Hey Veeky Forums im stating to read this pamphlet and well, i have some questions for others that have read it before...

Read it, but be aware it's a lot more useful to read commentaries and critics made by others about his work.

this post woke me and i dont think its totally wrong, i was shocked when i read that marx had jew in him but what sbout the soviets and the Russians? didnt they read marx and engels? or at least were inspired/influenced by his work.

also please tell me youve read some of their books and not just Wikipedia memeing

Aristocrats are going to destroy the value of their own investments if they set the low against the middle because the bourgeouise have gotten too uppity for their tastes. They'll sacrifice our absolute productivity to maintain comparative advantage. Shortsighted: they'll be fucked by the Chinese.

Also by shitcanning him they caused half of Europe to become communist. So much for aristocracy.

No no, go ahead and read it. I probably worded it badly, my English is not great. Manifesto is definitely worth reading, if not as a way to understand Marx, then at least for it's historical significance.

The thing is though, to understand his theories, you're not gonna avoid delving into Das Kapital. And that's a pretty huge task. It is still to this day the most comprehensive critique of capitalism we have. The key to understanding the critique is familiarizing yourself with what's he's actually criticizing. Think areas such as classical economics (Adam Smith, David Ricardo), liberalism (Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, people like that) and history of 17th till early 19th century.

Do mind that when I was writing my response, I had no idea idea how deep you want to go. You can absolutely get some general idea about him by reading the manifeso, watching some college lectures and stuff life that. If you're going for deep understanding though, I'm afraid you'll have to do the heavy lifting. It's pretty dense stuff.

I hope this helped at least a little.

On a side-note, I've always thought someone should write a historical novel about M&E, presenting that stuff in narrative form for a lay audience who don't want to read 800p of theory

Objectively underrated. Press F to pay respect.

Can someone explain what "workers owning the means of production" actually means? I mean take a business like McDonalds. Would it mean that everyone, from the top level corporate execs to the burger flippers, would get equal say in how the business is run?

Glad to hear it. A lot of people, even those who are very knowledgeable about the JQ, still don't seem to understand what communism was because they don't understand how jews communicate. Marx set off a revolution by jews across Europe, who tried to mobilize the proles against the state. Fascism was also a defense mechanism by nation states trying to protect themselves from these jewish-led revolutions after they saw jews in Russia literally overthrow the Tsar and murder tens of millions of Russians, which is pic related.

>I had no idea idea how deep you want to go
im going full red bro, deep as can go. I have a physical copy of Capital and well from lurking there are lectures that help reading capital so there's that. Im starting with the memes and easy stuff to ease my way into it. but thanks for the rec's, definitely going to look at those guy in the future.

Haha, that would be great. Sad to think that the closest we got in popular depiction was that one shitty side quest in Assassin's Creed :^)

Depends on the business. It can mean anything from a full co-operative (only works on smaller scale) or it can mean full democratic representation of the workers (ie. voting for senior positions.) It's not about equal pay, but fairly distributed pay. Yes the floor manager makes more than the paid monkeys, but conversely the state offers assistance to bridge the gap.

If the commies had dropped the atheism angle when they tried to radicalise the US and instead worked on converting the more egalitarian religious groups they would probably be a stronger socialist presence in the USA, instead they went into antagonism and reactionarism.

There'd be no (or at least much less) "top level corporate execs". Workers would have little councils at each shop - which, apart from any idealism, is just more efficient since all the shots would be called by the people who actually know what's happening on the ground, not faceless suits a hundred miles away.

Why?

Look at the history of countries that try to implement communism. In almost every of those countries the process went like this:

>seize the property of all rich people (bourgeoisie)
>lynch all rich people, all educated people, and anyone who disagrees
>implement communes (which is really state-run labor camps)
>reap the fruits of communism (food shortage, environmental disasters, total loss of freedom)

tl;dr "workers owning the means of production" is just a euphemism for taking other's people property by force.

More or less. There still probably would be top level execs, but their mandate would be coming from the workers, not the shareholders.

In general, when thinking about the means of production, don't focus on who's making the decisions, but on who owns the company.

>If the commies had dropped the atheism angle when they tried to radicalise the US and instead worked on converting the more egalitarian religious groups they would probably be a stronger socialist presence in the USA
No. There are several reasons why socialism never took off in the US but the main reason is racial. The US already had a large underclass of dysfunctional blacks and the whites didn't want to financially support them any more than they already had to. Whereas Europe was homogeneous when they created the quasi-socialist governments that have in recent years started importing their new dysfunctional underclass.

