Fabianism

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Fabians are Socialists...predatory, manipulative, elitist Socialists...a thing Marx never talked about, but something Marx himself definitely was. He may never have known the name, but he's the thing, for sure.

And if you read the OP, you'll find out that "Fabian," in the present context, is more a name for the phenomenon than merely a label for the group that self-identifies that way.

[Dubious]

It's clear, then, that you haven't even read one biography of Marx.

Tell me of a biography that wasn't written by a theist which makes Marx directly responsible for the murder of 120 million people and then I'll examine the background of that "biographer".

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.

I see. So his theories are to be condemned, disparaged and distorted because he could be obnoxious and disgusting in his behaviour like so many others who weren't geniuses. Based on that logic, why listen to the likes of Beethoven or Wagner or read the works of writers who were infamous for their behavior. If you're going to judge the merit of someone's contributions on how good he was as a person, half the accomplishments of the human race would be missing.

It never ends! This is how you practice philosophy...the stupid, bogus arguments you manufacture out of pure malice! I wonder how many someone like you would have killed had you lived during medieval times and granted the power to condemn!

Or read his poetry, because Marx wrote some awful lines...and you'll see for yourself.

Marx was not a genius poet but he was talented. Even great poets were not exempt from writing awful lines or being assholes. Unless you know German you would have read them in an English translation. Even Goethe can sound lousy in English.

[Immanuel Can]

It's clear, then, that you haven't even read one biography of Marx.

Tell me of a biography that wasn't written by a theist which makes Marx directly responsible for the murder of 120 million people and then I'll examine the background of that "biographer".

You won't find one, but only because they don't add up the totals of all his followers. If Marx had never written, a lot of people would be alive today who are not.

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.

I see. So his theories are to be condemned, disparaged and distorted because he could be obnoxious and disgusting in his behaviour like so many others who weren't geniuses. Based on that logic, why listen to the likes of Beethoven or Wagner or read the works of writers who were infamous for their behavior. If you're going to judge the merit of someone's contributions on how good he was as a person, half the accomplishments of the human race would be missing.

It depends on what they promised us. Beethoven did not promise us the utopia of Communism. Wagner, as nasty as he was, didn't tell us perpetual, violent revolution was the only way...instead, they wrote music.

If Marx had created any music, maybe he would have achieved something. Or if he had painted pictures, or done any science, or contributed to medicine...but all he contributed to was a sea of human misery.

Or read his poetry, because Marx wrote some awful lines...and you'll see for yourself.

Marx was not a genius poet but he was talented.

You haven't read his poetry, just like you haven't read any biographies. It's easy to tell. If you had, you couldn't possibly suppose this was any kind of explanation.

[Dubious]

It's clear, then, that you haven't even read one biography of Marx.

Tell me of a biography that wasn't written by a theist which makes Marx directly responsible for the murder of 120 million people and then I'll examine the background of that "biographer".

You won't find one, but only because they don't add up the totals of all his followers. If Marx had never written, a lot of people would be alive today who are not.

Your response makes no sense.

You claimed "It's clear, then, that you haven't even read one biography of Marx". You claim that you have so what biography have you read which asserts Marx was responsible for all these atrocities? Are you not able to name even one? You've made that claim a few times. Some proof is in order!

Now it's time for you to put up and show it or shut up. If you can't, you prove once again what a mountebank and fraud you actually are as relating to anything objective in your malicious, unmerited diatribes against any historical figure you resent for whatever reason.

It depends on what they promised us. Beethoven did not promise us the utopia of Communism. Wagner, as nasty as he was, didn't tell us perpetual, violent revolution was the only way...instead, they wrote music.

They created based on their talents just as Marx was able to employ his analytical skills in defining how Capitalism operates, insights which are fundamental to the study of Capitalism and more important than ever as prerequisite to understanding the inherent contradictions in a Capitalist system...which have become even more manifest in the 21st century.

