Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "Karl Marx's Anti-Semitism" video.

You need the sarcasm. Otherwise people can deliberately use clips out of context for defamation.
43
Because Marxist are in denial. Either that or the first generation of Marxist were just as antisemitic.
40
@yogat.5892 Well when you remember that Malcom X and the Black Panthers had Marxist ties, were pro segregation, and even anti-J people. I mean they even invited people like George Rockwell to a number of their anti J people rallies. It isn't hard to realize what people call Extreme Right and Extreme Left seem to come relatively from the same place. Heck the Comedy sketch called "When Wokes and Racists Actually Agree on Everything" which is on youtube express it perfectly.
31
@robertmatch6550 It's quite convincing. It actually makes Marx's definition of Capitalism which is a Person who accumulates wealth make sense. As the common definition of Capitalism is the private ownership of property, and capital when compared to Socialism which is public. All business even publicly owned business make money. Even the state through taxation makes money. So by default all people who deal with 'money' regardless are capitalist if you go by Marx. His crap definition of Capitalist makes no practical sense what so ever, and is why some Socialist can easily claim "Socialism has never been tried." Because of this bad definition of Capitalisms we have to come to a conclusion that it means something more. When you compare Marx's definition of Capitalist along side the Stereotypical Rhetoric of the money hoarding "J*." It's quite striking, and in actuality literally the same thing. Every instance of how Marx describes a Capitalist, literally fits perfectly with old Christian antisemitic rhetoric of the J**. This can not be a coincidence. Marx even made it clear in one of his passages that it must not be a coincidence that the J* has become the money lender of today or something along those lines. There he referenced it directly. Because of this, you can come to two primary conclusions. 1. If Marx didn't do this intentionally, by writing this book he still encouraged antisemitism on a wide scale. So when people claim he was actually trying to protect J** they're ignorant as F*** because it would imply people wouldn't take what he wrote literally. Which As TIK pointed out, some did take it literally. So Marx utterly failed if that was his goal. 2. Marx's definition of Capitalist is in itself has it's roots in antisemitism. The Greedy Capitalist is based off the stereotype of the Greedy J*. Whether Marx intended this or not. His definition of a Capitalist is literally the stereotype of a money hoarding J* and there is no way to separate that. So to be honest, TIK isn't wrong.
27
Honestly I think Marx meant by that phrase, people who were inwardly Jews, not literal Jews. So TIK likely got that translation wrong. Marx was likely referring to people with that line who were practicing the Jewish faith of "Money." So when you think about it. Marx blames Jews for creating Capitalism, and is referring to none Jews who are also practicing this money hoarding faith. It's literal classic antisemitism but being applied to anyone that makes money.
25
@BiharyGabor But there has to be. Otherwise the word is meaningless. If there is no clear definition of said word though any particular philosophy it implies the use of the word is too contradictory to have a definition. Which implies Marx had no definition of the word Capitalist. Which means all his uses of the word Capitalist are empty and hold no real meaning. OR Marx used the word Capitalist for whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, with no meaning, as a demonic figure, or replacement for a swear word. "I don't like this, so it's Capitalism." Sarcasm Sorry to say, if you do not present a clear definition of "Marx's version of Capitalist." Then you have no argument. Trying to strawman the argument because I asked a valid question isn't working. Asking a question to answer a question, isn't answering a question, because it's a fallacy. So either answer the question, or do don't.
14
Raced to sharing this over discord. 😃
13
@BiharyGabor There has to be a singular definition. One that all other definitions used by him share and have commonality with.
13
@BiharyGabor Every Marxist I've argued with has always fallen back to declaring that a Capitalist is someone who accumulates wealth. Capitalism plural is an economy built around the free market and individuals being allowed to accumulating wealth. ie a economy built around selfish money grubbers. Sarcasm It's why Lenin was able to get away with declaring a farmer who had too many cows as a Capitalist, Class Traitor and a kulak, equal that to a factory owner or nobleman, in spite being quite poor, because to afford too many cows, ie not the proper amount of cows, would imply they are accumulating wealth so they can afford said extra cows. Ironic that my definition of a dirty money grubbing Capitalist I can present practical evidence of it in practice, quite easily. It's why such a regime was able to ethically steal whatever it wanted from it's people whom they believed earned it unfairly to begin with because they were practicing Capitalism. Poor farmer doesn't deserve his tractor, doesn't deserve having more than 10 cows, doesn't deserve having a surplus of grain. In the eyes of the USSR under Lenin wealth didn't just equal money but property to boot, but property is a form of material wealth so it still circles back to "Money." You dared to declare it untrue, but insist on refusing to presenting real proof that it isn't. Going so far to declare it's too complicated to be defined in such a simple manor. However, no philosophy is too complicated to be defined into a singular definition, unless said philosophy is filled with contradictions. If it's filled with contradictions, then it's either built upon broken logic, or worse, intentionally done so to make it easy to switch what it means at a whim when it's necessary, then it's built upon untruths, and dishonestly. Then again TIK has already pointed out a few times where Marx was most definitely lying to his readers, and moments in which he did love Contradictions. So he was either an idiot or a liar. However, in spite of that, there still has to be a core clearly defined definition, otherwise, such a ideology could never be instituted in practice to counter it.
