NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think is the best (or just your favorite) political/economic thinker of all time. I know there are more than are on the poll, but I can only fit so many. I think my favorite is Marx/Engles.

Julius Caesar.

Not to be* pedantic, but what do you mean by best? The most influencial, or the one[s] that we personally like the ideas of the best

*I realise this is the same as "I'm not [blank] but..." Which is a disclaimer that the speaker is about to say something [blank]

Who do you think is the best (or just your favorite) political/economic thinker of all time. I know there are more than are on the poll, but I can only fit so many. I think my favorite is Marx/Engles.

I never knew Marx and Engels merged. :p

Mine is probably Adam Smith or Edmund Burke.

Me.

:headbang: <-- me doing political thinking

Somebody once told about a phillosipher who spent all his days inside a barrel who would insult passers by in the street. I can't remember his name but I vote for him - Barrel-Boy

John Locke. Two Treatises on Civil Government and A Letter Concerning Tolerance. Rock on!

I'd have to say that the greatest thinker of all time has to be yours truely, Jonathan Waddisky. My theory believes in a ruling class, mainly because I rule.

ProMonkians Somebody once told about a phillosipher who spent all his days inside a barrel who would insult passers by in the street. I can't remember his name but I vote for him - Barrel-Boy

I think you mean Oscar the Grouch from Sesame Street. Yeah, he was cool, but I think Plato provided the best framework to consider political questions. Not only did he provide a model for an ideal society, but he suggested certain criteria in setting up new systems. He gets my vote.

For me, John Locke. His ideas were practically the foundation for American democracy. Voltaire comes in a close second. Why? Because his name is freakin Voltaire. How awesome is that?

John Locke. Two Treatises on Civil Government and A Letter Concerning Tolerance. Rock on!
I had a hard time making my decision. If I hadn't gone with Marx, it would have been Locke for sure.

I said Voltaire just because he was writing long before the American/French revolutions

George Orwell for political thinker.

For me, John Locke. His ideas were practically the foundation for American democracy. Voltaire comes in a close second. Why? Because his name is freakin Voltaire. How awesome is that?
Wasn't that just his pen name? I thought my history teacher said somehitng about that not being his real name when we had to read that one book for class... what was it called?... "Candide"! That was it. Good stuff. A lot more interesting than "The Prince" by Machiavelli. That was incredibly boring. Anyways, does anybody know if Voltaire was his real name or what?

For me it's Rousseau. His Social Contract was absolutely brilliant and he ended up fuelling hundreds of years of political discourse in France. Although, I do admit, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are a close second - influencing Democracy and Absolutism, which both became the two largest political philosophies of our time.
Although, VOLTAIRE! Anyone read 'Philosophical Letters On The English'? Its actually quite funny when you read between the lines.

Somebody once told about a phillosipher who spent all his days inside a barrel who would insult passers by in the street. I can't remember his name but I vote for him - Barrel-Boy

Diogenes.

He was fantastice, he took the piss totally. He also occasionally would walk around during the day-time with a lit lamp looking for a human being. Also had the guts to tell Alexander the Great to get out of his sun light when he asked Diogenes a question. (Was that in the film, shoulda been if it wasn't).

Marx. Communism failed the test, but his thinking was incredible. The Communist Manifesto is fascinating, and I reccomend that you all read it. He had the whole thing planned out. He even predicted the revolution for crying out loud.

Wasn't that just his pen name? I thought my history teacher said somehitng about that not being his real name when we had to read that one book for class... what was it called?... "Candide"! That was it. Good stuff. A lot more interesting than "The Prince" by Machiavelli. That was incredibly boring. Anyways, does anybody know if Voltaire was his real name or what?

Francois Marie Arouet.

And Candide is good.

Marx. Communism failed the test, but his thinking was incredible. The Communist Manifesto is fascinating, and I reccomend that you all read it. He had the whole thing planned out. He even predicted the revolution for crying out loud.
This is why I voted for him too. And communism may have failed the first time around, but there are always second chances right? Obviously not pure communism, but I could see an environment where would have the chance to sucseed.

Wasn't that just his pen name? I thought my history teacher said somehitng about that not being his real name when we had to read that one book for class... what was it called?... "Candide"! That was it. Good stuff. A lot more interesting than "The Prince" by Machiavelli. That was incredibly boring. Anyways, does anybody know if Voltaire was his real name or what?
i dont know if it was a pen name, but Candide was brilliant, very witty

Marx. Communism failed the test, but his thinking was incredible. The Communist Manifesto is fascinating, and I reccomend that you all read it. He had the whole thing planned out. He even predicted the revolution for crying out loud.

Marxism is not the only form of communism.

And the Communism practised by Lenin and the Bolsheviks was far more influenced by Engels and the other early Marxists (such as Kautsky) who changed a lot of what Marx thought and expanded a lot if to ridiculous lengths. (Needless to say, I still think that Marx was wrong though).

It should be obvious who is my favorite. Think about it.

camus - couldn't be arsed with too much politics unlike sartre. wasn't a fan of society. l'étranger is nice and short.

camus - couldn't be arsed with too much politics unlike sartre. wasn't a fan of society. l'étranger is nice and short.

