I am sure these two things are completely unelated.....

@Loosy said in #59:
> Blaming Marx for the shortcomings of the bolsheviks and the other related regimes is not different than blaming Jesus for the atrocities of the Christian Churches throughout history.

See? I told you Communism was a religion. Marx is a religious icon to Communists.

Also, I never mentioned the Bolsheviks, who very accurately implemented Marx's suggestions. I specifically talked about the theories of Marx, his beliefs and and predictions. His speculations. Please read what I actually wrote!

> Just as a starting point, Marx had never mentioned anything about a soviet system.

Marx said there should be a bloody violent revolution to destroy the old society and make way for his vision. He defined Communism as the abolition of private property. He said a utopia would follow this policy because he was mistaken about human nature (we aren't species-beings, as he put it), wrong about history. He was a naïve idealist.

> So, in general, as an advice, before you jump into conclusions

Educate yourself on human history, especially Communist history, and what Marx actually believed.

@Loosy said in #58:
> So, you argue that people should be afraid of communism.

Not at all. My argument is that people should be educated about Communism as much as possible. Start with history, try to understand their beliefs. Go all the way back to Marx's theories, what he fundamentally believed about the world, his predictions, his mythology about the End of History and the destiny of mankind.

> As a matter of fact the reason that communists exist in the first place is exactly because of people struggling to make a living.

No, the reason Communists exist is because it promises a utopia and provides a nice-sounding but magical theory of man's role in the history of the world. You may notice that Marx was wrong about workers of the world rising up and doing a revolution. Historically, it's been a small faction of intellectuals leading a gorilla army to overthrow feudal agricultural countries. Russia tried it, decided it was hell on Earth and abandoned the idea forever. China tried it, decided to use market economies instead and are growing much faster and doing much better as a result. Sadly, it's still an authoritarian nightmare due to the CPR policies.

> If you are really bothered by the communists you better propose a better solution yourself.

I did, see above. Russia and China tried it your way, it didn't work. They are utilizing market economies to greater effect.

> If I understand correctly, you assume that market economy is going to resolve it.

Actually, you don't understand me correctly. The word 'utopia' means "no where" or "no place," because you can't get there. It's an impossible idealistic dream. Marx was a German Philosopher living in the 1800s who had a very limited understanding of the world. He came up with speculative theories about how every problem in the would would be solved without private property.

It was tried. It didn't work, it never has, it never will. There is no "resolution" to certain realities of life.

> So, really, find a way to get rid of this issue and I can guarantee you that communists will disappear immediately.

Communists will never go away because it's a Religion that they have unwavering faith in. Marx was a prophet to them.

@potterchess said in #61:
> See? I told you Communism was a religion. Marx is a religious icon to Communists.

First, you never told me. Second you missed the point... But I have already realized that logic is not your strength.

> Also, I never mentioned the Bolsheviks, who very accurately implemented Marx's suggestions. I specifically talked about the theories of Marx, his beliefs and and predictions. His speculations. Please read what I actually wrote!

You talked about Russia trying to implement communism. The group that took this initiative in Russia is known as Bolsheviks. And you say you didn't mention Bolsheviks?? Seriously? Are you trying to make me look smart??

> Marx said there should be a bloody violent revolution to destroy the old society and make way for his vision. He defined Communism as the abolition of private property. He said a utopia would follow this policy because he was mistaken about human nature (we aren't species-beings, as he put it), wrong about history. He was a naïve idealist.

I could not but laugh in this one! Revolution doesn't mean soviet system... Abolition of private property doesn't mean soviet system either... You keep impressing with your ignorance! Please, keep going!

> Educate yourself on human history, especially Communist history, and what Marx actually believed.

Thanks for the advice! I continuously do! Not only communist history but any kind of history! But by now it must have been clear that you need to follow this advice yourself as well...

> Not at all. My argument is that people should be educated about Communism as much as possible. Start with history, try to understand their beliefs. Go all the way back to Marx's theories, what he fundamentally believed about the world, his predictions, his mythology about the End of History and the destiny of mankind.

In my claim that most people in their everyday life don't worry about communists, you responded that they better educate themselves on the communists' failed attempts. This implies that you think that if they educate themselves on this topic then they should be afraid of the communists. Simple logic...

