Karl Marx Sucks Just Like Jason Kodish

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Bruce Roberts

unread,
May 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/1/96
to

Recently Jason Kodish from Edmonton, Alberta Canada posted an article
titled "Karl Marx Was a Genius". Was this just a troll, or was Kodish
actually serious? Probably the latter as
Kodish comes invariably over on the Net as a radical socialist.

Ironically ,however, one dictionary meaning for genius is appropriate for
Marx and that is "an evil spirit supposed to influence one's destiny".
Marx certainly did influence the destiny of millions of people in
the 20th century--for evil. He indirectly contributed to two world
wars, the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, the Bolshevik Revolution,
many other revolutions such as Castro's in Cuba and many
guerrilla conflicts and terrorist movements. It can be argued that he
spawned Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Mengistu etc.
and contributed to the murder of about 30 million people.

One definition of genius that does not pertain to Marx is "having
great and original creative ability in some art or science". We would
challenge any of the misguided admirers of Marx on the Net such as
Kodish, Terry Johnson, Steve Ranta etc. to describe any
original,constructive and important contribution Marx made to economics
or philosphy.


Voltron, Defender of the Universe

unread,
May 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/1/96
to

Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>One definition of genius that does not pertain to Marx is "having
>great and original creative ability in some art or science". We would
>challenge any of the misguided admirers of Marx on the Net such as
>Kodish, Terry Johnson, Steve Ranta etc. to describe any
>original,constructive and important contribution Marx made to economics
>or philosphy.
>
Well, in order to understand it you have to know how to read. Then
you need a vocabulary greater than that of the Toronto Sun (grade 3, I
think). Then you need a level of intelligence that can concieve of
logical arguments and the ability to understand Hegel's dialectic.
From what I've seen you are out of luck on all counts but especially
on the last. Your loss.


---
Timothy Gleason Adventure? Excitement?
tim...@io.org A Jedi craves not these things.


Egon Schiele

unread,
May 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/2/96
to

In article <4m8jme$k...@news1.io.org>, tim...@io.org (Voltron, Defender of the Universe) says:
>
>Well, in order to understand it you have to know how to read. Then
>you need a vocabulary greater than that of the Toronto Sun (grade 3, I
>think). Then you need a level of intelligence that can concieve of
>logical arguments and the ability to understand Hegel's dialectic.
>From what I've seen you are out of luck on all counts but especially
>on the last. Your loss.
>
>
>---
>Timothy Gleason Adventure? Excitement?
>tim...@io.org A Jedi craves not these things.
>
I'm sorry, but I must intrude. While I think your rejoinder
to "Bruce Roberts" witty and on the mark, I should like
to point out that while Hegel may have understood his "dialectic,"
in constructing it he demolished the meaning of dialectics, and Marx,
in constructing his own gnostic system, more or less deliberately
misunderstood Hegel's dialectic. And as for contributions to
philosophy,a man who says, as Marx does in the XIth thesis
on Feuerbach, that "the philosophers have only _interpreted_
the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to _change_
it," is no friend of philosophy (emphasis in the original).

Incidentally, Marx was philosophically literate, and knew
very well that what he was trying to do was abolish philosophy.
See also the Third of the 1844 Manuscripts wherein he
tells the reader to stop thinking and asking questions,
surely the very mortar and bricks of philosophy (_philo_ +
_sophia_, love of wisdom)

On the other hand, when it comes to "economics" ( a craven
"science" if ever there was one), Marx is highly reliable, at
least regarding the economics of his day. He claimed, rightly so,
that he begins with the assumptions of "Political economy," and
takes them to their logical conclusions. If Marx was "wrong,"
it may be because "political economists" (ie, Smith, Ricardo, et al)
were wrong. We can only hope!

Egon

ps being able to read German wouldn't hurt either.

Christian Camacho

unread,
May 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/2/96
to

The People
Vol.106 No.2
May, 1996
EDITORIAL: KARL MARX

Karl Marx was born 178 years ago in Treves, on May 5, 1818. He died on
March 14, 1883, at the age of 64. No one today disputes his vast
erudition or the tremendous power of the ideas he put into motion. Even
his traducers concede Marx a leading role in history and acknowledge
Marxism to be the formidable and mortal foe of the social order based on
classes.

What are these ideas that thrive on time and not only survive perpetual
attack but emerge from each assault stronger, their scientific merits
reconfirmed?

As Charles Darwin discovered the fundamental law of biological evolution,
so Karl Marx discovered the primary motivating force in the evolution
of society. Formulated as the *materialist conception of history,* this
law revealed to humanity that, as a mighty river is drawn to the sea by
gravitation, yet twists and winds according to the changing
configuration of the land, so is the general direction of history,
despite its turnings and windings, determined by economic forces. It is
the changes that that take place in the mode of production and exchange
that ultimately force society to abolish outmoded systems and
institutions and adopt new ones befitting the changed conditions.

Not only does the materialist conception of history illumine the past and
explain the causes of social revolutions; it also provides humanity for
the first time with the means whereby to guide history and *consciously*
to ease society's evolution to new and higher forms, speeding the death
of the obsolete system and shortening the birth pangs of the new.
Finally, it teaches that the means for bringing about the revolution are
also to be discovered in the material facts of production that are at
hand.

A correlative discovery was that which teaches that the changes in social
systems and institutions are brought about through class struggles, that
the history of society since the dissolution of classless primitive
communism is the history of class struggles, and that the struggle
continues under the capitalist system and takes the form of an
unremmiting and irreconcilable contest between exploiting capitalists
and the exploited workers. The crowning lesson of the class-struggle
principle is that the working class must emancipate itself.

The third of the ideas whose scientific integrity has *never* been
successfully challenged is the Marxian *law of value* and its corollary
*theory of surplus value*. It teaches the workers how they are robbed
and how to end the robbery. But more than that, the Marxian law of value
reveals the cause of capitalist crises and spells out the sytem's
ultimate doom.

No one who opens Marx's works with an inquiring mind will ever say "Marx
is a back number"--as so many poseurs and pretentious ignoramuses do.
One who sets seriously to the task of understanding Marxism will,
rather, concur with the commendation of one of the greatest of Marxists,
Daniel De Leon, who said: "Events refute anti-Marxism, and demonstrate
it the opposite of science. From each recurring refutation of
anti-Marxism, the demonstration of its unscientific foundation and
spirit, Marxism itself rises reconfirmed; its scientific merits
demonstrated; taller in inches, stronger of voice...."


