.

Dear David F.,

.

Passing from theory to practice, whatever the domain, is a perilous journey. There are many obstacles and potholes along the bumpy road to the final product which can end up quite different from the original idea or design.

If given the opportunity, the authors themselves often scrap their ideas as soon as they realise they have made a mistake or overlooked some important factor or unexpected outcome.

History records that Marx was a sociologist. He studied the social, political, economical and religious aspects of society in the western world. He was undoubtedly the most important sociologist of his time. His ideas affected the lives of more than half of humanity in the twentieth century.

Some of his closest friends participated actively in various revolutionary mouvements. Marx did not, apart from expressing revolutionary ideas in his writings.

Karl Marx died on 14 March 1883 and was buried in England shortly thereafter. It seems difficult to uphold that there are valid grounds for declaring him responsible for the atrocities committed more than thirty years later by the communists both during and after the October Bolshevic revolution of 1917 in Russia.

At most, it could, perhaps, be argued that Karl Marx, the theoretical sociologist, was to the innocent victims of communism, as J. Robert Oppenheimer, the theoretical physicist, was to the innocent victims of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Whilst scientists and all those in other fields of research receive full credit for their origninal publications, society does not usually hold them liable for the practical applications of their findings and ideas, however devastating they may be.

Also, as you indicated on another thread, David: "We must differentiate between mere advocacy of actions and actual planning and carrying out of actions".

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10725&page=8

... which prompted my question: "Does this principle not apply to Karl Marx ?"

... and you subsequently confirmed:

"Dear Banjo,

I apologise for not responding to you before this. Of course it applies to Karl Marx."

Naturally, I would welcome any further comments you may feel pertinent.

.

I am not sure that a Theology of thought and ideas that is in truth a False Theory, that of which within itself a compilation of contradictions and self imposed Paradoxes in defining its own interpretation, devoid of logic or any reasoning - stemming back to Hegel.
It is tantamount to describing in philosophical and pathological terms ;
A piece of Faeces as an Individual entity of immense stature and of Natural beauty only worthy of existence by a supreme being to be its creator; that ought to gain its own Autonomy in a world of the Usury and exploiters, of whom by their own evolutionary means will pass off into the history writings of The Naturally Ordained laws.
To Ussher in the naturaly ordained age of Faeces free of the blow flys and other exploiters.

Now wonder why the world is dysfunctional and bankrupt to a point where Anarchism looks Attractive
And that is about it Banjo.

Dear Banjo,

Karl Marx is not guilty of the actions that people committed in his name. However, those actions were a logical outgrowth of his philosophy. In a free society people have the freedom to advocate anything without penalty no matter how noxious. There is the risk that these views will be followed.

Squeers wrote: "What you appear to fail to realise is that the concept of human rights is a false pillar of the capitalist system that would be redundant in the kind of utopia Marx postulated."

I realise that Marx opposed human rights for that reason, but I have no obligation to accept Marx's reasoning. Marx thought that amelioration of the human condition under capitalism would put off the socialist revolution and therefore would be harmful. He could oppose free speech as it would be a means of letting off steam and therefore help to preserve capitalism.

Marxism incorporated a messianic belief in the socialist revolution as curing the ills of society due to capitalism. Anything that would put off the revolution should be opposed.

In Germany during the Weimar period communists opposed Nazism but also opposed the social democrats and called them 'social fascists'. They preferred Nazi triumph over social democratic reforms as Nazism would reveal the ugly face of capitalism and cause the workers to rise in the socialist revolution which would make everything peachy dandy. The reality is that the Germans got Nazism, and it took a horrible war to get rid of it.

Lenin saw no need for human rights as it was just a roadblock in the transition to the eventual classless society. The result was a one party state with concentration camps (the first gulags were set up several months after Lenin came to power.) and all the paraphernalia of repression that non-Marxist totalitarian states had. This was a direct result of Marx's philosophy.

I have a different philosophy. You make things worse they get worse. You make things better they get better. I don't believe in messianism whether in Marxist or any other form. Human rights make any society more bearable.

