Fabianism

[Dubious]

You mean, you won't. You don't want to know the truth.

If you did, you'd read a biography. I have. Several. Why won't you?

If I pick one it may not tell me the truth.

You don't even trust yourself to select a suitably secular one you would respect? Well, there's no chance something I pick will be acceptable to you, then.

I've already corrected your view on Marx. You didn't want to hear it. You wouldn't even check out the facts on it. So I can't help you. Apparently, you refuse to be convinced...not just by me, but even by secular sources you approve yourself.

That's a tactic I can't beat. So continue as you are, I guess.

So in short, you haven't got a clue as to which biographer supports the lying, disgusting, perverted bullshit you write about Marx which obviously, as judged by historical fact, no biographer who values his integrity could ever agree with. You make these assertions and deliver nothing to support it except pure opinion. Only that and not an iota more. The best you could do is quote some poetry, insist that he was evil and responsible for 120 million death that being the total of what you call a correction!

Indeed! What other choice is there except to continue as you are in your long career on Philosophy Now as a perennial liar, slanderer and ad hom aficionado against those who, for whatever reason, mightily displease you and any uninvited fact intrusions creeping over the edge of an argument merely get discounted as an undesired side effect.

Any statement by Immanuel Can, who so graciously and of his own free will corrected my view should suffice as gospel for all who require an instant verdict without any further truth investigations muddying the waters or delaying the outcome.

The weight of conscience now lies upon me like a helium balloon in my gross dismissal of your magnanimous corrections.

Seriously, you are too far gone to even be embarrassed!

[Gary Childress]

you can't come up with a single biographer

You mean, you won't. You don't want to know the truth.

If you did, you'd read a biography. I have. Several. Why won't you?

Biography is not philosophy. In philosophy ideas are weighed by whether they are true or false, not by whether the person who said the sky is blue kicked your dog, and therefore you argue against the sky being blue. Marx made some very salient points about propertarianism, whether we like him as a person or not. The philosophical approach is to show that what he said is, in fact, true, false, or else uncertain. The best I'm seeing is that Marx's views are disputable, but no more disputable than the notion that a single human being can "earn" a trillion dollars in his lifetime when the people who do all the manual labor for him are living paycheck to paycheck.

[Immanuel Can]

you can't come up with a single biographer

You mean, you won't. You don't want to know the truth.

If you did, you'd read a biography. I have. Several. Why won't you?

Biography is not philosophy.

Marx is philosophy. People who believe Marx was a good person revere him. They quote him. They extol him. They build monuments to him, like the one in Trier, or Moscow, or Chemniz, or Highgate...19 of them in Germany alone, 32 in Russia, 3 in China, 2 in the Czech Republic, 1 each in India, Spain, Venzuela and Turkey...and on, and on. Tell me people don't worship this clown. They don't suspect his motives in proposing Communism in the first place. They think he's a saint. That's all in their imaginations, and nowhere in his actual biography.

Now, Marx himself claimed following his theories could "humanize" "alienated" people, turning them into "Socialist Man." Well, let's look at this "Socialist Man." Let's figure out what Marx knew about making people good. It really matters to his credibility. And when you know the man, you know how thoroughly wicked and selfish he was, how far from utopian he was in himself, and how little of your trust he deserves. So whatever can be said for Communism, it's not that its founder was a great humanitarian and empath who proposed what he proposed out of the love of mankind. That myth deserves to die.

As for his theories, there are other arguments, of course, and lots of good ones. But Marx is not irrelevant to the philosophy he espoused, or the foolish adulation and naive trust his acolytes have devoted to him. The man was a first-rate skunk, and his theories stink.

But the clincher is all the rotten fruit that has fallen off the Marxist tree, long after his death. His ideas are quite simply the greatest cause of human death in the history of mankind. You may not warm to that idea, but it's the simple truth.

[Gary Childress]

You mean, you won't. You don't want to know the truth.

If you did, you'd read a biography. I have. Several. Why won't you?

Biography is not philosophy.

Marx is philosophy. People who believe Marx was a good person revere him. They quote him. They extol him. They build monuments to him, like the one in Trier, or Moscow, or Chemniz, or Highgate...19 of them in Germany alone, 32 in Russia, 3 in China, 2 in the Czech Republic, 1 each in India, Spain, Venzuela and Turkey...and on, and on. Tell me people don't worship this clown. They don't suspect his motives in proposing Communism in the first place. They think he's a saint. That's all in their imaginations, and nowhere in his actual biography.

Now, Marx himself claimed following his theories could "humanize" "alienated" people, turning them into "Socialist Man." Well, let's look at this "Socialist Man." Let's figure out what Marx knew about making people good. It really matters to his credibility. And when you know the man, you know how thoroughly wicked and selfish he was, how far from utopian he was in himself, and how little of your trust he deserves. So whatever can be said for Communism, it's not that its founder was a great humanitarian and empath who proposed what he proposed out of the love of mankind. That myth deserves to die.

