Can one be a socialist/communist without respecting and honoring Karl Marx?

Can one be a socialist/communist without respecting and honoring Karl Marx?

Attached: h3cb4yqgzorz.jpg (688x532, 44.13K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Socialist - yes.
Communist - probably not.

When you finish reading Das Kapital

Attached: trump workers party.jpg (500x417, 46.37K)

honor is a spook, but marx definitely deserves respect for his work. you could be a commie without respecting him but a pretty brainlet one

respect =/= think he was right about everything


Yes, but it would be pretty hard justify not accepting at least some of Marx’s observations and positions. Even Anarchists draw from Marxism to a large degree.

I respect him as a theoretician. As a person, he was a jackass.

Honestly, couldn't you say that about most philosophers pre-20th century?

What's OP insecure about?
Is Marxism too radical? Does it hurt his liberal fee fees?

Attached: 1502244494356.jpg (693x698, 110.34K)

There's that word again

Sure, but you'd be wrong.

Yes but there is literally no reason to disagree with 99% of what he wrote if you are a socialist unless your one of those really batshit anarchists who thinks he had a secret plan to install a tyranny run by a Jewish clique. (anarchists nowadays no longer can use the Jewish part though)

Even people who disagreed with Marx on some significant issues of strategy (Synidcalists) still called themselves Marxists and combined their theory with Marxism because his works are so central to the theory of socialism. If you call yourself a socialist but not a Marxist then you're illiterate and believe a strawman of Marx's real theories, there are no exceptions.

I would not go that far. Marx's version of historical materialism was developed around incomplete data, and what we have since learned from archaeology and anthropology strongly–I would say conclusively–suggests a far more complex pattern to human social development than the simple dialectic model postulates. I am also inclined to recognize more distinct classes than Marx did, although he was absolutely right about class struggle being the driving force of human history. There is also the issue of Young Marx and Old Marx not always agreeing with one another. Marx came up with a lot of great shit, but we should refrain from assuming his analysis to be the be-all-end-all, even if his analysis of capitalism remains the best and most comprehensive to date.

Yeah, but it would inevitably have been outdated anyway, where the tyranny part wouldn't. Top Jew in the USSR was assassinated, but ML "state capitalism" was still authoritarian/statist. Not saying the anti-semitic part of the accusation was reasonable to begin with, though.



That assumes that his critiques of political economy were 99% of his writing, I don't believe that to be the case and there is much to disagree with him on such as electoralism and the role of the lumpenproletariat and peasantry, which was what Bakunin disagreed with him on in the 1st international.
In a lot of cases they didn't call themselves Marxists though. The IWW for instance only claimed Syndicalism rather than "Marxist Syndicalism".
Marx himself claimed he was not a Marxist fam, would you say he believed a strawman of his own work? You seem to be conflating "Marxist" with "influenced by Marx's work" which makes the term include everyone from Bakunin to Warren Buffet, stretching an already loose description to meaninglessness. What's more important than what you label yourself as is what your praxis is and how you process information, if a dude doesn't call himself a Marxist but has praxis grounded in material analysis is a lot closer to Marx than a self-described Marxist whose praxis is cheerleading socdems halfway around the world and larping as a 20th century revolutionary.

Attached: 8cef6580a8a0843c737dc01642edbde2f9c43ee857bd289633774dc0e4c7d109.png (730x227, 15.12K)

dank u

Attached: 3c551b47ff9f26bb097626053890f4a7--cute-dog-quotes-puppy-memes.jpg (640x615, 58.05K)

He did not.


It was a joke fellas, but it highlights how a group of people claiming to be Marxists and allegedly complying with a materialist view of history came to different conclusions than Marx way back in the 19th century. Given that self-described Marxists run from barely pink socdems to the armchair gang to crypto-nationalist 3rd worldists, it's clear that rather that Marx's work doesn't produce uniform praxis or ideology among adherents. The French "so-called Marxists" and Bakunin were right in the conflict the "If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist" quote arose from, the history of socialist political parties shows they almost always ended up as removed from the class struggle, with the successful ones becoming the left wing of capital.

Only if you have never read his works.

That's because literature never by itself produce praxis or ideology.

>The French "so-called Marxists" and Bakunin were right […], the history of socialist political parties shows they almost always ended up as removed from the class struggle, with the successful ones becoming the left wing of capital.
Who's "they"? The so-called Marxists and Bakunin? Or the socialist political parties?

Which is my disagreement with along with the label "marxist" not meaning much on it's own given the breadth of what it covers.
The socialist political parties.

I fail to see how there could be a path to socialism without people wanting socialism organising themselves.

Yes, and the socialist parties have been proven to be a poor method of organization for retaining the proletarian character of "the real movement". Are you under the impression that opposition to the party form and electoralism is an opposition to all worker organization?

Well yeah, because I call "party" any organisation of politically like-minded people, no matter the specifics of how it is organized, wether or not it gives into électoralisme, etc.

Is that electoralism?

That's confusing imo, "party" implies electoral participation and the vast majority of socialist parties did or do line up with this. If I'm not mistaken the rationale for excluding anarchist organizations and individuals from the 2nd international was that they were not organized into political parties, which lends credence to this perception over the term party. I prefer the term organization because it has no connotations with specific praxis or form and allows "socialist", "communist", "anarchist" or whatever to be the major qualifier.

Not necessarily. Engels seems to be arguing that universal suffrage serves as an indicator of when the oppressed class is ready for revolution. I'd argue against this as we effectively have universal suffrage in most of yuropoor and burgerland yet the proletariat doesn't seem to be class conscious or ready to revolt against the bourgeoisie.

I'd define electoralism as the participation of socialist in elections by running candidates and such. I'll argue that this is different from individuals voting or organizations trying to get propositions on ballots where possible, such as voting for a socdem over a lolbert or voting for Prop 10 (rent control) in California. The issue with electoralism is that it forces socialist parties to act as the left wing if elected and at most can preserve the welfare state from neoliberals. That the working class seems to be abandoning the ballot box is another reason to avoid it in our present times, even if your goal is reform striking or similar actions seem to be more effective than voting for someone who wants a 15$ minimum wage or whatever.

Nope. You must honor Karl Marx with your words, deeds and songs.

Marx was an alcoholic bum

I find it difficult to be socialist without aknowledging at least partially his contribution to our theory but it's not like there is some excommunication motive from looking down on the man himself.

Attached: 2816431938653107569425.jpg (913x601, 135K)

I acknowledge his influence but are more persuaded by Sorel, Blanqui, Celine, Althusser, etc.

…I mean, he was booted from the fucking International.

It seems a tad silly to be socialist without recognizing Marx's contributions to socialism as a whole, but you should make up your own mind about it. Anyway, anarchists are socialists and prefer Bakunin to Marx, but they are ultimately communists too, just not state socialists.