Nice, short and depressing. He was cool though, killed himself accidentally driving a sports car off a cliff i believe. That guy was so cool.

Nice, short and depressing. He was cool though, killed himself accidentally driving a sports car off a cliff i believe. That guy was so cool.

finished reading crash by j g ballard a couple of weeks ago and camus' crash is one of vaughn's wank fantasies.

It should be obvious who is my favorite. Think about it.

Montesquieu was one of the ones I had a hard time leaving off the list in the poll. In retrospect, I should have had nim on and Nietzsche off. I mean, who's going to vote for the guy who wrote "The Overman and the Will to Power"? Oh well, hindsight is 20/20. And besides, I needed to balance out the list somehow.

Frederick (sp?) Douglas. Yay civil rights.

The greatest political thinker of all time is just too hard to chose. So I setteled for economic and voted for good old Adam.

For those who don't know, Charles de Montesquieu was the first major supporter of seperation of powers. His ideas about splitting judicial, legislative, and executive powers within the government are the basis for the American system of representative democracy.

Diogenes.

He was fantastice, he took the piss totally. He also occasionally would walk around during the day-time with a lit lamp looking for a human being. Also had the guts to tell Alexander the Great to get out of his sun light when he asked Diogenes a question. (Was that in the film, shoulda been if it wasn't).

Thanks.

Yeah I vote for DIOGENES OF SINOPE

Plato rocks :D

You're abit short of liberals. (And with john locke I can't get over his bullshit arguments to support property as a natural right). Come on people! Liberalism is so dominant right now that even Bush is arguing the only true democracy is a liberal democracy. Even if he doesn't like to use the 'L' word.

To be honest, I haven't found anyone I agree with about everything. So I probably vote for me then.

J S Mill and J Rawls deserve a mention too.

J S Mill pretty much shaped the UK/US view of justice and liberty.

And J Rawls reinvigorated political philosophy in the 20th C. His theory of justice was really impressive, and highlighted alot of the contradictions in western societies, if still flawed as a cohesive philisophical argument itself.

Oh... and plato sucks as a political philosopher.

Philosopher kings?

Come on.

John Stuart Mill definately deserves recognition.

Hegel.

Adam Smith easily beats the others. We can see his theories in action, whereas some, like Marx, are only mythical.

Marx. Communism failed the test, but his thinking was incredible. The Communist Manifesto is fascinating, and I reccomend that you all read it. He had the whole thing planned out. He even predicted the revolution for crying out loud.
It occurred to me that Communism is just the forerunner of the class-warfare demagogery we have the Democrats engaged in. Marx didn't care beans about economics, he was interested in political power. What better way to get the masses to support you than to convince them that they were downtrodden and needed to cast off their oppressors. "Useful Idiots" is a phrase I seem to associate with one of those communist guys, isn't it?

Marx wasn't a demagogue himself though.

But I think to have him as the 'best' political thinker really can't be right. How wrong can one man be? Very wrong it seems.

Smith has got to be up there, just because it was a very revolutionary way of thinking about things at the time, and has laid the foundation for modern economics. Other economic theories have come and gone but it always comes back to Smith.

More political thinkers rarely impress me much, probably because my views of government and politics are extremely practical. 'Political theory' seems to me to be rather contradictory in terms, though I concede that it has had a very long and illustrious history.

Adam Smith easily beats the others. We can see his theories in action, whereas some, like Marx, are only mythical.

You say this and vote for "other". With no explanation. I am just curious, which other?

It occurred to me that Communism is just the forerunner of the class-warfare demagogery we have the Democrats engaged in. Marx didn't care beans about economics, he was interested in political power. What better way to get the masses to support you than to convince them that they were downtrodden and needed to cast off their oppressors. "Useful Idiots" is a phrase I seem to associate with one of those communist guys, isn't it?

That would sense if Marx was in the position to attain any political or economic power as a result of his writings.

But he wasn't, and he knew if. (In fact, although I disagree with that applying to Marx, it certainly makes sence to apply it to the early Marxists around after his death)

That would sense if Marx was in the position to attain any political or economic power as a result of his writings.

But he wasn't, and he knew if. (In fact, although I disagree with that applying to Marx, it certainly makes sence to apply it to the early Marxists around after his death)
The fact that he didn't reap the rewards of his efforts doesn't mean that his motives were pure. He was certainly involved in politics, why wouldn't he try to create some influence? The class warfare idea is certainly a powerful one, if you can find a population dumb enough to fall for it.

Thomas Hobbes.

I disagree with him on several points. Nevertheless, the Leviathan is an awesome achievement, his insights are both powerful and clear, and I think it is impossible to discuss the problem of political obligation without considering Hobbes.

The fact that he didn't reap the rewards of his efforts doesn't mean that his motives were pure. He was certainly involved in politics, why wouldn't he try to create some influence? The class warfare idea is certainly a powerful one, if you can find a population dumb enough to fall for it.

While I wouldn't so far as to say that his motives were completely altruistic. I am still not buying what you are saying. If he was concerned with gaining power/influence, he wouldn't have acted like he did when at University or even when he was a newspaper editor.