> No, the reason Communists exist is because it promises a utopia and provides a nice-sounding but magical theory of man's role in the history of the world. You may notice that Marx was wrong about workers of the world rising up and doing a revolution. Historically, it's been a small faction of intellectuals leading a gorilla army to overthrow feudal agricultural countries. Russia tried it, decided it was hell on Earth and abandoned the idea forever. China tried it, decided to use market economies instead and are growing much faster and doing much better as a result. Sadly, it's still an authoritarian nightmare due to the CPR policies.

Again, you keep using as evidence against marxism, what Bolsheviks and the other groups that followed their example attempted, like CCP, the communist party of Yugoslavia and so on. I have already addressed this by explaining that Marxism is not the same as Bolshevikism, but it seems too hard for you to comprehend. I am sorry.

@potterchess said in #61:
> Actually, you don't understand me correctly. The word 'utopia' means "no where" or "no place," because you can't get there. It's an impossible idealistic dream. Marx was a German Philosopher living in the 1800s who had a very limited understanding of the world. He came up with speculative theories about how every problem in the would would be solved without private property.

Thanks for clarifying your position! You maintain that this problem doesn't have a solution! Cool! I am sure that you didn't come to this conclusion just because you don't have a solution. In that case you would just passionately search for a solution, instead of blaming the people who try to solve it, while conveniently claiming that there exists no solution. Therefore, I assume you have a strict, mathematical proof about it! Please go ahead and share it with us! I bet it starts like: Because human nature...

Exposing your naivety has never held you back! Entertain us!

@Loosy said in #63:
> Thanks for clarifying your position! You maintain that this problem doesn't have a solution! Cool!

I maintain that it's impossible to have a perfect idealized society run by humans.

If you believe in Darwinian Evolution, we're merely apes that crawled out of the wild and became violent hunter-gatherers. Eventually, some realized it's easier to grow food and raise animals. Agriculture was the beginning of civilization and private property became the means for survival. That's who we are. But Marx has this unrealistic idea that we could become more perfect than God himself, with limitless patience, selflessness and grace.

> Therefore, I assume you have a strict, mathematical proof about it! Please go ahead and share it with us!

I simply have a realistic theory of Man based on Evolution (by natural selection) and the course of human history.

> while conveniently claiming that there exists no solution.

I'm claiming that the problem is more fundamental. It's deeper than the questions you are asking.

Marxist writer Herbert Marcuse lamented that life in the US was so good workers would never risk losing their good lives in a bloody revolution. We have a welfare system as a safety net, we have programs to help people and we have the market economy as a source of prosperity. People from all around the world want to live in the US, in search of freedom and prosperity. They don't want to go to a communist country, or formerly communist country, where life is depressing.

In short, perfection is impossible. But we have a good thing going, which can be improved incrementally.

> You talked about Russia trying to implement communism. The group that took this initiative in Russia is known as Bolsheviks. And you say you didn't mention Bolsheviks??

No, the atrocities of the Soviet Union go far beyond the Russian Revolution and the Bolsheviks. In 'The Gulag Archipelago' by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn I learned the Soviets had labor camps all throughout the country were political dissidents were worked to death. He won the Nobel Prize in Literature for his writing on the history of the Soviet Union and what it did to it's own people (the Kulaks, for example).

> I could not but laugh in this one! Revolution doesn't mean soviet system... Abolition of private property doesn't mean soviet system either...

Did you bother reading what I wrote? Here, I'll quote Marx directly for you.

"Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

Marx suggested bloody violent revolution and terror. Read this next quote carefully:

“There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” Karl Marx in an 1848 newspaper article

> But by now it must have been clear that you need to follow this advice yourself as well...

I doubt you've read what I've written. We don't seem to be on the same page.

> This implies that you think that if they educate themselves on this topic then they should be afraid of the communists.

What's missing in your logic is I never said to "be afraid," my task is to educate and enlighten.

> I have already addressed this by explaining that Marxism is not the same as Bolshevikism

The 1800s were depressing, and Marx wanted to violently mass murder the upper-class in response. To him, violence was the solution and he didn't care how many people had to die. Those ideas of his were directly implemented by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the rest. Lenin laid the legal groundwork for the gulags and labor camps that followed. This is not just about the Bolsheviks. The problem traces to the source.

> Entertain us!

Here's another prediction Marx got wrong. History was supposed to always move from regressive to progressive. Toward the perfected state, referred to as the End of History. Communism was never supposed to revert back to a Capitalism, or some kind of market economy hybrid. Communism was never supposed to fail to create a perfected state of the world. History had one direction, according to Marx, it was always and only ever supposed to go towards his speculative vision of the perfect world.

He was wrong about so many things...

