You could convince large numbers of workers and soldiers of the need for revolution in Russia in 1917, mainly because Russia was losing WW1 and its monarchy had spent the last 1000 years screwing the majority of the populace over. Relevance to the UK in 2009: zero.

How in hell can Islamists convince any significant number of non-Muslims of the truth of their ideology?

And dislike him all you want, but Lenin wasn't a maniac. And disagree with Marx all you want, but it doesn't make him any less brilliant. You might as well call Jefferson worthless because you don't accept everything he said about revolution or about how the US should develop. You have to approach any past thinker from the context of his times.

Good point about the comparison based on the monarchy and WWI, by you and Letum. I think you both read more into my comment than I intended, it was not meant to be a literal, parallel comparison. No, there is no equivalent to WWI aty present. But that could always change. These guys won't convert the UK to Islam, any more than the Bolsheviks were able to make the deeply Russian peasants forsake their holy church...oh, wait, they did...:) Islamists are making inroads into British society. Give them time. I'm sure the Russian tsar and aristocracy didn't think a few crazy anarchists and communists would ever amount to much either. ;)


Jefferson made some proclamations and statements that would not stand the test of time, but his overarching political philosphy was sound and has stood the test of time. Lenin? Marx? Fools. Their whole philosphy was a sham. And it failed. Like August said, a "brilliant" mind does not cook up a crackpot economic theory that fails. Marx was not brilliant, then or now. He was a dime a dozen rabble rouser, psuedo philosopher. Most of his ideas weren't even original.

I'm curious as to how you formed such an opinion of Marx.
I have said before that I am a big Popper fan and I agree with him fully,
but the failings of the historicist approach certainly doesn't make Marx a
"fool".

Just because you are wrong, it doesn't mean you are not a genius.
There are only two types of scientist and philosopher; those who have
been shown to be wrong or incomplete and those who are about to be.

There's a vast amount of scientific and philosophical territory between wrong and incomplete just as there is a vast amount of territory between science and philosophy. I don't see the relevance of comparing the two.

Nor do I see the respect some folks pay to Karl Marx. He was nothing more than an indolent bum who cheated on his wife and lived hand to mouth leaching off his friends.

We're supposed to see him as some sort of genius? I'm sorry but I just can't.

I'm reminded of a movie I saw, in which some guy on a small island (with a tiny population of like 30 people) takes over the newspaper there. He asks the guy he's taking over from:

"How do you come up with news to print in this place?"

The answer came back:

"I look to the horizon. If I see a cloud I print 'Huge storm threatens island.' The next day, if there was no storm, I print 'Huge storm narrowly missed island.'"

Kinda like Socrates, the lazy bastard. Can we dismiss Socratic thought now?

Ever read Capital? Does it read the like the product of an indolent bum?

Certainly no other influential historical figures have ever cheated on their wives. It's not like it's common or anything. :roll:

What's more important - the content of his thought, or his character?

You can't separate the two in my opinion.

No, his predictions simply fell short of his analysis, which was really insightful back then and parts of it even today.
And he allegedly said, "I know but one thing for sure: That I am not a Marxist."

I agree with Shearwater here. Marx was a competent observer of the sttaus quo in his time, and this is what makes his value. His predictions for the future are what is much more flawed, and even more messy are his conclusions on what to do therefore - obviously heavily formed by his habit to live on tick and at the cost of friends who came up for his living. He was used to let others pay for his living, and you can see that reflected in Marxist theory until today.

Marx was no great theoretician, but a great observer of actual states and conditions which he described with great precision. See him as not less - but also not as more.

And yes, I have had my share of reading "The Capital" back then, although it is long time ago. ;)

Er... didn't I see you quoting Ronald Reagan earlier?

Edit:
Yeah, in yer sig!

OK Lancecorporal,
Thats simple, Rednecks are seen as backwards idiots with very strange views that they hold strongly and which no amount of reasoning will get them to reconsider or reappraise, just like the muslim fundamentalist idiots in the opening article are.

Back to the etymology of the term .
You refer to late 19th early 20th century and call it of questionable provenance.
The term in America is established in the early 19th century, there are at least 3 publications from the same decade which use it specificly in that manner, though as an interesting side note "cracker" which has even earlier origins was being applied specificly to scottish and ulster-scots presbyterian settlers in Georgia 70 years earlier than the 1830s use of redneck to describe them.
Also of interest with the link to the confederacy is that one of those 1830s literary references to rednecks was written by an anglican minister whose descendant became a rather famous confederate general.

