What I am suggesting is that electing philosophical kings wouldn't be terribly different from the only so functional form of representative democracy that already exists today. — thewonder

If it wouldn't be terribly different then why object to it?

As I said, it is imperative to understand yourself. There is no point understanding others or believing that you understand them if you don't understand yourself in the first place. That's why it has been said "Know thyself".

You seem to be objecting to the designation of "king" on psychological grounds. But that is your issue that only you can resolve.

It doesn't matter what we call philosopher kings. You can call them "wise rulers" if you prefer or use the Greek word that most people wouldn't understand and wouldn't associate with "aristocracy".

But I bet you would object to that too, and that suggests to me that your reasons are psychological not logical. In order to look at things in a philosophical light we must begin by pulling our heads out of the psychological, cultural and political garbage and analyze reality objectively, not put some psychotic or neurotic spin on it.

Why should we be ruled by a conspiracy of Fabians and oligarchs? Both politics and business are about power and self-interest. In contrast, philosophy is about wisdom or common sense. Therefore, governance should be based on philosophy, not on politics or business.

reincarnation is only a metaphor, an existential reminder to live each day, not as if it's your last day, but to live so completely and mindfully a whole lifetime in each day. Thus, Cicero's maxim: "To study philosophy is nothing but to prepare one’s self to die." — 180 Proof

There is no doubt that reincarnation has been used metaphorically. But the more prevalent view was religious, including in relation to preparation for death. So, both are possible.

As I pointed out on the other thread:

"The ancient Egyptians viewed death as a temporary transition into what could become everlasting life in paradise. The Egyptian outlook on death was not focused on fear as much as it was preparing and transitioning into a new prosperous afterlife.

The Egyptian Gods judged the merits of human character and deeds when deciding who was permitted to be immortal. As a result, much of human-life was centered on the hopeful attitude that if one is moral, one will live forever in a blissful afterlife. (This is somewhat comparable to Christian conceptions of religion.)

So, basically, for the Egyptians – at least the wise or the initiated into wisdom traditions – life was a preparation for death. It seems to me that Greek philosophy was influenced by the Egyptian outlook.
There are traditional accounts of Pythagoras going to Egypt in search of secret knowledge which he apparently obtained from Egyptian temple priests.

“[Pythagoras] was also initiated into all the mysteries of Byblos and Tyre, and in the sacred function performed in many parts of Syria […] After gaining all he could from the Phoenician mysteries, he found that they had originated from the sacred rites of Egypt […] This led him to hope that in Egypt itself he might find monuments of erudition still more genuine, beautiful and divine. Therefore following the advice of his teacher Thales, he left, as soon as possible, through the agency of some Egyptian sailors […] and at length happily landed on the Egyptian coast […] Here in Egypt he frequented all the temples with the greatest diligence, and most studious research […] After twelve years, about the fifty-sixth year of his age, he returned to Samos …” - Iamblichus’ Life of Pythagoras

However, is there ever an element of not wanting God to exists? I hope this makes sense. — Georgios Bakalis

I believe that's a big element in atheism. Atheists are afraid of the thought of there being anything higher than themselves hence they hope there isn't.

It's a sort of religion for people with an overblown opinion of themselves like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao . They all ended in personality cults. Stalin was compared to the sun, etc.

OK, you talk about someone remembering their previous lives, but how many of the whole human population are they? And they could have been having day dreams or some fantasy? Sometimes, I seem to remember my time in the garden of Eden, but don't believe it ever existed in real world. — Corvus

You don't seem to have followed the discussion or read the OP.

Because the mosque just happens to be on temple mount. No religious significance whatsoever. — Echarmion

What you're saying it that Temple Mount has no religious significance to the Jews whatsoever and that Muslims can have a mosque or anything they like on Temple Mount but Jews can't have a temple on their own Temple Mount in their own country.

Is that your argument?

It proves that reincarnation can never be proven. Therefore a meaningless question.[/quote]

It doesn't prove that. There is still a theoretical possibility that people can remember. And some apparently do remember.

Physical existence is not the issue here. The souls (mental entities, most significance being memories) are?? — Corvus

That's what I'm saying. The soul's memories. Absence of memories isn't evidence of absence of existence. Temporary or partial amnesia is not unheard-of.

Trying to equate Plato's philosophy with neoplatonism would be no different than trying to understand Kant in terms of neokantianism, that is it would be bound to mislead. — Janus

I don't think anyone was "trying to equate Plato's philosophy with neoplatonism". "Neoplatonism" is a neologism anyway.

