Fabianism

[Dubious]

Actually, dead bodies are remarkably easy to count...as long as you can find them.

This is the old dodge about "there's never been real Marxism." What this means though, is very simple: that safe Marxism is not real, and real Marxism is not safe. I have to agree with that.

What an incredibly stupid statement. Can't come up with anything better! Forever the same; nothing new! Almost single-handedly you've managed to turn this place into a wasteland which has nothing to do with philosophy. If I were Rick, I wouldn't waste another dollar on the site. It's become the opposite of what it was meant to be.

So...debating Marx isn't "philosophy," in your thinking? Again, in some ways, I have to agree: Marx is more a religion than anything.

Condeming Marx in being responsible for a body count of 120 million people due to others with their own agendas having "revised" his theories accordingly to match their intent, cannot by any stretch be considered philosopy. A philosophical debate is open-ended. Yours, conversely, is a long sequence of resolute assertions consisting of only rancour, venom and virulence without the least impulse to actually examine what you're so eager to condemn.

Seriously, your method of philosophizing pollutes any site your on.

[Immanuel Can]

What an incredibly stupid statement. Can't come up with anything better! Forever the same; nothing new! Almost single-handedly you've managed to turn this place into a wasteland which has nothing to do with philosophy. If I were Rick, I wouldn't waste another dollar on the site. It's become the opposite of what it was meant to be.

So...debating Marx isn't "philosophy," in your thinking? Again, in some ways, I have to agree: Marx is more a religion than anything.

Condeming Marx in being responsible for a body count of 120 million people due to others with their own agendas having "revised" his theories accordingly to match their intent, cannot by any stretch be considered philosopy.

Nobody "revised" Marx. They just tried to make Marxism real.

The result: disaster, economic collapse, and piles of corpses every time.

Ask yourself: why can't Marx ever work in the real world? It's a very important question...especially for those who are opposed to homicide.

[Gary Childress]

Ask yourself: why can't Marx ever work in the real world? It's a very important question...especially for those who are opposed to homicide.

Because whoever or whatever "created" the world didn't design it so that the problems of exploitation and social inequality could be prevented. That much seems obvious to me.

[Immanuel Can]

Ask yourself: why can't Marx ever work in the real world? It's a very important question...especially for those who are opposed to homicide.

Because whoever or whatever "created" the world didn't design it so that the problems of exploitation and social inequality could be prevented. That much seems obvious to me.

How does Marx help? Because every time he's come into contact with the real world, implementation of his ideas have made things immeasurably worse, and never better. So how is Marx any answer to the problems you perceive?

[Gary Childress]

Ask yourself: why can't Marx ever work in the real world? It's a very important question...especially for those who are opposed to homicide.

Because whoever or whatever "created" the world didn't design it so that the problems of exploitation and social inequality could be prevented. That much seems obvious to me.

How does Marx help? Because every time he's come into contact with the real world, implementation of his ideas have made things immeasurably worse, and never better. So how is Marx any answer to the problems you perceive?

Marx probably isn't the answer to the problems. However, that doesn't mean there are no problems, and Marx called them out. He gave a lot of people hope that the problems were solvable. But they aren't.

[Dubious]

So...debating Marx isn't "philosophy," in your thinking? Again, in some ways, I have to agree: Marx is more a religion than anything.

Condeming Marx in being responsible for a body count of 120 million people due to others with their own agendas having "revised" his theories accordingly to match their intent, cannot by any stretch be considered philosopy.

Nobody "revised" Marx. They just tried to make Marxism real.

The result: disaster, economic collapse, and piles of corpses every time.

Yes, obviously it was the murderous theories of Karl Marx that was responsible for the mass killings perpetrated by Mao and Stalin. Without Marx that would never have happened.

...and yet he said "A revolution without mature consciousness leads only to the next oppression."

Your prejudice is truly loathsome, never ceasing to spew falsities and innuendos without proof. You go completely rogue and demented regarding individuals who, in one way or another, you feel insulted your god or religion.

I'll say it again, you do not belong on a philosophy site, this or any other.

"If the unexamined life is not worth living" according to Socrates, then neither are unexamined thoughts worth considering.