--

Christian Camacho
red...@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us


Voltron, Defender of the Universe

unread,
May 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/2/96
to

bogus@bogus (Egon Schiele) wrote:

>In article <4m8jme$k...@news1.io.org>, tim...@io.org (Voltron, Defender of the Universe) says:
>>
>>Well, in order to understand it you have to know how to read. Then
>>you need a vocabulary greater than that of the Toronto Sun (grade 3, I
>>think). Then you need a level of intelligence that can concieve of
>>logical arguments and the ability to understand Hegel's dialectic.
>>From what I've seen you are out of luck on all counts but especially
>>on the last. Your loss.
>>
>>
>>---
>>Timothy Gleason Adventure? Excitement?
>>tim...@io.org A Jedi craves not these things.
>>
>I'm sorry, but I must intrude. While I think your rejoinder
>to "Bruce Roberts" witty and on the mark, I should like
>to point out that while Hegel may have understood his "dialectic,"
>in constructing it he demolished the meaning of dialectics, and Marx,
>in constructing his own gnostic system, more or less deliberately
>misunderstood Hegel's dialectic. And as for contributions to
>philosophy,a man who says, as Marx does in the XIth thesis
>on Feuerbach, that "the philosophers have only _interpreted_
>the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to _change_
>it," is no friend of philosophy (emphasis in the original).

Actually, I would never hold Marx to have been a "philosopher". In my
opinion, he was a sociologist of the first degree and a competent
economist. Later Marx did, in fact, abandon contemplation in favour
of action. However, Capital is a work of extrordinary insight and as
economic treatises go, is unequalled in his day.
From an analytical perspective, Marx towers over Adam Smith and other
early political economists. Smith, on the other hand did (IMHO)
contribute a bit of good philosophy which is often ignored in favour
of his "free market" economics (see his "theory of moral sentiments" -
quite an interesting take on human nature).

As far as Hegel's dialectic goes, I'll defer to you as my reading of
Hegel is limited to a few works (and I don't speak German). But it
seems clear to me that Marx's structure derives directly from it.

Returning to Marx as philosopher, I would be remiss and unfair not to
acknowledge his "Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of
Law" (1843) and the Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts (the third of
which was cited by you) which included an extrodinary piece on
alienated labour. These efforts hint at Marx's concept of human
nature which must indeed be philosophy.

Whether or not one agrees with Marx, there is no disputing that he was
an extremely learned and intelligent scholar. Marx was renowned for
his dilligence and tireless scholarly efforts. It is a mistake to
blame him for the crimes of governments commited long after his death.
It is also a mistake to attribute to Marx responsibility for the
actions and policies of despots who adopt his name yet contradict his
theories and writings.
This is a common misconception which is perpetuated by ignorant people
- ie. Bruce Roberts - aka - John Lambourn.


Tim Gleason | I dislike arguments of any kind. They are
tim...@io.org | always vulgar,and often convincing. (Oscar Wilde)

Bruce Roberts

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

You Marxists are something else. Karl Marx was not an original thinker,
and as economist he has been throughly
discredited.

In the most successful economic power in
world history, the U.S.today, no respected economist ever even refers
to Marx except in derision or contempt. The marked contrast in the
the incredibly properous capitalist economy of
Hong Kong versus the pathetic backwater of Cuba points up the advantages
of free-market capitalism over Marxism


Bruce Roberts

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

tim...@io.org (Voltron, Defender of the Universe) wrote:
>Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>One definition of genius that does not pertain to Marx is "having
>>great and original creative ability in some art or science". We would
>>challenge any of the misguided admirers of Marx on the Net such as
>>Kodish, Terry Johnson, Steve Ranta etc. to describe any
>>original,constructive and important contribution Marx made to economics
>>or philosphy.
>>
>Well, in order to understand it you have to know how to read. Then
>you need a vocabulary greater than that of the Toronto Sun (grade 3, I
>think). Then you need a level of intelligence that can concieve of
>logical arguments and the ability to understand Hegel's dialectic.
>From what I've seen you are out of luck on all counts but especially
>on the last. Your loss.
>
>What the hell to you know about Hegel, you fool? Obviously nothing.

>Here is what the great German philospher Schopehauer wrote about Hegel,
and it could also describe Marx's work:

"But the height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing
together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had
previously been known only in madhouses, was finally reached by Hegel,
and became the instrument of the most bare-faced general mystification
that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous
to posterity, and will remain a monument to German stupidity".

Bruce Roberts

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

Then how do you explain the rejection of Marxism throughout the world,
you imbecile? How do you justify the tens of millions of people
killed in the twentieth century because many fools like you attempted
to implement the wacky theories of this charlatan. The result was
universal failure and social catastrophe.

Egon Schiele

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

In article <4mb5um$8...@news1.sympatico.ca>, Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> says:

>>What the hell are you trying to say here? This is just a lot of
> incoherent, empty verbiage. Try to write something intelligible
> instead of pedantic garbage like this. Could I suggest that you read and
> reread George Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language".
> However, I am being to optimistic in suggesting that as you obviously
> do not have the I.Q. to understand it.
>
Just what part gave you trouble, "Bruce Roberts?" Is my writing
really unintelligible? Would you be in a position to know? Anyway,
as always, I'm fallible and quite likely posted a piece of gibberish,
but it is even more likely that it was adequate but over your head. It certainly
would have helped your case--and fellow, you can use all the help
you can get--if you'd have stated precise objections instead of sputtering.
Sp-sputtering is most unbecoming, and very tiresome.

Reread Orwell's essay? Why certainly! I think it's my favourite of his writings, and
I recall urging others here and elsewhere to attend to it. However, I find
it difficult to believe that _you_ read it, Bruce\John\George\Cerise\etc;
if you'd read it, you'd know how pointless it is to use words like "liberal,"
"socialist," "fascist;" they're merely epithets hurled at people you don't
like. "Marxist" too could be included in this list. What is a "Marxist?"
Was Marx a "Marxist?" How about Lenin? No more than Newt Gingrich.
Also, if you really had read it, then your own postings would be
a little better crafted than they are. You wouldn't be too hurt if I told
you that as they stand they're . . . well, not good?

As for me, if I have any allegiance it is to philosophy.
Marx was not a philosopher--really! I'd have thought you'd be cheered to
hear someone say this--but rather, as Voegelin called him, an "intellectual
swindler." Still, he was a brilliant swindler, and he his still worth
reading, particularly for his commentaries on the "political economy"
of his day. In any case, I suspect your reading of Marx is as thorough
as your reading of Orwell, so all of this will be over your head as well.

Best regards,

Egon


ps "I.Q." is irrelevant to reading and understanding; it is
a modern _measure_ of intelligence, one that many of the
truly intelligent treat with a great deal of suspicion. It is
not "intelligence" per se. Not being particularly intelligent
nor very literate, you are unaware of that.

pps While we're talking about Orwell, why don't you
have a look at his "The Road to Wigan Pier" and "Down
and Out in London and Paris?" These two works constitute
a very glowing praise of capitalism, so I'm sure you'll
find them highly profitable.

pps When you post as "Cerise," do you dress up as
a woman? Just curious. Wouldn't criticize you if you did.


