Immortal Technique: Classism Facilitates Racism

[JahFocus CS]

The quote explains in his own words that without slavery, the economy of a nation would collapse. He said Direct Slavery was good. Marx was a Jesuit who supported an idea created by the Vatican. The same Vatican church that supported the slave trade of Africans. Now why would a religious institution support Marx atheist views?

Richard Owen, "Vatican thumbs up for Karl Marx after Galileo, Darwin and Oscar," The Times Online, October 22, 2009.

please see @Madvillain's post right above yours

 

[thekingsmen]

really?

He owns his studios but not where the distribution goes based off company value.

 

[Madvillain]

The quote explains in his own words that without slavery, the economy of a nation would collapse.

I don't see how pointing this out makes him a supporter, it was simply a fact - American capitalism was built on slavery. Any revolutionary worth their salt would agree. As pointed out above, "He was simply attempting to depict the paramount importance of slavery for the American capitalist economy by portraying the way slavery’s absence would deflate the entirety of American society." He never anywhere said direct slavery was good. He was describing the system & all the wealth that had come from it.

 

[thekingsmen]

please see @Madvillain's post right above yours

I've seen that. You didn't answer my question above.

Redistribution of wealth where do you think that comes from?

 

[thekingsmen]

I don't see how pointing this out makes him a supporter, it was simply a fact - American capitalism was built on slavery. Any revolutionary worth their salt would agree. As pointed out above, "He was simply attempting to depict the paramount importance of slavery for the American capitalist economy by portraying the way slavery’s absence would deflate the entirety of American society." He never anywhere said direct slavery was good. He was describing the system & all the wealth that had come from it.

"As for slavery, there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring explanation is the good side of slavery. I do not mean indirect slavery, the slavery of proletariat; I mean direct slavery, the slavery of the Blacks in Surinam, in Brazil, in the southern regions of North America. Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery there would be no cotton, without cotton there would be no modern industry.

 

[Madvillain]

"As for slavery, there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring explanation is the good side of slavery. I do not mean indirect slavery, the slavery of proletariat; I mean direct slavery, the slavery of the Blacks in Surinam, in Brazil, in the southern regions of North America. Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery there would be no cotton, without cotton there would be no modern industry.

This is why it pays to observe context and read where it came from. Here, Marx was getting a Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's philosophical method.

We shall now have to talk metaphysics while talking political economy. And in this again we shall but follow M. Proudhon's “contradictions....
M. Proudhon most certainly wanted to frighten the French by flinging quasi-Hegelian phrases at them. So we have to deal with two men: firstly with M. Proudhon, and then with Hegel. How does M. Proudhon distinguish himself from other economists? And what part does Hegel play in M. Proudhon's political economy?
...

For him, M. Proudhon, every economic category has two sides – one good, the other bad. He looks upon these categories as the petty bourgeois looks upon the great men of history: Napoleon was a great man; he did a lot of good; he also did a lot of harm.

The good side and the bad side, the advantages and drawbacks, taken together form for M. Proudhon the contradiction in every economic category.
The problem to be solved: to keep the good side, while eliminating the bad.

Slavery is an economic category like any other.

As for slavery, there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring explanation is the good side of slavery. I do not mean indirect slavery, the slavery of proletariat; I mean direct slavery, the slavery of the Blacks in Surinam, in Brazil, in the southern regions of North America. Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery there would be no cotton, without cotton there would be no modern industry.

It is slavery that gave the colonies their value; it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the precondition of large-scale industry. Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance.
Without slavery North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe North America off the map of the world, and you will have anarchy – the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.[*1]

Thus slavery, because it is an economic category, has always existed among the institutions of the peoples. Modern nations have been able only to disguise slavery in their own countries, but they have imposed it without disguise upon the New World.

What would M. Proudhon do to save slavery? He would formulate the problem thus: preserve the good side of this economic category, eliminate the bad.

Hegel has no problems to formulate. He has only dialectics. M. Proudhon has nothing of Hegel's dialectics but the language. For him the dialectic movement is the dogmatic distinction between good and bad.

Let us for a moment consider M. Proudhon himself as a category. Let us examine his good and bad side, his advantages and his drawbacks...

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm

 

[thekingsmen]

You guys are some really good posters but most isms are the reason why people trapped in the box. Communism, Capitalism, Socialism. 3 make a pyramid. All are used systems to divide and conquer.

 

[Madvillain]

Communism, Socialism... are used systems to divide and conquer.

You haven't really fleshed this out. You only tried (& failed) to call Marx a pro-chattel slavery racist and in a way kinda tried to call him a capitalist.

 

[CHL]

Calling out the war for what it was as “the Proslavery Rebellion

 

[thekingsmen]

"Social Justice"
A Jesuit priest named Luigi Taparelli is typically credited with coining the term
The first modern usage of the specific term "social justice" is typically attributed to Catholic thinkers from the 1840s, including to the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in Civiltà Cattolica, based on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas. He argued that rival capitalist and socialist theories, based on subjectiveCartesian thinking, undermined the unity of society present in Thomistic metaphysics as neither were sufficiently concerned with moralphilosophy.


Jesuits and Vatican in African Slave Trade.

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-gary/vatican-and-atlantic-slave-trade

http://dl.tufts.edu/catalog/tufts:UA005.001.070.00001

The Jesuit Reductions were a particular version of the general Catholic strategy used in the 17th and 18th centuries of building reductions (reducciones de indios), in order to Christianize the indigenous populations of the Americas more efficiently. The reductions were created by the Catholic order of the Jesuits in South America, in areas inhabited by theTupi–Guarani peoples, which generally corresponds to modern day Paraguay. Later reductions were extended into the areas that correspond to Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia and Uruguay.
In these regions the Jesuit reductions were different from the reductions in other regions, because the Indians were expected to adopt Christianity but not European culture.[1] Under the Jesuit leadership of the Indians through native “puppet” caciques, the reductions achieved a high degree of autonomy within the Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires. With the use of Indian labour, the reductions became economically successful. When their existence was threatened by the incursions ofBandeirante slave traders, Indian militia were created that fought effectively against the colonists.[1] The resistance by the Jesuit reductions to slave raids, as well as their high degree of autonomy and economic success, have been cited as contributing factors to the expulsion of the Jesuits from the Americas in 1767.[2] The Jesuit reductions present acontroversial chapter of the evangelisational history of the Americas, and are variously described as jungle utopias or astheocratic regimes of terror.[1] Jesuit Reductions (Wikipedia)​

Karl Marx
http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/the_museums_story/architecture/reading_room.aspx



http://rt.com/news/vatican-smiles-karl-marx/