You haven't read his poetry, just like you haven't read any biographies. It's easy to tell. If you had, you couldn't possibly suppose this was any kind of explanation.

How would you know if I read any of his poetry? You constantly make these off the cuff idiot assertions as if it were already proven! As I've said, you cannot by any criteria be acknowledged as having any philosophical power to think. You are and will always remain a proselytizer of hatred and malice against those who don't conform to your agenda. And what pray, does his poetry, written in German when, quite young, have to do with his later political theories?

Actually, I have read some and reread since you mention it. He is certainly more talented than a lot of so-called modern poets writing today. Have you read them in German?

...and since you mention again that I haven't read any of his biographies with the inference that you have, what bios have you actually read which forces you to conclude Marx was responsible for the death of 120 million people? It's fair to ask which biographer affirms Marx as responsible for these atrocities when Marx himself spoke against those acts of terrorism that types like Mao and Stalin were responsible for.

[Immanuel Can]

You claimed "It's clear, then, that you haven't even read one biography of Marx".

Have you? Which one?

Marx was able to employ his analytical skills in defining how Capitalism operates,

How come he got everything wrong, then?

Read one biography. A proper scholarly book of some kind. Even those who LIKE what Marx said do not try to make him out to have been some kind of a good person -- his own father called him "a devil." You'll find out.

[Gary Childress]

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.

They're closet Marxists. All lefties are.

[Immanuel Can]

Tell me of a biography that wasn't written by a theist which makes Marx directly responsible for the murder of 120 million people and then I'll examine the background of that "biographer".

Biographers? Well, they're mostly concerned with Marx's own life, not the impact of his delusions. But you can easily look up the statistics for yourself, and you'll find I've been very kind in my estimates.

For example,

R.J. Rummel’s Democide Studies: Political scientist Rudolph Rummel, who extensively researched government-sponsored mass murder, estimated that communist regimes killed about 148 million people between 1917 and 1987. (AI)

Most frequently, the states and events which are studied and included in death toll estimates are the Holodomor and the Great Purge in the Soviet Union, the Great Chinese Famine and the Cultural Revolution in the People's Republic of China, and the Cambodian genocide in Democratic Kampuchea (now Cambodia). Estimates of individuals killed range from a low of 10–20 million to as high as 148 million. (Wiki)

The "low" is obviously by a Communist apologist, since, as the Hudson Institute notes, there were at least 20 million killed in Soviet Russia alone, and perhaps as many as 60 million there. Likewise, in China, we know that between 40 and 55 million died in just the Great Leap Forward, let alone the Cultural Revolution or the regimes of subsequent Communist despots.

In short, it isn't at all hard to know that Socialism has killed more human beings than any other single force in history...and by orders of magnitude. Nothing else even comes close.

So 120 million? That's a statistic that's surely flattering to Socialism. We can have little hesitation in supposing more. It would be amazing if there had been no secret killings to go along with those we now know about.

Look it up. You'll be amazed.

So much for "compassionate" Socialism.

[Gary Childress]

Tell me of a biography that wasn't written by a theist which makes Marx directly responsible for the murder of 120 million people and then I'll examine the background of that "biographer".

Biographers? Well, they're mostly concerned with Marx's own life, not the impact of his delusions. But you can easily look up the statistics for yourself, and you'll find I've been very kind in my estimates.

For example,

R.J. Rummel’s Democide Studies: Political scientist Rudolph Rummel, who extensively researched government-sponsored mass murder, estimated that communist regimes killed about 148 million people between 1917 and 1987. (AI)

Most frequently, the states and events which are studied and included in death toll estimates are the Holodomor and the Great Purge in the Soviet Union, the Great Chinese Famine and the Cultural Revolution in the People's Republic of China, and the Cambodian genocide in Democratic Kampuchea (now Cambodia). Estimates of individuals killed range from a low of 10–20 million to as high as 148 million. (Wiki)

The "low" is obviously by a Communist apologist, since, as the Hudson Institute notes, there were at least 20 million killed in Soviet Russia alone, and perhaps as many as 60 million there. Likewise, in China, we know that between 40 and 55 million died in just the Great Leap Forward, let alone the Cultural Revolution or the regimes of subsequent Communist despots.