Voltron, Defender of the Universe

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>>What the hell to you know about Hegel, you fool? Obviously nothing.

Ah, am I supposed to rise to this obvious flame bait? Well, my
knowledge of Hegel could certainly not be properly called
comprehensive or complete. However, I would say it is a great deal
greater than "nothing" and certainly far far greater than yours.

>>Here is what the great German philospher Schopehauer wrote about Hegel,
> and it could also describe Marx's work:

>"But the height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing
> together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had
> previously been known only in madhouses, was finally reached by Hegel,
> and became the instrument of the most bare-faced general mystification
> that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous
> to posterity, and will remain a monument to German stupidity".

Yes, well, I believe you are referring to *Schopenhauer* (unless you
have a neighbour or relative named schopehauer who really hates
Hegel). I believe this is a somewhat tongue in cheek jab at Hegel's
predilection for difficult language and extremely complex arguments.
A tendency which made his work seem often unintelligible to all but
the most determined scholars.
At any rate, you are mistaken again in applying this epithet to Marx
as it is one trait that Marx did *not* adopt from Hegel. Marx's
language, while certainly not pedantic, is a great deal more
accessible than Hegel's.

Incidentally, Hegel would have loathed you, "Bruce Roberts",... he was
known for having supreme and uninhibited contempt for the ignorant and
intellectually lazy.

Bruce Roberts

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

Hegel and Marx

Hegel's interpretation of history seemed to lead to revolutionary
conclusions, "only strife of opposites can resolve contradictions in
thought and the real world. Freedom is essential but the state is,
or should be, freedom organized. Order is the first requisite of
liberty". (What intellectual crap this is!)

The next generation of Hegel's followers split into the Hegelian Right
and the Hegelian left. The right emphasized the necessity of absolute
obedience, the Left of which Marx, of course, was an exponent saw
Hegelian necessitarianism (determinism) in terms of class struggle
leading to "socialism inevitable".

But, (no doubt to the dismay of all you diehard Marxists out there)
Hegel repudiated such socialist radicals as Marx denouncing them
as dreamers.

The damage, however, had been done. And from this we can ascribe the
significant contributions of both Hegel's advocacy of obedience and
conformity to state authority, and Marx's revolutionary socialism
and collectivism to Germany's future catastrophe in the 20th century.

The combination of Hegel and Marx inevitably culminated in Germany's
"socialist revolution" (as it was referred to by leading German
intellectuals) of the Great War (WW I), and later the National Socialism
of Adoph Hitler, WW II and the gas ovens of the Holocaust.


Bruce Roberts

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

Response to Timothy Gleason.

I apologize for my many typos such as the misspelling of Schopenhauer.

I couldn't care less what you, Hegel (if he were still alive), or anyone
else thinks of me.That is is irrelevant and immaterial. But what is
important is that our young people today, many of whom incredibly still
take Karl Marx seriously, be apprised of what a mischievous fool and
charlatan he was. I don't doubt that Marx was sincere and thought he
had the answers for the suffering of mankind, but "the road to hell
has been paved with good intentions".

To give you and others some idea of how wrong Marx was in his theories
I quote from an objective economic appraisal: "Marx stressed the
labour theory of value--that labour produces all value and if not
exploited would get it all". As we see from recent developments in
automation in the present information age, physical labour is becoming
less and less important in the production of goods and servicesl. Capital
and especially "intellectual capital"
are far more significant and valuable . Surely even you by now
are aware of corporate downsizing. In the future this problem for
mankind is only going to get worse. Futurist Arthur Clarke has written
about the coming "obsolescence of man" and he projects a date in the
21st century when "machine intelligence will surpass that of homo
sapiens".

Here are more errors of Marx. The guy was wrong on just about
everything. "For capitalism Marx forecast falling real wages,
falling profit rates, and underconsumption, leading to greater and
greater business-cycle crises. He looked for increasing monopoly
control (AT&T for example? airline deregulation in the U.S.?),
imperialism and finally inevitable revolution.

Then there was Marx's "withering away of the state" and a final
classless equilibrium following a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
What drivel is this? Was the guy completely nuts?

Marx's theory about the "exploitation of colonial people" has also been
completely discredited: "...the bulk of evidence tells against this
notion that the high western standard of living depends in an
important way on its trade with underdeveloped nations". Today which
countries are more important to U.S trade, Canada, Japan, Hong Kong?
Or Nigeria, Chad or Upper Volta?

To put it bluntly Karl Marx was full of shit. And anyone today who
still admires him is perversely ignorant and mentally challenged.

Are you reading this, Terry Johnson?


Voltron, Defender of the Universe

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>To give you and others some idea of how wrong Marx was in his theories
>I quote from an objective economic appraisal: "Marx stressed the
>labour theory of value--that labour produces all value and if not
>exploited would get it all". As we see from recent developments in
>automation in the present information age, physical labour is becoming
>less and less important in the production of goods and servicesl. Capital
>and especially "intellectual capital"
>are far more significant and valuable .

You have based your argument on a misunderstanding of the term
"labour" as Marx employed it. Marx did not mean labour as in a trade
union or the labour force. Marx was refering to labour as the act of
creating or manipulating nature to add value (value both in economic
terms and, more importantly, intrinsic value derived from the act of
creating). Your "intellectual capital" would also be considered
labour in that it implies some creative action.
Marx also dealt with your "automation" argument. It is not a new
phenomenon and Marx flagged it in the 1844 manuscripts. With
reference to Ricardo's theory of worker as producer/consumer, Marx
pointed out that the accumulation of capital (as fixed capital) would
lead to greater automation and less need for manual labour. This, of
course, as Marx pointed out, leads to "underconsumption" by the masses
and the surpluses associated with overproduction. The cycle of
capitalism becomes more pronounced.
Surely you've noticed the troubling recurrence of recessions lately?


Thus, as you wrote:
> Surely even you by now
>are aware of corporate downsizing. In the future this problem for
>mankind is only going to get worse. Futurist Arthur Clarke has written
>about the coming "obsolescence of man" and he projects a date in the
>21st century when "machine intelligence will surpass that of homo
>sapiens".

Confirming Marx.

>Here are more errors of Marx. The guy was wrong on just about
>everything. "For capitalism Marx forecast falling real wages,
>falling profit rates, and underconsumption, leading to greater and
>greater business-cycle crises. He looked for increasing monopoly
>control (AT&T for example? airline deregulation in the U.S.?),
>imperialism and finally inevitable revolution.

All of these trends seem evident, how can you not have noticed them?

>Then there was Marx's "withering away of the state" and a final
>classless equilibrium following a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
>What drivel is this? Was the guy completely nuts?

