Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Karl Marx most evil man in history
Virus | 
China coronavirus_ 
Marxism, the most evil and insidious ideology every to exist, was started by this serpent. Fuck Karl Marx
2020-02-13 21:59
Topics are hidden when running Sport mode.
#1
fer | 
Brazil HLTVmarker 
he shouldve came to brazil
2020-02-13 22:00
he should've been tossed from a window as a child!
2020-02-13 22:00
#66
ZywOo | 
France soju_c 
hitler got good vacation in brazil
2020-02-13 23:34
Funny enough, Karl Marx never ever in his entire life had a job .
2020-02-14 13:02
flag checks out
2020-02-13 22:00
doesnt check out*
2020-02-14 13:03
#3
 | 
Germany lenin_is_back 
So mad ahaha communism is gonna win, marx and lenin are bestest
2020-02-13 22:00
everything checks out
2020-02-13 22:06
#70
 | 
Germany Sonnabend 
+1
2020-02-13 23:41
name checks out
2020-02-14 00:00
0/8
2020-02-14 11:42
#5
 | 
North America FutureOfNA 
You haven't heard of scientology which is literally a religion based on blackmail
2020-02-13 22:00
scientology has no power meanwhile the entire western world is being subverted by cultural marxism every signle day since the 1960s!
2020-02-13 22:02
#11
 | 
North America FutureOfNA 
no power yet they hold many celebrities hostage with threats of leaking sensitive info. they also have religious status so they dont even pay taxes. nothing scientology has done has ever benefited society.
2020-02-13 22:04
Don't validate his obvious baits (or otherwise worrying endorsement of actual nazi propaganda)
2020-02-14 07:51
#6
 | 
United States ClickHole 
True because he killed over 100 million people
2020-02-13 22:01
+1 singlehandedly killed all those people
2020-02-13 22:05
#19
 | 
Germany lenin_is_back 
men killing 100 million people singlehandedly that must have taken a long time
2020-02-13 22:08
#20
 | 
United States ClickHole 
100 million in 100 years
2020-02-13 22:09
#125
SANJI | 
Luxembourg kng_rdl 
in 65 years actually, damn he killed over 4000 people per day, this guy probably never slept. what a dude
2020-02-14 13:21
#130
 | 
United States ClickHole 
100 in 100 sounds cooler though
2020-02-14 14:49
#133
SANJI | 
Luxembourg kng_rdl 
true
2020-02-14 18:20
proof?
2020-02-13 22:11
No Karl Marx = no russian revolution, no russian famine, no cold war (vietnam, Korea etc), No Mao & Stalin
2020-02-13 22:29
Yup
2020-02-13 22:34
#83
 | 
United States F1exible 
what about the previous anarchist theory? wouldnt people like stirner have taken his place instead
2020-02-13 23:54
hard to speculate, but im at least pretty sure eastern Europe would have been rich today if communism never happened
2020-02-14 00:19
#102
 | 
United States F1exible 
You figure the two world wars wouldn’t have done it to em? And there was the Free Territory. And the occupation by Germany. And us intervention in Albania. And intervention in Poland. And Yugoslavia. What I’m driving at is there’s a lot more nuance than what you’re trying to make it out as.
2020-02-14 03:14
they are all suffering from pre-soviet era. Even east Germany and east Berlin are today worse than rest of the country. The tsar was friendly with the west and would have turned Russia to a modern society later on.