But @Fooloso4 appears to have gone in the opposite direction or extreme and made up his mind to reject everyone's reading of the dialogues except his own.

Even if, we could prove one does reincarnate, if one does not remember his / her past life, how could one ever know that one has reincarnated?

Is then reincarnation without past life memory, a reincarnation? — Corvus

Well, people don't remember what they did or who they were in early infancy. This doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time. Absence of memory is no proof of nonexistence.

I think that it's superficially plausible. Aside from @Apollodorus's assumption that the removal of the third holiest site in Islam from Jerusalem could somehow ease religious tensions — thewonder

Nobody said anything about removing the site. I said relocate the mosque. This should be done with Muslim support. Islam is a religion of peace and I'm sure a compromise could be easily made.

Plus, the Muslims have three or more holy sites. Jews only have one and even that is controlled by Muslims. This doesn't seem just. I think justice is central to true philosophy. Therefore true philosophers should support my proposal.

I think you misunderstood what you were saying.

What I was saying was something else. I said philosopher kings not aristocracy. Obviously you couldn't have presidents because there will be nothing to preside over hence the designation of "king". However that would be just a title because they will be elected by the people. Better than Stalin and Mao Zedong who weren't elected and appointed themselves. Plus they were murderers not philosophers. IMO that proves my point.

The Philistines were probably related to the Mycenaeans. — frank

Probably. But they've long been replaced with Arabs in the meantime.

Of course a movement would need to be started to promote the plan. Participants could be recruited from all the other movements and organizations that have failed and funding could be obtained from the UN and other intergovernmental organizations and NGOs.

That's exactly what I was saying. As the classes already exist, there would be no point recreating them It's enough to replace their old members with new improved ones. I doubt that Stalinism would be a solution seeing that it has failed everywhere. So, putting philosophers in charge wouldn't be a bad idea.

If it is not the case that just about anyone can learn to become a philosopher king, then, there will be created certain classes and society will not differ too much from what already exists today. — thewonder

Well, I kind of like that type of music myself although I prefer to exchange ideas to listening to music and for some reason people tend to keep asking me questions.

As for the creation of certain classes, I don't think that would be a major problem as classes tend to emerge naturally in more complex societies anyway. More important would be what classes do and what they contribute to society. Plus, you can't tell that a system will be worse than the existing one until you try it out.

I know I am going waaaay wide off on a tangent. Maybe someone should ask the mods to delete my posts in this thread. I could, but I ran out of energy, thinking up my jokes. — god must be atheist

No worries, we understand.

I've already stated a few times I'm not stopping anyone and I don't care. If you're saying I'm not allowed to respond to posts on this thread, that's fine. Keep your thread. I don't need it.

Sweeden is listed as the world's seventh most happy country on The World Happiness Report, behind a number of other Nordic countries, — thewonder

However, I wasn't talking about "happiness". I was talking about democracy.

I asked you to provide textual evidence for your claim but you have not been able to. — Fooloso4

Of course I have. I said:

"The individual nous is in turn illumined by the Cosmic Nous or Divine Mind. So, there is a continuum extending from Ultimate Reality all the way down to the lowest levels of experience or existence"

To which you said:

"In which of the dialogues does Plato say this?"

Wayfarer already answered that. It isn't my fault that you don't read other people's posts. But here is the text from The Republic 509D-513E if you insist:

"And this is he whom I call the child of the good, whom the good begat in his own likeness, to be in the visible world, in relation to sight and the things of sight, what the good is in the intellectual world in relation to mind and the things of mind [...]

And the soul is like the eye: when resting upon that on which truth and being shine, the soul perceives and understands and is radiant with intelligence; but when turned towards the twilight of becoming and perishing, then she has opinion only, and goes blinking about, and is first of one opinion and then of another, and seems to have no intelligence [...]

You would say, would you not, that the sun is not only the author of visibility in all visible things, but of generation and nourishment and growth, though he himself is not generation?[...]

In like manner the good may be said to be not only the author of knowledge to all things known, but of their being and essence, and yet the good is not essence, but far exceeds essence in dignity and power."

After which he introduces the line that divides the phenomenal from the noumenal or the physical from the spiritual as I pointed out in my earlier post which you also chose to ignore.

