Eduard Bernstein

[StockholmSyndrome]

I have just finished reading Eduard Bernstein's Evolutionary Socialism, as I said I would in my George Monbiot thread a while back. While I don't agree with everything Bernstein says, particularly his backwards stance on imperialism, I can definitely see why this work was so influential. Bernstein, in keeping with the scientific principles on which socialism is founded, made some pretty poignant observations about the flaws in Marxism and sought to revise socialist thought. It really is remarkable how the orthodox anti-revisionists claim that the revisionist camp betrayed the scientific foundations of Marxism. I think they need a lesson in how the scientific method actually works.

Anyways, I would just like to take this time to thank the admin board for restricting me. Otherwise, I would not have been able to take this intellectual journey and deeply question my previous assumptions, and would still be caught in the sea of mutual masturbation that is Revleft.

[Red Future]

Bernstein ....ugh ,an opportunist if i ever saw one

[hatzel]

Bernstein ....ugh ,an opportunist if i ever saw one

Great criticism here, it's good to know what you disagree about, and why :)

[Red Future]

Great criticism here, it's good to know what you disagree about, and why :)

Il follow this up with a more intellectual post later

[manic expression]

Anyways, I would just like to take this time to thank the admin board for restricting me. Otherwise, I would not have been able to take this intellectual journey and deeply question my previous assumptions, and would still be caught in the sea of mutual masturbation that is Revleft.
Yes, an "intellectual journey" into anti-socialism's greatest hits. The revolutionary left, thankfully, has more important things to do than pretentiously weigh the merits of this or that bourgeois agent.


Great criticism here, it's good to know what you disagree about, and why :)
For starters, capitalism did not and will never seamlessly and fluently turn into socialism like Bernstein idiotically argued. Bernstein's whole point was to basically say that all socialists should prostrate themselves to the capitalist class. He was the quisling of the Second International.

[graymouser]

World War I debunked Bernstein's theories pretty well. The reformists had seen capitalism as reaching a point where it could simply go on growing peacefully until logic called for it to become socialism, but imperialism has shut that pipe dream down every time. What particular utility does dragging out the theoretical corpse of someone already correctly discarded?

[StockholmSyndrome]

For starters, capitalism did not and will never seamlessly and fluently turn into socialism like Bernstein idiotically argued.

You'd be right if that's what Bernstein argued. But you have clearly misread him, if you even did read him. What Bernstein did argue was that capitalism will not collapse due to its own contradictions, as Marx predicted. Moreover, class distinctions become less, not more, pronounced.(This does not mean that the proletariat shrinks, for it certainly has grown in proportion to the increase in capital). What it means is that among the upper classes, capital is less concentrated, the middle class does not disappear, it actually grows, and the proletariat does not possess a homogeneous unified class consciousness.) Bernstein also pointed out how materialist determinism was flawed and how different spheres of influence other than the economy hold sway over society. So where does that leave us as socialists who want to see capitalism replaced with something else? These are the hard questions based on reality that many people do not want to ask because they are so tied to dogma.

Bernstein's conclusion was not that capitalism was moving in the direction of socialism, but that capitalism was not moving in the direction Marx predicted. The task for socialists then, according to these trends is to rethink our tactics, because revolution is both impossible and runs counter to the spirit of socialism.

[StockholmSyndrome]

World War I debunked Bernstein's theories pretty well. The reformists had seen capitalism as reaching a point where it could simply go on growing peacefully until logic called for it to become socialism, but imperialism has shut that pipe dream down every time. What particular utility does dragging out the theoretical corpse of someone already correctly discarded?

It really seems like few people ever actually read Bernstein. They just listened to what the approved channels told them he said.

[Che a chara]

I only read half of the aforementioned book, but Bernstein was a class collaborator and a liberal apologist. Sure he had a few great ideas and his arguments i think were genuine and legitimate to a point, but his philosophy has been debunked and has no practical value in establishing a revolutionary left position free from capitalist inclusion, in which his position it still manifests itself deep in society.

[StockholmSyndrome]

I applaud your remarkable commitment to ideological purity.

[bricolage]

Bernstein also pointed out how materialist determinism was flawed
Who's a determinist?

and how different spheres of influence other than the economy hold sway over society.
Has anyone actually ever denied this?

revolution is both impossible
In what way?

[hatzel]

It really seems like few people ever actually read Bernstein. They just listened to what the approved channels told them he said.

