Just another reason to hate religious extremists and organized religion in general...

[FireIceTalon]

In fact he wrote, "For my part, while I am as convinced a Socialist as the most ardent Marxian, I do not regard Socialism as a gospel of proletarian revenge, nor even, primarily, as a means of securing economic justice. I regard it primarily as an adjustment to machine production demanded by considerations of common sense, and calculated to increase the happiness, not only of proletarians, but of all except a tiny minority of the human race." —Bertrand Russell, "The Case for Socialism" (In Praise of Idleness, 1935, pg. 81)

And neither do Marxists, and I am quite confident that I speak on behalf of just about all of them when I say that. BR's interpretation of Marxism in this statement is a vulgarization and misrepresentation of Marxist thought. Being a Marxist has nothing to do with getting revenge on capitalists, and everything to do with acting in our objective class interests - Marxism provides us with a scientific framework to do that instead of just a bunch of random ideas from idealist lefties. He is trying to insert ethics and morality into it, which completely distorts the point. There is nothing in Marx or Engel's work suggesting a proletarian revolution ought to be carried out in the name of "social justice". Rather, we regard so-called concepts of "social justice" and "economic democracy" to be a intrinsic aspect and necessity of socialism as a system, but inserting morality and ethics into economics turns the objective into something subjective, and this is an error, because it results in idealism. Marxism (or any scientific system of analysis) isn't an ethical framework, nor should it be. We want socialism because it is in our class interests, not because we think its "ethical". Now, more ethical relationships between people might result under socialism (such as people no longer having to or even wanting to blackmail one another for money) but that is another topic entirely, and has little to do with why we want socialism to prevail.

Russel is at best, an "evolutionary" socialist anyways (aka a utopian socialist - one of the things Marxism is very critical of), if not just a social democrat. I think he has some interesting ideas (and there are a number of other non-Marxist thinkers who I find interesting also, like Foucault, Chomsky, Emma Goldman, Rawls, or even Thomas Paine etc), but that doesn't mean I agree with the entire framework, or think it is compatible with Marxism as a system of analysis. They have some points and ideas here and there that are valid and useful, that is what I will merit them. But as far as me thinking all his work is crap - that is a bit presumptuous, don't you think so?

What I found interesting while I read his lectures, was that BR (a pacifist) was watching world events intently at that time, reflecting on it as it unfolded. He had analyzed the pre- WWI German socioeconomic climate, watched it swing toward social democracy, then after WWI as it snapped in a nationalistic rage, back into the perversion we know as national socialism. My schism with BR is in his strict adherence to his pacifism in the face of unrestrained brutality. There comes a time when in order to save all you hold dear, you grab the gun and shoot your assailant in the face.

Thats because the SPD betrayed the workers and moved to the right by supporting the war (with renegades such as Karl Kautsky). But Marxist thinkers like Leibneckt and Rosa Luxemburg of course disagreed with this, and broke from the party to form their own party (Sparticist Movement) that remained firmly opposed to the war and in favor of proletarian revolution. So in that sense, whatever his ideas may be, BR was right to remain a pacifist - if he is indeed on the side of socialism, why would he support a capitalist war that would result in the death of thousands or more working class men and women? Comrade, the only winners of any imperialist war are the capitalist class of the nations involved - everyone else loses. While I do not agree with his overall framework regarding socialism, I certainly agree him in declining to support a bourgeois war that would leave countless workers dead, all in the name of expanding private capital and markets beyond its borders.

Fascism developed around this time by the bourgeois as a last ditched effort to prevent proletarian revolution by suppressing unions and demonizing communism, and they still use it today whenever the capitalist system is threatened.

What FIT fails to connect is proto- Marxist undefined revolutionary goals, and their inevitable consequent carnage. Marxism stops at "Burn it down". And, has no answer for; "How does it work now that we've got ashes?"

But why of course, the carnage that occurs EVERYDAY under capitalism, and has been responsible for MANY TIMES more deaths and human suffering than all revolutions (Marxist or not) combined, is acceptable. Also, where did you get the idea that revolutionary goals for Marxists are undefined? Only by not reading a single piece of work from any leading Marxist (be it the founders, or someone like Bordiga, Clara Zetkin, Luxemburg, August Bebel, Gramsci, pre-renegade Kautsky, Lenin, and so many others) could one come up with the absurd conclusion that we have no defined goals (and if you did read something, you can hardly blame the theory for your own incompetence in understanding it). And thirdly, there is no "inevitable" result of any revolution or type of social change for that matter - unless of course you subscribe to the so-called 'end of history' theory like Francis Fukuyama does, who (mistakingly) believes that capitalism is the highest possible and final achievement for humankind. Needless to say, this is an overly deterministic viewpoint.

Relating the bloodshed of revolution as a result of Marxism is pretty laughable, it's like saying Christianity is responsible for the inquisition, instead of attributing these events to the material circumstances in which they occurred. It is after all, much easier to blame ideas or theories than it is to blame the people, their actions, and most importantly, the context of the material situation. It's ironic that bourgeois thinkers decry revolution so much, but they themselves were once a revolutionary class, and will defend their revolutions (and rightfully so, since capitalism is a more efficient and overall superior mode of production when compared to slavery or feudalism) as having been necessary. Just as radical social change was unavoidable in the late 18th century when feudalism was crumbling, the same will hold true for capitalism. It's just a matter of will it take humanity down with it, when it goes. But to think the way things currently are can continue as they are without radical social change, or that this system is sustainable - THAT is utopian thinking.

I am at least still hopeful, FIT can find his way out of the smokey Bavarian beer hall, and opt to tipple a glass of fine port with the gents at Oxford. He may not be up for it intellectually, but we shall see.

Yea, I don't hang out in beer halls, and in fact, I don't drink beer either (not much of a drinker in general). You can keep your stereotypes. But if I want a drink, I prefer jack and coke, and I hope it would be on the fine gents Oxford