What the text is saying is that above the phenomenal world or world of appearances is the intelligible or noumenal world which is illumined by the Good (ton Agathon). The Good is also the source of all ideas that constitute the intelligible world, copies of which make up the phenomenal world. In other words, the whole of existence, including soul, originates in the Good and is bathed in its light just as the physical world is bathed in the light of the sun.

Very simple, really. I don't know on what basis you are denying it. You may have a reason but you refuse to tell us what it is.

From a democratic perspective, there is majority support for wealth distribution almost everywhere. And if you don't want to listen to the rabble, there are plenty economists who agree. Almost noone would argue that the cleptocratic post-soviet russian oligarchy for example represents superior economic policy to swedish social democracy. — Echarmion

Wealth distribution maybe, but certainly not abolition of private property.

Both the Russian cleptocrats and the Swedish technocrats operate in close collaboration with business interests. The Swedish living standards may be higher than the Russian ones but in terms of democracy both systems are very similar.

Its not really great philosophical practice to be politically biased, unless you have logic or facts to back it up. — Tiberiusmoon

I agree. People shouldn't be attacked for pointing out inconsistencies in Marxist theory. There should be no political bias.

I am not going to allow you to dictate how I will proceed in this thread. I will follow Plato's lead, attending to what is said and done in the the dialogue in the order it occurs. It is only once we have seen the whole that we can see how everything fits together, with each part serving its purpose. — Fooloso4

You can proceed any way you wish. I don't care and I'm not stopping you. I'm simply pointing out that there are major inconsistencies in your statements.

Like all other philosophers, Plato naturally preferred to convey his teachings orally, from master to disciple as had always been the practice. Hence he was reportedly reluctant to write down anything. Whatever he did write down is obviously incomplete and ambiguous and may be interpreted in many different ways.

There is, however, a scholarly consensus as to the core teachings that can be extracted from the available texts. You seem to deny both the scholarly consensus and the Platonic tradition itself.

If your claim that "He teaches those who are thoughtful and perspicacious enough how to philosophize. To the careful reader he does not provide answers, although there are plenty of things he says that can be latched onto as answers", then you can read into the dialogues anything you like and you don't need a discussion.

Since you have already decided to reject both the Platonic tradition and the scholarly consensus, the conclusions cannot be anything but your personal opinion, in which case you might as well state from the beginning what that opinion is.

When I got involved with a group of grandparents fighting for grandparents' rights, I was horrified by the fighting for control that almost destroyed our united effort, and I notice in the reading that there were divisions in the socialist movement for the same reason. We are highly motivated when we feel important to the movement, and like churches break up into different sects, political activist groups seem to do the same thing. Strong leaders need followers, they tend to compete against each other.

For sure owning one's own property is desirable. There are some benefits to renting, but I rather have control over property choices and who can live in my home, than feel like I am still living with my parents because the owners and managers have all the rights, not the renters. Not to neglect, when we own we build equity and when we rent, not only do we not have equity but the cost of renting goes up and up, preventing renters from getting economically ahead and preparing for retirement. Those are important differences.

"This is why they dubbed socialism "a business proposition"" I really like your explanation of that and I must ponder it. It makes perfect sense to me to work with economic interests instead of against them.
And it seems to me, some of the important Fabians were educators, not industrialists. That might be important to their take on things? Education is essential to liberty and I think liberty is very important. It goes with owning land and having property rights, versus renting and living under rules made without us having a say in them.

I think I favor the democratic model for industry. I like the idea of worker-owned industry but there must be strong leadership as in a republic, not the inefficiency of democracy that lacks strong leadership. Thank you for making the issue comprehensible. — Athena

You are quite right about private property and for very good reasons which we can address later. Suffice it to say for now that the vast majority of people were and still are against the abolition of private property and this induced the Fabians to distance themselves, at least in public, from more radical forms of socialism.

The danger of activist movements is that they involve many different people with different outlooks, interests and agendas and this can make those movements vulnerable to infiltration and manipulation by other interests.

The Fabians' involvement with corporate interests did make sense for several reasons, the principal one being that their projects required the kind of moneys that the Fabians simply did not have. The downside to that is that Fabian projects being increasingly larger and more costly, Fabianism over time became totally dependent on corporate donors and ended up representing the interests of the corporate community over those of the general public. This would be one key point to keep in mind.

The London School of Economics (LSE) is a case in point. Originally owned and controlled by the Fabians, control soon passed from the Fabians to the corporations whose directors currently sit on its board and decide policy.

