Poirot,

I can certainly see that the industrial revolution effected the way that we live, our understanding of our place within society etc.

But we don't want to forget that the industrial revolution followed on from the 'age of reason' and the enlightenment either. It was our shift in consciousness away from the church and toward a focus on science that facilitated the discoveries behind the industrial revolution. Descartes died in 1650 but Watt's steam engine didn't come about until the late 1700's.

I agree that we can look at the progression of human society in terms of the shifting material structures and institutions of the society, and these changing institutions and processes within the society definitely do effect our understandings and how we live. But it goes the other way too: We can look at shifting paradigms and how these paradigms effect the structure of our society.

Why the focus on 'materialism'? Just because Marx said it is that way? Surely you can see that there are obvious holes in the theory! If Marx were alive today, I'm sure that he would have been amongst the first to kick himself for that little bit of foolishness.

Poirot wrote:

"David f.

You employ an interesting debating technique at times.

The minute anyone endeavours to engage you in any meaningful analysis of Marx's theories (as separate from their falsified appropriation by the Soviet Communists) you immediately invoke your "mounds of corpses", while reinforcing the whole hellish tableau with your incantations against "evil crap"."

Dear Poirot,

There is nothing to debate. There was no falsified appropriation of Marx by the Soviet Communists. They followed his recommendations in the Communist Manifesto fairly closely. eg.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
(Can that mean anything else than censorship?)
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; ...

Marx also opposed human rights: “hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality”

Marx prescribed tyranny, and Lenin and the other criminals filled the prescription.

Marxism, Fascism, Nazism, Islam and Christianity are absurdities which have attracted many followers, effected great social changes and are responsible for much evil. I cannot engage in a meaningful analysis of the absurdities of Marxist theory any more than I can meaningfully analyse the virginity of Jesus’ mother.

Squeers addressed me directly. I then responded. It is neither slander nor distortion to call Marxism evil crap. That’s what it is.

Squeers accused me of wanting to suppress the expression of his views. I do not favour book-burning or any of the other kinds of suppression that Squeers mentioned. I'll leave that to Marxists, Nazis and other totalitarians.

I am most interested in the mechanisms of faith - what is in the minds of people who choose to believe in Marxism, Nazism, Christianity or other absurdities. That is why I am following the discussion. Squeers and grok defend the evil crap with great vigour. Why do they need to believe in it?

Unless you address me directly I prefer to stay on the sidelines.

Poirot wrote:

For someone who boasts of their love for fair and free expression, you seem overly keen to accuse people of being ideologues, even though they have made it clear that they wish to explore concepts and ideas. You seem to go out of your way with a vehemently closed-mind, to extinguish any alternative view in a welter of offended humanity.
It does you a disservice.

Dear Poirot,

Your criticism is completely justified. I find it as difficult dispassionately to discuss Marxist concepts and ideas as I do to discuss Nazi concepts and ideas although they both have a considerable intellectual development. However, there is a difference. Those who write about the Nazi intellectual development such as Mosse neither ignore their crimes nor maintain that in spite of the crimes the ideology still has value. I regard both Nazism and Marxism as bankrupt because of the massive crimes they have inspired. I admit it. I am not open minded as to either although I certainly would not limit the free speech of either Nazis or Marxists. I know a man who demonstrated for the free speech of the Nazis in the US. He wanted to see that they had the full democratic rights that any American is entitled to. At the conclusion of the demonstration he punched George Lincoln Rockwell, the leading Nazi, in the stomach.

Actually I have Nazi friends and Marxist friends although I loathe both ideologies.

Pleased to see such subject matter in the public arena, and equally dismayed by the lead article's facile content (and poor English expression).

Marxism, neo-Marxism and European Philosophy were key elements of my tertiary education, and have been central to my analysis of world events ever since. To prepare a comprehensive rebuttal to Mr Holmes' inelegant, naive, overly-simplistic propositions would consume multiple (blogosphere) pages, and precious time I lack.

To any aspiring students or avid readers in these subject areas, I can only suggest you look elsewhere for profound insights.

spinna:
>Marxism, neo-Marxism and European Philosophy were key
elements of my tertiary education, and have been
central to my analysis of world events ever since. To
prepare a comprehensive rebuttal to Mr Holmes' inelegant,
naive, overly-simplistic propositions would consume
multiple (blogosphere) pages, and precious time I lack.

You could just cover the basics of materialist marxist vs. idealist hegelian dialectics. Gilbert Holmes falls flat on his face with the first baby step.

GHolmes:
>Why the focus on 'materialism'? Just because Marx
said it is that way?

The basic choice in this universe remains -- and has always been between -- materialism or Idealism. Thus, if you are not a materialist then you are an Idealist. And then you are irrelevant, AFAIC.

>Surely you can see that there are obvious holes in
the theory!

You know, people keep SAYING that, but NO ONE has ever PROVED such claims (such as yourself). Even the infamous "transformation problem", which is supposed to be the arcane needle which pricks the balloon of the entire marxist edifice is a fraud at bottom, demonstrating nothing so much as a complete lack of comprehension and disregard of dialectical materialism. Of course, propaganda is all about *claiming* things to be true -- while knowing all the while that they are not; and yet knowing too that most people won't find out you're lying, anytime soon.

>If Marx were alive today, I'm sure that he would
have been amongst the first to kick himself for that
little bit of foolishness.

WTF RU blathering about. Marx has been vindicated 100 times over in his analysis and system -- and just gets better with age, like a fine wine. Your continued claims otherwise here are ludicrous to the point of pathetic blindness. It almost makes me wish the other shoe would drop in the world financial crisis, just to prove you SO wrong.