13
@alansloan2845 You misunderstood what I just said, everything negative I just spoke was in criticism of Marx and his followers not the other way around. Either way Marx's definition of a Capitalist is still the same as the Christian stereotype of the money grubby Jew. So it's obviously without fail more than just a coincidence.
13
I honestly think he kept spitting things out hoping it would stick and people would listen to him. It's why he contradicts so often. It's why he spouts hate speech, then spouts liberation for the very people who is hating on. He totally F***ed up millions of people's minds for generations, and honestly I think he is personally the Catalyst for the two largest genocides in European history.
12
@BiharyGabor You're correct a Kulak was whatever blood sucker excuse the state could come up with to rob them. But it's roots lie in the definition of a Capitalist. 😃
12
@BiharyGabor Still not answering the question.
11
@BiharyGabor Because you can't with risk of it backfiring.
10
@botiboy I love TIK's criticisms of the German Army and the evidence he uses. I guess that makes me a Wehraboo aswell just because of my avatar and SN.
10
@BiharyGabor I would say the same which is why I made that sarcastic reply. It was not accidental. You refuse to define Capitalism or Marx's definition for it because you believe it holds no definitive meaning which only implies it holds no meaning. I present a practical usage of Kulak by Lenin, PRACTICAL application which were property owners which could include cattle or anything Lenin want, but realistically it still circles back to Capital whether Money or Property. Cows are property and Kulaks were under Lenin and Stalin people they accused of owning property and property is still capital as it's traded and sold as it holds value like gold. Ironically making Kulak at least in the early USSR as nonthing more than a synonym of Capitalist.
9
Definitely explains why Marxist are still antisemitic. Tim Pool reference a book that justifies Rioting and looting when the book stated the phrases Jewish and Asian Capital, ya Marxist hate Asians now days as well...
8
@BiharyGabor What is Marx's definition of Capitalism? =3
7
@BiharyGabor Mine came first, you never asked a question in your first comment.
7
You didn't watch the video, as he points it out in the video. =P
6
@BiharyGabor I will never answer your questions until you answer mine that isn't how this game works. Mine came first and you've refused, so why would I answer any of yours. And yes by implying Marx had no definitive definition for Capitalism you are by defacto claiming their is no definition. Regardless whether you mean to or not. This will continue until that happens.
5
You're getting Leftism mixed up with Liberalism, they're not the same thing. TIK points out in an another video that even Stalin considered Fascism to the LEFT to Communism. Which means at one point Leftism meant something different than what a lot of people today think Left means. Left was never liberal, will never be liberal, was never meant to be Liberal. The Left is has always been about equality, but not equality in a liberal sense, but equality in a fairness sense. Leftism is Collectivism, Leftism is Socialism, Leftism is Democracy, and Federal State Governments. Leftism in turn is also Marxism and Fascism. All of these are anti Liberal because they ALL Advocate the group over the Individual and Liberalism has always been about Individual Rights over the GROUP. This is why the Left are almost exclusively pushes for fairness, even at the expense of people's individual rights. Were as the Right has always been around Individual Rights, and Responsibility separate from the group. Which ironically means, Rightism is actual Liberalism. Yes Conservatives Support the Right, and are often the stereotype of Right Wing Politics, but that is only because the RIGHT IS LIBERAL. The Right Supports Religious Freedom, and the Rights necessary for specific groups to survive in Society. Racist often Support the Right because the Right allows Freedom of Speech, and the Right to Assembly which they require to have any voice whatsoever. Religious groups support the Right because the Right allows Religious Freedom mean while the left is obsessed with Religious suppression, like changing Christmas to X-Mass or Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas just as an example, even publicly berating someone if they dare say merry Christmas in Public. That isn't liberal behavior. Left wants, and needs conformity. It's why Capitalism is literally Liberalism at an economic level. Your own personal economy is in your hands, and no one elses. You choose were to work, or whether you want to work for yourself in a Capitalist economy, it's about responsibility, and freedom of choice. It's against the idea of the Greater good, or the GROUP. Leftism has always been about the Group, Collective Will of the people. Which is why the original Leftist in the USA were called Federalist, and why they call themselves Democrats today. They want that Collective Will, that Majority Rule, which goes against everything America stood for, the entire reason all those protections exist in the constitution, why checks/balances exist within the political structure was always meant to prevent Majority Rule. If you have Majority Rule you did not have a Free Society which Individuals separate from the group can survive, at least without serious risk to their individual rights. It's often a question I ask Socialist who say Socialism can not be Socialism without everyone being included, if often ask "And when you try to create this society and people refuse to join it, what do you do to them?" They have no answer to that question. Because when I point to regimes like the USSR, or Nazi Germany who crushed people into dust who refused to conform to the GREATER good, or the Majority, they claim that isn't socialism, in spite that they function under the majority principle. They actually believe that minorities in a majority ruled system will have a voice. It's laughable.