Welcome to the world of the Ideology...

[StockholmSyndrome]

Who's a determinist?

Do you want names or something?


Has anyone actually ever denied this?

They have certainly tried to deny its importance.


In what way?

In the way that it equals violence, destruction, repression, terror...Read The Rebel.

[bricolage]

Do you want names or something?
I want to know who you (or Bernstein) are trying to say practices determinism.


They have certainly tried to deny its importance.
Possibly but at the moment all you are giving is vague conjecture.


In the way that it equals violence, destruction, repression, terror...Read The Rebel.
Even if you say a revolution 'equals violence, destruction, repression, terror' (I don't believe it does) why does that make it is impossible?

[manic expression]

You'd be right if that's what Bernstein argued. But you have clearly misread him, if you even did read him. What Bernstein did argue was that capitalism will not collapse due to its own contradictions, as Marx predicted. Moreover, class distinctions become less, not more, pronounced.(This does not mean that the proletariat shrinks, for it certainly has grown in proportion to the increase in capital). What it means is that among the upper classes, capital is less concentrated, the middle class does not disappear, it actually grows, and the proletariat does not possess a homogeneous unified class consciousness.) Bernstein also pointed out how materialist determinism was flawed and how different spheres of influence other than the economy hold sway over society. So where does that leave us as socialists who want to see capitalism replaced with something else? These are the hard questions based on reality that many people do not want to ask because they are so tied to dogma.

Bernstein's conclusion was not that capitalism was moving in the direction of socialism, but that capitalism was not moving in the direction Marx predicted. The task for socialists then, according to these trends is to rethink our tactics, because revolution is both impossible and runs counter to the spirit of socialism.
So, in so many words, Bernstein thought that socialism would arise from capitalism...as I said. He felt that the bourgeoisie would come to support the working class' demand for reforms within capitalism, reforms that would pave the way to socialism. In effect, Bernstein cast his lot with capitalism and the capitalist class, pretending that it was best for the workers in the long run.

Unfortunately, we're sitting here as working-class rights and living conditions fall faster than a ton of bricks, as bourgeois assaults on the masses increase, as the middle class becomes relegated to the history books, as imperialism murders millions for profit, as all the characteristics of capitalism as identified by Marx and Lenin become clear for all to see. Are you really so blind as to believe that class distinctions are presently becoming less pronounced? Are you really so naive as to think that wealth and power aren't becoming increasingly concentrated at the top of the haves and at the expense of the have-nots? Apparently so. That's probably why you're in such awe of this definitive bourgeois agent.

The funniest part is how you rail against "dogma", and yet all the arguments you've made here could be, with a few superficial changes here and there, cut-and-pasted from any other two-bit anti-socialist who's ever held a pen. The only one committed to any sort of purity is you...which is the innocence inherent in impotence. I do hope you enjoy it.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Are you really so blind as to believe that class distinctions are presently becoming less pronounced? Are you really so naive as to think that wealth and power aren't becoming increasingly concentrated at the top of the haves and at the expense of the have-nots? Apparently so. That's probably why you're in such awe of this definitive bourgeois agent.

Of course not. You don't get it. I suppose I was naive to think that I wouldn't be called a bourgeois agent and an anti-socialist for trying to be honest.

Yes wealth is more concentrated towards the top, but that doesn't mean the amount of people who hold wealth decreases. It doesn't even mean that the number of multinationals who own everything doesn't decrease. And it doesn't mean that the number of proletarians decreases either.

"Karl Kautsky also – at the time in Stuttgart – took up the sentence just mentioned and objected that if it were true that the capitalists were increasing and not the propertyless classes, then capitalism would be strengthened and we socialists indeed should never attain our goal. But the word of Marx is still true: 'Increase of capital means also increase of the proletariat.' That is the same confusion of issues in another direction and less blunt. I had nowhere said that the proletarians did not increase. I spoke of men and not of entrepreneurs when I laid emphasis on the increase of capitalists. But Kautsky evidently was captured by the concept of “Capital,” and thence deduced that a relative increase of capitalists must needs mean a relative decrease of the proletariat, which would contradict our theory. And he maintains against me the sentence of Marx which I have quoted.

