Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:21 pm Marx was mortal.

Then Marx also did nothing at all for the working man, according to your own theory.

And something else: Marx now knows better than to speak as you have spoken. You should perhaps consider his example.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:26 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:21 pm Marx was mortal.

Then Marx also did nothing at all for the working man, according to your own theory.

And something else: Marx now knows better than to speak as you have spoken. You should perhaps consider his example.

No one did more for the working man.
Nothing done by Stalin or Mao entails anything Marx ever said. NOTHING.
And whilst you are in the habit of making up stupid numbers off the top of your head, you might like to consider why those regimes failed to dictatorship. For that the West is massively responsible. Fuc king Christians.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:13 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:26 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:21 pm Marx was mortal.

Then Marx also did nothing at all for the working man, according to your own theory.

No one did more for the working man.

So you say. But in that case, then, no one ever did more for the killing of man, either.

You can't have it one way and not the other. If Marx inherits any credit for what later unionists did in his name, then he also inherits all that Stalin and Mao did in his name. Either he did nothing, or he did both.

Which way do you want to tell yourself the story?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:13 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:26 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:21 pm Marx was mortal.

Then Marx also did nothing at all for the working man, according to your own theory.

And something else: Marx now knows better than to speak as you have spoken. You should perhaps consider his example.

No one did more for the working man.
Nothing done by Stalin or Mao entails anything Marx ever said. NOTHING.
And whilst you are in the habit of making up stupid numbers off the top of your head, you might like to consider why those regimes failed to dictatorship. For that the West is massively responsible. Fuc king Christians.

How is the West responsible for what happened under Stalin or Mao? I assume those regimes had the choice not to treat their people so badly. They certainly weren't seeking our advice on how to rule their own countries. So I don't know how blame can be attributed to the West (other than adopting Marx who was, of course, a Western philosopher). It's true that Britain and others fought against the Revolution in the Soviet Union, however, I don't see how that is a cause for Stalin and Mao to impose dictatorships on their own people. They could have done otherwise if they truly wanted to.

As far as Marx's responsibility, he did 'predict' a "dictatorship of the proletariat" prior to the advent of actual "communism". Stalin and Mao could have justified their regimes on that basis (and I've heard it claimed that they did just that). So it seems like the ingredients for totalitarianism were present to whatever degree in Marx's writings.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:45 pm How grateful should the over 100 million his ideology killed in the last century be?

I have no use for Marx or his ideology, but there is something in that statement that is not quite correct and is made about a lot of other teachings and ideologies as well.

An idea cannot do anything. No matter how evil the thing an idea describes, suggest, or encourages is, all by itself, an idea does nothing. That's true even when someone learns the idea and thinks about it. After all, if you know what's wrong with Marx, you had to learn what his teachings were and think about them. They did not make you a murderer did they?

No one made anyone believe what Marx taught, or put into practice methods meant to realize a Marxian ideal. I hear ideas every day put forth by various political crackpots and idealists that if put into practice would easily rival those things you attribute Marxist economics.

I think a much more important issue than the actual views of Marx is the issue of why did anyone buy into them and why are they still so influential. What is it Marxism appeals to?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:57 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:45 pm How grateful should the over 100 million his ideology killed in the last century be?

I have no use for Marx or his ideology, but there is something in that statement that is not quite correct and is made about a lot of other teachings and ideologies as well.

An idea cannot do anything. No matter how evil the thing an idea describes, suggest, or encourages is, all by itself, an idea does nothing. That's true even when someone learns the idea and thinks about it. After all, if you know what's wrong with Marx, you had to learn what his teachings were and think about them. They did not make you a murderer did they?

No one made anyone believe what Marx taught, or put into practice methods meant to realize a Marxian ideal. I hear ideas every day put forth by various political crackpots and idealists that if put into practice would easily rival those things you attribute Marxist economics.

I think a much more important issue than the actual views of Marx is the issue of why did anyone buy into them and why are they still so influential. What is it Marxism appeals to?

human greed, lethargy and hedonism

-Imp

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:57 am An idea cannot do anything. No matter how evil the thing an idea describes, suggest, or encourages is, all by itself, an idea does nothing.

That's half a truth. It is true that an "idea" is an abstraction, and as such, does "do" things. On the other hand, the power of an idea to change minds or produce beliefs most decidedly results in things being done. The fact that an idea depends, for its efficacy, on a human agent does not mean that the idea is merely inert; and people who present ideas are responsible for what their ideas produce...so long as what is produced is consonant with the idea.

So you might say that, say, antisemitism is only an "idea." But tell that to the dead Jews at Auschwitz. Or you might say that Communism is only an idea...but tell that to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Kulaks, or the Poles killed in the Katyn Forest.

That's true even when someone learns the idea and thinks about it. After all, if you know what's wrong with Marx, you had to learn what his teachings were and think about them. They did not make you a murderer did they?