I am trying to help. But it is hard. Every reference of yours to Marx, except from the direct quotes, is invalid. I don’t know where you get all these from nor why you are so confident that you know what Marx believed without reading his works. Just reading what others say about Marx is not helpful. No matter if they are supporters of Marx or critics.

You claim that:
<But Marx has this unrealistic idea that we could become more perfect than God himself, with limitless patients, selflessness and grace.

> Here's another Marx prediction he got wrong. History was supposed to always move from regressive to progressive. Toward the perfected state, referred to as the End of History. Communism was never supposed to revert back to a Capitalism, or some kind of market economy hybrid. Communism was never supposed to fail to create a perfected state of the world. History had one direction, according to Marx, it was always and only ever supposed to go towards his speculative vision of the perfect world.

Well, I don’t know where to start. If you find anything even remotely close to these in Marx’ work please post it here. I didn’t.

And as you imagine it is also hard to find a quote of Marx where he says “no, I didn’t say that humans could become more perfect than God” or “no, I never claimed that history always moves from regressive to progressive”. Therefore, you need to engage with an extensive amount of his work in order to get an insight on what Marx’ takes would be on these topics.

But just as indications I post a couple of analyses on Marx’ understanding of human progress. (These are the first results that the Google algorithm spits.)

From Paresh Chattopadhyay “Marx and the Progress”:
"Finally, the whole question of the revolutionary transformation of society is discussed within the broad Marxian purview of human progress where it is argued that Marx is a great ‘rethinker’ of progress, that his perspective has nothing in common with any unilateral view (positive or negative) of human advancement (or regression) and that progress in this view is an aspect of the dialectic of negativity pervading the critique of political economy.”

From Sean Sayers’ “Marx and Progress” published in International Critical Thought:
“Marxism involves a much darker and more complex philosophy of progress than is often thought. According to it, historical development is a contradictory process that takes place through the action of negative as well positive forces.”

And I don’t post these here, to claim that you should accept what they say. After all, as the famous anecdote goes, when Marx’ son-in-law Paul Lafargue, brought news from Paris of French “Marxists.” Marx allegedly responded “I am not Marxist”.

My point is that you need to realize that:
1) the simplistic ideas that you attribute to him are alien to anyone familiar with Marx’ work,
2) there is no Marxist that believes in these ideas that you are arguing against,
3) most importantly, there is no point in discussing Marx without reading Marx.

So, I reiterate. What made you think that you can know what Marx thinks without reading his works???

On top of this, you seem too eager to spot mistakes in Marx’ thought. But actually, the only reason that you are unsuccessful is that you don’t know his work. As a matter of fact, I also think that Marx got many things wrong. But none of the things you said, not because the things you said are not wrong, but because Marx didn’t support them. As a matter of fact, Marx himself also thought he got many things wrong. As long as he was alive he kept refining, modifying and changing his ideas. It would be a surprise if exactly before he died he figured out everything. But finding some mistakes is obviously not enough in order to deduce that he was not also right on many other things or that his work does not contain other invaluable insights. Einstein also got many things wrong. But still he is the greatest physicist by a mile, in my opinion.

But actually, it makes no sense to read Marx unless you actually care about the problems he engages with. So, why don’t you actually forget about Marx and focus on how to improve human society? At the end of the day, who cares if Marx got anything right?! What matters is how to improve our society. At least that is my concern.

On that matter you claim that “But we have a good thing going, which can be improved incrementally”. Quite an impressive claim! How would one know this unless they are a prophet of some kind?! How much incrementally?? In fact, I think that anyone understands that this cannot be supported. Even if Marx was totally wrong, there is no way to show that there doesn’t exist another surprising solution. You support this claim by the justification that “it's impossible to have a perfect idealized society run by humans” which you reiterate “perfection is impossible”. I tend to agree with this. But still, it is irrelevant. There is no logical way to deduce from this that human society cannot become considerably better or even infinitely better. How can you exclude that there are no ideas that no one has thought of so far that can have a huge impact? How can you know that there are not infinitely many incremental improvements? Even if perfection is not possible, that doesn’t exclude infinite improvement.

To be sincere, I think that statements like “can be improved incrementally” only give away a reluctance to engage with the problem. I think that you need to ask yourself why you spend so much time fighting the people who are trying to solve the problem (without even actually reading what they say), instead of ignoring them, if you prefer, and focusing on finding better solutions yourself.