Visit the Knights party website, I am unsure if it is permissible to post link to it on this forum due to the nature of the material it contains. Or look at a certain ulster-scots presbyterian minister giving a speech to the EU.

That would take a post which would make Skybirds longest contributions seem like mere footnotes.

There were many contributing factors, State rights were the main issue but also the issue over new states and the issue of slavery in territories which wanted statehood. Bleeding Kansas is a good example of a precursor to the war.

what is funny is that you appear to make assumptions about my views on that topic when I have written nothing about it and then go off on those assumptions.
Likewise with ....
...though what makes that even funnier is that people were hailing Irelands recent "economic miracle" with its unrestricted free market approach coupled with de-regulation and corporate tax reductions as a great success that other countries should emulate, when the truth is that it is a thoroughly corrupt country which was following the same path that Thatcher used of an artificial bubble which will inevitably be followed by a massive downturn(though the difference is that Britain had the capacity to ride out the downturn better). Even calling it the Celtic Tiger should have been a clue for those who were hailing it as a success if they had looked at the pattern the asian tigers economies followed.
So once again you made an assuption and went off on it, but this time managed to attribute a position to me which was more akin to that which many of the republican(and Democrat) politicians were using.

That is strange since I often just pose questions (sometimes quite cryptic) for people to answer for themselves.

Did I refer to you as such?

See above.

Actually I question just about everything, and if the state told me it was tuesday I would check a calendar before I believed it to be true.

I cannot agree with that statement. They must be separate otherwise one cannot learn from or appreciate much of anything; all human works are created by flawed human beings.

Take for example art. Some of the greatest artists who ever lived were wretched, awful persons themselves. It's one of the great ironies of life that some of the best ideas and works ever created, were created by some of the most horrible people you can imagine.

It is the product that matters most, not the person who created it. If you do not separate author and product, then your view becomes compromised by your own biases and you cannot properly form rational opinions about the product.


This next little bit is directed at Tribesman. This is not a personal attack, more just my observations with a few gentle suggestions.

You strike me as a person of good intelligence and that you come bearing some knowledge. Yet your posts do not tend to convey that message very often. The biggest problem from my view, is that you approach posting here with a condescending, self superior attitude. You are quick to ridicule those that disagree with you, yet you do not tend to offer much in solid counter argument to refute what they say.

As a result you do not receive much respect from the more established and skillful debaters here, since you offer little respect to them. I think that if you approached posting with a more respectful tone, and with more rational forms of argumentation, that you would receive much more respect back in turn, and be held in higher regard.

The choice however is up to you, just don't be too surprised if your posts start getting ignored or are systematically dissected and summarily refuted if you continue this way. Yes you are intelligent and knowledgeable, but there are others here who are more so, so don't wax to much in the glory of your own ego.


@Lance

I wasn't aware that you regularly disagreed with me :03:. I've always felt that in basic terms you and I desire similar end results, but we don't quite agree on the best way to reach those results. My aim is to find the best balance in things, to achieve the greatest good for all, and with the greatest fairness possible for all. As such I do not consider myself neither left nor right, but see value in some of the concepts from both sides. I do realize though that I can appear to have leftist leanings here, but mostly because I am counterbalancing against what i see as being a rightist majority (I'll happily rip into socialism and communism as anything else).

At any rate I have always enjoyed your posts and hold you in high regard as well. Even if we do not always see eye to eye, you do present your arguments very well and I respect that.


Back to the topic... I have to admit that I am also getting very very uneasy about Islam. I try very hard to be fair and open minded, but it is hard to be so with regards to a society and religion that is neither fair nor open minded. They are going to take over in the end if things continue, not by changing and converting us, but by colonizing and out breeding us. Once they have majority in a country, that country will be forced into submission to Islam (as has already been going on in Africa and east asia). I see war over this looming in the horizon, assuming the west has not entirely lost its will to get into a real and bloody fight. Something it hasn't had much stomach for since Korea.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. Anyone who thinks their heroes have no character flaws is sadly and worryingly deluded.

Good to read that, Samurai :up:
Following the discussions around here, I just wonder whether the use of smileys (especially the :haha: and :har: ones) should be regulated.
Ridicule destroys every discussion.

NeonSamurai,

:salute:.

I wish I could manage to be so determined in my statements yet be so well-moderated in my tone. Where I think I usually do not leave anything to be desired regarding the first, I possibly often lack in the latter.