He had the opportunity to be a weathly, influencial individual. Yet he turned his back on that life. Not really the actions of someone looking for influence.

While I wouldn't so far as to say that his motives were completely altruistic. I am still not buying what you are saying. If he was concerned with gaining power/influence, he wouldn't have acted like he did when at University or even when he was a newspaper editor.

He had the opportunity to be a weathly, influencial individual. Yet he turned his back on that life. Not really the actions of someone looking for influence.
Well, maybe he really did stumble on a really great theory. Not communism, that's stupid, but the idea that you could turn a population against itself. Too bad he can't get royalties from todays Democrats.

Karl Marx is obviously by far the greatest political philosopher in history and his ideas today are just as valid as they were when they were written 150 years ago. I would strongly recommend anyone to read the Communist Manifesto or any other of his political writings which can all be viewed on the internet at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/index.htm.

Karl Marx is obviously by far the greatest political philosopher in history and his ideas today are just as valid as they were when they were written 150 years ago. I would strongly recommend anyone to read the Communist Manifesto or any other of his political writings which can all be viewed on the internet at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/index.htm.
So which one of Marx's ideas has ever been practical? I mean which has ever been put into practice and succeeded? Aside from the fact that you can make class warfare work.

So which one of Marx's ideas has ever been practical? I mean which has ever been put into practice and succeeded? Aside from the fact that you can make class warfare work.

If you follow Marx's writings, he never came up with class warfare ;)

So which one of Marx's ideas has ever been practical? I mean which has ever been put into practice and succeeded?

You've seen the 'Smurfs'.

his ideas today are just as valid as they were when they were written 150 years ago.

I completely agree... ;)

You've seen the 'Smurfs'.
I bow to the magnificence of Communism. Wait weren't they French? Strompfs, or something?

Of ye olden time, Marx, Voltaire and Nietzsche. All three were brilliant, in their own ways, even though they all have some ideas I disagree with.

The best modern day thinker is probably Noam Chomsky. He's absolutely amazing, and I agree with almost all of his ideas. He's sort of my hero as well.

I bow to the magnificence of Communism. Wait weren't they French? Strompfs, or something?

Papa Marx smurf got the beard going. Them blue bastards...

Communism is all talk...

Karl Marx is obviously by far the greatest political philosopher in history and his ideas today are just as valid as they were when they were written 150 years ago. I would strongly recommend anyone to read the Communist Manifesto or any other of his political writings which can all be viewed on the internet at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/index.htm.
I totally agree. Of all the things I've read fo my Hon. History of Western Thought class last year and my AP Euro History class this year, the Communist Manifesto was the most intruiging and mad e the most sense. Karl Marx, without question, is the greatest economic/political thinker of all time.

Papa Marx smurf got the beard going. Them blue bastards...

Communism is all talk...
But "brilliant" talk, if we are to believe all the disciples that are posting. Too bad for them it isn't practical. That's the true test of an idea, isn't it? If you can make it work in the real world, then it's a workable idea. Maybe even a good idea. If it needs special conditions, tender loving care, and Mother Nature's smile before it can succeed, then it just doesn't cut it.

But "brilliant" talk, if we are to believe all the disciples that are posting. Too bad for them it isn't practical. That's the true test of an idea, isn't it? If you can make it work in the real world, then it's a workable idea. Maybe even a good idea. If it needs special conditions, tender loving care, and Mother Nature's smile before it can succeed, then it just doesn't cut it.

Not even then. Marxism, as Marx saw it at any rate, can never work. Since it rest on the idea of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and as was pointed out whilst Marx was still alive, dictatorships don't just disappear.

So which one of Marx's ideas has ever been practical? I mean which has ever been put into practice and succeeded? Aside from the fact that you can make class warfare work.

Karl Marx's ideas have never been fully put into practice. Much of what he said however has been proven to be correct and 150 years ago he accurately predicated the globalisation of the economy under capitalism. It is also clear that Capitalism today is failing millions of people and that is why 150 million people were thrown into poverty as a result of capitalism in the former USSR. It is also why poverty in Africa has greatly increased over the last 40 years due to the neoliberal policies forced on 3rd world countires by the IMF and World Bank. As a result of free market reforms Zambia went from being the richest country in Africa to the poorest. Similar reforms were also responsible for the collapse of the Argentinian economy several years ago. here is an article from http://www.marxist.com which explians Marx's ideas in more deatil:

Marx was right: it's official!

A decade ago in the heady days of 'capitalism's final triumph', when the New World Order was announced and the End of History proclaimed, the century old industry of writing learned tomes under which to bury the ideas of Marxism appeared to have become redundant.

New volumes began to line the library shelves to explain that capitalism was the height of human social evolution. In passing one notes the low level of ambition of these people who believe that a system that leaves two thirds of the world's population in dire poverty, that keeps a billion people unemployed or underemployed, is the best that we can achieve.

Yet before one could finish reading a single volume of these confused scribblings, the New World Order choked beneath the ashes of war in the Balkans; the south east Asian economies collapsed; leaving the New Paradigm hanging by the single thread of the innovations associated with new technology.

