this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
66 points (98.5% liked)
Slop.
855 readers
338 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have seen this take several times but I've never gotten any additional information about how they came to that conclusion. Has anyone gotten an actual answer?
Presumably it's some sort of racial essentialism in the vein of "Marx was a white European, white Europeans are colonizers, therefore Marx was a colonizer"
Whether this person actually buys into racial essentialism or is just rage-baiting to own the libs is harder to guess.
We're jews even "white" in mid 19th century Europe?
No, but I don't know how many people realize Marx was Jewish.
Various groups of Jews took over the Catholic Church of Poland to expell their fellow Jews out of Poland; that would be tough to do if you're not a member of the ruling class.
I’ve never seen a person I’d take seriously say a thing like this. Imagine the look on Nelson Mandela’s face if you told him Marx was a colonizer.
dude never even left europe. like he did say racist shit but what exactly is a colonizer vs saying racist shit? or is this like, nazis saying marx was jewish and jews colonized europe? or maybe its a take against the idea that colonization was historically progressive as europeans introduced capitalism which is considered more progressive than feudalism?
Honestly I think it’s a six degrees of separation thing where the USSR annexing the Baltics and China annexing Tibet is “colonizing” and they were influenced by Marx so ergo Marx is a colonizer.
I think he found inspiration in some Iroquois political economy stuff is the underlying argument
To take that to 'colonizer' can only be done in a land as illiterate as this one
It's that through Morgan's work on ancient familial structures that Engles discusses in Origin of The Family, Private Property, and The State?
My understanding is that, while a lot of the nitty gritty details have since been shown to be wrong, that the general outline still more or less holds
exactly that