2020-02-14 12:49
#134
 | 
United States F1exible 
The Tsar was holding them back. He brought a revolution on himself
2020-02-14 22:41
"later on" I said. Lenin did not get majority of votes, so he just stormed the parliament and took the power
2020-02-14 22:53
#84
 | 
Germany KaZo04 
no germany = no 2 world wars, no hitler, no wars, no karl marx
2020-02-13 23:56
Austria-Hungary started ww1 btw
2020-02-14 00:16
#95
 | 
Germany KaZo04 
i mean yes but kinda no without germany joining the conflict wouldnt be so big
2020-02-14 00:21
#46
 | 
United States ClickHole 
History
2020-02-13 23:02
#45
 | 
Norway therealdagon 
yes, marx personally killed 100+ million people with a weapon
2020-02-13 23:02
#47
 | 
United States ClickHole 
True, the weapon being his brain
2020-02-13 23:02
#52
 | 
Norway therealdagon 
id rather say authoritarian dictators trying to follow his vision, but failing in key aspects
2020-02-13 23:07
#60
 | 
United States ClickHole 
Unfortunately there exists no example of his ideologies ever being successful
2020-02-13 23:27
#72
 | 
Norway therealdagon 
so no aspects of modern socialism has ever been successful?
2020-02-13 23:45
#73
 | 
United States ClickHole 
Evidently not
2020-02-13 23:46
#78
 | 
Norway therealdagon 
I'm not talking about an exact copy of Marx's "perfect" ideology, but rather bits of it. Socialized medicine, college and other programs became popular after socialist ideas became more prevalent, post WW1
2020-02-13 23:50
#86
 | 
United States ClickHole 
It depends on your interpretation of success. If we're talking about the fact that socialized medicine for example is so widespread is what makes it successful, then potentially. I'm gererally referring to the fact that authoritarian regimes have always failed.
2020-02-14 00:07
#97
 | 
Norway therealdagon 
I can agree with that, but I think that calling Marx the most evil man in history is pretty ignorant, and I think u agree if u are being honest. He had only good intentions with his beliefs, and he didn't call for what Lenin, Stalin, etc did with it
2020-02-14 00:27
#109
 | 
United States ClickHole 
He might have had good intentions, but the reality is, had he not voiced his thoughts, 100 million lives would have been spared. I like to think of it in the same way that Gavrilo Princip caused the deaths of 80 million people just by killing Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
2020-02-14 11:41
No, instead of marx the deaths were caused by the mothers of those 100 million people, bc without them giving birth none of those 100 mill ppl would've ended up dead.
2020-02-14 13:11
#131
 | 
United States ClickHole 
Well by that logic we could go on forever so its best to leave it Karl lol
2020-02-14 14:50
with his own hands
2020-02-14 00:30
Correct me if I'm wrong but true marxism has never been established anywhere
2020-02-13 22:04
#25
 | 
Portugal xxxruixxx 
You are not wrong. Pure marxism is basically an uthopia and never existed..
2020-02-13 22:13
Yeah it's unachievable due to human nature
2020-02-13 22:14
#88
 | 
Brazil renatorib 
Exactly.
2020-02-14 00:09
Marx has never described what a real 'socialism' society looks like, i.e how to run the economy, how to hold government and so on (He did mentioned that it will not be the same capitalism form of government, we must destroy it). His idea is merely to state that, correct me if I'm wrong, but I had read like half of his books shelf already and I felt only one thing that is real about Marxism, those who were oppressed, they should stand up and revolt against inequality and oppression. All his idea, from historical materialism to surplus-value, are all supporting one thing, the proletariats have every right to overthrow the capitalists, with or without violence. Then, CCCP was built on Lenin's idea of Vanguardism, but this ultimately failed after the death of Lenin with the rise of Stalin and bureaucrats, destroyed everything Lenin once built. About the human nature, it's about the philosophy you belived in, Marx and Young Hegelians does not believe that people should be alienated by what they create, i.e capital, and human should control that capital and not the other way around...
2020-02-13 22:25
#51
 | 
Sweden Trkmag 
+1
2020-02-13 23:05
Thanks for that
2020-02-14 07:49
#115
 | 
Europe _EpiC_ 
+1 dude was a philosopher
2020-02-14 12:54
#127
SANJI | 
Luxembourg kng_rdl 
dude were on hltv, fuck off with your knowledge. pls only talk about topics you read a ben shapiro article on
2020-02-14 13:23
+1
2020-02-14 11:43
#9
 | 
Denmark Howlite 
I agree that marxism is horrible. But I'm sure that his plans wasn't to murder everyone.