More recently bourgeois writers have begun to question just how long the economy can continue to grow, and whether maybe their triumphalism has turned out to be somewhat premature. The writings of George Soros and Paul Krugman, analysed in these pages previously, fall into this category.

Today one finds new works particularly in the field of economics not only questioning the new paradigm, they even question whether the system can continue at all. Still more astonishing is the number of articles, essays and books one now finds quoting, even praising, the ideas of Karl Marx.

These intellectual giants are astounded to discover that Marx accurately predicted the development of their beloved globalisation over 150 years ago.

John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge of The Economist, for example, comment in their new book A Future Perfect: The Challenge and Hidden Promise of Globalisation: "As a prophet of socialism Marx may be kaput; but as a prophet of the 'universal interdependence of nations' as he called globalisation, he can still seem startlingly relevant... his description of globalisation remains as sharp today as it was 150 years ago."

Indeed on reading the Communist Manifesto today one is amazed at how contemporary Marx's words appear. Not just the growth and interdependence of the world market is predicted here,

"In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations." But also the domination of that market by a handful of monopolies and the centralisation and concentration of capital that this represents: "It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands."

The reduction of the workforce to the role of slaves to the machine, "in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time, or by increased speed of machinery,"

More importantly we find the reason for these developments, the contradiction between the expansion of the forces of production and the narrow limits imposed by the twin straitjackets of capitalism - the private ownership of the means of production and the borders of nation states, "The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them."

Running like a red thread through all this new found passing praise of Marx is the rider "of course socialism failed." However such an off the cuff, unsubstantiated assertion will not fool the new generation of workers and youth who are discovering the ideas of Marxism in their search for a solution and a future. Whilst it remains true, and a crime of truly historic proportions, that Stalinism dragged the names of Marx and Lenin through the mud, the accomplishments of capital to date in Russia and Eastern Europe are hardly inspirational. The attempt to restore the market has brought not prosperity but prostitution, profits for the few but misery for the many. This is not to defend or justify the crimes of Stalinism. On the contrary, the disaster in Russia today should clarify that it was not the absence of the market that was the problem but the lack of democracy. It was not the nationalised economy but the suffocating, dead weight of bureaucracy and corruption which strangled the Soviet Union. The one element of the October revolution remaining, albeit in a barely recognisable, perverted form, namely a state owned economy, enabled Russia to develop from a backward country to the second power on the planet. However the monstrous bureaucracy and its totalitarian dictatorship which leeched off the life blood of the planned economy doomed it.

Without democracy, control over all aspects of society by the working class, socialism was never created in Russia. It speaks volumes that in addition to their many crimes the Soviet bureaucracy with the immense resources at their disposal came up with not one single original thought. Compare that to the accomplishments of poverty stricken Karl Marx.

The Soviet bureaucracy however were concerned only with their own survival and the survival of their privileges. They developed not one new idea, instead they attempt now to turn the clock back by restoring capitalism. What we saw in Russia was not socialism. Socialism could never be built within the confines of a single country, even one the size of Russia.

Today's new generation discovering Marxism will see this easily enough. Even now in their newfound appreciation of some of Marx's conclusions these learned bourgeois academics are unable to take the next logical step and ask why Marx came to correct conclusions. This is not a question the bourgeois are keen to answer. If on not one, or two, but many occasions a method leads to correct conclusions it would seem reasonable to assume that the theory was correct. A 'lucky guess' is not likely to be repeated often. Yet the prediction of the development of the world market does not drive them to read more of Marx or to accept that not only his conclusions but also his method was and remains correct. Such keen insights were not simply a work of intuitive genius - though there is no doubt that Marx and Engels stood head and shoulders above our modern day intellectual giants. Marx's ideas represented everything that was best in the achievements of the bourgeoisie, bringing together the best of English political economy, French sociology and German philosophy. From this new height they were able to see far indeed.

Understanding the world

Their method was their great accomplishment. Using it we can understand the world around us today, expose the myths of the new paradigm and the new world order, and offer a way out of crisis ridden capitalism. That is why the dreaded question 'Why was Marx right?' is one the bourgeois refuse to address. Instead they attempt to find some less disturbing reason. Take Micklethwait and Wooldridge again. They praise Marx for recognising that "The more successful globalisation becomes the more it seems to whip up its own backlash." This is a common theme in these books, that the market itself is undermining capitalism. To use Marx's own words, "The development of modern industry, therefore cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own gravediggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." Such conclusions are of deep concern to our authors. There is no mistaking their unwilling agreement, "There is also a suspicion that globalisation's psychic energy - the uncertainty that it creates which forces companies, governments and people to perform better - may have a natural stall point, a moment when people can take no more."