4
To be honest, that phrase is pretty accurate. All Collectivist ideologies are surrogates for religion, they replace Religion. Religion itself is collectivist. It's why ironically most collectivist ideologies are so far removed from Liberalism that ideologies like Marxist shouldn't ever be considered part of Liberalism. Because they behave like a collective, and go against the ideals of Individualism which dominates the concept of Liberalism, ie Liberty of the Individual from the collective group. Other collectivist ideologies include Nationalism, Fascism, Nazism, almost all monotheistic religions, and the list goes on, where the GROUP is more important than the individual. These are NOT Liberal movements, Marxism is literally in the same boat.
3
@L Gatcha fighting antisemitism by presenting the people with antisemitism. ". According to McLellan, Marx used the word "Judentum" in its colloquial sense of "commerce" to argue that Germans suffer, and must be emancipated from, capitalism. " This phrase in particular is utter BS. Saying Judenturn means commerce? Doesn't he just prove TIK's point while trying to defend Marx? Which means the Jews are the money changers. If Commerce is Jewish, Money is Jewish, Capitalism is Jewish?
3
And? You do know the guy who created Sea Monkey's the mail order playset was Jewish, while also donated money to a local Nazi political group? David Cole a known H-denier was also Jewish. Among a few other H-Deniers there are a few more who were also Jewish. Being Jewish doesn't mean anything. You're automatically assume just because. Assumptions make fools of people.
3
@redaerf2b414 It's explained quite clearly in his Hitler's Socialism video, as well in this video timestamped 22:41 BTW that quote at that point sums up why Wilson and FDR were socialist presidents, even if the USA itself wasn't. Wilson established the Federal Reserve to ensure strict control of banking/finance within the United States. FDR later confiscated all the privately held gold during the great depression as Keynes would be quite proud of him. Basically eliminating hard Capital from the market, forcing all citizens to be bound to the Federal Reserve's banknotes. Even today, 80 years later, Americans still rely entire on the US Dollar, the concept of gold and silver coinage never truly returned, even the coins issued today hold no real value as they're mixed alloys intentionally done so it's impossible for a normal citizen to know what their value is in rare metals, and you can not melt them down either as they're a mix of multiple alloys and you'd have to be very talented to do so. This all was entirely done to control capital, make it impossible for citizens to have any control themselves for money. Basically the State Monopolized currency, and FDR and Wilson are the primary reasons for it.
3
@alansloan2845 Disingenuous as those who take the words literally will not think so. So regardless it promotes antisemitism. Euphemisms and double speak are not a great way to get one's message across. If Marx thought so then he was a moron.
3
Sounds like cultic conspiracy nonsense. Can you even confirm this letter is real? Whether it's being taken out of context? Sounds to me the letter is written by a nut even crazier than Marx to Marx, but just because someone writes a letter to 'you' doesn't mean the latter is true, or that you believe or support what said letter says. So basically what you just posted is irrelevant when it comes to Marx himself. If anything it sounds like Nazi conspiracy style propaganda as it fits perfectly with their world view, similar to when Marxist fake documentation to prove their world view.
2
I think the best question to ask is "Is a Jew a Jew if they do not follow the Jewish faith?" My grandparents and parents are/were Christians but "I" do not consider myself Christian even though I still celebrate some Christian holidays but I do so because I enjoy them, not because of faith.