[Immanuel Can]

Condeming Marx in being responsible for a body count of 120 million people due to others with their own agendas having "revised" his theories accordingly to match their intent, cannot by any stretch be considered philosopy.

Nobody "revised" Marx. They just tried to make Marxism real.

The result: disaster, economic collapse, and piles of corpses every time.

Yes, obviously it was the murderous theories of Karl Marx that was responsible for the mass killings perpetrated by Mao and Stalin. Without Marx that would never have happened.

Quite true. They were avowed Marxists. Each, in his own way, was trying to make Marx work in the real world...as was Pol Pot, or Robert Mugabe, or Fidel Castro, or the Kim Jongs...Marxism breeds despots, you see. For without despotism, Socialism cannot be implemented.

And just look at the record. 100% failure. Disastrous failure. Fatal failure. What can one say? The evidence is all there.

[Immanuel Can]

Because whoever or whatever "created" the world didn't design it so that the problems of exploitation and social inequality could be prevented. That much seems obvious to me.

How does Marx help? Because every time he's come into contact with the real world, implementation of his ideas have made things immeasurably worse, and never better. So how is Marx any answer to the problems you perceive?

Marx probably isn't the answer to the problems. However, that doesn't mean there are no problems, and Marx called them out. He gave a lot of people hope that the problems were solvable. But they aren't.

Well, Marx did call out problems -- but they turned out not to be the problems he called out. It was never the case that, as he and Engels insisted, "All history is the history of class struggle." And it did not turn out to be the case that it was going to continue that way. Marx mistook one problem he perceived in Industrial England, which was real enough there, and mistook it for first the total pattern of history, and then for the inevitable trajectory of the future, as well. He got it all wrong. History simply has proved him a fool.

There are problems, to be sure. But they aren't class-based, nor premised on factory-worker tensions, nor the same in all parts of the world. So what we would wish is that he had called out the right problems, and called them out as they were going to turn out to be.

[Dubious]

Nobody "revised" Marx. They just tried to make Marxism real.

The result: disaster, economic collapse, and piles of corpses every time.

Yes, obviously it was the murderous theories of Karl Marx that was responsible for the mass killings perpetrated by Mao and Stalin. Without Marx that would never have happened.

Quite true. They were avowed Marxists. Each, in his own way, was trying to make Marx work in the real world...as was Pol Pot, or Robert Mugabe, or Fidel Castro, or the Kim Jongs...Marxism breeds despots, you see. For without despotism, Socialism cannot be implemented.

And just look at the record. 100% failure. Disastrous failure. Fatal failure. What can one say? The evidence is all there.

Indeed, the evidence is all there but not as relating to Marx but as relating to you.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, obviously it was the murderous theories of Karl Marx that was responsible for the mass killings perpetrated by Mao and Stalin. Without Marx that would never have happened.

Quite true. They were avowed Marxists. Each, in his own way, was trying to make Marx work in the real world...as was Pol Pot, or Robert Mugabe, or Fidel Castro, or the Kim Jongs...Marxism breeds despots, you see. For without despotism, Socialism cannot be implemented.

And just look at the record. 100% failure. Disastrous failure. Fatal failure. What can one say? The evidence is all there.

Indeed, the evidence is all there but not as relating to Marx but as relating to you.

I know why you're mad, and why you're getting personal. I'm threatening your faith. Nobody likes that. It's understandable.

But Marx has done enough evil in this world. It's time we all walked away from him. He had his chance, and history has proved him wrong over and over again. We're better off without him.

[Dubious]

Quite true. They were avowed Marxists. Each, in his own way, was trying to make Marx work in the real world...as was Pol Pot, or Robert Mugabe, or Fidel Castro, or the Kim Jongs...Marxism breeds despots, you see. For without despotism, Socialism cannot be implemented.

And just look at the record. 100% failure. Disastrous failure. Fatal failure. What can one say? The evidence is all there.

Indeed, the evidence is all there but not as relating to Marx but as relating to you.

I know why you're mad, and why you're getting personal. I'm threatening your faith. Nobody likes that. It's understandable.

But Marx has done enough evil in this world. It's time we all walked away from him. He had his chance, and history has proved him wrong over and over again. We're better off without him.

