Portrait of an American Hero

[Gary Childress]

Karl Marx is possibly the most maligned historical figure in the recent past.

Well, the truth is that some people quite deserve to be maligned. He lived a malignant life, and introduced a thoroughly malignant philosophy. Worse still, after his death, Marx's ideas brought about the death of at least one hundred million people in the last century. No other ideologue has ever come close to that. Statistically, if there is any individual in the history of the human race who has done more damage than Karl Marx, it would be impossible to say who it would be.

I think we can now stop defending Karl Marx. We can just let all his deeds speak for themselves.

Marx's rhetoric does seem distinctly different from that of classic liberals like John Locke, J.S. Mill, Adam Smith, and Rousseau. "Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains. From each according to his ability to each according to his need." Etc. It seems more like calls to action (or revolution) where classic liberals seemed more concerned with sketching out the rules for civil society. I'm not aware Marx had much in the way of a plan for society after "the Revolution" or whatever. It was just, "stand up and fight" I suppose.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not aware Marx had much in the way of a plan for society after "the Revolution" or whatever. It was just, "stand up and fight" I suppose.

That's very common with revolutionaries. They derive a great deal of vigour from being opposed to things. They're very clear on what they hate, and what they want to get rid of; and so long as this establishment that they hate continues to be available, the revolution looks strong and focused. But the very minute the revolution "wins," it's in trouble; for then it has to have positive proposals for going forward and solving social problems. The vigour it got from hatred is abated, and now the revolutionaries become the establishment, the accountable ones, the people on the hook for substantive achievement.

But most revolutions are much weaker on what they want to do going forward than on what they're against. So they have to keep generating new enemies from with the very populace they once served -- the compromisers, the traitors, the betrayers of the revolution, as they dub them -- and begin to weed them out for the gulags, the firing squads or the re-education camps. Then they run out of those, and have to "eat their own children," so to speak, denouncing and hating even yesterday's heroes of the revolution sometimes. And still, the revolution lacks proposals to go forward, and continues to fail...leading to dictatorship and repression of the populace generally, because the new rulers are afraid of another revolution.

All this was said by "The Who" back in the '70s, with the song "Won't Get Fooled Again." Worth a listen, especially if one pays attention to the lyrics.

[Gary Childress]

I'm not aware Marx had much in the way of a plan for society after "the Revolution" or whatever. It was just, "stand up and fight" I suppose.

That's very common with revolutionaries. They derive a great deal of vigour from being opposed to things. They're very clear on what they hate, and what they want to get rid of; and so long as this establishment that they hate continues to be available, the revolution looks strong and focused. But the very minute the revolution "wins," it's in trouble; for then it has to have positive proposals for going forward and solving social problems. The vigour it got from hatred is abated, and now the revolutionaries become the establishment, the accountable ones, the people on the hook for substantive achievement.

But most revolutions are much weaker on what they want to do going forward than on what they're against. So they have to keep generating new enemies from with the very populace they once served -- the compromisers, the traitors, the betrayers of the revolution, as they dub them -- and begin to weed them out for the gulags, the firing squads or the re-education camps. Then they run out of those, and have to "eat their own children," so to speak, denouncing and hating even yesterday's heroes of the revolution sometimes. And still, the revolution lacks proposals to go forward, and continues to fail...leading to dictatorship and repression of the populace generally, because the new rulers are afraid of another revolution.

All this was said by "The Who" back in the '70s, with the song "Won't Get Fooled Again." Worth a listen, especially if one pays attention to the lyrics.

In Marx's defense, things were pretty terrible during the 19th century in the factories, mines and workhouses. I suppose it was imperative to get the situation under reigns so that the worst stuff wouldn't continue.

[Immanuel Can]

In Marx's defense...

Well, Gary, that is actually a phrase literally more morally reprehensible than "In Hitler's defense." After all, Hitler did not kill so many as either Stalin or Mao, let alone the other despots inspired by Marx. Marx has one heck of a lot to answer for to his Creator.

I'd just say be glad he's gone.

[Gary Childress]

In Marx's defense...

Well, Gary, that is actually a phrase literally more morally reprehensible than "In Hitler's defense." After all, Hitler did not kill so many as either Stalin or Mao, let alone the other despots inspired by Marx. Marx has one heck of a lot to answer for to his Creator.