As absurd as the explanation seems there is more than a grain of truth in it. It is true that the crisis of the system, as it reaches its limits, causes the ruling class to split and divide over what to do next, unable to see a way out of the looming impasse. Yet the crisis is not caused by their confusion, but their confusion by the crisis. Capitalism has very real limits caused by the expansion of the productive forces beyond the borders imposed both by nation states and private ownership. Ideas and philosophies are created and changed by events in the physical world not by "psychic energy." Why is this of any importance? Well, to blame outside forces is to say that in principle capitalism can work fine, but the people running it, their lack of confidence etc, are causing crises. This is one big confidence trick. What robs the bourgeoisie of their confidence is the very real crisis of their system and their lack of an answer. If our writers started from an analysis of the material world, and the impact that events in it have on all classes in society as Marx's method would demand, they too would be forced to conclude that the crisis of the system is very real and intractable. Capitalism increasingly reaches its "stall point" the very real limit it imposes on society, on our ability to create wealth, to harness and use the world's resources safely and efficiently. As Marx also repeatedly explained, however, the bourgeoisie will not accept this and retire gracefully. Fortunately Marx's ideas are not meant simply to convince the bourgeoisie to change their tune. That would be utopian. Marxism instead has the goal of arming the working class and the youth for the revolutionary struggle needed to change society.

Capitalism's genome

In the three volumes of Capital, which represent capitalism's genome, there is more than enough argument to convince a thinking bourgeois of the inability of the capitalist system to solve its inherent problems.

Yet today's thinking bourgeois are not studying how society or economy works. They are thinking about how to defend their system and their privileged position. Paul Krugman of the Massachussetts Institute of Technology admits this in his book The Return of Depression Economics. Like other economists he wants to ressurect Keynesianism not to make our lives better but simply because he thinks it is the best chance for the capitalists to save their system, "I don't like the idea that countries will need to interfere in markets - that they will have to limit the free market in order to save it."

They think not of how new technology can be used to shorten working hours to allow us time to participate in decision making and implementation. Instead they research how to use new technology to squeeze an ounce more out of our muscles and brains in the name of profit.

They don't investigate the worldwide eradication of disease through the knowledge contained in the Human Genome, they calculate how to patent chromosomes and medicines to profit from our ill health.

That a new generation of bourgeois thinkers are acknowledging some of Marx's ideas is interesting and itself reflects the desperate scramble for ideas engaging bourgeois academics - all their own having failed. However we have no illusions that the superiority of these ideas can win the allegiance of more than one or two individuals from this class of ladies and gentlemen. Marxism came into being as an attempt to place socialism on a scientific footing, to rescue it from the genius but idealistic utopians of earlier generations who believed that socialism could be achieved by demonstrating this superiority.

More importantly a new generation of workers and youth around the world are discovering Marxism.

In his recent essay Peter Hudis writing for Britannia.com quotes Marx, "We are firmly convinced that the real danger lies not in practical attempts but in the theoretical elaboration of communist ideas, for practical attempts, even mass attempts, can be answered by cannon as soon as they become dangerous whereas ideas which have conquered our intellect and taken possession of our minds... are demons which human beings can only vanquish only by submitting to them."

Whilst those who have written to bury Marxism over the last 150 years have vanished into obscurity the ideas of Marxism not only retain their relevance but are now gaining a new audience. Only the very best of the intellectuals may be won over not only in theory but to the side of the revolutionary working class. In general in the hands of bourgeois academics the ideas of Marxism will be transformed and vulgarised into dead dogma. In the hands of the workers movement, inscribed on the banner of the youth, they will serve their true purpose. As Marx himself explained they are meant not only to understand the world but to change it.

by Phil Mitchinson,
London, October 2000

Napoleon.

Not even then. Marxism, as Marx saw it at any rate, can never work. Since it rest on the idea of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and as was pointed out whilst Marx was still alive, dictatorships don't just disappear.
I guess we need idealists. Even if there are a bunch of misguided ones that espouse communism, there will always be that gem, like Adam Smith or John Locke, who have ideas that really make life better.

Oh... and plato sucks as a political philosopher.

Philosopher kings?

Come on.

Hahahahaha... You think he was serious about that?

In Gorgias Plato's Socrates calls himself the only true democrat in Athens. And he may have been right.

Thomas Hobbes.

I disagree with him on several points. Nevertheless, the Leviathan is an awesome achievement, his insights are both powerful and clear, and I think it is impossible to discuss the problem of political obligation without considering Hobbes.

Do you agree with his description of human nature. This is where I have my differences with his theories, and it makes a considerable impact on his ideas, if you consider humans to be inherently sociable to a degree.

Marx

Karl Marx is obviously by far the greatest political philosopher in history and his ideas today are just as valid as they were when they were written 150 years ago.

While I happen to like Marx, I have to disagree. All he really did is systematize the thinking of the Enlightenment and draw it out to its natural conclusions. This is why the capitalist West finds it so difficult to deal with Marx.

Not even then. Marxism, as Marx saw it at any rate, can never work. Since it rest on the idea of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and as was pointed out whilst Marx was still alive, dictatorships don't just disappear.

That was an unfortunate choice of words on his part. He did not mean "dictatorship" as we think of it. He thought that liberal democracy set the stage for communism precisely because it establishes "majority rule." Since there were a lot more proletarians than bourgoisie, Marx reasoned that all one had to do was organize workers into a united front, and they would take over the democratic government -- by election.

