3 ms·

I'm pretty well-convinced that sooner or later, quoting Marx and quoting Hitler will have the same levels of social respectability. They both advocated a lot of

I'm pretty well-convinced that sooner or later, quoting Marx and quoting Hitler will have the same levels of social respectability. They both advocated a lot of nonsense and violent insanity. Just like a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut, the advocate of violent nonsense occasionally has a decent quote. Still, you can find better sources of quotes on anti-consumerism than Marx, just like you can find better sources of quotes on helping people than Hitler... too much violent insane nonsense attached to those blind squirrels, even if they occasionally stumble on a nut.

_delirium 16y ago
If you compared Lenin or Stalin to Hitler, sure, but comparing Marx to Hitler is pretty strange. If anything he's notoriously silent on how exactly one would organize a communist society, and was politically ineffectual. He spends most of his time as a theoretician of how capitalism works, with some pretty vague ideas of what would replace it. A closer analogy might be comparing Marx and Ayn Rand: theoreticians most at home critiquing the social order they don't like, with some very idealized notions of how their preferred version would work, and a flair for manifesto-writing.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  I haven't read any of Rand's nonfiction, so correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't think she advocated violence as a means of change. Hitler and Marx both did. Marx advocated violent overthrow and takeover by the "dictatorship of the proletariat" - and when it was tried, it worked really, really badly, leading to much destruction and death and misery. Marxist-inspired philosophy and governance have been a wasteland of insanity and destruction... for the last 100 years, nothing else even comes close in terms of destruction. Fascism comes in a distant second. I don't think any Randian philosophy of individuality has stacked up millions of bodies in the same way, but I'm open to being corrected on that.
  - forensic 16y ago
    Rand believes in force. Remember Ragnar Danneskjöld, the philosopher turned pirate? Rand doesn't believe force should be used to create a utopia. She believes that force should be used in self-defense when it is rational to do so - and this includes defending your property from collectivists. So basically she believes it is morally acceptable to violently defend your property from tax collectors, as long as in doing so you are not sacrificing some greater good such as your happiness and well-being.
    - iwwr 16y ago
      Well, force is an underpinning of the individual. Without the ability to exert force (or to express opposition), an individual ceases to exist.
  - pygy_ 16y ago
    I may be wrong, but I don't think that Marx advocated first blood. He thought that a peaceful revolution was possible in several countries, but anticipated a violent response from the power in place in others. Anyway, you seem to forget that a lot of violence has been conducted, if not in his name, under the guise of ideas developed by Adam Smith. How may bloody dictators have been backed, when not put in place, by the US, for economical reasons?
cturner 16y ago
Will we stop holding communist parties, or will start holding nazi parties?

_delirium 16y ago

If you compared Lenin or Stalin to Hitler, sure, but comparing Marx to Hitler is pretty strange. If anything he's notoriously silent on how exactly one would organize a communist society, and was politically ineffectual. He spends most of his time as a theoretician of how capitalism works, with some pretty vague ideas of what would replace it. A closer analogy might be comparing Marx and Ayn Rand: theoreticians most at home critiquing the social order they don't like, with some very idealized notions of how their preferred version would work, and a flair for manifesto-writing.

lionhearted 16y ago
I haven't read any of Rand's nonfiction, so correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't think she advocated violence as a means of change. Hitler and Marx both did. Marx advocated violent overthrow and takeover by the "dictatorship of the proletariat" - and when it was tried, it worked really, really badly, leading to much destruction and death and misery. Marxist-inspired philosophy and governance have been a wasteland of insanity and destruction... for the last 100 years, nothing else even comes close in terms of destruction. Fascism comes in a distant second. I don't think any Randian philosophy of individuality has stacked up millions of bodies in the same way, but I'm open to being corrected on that.
- forensic 16y ago
  Rand believes in force. Remember Ragnar Danneskjöld, the philosopher turned pirate? Rand doesn't believe force should be used to create a utopia. She believes that force should be used in self-defense when it is rational to do so - and this includes defending your property from collectivists. So basically she believes it is morally acceptable to violently defend your property from tax collectors, as long as in doing so you are not sacrificing some greater good such as your happiness and well-being.
  - iwwr 16y ago
    Well, force is an underpinning of the individual. Without the ability to exert force (or to express opposition), an individual ceases to exist.
- pygy_ 16y ago
  I may be wrong, but I don't think that Marx advocated first blood. He thought that a peaceful revolution was possible in several countries, but anticipated a violent response from the power in place in others. Anyway, you seem to forget that a lot of violence has been conducted, if not in his name, under the guise of ideas developed by Adam Smith. How may bloody dictators have been backed, when not put in place, by the US, for economical reasons?

cturner 16y ago

Will we stop holding communist parties, or will start holding nazi parties?