'X' Is Evil.
 

Am I the only one who is bored of hearing that X ideology is evil?

I know that Marx for example wasn't an Antichrist who just wanted to take over the world. That kind of "bad people" only appears in comics and tales.

When it's about philosophy the people who make systems usually pretend to make the greatest good to the largest range of people. They don't try to destroy your country, that's something those who want to take advantage of a powerful position do.

Ideas don't kill. People do.

And fearing them it's just an excuse to ignore them.

You are most certainly not alone Zenit. I agree completely with what you said - "Ideas don't kill. People do."

Socialism and Marxism for example have earned a dark name for themselves as vicious and cruel systems because of leaders such as Mau and Stalin who are far away from the ideals they supposedly promote. As such, everyone seems to be terrified of the idea of Socialism, many seeing it akin to Nazism when in fact it is quite the opposite end of the spectrum.

Also as you said - "Fearing them is just an excuse to ignore them."

People take X idea and make it into a way for them to get power at the expense of others. It's always happened, with everything from political systems to religion.

...Ideas don't kill, true. But what did Marx teach? When you read Das Capital you'll understand his ideology isn't exactly a peaceful one. For example, I don't doubt Marx would disagree with what Mao did. Marx never worked a day in his life; a lazy bum; was a racist and a chauvinist, and his kids died of starvation because of his neglect. Not that great a guy.

This may be true (I know nothing about Marx), but in formal logic a person's motivation, ideology and even actions don't affect the (in)validity of their ideas. Trying to discredit ideas using personal failings usually falls under ad hominem and tu quoque.

Just my two cents...

True, but looking at the man in his personal life can really touch into the reasons why he thought the way he did. That isn't ad hominum, that's just personal analysis.

Same with George Washington. You look at his personal life and compare what his beliefs were with his life's actions. The only thing he did "wrong" in his life was him owning slaves. And that was only at one point. He lived a prosperous, accomplished life because he made himself that way. His beliefs can be said to have affected this. He succeeded. Marx, on the other hand, led a very poor life and is remembered for nothing except his writings. He, in the technical definition of life accomplishment, failed.

In fact, the people who work on philosophy -or anything actually- can be the worst persons you could ever meet; but if they're right, truth is truth no matter who (or how) states it.

That's the question though: What is truth?

Can truth be dictated? Or does it come naturally? That's the differents between dictatorships and republics.

Truth is by definition the characteristic of a description that matches with all the actual properties of the object described.

So truth is just in front of us: is reality. How we see and interpret it is what leads to different postures.

Well I wouldn't know whether or not (by that statement) you believe truth is relative, or truth has solid ground. I agree, it can be interpreted differently, but does this mean other people's truths can be just as real as ours? I don't believe this idea.

Okay, but regardless that still doesn't lend any credit or discredit to his ideas. The fact that correlation might exist between his ideas and his ultimate life outcome does not imply causation, nor does it create any formal standing as to the validity of his ideas.

I'm getting the vibe you don't like Marx. I'm not saying you should like him, but I am saying that I am getting the drift that you're trying to discredit his ideas based on the fact that his life-outcome was poor.

Whether your beliefs affect your life, is to me irrelevant from a logical perspective. Beliefs stand on their own regardless of who held them or what that person's life was like. There is no tie between the two in the system of formal logic I use, and that's where I'm having a problem with what you're asserting: you're trying to tie his life failings to his ideas in order to cast his ideas in a negative light. His ideas will stand in positive or negative life on their own (without his life-story).

Marxism from Albert Einstein would be the same thing as Marxism from Marx. Einstein wasn't a Marxist, but for the sake of argument let's assume he was for a moment. The fact that Albert Einstein was successful, intelligent and created the basis for modern physics would not change the (in)validity of the ideas expressed in Marxism.

Henry Ford was known to be anti-Semitic. That dents his character, but has no impact on the importance of his innovation in the assembly-line.

Woodsprite, I'm not attacking you, please don't think that. I just think your logic is faulty and am trying to point that out.

I don't think you're attacking me. ;) Believe me, I've encountered so many uncouth people in debates... discussing things here with you guys is so much better because we're all superior to such... aggression.

I get what you're saying. Basically, don't judge a book by its cover. But consider this: have you ever heard of a marxist who affected the world in a positive way? That's my point. The ideology just doesn't work. We've learned the lessons of Castro, Mao, and Stalin. Let alone socialism, where we've learned the lessons of Hitler. (I'm not talking about the holocaust, just what happened with the government when he took power.) These two are essentially different in that socialism allows some forms of capital gain through work, and communism takes this away, declaring "fair redistribution". Both, however, involve total government control.

