Squeers:"I don't deny that a great deal of evil as been done under the term "Marxism", the question is whether that evil was an accurate rendition of Marx's work."

Indeed, this is the question.

"Marx himself denied being a Marxist!"
And Jesus never considered himself a Christian, what does that matter?

"Each generation should shoulder the blame for their own corpses."

And the deny the corpses of their fathers.

"Rationalists and entrepreneurs and popular opinion were all partly responsible for the death camps."

There seems to have always been plenty of Rationalists and entrepeneurs in America and England, where are their death camps?

"The question is whether the communist dictatorships since Marx were accurate renditions of Marx's thought. And I'm not going to split hairs; I'll address the question, was Marx recommending genocides, for instance? He most certainly was not."

No, perhaps not. I don't believe that David's article was actually saying that, but I do think he has a case that his words could be interpreted to support such. Just as Jesus' words were, although I don't believe he was advocating the atrocities committed in his name either.

Indeed, looking at the, (perhaps now outdated?) Manifesto, it could be argued that the atrocities were a logical consequence of his writings, even if unintended.

I'm sorry Bugsy but I really don't have the time to take your points to task, though there's nothing in them.

LOL
"You're wrong, so there"

Come on squeers, you're making a habit of that.

Ok then Squeers.

But your earlier question was interesting:
"The question is whether the communist dictatorships since Marx were accurate renditions of Marx's thought."

Ok, let's look at this objectively and say that they weren't, OK?

The question then becomes: "Why were Marx's ideas on the state so difficult to implement accurately?"
Why did so many of these 'Marxist' states become communist dictatorships?

How many 'Marxist' states are there that can be considered 'successful', and not just tenacious?

This discussion has identified another important similarity between fascism and Marxism, (and indeed other political and religious movements prone to violence) - namely idealism. Holders of both ideologies genuinely believe they are making the world a better place. They, and those who share their ideologies, believe that the suffering they inflict is necessary, and the suffering they endure is noble and in a good cause. It is necessary to destroy the old order to build the new, but the end is worth the means. Opponents of the new order deserve to be repressed or destroyed.

Roy Baumeister wrote a fascinating book on the sources of human evil, which he describes as wilfully hurting or destroying of other people. One of these sources is idealism. Baumeister says that “idealistic evil” occurs where the perpetrators are motivated by (what they perceive to be) moral virtue and the desire to make the world a better place. This can make idealistic violence worse than other kinds, because “the traits of inner conscience and strength of character spur the perpetrator on to more severe and intense deeds ... When inflicting violent harm goes from being a right to being a duty, it is fair to expect that the violence will become relentless and merciless.” Idealism also encourages people to perceive their victims as evil. If I believe I am on the side of right and virtue, it’s a short and easy step to seeing my opponent as evil and/or immoral. The Nazis’ perception of Jews, Stalinists’ perceptions of Kulaks and Khmer Rouge approach to "intellectuals" shared this characteristic.

http://www.amazon.com/Evil-Inside-Human-Violence-Cruelty/dp/0805071652#reader_0805071652

CS Lewis made a sort of similar point when he said that evil is not the opposite of good or the absence of good, but the corruption of good.

Hence the paradox that some of humanity’s noblest motives – the desire to shape a better world, helping others, religion, loyalty to one’s country – can be the source of some of our most vicious and repressive actions

Dear Squeers,

The fact is that various Marxist entities produced many corpses. The article maintains that the reason lies in Marxist ideology as expressed in the Manifesto. You differ with that.

Why do you think the Marxist entities produced so many corpses?