P.S. Concerning your other points, it seems to me totally unproductive to respond. But if you are really interested to know my opinion, you can either reread my previous messages with a bit more effort to see my actual point (I am really not trying to be aggressive, but I have to admit that in most cases your responses, no matter if they contain correct facts or not, are just irrelevant. That’s why there may be some value in rereading them. Or maybe not.) or send me a private message and I may try to elaborate.

@potterchess said in #64:
> I maintain that it's impossible to have a perfect idealized society run by humans.
> Marx has this unrealistic idea that we could become more perfect than God himself, with limitless patience, selflessness and grace.

My friend, if an alien comes to your house and sees that you provide food and housing to your spouse and children for several decades continuously, they may go "what a perfect idealized society! You are more perfect than God himself, with limited patience, selflessness, and grace!"

You will tell them that they are wrong; one's support of one's family is just normal, standard behavior in our society, nothing god-like.

My friend, your claim that "communist society is against human nature because it demands us to have godly virtues and relies on everybody maintaining those virtues" is unfounded. The society that Marx or whoever else has tried to establish has nothing to do with personal virtues, just like our current (capitalist) society has nothing to do with personal virtues.

If, in the current society, a specific behavior is so rare that it can only be explained by god-like virtues, this doesn't mean that in another society, the same behavior is also rare or also can only be explained by god-like virtues.

Take the example of parenting. You think that parenting your own children is human nature but parenting everybody else's children entails unlimited selflessness and grace, but in early-historic societies, and even present-day tribal societies (I don't know what is a better word to describe these societies so I will resort to using "tribal"), parenthood can be collective. The child is considered the child of more than two biological parents. For them, they don't do it because it's considered godly. That is just the normal behavior in their society.

If you read more anthropological studies you may understand this better. Even in Book 8 and 9 of Plato's Republic, Socrates calls for collective parenthood. My point is that what you regard as human nature or godly is just a small slice of all human history. When other people behave differently from you, it isn't at all because they are morally "perfect."

@Loosy said in #65:
> I am trying to help. But it is hard. Every reference of yours to Marx, except from the direct quotes, is invalid. I don’t know where you get all these from nor why you are so confident that you know what Marx believed without reading his works. Just reading what others say about Marx is not helpful. No matter if they are supporters of Marx or critics.

Start with Marx's concept of the "End of History." I'll provide some context to start with.

In his youth Marx studied Hegel and later borrowed heavily from Hegelian philosophy. Hegel predicted the End of History in "Introduction to The Philosophy of History" when Man acquired higher awareness and become free. Basically, Marx took Hegel's philosophy and changed it from spiritual to material (Hegel was a Christian spiritualist), as a basis to construct his social theories. So if you want to understand Marx, you have to understand Hegel's spiritual beliefs.

Marx wrote about an "End of History" when man would realize gain a higher consciousness (as a species-being) and become free from economic conditions. He speculated that History moved in stages from regressive to progressive. Basically he said it goes like this: agricultural, feudal, capitalist, socialist and finally communist. In this final stage, man was supposed to have a new consciousness capable instituting Marxism so perfectly that there is no need for a government. This was the Hegelian-Marxist utopia. A place where everything is perfect, forever and ever.

This is what I mean when I say Marxism assumes man can become perfect. Because man gains a higher consciousness, the world man makes is perfectly managed. No problems or conflicts, a pure paradise. Hegel thought man would reach a divine state, free from contradictions. Marx had basically the same concept. Hegel's philosophy was rooted in spiritualism, rather than practical facts about the real world. This is also where the New Age hippie stuff comes from. History is supposed to be moving toward the divine end-point.

So basically, Marx took new age spiritual mumbo jumbo and built his social theory on top.

> Well, I don’t know where to start. If you find anything even remotely close to these in Marx’ work please post it here.

There are plenty writings and books comparing the work of Hegel and Marx, feel free to start there. But unfortunately Marx was vague about how his vision was supposed to be achieved. Basically, he assumes that after you abolish private property, mankind gains this Hegelian higher awareness and the world becomes free (emancipated from contradiction). But he doesn't explain how it's supposed to happen. It's just supposed to magically happen. This is why Communism gets compared to a religion. It has a prophet, prophecy, mythology, destiny and even a paradise on Earth.

> P.S. Concerning your other points, it seems to me totally unproductive to respond.

I feel the same way about your points, so we can agree on that one thing at least.

@jmwjjyl said in #66:
> My friend, your claim that "communist society is against human nature because it demands us to have godly virtues and relies on everybody maintaining those virtues" is unfounded. The society that Marx or whoever else has tried to establish has nothing to do with personal virtues, just like our current (capitalist) society has nothing to do with personal virtues.