I have elsewhere quoted a proposition of Marx [14] which runs somewhat differently from the one quoted by Kautsky. The mistake of Kautsky lies in the identification of capital with capitalists or possessors of wealth. But I would like, besides, to refer Kautsky to something else which weakens his objection. And that is what Marx calls the organic development of capital. If the composition of capital changes in such a way that the constant capital increases and the variable decreases, then in the businesses concerned the absolute increase of capital means a relative decrease of the proletariat. But according to Marx that is just the characteristic form of modern evolution. Applied to capitalist economy as a whole, it really means absolute increase of capital, relative decrease of the proletariat.

The workers who have become superabundant through the change in the organic composition of capital find work again each time only in proportion to the new capital on the market that can engage them. So far as the point which Kautsky debates is concerned, my proposition is in harmony with Marx’s theory. If the number of workers increase, then capital must increase at a relatively quicker rate – that is the consequence of Marx’s reasoning. I think Kautsky will grant that without further demur."

And do you actually believe that the middle class is being "relegated to the history books", or are you just using the current crisis in an opportunistic way to support your "theory"?

"If the working class waits till 'Capital' has put the middle classes out of the world it might really have a long nap. 'Capital' would expropriate these classes in one form and then bring them to life again in another. It is not 'Capital' but the working class itself which has the task of absorbing the parasitic elements of the social body."

[manic expression]

Of course not. You don't get it. I suppose I was naive to think that I wouldn't be called a bourgeois agent and an anti-socialist for trying to be honest.
If that's what you call tossing in your lot with the ruling class, go right ahead.


Yes wealth is more concentrated towards the top, but that doesn't mean the amount of people who hold wealth decreases. It doesn't even mean that the number of multinationals who own everything doesn't decrease. And it doesn't mean that the number of proletarians decreases either.
Yes, the amount of people who hold considerable wealth is decreasing in proportion. The middle class is a dying relic of a bygone age, the top 1% now own more than 35% of all the US' wealth IIRC (which increased noticeably from years prior). You can blabber all you like, but concentration of wealth among the bourgeoisie and attacks on working-class living standards and rights are all happening before your eyes and yet you remain blind to it.


"Karl Kautsky also – at the time in Stuttgart – took up the sentence just mentioned and objected that if it were true that the capitalists were increasing and not the propertyless classes, then capitalism would be strengthened and we socialists indeed should never attain our goal.
This is as far as we need to go here, for Bernstein didn't care about creating socialist society. He admitted as much, which I suppose is rare for a bourgeois agent trying to subvert the working-class movement. Bernstein's goal is a capitulation to capitalism, and thus his goal has nothing to do with any socialist's goal.


And do you actually believe that the middle class is being "relegated to the history books", or are you just using the current crisis in an opportunistic way to support your "theory"?
:lol: It's not a theory, it's a fact. The middle class has been sinking for some time now, losing lots of ground even before this fresh crisis. But it takes a flagship fool to think that a crisis is an aberration of capitalism and not an inherent characteristic of it. No matter how you try to tapdance around it and rationalize it, the ruling class is increasingly accumulating wealth and driving all others into poverty. That's an immovable part of capitalism. That's why revolution is necessary.


"If the working class waits till 'Capital' has put the middle classes out of the world it might really have a long nap. 'Capital' would expropriate these classes in one form and then bring them to life again in another. It is not 'Capital' but the working class itself which has the task of absorbing the parasitic elements of the social body."
Who said it's for the working class to wait? No one. It's for the working class to organize itself politically and struggle against the capitalist class. The destruction of the middle class only helps the process toward revolution and socialism, it is not a necessity but merely a factor of class struggle that varies with the machinations of capitalist society.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Yes, the amount of people who hold considerable wealth is decreasing in proportion. The middle class is a dying relic of a bygone age, the top 1% now own more than 35% of all the US' wealth IIRC (which increased noticeably from years prior). You can blabber all you like, but concentration of wealth among the bourgeoisie and attacks on working-class living standards and rights are all happening before your eyes and yet you remain blind to it.


This is as far as we need to go here, for Bernstein didn't care about creating socialist society. He admitted as much, which I suppose is rare for a bourgeois agent trying to subvert the working-class movement. Bernstein's goal is a capitulation to capitalism, and thus his goal has nothing to do with any socialist's goal.