The "predictive" aspect of his theory was this: he noticed that the factory collects workers from the fields into one place and teaches them organizational skills. He thought that this very mechanism of industrial capitalism would necessarily be its downfall.

But "brilliant" talk, if we are to believe all the disciples that are posting. Too bad for them it isn't practical. That's the true test of an idea, isn't it? If you can make it work in the real world, then it's a workable idea. Maybe even a good idea. If it needs special conditions, tender loving care, and Mother Nature's smile before it can succeed, then it just doesn't cut it.

Yes, that's all it is. It will never be anything more than an idea. It will never viable compare to actual capitalism. Although neither one has exist purely in a civilization (ie a society of people that don't all know eachother), it's mathematically obvious that capitalism makes communism look like a fairy-tale joke.

Fascism sucks, and it's invade capitalism as well (*ever since 1830*), but time will most likely flush that out as well.


*This was the first time a serious legislation of subsidies and corporate welfare when through (other than the first national bank). The rest is history.

Although I really don't mind a society of people that are willing to live under those condition, but will leave me alone. I want no part in it, and I have no problem with them practicing what they preach...although I don't think many of them feel the same about my beliefs...

Do you agree with his description of human nature. This is where I have my differences with his theories, and it makes a considerable impact on his ideas, if you consider humans to be inherently sociable to a degree.

Well, he did.

Hobbes first law of nature is that people naturally tend to prefer peace as long as everyone else will go along with it. From this he reasoned (rightly I think), that everyone wants a "guarantee" that everyone else is going to behave, and the only way to have this is government authority -- a power capable of ensuring that people keep their word.

Hobbes thought government and society are the most natural things in the world, because he thought people fundamentally do not want to die a painful death.

I also appreciate the fact that Hobbes is essentially the first theorist to state a genuine position of sexual equality. He thought men and women are inherently equal. Good for him, back in 1651.

Diogenes.

He was fantastice, he took the piss totally. He also occasionally would walk around during the day-time with a lit lamp looking for a human being. Also had the guts to tell Alexander the Great to get out of his sun light when he asked Diogenes a question. (Was that in the film, shoulda been if it wasn't).

If I remember the story correctly, Alexander came to pay tribute to the man himself and offered him anything in the known world, to which Diogenes then responded 'Could you get out of my light?'.

Anyhow: Heraclitus > Diogenes.

My vote goes for Samuel Rutherford. Author of Lex Rex.

Well, he did.

Hobbes first law of nature is that people naturally tend to prefer peace as long as everyone else will go along with it. From this he reasoned (rightly I think), that everyone wants a "guarantee" that everyone else is going to behave, and the only way to have this is government authority -- a power capable of ensuring that people keep their word.

Hobbes thought government and society are the most natural things in the world, because he thought people fundamentally do not want to die a painful death.

Surely this is a statement of his, correct, understanding of human reasoning. Where I differ, is that I do not believe that the guarantee given by the existence an authority figure with the power to enforce this behaviour is needed to get the behaviour started.
I see human nature as being practically social, in the sense that we do band together, in extended family units, and clans or smal tribes, prior to any consideration of the potential universalisation of this behaviour. It is only through this type of event, and the experience of conflict arising therein, that the recognition of the need for an authority can come into being.

Oh, and I agree with the point about his attitude toward men and women as both simply being human, with no intellectual or moral difference in value.

Where I differ, is that I do not believe that the guarantee given by the existence an authority figure with the power to enforce this behaviour is needed to get the behaviour started. I see human nature as being practically social, in the sense that we do band together, in extended family units, and clans or smal tribes, prior to any consideration of the potential universalisation of this behaviour. It is only through this type of event, and the experience of conflict arising therein, that the recognition of the need for an authority can come into being.

Sure. Hobbes agrees with you entirely. He was not proposing an anthropological theory, but a justification of human government.

EDIT: Hobbes says absolutely nothing about the scale of human society, only the need for authority in human relations.

#1 Ronald Reagan.
#2 Winston Churchill.

If I remember the story correctly, Alexander came to pay tribute to the man himself and offered him anything in the known world, to which Diogenes then responded 'Could you get out of my light?'.

Anyhow: Heraclitus > Diogenes.

Since the story is most likely only anecdotal, I suppose the point is moot. But I do prefer that version.

Sure. Hobbes agrees with you entirely. He was not proposing an anthropological theory, but a justification of human government.

EDIT: Hobbes says absolutely nothing about the scale of human society, only the need for authority in human relations.

Thank you. I may have been misreading, or misunderstanding something. I will have to go back and reread Leviathan now.

Since the story is most likely only anecdotal, I suppose the point is moot. But I do prefer that version.

All* historical narratives are anecdotal: they tell us much more about ourselves than about than about our predecessors.


_____________________________________
* By 'all' here I obviously mean 'not all'.

Thank you. I may have been misreading, or misunderstanding something. I will have to go back and reread Leviathan now.

I can try to be even more helpful. While the whole Leviathan is certainly always worthy of a rereading, I can point to a few places in which the Hobbesian view of human nature and human society is most evident.