I think education was where this discussion originally started. I communicate with university students and professors on an almost daily basis. When I mention Fabianism and its influence there is first perplexed silence but after consulting the sources they all end up thanking me for bringing it to their attention.

It would have been impossible to clarify this point in a few sentences. Education was absolutely central to the Fabian project. There is an excellent study by Fabian Society archivist Patricia Pugh, Educate, Agitate, Organize: 100 Years of Fabian Socialism, which makes this point more than clear. I will post a link if I find one, but here is a review of it Review: [Untitled] on JSTOR

The LSE was founded in 1895 and was the first big project started by the Fabians. It later merged with and took over the University of London. But the Fabians were taking over the entire education system. They initiated education reform in the whole of England. Shaw in his paper “Educational Reform” (1889) wrote that the aim was “control over the whole education system, from the elementary school to the University and over all educational endowments”.

The word “endowments” itself speaks volumes. The Fabians had the backing of leading bankers and industrialists and were given free hand by the King to do virtually as they pleased in the name of “enlightenment” and “progress”. They took control of the London School Board, the London County Council, university societies, students’ unions, top institutions like Imperial College and Royal Economic Society, foundations, endowments, and pretty much everything that had to do with education.

Beatrice Webb wrote in her diary that the LSE was “stealthily establishing itself as the English school of economics and political science” and concluded that thanks to the activities of the Fabian Society, the LSE, the London County Council Progressives (allies of the Fabians) and the influence of Fabian books, “no young man or woman who wanted to study or work in public affairs could fail to come under Fabian influence”.

In a nutshell, this was the Fabian plan or “conspiracy”: to systematically, and in their own words “stealthily”, take over education and, through education, also culture, politics and governance. And, as explained by R. Martin, they replicated this in America and throughout the British Empire. In other words, these are the practical details to Wells' more general outlines.

If people want to know why the education system in England and America is the way it is, Fabian and corporate influence or control is a big part of the answer.

In any case, it is clear that Fabianism is not a democratic enterprise. The people have absolutely no say in it. If we want to change culture we need to change education. But we can't do that when education is in someone else's hands.

In the Seventh Letter Plato says:

There is no treatise (suggramma) by me on these subjects, nor will there ever be. (341c) — Fooloso4

That's precisely why I pointed out that in the Greek philosophical tradition, teachings were transmitted orally.

Even if there is no "treatise" by Plato, certain core teachings must be acknowledged and they have been acknowledged, both by Platonic philosophers like Plotinus and by modern scholars. If you don't acknowledge that, then you might as well throw the book out of the window and forget the discussion.

On the other hand and as I said before, if you do want to have a discussion of Plato then it would be helpful to state what you think Plato's core teaching are or are not, and then adduce evidence for or against as the case may be. This would be a sensible procedure IMO.

I find that every time I read the dialogues I find something new and different. — Fooloso4

That makes the whole discussion kind of pointless, doesn't it? What happens if following the closure of the discussion you decide to find "new and different things" in the texts?

This is simply wrong. It is called Platonism because it was influenced by Plato. It is not consistent with his writings. Nowhere in Plato do we find your assertion about the individual mind being illumined by the cosmic or divine Mind and the rest. — Fooloso4

Plato and his disciples didn’t call themselves “Platonists” or their system “Platonism” so the designation is irrelevant. What matters is that this was a living tradition that was transmitted orally from master to disciple for centuries after Plato. Its representatives didn’t think they were just “influenced” by Plato, they believed and had reasons to believe that they followed Plato in all his main teachings.

It is clear from Plato’s writings that he believed in an eternal “Good” which is the source of all ideas, both in the higher world of realities and in the lower world of appearances. The immortal aspect of man, soul or spirit, is obviously connected with the Good, that’s why the philosopher can ascend or reascend to the Good.

Plotinus and others identified the Good with the One, etc. which they had every right to do. That doesn’t mean that they “misinterpreted” Plato or that they made things up just for the sake of it.

Platonism is an impediment to understanding Plato. You end up attributing things to Plato that are nowhere to be found in the dialogues. — Fooloso4

Not necessarily. What kind of things might that be? Wouldn't an anti-Platonic approach also lead to misattributions or misinterpretations and perhaps even more so?

Philosophical systems do evolve over time. However, Platonism is generally consistent with Plato's writings, that's why it's called Platonism, and it does help in understanding uncertain or ambiguous points. Obviously, concepts that are unambiguous and crystal clear need no reference to external sources. But where this is not the case, it can do no harm to see what other Platonic writers have to say.

