He blocked me on twitter thoughHaha come on, there are way more detestable people on the left than him.
I was actually really starting to warm to him before the election but he has been pretty insufferable since.
Nup. Nothing on Yasmin.
For a second I thought you were talking about Marx.Haha come on, there are way more detestable people on the left than him.
I was actually really starting to warm to him before the election but he has been pretty insufferable since.
One thing that I have always found fascinating is how Aristotle anticipated and denounced Marxism in one pithy statement without even the benefit of hindsight: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.
Aristotle said:Although quarrels are more likely in an unequal society, striving to rectify the inequality may precipitate the very conflict that the citizenry wants to avoid.
Yeah, in terms of the means of seizing and retaining power, men like Lenin and Mao were probably a lot more heavily influenced by 18th century revolutionaries like Gracchus Babeuf and Robespierre than Marx.Marx's observations arose and caught on because the economy he was basing them on was so obviously a monopsony. From a mid-19thc perspective the subsequent dispersion of market power is pretty remarkable. But it might not have happened if Marx hadn't been so influential. If that's so, Marx made Marx wrong.
Marx was one of the most anti-modernist thinkers there ever was. His view of history as massive, sweeping, and impossible for an individual to influence. Yet all the horrific attempts to apply his ideas were incredibly modernist. It was always an individual or small group of individuals attempting to massively change the course of history through brute force. That modernism is what Stalin and Mao have in common with Hitler and Pol Pot. That's where the evil comes from.
Slow day at work so I'm responding seriously to a troll thread.
Or even Andrew Strauss from your pov.Let alone Levi Strauss and the development of high waisted jeans.
If you wouldn't read Mein Kampf you shouldn't read any Marx.I'm kind of curious though, how many people here have actually read any Marx?
UrghI guess it depends how you define evil. Marx's shortcomings are the shortcomings of the human race, before and after. An inability to appreciate complex systems of individual action and thus consequently a construction of some nonsensical ideal through the faulty perception of his delusions. People who cannot orientate themselves intelligently in this world have to make it about classes and races, which is why it appeals to common people so insidiously. Socialism is on the same sliding scale.
If not for Marx and his influence, apart from the millions upon millions killed, the world would be far more advanced and able to meet human needs. Maybe it wasn't an intended evil, but his characterisation of the social structure made it inevitable that others would use and abuse. Much like those who would advocate to shut down freedom of speech for reasons even 99% of people would agree with; it is eventually directing the **** into the fan.