[YouTube] The Truth About Karl Marx

[Freedomain]

Karl Heinrich Marx is known as a German philosopher, economist and revolutionary socialist. How did the man who railed against economic and sexual exploitation treat those around him? What...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA2lCBJu2Gg

[Lians]

Nice show! Keep knocking down the idols! I'll also second the "Intellectuals" book recommendation.

 

To quote from 16:00 in the video:

 

Marx had these theories from the beginning and went out as Engels did, as we'll see, to find proof for that which he already was convinced was the absolute truth.

 

Marx actually joined the "Young Hegelians" because he was dissatisfied with Kant's treatment of the fact-value dichotomy that had acquired a lot of influence at the time. Much to Marx's satisfaction, Hegel fervently rejected this dichotomy. The supposedly objective and universal labour theory of value was in the making long before Marx came up with it consciously. Talk about bias.

 

Sources:

http://ssr1.uchicago.edu/PRELIMS/Theory/marx.html

 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=o0Kl1D-rVTYC&pg=PA321

[Tony Crowe]

I listened to the video earlier while I was cooking a brunch. I was appalled by the tale and nearly lost my appetite which is a difficult thing to happen with me. It also raised questions in me which I will pose to you.

 

In conversations I've heard people say "I used to be a Marxist." Does that mean they lived as he lived, lived as he spoke, or had a passing interest in his work? Something else? Did you ever consider yourself a Marxist?

 

I'm guessing some people go over this information in college. Is that right? Does the material they're buying in school include what is discussed in the video by Stefan and the book he references, "Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson? In university do students discuss Marx's alleged use of the dark side?

 

Lastly, how did you feel when you watched the video above?

[Lians]

I listened to the video earlier while I was cooking a brunch. I was appalled by the tale and nearly lost my appetite which is a difficult thing to happen with me. It also raised questions in me which I will pose to you.

 

In conversations I've heard people say "I used to be a Marxist." Does that mean they lived as he lived, lived as he spoke, or had a passing interest in his work? Something else? Did you ever consider yourself a Marxist?

 

I'm guessing some people go over this information in college. Is that right? Does the material they're buying in school include what is discussed in the video by Stefan and the book he references, "Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson? In university do students discuss Marx's alleged use of the dark side?

 

Lastly, how did you feel when you watched the video above?

 

I was apolitical prior to encountering Stef's work, so I never considered myself a Marxist, Libertarian or anything like that. I've only encountered Marxists on the internet, so I can't say much about how they live their lives. I suspect a lot of them lead a similar lifestyle. I'd be interested in hearing more about other people's experiences of real-life Marxists.

 

From what I know, Marx's life is somewhat of a dirty secret in leftist academic circles. They don't talk about it in public, but a lot of them are aware of his monstrosity. Formal education doesn't focus much on his life, only on his theories.

 

Similarly to you, I was appalled and disgusted by Marx's life. The man was a monster and it's no surprise that he gave birth to one of the most destructive ideologies that has ever plagued mankind. I already knew much of what was said about him in the video so my response was somewhat dulled compared to yours.

[TheLolGuy]

I once had an interest in Marx and his sidekick Engels some time ago when I considered myself something of a radical socialist. Some of their books still sit on my shelves! I remember trying to study the theory and it being so abstruse that little of it made an impression on me. As far as I know Marx didn't like the label "Marxist" or "Marxian" as it was increasingly being used towards the end of his life. He preferred to push the term "scientific socialism".

 

From my experience of the leftist milieu, we would dote on those we perceived to be the champions of the poor. At the time I was aware of Marx's sordid side but there was an peculiar emotional admiration for the man which led me to look past his glaring personal hypocrisy, unconscionably. At any rate we thought his contributions to the critique of capitalism as we then understood it, were extremely valuable, though many of us didn't even understand much of what that was!

 

It's a very emotional thing for a leftist. When I read the final words of the Communist Manifesto, "workers of the world, UNITE!", I felt galvanised, part of a large and noble cause. In the absence of reason and scepticism, it's easy to be misled by demagogues!

