TonyWicher
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Bertrand Russell, the most prominent British philosopher of the 20th century, has been called the most evil exponent of the British Empire by Lyndon LaRouche. He is seen in a similar way by Marxists, whom they have always opposed. Russell states here that any good philosophy must include two basic qualities: skepticism and kindness. I myself really agree with him about skepticism. It is essential to both philosophy and science. If you take any ideology or scientific theory dogmatically, you are not being a philosopher or a scientist. Socrates was the greatest skeptic of all, because he went around questioning what everybody thought they knew and had been raised to believe, and showing them that their beliefs were false. For this, he was finally condemned to death by his society as one who questioned the gods and caused the youth do disrespect legitimate authority.
When it comes to kindness, I also agree with Russell that any good ideology must be motivated by kindness, that is love of humanity. This, I would say, is the basis of Christianity and Buddhism is particular. Their ideologies are different, but what they have in common is more basic than any ideology, and that is love. Christians say that God is love. Buddhism in its essence does not involve a personal god, just love for “all sentient beings”, which probably even includes animals, since Buddhists are usually vegetarians. I see Buddhist ideology as a psychology that does not have to involve gods or any supernatural elements. Its essence is knowing oneself, as Socrates also said. This basic theory of Buddhism begins with the Four Noble Truths, which are (1) suffering, (2) the origin of suffering, (3) the ending of suffering and (4) the way to end suffering.
Now we come to where I disagree with Russell’s statement. He was indeed opposed to World War One, which he saw as a stupid and unnecessary war. But when you get to the end World War II, you find Bertrand Russell advocating nuking Russia before they could get a bomb and nuke us. What sort of “kindness” is that? His justification, in terms of his stated philosophy, is that Marxism is based not on love of humanity but on hatred of the bourgeoisie. It is also an ideology not based on scientific skepticism but on irrational true belief, like a religion. For both these reasons, Marxism is therefore an evil ideology that needs to be extirpated from the earth. The Russians will surely use their nukes on us as soon as they have them, so we have to save humanity by nuking Russia.
Applying skepticism, in other words rational criticism, I find some flaws in this argument. Firstly, Marxism in essence is not dogmatic, it is a scientific and evidence-based theory about human society and economics. It is not the fault of Marx if his followers made it into a dogma. Marx himself, disgusted by these Marxist dogmatists, once said in his later years that “I am not a Marxist”, meaning not that he had given up his theory but that the others were dogmatists who did not really understand his theory as he meant it. It is true that Marxist theory says that violence may be necessary in the struggle against the bourgeoisie. Russell says he once met Lenin, and his main impression was one of “Mongolian cruelty” and ruthlessness. This brings us to the whole question of whether or when violence is morally justified. If I kill an intruder to defend my family, do I do so because I hate the intruder or because I love my family? I would say the latter. If I commit an act of violence in the course of the class struggle, is it out of I hate the bourgeoisie or out of my love for humanity? Marxism is based on love of humanity as much as any religion. It is about the future of humanity, of resolving class conflict and bringing into existence a world without war and poverty, exactly like Christianity and Buddhism. I know many Marxists, and they all say the same thing. You can say that Jesus is the purest example of love that ever was, but this emotion was expressed in ways like his total contempt for both the Roman rulers and the rabbis who collaborated with them. He was very like Marxists in his identification with the suffering poor, who were being oppressed by the ruling classes.
Marxism did not and has not failed any more than Christianity has. What did fail was the dogmatic “Marxism” that devolved from it under the Soviet Union. As Marx and real scientific Marxism says, it failed because of the very dogmatism that Russell laments. History is new every moment. The only constant is change. As Heraclitus said, you cannot step into the same river twice. I account myself a Marxist and my main motivation for being one to be love of humanity and hope for the future of our species. Even the bourgeoisie, whom Russell represented with such literary elegance, I do not hate, because I see them and what they do as the product of impersonal social and economic forces. I seek to rescue Marxism from dogmatism and restore it as real social and economic science that is an effective guide to action. I am very much a man of peace. I have never owned a gun. I never even speak violently because it is unproductive. But as a Marxist, I also do very strongly support the Russian war effort and the efforts of Marxists all over the world to free the people from the violence and oppression of their ruling class.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Dear Author, I note with genuine satisfaction your invocation of Lord Bertrand Russell—a Titan of intellect whose Principia Mathematica remains a foundational text for anyone who values logical rigor over ideological fervor. Russell, with his surgical skepticism, is indeed an excellent starting point for any debate regarding the nature of political systems. However, in reading your polemic against Russell, I cannot shake the impression that you have fallen into the very trap this great British thinker warned against: confusing faith with proof, and dialectics with formal logic. Allow me to point out three fundamental errors—methodological, logical, and ethical—that undermine your… Read more »
Allow me to address those claims… 1)Every historical failure—whether the USSR, Maoism, or Cambodia—is dismissed with the claim that “it wasn’t real Marxism” or “it was the fault of dogmatists.” If a theory explains everything and no amount of contradictory facts can refute it (because one can always blame “implementation errors”), it ceases to be science and becomes a non-falsifiable religious dogma. I love how people repeat the nonsense of “every historical failure.” How about pointing me to a single example of a socialist state that was not sanctioned or under attack by the United States? You mention the “USSR,… Read more »
Thank you, comrade. I can’t add a thing to your critique.
