10 points to those who know who that drawing in the background is.
does the President of the US own Yellowstone park?
Please stop trying to turn every conversation into “Libertarianism is better! Giant Squids! Coersion!!” it’s boring and it kills interest in otherwise interesting debates.
Please stop trying to turn my every remark into your mush-mouthed caricature of my position. Property ownership is at the very core of Marxism. And yes, the government owns Yellowstone. If you don’t believe it, try to build a house there.
You do a good enough job yourself of making a caricature of your position, Lib. No help from me is needed.
Do you even read replies to your posts? I asked if The President of the USA owns Yellowstone, not the Government.
I not Liberal tried to introduce the ellements of coersion inherant in Marxist (and imho all possible) ideals. It was in an attempt to get away from the stupid BBC bashing which had even less to do with Karl Marx as a philosopher. Trying to direct this debate to one about why Marxism is attractive to many otherwise sensible people, and hense how people could vote for Marx as a great philosoper dispite the failure of all Marxist societies.
I guess this makes poll taxes A-OK, right? After all, who forces a man to vote?
No, really, Gangster Octopus, what exactly do you mean by “populist garbage”?
Who forces him to own a TV? Without that, there’s no licence.
So you think that by owning a telly we should be forced to pay a poll-tax to one of the broadcasters? A lefty one at that that preaches equality (I grant you that this theft is a form of equality).
There is no doubt that Marx was a profoundly evil person. His writings were incredibly violent, though most of it so obtuse that even most lawyers cannot possibly understand though no doubt they pretend they do. Lawyers of the world unite!
Most lawyers are of course profoundly evil. Such are the results of Marxism and therefore socialism.
Such are the results of Lenin - lover of Marx and socialism. Anyone here wishes to defend Lenin? Defend Stalin, Mao, the other hosts of Marx-worshippers that bedevilled the 20th century?
Socialism is a little wider than Marx. Hitler was a socialist. All socialists are in effect national-socialists, though not equal in horror. I find that socialists are very inequal in their beleifs and that they decry others who call themselves ‘socialists’ with a fervour that is unsurpassed.
Such is the nature of the socialist religion. Marx is a god of most of the worshippers of it.
stop-1 - I hope for your own sake that you’re taking the piss. I can’t read what you’ve written without laughing.
Not that anyone will care, but…
- Marx didn’t advocate the overthrow of government and the rule of the proletariat - he thought that t was inevitable.
- He didn’t envision the “workers paradise” as state or government controlled, but more in the vein of coöperative volontary system, much like the Israeli kibbutz.
- Being totally upper middle class, with aspirations to the upper class, keeping servants and too big a house to be able to entertain, while not earning any money, he was reduced to live off funds that Engels embezzled from the family business.
- KM didn’t look forward to living in a posty revolution world
(Source: Karl Marx, a biography by Francis Wheen, Forth Estate 1999)
Arguably, Marx’ visions came true, though not in the way he expected. The voting franchise in the Western world is now extended to all adults and personal lierty has never been stronger. This could be seen as a meassure taken by the ruling classes in various stages during the 20th century, to prevent the majority (and working class) from rising to overthrow the rulers, leading to communism as seen in the totalitarian countries.
Call Marx a philosopher or not, I can’t think of a single human being in the last two centuries that have had such an impact on such a large number of people as he had.
It’s really not hard. Pasteur would be the obviopus exmaple insofar as he changed the very face of the world and is repsonsible for those people being alive. Marx’s impact was restricted primarily to the influence his work had on others, often third or fourth hand. As often as not it was something to rail against, rather than a direct influence. To that extent he’s probably about as influential as Ford, Freud, Darwin, Mendell, Watson & Crick and probably a hundred other scientists, industialists and so forth.
The same individual who forces a man to vote.
Pasteur was a fraud who allowed his religious convictions to get in the way of his objectivity. He supressed awkward data that he knew would vindicate the spontaneous generation camp. Calling him a scientist is a stretch.
[/off topic]
What in Marx’ writings is “violent”?
WTF? There were lawyers long before Marx. Were they of better moral character then? And in my experience practicing law, very, very few lawyers are Marxists, or socialists of any kind.
Not so, no more than Mohammed is God to the Muslims.
Watching television is hardly an inalienable right in the way that voting is
Voting isn’t an inalienable right.
:rolleyes: For the Dialectic’s sake, can we drop this crap about the BBC TV licensing fee?