Boyblue i suspect like most extreme right wing people lacks emotion

SWPs back confuses me as he sometimes has it, perhaps he is a commie with a hat on.

I think that most would agree the following demands from the Communist Manifesto remain quite relevant. Others might add others to that list but those three are pretty non-controversial amongst all but the most hardline anarcho-capitalists.

A progressive tax system
Free education to all
Abolition of child labour

I don't have any real issue with people who say Marx's ideas would never work. Most people remain hostile to even a stateless society, much less an egalitarian one based on from each according to their ability to each according to their need. I think most people would be more willing to embrace a dictatorship of the proletariat in permanence but I still take no issue with people saying that would never work. Saying he caused more human suffering than Hitler though... Beyond bullshit. It's not something that any well-educated person should say. I'm not talking ins and outs of political writings. I'm not calling for everyone who wants to talk about Marx to be as well versed on him as I am. That's my forte and I recognise my strengths in this area in the same way that I recognise strengths of others in other areas e.g. SWP's Back in economics, Damocles in physics etc. - and therefore listen to them and try to educate myself, rather than make outlandish claims. Well-educated people, in short, should know when it is better to let people think them fools (on a certain topic) than open their mouths and remove all doubt.

If you are going to take me to task on something I would suggest you quote me correctly rather than twisting my words like some Pravda editorial.

I don't want to get into a discussion about semantics but I said he was responsible for more human suffering than Hitler, not that he caused it, a subtle distinction which I would have thought you were discernible enough to identify. The suffering was caused by those that used Marx's message and perverted it, but he (and you) cannot escape the fact that it was his message that was used in the first place: that is his responsibility.

His writings were used as the framework for a regime which suppressed the free will of hundreds of millions of individuals and was used as a justification for its enduring existence. The fact that that system bore little resemblance to his vision does not alter the negative effect his ideas had on the world and to human freedom.

Anyway this post has had the desired effect of curing me of my inability to sleep tonight as I worry about far, far more important things than global politics. Like what those nasty journalists on Sunday Supplement are going to say about us in five hours.

Ah, I see now where you're coming from. Hitler was not a bad guy as he was driven to his actions by the Jews. The Jews are responsible for the holocaust, much as Marx was responsible for Communism. No Marx, no Communism. No Jews, no Holocaust. Excellent logic. My respect for you is restored. Or how about Darwin. Was Charles Darwin responsible for the holocaust? There's certainly a strong link between Darwin and killing inferior races. Bad Darwin, how dare you assert a theory lest someone abuse it.

If you are going to take me to task on something I would suggest you quote me correctly rather than twisting my words like some Pravda editorial.

I don't want to get into a discussion about semantics but I said he was responsible for more human suffering than Hitler, not that he caused it, a subtle distinction which I would have thought you were discernible enough to identify. The suffering was caused by those that used Marx's message and perverted it, but he (and you) cannot escape the fact that it was his message that was used in the first place: that is his responsibility.

His writings were used as the framework for a regime which suppressed the free will of hundreds of millions of individuals and was used as a justification for its enduring existence. The fact that that system bore little resemblance to his vision does not alter the negative effect his ideas had on the world and to human freedom.

Anyway this post has had the desired effect of curing me of my inability to sleep tonight as I worry about far, far more important things than global politics. Like what those nasty journalists on Sunday Supplement are going to say about us in five hours.

I interpret this post as saying that you stole my pigeon.

You owe me whatever a pigeon costs these days.

Pay up, scum.

You use an absurdly incongruous analogy to assert my my argument lacks logic. Once again Pravda would be proud of you.

As for Darwin, his strength was understanding how nature worked, not being recklessly blind to it.

Well-meaning but not necessarily well-informed.

Liberal hippie douche on social matters. Unrepentant Thatcherite on economic issues.

Except I believe in a strong welfare state, NHS and would happily nationalise the utilities.