"Make" you? No.

But they called you to be that, gave you reasons and incentives to be that, told you you were good to be that, whipped up your ardour to do that, and gave you rationalizations for what you did, after the fact. So that objection leaves out the vast number of people who, under the sway of Marx's ideology, have been induced to murder people and destroy their own economies in the process. And that is what has happened literally every time Marx's ideology has been seriously applied.

How is it that that is how things have gone? That's got to tell you a great deal. The fruit off the Communist tree has been universally rotten. At some point, it's just inevitable to realize that's one bad tree.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:57 am I think a much more important issue than the actual views of Marx is the issue of why did anyone buy into them and why are they still so influential. What is it Marxism appeals to?

That's a good question. I'd be interested in knowing the answer to that as well. There were other proponents of workers' rights at the time such as Mikhail Bakunin. I'm not sure why it was that Marx's ideas seem to have caught on more so than the others. Bakunin even predicted that Marx's theory of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" would result in disaster for workers. Marx apparently struggled against the anarchist side of the First International, in direct opposition to Bakunin. Perhaps it was a matter of charisma or something. Perhaps Marx had more of it than Bakunin and others. Sometimes I think it really does come down to that in philosophy.

Or it could just be that Marx's philosophy offered a good justification for the kind of state that ambitious politicians probably revel in. If you want a career in politics, one with lots of prestige and good pay, listening to anarchists is probably not a good idea.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:36 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:13 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:26 pm
Then Marx also did nothing at all for the working man, according to your own theory.

No one did more for the working man.

So you say. But in that case, then, no one ever did more for the killing of man, either.

Marx killed no one ever.

If anyone is looking at this George Floyd for his existence and judging him worthy in any way of death under the kneecap of someone who is actually supposed to uphold the virtues of the law and indeed to serve and protect....is truly missing the fucking point.

No, he is not a hero. Yes, he is, now, a martyr.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:48 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:36 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:13 pm

No one did more for the working man.

So you say. But in that case, then, no one ever did more for the killing of man, either.

Marx killed no one ever.

Personally? No. But he gave other evil men the motive to do it, the justification to do it, the incentive to want to do it, and the excuses for it afterward. And in every single case, that is exactly what they have done...in numbers we could not possibly have imagined.

Now, why do you suppose Marx''s creed has been so universally fatal, and so completely economically disastrous? Given all the countries in Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, and central and South America that have attempted to apply Marxism, should not one be some kind of success? And should not one have not resulted in despots killing their own citizens?

You would think so.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:17 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:57 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:45 pm How grateful should the over 100 million his ideology killed in the last century be?

I have no use for Marx or his ideology, but there is something in that statement that is not quite correct and is made about a lot of other teachings and ideologies as well.

An idea cannot do anything. No matter how evil the thing an idea describes, suggest, or encourages is, all by itself, an idea does nothing. That's true even when someone learns the idea and thinks about it. After all, if you know what's wrong with Marx, you had to learn what his teachings were and think about them. They did not make you a murderer did they?

No one made anyone believe what Marx taught, or put into practice methods meant to realize a Marxian ideal. I hear ideas every day put forth by various political crackpots and idealists that if put into practice would easily rival those things you attribute Marxist economics.

I think a much more important issue than the actual views of Marx is the issue of why did anyone buy into them and why are they still so influential. What is it Marxism appeals to?

human greed, lethargy and hedonism

-Imp

I think that is part of it, but I would make it more explicit.

The word, "greed," can be very deceptive. It is used to denigrate those who actually aspire to be and achieve something in life, as though ambition were some kind of evil. The desire to have all one can acquire by working to produce and achieve it is a virtue, not a vice.

It is when, "greed," means desiring the unearned and undeserved, to have and enjoy what one has done nothing to achieve by their own effort. The belief that one deserves something, just because they were born, which ultimately means someone else must provide what they want.

Then lethargy means laziness, a lack of ambition and a desire to have and enjoy what one has not earned or produced. The desire for pleasure, for pleasure's sake, without regard to either the source or consequences of the pleasure is the kind of hedonism that is self-destructive.

It is to those kinds of individuals the Marxism has its greatest appeal. "From each according to his ability," means those greedy who actually work and produce something, "to each according to his need," means, "me," because I "need" things to enjoy and it's up to society to provide them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:40 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:57 am An idea cannot do anything. No matter how evil the thing an idea describes, suggest, or encourages is, all by itself, an idea does nothing.

That's half a truth. It is true that an "idea" is an abstraction, and as such, does "do" things. On the other hand, the power of an idea to change minds or produce beliefs most decidedly results in things being done. The fact that an idea depends, for its efficacy, on a human agent does not mean that the idea is merely inert; and people who present ideas are responsible for what their ideas produce...so long as what is produced is consonant with the idea.