Well, this remains to be seen, but in fairness to Marx you must put
this in the proper context. Marx was under no illusion that this
could occur in the present. It was a long term theory of the state,
the preliminary stages of which are occuring now.

>Marx's theory about the "exploitation of colonial people" has also been
>completely discredited: "...the bulk of evidence tells against this
>notion that the high western standard of living depends in an
>important way on its trade with underdeveloped nations". Today which
>countries are more important to U.S trade, Canada, Japan, Hong Kong?
>Or Nigeria, Chad or Upper Volta?

Come come now. Are you so ignorant? Exploitation does not mean trade
as much as colonial extraction of resources. This persisted in latent
form as late as the 1970s in Africa and continues in its other, more
insideous form of covert military coersion today. US interests
predominate in Latin America, faciltated by brutal dictatorships and
direct US intervention. In Africa, don't forget we fought a war a few
years ago over oil.
These post-colonial governments, for the most part, continue in the
colonial-surrogate tradition to funnel resources to the first world at
the expense of indigenous peoples. A few countries that had the
audacity to turn away their colonial masters were subjected to vicious
miltary reprisals until they were broken (ie. Nicaragua, Mozambique,
Angola). Cuba is still facing a ridiculous embargo enforced by a
bilious and ideologically driven US government.

BTW, funny you should mention Nigeria. Who do you think is exporting
all of the oil and laying waste to the land (political opponents
including poet laureate Ken Saro-Wiwa were executed for speaking out).
Of course it is Shell - a huge 1st world corporation exporting oil to
the US and Europe.

Bill Bixby

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> writes:

| You Marxists are something else. Karl Marx was not an original thinker,
| and as economist he has been throughly
| discredited.

| In the most successful economic power in
| world history, the U.S.today, no respected economist ever even refers
| to Marx except in derision or contempt.

Only because America's state religion is capitalism. ;-)


Egon Schiele

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

In article <4mcuv3$j...@news1.sympatico.ca>, Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> says:
>
>Hegel and Marx
>blahblahblahblahblahblahblah

From this sophomoric synopsis, I gather you haven't actually read any Hegel, "Bruce."
Well, that's the beauty of freedom of speech--you don't have to actually know anything
about something to declaim upon it at length.

For those of you following along, in addition to reading this funny German himself--and
not some undergraduate summary--try reading Canada's own Charles Taylor. He has
written at length on Hegel and, unlike the Lambourn entity actually has some idea what
he's talking about.

Egon

Egon Schiele

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

In article <4md207$j...@news1.sympatico.ca>, Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> says:
>
>Response to Timothy Gleason.
>
>blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah

Ho hum! I gather you've read Marx about as thoroughly as
you've read Hegel, Bruce/John/Cerise/George, etc.

Egon

Mark Burchell

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to

Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:


>To give you and others some idea of how wrong Marx was in his theories
>I quote from an objective economic appraisal: "Marx stressed the
>labour theory of value--that labour produces all value and if not
>exploited would get it all". As we see from recent developments in
>automation in the present information age, physical labour is becoming
>less and less important in the production of goods and servicesl. Capital
>and especially "intellectual capital"

>are far more significant and valuable . Surely even you by now


>are aware of corporate downsizing. In the future this problem for
>mankind is only going to get worse. Futurist Arthur Clarke has written
>about the coming "obsolescence of man" and he projects a date in the
>21st century when "machine intelligence will surpass that of homo
>sapiens".

Marx understood the potential for technology. Actually he predicted
that in Communism, machines would most likely do the vast majority of
work which would allow people to partake in more creative and
intellectualy fulfilling activities. Only one with little imagination
would say that "downsizing" is a negative quality. Of course it is in
a capitalist country where workers recieve nothing, however if the
state was socialist, everyone would love "downsizing!"

>Here are more errors of Marx. The guy was wrong on just about
>everything. "For capitalism Marx forecast falling real wages,
>falling profit rates, and underconsumption, leading to greater and
>greater business-cycle crises. He looked for increasing monopoly
>control (AT&T for example? airline deregulation in the U.S.?),
>imperialism and finally inevitable revolution.

Its unfortunate that Roberts has not provided anything but rhetoric to
what could be a tenable position. It seems that Roberts has not
attacked Marx with anything but propaganda which should not convince
any of the undecided. To refute anyone, emprical evidence is needed
in combination with the accused arguement. Neither has been provided
by Roberts, who takes only tiny blurbs from Marx and puts them out of
the context in which they were used. Roberts should take the
essential observations of Marx's Historical Materialism and refute it
like a credible social scientist. Repeating the boring statement that
"Marx is nuts", should convince few sane people.


Marx accurately observed that if the market is left unchecked, capital
will eventually be centralised in the hands of a few capitalists. Its
really not hard to show this process over the last century and
especially the last 20 years. The media industry is one of many
examples.

>Then there was Marx's "withering away of the state" and a final
>classless equilibrium following a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
>What drivel is this? Was the guy completely nuts?

The dictatorship of the proletariate is another way of saying a
socialist state. Marx made the observation that economic systems
throughout history often make quick reforms to allow for higher
production. Slavery---->Feudalism------>Capitalism----->?Socialism?
He believed socialism to be more productive because there would be
almost 0% employment and production would not be subjected to
recessions. If factories are forced to produce at 100% capacity of
the demands of the citizens, the system would inherently have a higher
growth rate than capitalism. Interestingly enough, the USSR had
approximately double the growth rate than the US between 1950's to the
late 1970's.(I don't have the stats up untill 1989, sorry)


Cordially, Mark Burchell!
Carleton University.

Egon Schiele

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to

In article <4mcgt6$b...@news1.io.org>, tim...@io.org (Voltron, Defender of the Universe) says:
>
>Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>

(snip)

>
>Incidentally, Hegel would have loathed you, "Bruce Roberts",... he was
>known for having supreme and uninhibited contempt for the ignorant and
>intellectually lazy.

Who _wouldn't_ have loathed the Lambourn entity? Hegel, Marx, Adam Smith,
David Ricardo, and F. A. Hayek--to take a random sampling--would all have agreed
on at least one thing: that Dave/Bruce/George/Cerise is indisputably loathsome.

By the way, although you made a very nice reply, I fear it was bootless
nonetheless. Lambourn was quoting a philosopher he didn't understand
in criticism of one he hasn't read. Indeed, it is possible that he got his
Schopenhauer quote from another book, so he may not have truly read
Schopenhauer either. Somehow that wouldn't surprise me.


>
>
>---
>Timothy Gleason Adventure? Excitement?
>tim...@io.org A Jedi craves not these things.
>

Egon

=========================================================================================

"Have you seen Bob Dole in SHADES?"