As I said in my previous post, it may even be helpful to refer to the wider cultural context, including non-Greek (e.g. Egyptian) influence, to better understand the worldview of Ancient Greek philosophers.

If you really wanted to predicate governance by Philosophy, it would have to be the case that everyone could become a philosopher. — thewonder

I didn't mean that there must be an exclusive elite group. But we're talking about quality, not quantity. Obviously, candidates would have to be selected according to certain criteria and this would necessarily limit the number of those selected. However, any citizen with the right aptitude can apply for selection and if successful be included in the general pool of philosophers from among whom one would become the leader and others his advisers. I can see no reason why this shouldn't be applied at least on a trial basis. At the very least, the experiment could start with a village or town and if successful reproduced at regional and national level. I don't see how it could be any worse that what we've got now and with a bit of luck it might turn out to be better. Just think of the many billions that could be saved on elections and politicians. I think it would greatly contribute to eradicating poverty and other societal problems. And, who knows, philosopher kings might even serve as a model and inspiration for the rest of the population and this would help combating antisocial behavior, crime and anti-culture.

In my conversations with student Leftists and community activists I have met over 30 years, only one or two has ever read more than a few pages of Marx. — Tom Storm

That has been exactly my experience, though obviously not for that length of time. Very few have actually read Marx and even fewer have objectively analyzed Marxist concepts and theories. I've found that this applies even more to Fabianism. 99% of university students don't have a clue and even professors are surprised when I mention Fabians and their influence on the Left. But after checking the sources they all end up thanking me for bringing it to their attention.

In general, 'let's redistribute wealth and get rid of oligarchs' is what leftism boils down to. It is an emotion-based knee-jerk reaction just as in the case of race, gender or environmental issues and that's where psychological manipulation by various self-interested activist groups tends to come into it. And it has also become a profitable business as the more vocal and persistent you are in such causes the more you get the attention of corporate donors keen on publicizing their progressive credentials.

Right, but that is very different from what Apollodorus is claiming. — Fooloso4

How is that "very different"? As I said before, Plato is best interpreted in the Platonic tradition of Plotinus and others. If you choose a different standpoint then it might help to let us know what it is.

I think "life as a preparation for death" is indeed the key to understanding Socrates and Plato. However, we find parallels in Egyptian culture. — Apollodorus

Egyptian influence on early Minoan art is generally accepted. But there are also some interesting parallels between the Egyptian cult of the Mother Goddess and similar developments in Minoan culture. Obviously, Crete was just across the sea and there were trade and cultural links between the Minoans and the Egyptians.

Similar links also later developed between the Greek mainland and Egypt, with extensive Egyptian influence on Greek art in the 7th century BC. And then we have literary accounts of Pythagoras going to Egypt in search of secret knowledge which he apparently obtained from Egyptian temple priests.

“[Pythagoras] was also initiated into all the mysteries of Byblos and Tyre, and in the sacred function performed in many parts of Syria […] After gaining all he could from the Phoenician mysteries, he found that they had originated from the sacred rites of Egypt […] This led him to hope that in Egypt itself he might find monuments of erudition still more genuine, beautiful and divine. Therefore following the advice of his teacher Thales, he left, as soon as possible, through the agency of some Egyptian sailors […] and at length happily landed on the Egyptian coast […] Here in Egypt he frequented all the temples with the greatest diligence, and most studious research […] After twelve years, about the fifty-sixth year of his age, he returned to Samos …” - Iamblichus’ Life of Pythagoras

Well, one of my initial impressions was that this was more like a social club for liberals and other progressives who tend to be overprotective of leftist narratives and sometimes employ language that is too technical or unnecessarily complex when more simple forms of communication and discussion would be just fine. Personally, I don't frequent forums much as I prefer face-to-face communication and email works OK for most of my purposes. But I did get some helpful answers to my first question and once you get used to it I suppose it is as good a forum as others.

Marx was a gifted theorist and even though I disagree with him, particularly finding fault with The German Ideology, which you have cited, which does serve as evidence of that he did have kind of a habit of deploying incendiary sophistry to a point of excess, — thewonder

Correct. Scholars like Kolakowski have long pointed out that Marx was using ambiguous and suggestive language. Obviously, this was done on purpose as Marx had studied law and philosophy and knew the difference between precise and imprecise language all too well.

To be honest, I've never felt particularly attracted to Anarchism but I must say that I have far more respect for Anarchists like Bakunin than for Marx who was a rather slippery character whose main interest was to be always right even when he obviously wasn't and all he wanted was to dominate and bully which is why he had very few friends.