I was referring to Marx's concept of the End of History, when man and the world would fulfill destiny.

I already cleared this up in my response to Loosey, but I may as well sum up for you as well:

- Marx borrowed his philosophical ideas directly from Hegel, who was a Christian spiritualist
- Hegel believed in an End to History when man would gain special consciousness and become free
- Marx adapted this concept for his purposes and also believed in an End of History when man would be free
- Under Marxism, History moves in stages of economic systems, with the final stage being Communism
- In this final stage, man was supposed to have gained a higher consciousness (from exposure to Marxist ideals)
- Because of this higher consciousness the world was supposed to become perfect: free from contradictions
- Such a perfect utopian world was supposed to be free of problems and conflicts, with no human error

In other words, a world in which humans are as perfect as God himself. World-creating, perfect beings.

This is what I was referring to when I said Marxism requires a an unrealistic view of the world.

> If you read more anthropological studies you may understand this better. Even in Book 8 and 9 of Plato's Republic, Socrates calls for collective parenthood. My point is that what you regard as human nature or godly is just a small slice of all human history. When other people behave differently from you, it isn't at all because they are morally "perfect."

Plato was also guilty of magical thinking. He had this concept about the quality of one's soul dictating their station in life.

But in truth, few humans have the empathy to care about strangers from a distance. They tend to only care when it inconveniences them by being in close proximity. Many people have anti-social personalities, not only sociopaths, but also narcissist's incapable of recognizing their own immoral actions. Many such people become politicians or authority figures, so I will never fully trust any government. Rather, government power should be checked by competing structures, including a population intolerant of tyranny.

Furthermore, I will not trust any stranger until I know them enough to cross "sociopath" or "narcissist" off the list of possible disorders they may have. Not to mention drug addiction or schizophrenia. Not to mention those who simply have opposing views about the world, politics, religion, culture, morality. There is no way I would trust "the community" to raise my children, considering the community has far too many predators who would take advantage of such gullibility.

But you seem to have the idea that family is important, which is true. It's the core of a society. But society itself is not a family. I don't know you. I wouldn't trust you to watch a dog I cared about, much less a kid.

Sorry.

@potterchess said in #67:
> Start with Marx's concept of the "End of History." I'll provide some context to start with.
>
> In his youth Marx studied Hegel and later borrowed heavily from Hegelian philosophy. Hegel predicted the End of History in "Introduction to The Philosophy of History" when Man acquired higher awareness and become free. Basically, Marx took Hegel's philosophy and changed it from spiritual to material (Hegel was a Christian spiritualist), as a basis to construct his social theories. So if you want to understand Marx, you have to understand Hegel's spiritual beliefs.
>
> Marx wrote about an "End of History" when man would realize gain a higher consciousness (as a species-being) and become free from economic conditions. He speculated that History moved in stages from regressive to progressive. Basically he said it goes like this: agricultural, feudal, capitalist, socialist and finally communist. In this final stage, man was supposed to have a new consciousness capable instituting Marxism so perfectly that there is no need for a government. This was the Hegelian-Marxist utopia. A place where everything is perfect, forever and ever.
>

Nice! No quotes again! You say “Marx wrote about an "End of History"”. No he didn’t. And you know it because you searched for it. And I know it because I also searched for it. So the only thing you have achieved so far with your response is that you made me aware that you found nothing. It is good to know that there was something productive out of this exchange.

And you know that you can prove me wrong easily. One quote is all you need...

Most importantly, that’s your response specifically to my question why you think that you know what Marx said without reading Marx and to my point that you cannot rely on third souces. What exactly were you trying to achieve? To validate my points? I don't know what to say.

> This is what I mean when I say Marxism assumes man can become perfect. Because man gains a higher consciousness, the world man makes is perfectly managed. No problems or conflicts, a pure paradise. Hegel thought man would reach a divine state, free from contradictions. Marx had basically the same concept. Hegel's philosophy was rooted in spiritualism, rather than practical facts about the real world. This is also where the New Age hippie stuff comes from. History is supposed to be moving toward the divine end-point.
>
> So basically, Marx took new age spiritual mumbo jumbo and built his social theory on top.

Here you admit that it is your conclusion that Marx assumes man can become perfect. Apart from this, no quote provided, no evidence provided. Just a bunch of claims. You understand that just stating one’s beliefs has no proving value, isn’t it?.