-Sherry Bebitch Jeffe-

n.b.. Ms. Jeffe is a political "analyst" and she said this on CNN,
her apparent meaning being that anyone who looked as dorky as Bob
Dole probably would in Blue's Brothers' shades would make a
poor president, whereas as Clinton does look good in shades
so is a good choice for president. And people wonder why
I so passionately hate the Yahoos.

=========================================================================================

Bruce Roberts

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to

There is nothing there intelligible to read. Marx is just a charlatan.
Reading his
works would be similar to reading a tome on medieval alchemy or a
a scholastic work on "the sex of angels'. He was even repudiated by
Hegel, who supposedly influenced Marx. Hegel called Marx and his
revolutionary, socialist Utopians--"dreamers". I'll give Marx his due,
however. He is one of history's greatest snake oil salesmen. But
civilization paid a heavy price for his sciolism.


Bruce Roberts

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to

bogus@bogus (Egon Schiele) wrote:
>In article <4mcgt6$b...@news1.io.org>, tim...@io.org (Voltron, Defender of the Universe) says:
>>
>>Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>
>(snip)
>
>>
>>Incidentally, Hegel would have loathed you, "Bruce Roberts",... he was
>>known for having supreme and uninhibited contempt for the ignorant and
>>intellectually lazy.
>
>Hegel actually loathed Marx. He called him a dreamer and regretted
that his own philosophy (if you could call it that) had influenced
the socialist, revolutionary Utopian. Hegel's philosophy, however,
also contributed to the Germans' subservience to the state and thus
to the collectivism,regimentation, socialism and militarism--and the
holocaust.

Hegel and Marx were both pretty stupid in not understanding that
all philosophy leads (or should lead) to nihilism. If they had really
been brilliant thinkers they would have reached the conclusions of
Chekhov, Camus or Samuel Beckett and realized that in a deterministic
and absurd universe man cannot really do anything to change things.
Hegel apparently coined the phrase "Whatever is, is right". Then why
could not Marx see this and abandon his obsession with Utopian socialism
which was doomed from the start?

When we see that both Marx and Hegel contributed indirectly to the Great
War (called
the German socialist revolution by German intellectuals of the period),
the Bolshevik Revolution with Lenin and Stalin, Mussolini, Adolph
Hitler's National Socialism, World War II and the holocausts, Mao,
Pol Pot etc., we understand their ignorance and folly in trying to
make the world a better place.

David Reilley

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to

In article <4mfph6$4...@news1.sympatico.ca> Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>From: Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca>
>Subject: Re: Karl Marx Sucks Just Like Jason Kodish
>Date: 4 May 1996 14:27:50 GMT

>There is nothing there intelligible to read. Marx is just a charlatan.
>Reading his
>works would be similar to reading a tome on medieval alchemy or a
>a scholastic work on "the sex of angels'.

Or a John Lambourn dissertation trying to argue that Hitler was a left-wing
socialist.

David Reilley

unread,
May 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/4/96
to

In article <1996May4.2...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> c...@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) writes:

> John Lambourn, in a clever ongoing parody of mindless, dishonest
> right-wing rhetoric <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>| Hegel actually loathed Marx. He called him a dreamer and regretted
>| that his own philosophy (if you could call it that) had influenced
>| the socialist, revolutionary Utopian.

>Marx was only 13 or 14 when Hegel died, you fool.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
More philosophical comedy from John Lambourn!

THE WHOLE WORLD'S LAUGHING!

Calvin Bruce Ostrum

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

In article <4mfqpn$4...@news1.sympatico.ca>,
Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

| Hegel actually loathed Marx. He called him a dreamer and regretted
| that his own philosophy (if you could call it that) had influenced
| the socialist, revolutionary Utopian.

Marx was only 13 or 14 when Hegel died, you fool.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Ostrum c...@cs.toronto.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be on your guard: jerks on the loose" -- Terre and Suzzy Roche
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Georges Skorpios

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

tim...@io.org (Voltron, Defender of the Universe) wrote:
>
> bogus@bogus (Egon Schiele) wrote:
>
> >In article <4m8jme$k...@news1.io.org>, tim...@io.org (Voltron, Defender of the Universe) says:
> >>
> >>Well, in order to understand it you have to know how to read. Then
> >>you need a vocabulary greater than that of the Toronto Sun (grade 3, I
> >>think). Then you need a level of intelligence that can concieve of
> >>logical arguments and the ability to understand Hegel's dialectic.
> >>From what I've seen you are out of luck on all counts but especially
> >>on the last. Your loss.
> >>
> >>
> >>---
> >>Timothy Gleason Adventure? Excitement?
> >>tim...@io.org A Jedi craves not these things.
> >>

> Just about everything we have written has been taken from other
writers (economists, historians, philosophers). That's the best
we can do. Marx and his contemporaries were long dead before we
were born. So don't blame us for our demeaning and
demolishing Marx. We are
just repeating the conclusions that other learned and brilliant
scholars and historians have arrived at re. Karl Marx.

Georges Skorpios

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>
> In article <1996May4.2...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> c...@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) writes:
>
> > John Lambourn, in a clever ongoing parody of mindless, dishonest
> > right-wing rhetoric <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >| Hegel actually loathed Marx. He called him a dreamer and regretted
> >| that his own philosophy (if you could call it that) had influenced
> >| the socialist, revolutionary Utopian.
>
> >Marx was only 13 or 14 when Hegel died, you fool.

>> Hey, just one fucking minute,you asshole. My post stated
"Hegel denounced such radicals as Marx as dreamers". Even if
Marx had not been born then, this would still apply to him.

Why don't you learn how to read properly, David Reilley?
Jeesh! And you are supposed to be a writing teacher?

>
> Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
>
>

David Reilley

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

In article <4miori$8...@steel.interlog.com> Georges Skorpios <gi...@interlog.com> writes:

>> Just about everything we have written has been taken from other
> writers (economists, historians, philosophers).

And Coles Notes

David Reilley

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

In article <4minvg$8...@steel.interlog.com> Georges Skorpios <gi...@interlog.com> writes:

>>(Calvin Bruce Ostrum) writes:
>> >Marx was only 13 or 14 when Hegel died, you fool.

Lambourn "I know everything" response:
> When Hegel denounced these radicals Marx was
> obviously too young to be a member, but Hegel had people like
> him in mind so his remark does apply indirectly to Marx.

Lambourn "How would I know" response (from same posting)
> As far a Marx and Hegel were concerned, I wasn't alive at the
> time, asshole. I am only going by what I have read. And in the
> above I have given you this verbatim.


You are such a comedien -- but you should pick ONE silly argument, and stick
to it. We know you are deliberately playing the fool here, but this (above)
is overplay.

THE WHOLE WORLD'S LAUGHING!!

