Sorry, that's not the point I meant to make. The poster I was responding to was saying that the point of intellectual discussion groups is never to discuss Marx. I was pointing out that that is because Marx's theories have been thoroughly shown to lack merit.
It's not so much that they're dangerous as that they were discussed, quite a lot, and then acted on. Those discussions and actions lead to some of the largest events of human suffering in history. I'm not sure what more discussion there is to have at that point other than "how do we make sure that doesn't happen again".
I've read Marx myself. I've also read what little of Mein Kamf I could manage to get through. I don't believe in banning books or ideas, but I do think it's ridiculous to ignore history and pretend that proven bad ideas ought to be given another chance.
This is an oft-repeated nonsense line to dismiss some really interesting philosophy.
Marx was not writing a plan of action, and all that has been proved is that authoritarian assholes are assholes. (I take if you also think Adam Smith should be discarded because parts of "Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations" doesn't map well to modern capitalism?)
Here's a real test of a free thinker. Are you willing to read "dangerous ideas" for yourself? Or do you just allow yourself to be steered by what you hear people repeat?
> Marx was not writing a plan of action, and all that has been proved is that authoritarian assholes are assholes.
No - what has been proved is that Marx’s theories don’t limit the effects of the machinations of assholes.
If there is one thing a political system should do, it is this.
> I take if you also think Adam Smith should be discarded because parts of "Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations" doesn't map well to modern capitalism?)
I don’t think it should be discarded, but I do think that we know enough about the problems of capitalism that we shouldn’t be claiming that Adam smith has written a prescription for our times.
> Here's a real test of a free thinker. Are you willing to read "dangerous ideas" for yourself? Or do you just allow yourself to be steered by what you hear people repeat?
Have you considered that free thinking means doing your own thinking? That means being able to recognize when an ideology is past its sell by date and not fetishizing a particular historical figure as being uniquely insightful.
> what has been proved is that Marx’s theories don’t limit the effects of the machinations of assholes
What a weird test. No system of government does, and Marx was not writing a system of government. I guess it is time to throw out all political theory, though.
> that we shouldn’t be claiming that Adam smith has written a prescription
Funny, the people making that claim about Marx are equally wrong, and yet you want to discard all of it.
> means doing your own thinking
...Which apparently can only lead to your conclusion? That's hilarious.
I’m surprised you don’t think it’s important for power to be accountable. It’s ok if you don’t, but I think limiting the power of tyrants is an important political principle.
>> that we shouldn’t be claiming that Adam smith has written a prescription
> Funny, the people making that claim about Marx are equally wrong, and yet you want to discard all of it.
Who said it should all be discarded? It seems like you might be remembering a past argument with someone else.
I think it’s more that you simply don’t have a good response to the points, and making an accusation of bad faith is a cheap way for you to avoid facing that.
I’m not making anything up. Let’s take a look at what you wrote:
Me:
> what has been proved is that Marx’s theories don’t limit the effects of the machinations of assholes
You:
>> What a weird test. No system of government does
There is no difference between limiting the effects of the machinations of assholes, and holding power to account.
> Marx was not writing a plan of action, and all that has been proved is that authoritarian assholes are assholes.
The Communist manifesto is literally a plan of action. It calls for an authoritarian government in which all financial assets, credit, real assets, and land are centralized and controlled by the state. It calls for seizure of all personal property of anyone who wants to leave the country. It calls for conscripting the public and forcing them to work in agricultural and industrial armies, also controlled by the state. It calls for state monopolization and control of the press and all forms of communication and transportation, etc. From the Communist Manifesto:
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Given that this comment is almost all a direct quote of Marx himself, and is otherwise an entirely factual and non-judgmental statement, it is curious to see it downvoted so heavily.
It’s especially odd, given that this thread is about whether or not we should read Marx. I’m very curious about who thinks this should be downvoted and why?
