it isn't as effective.
163
Hehe for a second there I thought you were serious.
57
Sadly what happens. Enablers financially sponsor bad behavior. Those they sponsor abuse and use the Enablers like a parasite. If he existed today the CPS would be knocking at his door for not providing for his children.
44
Finally finished this video, being at work I could only listen to it in increments. I'm honestly shocked how terrible Marx was as a person. Not just toward his rivals, but toward his friends and family, if you can call them friends. This man would be considered an abuser in the modern age, treating friends like pockets who he manipulated to line his own pocket, treated his family like dirt and seemed to have little sympathy even for his Wife/Children. Based on what you're posted from Jenny, likely convinced her of "His" victimhood so she'd not blame him for their struggles. This is inherently tragic. If he was alive today, his children would have been taken away by the Child Protection Agency/Service.
25
Can not tell if this is serious or sarcastically making fun of Marxist as it sounds absolutely terrible. 😂
9
Concrete vs Abstract. It's why there are more definitions of Social Ownership as there are branches of Socialism. They share the core definition of Social Ownership of the Means of Production but argue what Social Ownership means. Then claim there is no arguing and pretend it's a Concrete definition. 😂
4
Religious antisemitism.
4
Hegel was a critic of Smith because it wasn't spiritual. Influenced yes but only in a way to warp Smith's ideas to his own pseudo religious nonsense. 😂
4
By reinforcing stereotypes throughout his literature and personal letters? Ya sounds like a critic of zionism. 😂
4
I don't think you watched the video. Marx lived in poverty despite being given more wealth without working mind you than a middle class person earned during that time period yet was still broke. Marx was poor because he chose to be poor, wasted the wealth he leeched off others then blamed everything and everyone but himself including fellow communist for his meager life. Marx resulted in the deaths of his children and his own impoverishment because of his own actions. He is the literal definition of a parasite. He didn't care about anyone including his own children apparently.
4
Ps look up Babysitter took dead baby to McDonalds on this platform. The life style that babysitter lived is how Marx lived... if not far worse. Basically if he was alive today his children would have been taken by Child Protections and possibly be in prison as an abuser and a r-ist. Based on the horror story TIKs video presents.
4
@tomhalla426 had that happen today actually. Over what Public meant. Person said it meant the State. So I replied so a Dictatorship is Public? They said no, it's private. Then how is the State Public if a Dictatorship is private and the Dictatorship is the State? It's not a People's State. So the people are the public not the State? Around it went. All that because I called a Publicly traded Corporation a Public Hierarchy. Lol
3
They just redefined it as Personal Property or Belongings. So they don't have to use the dirty word a Private. They have such insecurities. It's ironic because they will say Stalin owned nothing but a few personal belongings yet had vacation and summer homes access to anything the State could provide him at a whim. Was by defacto as wealthy as the Tsar. Hitlet gets a mountain top retreat and it's of course a Capitalist despite in his will making sure everything but personal effects went to the Party upon his parting. Showing how much he viewed his supposed wealth as the Party's wealth. Yet benefited from it while alive just like all the rest. But being hypocrites is part of the game.
2
@TheImperatorKnight often why I try to tell Socialist that Selfishness does not disappear in Socialism. It just takes the form of Party Privileged and Desk Jobs and Office Chairs. Capital is even still an incentive but now through corruption and under the table "Donations" to make sure resources go to the "Right" places.
1
@tomhalla426 He didn't reply no more because I cornered him as a result. The Public State is just the top of the Public Hierarchy. So.. a publicly traded company that isn't part of the State is still a Public institution. As it's owned by a wider proportion of society than a private company. We were using Valve vs EA as good examples. Valve is a Private company though owned by more than just one family isn't avaliable for trade.. company I work for is the same. Still has multiple owners mostly family of the founders. But it's not available for public trading either. It's why Valve has been so successful because it isn't beholdened to Shareholders wanting stock value to go up consistently. It also has a small overhead because despite bringing in the dollars it's not a large company. When compared to other publishers anyways. It ironic because he was defending valve yet trashing Capitalism while damning corporation. Not realizing that valve was an example of Capitalism not the corporations he was damning.
1
@waketfup8864 I could agree with that, however in the context of Dictatorships like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany didn't have a hereditary succession plan. Unlike say Saddam Hussein or the Kim Family of North Korea These regimes despite having a "Dictator" were more Party Dictatorships more so than an Individual being Dictator. In spite of Hitler's position of power he still shared ruling the nation with many others within the Party as well. Hitler also didn't view his wealth as his own personal wealth but the wealth of the Party. Which is why he gave a vast majority of it back to the party upon his death in his will. He didn't see it as "His" property but the Party's property. Which is actually why he let so many party members stay at his mount top retreat, when he wasn't there. The Party paid for and built it, he never viewed it really as his alone. So ironically similar to how Stalin would often share his vacation retreats Hitler did the same. That doesn't fit your 'drain' the nation til it's dry description. Hitler in particular, similar to Stalin believed in expansionism to increase the wealth of the nation. Like many others in the Party like Goebbels Hitler also took rationing seriously during the war. It's actually one thing Goebbels despised of Goring, as while many other party officials tried to make themselves examples of the people by also rationing/not exceeding their needs, Goring did the opposite. Doesn't sound like individuals who were intentionally abusing the system for personal gain.. When they viewed themselves as role models for the people. Ironically a lot of the wealth that was drained was drained on the people. Like the Strength through Joy program, with 34 million vacations paid for by the State to the common volk.
