Your time travel destination of choice?

[Traitorfish]

What gives you the impression that all of this can be attributed to the publication of a half-finished economic treatise?

What lead you to conclude that these regimes and the policies they pursued were the product of the writings of Karl Marx, writings which which deal fleetingly when at all with questions of state-building and policy-making, rather than the social, political and economic conditions in which they emerged?

Have you, if you'll let me be frank, though about this even a little bit?

 

[Phrossack]

I'd get a Kevlar vest and helmet- provided you could travel with something else than your body alone and visit the Mesoamerican people before the Europeans came, I could become their deity and perhaps teach them a few things, like the wheel.

The helmet may protect your head to a degree, but the vest wouldn't protect you at all from sharp objects. Kevlar's great for stopping shrapnel and pistol bullets. Spears, knives, arrows, and pointy things, not so much. That's why there are special stab-proof vests.

I wouldn't bother wearing armor on a time-travel; I could get some great armor there, and in any case, if I'm on my own and the people want me dead, they'll poison me or slit my throat while I sleep.

 

[Krajzen]

What gives you the impression that all of this can be attributed to the publication of a half-finished economic treatise?

What lead you to conclude that these regimes and the policies they pursued were the product of the writings of Karl Marx, writings which which deal fleetingly when at all with questions of state-building and policy-making, rather than the social, political and economic conditions in which they emerged?

Have you, if you'll let me be frank, though about this even a little bit?

Well, originally those writings were supposed to create utopia of equality, not extremely pathological totalitarian regimes of terror and corruption so in this case man can be just amazed about the insane irony of Fall of Communism

Social/political/economic conditions could allow on big tragedy similar to World War I but all much bigger tragedies of 20th century were caused by ideologies claiming to improve world once and for all and justifying the means to achieve it.
I think that without Marx and the entire insane degeneration of his ideology (which was ridiculous on intellectual and scientific level but not genocidal yet!) at least few million unnecessary deaths of 20th century could be avoided.

Also, if I look through window in my room, I can see the economic results of collectivist ideology.

Marx is not responsible for communist crimes but he began this entire grotesque story.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What gives you the impression that all of this can be attributed to the publication of a half-finished economic treatise?

My impression is that a lot of the impetus of the way the revolution in Russia would unfold can be attributed to ideology. An ideology which to me like that seems unthinkable without Marx. Most notable the notion of historic determinism and class consciousness. Together being key elements in suggesting and legitimizing the totalitarian, authoritarian and uncompromising approach the revolution took.
Doesn't really matter weather Marx actually had such a thing in mind or would have approved of it.

 

[Luckymoose]

I'd go back to the 90's to watch tv.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, originally those writings were supposed to create utopia of equality, not extremely pathological totalitarian regimes of terror and corruption so in this case man can be just amazed about the insane irony of Fall of Communism

Which writings do you mean? I've read a little Marx, enough that I'd consider it a decent cross-section of his output, and I haven't encountered anything like that. Mostly he talks about capitalism, and very occasionally about communism, but never about "creating" anything. Capital is a thousand-odd pages of political economy; it's hard to see how that proceeds by even the most indirect route to the Gulag.

 

[Masada]

Why does nobody blame Adam Smith for writing against intervening in famines because the free market can fix it?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Did anybody actually care about that?

 

[Masada]

Yeah, people cared and acted according to their ideological views e.g. Lord John Russell.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Hm I guess the main difference is that there wasn't a regime forcing people to let people starve (legitimated and brought about by Smithian ideas). So it is more attractive to blame those who followed through on this opinion of Smith than Smith. I mean everyone can utter ideas which can have bad consequences if applied. That itself is supposedly not already the issue.

 

[Masada]

I don't see why I should blame the individuals involved when British, well English, responses to famines right out toe the 1900s tended to be awful. What happened in Ireland, happened elsewhere dozens of times and it wasn't because the English were uniquely inept at managing famines but because they were ideologically predisposed to ignore them, in the vain hope, that the market would fix the problem. If it had happened just that one time, and not across different regions and like a century or more, I'd accept that individuals might be at fault.

 

[Ajidica]

My impression is that a lot of the impetus of the way the revolution in Russia would unfold can be attributed to ideology. An ideology which to me like that seems unthinkable without Marx. Most notable the notion of historic determinism and class consciousness. Together being key elements in suggesting and legitimizing the totalitarian, authoritarian and uncompromising approach the revolution took.
Doesn't really matter weather Marx actually had such a thing in mind or would have approved of it.

I was under the impression that the Bolshevik position on Marx was that he was wrong about the path revolutions should take and that the unique situation in Russia provided too good of an opportunity for the Bolsheviks to ignore while the Left SRs and Mensheviks felt that Marx was wright and Russia was not ready for a revolution.
Then again, most of my reading on the Russian Revolution has been focused on the cheka, not on ideology.

 

[Domen]

First I would go back to 960s to meet and talk with Mieszko I. Then to year 1000, destination: Gniezno, to meet Emperor Otto III.

Spoiler :

I suppose many of you would also go there to kill Mieszko I and prevent the emergence of Poland.

Then I would go to various parts of European "Barbaricum" in ca. year 350 AD to see where various tribes lived before the Hunnic invasion.

After that I would visit Ancient Biskupin to see what language was spoken by people of the Lusatian Culture.