I'd just say be glad he's gone.

It is said that Hitler misread Nietzsche (among others). I don't know if that makes Nietzsche morally reprehensible or not. I don't think Marx explicitly called for gulags and what not. I've also heard defenses of Heidegger's philosophical thought and insights even though he was a card-carrying member of the National Socialist Party and considered their official philosopher for a short while. Sometimes people just don't see the full ramifications of everything they say or do and the people they surround themselves with.

[Immanuel Can]

It is said that Hitler misread Nietzsche (among others). I don't know if that makes Nietzsche morally reprehensible or not.

Well, people let Nietzsche off the hook far too quickly there. Nietzsche never outright TOLD Hitler to do what he did, and by most reliable accounts, Nietzsche didn't actually think much of Nazism as a cause. But the problem is more complex than that, and it's this: that Nietzsche wrote a philosophy of the übermensch that was totally permissive of, and conducive to, Hitler's use of it.

There's nothing in Nietzsche's basic philosophy that justifies a claim like, "Killing Jews, or seizing power undemocratically, or even starting a war is wrong." In fact, nothing is really "wrong," per Nietzsche, so why shouldn't a "power-desiring," and "life affirming" Nazi decide that Jews are a problem and wipe them all out? Why shouldn't he seize power and off his competitors? Why shouldn't he start a war? Nietzsche's contempt for the weak, for compassion, for Judea-Christian morality, and so on, provided all the pieces Hitler needed to use, and provided no safeguards against Hitler using them that way. So even if we say he never foresaw and preapproved Hitler, he's culpable for making Hitler possible.

But I do think philosophers have to own what is done with their philosophies IF, (note the conditional) their philosophies are articulated in such a way as to be permissive of abuses. Marx, like Nietzsche, was given to high, self-righteous, grandiose, quasi-prophetic claims of the sort he could not at all substantiate. He claimed, literally, to know the meaning of history itself, and to be able to tell what direction and values constituted the whole of human progress. He was wrong about these claims, and has been shown so, over and over. But he made them. And he provided no safeguards in his philosophy to prevent the gulags and the re-education camps, but rather incited a radicalism that made them seem reasonable.

But we do not need to excoriate Marx now -- and certainly, we must not defend him. Marx will give his account to his Creator for what he's done. That is a sober enough thought for anyone.

[Dubious]

It is said that Hitler misread Nietzsche (among others). I don't know if that makes Nietzsche morally reprehensible or not.

The notorious film of the 1934 Nuremberg rally was given the deliberately Nietzschean title Triumph of the Will, but when the director, Leni Riefenstahl, asked Hitler whether he liked to read Nietzsche, he answered: “No, I can’t really do much with Nietzsche … he is not my guide.”

You may find the source interesting...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/ ... dynamiting

[Impenitent]

It is said that Hitler misread Nietzsche (among others). I don't know if that makes Nietzsche morally reprehensible or not.

The notorious film of the 1934 Nuremberg rally was given the deliberately Nietzschean title Triumph of the Will, but when the director, Leni Riefenstahl, asked Hitler whether he liked to read Nietzsche, he answered: “No, I can’t really do much with Nietzsche … he is not my guide.”

You may find the source interesting...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/ ... dynamiting

thank you

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

It is said that Hitler misread Nietzsche (among others). I don't know if that makes Nietzsche morally reprehensible or not.

The notorious film of the 1934 Nuremberg rally was given the deliberately Nietzschean title Triumph of the Will, but when the director, Leni Riefenstahl, asked Hitler whether he liked to read Nietzsche, he answered: “No, I can’t really do much with Nietzsche … he is not my guide.”

You may find the source interesting...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/ ... dynamiting

Yes. It was an interesting read. Most of it I was aware of. I studied Nietzsche quite a bit in college and afterward. I know of Elizabeth's manipulation of his nachlass (or estate) and Heidegger's belief that his "true" philosophy could be found in his notebooks and unpublished work, portions of which Elizabeth put together in The Will to Power. Walter Kaufmann tried to exonerate Neitzsche's good name after the war but I've heard it said that even Kaufmann may have done a little cherry-picking and was a little liberal in his translations in order to make him a bit more palatable to post-war audiences.

