He was free to think and write and even advocate for his ideas, as he should have been. There will always be apostles of evil and it's up to the rest of us to ignore, identify and reject evil.

I am against all who champion the cause of erasing history, Marx, as far as I have read had very radical ideas, but according to many who have studied him, many things were learned,
He has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history, and his work has been both lauded and criticized. His work in economics laid the basis for much of the current understanding of labour and its relation to capital, and subsequent economic thought.
Many intellectuals, labour unions, artists and political parties worldwide have been influenced by Marx's work, with many modifying or adapting his ideas. Marx is typically cited as one of the principal architects of modern social science.
Often out of 'evil' comes some good.

Canada, Unfortunately, has similar activists here who are trying to remove statues of those that were initially responsible for shaping the country.
Max.

 

So...what went wrong? The ideas, or the implementation?

Both. Neither work in the real world. And advocation of violence for a means to an end is always wrong regardless of the end intent.

 

Hola @nsaspook,

I cannot understand what he says (I am close to deaf) and for years, had difficulty to understand spoken foreign languages. A problem for my job, really.

Could you just give a VERY simple explanation of what he did not like? Just two sentences for me to understand if that is not too much to ask you.

He seems serious about it... and not happy.

Gracias.

He watched a friend die that way by accident.

 

I am against all who champion the cause of erasing history

I agree, but I also think that judgement should be passed by those who teach history, so that the students can learn how to tell right from wrong, and what works from what doesn't. If an ideology has poisonous elements, it should be denounced in its entirety.

One could argue that a few good pieces could be salvaged from whatever remains after condemning it. But that should be secondary to analyzing why it's very axioms are wrong. In the case of communism, it fails because it deliberately ignores human nature by doing away from all checks and balances that limit its power. And in the end it concentrates all of it on a few individuals at the top, who always eventually morph into tyrants and dictators.

 

I agree, but I also think that judgement should be passed by those who teach history, so that the students can learn how to tell right from wrong, and what works from what doesn't. If an ideology has poisonous elements, it should be denounced in its entirety.

But there is the crux of your problem Those teaching in universities today are the same people who hold people like Marx, Chaviz , Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Lenin..... as heroes.

 

But there is the crux of your problem Those teaching in universities today are the same people who hold people like Marx, Chaviz , Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Lenin..... as heroes.

Yeap... sadly, you're right...

My next argument would be about moral authority... but I don't want to turn this discussion into a religious one.

 

History is a false science, like all the others. You may read and study what has happened in the past.....but you will never know why it happened.

Why history happened is anyone's guess. And the same for the result of history. The result is a guess too.

To gain the context of history.....you have to be there.

Judging history is hubris. And judging history is man's excuse for future hubris.

We couldn't be more perverted.

Just one example......what have you heard and what do you think of interning American Japanese during WWII?

Ask a history academic. Then research the real history of what happened. Now look at how the academics compared this action. Look what they compare this to. These where not concentration camps. It was not persecution. Or a racial discrimination. But this is fresh tilled ground for a bigot.

When an academic says something in today's world.......it's gospel. The politicians, press, and bureaucrats have their proof and justification for their verdict. It becomes a belief with an accusation.

If history stuck to what happened.......it would be valid........but as soon as someone states why it happened......it's a lie. Academic history is always a lie.......that's what it's for.

History is just a chronological list of events. It should be taught that way. We can't judge and find the motives of current events.....let alone the past events.

A true junk science. Name one person that understands the human heart. All art and passion is searching for this self understanding.

Education does not prevent bigotry and racism......it teaches and justifies it.

 

Yeap... sadly, you're right...

My next argument would be about moral authority... but I don't want to turn this discussion into a religious one.

No need to bring religion into this.

Moral, to me, precedes religion.

 

No need to bring religion into this.

Moral, to me, precedes religion.

I agree ... but a discussion of that kind can easily get out of hand

 

My next argument would be about moral authority... .

Moral Authority: 'Trustworthiness to make decisions that are right and good'
How would you reconcile the above in the case of advice given to Nixon on a way of bringing a swift end to the Vietnam war by bombing the northern dykes, however the result of this would cause approx 1million (mostly poor peasants) to loose their lives in the event of this?.

BTW, the giver of this advice to Nixon: Non other than Billy Graham!
Fortunately it was not heeded.
Max.

 

Moral Authority: 'Trustworthiness to make decisions that are right and good'
How would you reconcile the above in the case of advice given to Nixon on a way of bringing a swift end to the Vietnam war by bombing the northern dykes, however the result of this would cause approx 1million (mostly poor peasants) to loose their lives in the event of this?.

BTW, the giver of this advice to Nixon: Non other than Billy Graham!
Fortunately it was not heeded.
Max.

As I said, I'd rather not dig into religion ... and neither Nixon nor Billy Graham are my cup of tea either... question, what's your source for this last bit of info? I'm not asking because I doubt you, but rather because I love history and would like to know more about the subject.

 

... and neither Nixon nor Billy Graham are my cup of tea either... question, what's your source for this last bit of info? I would like to know more about the subject.

It is off the Politico site, if you google Billy Graham on there, there is a few posts.
Max.

 

Fortunately it was not heeded.

Graham erred by stepping beyond his area of expertise, but how do you know that the result was "fortunate"? Decisively defeating the North Vietnamese in 1969 might have prevented the rise of the Khmer Rouge (that began in 1968) that slaughtered millions. It might have prevented the loss of thousands at the hands of the North Vietnamese as they invaded the south. Graham was a young man at the end of WW II and saw the benefit of ending wars utterly and quickly with the vigorous application of power and violence instead of the lingering quagmires that our more modern sensibilities seem to prefer.

My only point is that it's very hard to make moral judgements about war.

 

My only point is that it's very hard to make moral judgements about war.

I appreciate that, in fact ANY war.
But as he was someone who professed to be 'Religious' I did not like his war mongering speeches alongside Nixon on the podium, especially when categorizing a whole nation of people as 'Evil Communist Atheists' .
Therefore using a subtle way of linking all three, unconsciously placing a perception in peoples mind and aiding in whipping up hysteria, remember McCarthyism?.
This ties back to how many orators prey on what they believe their targeted audience will come to believe.
So if harsh comments are applied to the likes of Marx, then there should be a few more names added.
Max.

 

...remember McCarthyism?

In retrospect, it appears McCarthy was right.

 

In retrospect, it appears McCarthy was right.

About the persons who's lives were ruined and they were persecuted unjustly, often on just a say-so?.
Max.
.

 

About the persons who's lives were ruined and they were persecuted unjustly, often on just a say-so?

You must be speaking of the #metoo movement.

 

About the persons who's lives were ruined and they were persecuted unjustly, often on just a say-so?.
Max.
.

There's nothing unjust about discriminating against communism and communists.

 

Ottowa is presently in a quandry on whether to allow the the spouses of ISIS to return to Canada as they a afraid for their kids lives.
I see Britain has refused to grant a young girls plea for repatriation and the US are asking allies to bring ISIS prisoners home for repatriation!

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/vote-canadian-government-bring-isis-spouses-home-syria-155636053.html

Max.

 

​