Aristocracy is a small and prosperous group it doesn't matter to them what the state of the nations are as long as they are on top. Communism is useful, fascism is useful lol

wow, can you redpill on the jews and women as well? Really respecting your insights. Thanks for waking me up

Correct me if i'm wrong but:
it just means that rather than the company it's self dictating what you get payed the government dose; so that even if one branch does better work they are not rewarded, likewise a worse branch isn't penalized.

Not exactly. The present "aristocracy" is comprised of rootless jews so they of course do not care about the nation and are actively trying to destroy it and further enrich themselves. Before these jews were allowed to rise to power, however, the aristocracy of the west was European and had a greater sense of noblesse oblige toward those below them.

In other words, the productive has to support the unproductive.

Would it be fair to say, objectively speaking, that the Jews have ruined the world?

Thats not racism, thats classism, something the US prides itself on, so yeah I kinda can see that being a part of the problem. American "exceptionalism" and all that nonsense (theres nothing that unique about Americans)

Communism punishes those who dont work. It's part of why I laugh at all the students who think Communism is the emancipation of labor, because it most certainly is not.

Jews are semites who, like their Arab cousins, seem permanently set to destroy mode.

I didn't say anything about racism and generally refrain from using that fake word. But it's not about class anymore. What we have now is racial communism, which uses the same aforementioned tactics. Jews are now using and mobilizing the non-white masses against whites.

Shut up

We must rise up as the white menace, reclaiming our lands and women who rightfully belong to us as white men.

exactly, which is essentially similar to taxation; In which workers are taxed either by buying things or by income tax, and an annual tax as well; and that money is used in turn for social programs and infrastructure.

Eh, that one seems good enough. I don't think there is more than one English translation of the Manifesto, so any really should read the same.

I dont think thats a Jewish conspiracy so much as a deeply racist and cynical media hegemony. If anything we're in the midst of social engineering on a higher level than any bunch of curly haired religious relics. Promotion of homosexuality, anti-natalism, gender wars.... its all about slowing population growth (an issue all upper class continental europeans have been decrying as the great modern issue for decades) Neo liberals and self defeating populists led to the mass immigration in their obsession with constant growth.

By applying the term "conspiracy theory" you are playing into their hands. Of course people conspire, especially tribalistic, in-group oriented jews. Anyway, you should read the Culture of Critique to gain a better understanding of this. What you're talking about has been well-documented.

And it's nothing new. The jews were kicked out of Egypt for creating anti-cultures and anti-religions based on inverting the cultural norms and practices of the Egyptians -- which has been referred to as "Normative Inversion." Why is that relevant? Because we're talking about an evolutionary strategy jews have been using for millennia. There's nothing new here, and it's no conspiracy.

>homosexuality, anti-natalism, gender wars...
These are contemporary versions of the "Normative Inversion" previously highlighted.

>you should read the Culture of Critique

Oh dear

Disregard jews trying to dissuade you from learning about jewish behavior. The Culture of Critique is a very important academic text that explains how jews influenced the social and political movements of the 20th century. If you want to understand Marx and communism, that's a good place to start.

I'm not the guy you were responding to, I just commented on your seemingly unironically recommending the most meme text of all time.

How many of the Jew-related posts in this thread have you made?

the thing that's interesting about that to is that when it was first published it was a well received "ethnic studies" text, but then when he went to do a follow up volume (((they))) became displeased and turned hell bent on discrediting and destroying him

I'm simply responding to those who respond to me. Glad to hear it's "the most meme text," though. So have you read it or are you jewish?

is there somewhere i can download a pdf? it's too scary to buy, i don't want to get blacklisted from capitalism

Are you going to say that anyone who has read it and doesn't agree with it is a Jew?
Might have something to do with the latter being very unscientific and outright anti-semitic, no?

Read Sowell's Conquests and Cultures: An International History instead

Yes, the first two CofC books received relative praise, but as his study of jews continued MacDonald learned, as all who are knowledgeable about the JQ have, that these are a very sick people. He didn't compromise though, which is why he is now many years later highly regarded among those who care about truth.

>ight have something to do with the latter being very unscientific and outright anti-semitic, no?

it's an ethnic studies book, how is it supposed to be "scientific"? and what is "outright anti-semitic" about it?

archive.org/details/CultureOfCritique

>Are you going to say that anyone who has read it and doesn't agree with it is a Jew?
No, but that's unlikely to be the case with non-jews. It's not a book of opinion about jews; it's an academically sourced historical analysis of jewish involvement in social movements during the 20th century.

looks like it's been removed "no preview available"

How do you feel about the Holocaust? Falsehood that regretfully never happened, failure of Hitler to finish the job, or what?