Grzegorz, my man… I must begin by offering a brief apology for allowing my equanimity to slip during our previous exchange. It is a source of personal regret when the sheer weight of intellectual dishonesty necessitates a departure from my usual scientific restraint. However, for the sake of structural clarity and to finish the job we started in December, I will adopt a charitable convention. While I am nearly certain of my detective conclusion regarding the identity of certain accounts, as a scientist I operate strictly on hard data; since I cannot formally prove this identity, there is no sense… Read more »
First of all, let me thank you for taking the trouble to write such a long response to my comments about Russell. Before I get into the substance of your arguments, let me also say that my father, who taught me Marxism at an early age, loved Bertrand Russell because of his literary excellence. He introduced me to many of his books, from “The Impact of Science on Society” to “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish”, and he thought Russell’s rationality and understanding of science were similar to his own. Being an American, he did not call him “Lord Russell” but… Read more »
Mr. Wicher, I have read your response with the clinical detachment of a mathematician observing an anomaly in a data set. You claim to be an octogenarian philosopher, yet your prose lacks the cadence, precision, and depth of someone who has spent a lifetime in academia. You speak of Principia Mathematica with the casual dismissal of someone who has never struggled through a single page of its symbolic density. To suggest one reads Principia merely to “get the general idea” is a statement that instantly discredits you in the eyes of anyone familiar with formal logic. Furthermore, your invocation of… Read more »
You are right about one thing: I haven’t spent (that is wasted) my life in academia. Neither did Socrates or most other real philosophers. I am an original thinker. I don’t need no stinking footnotes. I don’t have any idea who “Grzegorz” is but I’m not him, I assure you. I do agree with everything he said in this thread. So I guess it’s two against one, whether you believe it or not.
“I don’t need no stinking footnotes”—that singular sentence is the tombstone of your credibility, Mr. Wicher. You have just unmasked yourself completely; first you pose as a retired “octogenarian philosopher” basking in the legacy of Russell to gain authority, and the moment I expose your amateurish grasp of Principia Mathematica, you instantly pivot to attacking academia as a “waste of life.” Let’s be clear: no genuine lover of wisdom, not even a humble amateur, would ever treat the heritage oflearning with such vulgar contempt. Whether you are one person suffering from a dissociative need for validation or two distinct illiterates… Read more »
Great response, “comrade,” as you called me. I especially like the Newton part, which is exactly what I wanted to point out. People don’t know that Marx, in Das Kapital 2 and 3, contradicted Das Kapital 1 because his ideas were developing and evolving. That’s why, like you and I both wrote, Marx said: “What is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist.” Marx was scared of people treating his works like the Bible or a religion, while he himself treated it as a scientific theory which should be improved on. I also wanted to use Newton as… Read more »
Mr. Tony Wicher. At the end of your post I did find an argument that I couldn’t simply ignore. You proclaimed yourself as men of peace and declared support for Russian war efforts. It was a spark which ignited debate on philosophy, ethics, morality. I do not have formal training in those fields, but I believe it is not necessary for analysis in my response. You see, for your assertion to be true, Russian aggression must be an act of self-defense. It is a framing that I see far too often, one that I cannot simply ignore. Before I begin,… Read more »
Title: A Menu for the Man with the Steady Lens Mr. Surael! Thank the Cinema Gods! The Director of Photography has finally returned to the set. While others are throwing philosophical Molotov cocktails and eating logical pretzels, you walk in, set up your tripod, and calmly adjust the focus. I read your analysis and I must say—it was a balm for my tired eyes. In a kitchen where everyone is screaming and throwing pots, you are calmly arranging the cutlery by height and polishing the glasses. It is truly mesmerizing! You are like a man ironing a tablecloth during an… Read more »
Re “Marxism is based on love of humanity as much as any religion. It is about the future of humanity, of resolving class conflict and bringing into existence a world without war and poverty, exactly like Christianity and Buddhism.”
Malice, is what drove Karl Marx, and his satanic Marxist ideology, which is evident in his early literary works, ‘Lucifer’ and ‘The Player’. Karl Marx’s own son wrote to him as “my dear devil”, his father suggested that he was “governed by a demon”, and Engels referred to him as a “monster of ten thousand devils”.
Karl Marx was a Jewish Freemason of the 31st degree (Lenin and Trotsky, who were also Jewish Freemasons) and Nathan Rothschild gave Marx two checks for several thousand pounds to finance the cause of Socialism, and thus was born the most demonic political theory, ever to be put into practice; Marxism, with its unattainable equality, which was responsible for the murder of well in excess of 100 million people in peace time, in the countries that this Satanic ideology was inflicted on.
You have dropped all pretense to rationality now. It looks a lot like you are a Jew hater as well.