2020-02-13 22:04
#15
 | 
Russia NikSmoK 
Well just throw away every Marxism thing you have in your life. Like work 8 hours a day, free healthcare, free education and all the social security you have.
2020-02-13 22:06
#40
 | 
Denmark Howlite 
flags checks out
2020-02-13 22:46
#106
Happy | 
Russia Jovik! 
So you're not going to I suppose?
2020-02-14 08:05
#113
 | 
Denmark Howlite 
healthcare and education supported by the state isn't marxism. Everything supported by only the state is marxism. And work 8 hours a day isn't marxism either, pretending to work 8 hours a day is.
2020-02-14 12:50
#119
Happy | 
Russia Jovik! 
Of course, communism isn't derived from Marxism either, it came from capitalism.
2020-02-14 13:01
#120
 | 
Denmark Howlite 
obviously bait
2020-02-14 13:01
#123
Happy | 
Russia Jovik! 
That's all I get in response when the subject is communism/Marxism.
2020-02-14 13:04
A russian supporting marxism u must be masochist or something like that
2020-02-13 23:47
I thought danes were intelligent, dude...
2020-02-14 00:32
#10
tarik | 
Norway MD! 
Flag checks out communist
2020-02-13 22:04
#37
 | 
World Beard43 
Marxism, communism, same thing.
2020-02-13 22:38
#39
tarik | 
Norway MD! 
Not the same thing, Marxism led to communism so yeah
2020-02-13 22:42
#41
 | 
World Beard43 
I mean, Marx literally wrote the communist manifesto. You can call it what you want, socialism, communism, marxism, the result will always be the same. A rose by any other name...
2020-02-13 22:51
#12
Asuna | 
United States bxteme 
Nt marx
2020-02-13 22:05
what did marx do?
2020-02-13 22:05
name checks out
2020-02-13 22:07
wow youre the first to notice!
2020-02-13 22:07
name checks out!!!!!!
2020-02-13 23:47
#21
 | 
Brazil Negrinhu 
WE MUST SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION
2020-02-13 22:09
#22
 | 
Italy steven513 
Name and flag checks out
2020-02-13 22:10
Nt braindead
2020-02-13 22:11
#27
 | 
Asia ElemeNt4ffff 
Mao wasnt good as well
2020-02-13 22:15
What is it that you dont like about marxism?
2020-02-13 22:16
MARK KARL! HIMSELF singlehandedly KILLED and MURDERED and SLAUGHTERED and RAPED 934589345 BiLLIOn trILLION QUINTUPLEQUATNTILLION GooglEPLEX HUMANS!!!!!!
2020-02-13 22:23
#30
 | 
United States LiquidEra2020 
conservative brain so low...
2020-02-13 22:23
#53, lol. Threads like these are a good laugh if you don't take them too serious. They are also a bit saddening how brainwashed these people are to hate and disregard poor people since the system happens to benefit themselves.
2020-02-13 23:18
ok china
2020-02-13 22:26
You are too retarded to be a Chinese, fake flagger.
2020-02-13 22:28
#48
f0rest | 
China hzxhl16 
+1
2020-02-13 23:03
#35
 | 
Finland Miroyev 
He just had some utopistic ideas. He didn't condone things such as killing in the name of communism
2020-02-13 22:33
ppl don't know the value of freedom until they lose it. freedom > control. think for yourself. fuck marx. utopian mr "i know better".
2020-02-13 22:39
#42
 | 
Yugoslavia al0)) 
im gonna report you to your capitalistic regime
2020-02-13 22:52
Maybe not that evil, just kind of dumb.
2020-02-13 22:53
#44
 | 
World Beard43 
+1 The people who still follow his ideas now knowing what the results will be are evil.
2020-02-13 23:00
Yeah. As opposed to capitalism which guarantees 100s of millions of people will suffer and die as result of the system, no matter how hard they work. Totally NOT evil! Great brain. At least communism works "iN tHeOrY".