He was also clearly afraid of Bakunin who was quite an influential personality in his own right and much of Marx's polemics was intended to confuse the Anarchists and impose his own version of socialism without much success however which is why in the end he had to close down the London International and sent it packing to New York out of the reach of the likes of Bakunin.

The Communist Manifesto became more influential in the 1900s but it had zero impact on the 1848-49 revolution as admitted by Engels in his Introduction. It was printed in London but the French version came out too late to influence the movement in France and the German-language copies were seized by the police at the border so very few people got a chance to ever see it even if they had wanted to. Marx's Communist League had a few hundred members, was split into rival factions and was shut down soon after. That's why he gave up and retired to London to do research for his Capital in the reading room at the British Museum. That's the facts, the rest is mythology spun out by Engels and other socialist propagandists.

However the general point of nous as 'the faculty which sees what truly is', is certainly relevant across all the dialogues[/quote]

Correct.

I think the key word is 'nous' — Wayfarer

“nous” is the contracted form of “noos” which is also used in the sense of “heart” or “soul”, i.e. that part of the self that uses a more direct or intuitive form of perception or understanding.

A useful way to look at it is:

1. eikasia or “imagination”, “image forming” related to sense perception.
2. pistis or “belief”, related to the things we perceive or imagine.
3. dianoia or “thinking”, apprehending by means of thought processes.
4. noesis or “intuition”, understanding, wisdom.

Obviously, these levels of knowledge are more or less fluid forms/functions of mind or consciousness, they are not tight compartments.

The individual nous is in turn illumined by the Cosmic Nous or Divine Mind. So, there is a continuum extending from Ultimate Reality all the way down to the lowest levels of experience or existence.

Marx was a gifted polemicists, and, so, everyone ought to take some of his words with a grain of salt. His ideas often changed, but he did hold fast to them at any given point in time. — thewonder

Well, I have no doubt that he was a gifted polemicist. He learned all the tricks of the trade as a journalist and his father was a lawyer.

However, he couldn't have been that good since very few people took him seriously. His Communist Manifesto was a flop and hardly anyone read Capital. And he had to close down the International because it was being taken over by Anarchists.

Plus, Bakunin and others who knew him well thought that he was a charlatan. After all, he did live off other people's money for many years, so we can't rule out the possibility.

Yeah the Lord of the Rings and Capital are pretty interchangeable — Maw

Not a bad comparison. But I was thinking more of science fiction. More like Jules Verne or H G Wells. With an economic twist.

Pantheism is "a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God". But what exactly does this mean when taken literally? — Michael McMahon

Good question. I think the answer is that it means different things to different people. That's why some believe that Spinoza was a mystic and others that he was the father of communism.

Some like Moses Hess believed that Spinoza (whom Hess called "our Master") was the prophet of messianic socialism:

“The Messianic era is the present age, which began to germinate with the teachings of Spinoza, and finally came into historical existence with the great French Revolution ...”

- M. Hess, Rome and Jerusalem p. 188

"With Spinoza there began no other period than that for which Christ had yearned, for which he and his first disciples and all of Christendom have hoped and prophesied."

- The Sacred History of Mankind p. 44

Wrote thousands and thousands of pages over the course of 40 years, no evidence he actually believed a word of it — Maw

And if a fiction writer wrote thousands and thousands of pages over the course of 40 or more years, that would be evidence that he actually believed every single word of it. That's why we all believe fiction writers.

Huge self-own by Marx. Wrote thousands and thousands of pages over the course of 40 years, no evidence he actually believed a word of it. — Maw

Well, conceivably, he did believe some of it. However, there is no evidence that he believed everything. Certainly, most people didn't seem to be convinced.

If you wrote something like this, would you believe it?

“… in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner …” - The German Ideology

Or like this

“Hence, in the value equation, in which the coat is the equivalent of the linen, the coat officiates as the value of linen. The value of the commodity linen is expressed by the bodily form of the commodity coat, the value of one by the use-value of the other. As a use-value, the linen is something palpably different from the coat; as value, it is identical with the coat, and therefore looks like the coat. Thus the linen acquires a value-form different from its natural form. Its existence as a value is manifested in its equality with the coat, just as the sheep-like nature of the Christian is shown in his resemblance to the lamb of God”

Capital Vol. I p. 60

Obviously, I might be wrong but it seems hard to believe.