[Tony Crowe]

From what I know, Marx's life is somewhat of a dirty secret in leftist academic circles. They don't talk about it in public, but a lot of them are aware of his monstrosity. Formal education doesn't focus much on his life, only on his theories.

 

Well, I don't know the degree to which academics try to prop him up but that's like grabbing hold of a tree with your hands and trying to uproot it. It's not happening.

 

 

I once had an interest in Marx and his sidekick Engels some time ago when I considered myself something of a radical socialist. Some of their books still sit on my shelves! I remember trying to study the theory and it being so abstruse that little of it made an impression on me. As far as I know Marx didn't like the label "Marxist" or "Marxian" as it was increasingly being used towards the end of his life. He preferred to push the term "scientific socialism".From my experience of the leftist milieu, we would dote on those we perceived to be the champions of the poor. At the time I was aware of Marx's sordid side but there was an peculiar emotional admiration for the man which led me to look past his glaring personal hypocrisy, unconscionably. At any rate we thought his contributions to the critique of capitalism as we then understood it, were extremely valuable, though many of us didn't even understand much of what that was!It's a very emotional thing for a leftist. When I read the final words of the Communist Manifesto, "workers of the world, UNITE!", I felt galvanised, part of a large and noble cause. In the absence of reason and scepticism, it's easy to be misled by demagogues!

 

That's interesting and I appreciate you sharing. So did he speak of unity and other ideals that you liked?

[Mike Fleming]

Brilliant analysis.

 

Marx has the classic profile of a narcissist (I have been intimately familiar with narcs).  They basically only care about themselves but will tell everyone how much they care about others in order to get things off them.  Which seems to me, now that I think about it, to be the basis of the entire Marxist theory.

 

Considering how many narcs there are running around today, I am not surprised it is still popular.

[TheLolGuy]

That's interesting and I appreciate you sharing. So did he speak of unity and other ideals that you liked?

He ostensibly wrote to inspire international solidarity amongst the oppressed, to make conscious the political and economic interests of the working classes, and to expound how the forces of history would inevitably lead to a socialist revolution in which private property, the division of labour, religion and the class system would all of it be eliminated. These are alluring ideas to an alienated and economically illiterate young man, as I was at the time. But I was also aware of the bitter schism between Marx, his "scientific socialists", and other leftist factions, some of whom generally disliked and in some cases despised the extensive theorising. One of his most prominent opponents was Mikhail Bakunin, an anarchist of some vague socialist stripe (whose book I have), who Marx once expelled from the first International (an international assembly of socialists). That actually stimulated my curiosity of anarchism, subsequently I sought out more anarchist thinkers such as Kropotkin, and eventually I found Stef's YouTube videos!

[LovePrevails]

This is a great history lesson and I really enjoyed it,

but I completely disagree that this is not an ad hominem, in fact disagree suggests I am expressing a subjective view

it is objectively an ad homenem

 

like if your doctor smokes but says your smoking is bad for you, discounting the advice would be the tu quoque fallacy

 

"Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument."
 

I think, since this is a philosophy show, the fact that this fallacy is so common it has its own name should have been acknowledged.

Marxism is wrong because of reason and evidence not because Marx himself was a boor.

[Guest NateC]

 

I think, since this is a philosophy show, the fact that this fallacy is so common it has its own name should have been acknowledged.

Marxism is wrong because of reason and evidence not because Marx himself was a boor.

 

My understanding is that the video is not an argument against Marxism but facts about the man who is more a monster than a boor.

[LovePrevails]

My understanding is that the video is not an argument against Marxism but facts about the man who is more a monster than a boor.

 

nonetheless, several minutes at the beginning are dedicated to insisting (falsely) that this is not an adhominem argument.

as for boor vs. monster, what relevance is this semantic issue to the purpose of the post? somehow I knew when I typed it someone would jump upon it

[Lians]

An ad hominem is a statement that is directed at the person rather than the position they are maintaining. This video was about Marx, not Marxism, so there was no need for Stef to focus on Marx's theory. In the beginning of the video, he put forward a heuristic, not an argument. Failure to act consistently with a theory that you espouse, where the option is available, is a good indication of a bad theory. For what it's worth, this is a heuristic that has served me greatly in my life.