Those fucking Jews

we're not talking about the holocaust we're talking about the book culture of critique by macdonald, try to stay on topic

prometheism.net/library/CultureOfCritique.pdf

That work?

I personally try to avoid discussion of the matter due to how brainwashed the average white person is w/r/t WW2, Hitler, etc. I just don't find it a useful avenue for helping other whites become conscious of their ethnic interests and accepting that jews are working against them. That said, I've into it plenty and there's a lot of fuckery to say the least. If you're new to the jewish question you'll gasp and awe at what people say about the holocaust; when you have a firm grasp of how jews operate, you'll "oh, of course." But it turns people off and is irrelevant to the future and the long term interests of whites so I don't see a need to bring it up much myself.

it's neat how in his senility chomsky is losing his "filter" and is openly talking about his disdain for catholics, he admitted that until he met "liberation theologists" in latin america in the 80s he had always hated catholics

please redpill me. You've opened my mind to what the jews are really up to (as a white man who has been manipulated and feminized).

Apologize for the grammatical mistakes here.
That's funny, I wasn't aware of that. Jews have always used religion and Christianity in particular as a proxy to guard their hatred of whites.

See pic: (... my hasbara troll friend.)

If that's true that's stupid, the people in the higher level positions would have no incentive to work harder. Not only that, but if their position was gotten through years of education or experience, they would be getting totally ripped off if they got the same amount of pay as an entry level worker for doing far simpler work.

I don't understand Marxism. If profit isn't the motive, then what is? "Helping others" will never be a realistic motive, especially if for certain positions people have to sacrifice years into education and training.

What does he say about the Holocaust?

Things being useful or beautiful in their own right (i.e. a train service would be run, not for money, but simply because it's helpful to have a train carrying people and raw materials around)

nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/upshot/raising-feminist-boys-reader-questions.html

nytimes.com/2017/06/02/upshot/how-to-raise-a-feminist-son.html

enjoy that one too

The problem inherently in socialism (marxism) is that it's based on the idea that people (the government) can create a system where everyone is equal no matter what.
In doing that you create a government class that doesn't care for the individual rights of people; if you speek out or become an obstacle to progress they will in turn get rid of the obstacle.
Which is they presiding idea behind group (social) justice.

I suggest reading F. A. Hayek's "The Road to Surfdom"

also check out this short video on it:
youtube.com/watch?v=mkz9AQhQFNY

I suppose if I try to explain that the goal is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, you'll just screech and call me a Jew some more?

that's what always weird about these alt-right kids, they always claim the superior white race should be at the top of some hierarchy, but if they're so superior why can't they compete in the free market? it's clear that jews do look out for the self-interests of their group more than they let on, but so do italians and some other groups as well, deal with it, what else are you going to do? institute communism and force everyone to be equal? but communism is a jewish plot, so how does that work? and yeah its true feminism has probably gone past it's usefulness and is now just looking for things to complain about, but all these arranged marriage shit is beta as fuck, and quite frankly oriental, which is odd to see "white nationalists" calling for an asian family structure in europe

not at all, if you have a valid argument I will not vilify you, other people in the thread might though.

how do you force "equal opportunity" on people tho? force jews to stop reading books to their kids until they're at a level with blacks and catholics?

well that was fucking boring, all he does is point out that jews are overrepresented in leadership positions, which anyone with a fucking brain can see

Not who you're responding to, but what you should try to understand, hard is it may be, is that "equality" of opportunity is an unquantifiable, and therefore unattainable, illusion. It's moral peasant feed for the masses to bicker over, an abstract moral concept that means whatever you want it to mean, and has an outcome that is impossible to achieve or quantify.

And as hard as it may be for you to accept this, there's a reason why social movements designed or highly influenced by jews, communism and post-60s liberalism (though Christianity as well), make this concept of "equality" a central tenant: because it's an abstract illusion you can't argue against, that also atomizes the masses while at the same time mobilizing them for witch hunts against "oppressors" who must be socially demoted because of the historical privilege or bourgeois opportunity not available to the peasant, the woman, the black, etc.

Communism is a system jews used to take down the European aristocracy. They are now using a racial version of it instead of a class version. The notion of "equality" is just a tool that system uses. It's not a real thing and the people promoting it know this.

The more into Marx I've gotten the more I've come to think that the Communist Manifesto is a bad place to start, and maybe even just an unimportant work of Marx's generally. Though Eric Hobsbawn is brilliant so the introduction is probably very good.

