Marx's argument in the end will be for the working class to rise up and take control. He believed that this would be the path to a single class society, when the means of production are controlled by the people who themselves toil on said production.
Even if a revolutionary, altruistic vanguard can seize power and not fall prey to Acton's observation, even if: there is still the nasty problem of transfer of power. Bureaucracy happens; lessons not acquired via first-hand struggle are difficult to propagate to the youth.
Consider the secular Jews of the United States, who seem awful asleep at the switch while we brew our own tyranny right at home. [And that oblique comparison is served totally non-partisan, by the way.]
If anybody shouldn't be sucking up to the oligarchs, it's those guys.
Compare what has actually been done to what Marx aspired to do.
This is my point, precisely. We haven't gotten to Marx's ideals yet, but anybody subscribing to Edenic thinking in our post-Eden world is kinda far out.
Has there been some change over recent years that has made phones hard to get out of your pocket?
Yes. They are now FUCKING HUGE. I really miss my RAZR V3.
They went over to Africa to help the people there and we want to ostracize them for 21 days when they get back?
Pathogens don't care how much of a hero you are. FWIW, the same thing is being done to soldiers, and it seems no one in the media is crying over them.
There is a nonzero time interval between when they notice symptoms and when they get to a hospital. During that time, they could potentially pass on the virus.
Listen, we the great unwashed are ordered to get our shots for everything under the sun. Admittedly, things like the flu are more common and more likely to kill you than ebola. But most of us aren't fans of bleeding to death from every orifice. We expect a high level of dedication from our medical professionals, and when they disregard protocol (that is, what they said protocol was before they changed it suddenly) it makes it harder for the rest of us to take them seriously.
The "Gnostic Gospels" aren't all gnostic, and most of them aren't gospels. And the Book of Mormon is not called "the Bible" even by Mormons.
If you're going to stretch this out to such lengths, then the Qur'an is also "the Bible" and maybe the Bhagavad Gita and the Satanic Bible are "the Bible".
Maybe because we're not fascists trying to create some kind of micromanaging bureaucratic dystopia.
I mean, regulating checkout aisles? Putting fruit there isn't going to make people buy it. Michele Obama pressured schools into putting tasteless, low-quality versions of "gourmet" dishes and fruit on kids' lunch trays, and they responded by throwing it out.
Jesus confronted the Samaritan woman at the well about her multiple divorces, and the fact that she was currently unmarried (John 4). He also commented that God hates divorce, and only gave it to us because our hearts were hard-- which implies that marriage has value.
Also, Creimer was responding to another person's question about Cook's invocation of God in his speech. So maybe you shouldn't rush to judgement yourself, since you obviously missed the context of an ongoing discussion.
Finally, I should note that an appeal to hypocrisy is irrelevant to an argument which depends only on whether it is true or false.