> There are plenty writings and books comparing the work of Hegel and Marx, feel free to start there.

Really? I should not start from reading Marx himself or Hegel? I should start from reading how others interpret what they said? To my proposal to read Marx instead of what others say about him, if you want to argue about Marx, that’s your counter proposal?? Now, everything comes together.

Finally, because you apparently missed my main point, I will reiterate. Feel free to dismiss all the above, but try to focus on the following passage. It will be very helpful if when you read it, you stop thinking about how to respond, but you just imagine you are all alone and there is no one to confront.

@Loosy said in #65:
> At the end of the day, who cares if Marx got anything right?! What matters is how to improve our society. At least that is my concern.
>
> On that matter you claim that “But we have a good thing going, which can be improved incrementally”. Quite an impressive claim! How would one know this unless they are a prophet of some kind?! How much incrementally?? In fact, I think that anyone understands that this cannot be supported. Even if Marx was totally wrong, there is no way to show that there doesn’t exist another surprising solution. You support this claim by the justification that “it's impossible to have a perfect idealized society run by humans” which you reiterate “perfection is impossible”. I tend to agree with this. But still, it is irrelevant. There is no logical way to deduce from this that human society cannot become considerably better or even infinitely better. How can you exclude that there are no ideas that no one has thought of so far that can have a huge impact? How can you know that there are not infinitely many incremental improvements? Even if perfection is not possible, that doesn’t exclude infinite improvement.
>
> To be sincere, I think that statements like “can be improved incrementally” only give away a reluctance to engage with the problem. I think that you need to ask yourself why you spend so much time fighting the people who are trying to solve the problem (without even actually reading what they say), instead of ignoring them, if you prefer, and focusing on finding better solutions yourself.

@Loosy said in #69:
> Nice! No quotes again! You say “Marx wrote about an "End of History". No he didn’t.

Honestly, I thought Marxists would be better educated in the basic theories they propose as solutions for the world. Marxism is Hegelianism turned on it's head. This is not under dispute. For instance, in 'Capital' Volume One Marx states that he stood Hegelianism "right-side up" to "discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell." Examples of Marx's inversion of Hegelianism peppered throughout his entire body writing.

In 'The Hegel-Marx Connection' by Howard Williams, the Hegelian comparison is broken down simply. Both Hegel and Marx believed of human history falls into distinct stages. These stages represent a change in historical development from primitive to progressive history. During the end-stage man develops awareness or special consciousness and becomes free. For Hegel this end-point is a perfected Protestant world, for Marx it is communist society. Both Hegel and Marx view history as teleological, in other words destiny or design to History.

Here is an socialist article about how Marxism is Hegelianism turned on it's head:
www.thecollector.com/what-do-hegel-and-marx-have-in-common/

In Hegel's view, History progressed through a dialectic between the 'spirit' and the 'idea' (zeitgeist and weltgeist). In Marx's view, History progressed through a dialectic conflict through class struggle. According to Marx, the only obstacle to human freedom was material conditions. If you just abolish private property, the world's problems fade away. But he fails to take into account the many problems due to human limitation. Mental problems like narcissism, sociopathy, schizophrenia and simple human stupidity are driving factors in most of the worlds problems.

> At the end of the day, who cares if Marx got anything right?!

Ah, finally a hint of desperation.

If Marx got everything wrong, then Communism must come under question. The fundamental assumptions of Communism stem from these dubious German philosophical ramblings from the 1800s. Hegel must be to understood to understand Marx, because Marxism is Hegelianism with The Spirit removed and replaced with political Activists. If Hegelianism was nonsense, then Marx build all of his writing on top of nonsense. In essence, Marxism is the bastard child of Hegelianism. The key difference is material in place of spirit.

>To be sincere, I think

I'm honestly not concerned. What you've demonstrated is rudeness, an inability to engage with complex ideas, and unwillingness to do research on your own. For some reason, you think referencing the works of other scholars is an invalid way to discuss Marx. Now you appear to abandon the notion that Marx must have correct theories. Great.

For your information, Hegel and Marx also though History was improved incrementally. It was supposed to gradually be improved by dialectical conflict towards a perfected state of existence. All I'm saying, basically, is that when you set aside unrealistic idealism, what you have left is the pragmatic view that what we have is more-or-less the best available option. Since there is no such thing as a utopian human society, the only option that remains is the least bad society available. I reject idealism and unrealistic theories of history.

There is not much more to say. Continue to insult me and accusations if you wish. It's not productive.