Title: Refreshments for the Front Line My dear Führer, witnessing your relentless crusade against the demonic legions of the 31st degree, I couldn’t help but notice that even the most fervent defender of the faith must eventually grow hungry. One cannot dismantle the entire history of the Rothschilds and the Satanic roots of Marxism on an empty stomach! I have prepared a special Gothic Platter for you—totally free of any socialist redistribution, of course. In our kitchen, we believe that the only thing that should be “collectivized” is the washing of the dishes, never the sausages. Are you ready for… Read more »
Sounds like an ad hominem attack to me.
One of Russell’s greatest weaknesses – in common with many other of the best people – was to overestimate others. In this case he seems to have assumed that Soviets would blindly obey what Russell saw as the precepts of Marxism-Leninism. I don’t know whether he took the trouble to wade through the turgid documents of Marxism-Leninism or the statements of the USSR government, but if he did he must have seriously misunderstood them. Politicians routinely say a lot of things that are not true, or that they do not really mean. They threaten violence that they are not prepared… Read more »
Yes, exactly. I am neither a Stalinist nor a Trotskyite, just a plain old Marxist-Leninist.
This is nonsense. The author does not provide any footnotes to support his claims. I urge skepticism about anything he does claim, and I urge kindness towards his pitiful efforts to deal with matters clearly beyond his intellectual reach.
Urge away. I don’t do footnotes.
Title: The Sequel Nobody Expected: Part III — The Russell Paradox Ladies and Gentlemen, I must confess—I had already left the set. I was halfway to the exit, coat in hand, convinced that the credits had rolled for good and the “Ochmann Cinema” had closed for the night. But then I heard the familiar thunder of “surgical skepticism” colliding with a “passionate defense of the masses,” and I realized: the lights have flickered back on! The cameras are still rolling, and the trilogy has officially begun. I find myself watching this unscripted encore with the rapt attention of a student… Read more »
My dear Master of Ceremonies, Your exegesis of this ‘trilogy’ is undoubtedly the most refreshing element of this entire spectacle. As someone accustomed to the rigid structures of formal logic, I must admit that your ‘cinematic’ perspective lends an epic dimension to our struggle—one that we may not even deserve, given the aridity of my opponent’s arguments. I am delighted by your ‘wink’ towards Principia Mathematica. You are right—Russell needed hundreds of pages to prove that 1+1=2. It is the price one pays for absolute rigor. In an era where some attempt to prove that ‘invasion is peace,’ those 360… Read more »
Title: A Menu for the Man of Logic Ah, Professor Ashurbanipal! I see my humble catering station has caught your refined eye. It is an honor to serve a palate so accustomed to the rarified air of Göttingen. Since we are still on set and the pub remains a few scenes away, allow me to present today’s special—a menu curated specifically for your philosophical appetite. What shall it be, my Lord of Logic? Perhaps the “Communist Crust”? It’s a Marxist cheese sandwich where the ingredients are distributed according to need, though I must warn you—the cheese is a collective hallucination,… Read more »
I have always thought Wittgenstein got the paradox problem right nd Russell got it wrong. If “This sentence is a lie” is true, it must be false. If it is false, it must be true. Why is that a problem? It is not a problem, because this sentence says nothing, it is neither true nor false, it is meaningless. You can sit there all day making these logical deductions, but it is like spending the day twiddling your thumbs. The meaning of a sentence is its use. This sentence has no use. That’s good enough for me.
Title: Special Delivery for the “Original Thinker” Mr. Wicher, Please, do not shoot the catering guy! I am just emerging from behind the sandbags where Professor Ashurbanipal was conducting his heavy artillery fire. I heard you shouting that you “don’t need no stinking footnotes”—a magnificent line, straight from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre! I didn’t realize we were filming a Western, but I have adjusted the menu accordingly. Since you believe that logic is merely “twiddling one’s thumbs” and that the Liar Paradox (“This sentence is a lie”) is meaningless because it has no use, I have prepared a… Read more »
TITLE: REQUIEM FOR NINEVEH — THE SURREALIST SEQUEL Ladies and Gentlemen, the credits haven’t even rolled, and we are already deep into a sequel of epic proportions. This thread has officially transcended a mere debate, evolving into an intellectual blockbuster where the rigid scepter of formal logic clashes head-on with the fire of revolutionary passion. From our academic Kings and Knights of the People to the enigmatic masters of irony lurking in the shadows, we are witnessing a masterclass in digital theater. While the cast battles over the salvation of the species, I’ll remain at the field kitchen, slicing the… Read more »
My dear Master of Ceremonies, this poster deserves a place in the archives of a digital Nineveh. The “Riemannian salami” is a truly exquisite touch—I applaud your sense of taste. Since you have announced the premiere of this saga, allow me only a brief comment in the Roman spirit, which perfectly summarizes your “surrealist” vision: “Now I shall state the reason why I came, and explain the plot of this tragedy. What? Are you frowning because I said it would be a tragedy? I am a god, and I will change it. If you wish, I will turn it from… Read more »