As for his theories, there are other arguments, of course, and lots of good ones. But Marx is not irrelevant to the philosophy he espoused, or the foolish adulation and naive trust his acolytes have devoted to him. The man was a first-rate skunk, and his theories stink.

But the clincher is all the rotten fruit that has fallen off the Marxist tree, long after his death. His ideas are quite simply the greatest cause of human death in the history of mankind. You may not warm to that idea, but it's the simple truth.

Some people revere Galileo too, for his discoveries, not because they think he was a saint. However, from some accounts we have of Galileo, he was a cantankerous individual. Does that mean that Galileo's experiments with falling objects are wrong? Does the fact that Galileo was nasty tell us that his beliefs about the world were wrong or incorrect?

One cannot measure the effects of social inequity with scientific instruments in the same way that one can measure the speed of physical objects. But Marx gave us some alternative answers for some of the arguments that were used to defend the horrible system of exploitation that existed prior to workers' movements and social movements of the early industrial age. Workers movements brought better working conditions to people who were being exploited. Very few people would say the conditions many ordinary people worked under during the early part of the Industrial Revolution weren't terrible. As a result of telling people that those conditions were not justified, that there were alternatives, workers' conditions improved. Things like social security and wider distribution of wealth were enacted that helped ordinary people enjoy some of the benefits the ownership class was getting.

[Immanuel Can]

Biography is not philosophy.

Marx is philosophy. People who believe Marx was a good person revere him. They quote him. They extol him. They build monuments to him, like the one in Trier, or Moscow, or Chemniz, or Highgate...19 of them in Germany alone, 32 in Russia, 3 in China, 2 in the Czech Republic, 1 each in India, Spain, Venzuela and Turkey...and on, and on. Tell me people don't worship this clown. They don't suspect his motives in proposing Communism in the first place. They think he's a saint. That's all in their imaginations, and nowhere in his actual biography.

Now, Marx himself claimed following his theories could "humanize" "alienated" people, turning them into "Socialist Man." Well, let's look at this "Socialist Man." Let's figure out what Marx knew about making people good. It really matters to his credibility. And when you know the man, you know how thoroughly wicked and selfish he was, how far from utopian he was in himself, and how little of your trust he deserves. So whatever can be said for Communism, it's not that its founder was a great humanitarian and empath who proposed what he proposed out of the love of mankind. That myth deserves to die.

As for his theories, there are other arguments, of course, and lots of good ones. But Marx is not irrelevant to the philosophy he espoused, or the foolish adulation and naive trust his acolytes have devoted to him. The man was a first-rate skunk, and his theories stink.

But the clincher is all the rotten fruit that has fallen off the Marxist tree, long after his death. His ideas are quite simply the greatest cause of human death in the history of mankind. You may not warm to that idea, but it's the simple truth.

Some people revere Galileo too,

Galileo did not promise the Good Society. Galileo did not offer to make "Socialist Man." Galileo did not pose as the sympathetica advocate of a working class he did not know. So you would be right if you said that Galileo's character hand nothing to do with his theory. Nobody believes the earth moves merely because of what a wonderful man Galileo was.

Galileo was also right. Marx has been proved wrong, even in the eyes of the Neo-Marxists, though they hate to be reminded. Even they have had to abandon him, and make lots of substitutions in a vain attempt to rescue failed theories.

But Marx gave us some alternative answers

Marx gave you falsehoods and propaganda. The legacy of dead bodies belongs to Marx, too. If you think he deserves credit for welfare (he doesn't, but if you think it), will you also give him credit for robberies, corrupt elitist soviets, dictatorships, gulags, torture chambers, death marches, re-education camps, economic disasters, famines and 120 million corpses?

[Gary Childress]

Marx is philosophy. People who believe Marx was a good person revere him. They quote him. They extol him. They build monuments to him, like the one in Trier, or Moscow, or Chemniz, or Highgate...19 of them in Germany alone, 32 in Russia, 3 in China, 2 in the Czech Republic, 1 each in India, Spain, Venzuela and Turkey...and on, and on. Tell me people don't worship this clown. They don't suspect his motives in proposing Communism in the first place. They think he's a saint. That's all in their imaginations, and nowhere in his actual biography.

Now, Marx himself claimed following his theories could "humanize" "alienated" people, turning them into "Socialist Man." Well, let's look at this "Socialist Man." Let's figure out what Marx knew about making people good. It really matters to his credibility. And when you know the man, you know how thoroughly wicked and selfish he was, how far from utopian he was in himself, and how little of your trust he deserves. So whatever can be said for Communism, it's not that its founder was a great humanitarian and empath who proposed what he proposed out of the love of mankind. That myth deserves to die.

As for his theories, there are other arguments, of course, and lots of good ones. But Marx is not irrelevant to the philosophy he espoused, or the foolish adulation and naive trust his acolytes have devoted to him. The man was a first-rate skunk, and his theories stink.