Dear Banjo,
sorry if you bought that book and here it is free online.

Dear David F,
<I did not call you a true believer or refer to you as a true believer. You are not the only person on this thread who has taken issue with me.>

a misunderstanding on my part once again (who else had taken issue?), sorry about that. Why on earth would I think you were alluding to me when you mentioned "true believers". Being a narcissist I'm devastated, btw, that your every conscious thought is not dedicated to moi.

I have no desire to sanctify Karl Marx; he was no doubt as flawed as the rest of us. I'd be interested to know what your definition of a "decent human being" is btw--to be such in our world is surely more a privilege than an accomplishment? I defend Marx's thought because it is incredibly rare in seeing, genuinely, outside the square.
The fact that you can describe our system as "a free society" is testament to your ideological incarceration. Marx did not, of course, "oppose human rights", they is precisely what he was fighting for (emphasis on "human")!
To paraphrase an "actual" modern scholar (more than just opinionated), Marx sought to reclaim the human realm from the form of exchange value. The exchange of commodities, "which provides the free trader vulgaris with his views, his concepts and the standards by which he judges the society of capital and wage-labour" is "a very Eden of the innate rights of Man. It is the exclusive realm of freedom, equality, property and Bentham" (this is irony in case you failed to notice).
The rest of your post, defaming 'Marxism' has my blessing.
What are 'human rights' in a world oblivious of them?

Dear Squeers,

Of course I was referring to Mitchell not to you. He mentioned that he considered me an obstinate fool apparently if I did not wind up seeing things the way he did. Read the exchanges. I do not like to engage in name calling with you or anybody else. I referred to him as a true believer. That is much milder than calling one an obstinate fool. I don't go in for that kind of slanging.

Karl Marx was many things - an economic theorist, a journalist, a classical scholar, a historiographer, a social theorist, a humanitarian and a bigot.

As an economic theorist he did much of value. As a journalist he wrote well and coined some great aphorisms. As a classical scholar he was erudite, As a historigrapher he was incompetent. As a social theorist he made some good points. As a humanitarian he wore blinders seeing the oppression of the working class and ignoring other oppression. As a bigot he did not rise above the prejudices of his time.

Like most of us he was a mixture. In my opinion his work resulted in much more harm than good. We differ.

.

Dear All-, David F. and Squeers,

.

Karl Marx is a closed book. He wrote the final chapter more than a century ago. We all read it but our critiques do not concord. That is not unusual.

Perhaps the difference is not to be found in the author or his book but in us, the readers. Each of us is a unique mixture of personal experiences and sensitivities which orient our individual perspectives.

As it seems we are all honest, we have no difficulty agreeing on the facts. We even manage to accord much of our analysis. We play the same notes but somehow come up with a different tune.

Perhaps we play them differently: "con forza" for one, "con sordina" for another and "con affetto" for the third.

That produces a lively debate but it sounds a little out of tune.

Though Karl Marx was a brilliant sociologist, his analysis of the social strata was, consciously or unconsciously, incomplete and his conception of the ideal society has so far proven, in most applications, to be utopian and unsustainable.

I suggest that what David sees as Marx's bigotry and intolerence was simply the expression of his outrage, indignation and revolt at the flagrant social injustices of which he, his family and the majority of humanity were victims. It was this outrage, indignation and revolt that altered his vision so much that it became bipolar, Manichean and distorted.

He saw no middle class. Grey disappeared. Everything became either black or white. His positions were chiseled in rock and he turned extremely authoritarian.

Marx was totally destitute. In that he differed radically from the future communist nomenclatura. One of his sons died of hunger. He was fighting for survival. Faced with the intolerable, he became intolerant.

Marx aspired to a better world in which a privileged minority no longer dominated, enslaved and exploited the majority of mankind. He wanted them to shake off the yoke and set themselves free.

His noble ideas were misappropriated by a bunch of ruthless opportunists who used them in order to realise their personal ambitions.

.