:lol: It's not a theory, it's a fact. The middle class has been sinking for some time now, losing lots of ground even before this fresh crisis. But it takes a flagship fool to think that a crisis is an aberration of capitalism and not an inherent characteristic of it. No matter how you try to tapdance around it and rationalize it, the ruling class is increasingly accumulating wealth and driving all others into poverty. That's an immovable part of capitalism. That's why revolution is necessary.


Who said it's for the working class to wait? No one. It's for the working class to organize itself politically and struggle against the capitalist class. The destruction of the middle class only helps the process toward revolution and socialism, it is not a necessity but merely a factor of class struggle that varies with the machinations of capitalist society.

I do not deny the events of the past 30 years nor am I blind to increasing inequality or the attacks on living standards. The point is that Bernstein made an observation of trends in his own time, an observation which was based on the realization that the organic composition of capital changes and there is no law which states that the development of class disparities must follow any specific trajectory. More importantly though, he made the observation that capitalism has the uncanny ability to adapt.

And who said that crisis is a mere aberration and not an inherent characteristic of capitalism? The expansion and contraction of the middle class is a product of the cyclical nature of capitalism. I think there are very few people, even on the far right, who do not understand that crises are an inherent characteristic of capitalism. What Bernstein argued was that, despite the cyclical nature of capitalism, this did not mean that the system would eventually break down as Marx predicted. On the other hand, capitalism would continue to pick itself up again and again. And no, the middle class is not a "dying relic of a bygone age", as much as I know you'd like it to be.

All of these things have important implications for the socialist movement. Bernstein was interested in seriously answering the question, "How do we go about achieving a classless society?" He did not "capitulate to capitalism" and he was not trying to "subvert the working class". It is accusations such as this that really point to the thuggish nature of an ideologue who would rather not think about ideas other than their own.

[bricolage]

What Bernstein argued was that, despite the cyclical nature of capitalism, this did not mean that the system would eventually break down as Marx predicted.
See this is what I thought you were getting at about determinism, and for someone that accuses everyone of a shallow reading of Bernstein you seem to have a very shallow understanding of Marx. Marx never said there would be some inevitable collapse of capitalism or even that it would 'eventually break down', rather that it could be broken down by the self-activity of the working class. There is nothing pre-determined about this.

[StockholmSyndrome]

See this is what I thought you were getting at about determinism, and for someone that accuses everyone of a shallow reading of Bernstein you seem to have a very shallow understanding of Marx. Marx never said there would be some inevitable collapse of capitalism or even that it would 'eventually break down', rather that it could be broken down by the self-activity of the working class. There is nothing pre-determined about this.

That's not what I meant about determinism. And I know that's what Karl Marx meant about a break down.

[hatzel]

Why don't we just agree that if anybody's going to attack this or that writer's works, they should have read those works. Let's leave it at that. Mainly because I'm sick and tired of people debating Stirner by just referencing The German Ideology. Seriously?! So yeah, if Bric and Stock (sounds like a cute double-act, eh? :)) are going to discuss this, I feel it would be better to just consider the posts each of you made, expressing your own opinions (even they are just the opinions of Marx and Bernstein respectively) and debating them, rather than trying to make this into some debate between the Church of Marx and the Church of Bernstein, with you as their little spokespeople. That seems weird. To me. Why not just discuss the points Stock's raised, without trying to turn it into some kind of tendency war? :confused:

[ZeroNowhere]

You'd be right if that's what Bernstein argued. But you have clearly misread him, if you even did read him. What Bernstein did argue was that capitalism will not collapse due to its own contradictions, as Marx predicted.
What Grossman did was prove that Bernstein was full of shit.

Still, though, most modern socialists agree with Bernstein rather than Marx, so it's not like you're in isolation.

[StockholmSyndrome]

I've read a little bit of Grossman. I'm more familiar with the work of Paul Mattick though. Anyways, at least you're still willing to call somebody who agrees with Bernstein a socialist and not a bourgeois agent or a capitalist pig dog.

[Amphictyonis]

I have just finished reading Eduard Bernstein's Evolutionary Socialism, as I said I would in my George Monbiot thread a while back. While I don't agree with everything Bernstein says, particularly his backwards stance on imperialism, I can definitely see why this work was so influential. Bernstein, in keeping with the scientific principles on which socialism is founded, made some pretty poignant observations about the flaws in Marxism and sought to revise socialist thought. It really is remarkable how the orthodox anti-revisionists claim that the revisionist camp betrayed the scientific foundations of Marxism. I think they need a lesson in how the scientific method actually works.