For Marx himself the best place to start is with "Wage Labour and Capital" and "Value, Price and Profit", these give a decent introduction to the basics of his economics.

The 'Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy' is good for understanding the basics of what is meant by historical materialism. If you want to learn more on that, the first section of 'The German Ideology' is a good next step.

After that the next step is really just Capital. Get the Penguin Translation, and then work through it bit by bit with either the guide by David Harvey or by Duncan Foley.

Other than that, Engles books 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific' and 'The Origin of the Family, State and Private Property' are great and very important.

Marx's biggest two influences were from Hegelian Philosophy and English Political Economy, so it would help to know something of Hegel and Adam Smith going in, but it's not all together necessary to start off without.

Here's a collection of many important works in Political Economy asides for Marx, including a good textbook on the subject of pre-Marxian economics at the bottom.
marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/index.htm

Were you expecting to convince anyone you read a several hundred page book in an hour or so?

well obviously i fucking skimmed it, duh, ooking for something that wasn't the obvious "wow the communists are all jews!" and there wasn't much besides that which is someone everyone knew anyways

If you read as well as you write I wouldn't have expected you to absorb it any better than you would have had you actually read it, instead of pretending to have read it.

thanks for replying m8

so what amazing tidbits did i miss?

im OP, can you or explain how that text is meme?

If you actually want to discuss the book you should read it and not merely ask people to explain it to you.
It's just the modern primer on jewish power and behavior, a modern introduction to it, if you will. There are numerous books on the subject going back centuries but MacDonald was the first to explain it from an evolutionary psychology perspective. It encapsulates the jewish question well, so whites who wish to help other whites understand this question often refer them to it, hence its supposed meme status.

to me it just looks like:
>bolsheviks were mostly jews
>new left were mostly jews
>psychoanalysts were mostly jews
>frankfurt school were mostly jews

that's nice, but who the fuck didnt know that, tell me something i don't know

well i mean that should be enough Fuuny thing is, it always goes back to the jews. Literally everything is tied to that people. Coincidence? i think not.

so are you saying they are the master race?

apparently there is a series from professor Macdonald.

>"The first three books constitute what is known as MacDonald's "trilogy." In this trilogy he describes Judaism as a "group evolutionary strategy" to enhance the ability of Jews to out-compete non-Jews for resources."

wtf, i mean after everything gets trailed back to the jewish, even communism, maybe even the nazi's. Who is thee head Jew? the group of jews that supposedly killed christ? these are the questions i need answers. IF lal thes political philosophers have jewish running in their blood, who showed them the way?

ten bucks says "white privilege" was coined by a jew...anyone have the origin of this term?

A lot of people don't know that, and perhaps why you do is related to MacDonald's work. It's not a new book after all. These things shouldn't be downplayed regardless and have had enormous consequences.
jews are nepotistic and parasitic nation destroyers who have never created anything. Europeans on the other hand, see pic related.

I don't know who coined it but I know who's promoting it.

my goodness. You can't believe anything anymore. Books are the only true patrician thing to do. Music, TV, movies, everything is jewish controlled. Even parts of the internet. W-why are they doing this to me.....

they are the master race, and as a goy you were created by g-d to serve them

Holy shit, this is batshit insane, but i believe.

This is too retarded for Veeky Forums

This is stupid. Just read the manifesto, it's literally fucking obvious what is meant if you're not brain dead.

Curtail management heavily, split ownership rights between workers evenly.

Everyone makes probably double their salary or something. The thing is though something as disgusting as McDonalds wouldn't arise without private ownership.

This isn't what it is. You get paid according to your productivity in socialism too.

This isn't a manifesto like modern party manifestos. Marx wasn't a politician he was more of a political theorist. He predicted that the working classes would rise blah blah blah. When reading make sure to remember that nothing Marx says is an absolute, in fact he does little to define exactly what Communism would be. The ten planks are as close as we get and we already have half of them without a revolution now. If you want a clearer picture read Das Kapital.

thanks for the reply. Im halfway through it now and the introduction basically said it was a prediction on what would happen to capitalism. And that even Marx and Engels said the Manifesto was outdated at the time or something like that.

I have a copy of Capital but it's fucking thick as shit and i don't know if i want to tackle it right now. I mean i could do it and only it this Summer along with some Greeks.

Yeah but What i got from it so far is his prediction about the future of capitalism and that the advancement of capitalism is its own demise. He defines what the proletariat is and bourgeois. stuff like that.