--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Remember, it's very difficult to assume what Marx > himself would have had to > say about anything that happened in the 20th > century, since he died in 1883. He > believed he was creating a scientific approach to > analyzing history, based on > the evidence he'd seen. If he saw contrary evidence, > he would have corrected > himself. I don't think it's fair to blame Marx for > what has been done in his > name since he died.
1) Why do you assume that if he saw contrary evidence, he would have corrected himself? There was plenty of contrary evidence available in 1883, and it didn't seem to stop him. 2) Why _not_ blame him for what has been done in his name since he died? It seems like much of what happened in his name is a logical outcome of what he said, after all. He wasn't Jesus. You can't argue nearly as plausibly that the USSR was a perversion of Communism as you could that the Spanish Inquisition was a perversion of Christianity. At what point do we get to say that he was full of it and move on, really? ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