But the clincher is all the rotten fruit that has fallen off the Marxist tree, long after his death. His ideas are quite simply the greatest cause of human death in the history of mankind. You may not warm to that idea, but it's the simple truth.

Some people revere Galileo too,

Galileo did not promise the Good Society. Galileo did not offer to make "Socialist Man." Galileo did not pose as the sympathetica advocate of a working class he did not know. So you would be right if you said that Galileo's character hand nothing to do with his theory. Nobody believes the earth moves merely because of what a wonderful man Galileo was.

Galileo was also right. Marx has been proved wrong, even in the eyes of the Neo-Marxists, though they hate to be reminded. Even they have had to abandon him, and make lots of substitutions in a vain attempt to rescue failed theories.

But Marx gave us some alternative answers

Marx gave you falsehoods and propaganda. The legacy of dead bodies belongs to Marx, too. If you think he deserves credit for welfare (he doesn't, but if you think it), will you also give him credit for robberies, corrupt elitist soviets, dictatorships, gulags, torture chambers, death marches, re-education camps, economic disasters, famines and 120 million corpses?

Marx doesn't deserve credit for welfare, but it was people with beliefs similar to his who fought for workers' rights and fairness. Many of them were self-described "socialists". If you truly believe that all "socialists" are "Marxists", then you yourself would have to give Marx credit for the movements and battles that brought ordinary people out of industrial age slavery and squalor. But maybe you will agree with me that Marx isn't synonymous with "socialist" in the sense that all "socialists" are "Marxists". Do you agree with that?

[Immanuel Can]

If you truly believe that all "socialists" are "Marxists",

No, "Marxist" is a subset of "Socialist," rather than the other way around, just as "Communist" is a subset of "Socialist." "Socialist" is the umbrella term. But you'll have a hard time finding Socialists who are not willing to confess they admire Marx. He's pretty much the guy they look to. All the worse for them.

[Gary Childress]

If you truly believe that all "socialists" are "Marxists",

No, "Marxist" is a subset of "Socialist," rather than the other way around, just as "Communist" is a subset of "Socialist." "Socialist" is the umbrella term. But you'll have a hard time finding Socialists who are not willing to confess they admire Marx. He's pretty much the guy they look to. All the worse for them.

You never give up, do you?

[Impenitent]

persistence is a virtue

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

No, "Marxist" is a subset of "Socialist," rather than the other way around, just as "Communist" is a subset of "Socialist." "Socialist" is the umbrella term. But you'll have a hard time finding Socialists who are not willing to confess they admire Marx. He's pretty much the guy they look to. All the worse for them.

You admit it! (what a turnaround from arguing socialism is a contained within Marxism)

You would not have such a hard time finding socialists who were not Marxists if you looked in the right places. Also an easier time if every time one piped up "I'm a socialist but not a Marxist" you didn't insist "you're lying, you are a secret closet Marxist"

[Immanuel Can]

No, "Marxist" is a subset of "Socialist," rather than the other way around, just as "Communist" is a subset of "Socialist." "Socialist" is the umbrella term. But you'll have a hard time finding Socialists who are not willing to confess they admire Marx. He's pretty much the guy they look to. All the worse for them.

You admit it! (what a turnaround from arguing socialism is a contained within Marxism)

Admit what? Socialism is all the same pablum, just served in different bowls. The names change, but the substance is the same.

For example, Socialists don't believe the State ever withers away, and Communists think it does. But everything else before that is pretty much the same, so what difference does it make? Neither of them are ever going to see their predictions come true.

[Immanuel Can]

If you truly believe that all "socialists" are "Marxists",

No, "Marxist" is a subset of "Socialist," rather than the other way around, just as "Communist" is a subset of "Socialist." "Socialist" is the umbrella term. But you'll have a hard time finding Socialists who are not willing to confess they admire Marx. He's pretty much the guy they look to. All the worse for them.

You never give up, do you?

When one is telling the truth, one doesn't have to.

[Gary Childress]

No, "Marxist" is a subset of "Socialist," rather than the other way around, just as "Communist" is a subset of "Socialist." "Socialist" is the umbrella term. But you'll have a hard time finding Socialists who are not willing to confess they admire Marx. He's pretty much the guy they look to. All the worse for them.

You never give up, do you?

When one is telling the truth, one doesn't have to.

Fair enough. I don't see everything you said as being true, but I'm just a fallible mortal.

[Immanuel Can]

You never give up, do you?

When one is telling the truth, one doesn't have to.

Fair enough. I don't see everything you said as being true, but I'm just a fallible mortal.

Well, check it out. Read a Marx biography. Then you can make up your own mind.

[Gary Childress]

When one is telling the truth, one doesn't have to.

Fair enough. I don't see everything you said as being true, but I'm just a fallible mortal.

Well, check it out. Read a Marx biography. Then you can make up your own mind.

I wasn't referring to Marx's biography. I was referring to your beliefs about all socialism being evil and your beliefs about some of Marx's observations that you think are false.