2020-02-13 23:14
You know, man, the cause of material suffering is the lack of resources, in other words, misery. This is not the fault of any economic system, but of nature itself, at least capitalism allows production to exceed the need and we have food for everyone. The more capitalist, the more resources the country has. And when I say capitalist, I mean commercial freedom, of course.
2020-02-13 23:28
>at least capitalism allows production to exceed the need and we have food for everyone What? Thousands of people are starving in the richest country in the world. How is that "food for everyone". The government is literally stealing from the middle class, and giving billions in ""subsidies"" to food/agricultural companies. Why is that needed in capitalism? Hmm.. Really makes you think. Nothing you said makes any sense. You've been lied to. Suffering is not inevitable. It is the result of greed.
2020-02-13 23:40
the world has never been so good in allmost every aspect. OPEN YOUR EYES. you think all you have today is thanks to what? how things where! not how things where supposed to be. respect the complexity of telling ppl how they will live their lives. no single mind can predict the end result of a caotic sistem like that. it is dumb to think a man knows better than anyone how ppl will live their lives. and most importantly you HAVE to permit the existence of ideals. even the ones that do not permit the existence of your ideals.
2020-02-13 23:29
I have read your comment 4 times, and I have no idea what you are trying to communicate to me. Nor do I know how it goes against my point.
2020-02-13 23:35
#63
 | 
World Beard43 
Not as a result of the system at all, it's natural for animals to fail in life and they will suffer or die as a result. Capitalism gives people the freedom to make their own path, which certainly does sometimes end in tragedy, but the value of that freedom far exceeds any perceived benefits of its forfeiture. Communism forces everybody to suffer whilst demonstrably failing to prevent the suffering of less fortunate people.
2020-02-13 23:29
People hoarding un-spendable amounts of wealth while poor people die = natural, and not a result of the system which encourages the endless greed. Got it. You are surely top of your university in economics and logic, I am sure. Literally nothing you said is even a counter to my original point, besides those statements which literally make no sense.
2020-02-13 23:34
#76
 | 
World Beard43 
With such weak points I'm not surprised you rely so strongly on personal insults, but I have no need to argue with belligerent fools. Have a lovely day kiddo.
2020-02-13 23:47
I insulted you because what you said made no sense *(which I assumed, and hoped, was on purpose to derail the conversation. That thought seems to have stood correct). It is a direct result of the system. In communism, no one dies an easily preventable death "iN tHeOrY". In capitalism, millions of people die senselessly as a DIRECT result of the GREED that capitalism ENCOURAGES. Your entire argument was nonsensical.
2020-02-13 23:58
#49
 | 
Ukraine ksay 
huh ok
2020-02-13 23:03
#50
 | 
Sweden Trkmag 
It's the other way around
2020-02-13 23:04
#54
 | 
Canada tempOcs 
i literally just spent a week writing an essay about this wtf. But in other words, please fuck off i don't want to see this ever agane! Much Love btw <3
2020-02-13 23:17
post it
2020-02-13 23:23
#59
 | 
Canada tempOcs 
I would but it's too many characters
2020-02-13 23:27
an excerpt perhaps?
2020-02-14 00:19
#56
tarik | 
United States borjwa 
Yeah, a misguided pseudo-historian is the most evil man in history. Who had very little practical impact on the world.
2020-02-13 23:21
should've stanned loona
2020-02-13 23:24
U should add Gramsci to the list too, that fucking midget modified socialism so you u will get fucked by it, and u won't notice until is too late.
2020-02-13 23:32
I’ll look into him thanks
2020-02-14 13:47
commies claim that communist system does not exploit workers. so if communism didn't exploit workers, why in USSR a worker had to prepay all his salaries of at least 5 years and wait another 5 to buy a car?
2020-02-13 23:37
"because it wasnt real communism" REEEE
2020-02-13 23:49
hahahaha this answer is classic :D
2020-02-13 23:52
Why is it funny? It wasn't. What people like Avitals are criticizing is authoritarianism, not communism. The government was run by the ""Communist Party"" but the USSR was never a communist country. You should maybe try spending 10 minutes or so on even just a Wikipedia article. It would inform you pretty well.