2
TIK is basically stating that Marx's definition of a Capitalist is the stereotype of the Money Grubby Jew. So a Capitalist doesn't = Jew but does = someone who practices the Jewish Religion of Money. TIK is arguing that Marx's concept of a Capitalist is based off Classic Christian Antisemitism. Which if TIK is correct means the entirety of Evil, Selfish, Money Hording Capitalist is literally based off old Antisemitism.
2
@helmortkuper2626 My grandparents were Christians, yet I'm an atheist, and because of this I'M NOT A CHRISTIAN. TIK explains in this video WHY calling Marx Jewish is a Fallacy, because he NEVER PRACTICED Judaism. Unless you believe in races and that the Jewish people are a sperate branch of humanity that "MUST" act as one body so can never be against others in their GROUP. It's a stupid, collectivist way of thinking.
2
It's a slap to the face to Socialist. He isn't wrong when saying that either. Issue is, not all Socialist are antisemitic, yet Socialism, at least Marxist branches of Socialism. The very concept of the Greedy, Corrupt, Thieving, Manipulative, Money Hoarding Capitalist, are identical to historic stereotypes of the J people within Christian Europe. This isn't a coincidence, because Marx's very concept of a Capitalist was entirely based off that.
2
Irrelevant, as it doesn't change Marx's views nor it's influence on Socialism. It's why stereotypes of Capitalist are identical to Christian stereotypes of the J people. It's pretty blatant when you start comparing.
2
Ethnically, but he never practiced Judaism himself. So you can argue, is being Jewish a Religious or Ethnic thing? We have Arab, European and African Jews for example. So it's more of a religious thing. So if Marx rejects Judaism in his own eyes he wouldn't really be Jewish. TIK kind of explains this in the video, and other videos. Marx was Religiously Antisemitic not Racially Antisemitic like say the Nazis were. Nazis viewed Jews as a "Race" not a "Religion."
2
Marx is basing his views on the classic Christian stereotype of the Jew. Marx's definition of Capitalist is literally based off classic Christian antisemitism. This is why the stereotype of a Capitalist is identical to those old Christian rhetoric. Being Marx grow up with a Christian church school education it's likely the origin of his beliefs.
1
@nelo1 If it was entirely about the "I" Christians wouldn't care about individuals who didn't believe the same as them, it would be their choice. You wouldn't of had the Protestant and Catholic split in Ireland were just the version of Christianity you believed could ruin your entire life or make it. So in only name alone, does Christianity operate the way you say, but in practice it's a collectivist cult, maybe not all the time, but most definitely during it's most extreme periods. So my point still stands quite strong. (Ironic that this comment was originally deleted so I had to sanitize it.) Also seriously? Economic Liberalism? Slave to the Market? Slave to the Market... I guess you're forced to work at McDonalds, who owns your you bill of sale receipt? Seriously....
1
@nelo1 They are collectivist. Your example of a political party is also collectivism. It is one of the primary reason political parties are bad for any government. The Party is above the individual. Why do you think they act as one body? Even if individuals within thr Party disagrees they still back the Party.
1
@nelo1 You're business example is a joke. An employee agrees to it the moment they become an employee. So they're willing signing off to follow their company's rules, if you do not like it do not sign the papers and look for employment elsewhere. Secondly all Political Party's are collectivist not just Liberal ones. By default not all collectivist are Socialist so I dunno what black hole you pulled that out of outside of trying to spin the point to something ludicrous. Even a video game like HOI4 knows that Collectivism isn't exclusive to any ideology so automatically applying I mean Liberal parties is foolish.
1
@nelo1 Alternatives are everywhere. As TIK said, you do not have to work for anyone else. 😉 I can think of many examples of Individuals who defied the norms in recent years. Including in the film, game, and commercial industries, some starting out as humble as a security guard gone indie dev making millions off a successful video game to an adult film writer gone mainstream with a AAA critcally acclaimed film back release in 2018. Let alone throught modern history. The director for the animated film of the year award "Your Name" made his career from a side project he did called Voices of a Distant Star. I can think of a lot of indie animation and game studios recently as well. People who went off out of the claws of your evil rule filled hypocrisy you say is impossible to avoid. 🙄 I myself know how to plumb, do electrical, autocad, drive multiple types of vehicles with licenses. Let alone knowing how to operate a variety of CNC equipment. Finding work is ridiculously easy because I know the more you can do the easier life is the more roads that are open to you. As a person you have options, and only you hold yourself back. Everything else is just an excuse.