In short, it isn't at all hard to know that Socialism has killed more human beings than any other single force in history...and by orders of magnitude. Nothing else even comes close.

So 120 million? That's a statistic that's surely flattering to Socialism. We can have little hesitation in supposing more. It would be amazing if there had been no secret killings to go along with those we now know about.

Look it up. You'll be amazed.

So much for "compassionate" Socialism.

So if we accept socialism as you define it (via Marx), then Socialism is the limitation of property and what a person may own. So there's no way that limits on private property, what a person may own, can be instituted without killing hundreds of millions of people? There's just no way. Unlimited property is necessary to save millions of lives that would be lost if limits on property were imposed. Is that correct?

[Immanuel Can]

Tell me of a biography that wasn't written by a theist which makes Marx directly responsible for the murder of 120 million people and then I'll examine the background of that "biographer".

Biographers? Well, they're mostly concerned with Marx's own life, not the impact of his delusions. But you can easily look up the statistics for yourself, and you'll find I've been very kind in my estimates.

For example,

R.J. Rummel’s Democide Studies: Political scientist Rudolph Rummel, who extensively researched government-sponsored mass murder, estimated that communist regimes killed about 148 million people between 1917 and 1987. (AI)

Most frequently, the states and events which are studied and included in death toll estimates are the Holodomor and the Great Purge in the Soviet Union, the Great Chinese Famine and the Cultural Revolution in the People's Republic of China, and the Cambodian genocide in Democratic Kampuchea (now Cambodia). Estimates of individuals killed range from a low of 10–20 million to as high as 148 million. (Wiki)

The "low" is obviously by a Communist apologist, since, as the Hudson Institute notes, there were at least 20 million killed in Soviet Russia alone, and perhaps as many as 60 million there. Likewise, in China, we know that between 40 and 55 million died in just the Great Leap Forward, let alone the Cultural Revolution or the regimes of subsequent Communist despots.

In short, it isn't at all hard to know that Socialism has killed more human beings than any other single force in history...and by orders of magnitude. Nothing else even comes close.

So 120 million? That's a statistic that's surely flattering to Socialism. We can have little hesitation in supposing more. It would be amazing if there had been no secret killings to go along with those we now know about.

Look it up. You'll be amazed.

So much for "compassionate" Socialism.

So if we accept socialism as you define it

No, at all. Remember? It fails disastrously 100% of the time, no matter who's "defining" it.

So there's no way that limits on private property,...

I'm curious: why does this trouble you? What's it to me, if my neighbour has a swimming pool, or two, or ten, and I don't? He didn't steal his swimming pools from me. He isn't hurting me one bit. Plausibly, he's earned the right to swim. Why should that be a problem for us?

Are you thinking that if you back Socialist despots, they'll turn around and give you something? They won't, you know...they never do. They'll just become richer than your neighbour could dream of being, and leave you in the bread lines. That's exactly what they always do. So how are you going to keep them from doing to you something immeasurably worse than the pain of watching your neighbour enjoy his pool?

[Impenitent]

So there's no way that limits on private property, what a person may own, can be instituted ...

you've done a fine job of limiting your private property

what others may choose to do with their lives and their property is up to them...

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

Biographers? Well, they're mostly concerned with Marx's own life, not the impact of his delusions. But you can easily look up the statistics for yourself, and you'll find I've been very kind in my estimates.

