Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "Karl Marx's Anti-Semitism" video.

Your video neatly compliments what I heard on the "Revolutions" podcast just a couple of days ago about Marx's anti-Semitism, so it didn't surprise me. After all, anti-Semitism did run rampant in the 1800's. It is interesting, though, how you point out that he covered his anti-Semitism with other terms, rather like the bigots nowadays who use terms like "juice", etc. to avoid the anti-racist filters on the internet.
31
@harryfineberg5075 There was a very good book written entitled, "The Day Christ Died". The author goes over some of the wonderful hypocrisy practiced by the Pharisees. For example, on the Sabbath you could only travel a certain distance from your house, but if a servant placed a meal along the road somewhere, that spot was then also considered to be your house, so you could travel further on the Sabbath. This, as well as their raking profits off the temple sacrifices, was why many (but not all Pharisees) were vilified by Christ.
8
Blesava Konjina Caucasian is a scientific term used to describe pale skinned Homo sapiens who get their fair skin, blue eyes and blonde hair from the approximately 5% Neanderthal DNA they have. And the reason why many early communists were Jews is because they came from middle class and wealthy families who sent them to Universities where a lot of students got exposed to Marxist philosophy. If you listen to the Revolutions podcast, it is amazing how many revolutionaries (I would say almost 100%) have university eductions. It's also the reason we still have twerps running as Communist Party candidates in elections. Some people never learn.
7
@gagamba9198 Listening to the Revolutions Podcast confirms what I always thought about most of these revolutionaries and socialist theorists - they were middle to upper class individuals who really had no concept of how the working man lived or thought. The vast majority of them, like Marx, were completely detached from reality. And listening to the description of Marxism, the only thing I can do is paraphrase a one-liner, "Marxism is scientific socialism based on fundamental truths that are neither fundamental, nor true". I mean, the whole basis that primitive tribes hold everything in common is a false premise to begin with.
7
The Colonel But Marx was also wrong, and his revolutionary ideas were the cause of so much misery and suffering. His doctrine of violent social revolution was based on "a scientific study of the history of economics", which is a bunch of tripe (I put it in quotes because it was a bunch of baseless philosophising). So it has everything to do with economics. There were those who realized the flaws in Marxism and Communism "scientific theory of economics" in Russia during the pre-Revolutionary days (early 1900s) were muzzled by Lenin and his crew. These people realized that the lot of the workers (and peasants) could be achieved through peaceful political reform (which is what happened in western Europe) rather than revolution.
6
trainbomb Actually, he went to England to escape being thrown into jail. And what is really ludicrous is that even as he was writing Das Kapital, people like Prince Albert and other political leaders were working to improve the very working conditions Marx was basing his whole premise on. It didn't happen overnight, but change it did. Yet this process of evolution, not revolution, was sneered at by Marx. From my own personal experience with "intellectuals" like Marx, they are full of ideas but never bother to actually visit the people they are trying to "help" and find out what they really want or need.
6
trainbomb If that's the case, why was he spouting off about stuff the workers weren't interested in? If he talked to the factory workers, he obviously didn't listen, or cherry picked what he heard if it agreed with his preconceived notions of revolution. The workers wanted improved working conditions, not a revolution. That's why they took part in protests, mostly peaceful. And had the Czar listened in 1905 as the British Government did, there wouldn't have been a Russian Revolution in 1917. Marx was an idiot! There is a very good reason why many role playing games have Intelligence and Wisdom as different stats - Marx was very smart (he had a Ph.D. after all), but not wise. If he had been wise, he would have realized that what he was promoting wouldn't work because unscrupulous and vicious individuals with little or no moral scruples would hijack any such movement. And history has shown us time and again, from the English Civil War through to the modern day that this is exactly what happens. Promoting social change is often a good thing, but it takes time. People like Marx don't want to put in the toil, sweat, tears and time it takes to push forward social change. Plus, you don't often get your name up in lights and be the centre of attention, which is something people like Marx want. It's not about social change, it's an ego trip.
6
@jayasuryangoral-maanyan3901 Which is probably not surprising. If you have three or four eyewitnesses describing events a decade or more after the event, you are bound to get discrepancies in the accounts of what happened. I would actually be amazed and very suspicious if the descriptions of these events all matched.
4
One of the primary reasons they butted head with the disciples is because Christ and the apostles tore the "holier than thou" facade off the faces of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were running a wonderful scam in the temple. First, to purchase anything in the temple, you needed the temple money. Regular money wouldn't do. Then, if you brought your own sacrifice, the priest examining it would usually find a blemish, so you would have to buy one of the temple-supplied sacrifices. I suspect they would then turn around and sell the "blemished" sacrifice to the next person who came along. Little wonder Christ overturned the merchant's tables in the temple! Also, something a lot of people throughout history don't stop to think about is that the Pharisees and Sadducees were the political leaders of their time. So really the crucifiction comes down to a social reformer being executed by the lawyers and politicians of his age. As they say, "there is nothing new under the sun".
3
I think the issue with Marx is that he remained locked in his Revolutionist mindset, not seeing that improvements to working conditions and workers rights could come through political action rather than radicals overthrowing the government. None of the socialists at the time, and only a few later on, realized that the conditions they were trying to "liberate" people from were only temporary, and could be changed by reforms. Then again, I suspect that in their minds eye they dreamt of leading the revolutions and creating their idyllic world with fluffy pink clouds and flying unicorns. Tragically for all of us, they forgot one important factor, the dark side of human nature. Or, as I always like to put it, the cream rises to the top, but so does the scum.
3
Rappa Kalja But just because it is influential doesn't make it right. In the same vein, Hitler and Mussolini were influential, but were they right?
2
The problem with most "philosophers" is that they lack perspective and get so caught up with their own cleverness and ego that they lose sight of reality. This was the failing of all 19th century philosophers dreaming of a socialist "golden age" - they ignored the yawning abyss of the dark side of humanity. Sadly, we in the 20th and 21st centuries are suffering from their shortsightedness and the effects of their brainwashed wide-eyed disciples trying to implement these horrendously flawed ideas. There is a good reason why the old role-playing game distinguished between intelligence and wisdom. Karl Marx is an ideal example of someone with an intelligence of 16, and wisdom of 3 (for those who don't know the system, take three six-sided dice and role them).
1