Anyways, I would just like to take this time to thank the admin board for restricting me. Otherwise, I would not have been able to take this intellectual journey and deeply question my previous assumptions, and would still be caught in the sea of mutual masturbation that is Revleft.

So you, like Bernstein, think the capitalist system can go on indefinitely? No need for revolution just gradual reforms. Also, can you historaclly point out any ruling class thats ever given up it's priviladge voluntarily?

[StockholmSyndrome]

So you, like Bernstein, think the capitalist system can go on indefinitely? No need for revolution just gradual reforms. Also, can you historaclly point out any ruling class thats ever given up it's priviladge voluntarily?

There's always this idea that reformists think the bourgeoisie will "give up their privilege voluntarily." Democracy is not just feathers and butterflies. It is not "everyone gets along". It is not just a facade or an inevitable extension of bourgeois rule. And it is not a mere temporary privilege that the bourgeois have conceded to the people. It is a powerful weapon that millions of people died for (yes through revolutionary means) so that we don't have to. The capitalists' biggest fear is that we will use it, because it has teeth, and it could mean the advent of a new order of society based not on class rule and Machiavellianism, but on equality and solidarity.

And I am not so naive as to think that they won't and haven't already fought back.

[hatzel]

Also, can you historaclly point out any ruling class thats ever given up it's priviladge voluntarily?

I hate to be that guy, because I do agree with you that reforms can't ever lead to socialism, but it always struck me as quite weird when people challenge people like that, 'show me when it happened! Show me! See, you can't, so it won't happen!', without ever really thinking about the fact that, last time I checked, the communist reality we all strive for has also never been fully achieved, but that doesn't mean its unachievable...

[Amphictyonis]

There's always this idea that reformists think the bourgeoisie will "give up their privilege voluntarily." Democracy is not just feathers and butterflies. It is not "everyone gets along". It is not just a facade or an inevitable extension of bourgeois rule. And it is not a mere temporary privilege that the bourgeois have conceded to the people. It is a powerful weapon that millions of people died for (yes through revolutionary means) so that we don't have to. The capitalists' biggest fear is that we will use it, because it has teeth, and it could mean the advent of a new order of society based not on class rule and Machiavellianism, but on equality and solidarity.

And I am not so naive as to think that they won't and haven't already fought back.

I'm not sure if you noticed but actual democracy doesn't exist. You really need to figure out what the role of the state is. Everything you're thinking not only flies in the face of Marxism but Anarchism as well. Millions of people have yet to fight and die for democracy- millions of people fought and died to end the old feudal order with the end product being rule of the few over the many in lieu of rule of the one over the many. Centralized power was simply transferred from nobility and royalty over to merchants. No democracy was established. This is the point of revolution- to establish actual democracy.

[Amphictyonis]

I hate to be that guy, because I do agree with you that reforms can't ever lead to socialism, but it always struck me as quite weird when people challenge people like that, 'show me when it happened! Show me! See, you can't, so it won't happen!', without ever really thinking about the fact that, last time I checked, the communist reality we all strive for has also never been fully achieved, but that doesn't mean its unachievable...

Your post is some sort of Orwellian presentation of doublethink. First you say this:


reforms can't ever lead to socialism Then you go on to say this


but that doesn't mean its unachievableCommunism has never manifested because a global revolution has not taken place. A global revolution has not taken place because capitalism had yet (in the past) fully developed and extended it's productive forces. What past attempts at socialism prove is revolution can set the foundations for communism but a global revolution is necessary. Are there any examples of reformism setting the stage for communism?Russia could have actually gone communist if western advanced capitalist nations also had revolutions. Thinking that the capitalist class will let us "democratically" use their state to end their rule is absurd.

[StockholmSyndrome]

I'm not sure if you noticed but actual democracy doesn't exist. You really need to figure out what the role of the state is. Everything you're thinking not only flies in the face of Marxism but Anarchism as well. Millions of people have yet to fight and die for democracy- millions of people fought and died to end the old feudal order with the end product being rule of the few over the many in lieu of rule of the one over the many. Centralized power was simply transferred from nobility and royalty over to merchants. No democracy was established. This is the point of revolution- to establish actual democracy.

Cool story.

[hatzel]

Thinking that the capitalist class will let us "democratically" use their state to end their rule is absurd.