David Reilley

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

In article <4minvg$8...@steel.interlog.com> Georges Skorpios <gi...@interlog.com> writes:
> Maybe by the age of fourteen he had read, or
> tried to read, Hegel's unintelligible works. After all, was
> not John Stuart Mill reading and translating Greek and Latin
> writers at the age of six?

Not only do we get to read your ongoing parody of right wing bigotry on an
ongoing basis, you are now treating us to a parody of scholarly reasoning!

David Reilley

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

In article <4minvg$8...@steel.interlog.com> Georges Skorpios <gi...@interlog.com> writes:
> I am only going by what I have read. And in the
> above I have given you this verbatim.

It's just that some people get confused when elsewhere, in other threads, you
claim the ability to reason and synthesize argument.

David Reilley

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

John Lambourn <gi...@interlog.com> writes:


>drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>>
>> In article <1996May4.2...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> c...@cs.toronto.edu
>(Calvin Bruce Ostrum) writes:
>>
>> > John Lambourn, in a clever ongoing parody of mindless, dishonest
>> > right-wing rhetoric <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >| Hegel actually loathed Marx. He called him a dreamer and regretted
>> >| that his own philosophy (if you could call it that) had influenced
>> >| the socialist, revolutionary Utopian.
>>

>> >Marx was only 13 or 14 when Hegel died, you fool.

>>> Hey, just one fucking minute,you asshole. My post stated


> "Hegel denounced such radicals as Marx as dreamers". Even if
> Marx had not been born then, this would still apply to him.

No. What you actually said was (and I clipboard from above):

Hegel actually loathed Marx. He called him a dreamer

So this is another Lambourn joke, right?

>> Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
>>
>>

Georges Skorpios

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>
> In article <1996May4.2...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> c...@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) writes:
>
> >
> >Marx was only 13 or 14 when Hegel died, you fool.


>
> This is true; however, Marx belonged to a group of
leftists that "Hegel denounced as radical dreamers,
and carefully hid away his early essays". This group included
Feuerbach, Moleshott, Bauer and Marx (apparently later).

"They (the radicals of whom Marx was a member) returned
to the skepticism and "higher criticism" of Hegel's
youth, and developed the philosophy of history into a theory of
class struggles leading by Hegelian necessity to "socialism
inevitable". When Hegel denounced these radicals Marx was


obviously too young to be a member, but Hegel had people like
him in mind so his remark does apply indirectly to Marx.

You are being over fastidious and technical and are not
dealing with the main argument of our original post.

Kodish claims Marx was a genius. If so he could have been
precocious and much more politically aware than the average
youth his age. Maybe by the age of fourteen he had read, or

tried to read, Hegel's unintelligible works. After all, was
not John Stuart Mill reading and translating Greek and Latin

writers at the age of six? Also this was said of Thomas MacCaulay.

As far a Marx and Hegel were concerned, I wasn't alive at the

time, asshole. I am only going by what I have read. And in the

Bruce Roberts

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

Since this thread started out as a flame on Jason Kodish, we
wonder why Kodish has not responded. He has attempted no defense
against our attack on Karl Marx whom he earlier called a genius.
All right, let us see Kodish try to prove it.

So what is the problem, Kodish? Haven't you anything to say in
defense of your communist guru and icon, Karl Marx, who is being
demeaned and disparaged by our postings? You can't expect David
Reilley or Terry Johnson to help your, or any other "liberal" for that
matter, as Marx's theories are virtually indefensible.


Bruce Roberts

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

Perhaps we have not made ourselves clear. And we apologize for that,
but what we said about Hegel and Marx is valid.

Here are the exact words from an essay on Hegel. "Feurbach, Moleshchott,
Bauer and Marx...returned to the higher criticism of Hegel's youth...
of class struggle...and economic determinism. Hegel, the imperial
professor had hatched the socialist eggs. The old philosopher
denounced the radicals as dreamers and carefully hid away his essays".

So it doesn't really matter at what time Marx, as a disciple of Hegel,
came along. He would still be one of the radicals denounced by Hegel.
So David Reilley and you other socialists are again quibbling and hair
splitting because you cannot refute the main thrust of our argument.


Bruce Roberts

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

Georges Skorpios <gi...@interlog.com> wrote:
>tim...@io.org (Voltron, Defender of the Universe) wrote:
>>
>> bogus@bogus (Egon Schiele) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <4m8jme$k...@news1.io.org>, tim...@io.org (Voltron, Defender of the Universe) says:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >I'm sorry, but I must intrude. While I think your rejoinder
>> >to "Bruce Roberts" witty and on the mark,

>> How is it witty. Puerile and sophomoric would be better adjectives
to describe it.

I should like
>> >to point out that while Hegel may have understood his "dialectic,"

>> >in constructing it he demolished the meaning of dialectics, y
>>
>>Hegel demolished nothing. His contibution as a philosopher is minor.
his writing is incoherent and unintelligble except for the idea of
"thesis, antithesis, synthesis" and that was not original as it goes
back to Aristotle and other Ancient Greek philosophers. Hegel's
attempted justification for a poltics of "absolute obedience to the
state" and its catching on in socialist Germany certainly contributed
to Adolph Hitler's National Socialism.



>>
>>

>> This is bullshit, you communist asshole. You don't know what the hell
you are taking about.

Smith, on the other hand did (IMHO)
>> contribute a bit of good philosophy which is often ignored in favour
>> of his "free market" economics (see his "theory of moral sentiments" -
>> quite an interesting take on human nature).
>>
>> As far as Hegel's dialectic goes, I'll defer to you as my reading of
>> Hegel is limited to a few works (and I don't speak German). But it
>> seems clear to me that Marx's structure derives directly from it.
>>
>> Returning to Marx as philosopher

>> Again more crap. Schopenhauer, a much greater philospher more or
less said that Hegel was full of shit. He would have said the same
about Marx also, I have no doubt.

>>Hegel's aphorism "whatever is, is right" meaning that we live in
a deterministic universe is correct. Marx also believed this. But if
either could have advanced beyond this to the concept of an absurd
or purposeless universe (i.e. a philosophy of nihilism) they would
have stopped their foolish writing and theorizing and the world would
have been spared the mischief these assholes caused.


>>
>> Whether or not one agrees with Marx, there is no disputing that he was
>> an extremely learned and intelligent scholar.
>>

>>But he lacked common sense. He also had eight fucking offspring which
showed a lack of restraint and intelligence on his part. See our
posting entitled "The Population Time Bomb Crises". Malthus had a
much clearer and valid understanding of society's major problem than
Marx ever did.

Marx was renowned for
>> his dilligence and tireless scholarly efforts.

>>But what was accomplished. Nothing. At least nothing positive.
The American poet Robinson Jeffers must have had Marx in mind
when he composed his beautiful nihilistic poem, "Practical People".


