More nonsense from tk,

Surprising that only mslicker is protesting, even though I blasted several philosophies all at once............

Blasted several philosophies? In what way? Creating programs to spew nonsense? That is more a blast to yourself, the only criticism you can offer is mocking nonsense, others have done far better. I respond, not protest, because you referenced me specifically, perhaps you are just trolling. It is perhaps wise not to repond to such nonsense.

Anyway, mslicker claims that Marxism is the most scientific philosophy in the world,

Where do I say this? I say Marx's method is the scientific method, this is what has distinguished him from other socialists in his day, he put socialism on a scientific basis. He showed in economic terms capitalism was historically limited. The law of the falling rate of profit is particularly felt by capitalists, who have increasingly moved their production to nations where labor is cheap, just to stay in business.

then says that he's not a "quintessential" "Leftist" (but of course, he's still completely scientific! duh).

Comming to Marx's defence makes me the quintessential "Leftist"? By what logic do you arive at that conlusion?

He extols the virtues of self-evident truths, then criticizes people who arrive at their own self-evident truths.

You arive at your own subjective truth and try to pass this off as objective truth, truth for everyone. The fallacy is obvious. Self-evidedent truths are beyond debate, indisputably true.

Not to mention that he didn't seem to see the part that Left/Right is a false dichotomy.

I think it is false. My justifcation is that there so many degrees political thought, there are rarely just two positions to be taken. Libertarians might be thought of as "rightist", yet many of them oppose the war against Iraq. I oppose the war but in no way associate myself with Libertarian thought.

And of course, his reference to Russell was so laughable, especially in the light of Russell's paradox.

Explain, why does Russell's set theoretic discovery make my reference laughable?

Who's bogus, who's not? You be the judge.

I don't know what it means to be bogus. I don't withhold the possibility you may have something worth while to say, but your present examples do not inspire much confidence.