2020-02-14 00:08
#81
 | 
World Beard43 
+1 haha
2020-02-13 23:53
#87, please convincingly explain to me how the USSR was actually communist. With actual facts and sources. I would give you a million dollars.
2020-02-14 00:10
Today's Russia worker Can't afford anything outside vodka in entire life. At least you mentioned it, workers in CCCP still able to afford cars, look what today's Russian workers? went unemployed, dead, froze on the street, drinking vodka to escape from reality.
2020-02-14 00:20
#107
Happy | 
Russia Jovik! 
Are you alright? What type of nonsense you wrote there. Keep your mouth shut if you don't know for sure.
2020-02-14 08:09
#71
 | 
Germany Sonnabend 
-1
2020-02-13 23:41
#82
gla1ve | 
Denmark flapdur 
To blame Marx for everything bad that has happened in the name of communism is lake blaming Jesus for everything bad that has happened in the name of christianity. Marx was a theorist and some of it was right, other things were wrong. But all of it was corrupted and failed. I´m sure Marx would be horrified, if he saw what was being done in the Soviet Union and other places in his name.
2020-02-13 23:53
Marx was pretty much on point with his diagnosis, terribly wrong with his prescription. Meaning: capitalism sucks big time, but communism is not the answer.
2020-02-14 00:19
Face of collectivism. Makes me disgrace to be same species with him.
2020-02-14 00:25
+1
2020-02-14 13:26
I mean Marxism wasnt a bad idea, until it was put into practice, then it came to realization that Marxism wasnt that great
2020-02-14 00:30
#101
OCEAN | 
Reunion 1iquser 
socialism has changed between the times marx was alive and today
2020-02-14 00:34
#105
 | 
Georgia cleve 
Karl marx wasn't evil himself, he just wanted to improve the world and fight injustice of capitalism, sadly some of his ideas led to terrible things but it wasn't his intention.
2020-02-14 07:56
So what is cultural Marxism? In brief, it is a belief that cultural productions (books, institutions, etc.) and ideas are emanations of underlying power structures, so we must scrutinize and judge all culture and ideas based on their relation to power. Following from this premise, advocates for the persecuted and oppressed must attack forms of culture that reinscribe the values of the ruling class, and disseminate culture and ideas that support “oppressed” groups and “progressive” causes. A short tour through some notable landmarks should suffice to show how 19th-century Marxism evolved into 20th-century “cultural Marxism” and the culture war of our present day: In the 1920s, the Hungarian Marxist György Lukács set out to address a contradiction within orthodox Marxist dogma: for Marx, a society’s dominant ideology was a “superstructure,” a mere reflection of its more basic economic structure. Thus, the ruling class of capitalists who controlled the money and the means of production also created and controlled its dominant ideas. But a workers’ revolution of the sort Marx predicted could, Marx thought, only come from the subordinated class, i.e., the workers themselves. This question then arises: what will convince workers to revolt when the very ideas in their heads are implanted by their overlords? To answer this question, Lukács, in his History and Class Consciousness (1923), argued for a more subjective conception of class consciousness than the one favored by Marx. Workers (the proletariat) had to have their consciousness raised in order to muster up the appetite for revolution. The necessary friction to light the revolutionary fuse would come from what Lukács viewed as inevitable tensions within capitalist society that stemmed from its tendency to disguise contingent relations between people as seemingly necessary relations between things (a phenomenon Lukács called “reification”). An institution such as a factory or a university is, in reality, an arrangement of human relationships constituted in particular, contingent ways, but we treat these institutions as more or less fixed givens. The tensions between appearance and reality could not but bubble up to the surface in various ways (e.g., factory worker wages being insufficient to support anything more than a bare subsistence lifestyle), and when workers respond to such conditions, such as by organizing workers’ unions to fight against these institutionalized and reified practices, this then brings about reprisals, cracks of the capitalist whip. And this, in turn, would lead workers to see more clearly what was what, who was with them and who was against them. Thus, proletarian consciousness would be elevated and break out of the ruling class’s ideological girdle. The contingent—and