That's exactly what I said, actually, when I said I agreed with you. I was just pointing out that 'it's never happened before, so it can never happen' isn't really worth saying, as we then say 'there's never been a global revolution, but just give it time'. That was the issue. The strange tactic of just challenging reformists to give historical examples to prove the viability of their suggestion, when we can't do that ourselves. Just seems a bit hypocritical to me, I dunno...:blink: That is to say, it's not the lack of historical precedence that means it won't happen in the future, but something else altogether.

[bricolage]

Why not just discuss the points Stock's raised, without trying to turn it into some kind of tendency war? :confused:

I agree. I'm very far from the 'Church of Marx' but I find it disingenuous for 'Stock' to be lambasting people for not relying on others peoples views on Bernstein when he's basing his views on Marx on... others peoples views on Marx. But meh you are right, I haven't read Bernstein. I still want to know what he was on about by determinism though....

[StockholmSyndrome]

I agree. I'm very far from the 'Church of Marx' but I find it disingenuous for 'Stock' to be lambasting people for not relying on others peoples views on Bernstein when he's basing his views on Marx on... others peoples views on Marx. But meh you are right, I haven't read Bernstein. I still want to know what he was on about by determinism though....

By determinism I mean the notion that human society consists of the economic base which determines the cultural, political and social superstructure. I know what you're thinking now, "Its not that simple and this is just a vulgar understanding of Marx", but when all is said and done it still boils down to the preeminence of the base. And I actually am familiar with Marx, have read him for myself, and quite enjoy his work, thank you very much. I think if he were alive today he would rather people be questioning, reevaluating and revising his ideas instead of running around calling themselves Marxists and killing in his name. But I could be wrong about that.

[manic expression]

I do not deny the events of the past 30 years nor am I blind to increasing inequality or the attacks on living standards. The point is that Bernstein made an observation of trends in his own time, an observation which was based on the realization that the organic composition of capital changes and there is no law which states that the development of class disparities must follow any specific trajectory. More importantly though, he made the observation that capitalism has the uncanny ability to adapt.
So you admit that he was utterly wrong because he was trying to look at then-recent trends and extrapolate a worldview based on that. Cool. Bernstein's "reevaluation", in your own words, was myopic, short-sighted and wrong. Even a blind man can see that the workers are not improving living standards today. You concede that that is the case, but you are too scared of opposing the capitalist class to endorse the obvious conclusion of this.

Capitalism "adapted" so much as it developed into the phase of imperialism. Bernstein, being a pro-capitalist idiot, missed this.


All of these things have important implications for the socialist movement. Bernstein was interested in seriously answering the question, "How do we go about achieving a classless society?" He did not "capitulate to capitalism" and he was not trying to "subvert the working class". It is accusations such as this that really point to the thuggish nature of an ideologue who would rather not think about ideas other than their own.
Let me answer that for you, since you're too timid to do so yourself: we achieve a classless society by overthrowing capitalism through proletarian revolution and instituting a dictatorship of the proletariat.

As for the rest of your nonsense...it's funny to see you first claim that I have no ideas of my own (being "dogmatic") and then that I only have my own ideas. It's the sure sign of someone who has no intellectual integrity. It's the sure sign of someone who's capitulated to capitalism and is frustrated that they can't subvert the working-class movement. And it's hardly "thuggish" to point out a bourgeois agent when one sees one.


By determinism I mean the notion that human society consists of the economic base which determines the cultural, political and social superstructure. I know what you're thinking now, "Its not that simple and this is just a vulgar understanding of Marx", but when all is said and done it still boils down to the preeminence of the base. And I actually am familiar with Marx, have read him for myself, and quite enjoy his work, thank you very much. I think if he were alive today he would rather people be questioning, reevaluating and revising his ideas instead of running around calling themselves Marxists and killing in his name. But I could be wrong about that.
You see, this right here is why you're an anti-Marxist hack. "Reevaluating Marxism" is not the same as subverting Marxism. But most importantly, Marxism isn't anything more than a mode of analysis; it is scientific socialism. Lenin applied Marxism in order to come to different conclusions than Marx and Engels after the dawn of the imperialist age. That's Marxism. Your heroes, on the other hand, tried to convince everyone that the interests of the workers was in capitulating to the bourgeoisie.

You can pretend to be a "free-thinker" all you like, but your entire worldview comes from submission to the capitalist class. That's why your ideas have done absolutely nothing for the workers.