David Reilley

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

In article <4mj50o$f...@news1.sympatico.ca> Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>From: Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca>
>Subject: Re: Karl Marx Sucks Just Like Jason Kodish
>Date: 5 May 1996 21:02:16 GMT

I see you have expanded your definition of a socialist yet again -- this time
to encompass anyone who laughs at your sloppy biographical research. It is
quite obvious from youre original post (where you said Hegel had disdain
for Marx) and your response to criticisms that you has NO IDEA that Marx was a
young teenager when Hegel died. You are a phoney Coles Notes scholar, just
like your imaginary "Cerise" was a phoney Spanish speaker, and you are
pathologically incapable of admitting your mistakes, much to our great
amusement.

Thanks -- keep up the great comedy.

Egon Schiele

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

In article <4mj50o$f...@news1.sympatico.ca>, Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> says:
>
>Perhaps we have not made ourselves clear. And we apologize for that,
>but what we said about Hegel and Marx is valid.
>
So, Lambourn entity, you admit that "you" are all one? What else
could you mean by "we?"


>Here are the exact words from an essay on Hegel. ("exact words" snipped)

"AN essay?" Which one? There have been thousands, perhaps tens of
thousands, of essays and articles published on him. But this is all moot;
you HAVEN'T read Hegel, just "about" him, and therefore you are
talking nonsense. Go away for several months and read _Phenomenology
of Spirit_ to start with, then come back and pester us.

>So it doesn't really matter at what time Marx, as a disciple of Hegel,
>came along. He would still be one of the radicals denounced by Hegel.
>So David Reilley and you other socialists are again quibbling and hair
>splitting because you cannot refute the main thrust of our argument.
>

"Our argument?" There "it" goes again! Are you some sort of gestalt entity?
Anyway, you don't have an argument. You've read neither Hegel nor
Marx, even in English, so you have absolutely no idea what you're
talking about. You've appropriated some other fellow's "essay" and assume
that you therefore know something about the topic at hand. It may even
have been a _good_ essay, but no matter how good, you should
never take someone else's word for it.

Egon

Egon Schiele

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

In article <4mj5qc$f...@news1.sympatico.ca>, Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> says:
You can't expect David
>Reilley or Terry Johnson to help your, or any other "liberal" for that
>matter, as Marx's theories are virtually indefensible.
>
That may be true, Lambourn entity, but you wouldn't know. You have
to actually know Marx from reading him (and carefully at that) before
you can issue ukases about his validity.

Egon

Egon Schiele

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

In article <4minvg$8...@steel.interlog.com>, Georges Skorpios <gi...@interlog.com> says:
>
>drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>>
>> In article <1996May4.2...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> c...@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) writes:
>>
>> >
>> >
>
>>
>> This is true; however, Marx belonged to a group of
> leftists that "Hegel denounced as radical dreamers,
> and carefully hid away his early essays". This group included
> Feuerbach, Moleshott, Bauer and Marx (apparently later).
>
Of whom none have you read so much as a word, "George."


> "They (the radicals of whom Marx was a member) returned
> to the skepticism and "higher criticism" of Hegel's
> youth, and developed the philosophy of history into a theory of
> class struggles leading by Hegelian necessity to "socialism
> inevitable". When Hegel denounced these radicals Marx was
> obviously too young to be a member, but Hegel had people like
> him in mind so his remark does apply indirectly to Marx.
>
> You are being over fastidious and technical and are not
> dealing with the main argument of our original post.
>

There IS NO ARGUMENT! You have to have even a smidgeon
of familiarity with the writings under debate in order to have
even the faintest notion of what we're talking about. I see you
haven't taken the time to read any Orwell, which is too bad, because
in addition to him you've got a lot of other reading to catch up on.
Don't pontificate about writers you've never read. Oh well, look at
it this way: you can work your way into Hegel by reading the less
taxing works of Feuerbach and Marx.


> Kodish claims Marx was a genius. If so he could have been
> precocious and much more politically aware than the average
> youth his age. Maybe by the age of fourteen he had read, or
> tried to read, Hegel's unintelligible works. After all, was
> not John Stuart Mill reading and translating Greek and Latin
> writers at the age of six? Also this was said of Thomas MacCaulay.

Further proof that you know nothing whatever of what you're
talking about. Marx was indeed very intelligent, and had already
written his doctoral dissertation by the time he was in his early
twenties. He hadn't read much Hegel by the time he was 14 or 15,
and that you would mention it only indicates that you're grasping at
straws. Mill and MacCauley? So what? We're talking about Marx!


> As far a Marx and Hegel were concerned, I wasn't alive at the
> time, asshole. I am only going by what I have read. And in the
> above I have given you this verbatim.

What have you read? Certainly not Hegel, Marx, Feuerbach, et al.
Undergraduate survey texts? Really bad ones? Science fiction? "Verbatim"
what?


"George" or Dave, you'd be doing yourself a big favour by turning
off your little computer and trekking over to the library and
getting down to some serious reading. Who knows? Maybe
then you'll actually know something and then can tell the rest
of us all about it. And think how fun it will be for you (Dave),
Cerise, George, Bruce, etc. to get out into the sunshine.



Egon

=========================================================================================

"Hey! They're going to visit the turd museum!"

-Crow T. Robot-

=========================================================================================

Egon Schiele

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

>> Just about everything we have written has been taken from other
> writers (economists, historians, philosophers).

And they are . . . ?

>That's the best we can do. Marx and his contemporaries were long dead before we
> were born.

Your VERY best? Are you SURE you can't do better? And who is "we."
Is this all of us? The royal "we?" Or do even you have trouble
keeping your various component personalities distinct?


>So don't blame us for our demeaning and demolishing Marx. We are


> just repeating the conclusions that other learned and brilliant
> scholars and historians have arrived at re. Karl Marx.

The only thing anyone is blaming you for, Lambourn entity, is for
being an ignoramus. I want to make it clear that I don't share the admiration
for Marx that others who are trying to knock some sense into you might
have. On the other hand, I'm not interested in hearing anyone "demeaning"
or "demolishing" a writer he hasn't read, and read carefully at that. As
for repeating what other "learned and brilliant scholars and historians"
say, you should know better. If YOU haven't read Marx--and, it goes without
saying, Hegel--then you are not in a position to judge the learnedness
and brilliance of other's opinions on Marx. And just who are these fabled
fellows? You could be referring to one of Eric Margolis' columns for all
I know, and if that's the case I would have to disagree that you are
reading learned and brilliant commentary.

Lambourn entity--Jesus, you sound like something out of "Red Dwarf"--I
know it's much easier to sit in front of a glowing CRT screen than read
difficult books, but it is definitely worth the effort. You will save yourself
from looking like a dildo in future posts.