For example,

R.J. Rummel’s Democide Studies: Political scientist Rudolph Rummel, who extensively researched government-sponsored mass murder, estimated that communist regimes killed about 148 million people between 1917 and 1987. (AI)

Most frequently, the states and events which are studied and included in death toll estimates are the Holodomor and the Great Purge in the Soviet Union, the Great Chinese Famine and the Cultural Revolution in the People's Republic of China, and the Cambodian genocide in Democratic Kampuchea (now Cambodia). Estimates of individuals killed range from a low of 10–20 million to as high as 148 million. (Wiki)

The "low" is obviously by a Communist apologist, since, as the Hudson Institute notes, there were at least 20 million killed in Soviet Russia alone, and perhaps as many as 60 million there. Likewise, in China, we know that between 40 and 55 million died in just the Great Leap Forward, let alone the Cultural Revolution or the regimes of subsequent Communist despots.

In short, it isn't at all hard to know that Socialism has killed more human beings than any other single force in history...and by orders of magnitude. Nothing else even comes close.

So 120 million? That's a statistic that's surely flattering to Socialism. We can have little hesitation in supposing more. It would be amazing if there had been no secret killings to go along with those we now know about.

Look it up. You'll be amazed.

So much for "compassionate" Socialism.

So if we accept socialism as you define it

No, at all. Remember? It fails disastrously 100% of the time, no matter who's "defining" it.

So there's no way that limits on private property,...

I'm curious: why does this trouble you? What's it to me, if my neighbour has a swimming pool, or two, or ten, and I don't? He didn't steal his swimming pools from me. He isn't hurting me one bit. Plausibly, he's earned the right to swim. Why should that be a problem for us?

Are you thinking that if you back Socialist despots, they'll turn around and give you something? They won't, you know...they never do. They'll just become richer than your neighbour could dream of being, and leave you in the bread lines. That's exactly what they always do. So how are you going to keep them from doing to you something immeasurably worse than the pain of watching your neighbour enjoy his pool?

A swimming pool is fine. Is owning a bank fine? If someone owns a swimming pool then they still don't have much pull with local politicians. If someone owns a bank, then they can pretty much pay off city officials and get their way. I have one vote. A person with a bank has much more social power than I do, much more. You keep trying to push this off as petty jealousy. It's not. It's about private power and democracy.

[Gary Childress]

So there's no way that limits on private property, what a person may own, can be instituted ...

you've done a fine job of limiting your private property

what others may choose to do with their lives and their property is up to them...

-Imp

Sure. If someone wants to own a bazooka, we should all be OK with that. Property that is potentially dangerous or compromises democracy is fine for you. You don't mind that your vote doesn't count squat compared to the owner of the local bank or factory, or that the guy with the bazooka could get drunk one night. There's no problem with any kind of property. All property is fine, even if it's potentially harmful or impedes democracy.

[Impenitent]

So there's no way that limits on private property, what a person may own, can be instituted ...

you've done a fine job of limiting your private property

what others may choose to do with their lives and their property is up to them...

-Imp

Sure. If someone wants to own a bazooka, we should all be OK with that. Property that is potentially dangerous or compromises democracy is fine for you. You don't mind that your vote doesn't count squat compared to the owner of the local bank or factory, or that the guy with the bazooka could get drunk one night. There's no problem with any kind of property. All property is fine, even if it's potentially harmful or impedes democracy.

Molotov cocktails can be far more effective than bazookas

don't need a second amendment for those either

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

you've done a fine job of limiting your private property

what others may choose to do with their lives and their property is up to them...

-Imp

Sure. If someone wants to own a bazooka, we should all be OK with that. Property that is potentially dangerous or compromises democracy is fine for you. You don't mind that your vote doesn't count squat compared to the owner of the local bank or factory, or that the guy with the bazooka could get drunk one night. There's no problem with any kind of property. All property is fine, even if it's potentially harmful or impedes democracy.

Molotov cocktails can be far more effective than bazookas

don't need a second amendment for those either

-Imp

Not if you're fighting tanks.

[Immanuel Can]

A swimming pool is fine.

How about ten? At what point do you get all aggitated? And why?

Is owning a bank fine?

Of course.

If someone owns a bank, then they can pretty much pay off city officials and get their way.

That's illegal already. It's called "bribery."

What about when the Fabian Socialists own the bank? Is that better? Why?