therefore, changeable—nature of capitalist society would be revealed. The principal point for the rest of this story, however, is this: the very process of organizing and agitating was not merely a means to an end (e.g., better working conditions), but also critical to the development of revolutionary consciousness, which must be cultivated in order to blossom. Building upon Lukács’ ideas, the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, the key figure in the cultural Marxist canon, developed, in the 1930s, a more elaborate concept he called “hegemony.” For Gramsci, a war of ideas necessarily precedes any actual war against the capitalist ruling class. “Hegemony” is the ruling class’ use of mass culture to dominate the masses. The elites use mass culture as armies use trenches and fortifications to defend their core interests. A revolution, then, can only occur after a long battle of position against these cultural fortifications and ideological defenses. Every revolution, Gramsci argued, is preceded by an intense period of criticism, a culture war. A key role in this process of counter-hegemony is played by people Gramsci referred to as “organic intellectuals”—those born into an oppressed (“subaltern”) class. Such intellectuals refine the “common sense” of the masses into “good sense,” thereby planting the seeds of a more widespread revolutionary consciousness. In the 1970s, the French Marxist Louis Althusser, influenced by Gramsci (as well as by the work of the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan), distinguished between the “repressive state apparatus” — police, military and other direct organs of ruling class control—from the “ideological state apparatus”—those institutions, such as education, religion, law and familial practices, that work to further hegemony by reproducing the existing relations of production. Echoing G.W.F. Hegel’s famed master-slave dialectic, Althusser then argues that the social roles in which we (mis)recognize ourselves (e.g., “mother,” “worker”) always exist in reference to and in relation with some other, more powerful subject (Lacan’s “big Other”), such as the Boss, the State or God. The end result of this process is that we cannot question or deny the roles and authority of these more powerful subjects without simultaneously tugging at our own rug and denying ourselves. In the late 1960s and 1970s, the Marx-inspired German émigré thinker Herbert Marcuse, who had fled the Nazis and settled in America, became an academic superstar. Wielding enormous influence over a generation of New Left activists (most prominent of these, perhaps, being the erstwhile communist, Black Panther and African-American and feminist studies trailblazer, Angela Davis), Marcuse framed broad, scathing critiques of the straitjacket of American society. American capitalism, Marcuse claimed, manufactured uniformity and alienation and co-opted the working class into complicity with its own subjugation by convincing it to identify with commodities. America made us all into consumers, vanquishing all possibility for revolutionary action. Given this state of affairs, Marcuse, leaving the white working class to its own devices, argued for a shift of focus to those marginalized and oppressed groups that had been left out and, thus, were easier prey for radical agitation. Clearly indebted to Gramsci’s notion of the “organic intellectual,” he argued that leftist intellectuals such as himself had a role to play in rousing up and channeling the rage of such groups into an attack upon societal institutions. Perhaps Marcuse’s most important contribution to contemporary political discourse on the Left was the concept of “repressive tolerance.” This idea—easily recognizable as a forerunner of modern-day political correctness—consisted in the by-now-all-too-tragically-familiar view that the norm of classical liberal universal tolerance could be repressive insofar as it resulted in the tolerance of certain kinds of “wrong” or “backward” beliefs. “[W]hat is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression,” Marcuse writes. On this foundation, he chillingly argues for “the systematic withdrawal of tolerance toward regressive and repressive opinions and movements.” Drawing closer to our own time, Columbia University literature professor and prominent Palestinian activist Edward Said, in his wildly influential work Orientalism (1978), concocted a simplistic and thoroughly Manichean account of how Western writers and scholars had systematically objectified and exoticicized Asia and the Middle East. The work spurred a revolution in established university literature