Why was Marx 'not a Marxist'?

[Lyev]

I'm not sure I totally understand why Marx said: “If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist”. Thanks.

[bailey_187]

some people who called themselves marxists were arguing

fairly insignificant tbh

[Revy]

The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier (French Workers Party) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm)

This document was drawn up in May 1880, when French workers' leader Jules Guesde came to visit Marx in London. The Preamble was dictated by Marx himself, while the other two parts of minimum political and economic demands were formulated by Marx and Guesde, with assistance from Engels and Paul Lafargue, who with Guesde was to become a leading figure in the Marxist wing of French socialism. The programme was adopted, with certain amendments, by the founding congress of the Parti Ouvrier (PO) at Le Havre in November 1880.
Concerning the programme Marx wrote: “this very brief document in its economic section consists solely of demands that actually have spontaneously arisen out of the labour movement itself. There is in addition an introductory passage where the communist goal is defined in a few lines.” [1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n1) Engels described the first, maximum section, as “a masterpiece of cogent argumentation rarely encountered, clearly and succinctly written for the masses; I myself was astonished by this concise formulation” [2] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n2) and he later recommended the economic section to the German social democrats in his critique of the draft of the 1891 Erfurt Programme. [3] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n3)

(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/legalite.jpg) After the programme was agreed, however, a clash arose between Marx and his French supporters arose over the purpose of the minimum section. Whereas Marx saw this as a practical means of agitation around demands that were achievable within the framework of capitalism, Guesde took a very different view: “Discounting the possibility of obtaining these reforms from the bourgeoisie, Guesde regarded them not as a practical programme of struggle, but simply ... as bait with which to lure the workers from Radicalism.” The rejection of these reforms would, Guesde believed, “free the proletariat of its last reformist illusions and convince it of the impossibility of avoiding a workers ’89.” [4] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n4) Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”). [5] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n5)

The introductory, maximum section of the PO programme appears in the Penguin collection of Marx's political writings, The First International and After, in a translation from the German text in the Marx-Engels Werke. So far as we know the rest of the programme has not been published in English before. The translation which appears here is from the original French version in Jules Guesde, Textes Choisis, 1867-1882, Editions sociales, 1959, pp.117-9. We are grateful to Bernie Moss for providing a copy of the text.

----
the context of this clearly shows he was not objecting to the term Marxist at all, just Lafargue and others' interpretation of it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Still:

Is it possible to say rhetorically that "I am a Marxist," given the continued existence of reform illusions? After all, I think Marx underestimated the extent of Guesde's party-building: Guesde would at some point build a party-movement in France (not just a cheap electoral machine like those in today's political systems) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nationalisations-free-services-t116489/index.html)

[New Tet]

The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier (French Workers Party) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm)

This document was drawn up in May 1880, when French workers' leader Jules Guesde came to visit Marx in London. The Preamble was dictated by Marx himself, while the other two parts of minimum political and economic demands were formulated by Marx and Guesde, with assistance from Engels and Paul Lafargue, who with Guesde was to become a leading figure in the Marxist wing of French socialism. The programme was adopted, with certain amendments, by the founding congress of the Parti Ouvrier (PO) at Le Havre in November 1880.
Concerning the programme Marx wrote: “this very brief document in its economic section consists solely of demands that actually have spontaneously arisen out of the labour movement itself. There is in addition an introductory passage where the communist goal is defined in a few lines.” [1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n1) Engels described the first, maximum section, as “a masterpiece of cogent argumentation rarely encountered, clearly and succinctly written for the masses; I myself was astonished by this concise formulation” [2] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n2) and he later recommended the economic section to the German social democrats in his critique of the draft of the 1891 Erfurt Programme. [3] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n3)

(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/legalite.jpg) After the programme was agreed, however, a clash arose between Marx and his French supporters arose over the purpose of the minimum section. Whereas Marx saw this as a practical means of agitation around demands that were achievable within the framework of capitalism, Guesde took a very different view: “Discounting the possibility of obtaining these reforms from the bourgeoisie, Guesde regarded them not as a practical programme of struggle, but simply ... as bait with which to lure the workers from Radicalism.” The rejection of these reforms would, Guesde believed, “free the proletariat of its last reformist illusions and convince it of the impossibility of avoiding a workers ’89.” [4] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n4) Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”). [5] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm#n5)

The introductory, maximum section of the PO programme appears in the Penguin collection of Marx's political writings, The First International and After, in a translation from the German text in the Marx-Engels Werke. So far as we know the rest of the programme has not been published in English before. The translation which appears here is from the original French version in Jules Guesde, Textes Choisis, 1867-1882, Editions sociales, 1959, pp.117-9. We are grateful to Bernie Moss for providing a copy of the text.

----
the context of this clearly shows he was not objecting to the term Marxist at all, just Lafargue and others' interpretation of it.

I once met a Bernie Moss who knew an Arla Albaugh, I think. Is this one Canadian too?

[ContrarianLemming]

interestingly enough, i think it would indeed bem ore accurate to call amrx a critic of capitalism then a marxist, he hardly ever used the work communism in his works.

[Tower of Bebel]

Guesde probably didn't listen to what Marx had told him. He makes the same mistake as the Montagnards did in 1852 or the German social democrats between 1875 and 1914.

The problem with the 'social democrats' and other so called 'Marxists' was that they "[believed] that the special conditions of [the] emancipation [of the working class] are the general conditions within whose frame alone modern society can be saved and the class struggle avoided" (18th Brumaire).

The socialists called themselves republicans, but they could not think outside the framework of bourgeois republicanism. Equally a workers' republic, workers' government or a workers' 1789 for that matter, would, according to the reformists, the centrists and to some extend some revolutionaries alike, give the workers the economic and political means to live happily ever after. But in reality they only achieve the insubordination of the class they were supposed to represent either through a party dictatorship or through office (or both).

Economic and political demands achieved the opposite of what they initially meant to achieve. That's why Marx wasn't a "Marxists" nor "social democrat".

[Led Zeppelin]

Not really complicated (though some people don't seem to 'get it' and put their confusion in their group's description...):


Now what is known as ‘Marxism’ in France is, indeed, an altogether peculiar product — so much so that Marx once said to Lafargue: ‘Ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.’ [If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist]
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/letters/82_11_02.htm)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Guesde probably didn't listen to what Marx had told him. He makes the same mistake as the Montagnards did in 1852 or the German social democrats between 1875 and 1914.

The problem with the 'social democrats' and other so called 'Marxists' was that they "[believed] that the special conditions of [the] emancipation [of the working class] are the general conditions within whose frame alone modern society can be saved and the class struggle avoided" (18th Brumaire).

The socialists called themselves republicans, but they could not think outside the framework of bourgeois republicanism. Equally a workers' republic, workers' government or a workers' 1789 for that matter, would, according to the reformists, the centrists and to some extend some revolutionaries alike, give the workers the economic and political means to live happily ever after. But in reality they only achieve the insubordination of the class they were supposed to represent either through a party dictatorship or through office (or both).

Economic and political demands achieved the opposite of what they initially meant to achieve. That's why Marx wasn't a "Marxists" nor "social democrat".

Notwithstanding the snide remark in the post above yours, I never thought about that perspective, actually. Per the website, I always thought it was how to mobilize the masses.

[ZeroNowhere]

I had written a bit on it here, though the discussion didn't exactly take off: -link-
(http://libcom.org/forums/theory/context-marxs-i-am-not-marxist-quote-09062009)