Revolutionary Marxism?

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I know a little bit about Marxism, and I was wondering what sets it apart from regular marxism. Also, I see a lot of people who are both anarchists, and revolutionary marxists. What's the relation between the two?

[Drosophila]

Well, one can technically be a Marxist without being a revolutionary, as it's just a method of analyzing societies. The "revolutionary" sets it apart from "just" being a Marxist.

[Ostrinski]

Are you referring to the user group?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

If, as Ostriniski mentioned, you're referring to the usergroup, it's an orthodox Marxist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Marxism) group. There isn't any relation to anarchism. Bear in mind that usergroups here don't necessarily align to one's actual tendencies - you can join a group if you just wish to learn more about whichever tendency.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Are you referring to the user group?

Yes.

[Ostrinski]

Yes.It's an Orthodox Marxist group that critically upholds the Second International before it's great theoreticians collapsed to the right (i.e. Kautsky) as well as the Bolsheviks before the revolution soured.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I know a little bit about Marxism, and I was wondering what sets it apart from regular marxism. Also, I see a lot of people who are both anarchists, and revolutionary marxists. What's the relation between the two?

The Revolutionary Marxist usergroup upholds Marxist principles for revolution in Bourgeois democracies. Traditional Marxist strategies for revolution in relative politically free societies are and must be very different from revolutionary strategies in underdeveloped countries of bourgeois and feudal dictatorships.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, one can technically be a Marxist without being a revolutionary, as it's just a method of analyzing societies. The "revolutionary" sets it apart from "just" being a Marxist.

That's Marxian, to be more precise.

The difference between regular and even radical Marxism, both already past "Marxian" analysis, and revolutionary Marxism, is actually having revolutionary strategy. Most left tendencies don't have this, preferring agitation over both clear-thinking education and substantive organization.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Thanks for the info everyone, that makes more sense.

[theblackmask]

You know how some people refer to god, and others refer to God?

It's like that.

[Ostrinski]

You know how some people refer to god, and others refer to God?

It's like that.No in fact I don't think anyone has any idea what you're talking about.

[theblackmask]

Ok, well let me spell it out for you.


The Revolutionary Marxist usergroup upholds Marxist principles for revolution in Bourgeois democracies. Traditional Marxist strategies for revolution in relative politically free societies are and must be very different from revolutionary strategies in underdeveloped countries of bourgeois and feudal dictatorships.


It's an Orthodox Marxist group that critically upholds the Second International before it's great theoreticians collapsed to the right (i.e. Kautsky) as well as the Bolsheviks before the revolution soured.


That's Marxian, to be more precise.

The difference between regular and even radical Marxism, both already past "Marxian" analysis, and revolutionary Marxism, is actually having revolutionary strategy. Most left tendencies don't have this, preferring agitation over both clear-thinking education and substantive organization.

All of the above posts, which actually happen to be by members of the user group being talked about, make my point for me.

Just as those who speak of God, often an old white dude, speak as if all the answers are written in an old book, so do many Marxists. Instead of ways to engage with people and start building towards a better society, we get arguments about the Second International, bourgeois democracy, and other things that the majority of society doesn't and will never care about. Orthodox Marxism, which the user group we are talking about is based on, is essentially the same as elders in the temple, detached from society, arguing about scripture that only they can read.

This is not to say that Marx's writings are to be disregarded, as they can still offer insight into the workings of Capital, but they are certainly not to be upheld as doctrine as many do. Just because Marx said it, doesn't make it gospel...in fact, there are many things that Marx wrote that simply don't apply to the way the world is. Believe it or not, even Marx's theories are not immune to over a hundred of years of aging.

So, as I originally stated, I am talking about the difference between god and God. For some people, god is not a proper noun. It is not something that is static and fixed in time, that we must look back to for answers. Those who claim faith in God, just by sheer nature of the capitalization, obviously are declaring faith in a very particular sort of God. One which already has all the answers that we must look to, instead of coming to our own conclusions. Answers are something that we must come up with ourselves based on circumstances...There are no overarching theories from dead white men with interesting facial hair.