So you might say that, say, antisemitism is only an "idea." But tell that to the dead Jews at Auschwitz. Or you might say that Communism is only an idea...but tell that to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Kulaks, or the Poles killed in the Katyn Forest.

That's true even when someone learns the idea and thinks about it. After all, if you know what's wrong with Marx, you had to learn what his teachings were and think about them. They did not make you a murderer did they?

"Make" you? No.

But they called you to be that, gave you reasons and incentives to be that, told you you were good to be that, whipped up your ardour to do that, and gave you rationalizations for what you did, after the fact. So that objection leaves out the vast number of people who, under the sway of Marx's ideology, have been induced to murder people and destroy their own economies in the process. And that is what has happened literally every time Marx's ideology has been seriously applied.

How is it that that is how things have gone? That's got to tell you a great deal. The fruit off the Communist tree has been universally rotten. At some point, it's just inevitable to realize that's one bad tree.

Of course Marx's ideology put into practice results in all the horrors you describe. I'm not defending the ideology, I'm pointing out that no ideology or idea in itself causes anything, only human actions cause the horrors. Marx's ideas, like those of other philosophers and teachers throughout history, are only excuses for actions, not the cause of them. For the same reason the freedom of speech means free to say anything, I believe freedom of thought means freedom to think anything. The desire to squelch speech or ideas always results in oppression of right speech and thought.

Just look at today's news. As terrible as racist thinking is, or antisemitic views are, or ignorant prejudices directed at ethnic backgrounds are, the desire to squelch any expression of those views has been turned into repression of any expression of reason even when it is opposed to those views--which is the whole PC, multi-cultural political atmosphere which fills the news with mob riots and so-called, "demonstrations," about which no criticism is allowed.

I'm not defending Marx or any ideology. If I'm defending anything it is freedom to hold and express any idea, no matter how revolting or, "hateful," it is, and the view that the only evil is what men do, not their ideas or motives (which no one can actually know).

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:35 am Or it could just be that Marx's philosophy offered a good justification for the kind of state that ambitious politicians probably revel in. If you want a career in politics, one with lots of prestige and good pay, listening to anarchists is probably not a good idea.

That is exactly right!

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:53 pm Marx's ideas, like those of other philosophers and teachers throughout history, are only excuses for actions, not the cause of them.

That's too easy, and too simplistic an axiom, RC.

If I begin standing on a street corner, telling people to kill a particular cultural group, it is true that I'm only speaking "ideas." Even if I explain how to assemble bombs, tie them to oneself and wade into a crowd for maximum damage, I'm still only speaking "ideas." Or if I yell, "Workers, rise up and destroy the enemies of the revolution; you have nothing to lose but your chains, kill all the aristocrats, and let the guillotine sing," that's still nothing but an "idea."

Am I therefore innocent when these things come about? Or am I actually the MOST culpable, because without me, the violence would never have found the focus, the voice, the methods and the incentives-to-believe that induced the genocide come about?

For the same reason the freedom of speech means free to say anything, I believe freedom of thought means freedom to think anything.

Amphiboly. Your sentence above slides "speech" into "think." And of course we have the right to "think" anything; who could stop us? But that's not at all the same thing as saying we have a right to say everything that comes into our heads. You don't have the right to scream "fire" in a crowded movie theatre, and then laugh when people are trampled to death in the panic.

Just look at today's news. As terrible as racist thinking is, or antisemitic views are, or ignorant prejudices directed at ethnic backgrounds are, the desire to squelch any expression of those views has been turned into repression of any expression of reason even when it is opposed to those views--which is the whole PC, multi-cultural political atmosphere which fills the news with mob riots and so-called, "demonstrations," about which no criticism is allowed.

Absolutely. And it's interesting that while I see raging Leftists all the time, I have yet to meet any group of "Alt-Righers," or to see any agenda they might have represented by even one public figure, or to see that they have any significant voice at all in public affairs in North America. They're not in the media, the academy, or any public policy making agency. Wall to wall, it's Leftism in all of these. I'm beginning to think the alleged fear of Right Wing extremists is really no more than the convenient fiction of the Left to whip up hatred. I just can't find them.

Now, maybe they happen elsewhere; but in North America, there is nowhere near the evidence of radical Rightism that there is of radical Leftism.

If I'm defending anything it is freedom to hold and express any idea, no matter how revolting or, "hateful," it is...

Well, I agree we have the freedom to hold any idea, and we should have very, very liberal policies on what you can say, invoking a term like "hate speech" only in the case of things like calls for genocide or inciting criminal violence. But I think free speech is a two-sided obligation: one the one side, we have the obligation to grant it as widely as possible; on the other, the people granted it have a responsibility not to employ it beyond the extremes that cause death and destruction to others. So we're going to have to live with a spectrum, and debates over what is "too far" are going to remain a permanent feature of the political conversation; but we ought always to err on the side of freedom until the abuse of speech becomes so extreme that we literally know life and death are at stake. Then we have to say, "Too far."