1
@waketfup8864 German State wasn't his Property. You completely misunderstand the Fuhrer principle. How can a leader chosen by the Party own the State? He's a dictator in representation of the Party that runs the State. No different than Primers from the Soviet Union. Hitler was only in power so long the rest of the Party supported him. Interestingly, the Nazi Party did have succession laws in case of Hitler's death. Hitler ended up having to bypass them mostly because much of the Nazi Party leadership were either under house arrest, in hiding/trying to flee the country or were also trapped in Berlin. So Hitler went out of his way to choose a new Fuhrer because of the situation at the time. Technically the Party was to convene and select a new Fuhrer if the other successors were not available. But again because the Government was in chaos at the time that wasn't possible. Again it's a Party Dictatorship. Hitler didn't own the State, and the very notion of that is only because stupid people don't understand the Nature of how the Nazi system worked. This also applies to say Mussolini, who was deposed even by his own Party after the Fascist Party lost the Loyalty of the King of Italy, the Fascist Part had a vote of no confidence in Mussolini and kicked him from the Party. So again, another dictator who was a Party Dictatorship, not a I OWN THE STATE dictatorship. I find it absurd that people even consider this in the 21st Century to be a reality.
1
@waketfup8864 I guess I can simplify it. Fuhrer Principle = the Party Elects a King, the King serves until the King is unable to Serve. But since the Nazis hated Monarchies, they dared not use the word Kaiser. So used "Leader" instead. This King didn't own the State, they ruled on behalf of the Party, and Party's interest. It was also not Hereditary. So it's basically like electing a President but the President holds more power than say a US President would have, and would stay in office until confidence in their leadership is lost, or they die, step down or whatever reason. Goring was marked for treason by actually trying to exercise this actually. When berlin was surrounded Hitler was basically trapped, and incapacitated and unable to lead the country. Of course many loyalist in the Party didn't see it this way, including Hitler himself. Only when Hitler realized all was lost, and Berlin couldn't be saved, did he decided to give his powers over to another Citizen. One that was quite unexpected at that, because he wasn't a Party Man. I personally believe he did it out of spite for all the yes men he realized were lying to him by the 11th hour.
1
@waketfup8864 Honestly hope you're joking on that comment. Because it would throw any ounce of credibility you may have had completely out the window.
1
Always thought that was a reference to Marx. Lol
1
He'd be a streamer with deep fake to look like a lady to lure in simps for easy cash. He wouldn't care for the cause. Most of his writings were to shame people to take care of lazy people like him and give him money.
1
@Inquisitor6321 Happened recently. Not even a week ago someone posted a video on Capitalism and the Economy of Nazi Germany. Same user posted videos directly critizing TIK so you can assume it's in direct opposition. However issue with the video is, it doesn't explain much. 90% if not more is just reciting citations without much context. Obviously bringing up stuff TIK has addressed without addressing TIK's arguments. Basically coming off as someone reciting the bible. Using Toozes and Landa predominantly as that bible.
1
@coldwater5707 Sounds to me you took that out of context, because those are antisemitic stereotypes the whole Rothschild conspiracy is that a stereotype, the international bankers, again another stereotype. The whole anti Zionism cult is built on anti semitism. So the ad bringings those things up and calling it antisemitism it isn't wrong, it's literal. Zionism is literally an organization that sought to bring the Jews of the world together to collectivize as one national identity even if they never achieved a Nation state, hence the Jewish World Congress being an International Congress for a National Identity ie the Jewish People. For some the end goal was to create a Nation state. But honestly at the time when Zionism was created that was literally the goal of all nationalist movements at the time. The Polish State, the Serbian State, the insert Nationality and they wanted a State. Including the Arabs who wanted a Pan Continental Arab Super State. Hence why most of their flags share the Arab Nationalist colors even today. All a Nation is is a self conscious collective, political/organized identity. Hence why Marxist are also nationalist in denial. Basically to be anti-Zionist is to be against the idea of Jews having a National Identity of their own. So like Arab Nationalism which sought to create an Arab identity during the early 20th Century Zionism is literally the same thing. In my opinion, either you're opposed to all Ethnic or Religious Nationalism or you're a hypocrite for being opposed to Zionism. I know most Anti-Zionist often end up being Nationalist of some caliber so are inherently hypocrites.
1