[Marxaveli]

Ok, well let me spell it out for you.







All of the above posts, which actually happen to be by members of the user group being talked about, make my point for me.

Just as those who speak of God, often an old white dude, speak as if all the answers are written in an old book, so do many Marxists. Instead of ways to engage with people and start building towards a better society, we get arguments about the Second International, bourgeois democracy, and other things that the majority of society doesn't and will never care about. Orthodox Marxism, which the user group we are talking about is based on, is essentially the same as elders in the temple, detached from society, arguing about scripture that only they can read.

This is not to say that Marx's writings are to be disregarded, as they can still offer insight into the workings of Capital, but they are certainly not to be upheld as doctrine as many do. Just because Marx said it, doesn't make it gospel...in fact, there are many things that Marx wrote that simply don't apply to the way the world is. Believe it or not, even Marx's theories are not immune to over a hundred of years of aging.

So, as I originally stated, I am talking about the difference between god and God. For some people, god is not a proper noun. It is not something that is static and fixed in time, that we must look back to for answers. Those who claim faith in God, just by sheer nature of the capitalization, obviously are declaring faith in a very particular sort of God. One which already has all the answers that we must look to, instead of coming to our own conclusions. Answers are something that we must come up with ourselves based on circumstances...There are no overarching theories from dead white men with interesting facial hair.

Way to vulgarize Marxism by comparing it to a religion. :rolleyes:

The problem with the Left today is that we are divided, fragmented and too focused on theory and ideology. Our group wants to treat and use Marxism for what it really is and always was: a science. And that is how the revolution needs to be understood also - the minute you start injecting any ideology into it, be it Leninism, Maoism, or whatever ism you choose, it is no longer has an organic objective, fluid process that is to be carried out according to the defining material circumstances of the time.

[Art Vandelay]

Ok, well let me spell it out for you.







All of the above posts, which actually happen to be by members of the user group being talked about, make my point for me.

Just as those who speak of God, often an old white dude, speak as if all the answers are written in an old book, so do many Marxists. Instead of ways to engage with people and start building towards a better society, we get arguments about the Second International, bourgeois democracy, and other things that the majority of society doesn't and will never care about. Orthodox Marxism, which the user group we are talking about is based on, is essentially the same as elders in the temple, detached from society, arguing about scripture that only they can read.

This is not to say that Marx's writings are to be disregarded, as they can still offer insight into the workings of Capital, but they are certainly not to be upheld as doctrine as many do. Just because Marx said it, doesn't make it gospel...in fact, there are many things that Marx wrote that simply don't apply to the way the world is. Believe it or not, even Marx's theories are not immune to over a hundred of years of aging.

So, as I originally stated, I am talking about the difference between god and God. For some people, god is not a proper noun. It is not something that is static and fixed in time, that we must look back to for answers. Those who claim faith in God, just by sheer nature of the capitalization, obviously are declaring faith in a very particular sort of God. One which already has all the answers that we must look to, instead of coming to our own conclusions. Answers are something that we must come up with ourselves based on circumstances...There are no overarching theories from dead white men with interesting facial hair.

You don't understand Marxism....it is a mode of analysis; a way of examining the world.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Actually, no it isn't. That's "Marxian"-ism. Marxism is about solutions.

[Marxaveli]

Ive always thought it to be both analysis and solutions. "Philosophers interpret the world, but the point is to change it".

[l'Enfermé]

Can't solve problems without analyzing them first.

[KnowledgeThroughLeninism]

Personally I don't believe in implementing Marxism without revolution...but some people do.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Personally I don't believe in implementing Marxism without revolution...but some people do.

Interesting... why are you on revolution?

[Fruit of Ulysses]

i think this is a semantic game now