This is to say, I'm fairly ignorant. Like many other 'isms, I have a slightly shameful lack of a grasp of the philosophical essence of Marxism, though I like dot points and Ausage's look vaguely as per my understanding.If you are looking for an irony of history, you will find it not in the fact that Marx was underpaid by an American newspaper, but in the fact that he and Engels considered Russia the great bastion of reaction and America the great potential nurse of liberty and equality.
When I was a Marxist, I did not hold my opinions as a matter of faith but I did have the conviction that a sort of unified field theory might have been discovered. The concept of historical and dialectical materialism was not an absolute and it did not have any supernatural element, but it did have its messianic element in the idea that an ultimate moment might arrive, and it most certainly had its martyrs and saints and doctrinaires and (after a while) its mutually excommunicating rival papacies. It also had its schisms and inquisitions and heresy hunts.
...
And he (Trotsky) certainly had a sense—expressed in his emotional essay Literature and Revolution—of the unquenchable yearning of the poor and oppressed to rise above the strictly material world and to achieve something transcendent. For a good part of my life, I had a share in this idea that I have not yet quite abandoned. But there came a time when I could not protect myself, and indeed did not wish to protect myself, from the onslaught of reality. Marxism, I conceded, had its intellectual and philosophical and ethical glories, but they were in the past. Something of the heroic period might perhaps be retained, but the fact had to be faced: there was no longer any guide to the future. In addition, the very concept of a total solution had led to the most appalling human sacrifices, and to the invention of excuses for them. Those of us who had sought a rational alternative to religion had reached a terminus that was comparably dogmatic. What else was to be expected of something that was produced by the close cousins of chimpanzees? Infallibility? Thus, dear reader, if you have come this far and found your own faith undermined—as I hope—I am willing to say that to some extent I know what you are going through. There are days when I miss my old convictions as if they were an amputated limb. But in general I feel better, and no less radical, and you will feel better too, I guarantee, once you leave hold of the doctrinaire and allow your chainless mind to do its own thinking.
There's no way Marx is more evil than Stalin or even Linen, let alone outside figures
I was given a linen shirt that's unwearable because it just cannot, will not, be ironed smooth. Probably the most evil shirt ever.I've always had an intense hatred for blankets. Give the bastards a good kicking every night.
But that's the whole point of linen ffs. The fact it creases so easily is just the cost of class (not class warfare in this instance, just class).I was given a linen shirt that's unwearable because it just cannot, will not, be ironed smooth. Probably the most evil shirt ever.
Yeah well you Linenists would say that coming from a dialectical shirt materialist point of viewBut that's the whole point of linen ffs. The fact it creases so easily is just the cost of class (not class warfare in this instance, just class).
Eh, this isn't really accurate. It's what's modern day Marxists say, but it's not what Marx actually wrote about. His point wasn't that capitalists are engaged in conscious oppression, it was that the capitalist system is irrational and oppressive and enslaved everyone to its will, capitalist and worker alike. But it's pretty easy to conclude "oppression" from his core theory of surface value. It's a much more complex and frankly thought-through theory than modern far-left advocates make it look.So to answer Spark's question, I've not read any Marx but my understanding is that his key philosophical points were:
- Humanity should be viewed through a prism of social, racial, religious and cultural (class) groupings
- Civilisation is the interplay of power dynamics between these groups
- Those who own the means of production are engaged in oppression against the working class
Correct me if I'm wrong or missed anything.
I don't know about "most evil", but the above combination of ideas are dangerous because they're both intoxicating/enticing and infinitely destructive when followed through. There's a reason you can in this day and age see people unironically saying "Marx was right" despite him being a primary influence on the majority of the modern history's most brutal regimes.
Indeed. Incidentally, always amazed me that the late great Christopher Hitchens was a self-confessed Marxist in his younger days. Amazing how some people's political views evolve over time.I thought Donald Trump was the most evil man ever