1
@nelo1 You're referring to British Victoria Era Darwinian thought. Hitler didn't create it, nor did he really adopt it either. But it isn't entirely wrong. Just unnecessarily cold and detached. But it is true. Best example I can think of right now is literally every business in my town is hiring. Yet we still have unemployed. 😕 They're not a victim if they're not actively seeking a way out of the poor house. They're not victims if they get fired either. The worse thing any person can ever do is view themselves as a victim just because they're a shitty employee. In the last twenty years I've seen so many people do this that it's a joke to me now. People I know were horrible at their job but believed they were the best but were not even worth a 1/10th of another. Yet demanded the same pay. It's insulting seeing someone like that claiming they were treated unfairly. I've seen people able to do 7 days worth of work for one person in a day without even trying. There is no fairness there, and such a failure does not deserve to be a victim but of their own creation. You could bring up a massive corporation who layoffs for short term profits but their fault for joining something that is run by spreadsheets. Like a communist state does.
1
People who believe Races exist are "racist." People who judge people by the concept of a "Race" are Racist. So no, Racism does exist, but Races do not exist. The very concept of Race in itself is Racism. Viewing people as a distinct race is Racism.
1
Class of 03, I came out of highschool a Fascist, a proper one, one of my best friends ironically was a Marxist, we influenced each other's views quite heavily. If it wasn't for our arguments/debates I'd likely never came out as a Fascist. I knew what Italian Fascism was, and knew Nazism had little if anything really to do with it. I disliked the idea of any version of Socialism which divided people based on some social construct like social classes, ethnic groups, religion. etc I was also against the idea of democracy, I think the last two American elections shows exactly why I'm not exactly pro democratic. So... Fascism was just about the only Socialist Option that worked for me. It's ideal of using Nationalism to Unite people under a Socialist system was to me just about the only way it could work at all. I'm dumbstruck that people think Fascism is a form of Capitalism. Fascist never at any time in their history considered themselves Capitalist. I've since stepped away from such Collectivist "Idealism." You get older you wise up, and I came to realize just about the only way for people to truly be free is allowing people the freedom to be an individual, outside of the collective group, outside of the system. Such freedom would be impossible, no matter how idealistic you are, in any form of collectivist society, including Fascism. What I find the most comical, Fascist always claimed they were somewhere between Capitalism and Communism. Communist definition of Socialism = "The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved." Being Fascist considered themselves between Capitalism and Communism, wouldn't that mean by the Communist/Marxist definition of the post Leninist period, that Fascism is Socialism? Though I would say today I'm more of a Libertarian. I went from a Fascist to a Civic Nationalist, and eventually became a Libertarian. Talk about a dramatic shift in opinion since 2003.
1
@magnuscritikaleak5045 Fascist Concept of a Corporation is the Socialist concept of a Corporation ie Corporatism which is part of the Syndicalist branch of Socialism, not a Capitalist one. The Fascist Rejected Capitalism. So even if I was still a Fascist, it wouldn't be any of what you just stated. Perhaps you should read up on Fascist ideology beyond the lies pro marxist socialist say about it. Lastly the very concept of a Capitalist is a Myth. The modern notion of a capitalist didn't exist until after Marx. Even then it didn't really take root until the 1920s. The Modern notion of a Capitalist is literally an antisemitic stereotypes with a new name thrown over top of it. So ironically being the entire concept of a Capitalist is Racist. So by accusing someone of believing in Capitalist, or by being a Capitalist you're literally spouting antisemitic racism. So have fun.
1
Because they're built on Ignorance and Contradictions, that they wouldn't even know to look this up. Even many of their defensive arguments saying "No he wasn't an antisemite" heavily rely on speculation. Because they have no real proof he wasn't. For example, they often claim he was using "Js" as a code word for Capitalist, or I've ran into a few as a Critique of Capitalism. Though based on what TIK is pointing out, it seems to be the opposite of what they often claim. However, when you think about it logically those kind of arguments do not work well because they're ironically admitting Marx considered Capitalism a product of the "J*" because he is literally comparing Capitalism to a Culture, and trying to make Capitalist as Marxist claim feel guilty for being like J**ish people. Then they're also ignoring people who took Marx's criticism of J* literally, like Mr H. So in short, he was being antisemitic, and there isn't any way to get around it. Even in the best case scenario they are often trying to paint. To me it seems to blatantly obvious, and being his influence on Mr H's view of J**ish Capital, to be frank, Marx is the Catalyst to the Big H.
1
@ZontarDow It's so blatant when you compare stereotypes of a Capitalist to Christian stereotypes of J people.
1