Now that the dust has settled, was he right about the Jews?

Now that the dust has settled, was he right about the Jews?

Attached: 43CABF96-ABCD-47C2-93DF-AC123C25308D.jpg (907x1360, 195K)

I'm sure many enlightening and original comments on literature will follow my post

People accuse him of being antisemitic in this but they are reading him badly. He's merely arguing that freedom of religion is liberal and inadequate.

That essay isn't about "the Jews" per se but relations between state and religion.

>What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.
Could you guys help me understand this quote? I’m having a little trouble

opiate of masses, jewish culture has a vested interest in maintaining capitalism, etc

>In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism
And this one?

here is every marx book in short
>is it capital? let's look
>writes two pages that have the same value as a one sentence
>yep defiantly capital

Notice the difference between "the jews" and "judaism"

Jews are synonymous with capital, a rootless cosmopolitan entity that seeks hosts to suck off dry.
The only reason Jews won was because their religion facilitated the harsh realities of commodity-society.

Attached: 001.jpg (1330x532, 269K)

>In this text Marx begins to make clear the distance between himself and his radical liberal colleagues among the Young Hegelians; in particular Bruno Bauer. Bauer had recently written against Jewish emancipation, from an atheist perspective, arguing that the religion of both Jews and Christians was a barrier to emancipation. In responding to Bauer, Marx makes one of the most enduring arguments from his early writings, by means of introducing a distinction between political emancipation — essentially the grant of liberal rights and liberties — and human emancipation. Marx’s reply to Bauer is that political emancipation is perfectly compatible with the continued existence of religion, as the contemporary example of the United States demonstrates. However, pushing matters deeper, in an argument reinvented by innumerable critics of liberalism, Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings who are a threat to our liberty and security. Therefore liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility — for Marx, the fact — that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. Accordingly, insisting on a regime of rights encourages us to view each other in ways that undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation. Now we should be clear that Marx does not oppose political emancipation, for he sees that liberalism is a great improvement on the systems of feudalism and religious prejudice and discrimination which existed in the Germany of his day. Nevertheless, such politically emancipated liberalism must be transcended on the route to genuine human emancipation. Unfortunately, Marx never tells us what human emancipation is, although it is clear that it is closely related to the idea of non-alienated labour, which we will explore below.

Santa Claus? No

Attached: 1564353472374.jpg (637x481, 47K)

See:

Wtf I love Marx now

Marx was unironically based. /pol/ loves to complain about the Jews but they refuse to take the next logical step because it runs counter to their overlords' narrative. The Jews are merely a representation of capatalism in its purest form. Marx understood this.

Except it goes against observed reality. Jews were and are at the forefront of every Marxist & Neo-Marxist movement.
So something is clearly off about his analysis for a culture that readily embraces supposed"antisemitic" ideology.

A better analysis would claim that Jewish culture is the embodiment of materialism: both capitalism and/or marxism.

You are correct. Observed reality goes against what I am saying. The reason for this is simple. The Jews have infiltrated Marxist movements because they know that Marxism in its pure form will inevitably call for the destruction of the Jewish people. As such, Zionists have been trying (and have succeeded) to harness and corrupt Marxism to their own benefit. By doing so, they have claimed Marxism as their own, thus pushing potential Marxists to facisms, an ideology that will never succeed after WWII, at least not anytime soon.

Try reading the entire essay

While I believe the conspiracy to be true, I'm just going off face value. It's a lot easier to point at the stats of jewish intellectual and managerial involvement in the marxist movements (obvious in the capitalist ones as well). But to pin motive on it a lot harder and is still hypothesized to this day. It could be hegemony, it could be for insulation, it could be for lust for power, could be religious. I don't know, but the fact is that materialism is their baby.

He's just using crude stereotypes to exemplify a point within a greater context. He said stupider things about e.g. Lassalle

>It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses' flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow's importunity is also nigger-like.

E-xa-ctly.
Jews are Capitalism vanguard. Jew don't create Capitalism, but the exchange value, and it's growth, created the jews.

Alright, fair enough, what do you propose then?
One thing seems pretty sure, we are trapped into Capitalism, and no ideology seems to be able to counter it. The only way out seem to be to change to way we produce.

Strangely Hellenic, or "Gnostic", or Christological.

That's not so much a quote as a total butchery of the text

>He's merely arguing that freedom of religion is liberal and inadequate
I love how you're using "liberal" here as a pejorative
far better were the forced conversions during the Spanish Inquisition, amirite?

>Marx makes one of the most enduring arguments from his early writings, by means of introducing a distinction between political emancipation — essentially the grant of liberal rights and liberties — and human emancipation
>Unfortunately, Marx never tells us what human emancipation is
lol - why would anyone trade a functional system that guarantees your freedom of conscience as much as security of property for some utopian, "all men will live as brothers" noncept?

cringe

>molymeme-not-an-argument.png

t. Lassalle

What's the book about (German) Enlightenment figures using the Jew as a negative for their ideals?

>better were the forced conversions during the Spanish Inquisition, amirite?
Yes They were because they were jewish superstition and never happened.