I don't know. Nietzsche could be cryptic and sometimes spoke in riddles it seems. So if others pick him up and misinterpret him or misappropriate him, it's not like Nietzsche made all his points crystal clear. He kind of left himself open to it, I think.

I've also heard some claim that Nietzsche was more of a literary figure than a "philosopher" proper. Not sure about that. He was difficult to figure out (at least for me).

[Dubious]

It is said that Hitler misread Nietzsche (among others). I don't know if that makes Nietzsche morally reprehensible or not.

The notorious film of the 1934 Nuremberg rally was given the deliberately Nietzschean title Triumph of the Will, but when the director, Leni Riefenstahl, asked Hitler whether he liked to read Nietzsche, he answered: “No, I can’t really do much with Nietzsche … he is not my guide.”

You may find the source interesting...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/ ... dynamiting

Yes. It was an interesting read. Most of it I was aware of. I studied Nietzsche quite a bit in college and afterward. I know of Elizabeth's manipulation of his nachlass (or estate) and Heidegger's belief that his "true" philosophy could be found in his notebooks and unpublished work, portions of which Elizabeth put together in The Will to Power. Walter Kaufmann tried to exonerate Neitzsche's good name after the war but I've heard it said that even Kaufmann may have done a little cherry-picking and was a little liberal in his translations in order to make him a bit more palatable to post-war audiences.

I don't know. Nietzsche could be cryptic and sometimes spoke in riddles it seems. So if others pick him up and misinterpret him or misappropriate him, it's not like Nietzsche made all his points crystal clear. He kind of left himself open to it, I think.

I've also heard some claim that Nietzsche was more of a literary figure than a "philosopher" proper. Not sure about that. He was difficult to figure out (at least for me).

It's true that he can be somewhat difficult at times partly due to his aphoristic style. It's also best, I think, not to get involved with Zarathustra too early prior to reading the Joyful Science or Dawn of Day. It's usually the earlier work which leads up to the next in complexity.

Nietzsche was as much psychologist as philosopher which had the effect of internalizing philosophy giving a new or expanded impetus in it's examination of humans and their societies. There's a number of things I don't agree with in his writings, which is hardly unusual in reading any philosopher, but making him responsible for historical wrongs, influence or assumptions he never made, as he himself already surmised may happen, is not something he should be held responsible for. Nietzsche as a brilliant writer and thinker is one of the most potent forces to reexamine one's own thoughts and cause one to advance one's own ideas independent of any "system". There is no "agenda" in Nietzsche except to make one think in which agreement is not mandatory.

[Dubious]

It is said that Hitler misread Nietzsche (among others). I don't know if that makes Nietzsche morally reprehensible or not.

The notorious film of the 1934 Nuremberg rally was given the deliberately Nietzschean title Triumph of the Will, but when the director, Leni Riefenstahl, asked Hitler whether he liked to read Nietzsche, he answered: “No, I can’t really do much with Nietzsche … he is not my guide.”

You may find the source interesting...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/ ... dynamiting

thank you

-Imp

You're Welcome!

[Gary Childress]

You may find the source interesting...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/ ... dynamiting

Yes. It was an interesting read. Most of it I was aware of. I studied Nietzsche quite a bit in college and afterward. I know of Elizabeth's manipulation of his nachlass (or estate) and Heidegger's belief that his "true" philosophy could be found in his notebooks and unpublished work, portions of which Elizabeth put together in The Will to Power. Walter Kaufmann tried to exonerate Neitzsche's good name after the war but I've heard it said that even Kaufmann may have done a little cherry-picking and was a little liberal in his translations in order to make him a bit more palatable to post-war audiences.

I don't know. Nietzsche could be cryptic and sometimes spoke in riddles it seems. So if others pick him up and misinterpret him or misappropriate him, it's not like Nietzsche made all his points crystal clear. He kind of left himself open to it, I think.

I've also heard some claim that Nietzsche was more of a literary figure than a "philosopher" proper. Not sure about that. He was difficult to figure out (at least for me).

It's true that he can be somewhat difficult at times partly due to his aphoristic style. It's also best, I think, not to get involved with Zarathustra too early prior to reading the Joyful Science or Dawn of Day. It's usually the earlier work which leads up to the next in complexity.