canons and became a foundational text for post-colonial studies, which came to adopt, as an unquestioned dogma, Said’s take on a dynamic of the Western oppressor and the non-Western oppressed. There are many others I could discuss here—Judith Butler and Stuart Hall spring most readily to mind—but the point has been, I hope, sufficiently made. It is a short step from Marcuse’s “repressive tolerance” to political correctness, free speech crackdowns, no-platforming, and the epidemic of boorish and thuggish university “protests,” Antifa intimidation and violence directed against illusory “fascists,” who end up being mostly Trump administration officials and supporters. It is a short step from Gramsci’s “hegemony” to the now-ubiquitous toxic memes of “patriarchy,” “heteronormativity,” “white supremacy,” “white privilege,” “white fragility” and “whiteness.” It is a short step from his and Marcuse’s reconceptualization of the role of radical intellectuals to our sensationalized and politicized media outlets playing the part of a self-styled progressive vanguard riling up the allegedly oppressed and turning their incoherent rage loose on the rest of us. It is a short step from Althusser’s notion that we (mis)recognize ourselves in ideologically constructed social roles to the pseudoscientific (or, at least, greatly overstated) idea that sexuality, gender roles and gender itself are all thoroughly socially constructed. It is a short step from Said’s Orientalism to the complete displacement of aesthetic merit as the sole criterion that should be considered in the construction of canons and the recognition of aesthetic excellence. It is a short step from the Marxist and cultural Marxist premise that ideas are, at their core, expressions of power to rampant, divisive identity politics and the routine judging of people and their cultural contributions based on their race, gender, sexuality and religion — precisely the kinds of judgments that the high ideals of liberal universalism and the foremost thinkers of the Civil Rights Era thought to be foul plays in the game. And it is a short step from this collection of reductive and simplistic conceptions of the “oppressor” and the “oppressed” to public shaming, forced resignations and all manner of institutional and corporate policy dictated by enraged Twitter mobs, the sexual McCarthyism of #MeToo’s excesses, and the incessant, resounding, comically misdirected and increasingly hollow cries of “racist,” “sexist,” “misogynist,” “homophobe,” “Islamophobe,” “transphobe” and more that have yet to be invented to demonize all those with whom the brittle hordes partaking in such calumnies happen to disagree.
2020-02-14 08:29
He was a genius
2020-02-14 12:52
#116
 | 
Korea XigNw0w 
Accelerationism isn't any better.
2020-02-14 12:57
+1
2020-02-14 12:57
#118
 | 
Europe _EpiC_ 
youtube.com/watch?v=ynbgMKclWWc Here is a dude who holds degrees in Economy from YALE, STANFORD, HARVARD and ... he is in support of Marx. Great guy.
2020-02-14 12:58
+1
2020-02-14 13:22
Think for yourself. Ppl defending marx seems to be following other ppls ideas like sheep. Meeeeh. Mehhh. Mehhh. Is all i hear and read. There is one common thing in all ideologies and that is a better life for society. Saying that "all that marx wrote is trash" is dumb. Defending marx is dumber. We can perfectly fit new, better ideas in ppls life doesnt matter who published it first. All that matters is that IT HAS TO WORK. In electronics we have a thing called PID(proportional integral derivative control) in short it regulates the sistem to allways be at a certain desired value. Used in, for example, drones. Whenever the wind blow the drone right it regulates itself to the desired position moving just a bit left. We have a very nice thing called democracy that behaves kind of like that. But for that to work it needs time, and it needs to exist. Does marx allow democracy, freedom of ideas and liberty to think differently? Maybe. But it is not what we see in practice.
2020-02-14 17:54
Marx & Hitler, both from Germany... Germany did so much to remember how evil the Nazis were. I hope, that one day we will also see, that Socialism and Communism did exact the same, if not more. This political system killed so many people, we have to fight (in a political way) against this new Socialist movements.
2020-02-14 23:05
karl marx and engels, name better duo
2020-02-14 23:06
you must have forgotten prophet mohammed
2020-02-14 23:06
Monstars
1.61
Oceanus
2.19
100 Thieves
2.47
G2
1.49
Renegades
5.05
FaZe
1.19
Bet value
Amount of money to be placed
Winning
Odds total ratio
-
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.