Bomb attacks on Brussels airport

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Things are always really complicated (the crusades especially, the first especially), what I mean is that Marx was a philopher rather than a political theorisf some take him for, the term marxism is often used wrongly nowadays, words evolve of course, machivellian, sadism racism take your pick, marxism is an evolved word as well.

---

Marx's "philosophy" (with Lenin's amendments) was made into an ideology that guided a sixth part of the Earth's area (and the allied states) for seventy years. It surely influenced geopolitics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Marx's "philosophy" (with Lenin's amendments) was made into an ideology that guided a sixth part of the Earth's area (and the allied states) for seventy years. It surely influenced geopolitics.

---

In the same way that the Marquis de Sade could have plunged the world into world where sexual satisfication of any kind would be acceptable just for the sake of just doing whatever you want just because you want to, whatever you desire. How influencial was Marxism really on a global scale? Where things went really wrong they didn't really need him to tell them how things should be done. Geopolitics can be ruled out imho, in the end Marx was just someone with some radical ideas but they were never anything more than a prediction of how things could go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

In the same way that the Marquis de Sade could have plunged the world into world where sexual satisfication of any kind would be acceptable just for the sake of just doing whatever you want just because you want to, whatever you desire.

---

If Sadism was proclaimed a state ideology anywhere we would surely see a lot of queer things happenning in world politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

How influencial was Marxism really on a global scale? Where things went really wrong they didn't really need him to tell them how things should be done. Geopolitics can be ruled out imho, in the end Marx was just someone with some radical ideas but they were never anything more than a prediction of how things could go.

---

Marxism with the spinoff by Lenin as the official ideology of the USSR (it was termed Marxism-Leninism) was the key factor determining the world geopolitics in the 20th century. But as any ideology that became a practice, it has some (sometimes many) differences with what was said (and intended) by its founder. Like Jesus never said anything (or commanded) about Crusades, yet it was his name that crusaders sported on their t-shirts, so to say.

Thete is no contradiction, the (first) crusade wasn't even seen as a war, I can go on into that and make things really complicated, but it was seen as a pilmgrige at the time, with a sauce called 'deus bellum' which means a justified war. If there is already so much ambitiouty there how can we blame marxism for the horrors of communism. I don't think it's fair to do that, intentions and reality resonate really badly and I don't really like that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

intentions and reality resonate really badly and I don't really like that

---

This is ever the way with ideologies: whenever a perfect idea is put to practice, humans screw it up to the utmost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Thete is no contradiction, the (first) crusade wasn't even seen as a war, I can go on into that and make things really complicated, but it was seen as a pilmgrige at the time, with a sauce called 'deus bellum' which means a justified war. If there is already so much ambitiouty there how can we blame marxism for the horrors of communism. I don't think it's fair to do that, intentions and reality resonate really badly and I don't really like that

---

You serious Clark?

The 1st crusade was most certainly seen as a war. Now we can retroactively go back and see how the mechanisms of crusade really hadn't manifested themselves yet but it was still a war. One that the crusaders basically lucked their way threw until they took Jerusalem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

You serious Clark?

The 1st crusade was most certainly seen as a war. Now we can retroactively go back and see how the mechanisms of crusade really hadn't manifested themselves yet but it was still a war. One that the crusaders basically lucked their way threw until they took Jerusalem.

---

I wasn't there at the time. But there are some pretty good reasons to call the first crusade at least an armed pilgrimage, and they don't come from the least of experts. I'll refer you to them there are plenty of good books on how things were looked at at the time. (and of those that disagree)