Then I would like to meet various historical characters, for example Copernicus, Columbus, Jesus, Moses (if he really existed), etc.

My next target: the Mayans, the Aztecs and the Incas ca. year 1450, to give them vaccines for European diseases, technologies, the Bible.

Spoiler :

In general I would mess around and change many things so that our universe would collapse into a black hole due to time paradox, muahaha.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I don't see why I should blame the individuals involved when British, well English, responses to famines right out toe the 1900s tended to be awful. What happened in Ireland, happened elsewhere dozens of times and it wasn't because the English were uniquely inept at managing famines but because they were ideologically predisposed to ignore them, in the vain hope, that the market would fix the problem. If it had happened just that one time, and not across different regions and like a century or more, I'd accept that individuals might be at fault.

I agree that Smith deserves blame for that. Still, there is greater individual responsibility than under a Communist regime.

I was under the impression that the Bolshevik position on Marx was that he was wrong about the path revolutions should take and that the unique situation in Russia provided too good of an opportunity for the Bolsheviks to ignore while the Left SRs and Mensheviks felt that Marx was wright and Russia was not ready for a revolution.

I am not sure what your point is?

 

[Traitorfish]

His point is that even if you could explain the Russian Revolution and Civil War in terms of formal, intellectual-crafted ideology- a dubious proposition in itself- Lenin and Trotsky departed significantly from Marx in their theory of revolution and particularly in how they thought these theories applied to Russia.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

So?
The question is weather things would have developed that way without Marx - and that just seems unlikely because the way the Bolsheviks diverted from Marx still rested on the Marxian key concepts I already mentioned, just in a heavily modified form.
Not weather they were faithful to Marx.
The idea of class consciousness was crucial to the Bolshevik claim of authortarian leadership. The idea of historic determinism was crucial to their uncompromising nature.

 

[Commodore]

Several years before WWII. On a single mission.

To kill Hitler, duh.

But C&C: Red Alert showed us that killing Hitler would only lead to a more devastating version of WWII in which the Soviet Union will invade Europe. So killing Hitler would make you the worst war criminal that has ever lived.

 

[Traitorfish]

So?
The question is weather things would have developed that way without Marx - and that just seems unlikely because the way the Bolsheviks diverted from Marx still rested on the Marxian key concepts I already mentioned, just in a heavily modified form.
Not weather they were faithful to Marx.

Well, again, setting aside the a history of the Russian Revolution that puts intellectual discourse before social and political conditions is basically not credible- and that's a big thing to set aside, huge, let's make that clear- that's still not a very convincing argument against Marx, or for anything much at all. Say we accept that without Marx, no Lenin, so Marx is causally (if not morally) responsible for Stalinism. But without Hegel, no Marx. Without Kant, no Hegel. Without Hume, no Kant. Without Locke, no Hume. So John Locke, philosopher of liberty, is causally responsible for Stalinism. Yes? Are we happy with that reasoning? Does that seem like a useful position to occupy?

The idea of class consciousness was crucial to the Bolshevik claim of authortarian leadership. The idea of historic determinism was crucial to their uncompromising nature.

Are you claiming that these ideas caused the Bolsheviks to exhibit this behaviours, or that they were used as justification for this behaviour? You seem to be trying to say both.

 

[Domen]

Killing Hitler would be pointless because the Nazi party had many individuals even worse than Hitler. Just to mention Himmler.

You would need to bomb Reichstag and the city of Berlin with a nuclear bomb perhaps, in order to eliminate Nazi leadership.

Nazi Germany was well capable of waging a series of total wars and organizing the Holocaust even without Adolf Hitler.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

But without Hegel, no Marx. Without Kant, no Hegel. Without Hume, no Kant. Without Locke, no Hume. So John Locke, philosopher of liberty, is causally responsible for Stalinism. Yes? Are we happy with that reasoning? Does that seem like a useful position to occupy?

The reason this seems less useful is that the further back you go the less you know what the entire effect actually would be if you removed x. If you think that Marx's contribution are worth Stalinism you are welcome to argue so.
Am really not sure on Locke. Am not comfortable to judge his entire legacy. I find it a lot easier with Marx. But yeah it of course always will have unforeseeable consequences remove x and the more time passes the harder it becomes to estimate those consequences and I of course can not say for sure that Marx was in the end bad for humanity. Still one can try to make a reasonable guess instead of - as you seem to argue - to just surrender to the ultimate uncertainty of it.
Hitler could also be the best thing that ever happened to humanity, in principle. If we think long-term enough. Still many would prevent his birth if possible. Just silly you say?

Well, again, setting aside the a history of the Russian Revolution that puts intellectual discourse before social and political conditions

Am not doing that. I see them as one rather than two distinct factors. Because they naturally will constantly interact all through the way. So any distinction is fictional. But moreover what makes ideology so especially relevant in the case of the Russian revolution is the utopian nature of it. Utopian in the sense of creating something entirely new, a place which does not exist, yet. If you venture into such territory - yes, the ideology is hugely relevant. That just seems painfully obvious on the face of it.

Are you claiming that these ideas caused the Bolsheviks to exhibit this behaviours, or that they were used as justification for this behaviour? You seem to be trying to say both.

I am. So for I haven't bothered with creating neat artificial categories but I simply make a rough assessment of the whole. Which in spite of its roughness is still fruitful due to the utopian nature of the Russian revolution and the clear implications this carries.