Nietzsche was as much psychologist as philosopher which had the effect of internalizing philosophy giving a new or expanded impetus in it's examination of humans and their societies. There's a number of things I don't agree with in his writings, which is hardly unusual in reading any philosopher, but making him responsible for historical wrongs, influence or assumptions he never made, as he himself already surmised may happen, is not something he should be held responsible for. Nietzsche as a brilliant writer and thinker is one of the most potent forces to reexamine one's own thoughts and cause one to advance one's own ideas independent of any "system". There is no "agenda" in Nietzsche except to make one think in which agreement is not mandatory.

I don't know. His interpretation of morality ("slave morality" and "master morality") seems kind of like playing with fire to me (and that's coupled with almost biblical overtones in some of his works). His seeming disdain for the "common" and the "herd" is also a little abrasive. I don't know if he was all that innocent or not. I could be wrong, but believe there's a quote out there somewhere from Kant having to do with the line between innocence and guilt over unintentional consequences--depending upon how serious the consequences were. But if you have a good solid understanding of his work, then that's probably a good thing. Kudos to you.

[Sculptor]

Karl Marx is possibly the most maligned historical figure in the recent past.

Well, the truth is that some people quite deserve to be maligned. He lived a malignant life, and introduced a thoroughly malignant philosophy.

Civilisation ought to be greateful for him and all he did for working people. You do not get to malign Darwin because of Hitler, and so why malign Marx because of Mao and Stalin? Only shit for brain fascists like you would not have taken the trouble to find out the facts for yourself.

Worse still, after his death, Marx's ideas brought about the death of at least one hundred million people in the last century.

Marx was responsible for ZERO deaths, but saved millions of lives.

No other ideologue has ever come close to that.

Except Jesus who was responsible for billions of people giving up their lives, through death and the servitude of religion.

Statistically, if there is any individual in the history of the human race who has done more damage than Karl Marx, it would be impossible to say who it would be.

You mean Jesus.

I think we can now stop defending Karl Marx. We can just let all his deeds speak for themselves.

Maybe one day you will stop defending the real culprit of the desolation of mankind. You suck buddy Jesus of Nazareth.

[Immanuel Can]

Karl Marx is possibly the most maligned historical figure in the recent past.

Well, the truth is that some people quite deserve to be maligned. He lived a malignant life, and introduced a thoroughly malignant philosophy.

Civilisation ought to be greateful for him and all he did for working people.

How grateful should the over 100 million his ideology killed in the last century be?

But according to your own objection, Marx did nothing for the working class; for if he cannot be blamed for his role in the killing of the 100 million, he surely cannot be rewarded for any subsequent alleged benefit to workers either. Either his ideas did something, or they did not: if they had an impact on workers, they also had an impact on the 100 million. "Sauce for the goose," as they say.

If you've read Marx's biography, you know he never personally sullied his hands with the working class, except for his handicapped housekeeper, Lenchen, whom he sexually assaulted, and with whom he had an illegitimate son, Henry (also called Frederick Demuth). That was the limit of Marx's actual personal involvement with the working class. I think we can spare him any praise on that point.

You do not get to malign Darwin because of Hitler,

Actually, I do. And I get to point out that if Darwin was right, then Hitler wasn't even morally wrong at all. He was simply practicing eugenics, which are the logical product of selective breeding and survival of the fittest, the tools provided him by Darwin. He simply did what Darwin only advocated. So Darwin, too, must answer for his contribution to all the disasters that have followed.

And you too, will not hide from what you say. You have here publicly declared your contempt for Christ, and in contemptible language, too. You shall answer for it, for certain, just as Jesus said:

"But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment." (Matt. 12:36)

Wisdom would tell you to repent and take your foolish words back, and quickly, too. You may think this is a game, but it is not. If you leave the matter there, then I say quite sincerely that there is not enough money in the universe to pay me to be you.

[Sculptor]

Well, the truth is that some people quite deserve to be maligned. He lived a malignant life, and introduced a thoroughly malignant philosophy.

Civilisation ought to be greateful for him and all he did for working people.

How grateful should the over 100 million his ideology killed in the last century be?

That was God. Marx was already dead, idiot. Marx was mortal.