Egon

Egon Schiele

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

In article <4mfph6$4...@news1.sympatico.ca>, Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> says:
>
>There is nothing there intelligible to read. Marx is just a charlatan.
>Reading his
>works would be similar to reading a tome on medieval alchemy or a
>a scholastic work on "the sex of angels'. He was even repudiated by
>Hegel, who supposedly influenced Marx. Hegel called Marx and his
>revolutionary, socialist Utopians--"dreamers". I'll give Marx his due,
>however. He is one of history's greatest snake oil salesmen. But
>civilization paid a heavy price for his sciolism.
>
All this, Lambourn entity, is your way of saying that you
haven't read so much as a line of Marx, eh? Nor have
you read a line of Hegel. Nor have you read much
of the history of the time, and are ignorant of the
fact that Marx was about 12 or 13 when Hegel
died from Cholera. If Hegel "repudiated" Marx, it
was from beyond the grave.

"Snake oil salesman?" Again, possibly true (I still
prefer Voegelin's tag of "intellectual swindler"),
but YOU wouldn't know because you HAVEN'T
read him!

And while where at it, there's little "intelligible to read"
in your own posts. Please follow your own advice and
re-read Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language."
Or did you not read that either, but merely heard something
about it from a Toronto Sun Columnist? Is there anything
you DO read, besides books by unhappy apemen?

Egon

=========================================================================================

"Bite me!

-Tom Servo-

=========================================================================================

Georges Skorpios

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

In article <dreilley.28...@pinc.com>,

drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>In article <4mj50o$f...@news1.sympatico.ca> Bruce Roberts
<rob...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>From: Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca>
>>Subject: Re: Karl Marx Sucks Just Like Jason Kodish
>>Date: 5 May 1996 21:02:16 GMT
>
>>Perhaps we have not made ourselves clear. And we apologize for that,
>>but what we said about Hegel and Marx is valid.
>
>>Here are the exact words from an essay on Hegel. "Feurbach, Moleshchott,
>>Bauer and Marx...returned to the higher criticism of Hegel's youth...
>>of class struggle...and economic determinism. Hegel, the imperial
>>professor had hatched the socialist eggs. The old philosopher
>>denounced the radicals as dreamers and carefully hid away his essays".

>
>>So it doesn't really matter at what time Marx, as a disciple of Hegel,
>>came along. He would still be one of the radicals denounced by Hegel.
>>So David Reilley and you other socialists are again quibbling and hair
>>splitting because you cannot refute the main thrust of our argument.
>
>I see you have expanded your definition of a socialist yet again -- this time
>to encompass anyone who laughs at your sloppy biographical research. It is
>quite obvious from youre original post (where you said Hegel had disdain
>for Marx) and your response to criticisms that you has NO IDEA that Marx was
a
>young teenager when Hegel died.
>
>There have been plently of young teenage radicals during the last 200
years. Marx was a member or future member of a group or faction that
Hegel despised. This really bothers leftists like you, Reilley. Come on,
admit it.

Georges Skorpios

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

In article <4mk27g$r...@elmo.cadvision.com>, bogus@bogus (Egon Schiele) wrote:
>In article <4mj50o$f...@news1.sympatico.ca>, Bruce Roberts
<rob...@sympatico.ca> says:
>>
>>Perhaps we have not made ourselves clear. And we apologize for that,
>>but what we said about Hegel and Marx is valid.
>>
>So, Lambourn entity, you admit that "you" are all one? What else
>could you mean by "we?"
>
>
>>Here are the exact words from an essay on Hegel. ("exact words" snipped)
>
>"AN essay?" Which one? There have been thousands, perhaps tens of
>thousands, of essays and articles published on him. But this is all moot;
>you HAVEN'T read Hegel, just "about" him, and therefore you are
>talking nonsense. Go away for several months and read _Phenomenology
>of Spirit_ to start with, then come back and pester us.

> We are not going to waste our time reading either Hegel or Marx. We despise
them. We know their basic ideas and philosophy. Having to read their
voluminous and pretentious folderol and drivel would be cruel and unusual
punishment.


>
>>So it doesn't really matter at what time Marx, as a disciple of Hegel,
>>came along. He would still be one of the radicals denounced by Hegel.
>>So David Reilley and you other socialists are again quibbling and hair
>>splitting because you cannot refute the main thrust of our argument.
>>

>"Our argument?" There "it" goes again! Are you some sort of gestalt entity?
>Anyway, you don't have an argument. You've read neither Hegel nor
>Marx, even in English, so you have absolutely no idea what you're
>talking about. You've appropriated some other fellow's "essay" and assume
>that you therefore know something about the topic at hand. It may even
>have been a _good_ essay, but no matter how good, you should
>never take someone else's word for it.
>
>Egon

>We have read excerpts from both Hegel and Marx, something like "the best of
Hegel and Marx" as in a Johnny Carson or Jay Leno rerun.

We have not just taken "someone else's word for it. We have taken
Schopenhauer's word for it, and that of many other well-respected
economists and scholars. Look, there are just too many great books
we have yet to read to waste our time on Marx. Have you read "Remembrance
of Things Past" or "Moby Dick"?

Georges Skorpios

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

In article <4mk2an$r...@elmo.cadvision.com>, bogus@bogus (Egon Schiele) wrote:
>In article <4mj5qc$f...@news1.sympatico.ca>, Bruce Roberts
<rob...@sympatico.ca> says:
> You can't expect David
>>Reilley or Terry Johnson to help your, or any other "liberal" for that
>>matter, as Marx's theories are virtually indefensible.
>>
>That may be true, Lambourn entity, but you wouldn't know. You have
>to actually know Marx from reading him (and carefully at that) before
>you can issue ukases about his validity.
>
>Egon

>I know from 20th century history what Marxism has led to. That is enough,
my friend.

David Reilley

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

In article <4mji7j$i...@news1.sympatico.ca> Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>>> Returning to Marx as philosopher
>>>> Again more crap. Schopenhauer, a much greater philospher more or
>> less said that Hegel was full of shit. He would have said the same
>> about Marx also, I have no doubt.

But you don't really know, do you.
You are just guessing again.
(What a phoney scholar.)


>>>>Marx lacked common sense. He also had eight fucking offspring which


>> showed a lack of restraint and intelligence on his part. See our

>> posting entitled, "The Population Time Bomb Crisis". Malthus had a

>> much clearer and valid understanding of society's major problem than

>> Marx ever did and only now is he being proved correct.

How many children did Malthus have?


Voltron, Defender of the Universe

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>>> This is bullshit, you communist asshole. You don't know what the hell
> you are taking about.

Yes, of course. Now there's a witty rejoinder.
Well, I guess that about says it all... how do you argue with such
seemless logic?