I would recommend:

Chapter 11.
Chapter 13. With regard to this discussion, note the language he uses in introducing the state of War. "Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called WARRE; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. . . . So the nature of War, consisteth not in actuall fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is PEACE." The emphasis is mine, meant to bring out the fact that Hobbes never implies this is a period essentially "before" human society. Rather, he says, "during the time" because this can happen at any time. Indeed, he writes Leviathan because he is sick of the perpetual state of War in seventeenth-century England.

Note also that he explicitly states that he is not describing some hypothetical pre-historical people, but the men of his own time: "Let him therefore consider with himselfe, when taking a journey, he armes himselfe, and seeks to go well accompanied; when going to sleep, he locks his dores; when even in his house he locks his chests; and this when he knowes there bee Lawes, and publike Officers, armed, to revenge all injuries shall be done him; what opinion he has of his fellow subjects, when he rides armed, of his fellow Citizens, when he locks his dores; and of his children, and servants, when he locks his chests. Does he not there as much accuse mankind by his actions, as I do by my words?"

Finally, and most importantly: "It may peradventure be thought, there was never such a time, nor condition of warre as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world: but there are many places, where they live so now."

Chapter 14. This is where he states the "Fundamentall Law of Nature; which is, to seek Peace, and follow it." (His emphasis.)

Chapter 20. Paternall authority, and (more importantly) the fact that by nature the mother rules her children. Men only rule women through conquest, not right.

EDIT: Speaking of "emphases," did you know that Hobbes is the inventor of italics?

It was a team effort - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin (outstanding diplomat and ladies man!) Jon Adams and co.

They laid the framework for a democratic republic which has stood the test of time, waiving the opportunity to install themselves as dictators for the betterment of mankind.

Nobody else on your list ever walked away from such an opportunity (nor risked as much!) to innitiate their governmental ideals.

It was a team effort - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin (outstanding diplomat and ladies man!) Jon Adams and co.

If you are going to list them, then you could at least give at least a nod of the head to old Thomas Paine, surely?

My favorite political/economic thinker of all time is P J O'Rourke. He's great.

he is not (only)a politician and i don't have a favourite
quote
"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history" GEORGE BERNARD SHAW
My politic(not only) forum
http://www.takeforum.com/forum/index.php?mforum=paradox

It was a team effort - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin (outstanding diplomat and ladies man!) Jon Adams and co.

They laid the framework for a democratic republic which has stood the test of time, waiving the opportunity to install themselves as dictators for the betterment of mankind.

Nobody else on your list ever walked away from such an opportunity (nor risked as much!) to innitiate their governmental ideals.

They surely were Gods among men.

I never knew Marx and Engels merged. :p

Mine is probably Adam Smith or Edmund Burke.

Hehe...
Good ol' Communist Manifesto!

Adam Smith, for unlike the other philosophers, his ideas stood the test of time. Plato and Marx may have had nice ideas, but none of them were more than ideas. Capitalism works because, as Adam Smith showed, it is built off of human nature.

It was a team effort - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin (outstanding diplomat and ladies man!) Jon Adams and co.

They laid the framework for a democratic republic which has stood the test of time,

What "test of time" has the United States passed? It has not yet lasted even as long as the Roman Republic.

I say either Orwell or Mill, leaning more towards Orwell.

Adam Smith, for unlike the other philosophers, his ideas stood the test of time.

Again, what "test of time"? If "length of stay on Earth" is the criterion by which to judge political economic relationships, then feudalism or slavery wins hands down.

EDIT: On second thought, North American anarchism beats both of those by several thousand years. More to its credit, it did not collapse due to internal instability, but was conquered from without.

Robert Owens.

Peter Kropotkin or Emma Goldman. Wilhelm Reich was also pretty cool. The whole orgone thing was rather iffy, but the way he showed that sexual repression and fascism are connected was brilliant. From the ones listed on the poll, I'd say either Karl Marx or Frederich Nietzsche. They were both rather authoritarian, but they had some cool ideas.

Peter Kropotkin or Emma Goldman. Wilhelm Reich was also pretty cool. The whole orgone thing was rather iffy, but the way he showed that sexual repression and fascism are connected was brilliant. From the ones listed on the poll, I'd say either Karl Marx or Frederich Nietzsche. They were both rather authoritarian, but they had some cool ideas.

But the orgone thing did help spawn one of the greatest rock songs of all times (in my rather unorthodox opinion).

Emma Goldman is brilliant.

What "test of time" has the United States passed? It has not yet lasted even as long as the Roman Republic.
In 200 years it has done far more than any other nation in history.

The first working practice of 'human rights' was begun by the founding fathers.

It was a team effort - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin (outstanding diplomat and ladies man!) Jon Adams and co.

They laid the framework for a democratic republic which has stood the test of time, waiving the opportunity to install themselves as dictators for the betterment of mankind.

Nobody else on your list ever walked away from such an opportunity (nor risked as much!) to innitiate their governmental ideals.

Surely you cannot forget James Madison, Paul Revere, Alexander Hamilton, John Hancock, and Thomas Paine?

John Locke

Marx goddamnit.

Dick Morris, end of discussion.

