Socialism/Leftism without Marx

Is it even possible? Can we really side with people that claim Marx isn't essential to Socialism? Some fascists or third positionists keep shilling for "anti-marxian socialism". I also see many Anarchists that say Proudhon, Kropotkin and Stirner were the true left and superior to Marx… But do these people have the right to call themselves Socialist? Discuss/Enlighten me. So far I have only read basic Marxist theory (capital, wage labour and capital, communist manifesto) and the ego book (which didn't impress me at all).

Attached: tumblr_omee7jIlp91ropld1o1_1280.jpg (750x750, 72.82K)

Other urls found in this thread:

You can have Socialism without Marx as the idea predates him but Fascists who shill "Prussian Socialism" don't know what they're talking about because that's a capitalist economy.

But Marx debunked reactionary socialism as unscientific shit right? So why follow it.

Marxist theory is huge, anarchists disagree with some parts, but agree with other parts.
And I tend to agree with it. The descriptive parts of Marxism (class, wage-labour, etc.) can and should be used by anarchists, the prescriptive parts of Marxism, the 'recipe' on how to build communism (DoP, State-control, etc.) are up for debate and I'm not sure if they're useful in the 21st century.

Even as a Marxist I hate to say it, but basically all leftist traditions would be even more nonsensical and shit without him. Even when I was an anarchist I closely studied Marx. He was a prolific thinker and while I think there are valid criticism of him he did far more for the advancement of leftist thought than anyone else. On the bright side other leftist traditions like anarchism did have brilliant thinkers, but people like Kropotkin for example were more focused on various fields less relevant to understanding capitalism. At the same time tankies claiming the mantle of Marx have done incredible damage to the movement. For whatever reason these no book fags think any criticism of the worst of the Bolsheviks is somehow anti-Marxist despite the writings of Marx directly contradicting them. Fuck I hate politics.

A lot of Marx and Engels ideas are based on Proudhon works. Proudhon is the first material/scientific socialist.

Proudhon supported markets. He is no Socialist.

No, Marx has been commonly used by everyone from anarchists to socdems and at this point is ingrained in the left. That said less Marx could be useful, in that rather than developing praxis to fit our current conditions many Marxists prefer to dig through Marx and Engles for justification of praxis that is seemingly ineffective. This phenomenon is often contradictionary between sects, notably seen with MLs and leftcoms.

Socialism is not planned economy.

And trots.

Socialism is an economy based on need. Markets are economies based on profit.

Read Stirner's Critics.

It applies to anyone who calls themselves a Marxist, MLs and leftcoms are a good example because before BO meltdown on Zig Forums a lot of debates went into quoting Marx at each other. The problem with this is the justification of praxis based upon Marx's work, which they can't agree on anyways, rather than the current conditions we find ourselves in. Very few, including anarchists who generally have a better handle on marxism than vice versa, will tell you Marx's analysis of capitalism isn't worth reading, but he wasn't working with the knowledge we have in the 21st century so using interpretations of his thoughts on praxis in the 19th century as justification can lead to some silly ideas, like fighting with 10 other marxist parties for 1% of the popular vote or thinking fucking off in a burger restaurant is the revolution.

Ofcourse it is. Marx doesn't own the notion of socialism or even communism. Marx was an economist and political analyzer. Smart man. But just a man. It's dangerous to put him on a pedestal.

In that time period alot of what he said made sense but there is no way he could have predicted a lot of this shit. Therefore Marxist theory can only go so far. Be like reading a text book from the 1800s. In fact that's exactly what it is.

Attached: kurosaki_ichigo_screenshot_1_by_fullforcesoldier-d39f4nl.jpg (900x529, 40.15K)

Markets are systems of distribution. What makes an economy socialist lies in the nature of its system of production. Thus market socialism is entirely possible, although it comes with so many inefficiencies that I do not see why it should be desired.

Horrible take. Markets are systems of exchange, not of distribution. Exchange isn't possible without exchange value, which is the embryionic cell of bourgious right. It's by its very essence antithetic to socialism.

Attached: b4223ca277c6f7bc36c3c9770a6b96dfda6d622d721fee3600665902fc77704a.jpg (720x960, 122.02K)

so what tbhfam
It's retarded.

Congratulations, that is the most bullshit post in this thread.

The fuck? That shit is fifteen-hundred pages of dense economics.

Can you explain why? If you claim you can have socialism without Marx, you need to refute his arguments, not his historical importance concerning the term.

There was exchanges way before bourgeoisie and so capitalism were even a thing.

That doesn't disprove his point, exchange existed, but it didn't play as important role as it does today, ie. it was exactly an embryo, which a few centuries ago has at last developed into what we now know as capitalism.