…because he owned slaves.  Unlike Aristotle, he did not justify slavery, so one might have thought that would count in his favor.  More seriously, at the time he owned slaves, it was hardly uncommon for individuals of his class.  (Contrast the case of honoring Calhoun!)  Will this de-naming make the world a better place?   Was anyone in doubt in Dublin that chattel slavery was wrong?  Will scholars of Berkeley now apologize for writing about him?

Marx, ever the optimist, thought that things would be very different when we live in a "human" world, in which there are neither chattel- nor wage-slaves, in which people were not locked in life-and-death struggles for existence, and in which the human interest in creative work was allowed to express itself.  That must surely be right, but one might imagine that in such a humane world no one would care about dishonoring those who were otherwise great intellectual innovators because they were creatures of their times, because they acted exactly as their class position required.