Christopher Lord

DNFTT...

Totalitarianist

Many non-Marxists believe in dialectical materialism.

Dr. Retard

And what a forceful, persuasive response!

Celsus

If what you are saying is true (i.e. having a "belief" in dialectical materialism), then Marxism is a religion. In my experience, Leninists, Troskyists, vanguardists and Stalinists in non-Communist countries are pathetically insecure people who got bullied at school or (feel that they got) screwed by the system so much that they feel it's their turn to do the oppression. Their writings are mostly whinging, more-oppressed-than-thou rubbish that should be consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs. Libertarian (non-authoritarian) Marxists, on the other hand, have some often useful insights, and I have the greatest respect for several of them.

Totalitarianist

That does not follow. By that logic we can likewise call the philosophy of David Hume, or the logical positivists, or any other philosophy a religion.

Demosthenes

I find that rather disturbing, what is that people engaged in "victimless crimes" have you so riled up? Afterall marijuana smokers have nothing to do with you, why do they deserve a fate worse than life in prison? What about rapists and murderers who gets mere 25 years in life?

Celsus

Lady Anoteros,
I don't mean to get pedantic, but nobody (or very few people) "believes" in a philosophy. People may find the means of understanding certain ideas from a certain philosophical perspective useful, but that does not mean they "believe" in it. Philosophy does not (or should not) operate like a religion. Ditto for dialectical materialism.

As for many Marxists, they tend to take hopelessly reductionistic views on society. Thus their solutions and general outlook becomes too simplistic or at best naive. Their attempts to make their theories "scientific" - in this case, they use it to mean "operating by a few general principles" - is the exact problem with Marxism. The characteristics of societies cannot be simplified to a few general principles, especially not class struggle. Authoritarian Marxists only use the term "class struggle" for rhetorical advantage. They will be quite happy to abandon it if they will obtain some advantage through it. As I implied before, such people are hypocrites.

When you run into a Trotskyist, you will find out what I mean.

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: joejoejoe ]</p>

Agricola Senior

Karl Marx was one of the greatest philosophers of the 19.century. Once he has said. “I am not a Marxist”. Unfortunately he had no true successor. Nobody of so-called Marxists have understood his philosophy, least of all J.V.Stalin, uneducated (theology school graduate) monster, the author of “dialectical materialism”. K.Marx had spoken of materialist dialectics only.
“Scientific philosophy” is something utterly impossible
– contradictio in se.

Of course, I am a marxist, according to Jerry Rubin's definition:
"We follow in revolutionary tradition of Groucho, Chico, Harpo and Karl Marx".



[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Agricola Senior ]

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Agricola Senior ]</p>

Totalitarianist

Said Stalin: "Lenin was, and remains, the most loyal and consistent pupil of Marx and Engels; and he wholly and entirely based himself on the principles of Marxism."

What evidence do you have for this?

Stalin was not a monster. He was moreover well educated, albeit considerably self-educated.

Demosthenes

Stalin was not a monster? Tell that to the millions of people he murdered over a period of several decades. The point of marxism was to overthrow the upper class and establish a classless society with wealth shared equally. All of this to come after the state government was to had have time to set up the foundations. After the "revolution" what did Stalin do? He acquired a vast majority of the wealth, killed off his opponents, set up himself as a virtual dictator and set off systematically purging the soviet union of "dissents" and "politically incorrect" ideas. For that alone, communism was a total failure, not to mention how it failed utterly economically.