My faith is in the facts...the good, the bad, the ugly wherever facts lead, not where I want them to lead or wish them to lead but that which study, analysis, research discovers. That's the only way to move forward as they merge into a philosophical synthesis of understanding which is never permanent...except in your case never having transitioned from the bible. Aside from that, I have no faith; it's simply not required.

In your case, facts are anathema if they're not according to your bible which has more than fairly contributed to the real evil in this world, not least in creating mind-mutants like yourself who never function in a normal human manner of attempting to know the truth because the bible already told you what it is. Not evolution but an original mating pair who even have names being one of endless instances!

Almost nothing that you accused Marx of alludes to fact...not fact as I would have it but as established by the many who investigate and continue to investigate the subject. Marx definitely had his faults but he is not who you say he was. It's easy to discover if you really wanted to but that was never an option with you. Blind prejudice requires no effort.

It's impossible to learn anything from you except what not to be, of what amounts to a complete perversion in an honest quest to "denote something truly".

In that miserable corner of humanity, you're a shining example, like a Lazarus walking to his tomb instead of emerging from it.

[Gary Childress]

Quite true. They were avowed Marxists. Each, in his own way, was trying to make Marx work in the real world...as was Pol Pot, or Robert Mugabe, or Fidel Castro, or the Kim Jongs...Marxism breeds despots, you see. For without despotism, Socialism cannot be implemented.

And just look at the record. 100% failure. Disastrous failure. Fatal failure. What can one say? The evidence is all there.

Indeed, the evidence is all there but not as relating to Marx but as relating to you.

I know why you're mad, and why you're getting personal. I'm threatening your faith. Nobody likes that. It's understandable.

But Marx has done enough evil in this world. It's time we all walked away from him. He had his chance, and history has proved him wrong over and over again. We're better off without him.

Well, since you worship the creator of all evil, maybe you should worship Marx too. It's pretty easy to understand why Marx was appalled at the behavior of the ownership class in his day. Anyone who isn't appalled at child sweatshops and wage slavery has a screw loose in them. And there was nothing Marx could do about it. Just think, if Marx had run around denouncing "socialists" as monsters, then you and he could probably get along quite well.

[Immanuel Can]

Indeed, the evidence is all there but not as relating to Marx but as relating to you.

I know why you're mad, and why you're getting personal. I'm threatening your faith. Nobody likes that. It's understandable.

But Marx has done enough evil in this world. It's time we all walked away from him. He had his chance, and history has proved him wrong over and over again. We're better off without him.

My faith is in the facts...the good, the bad, the ugly wherever facts lead, not where I want them to lead or wish them to lead but that which study, analysis, research discovers.

Well, what do the facts about 100% of the cases where Socialism has been implemented tell you?

I don't have enough faith to believe what you believe. I can't depart that far from reality. How are you able to manage it?

Marx definitely had his faults but he is not who you say he was.

It's clear, then, that you haven't even read one biography of Marx. Even those who love his theory know he was an extremely difficult man, not some kind of saint; and all of them admit such things as his total incapacity with money (famously noted even by his mother), his rape of Helen Demuth and his denial of his bastard son, Frederick, his sponging off everybody he knew, including Engels, and his abuse of his friends, his boils, his rages, the suicides of his children...these things are open historical facts, not some kind of invented slander. Look it up for yourself. Or read his poetry, because Marx wrote some awful lines...and you'll see for yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

It's pretty easy to understand why Marx was appalled at the behavior of the ownership class in his day.

Marx had his own motives, but it would be one big stretch to think they had anything to do with empathy. Marx wanted free stuff: that much is clear, from any biography of Marx. Marx himself was from the privileged, inheritance class...though he squandered every cent of it that he got. He met only one proletarian, so far as we know, in his entire life...and he raped her, and then disowned his bastard son.

He denounced industrial society, sure: but don't think his motives were unselfish. The one thing Marx wanted above all, is for everybody else to pay for his living, while he got to theorize. And that's an open fact in his biographies, if you read any.

[MikeNovack]

He denounced industrial society, sure: but don't think his motives were unselfish. The one thing Marx wanted above all, is for everybody else to pay for his living, while he got to theorize. And that's an open fact in his biographies, if you read any.

Marx, Marx, Marx, Marx. You do relaize, IC that THIS forum topic is "fabianism" and the Fabians are generally not considered to be Marxists.