[Guest Exceptionalist]

An ad hominem would be to point out, that marx looks like a white sasquatch, therefore has a problem with personal hygiene and people with bad personal hygiene were bad people who'd strangle wifes and eat little kitties for dinner. (ad hominem + straw man argument)

[SirJamesIII]

 The supposedly objective and universal labour theory of value was in the making long before Marx came up with it consciously.

Wasn't it David Ricardo's theory anyway? Ultimately Marx's knowledge was limited to what was available to him at the time and this was before the marginal revolution in economics when subjective value became a thing.

 

He was stuck criticizing the classical economists, who's theories aren't correct either.

[Kevin Beal]

An ad hominem fallacy is only a fallacy insofar as it doesn't constitute proof (not fit for a syllogism). It's not proof, but it is evidence absolutely.

 

On top of that, some definitions of the ad hominem fallacy even limit itself strictly to those facts which are irrelevant. The facts presented regarding hypocrisy are not irrelevant and the whole intro to the video explains why that is.

 

531 – Logical Fallacies Part 1

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_531_Logical_Fallacies_Part_1.mp3

[Alan C.]

Marx's racial bigortry was largely unknown because his more caustic writings were concealed. He referred to certain groups as "racial trash" and "dirty Slavs."

 

Yuri Matlsev talked about this (6m7s mark):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mb5555PCfU#t=6m07s

[Iconoclastic]

Nice to see Stefan covering Marx. I prefer to criticize his theories. I avoid remarks about his person/lifestyle. He was a freak though.

[LovePrevails]

Hey here I have set this video to a part on the character of Paul Jonson who attacks  the character of (only) left wing intellectuals

http://youtu.be/hlpQPR9j7yU?t=11m20s

 

 

comments?

[Kevin Beal]

Hey here I have set this video to a part on the character of Paul Jonson who attacks  the character of (only) left wing intellectuals

http://youtu.be/hlpQPR9j7yU?t=11m20s

 

 

comments?

Stefan very rigorously explains why it's not actually an ad hominem as you had previously stated, in this video:

[LovePrevails]

Ok thanks, but  I am not talking about the term ad-hominem,

 

I clearly said I was pointing to the part of the video where the author talks about Paul Johnson who, it seems, is not such a wholesome fellow himself. And what were the comments on that?

I'm 9 minutes in, I don't see how the "past behaviour is the best indicator of future behaviour" bears any relevance at all on whether the argument commits the genetic fallacy

 

If you were using Karl Marx's past behaviour as a predictor of his future behaviour then sure it would be quite useful

it can't predict the facticity or falsehood of his theories

 

I disagree with the theories of Marx, and I found the video very informative and educational

but it's really an unrelated point

 

does this mean if someone else came up with exactly the same theories as Marx but bought a factory and handed it over to the democratic control of his workers the same exact theories would suddenly become true? It's philosophically bankrupt.

-just got to end of intro so I wait with better breath to be corrected

[Kevin Beal]

It was needlessly confusing for me to quote an unrelated thing you said. (sorry!) What I'm referring to is:

 

I completely disagree that this is not an ad hominem, in fact disagree suggests I am expressing a subjective view

it is objectively an ad homenem

 

Although, the argument also bears on the genetic fallacy insofar as it describes the methodology used to reach their conclusions. It's called the "analytic rejection".

 

Please give it your focus. It's an important thing to understand.

[LovePrevails]

 

Although, the argument also bears on the genetic fallacy insofar as it describes the methodology used to reach their conclusions. It's called the "analytic rejection".

 

Please give it your focus. It's an important thing to understand.

 

Ok, if it's that important I definitely would like to understand it

 

By analytic rejection do you mean that the argument is refuted in its own premises.