But the orgone thing did help spawn one of the greatest rock songs of all times (in my rather unorthodox opinion).

Which song was that?

Emma Goldman is brilliant.

Yeah, its a shame that she isn't well-known outside socialist/feminist circles

Yeah, its a shame that she isn't well-known outside socialist/feminist circles

I've heard of her.

So many to chose from. I have to go with Madison myself, for creating the whole "nation of laws, not men" thing. While some earlier theorists like Locke had been worling towards it, Madison was the first to recognize that a government of laws could exist in which there was no soverign but the whole of the nation.

Thomas Jefferson

In 200 years it has done far more than any other nation in history.

The first working practice of 'human rights' was begun by the founding fathers.

No it wasn't. "There are no slaves in France" defined a human right to freedom hundreds of years earlier. It wasn't always perfectly enforced... but then again, neither are our "human rights."

No it wasn't. "There are no slaves in France" defined a human right to freedom hundreds of years earlier. It wasn't always perfectly enforced... but then again, neither are our "human rights."
I was going to say something about how h=there was no way the US was the first to have any type of established human rights, but i was too lazy to do any research on the topic, so thanks!

That would sense if Marx was in the position to attain any political or economic power as a result of his writings.

But he wasn't, and he knew if. (In fact, although I disagree with that applying to Marx, it certainly makes sence to apply it to the early Marxists around after his death)

Think back if you will...

Marx wrote the majority of his work in exile. Why, you ask? In 1848, nearly every nation on the continent of europe had a "workers" revolution. Marx was an active participant in several, and made his bid for power. He failed. out of nearly thirty revolutions, roughly ten were sucessful at all, only one lasted more than three months, and that one lasted a mere two years before the previous government re-established itself. Marx left his home and wrote in exile to try to work out the bugs from his theories and to encourage people to try again, so that he could return from exile to a position of power in a government of his own design. Later communist leaders were simply more sucessful at what he attempted.

face facts folks, Communism ignores human nature and failed, Socialism only works in small, low-population groups, were you can get people to submerge their greedy nature for the common good, and Capitalism is failing, because it underestimates human nature, and sometimes even encourages the worst parts of it. Whatever comes out of the woodwork to replace it is going to be something wholly new, or more likely, a new combination of old ideas.

IMHO, the optimal form of government is a benevolent tyrrany, perhaps combined with a republican format. Educated representation from the people, combined with a single leader capable of making desicions swiftly, yet still mostly accountable. Think of the early ceasars or the tyrant of athens, and you'll get what I mean. Unfortunately, this form of government is difficult to set up, as the best person for the job doesn't want it, and those who do are the worst for it. Also, it is highly unlikely to last more than two generations, as someone will inevitably decide that he should rule, just because his dad did. But when it happens, and while it lasts, it's good.

I remain,
Exar
The Benevolent Tyrant of Crystalos

Noam Chomsky, most just don't see it.

Machiavelli. He truly understood what it meant to have power, and how those who possessed it got there in the first place. Some claim that he was, in a way, evil for writing and believing what he did. Yet, he simply pointed out that human beings desire power, and that they do certain things to attain it.

Don't get me wrong - I prefer John Locke and Adam Smith. They've had a greater effect on my life and I like their ideas more, as a matter of principle. Yet I cannot deny that Machiavelli constructed a clear model of power politics... and that his way of thinking was emulated by some of the greatest political architects that followed in his wake (Richelieu, Bismarck). To me, all politics flows from his way of thinking.

Edit:

A couple other comments.

About the Diogenes and Alexander thing. After Diogenes basically told Alexander off, Alexander responded "If I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes." Man, I love Alexander the Great. In a gay man-love way.

Also, I agree, the Founding Fathers of the U.S. were incredible. Of course, I'm an American, so I'm biased. But I am especially impressed by George Washington walking away from becoming King of the United States... it's just incredible. The army and the people behind him, WANTING, ASKING him to take power, and he just steps away. Before he even has to, no less! Greatest American to ever live.

He made the connection between the concept of resource 'ownership' and the patterns of domination and submission within society.

Read his essay "What is Property?"
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/ProProp.html

Thomas Jefferson

One can spend a lifetime reading about Jefferson, and just scratch the surface. The man's political thoughts were scattered, but his power is undenialable.

If I ever wanted to live through another politicians eyes, it would be his.

face facts folks, Communism ignores human nature and failed, Socialism only works in small, low-population groups, were you can get people to submerge their greedy nature for the common good, and Capitalism is failing, because it underestimates human nature, and sometimes even encourages the worst parts of it. Whatever comes out of the woodwork to replace it is going to be something wholly new, or more likely, a new combination of old ideas.

The problem with political idealism is that the world or a people, will never conform to one ideal. It's futile to believe in such a world of one...Why do some many people want the world to be like them?

Has anyone here ever read the book Empire? It focuses on the globalization predicted 150 years ago by Marx and explains how the world is moving from the modern, Euro-imperialist era, to the potmodern era, which is what they call "Empire".

PS: It was 157 years ago to this very day that the Communist Manifesto was published.

Niccolo Machiavelli, for the leaders among us.