We could technically include Mussolini in this comparison. He was a fascist, true, but trying to contrast socialism with fascism will get nowhere very quickly... It's like comparing Coke with Pepsi, there isn't much difference.

But now we're considering it all over again (especially in the U.S.). It's like no one learned anything. Sure, imagine all the possibilities you want in a world where people will just work with absolutely no incentive to do so, but at the end of the day we can look at reality is say, "I guess it doesn't do much good." And it isn't because humans are "bad", "imperfect", or "selfish", it's because the system is unfair to those who wish to advance themselves. If there's total government control you've got too many restrictions on what you can do. If there's total redistribution of wealth, then there's no point in working because your life automatically becomes meaningless, and you just work for the "greater good".

Benjamin Franklin invented a better oven. He refused to patent his invention because he did what he did out of charity. He just wanted to help. The Ipad is phenominal. There are millions who love it. Apple made a product and caused other people to come and aquire it. They didn't go to people's homes and say, "You will have this product, and you will like it." No. They used the free market system to advertize their product. They didn't need to force anyone to do anything.

Communism forces. Socialism forces. Capitalism doesn't. I'm fully aware that pure capitalism is detrimental in the long run, if people are allowed to do whatever they want no matter what the result. But under a system free enough to allow where people can make as much money as they want without harming anything essentially necessary to the society it contributes to, it will indeed "live long and prosper". So far, for the last 250 years it has worked. In more recent years, however, we've turned to a more corporate bond of economies, where each country's economy is connected. If one country fails fiscally: domino effect. Greece is dead. It won't be long before Europe begins to fail. Once Europe fails, the U.S. will fail. Once the U.S. fails, China will. It will continue until every nation's economy has essentially collapsed, but there will always be at least one to reboot the system.

If the U.S. wakes up and realizes that it can collapse, we (or "they" if you're from another nation) can remove ourselves from this system. The same goes for every other country. It used to be all about "M.A.D." or, Mutually Assured Destruction. Nuke one country, the other will nuke back. Holocaust. No one wants that. Then we turned to tying our economies together, which was a terrible idea since we'd all depend on each other not to do something stupid. Now we have to realize that if we're going to survive, we're going to have to go it alone, and not have any connection to another nation's demise.

Marxism in it's purest form is actually a good ideaology, where the issue of worker oppression and market superiority is addressed and he offers a system where all the people are deemed "equal" and given the same amount of capital.
The problems arise when the leadership issue arises, who leads and with how much authority. Unfortunately, Marx's idea of communism had been used by opportunistic leaders who saw few boundaries..
I have no problem with Marx, but find that his ideas are hard to regulate, especially in the modern world.

Mmm... I don't think you've read up on all his ideas to fully understand his position on societies. Not to be insulting, just... if you've read some of the ideas he's posed on "elimination", you'd know there were many problems.

Mmm I recognise that, I've only ever applied Marx and his ideas of revolutions and the classes to historiography and social work :)
I'm basing my views on what I know, and refuse to push people to see my opinion as right or wrong. I'm just giving an opinion after all.

Well, see, what you just said here would have worked just fine vis-a-vis discrediting Marxism. What Marx himself did in his life had nothing to do with the failures of the system he created. However, the failure or subsequent revision of every country which has supposedly adopted his philosophy is very relevant to the discussion.

My problems with Marxism/Communism, etc is that it is over idealized. There is honestly no way for there to be a society that is completely equal and sharing, etc. To try to make a "just and equal" society one must use force in which case is isn't equal and free. That is what happened where ever it has been tried. We can't make a "utopia". Its impossible. Also, they deny or at least some deny that humans are more than just biological, material creatures. We have deeply held beliefs, many of them of a spiritual and a philosophical nature. You can't force such beliefs out of people. It has been tried in the USSR and China. Taking the "souls" out of people for the sake of equality is a terrible thing and should always be opposed.

There is a problem with Capitalism as well. I subscribe to neither system. Capitalism will not last forever. Republics will not last forever. In the grand scheme of history, the US is still a baby. Still and experiment. Yet, the US has become arrogant in thinking that it can last forever. Nothing does. Empires and civilizations come and go. It has always been thus and will be for years to come.

ZenitYerkes, sorry we totally hijacked your thread :P

I have a theory.

If the word "Marx" is used in the OP of any thread, no matter what the the topic, the discussion usually tends to veer towards conversation about marxism. :P

In fact it's followed by "an example" because I consider Marx a very underrated (or overrated) philosopher.

I could have included Nietzche or even Hitler if I was on another mood then.