If Marx and Engels were alive today, what tendency would they most identify with?

[Let's Get Free]

Yep, another tendency thread.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say... Revolutionary Marxism? Or maybe they would keep it classy and stick with simple Marxism.

[DasFapital]

anarcho-capitalist fascist revisionism

[Brosa Luxemburg]

This is kinda pointless, as everyone will say their tendency is the tendency Marx and Engels would agree with the most.

So I put left communist, obviously.

[Red Banana]

It's impossible to know, the world and thus the tendencies have changed so much since their deaths.

If I were to guess I'd say Marxism, cause that's kind of their thing. They'd probably come back and tell Marxists and their variants what they declare Marxism to be in the current situation and that anything else shouldn't be called Marxism. Kind of just a recap of the whole "if that's Marxism then I am not a Marxist" only in the 21st century.

But we all know this thread will just turn into various tendencies shouting that Marx would adhere to their doctrine and no one else's.

[Ostrinski]

I think they would scoff at the development of tendency culture.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Can a mod PLEASE move this to chit chat, or better still trash?

[l'Enfermé]

What's up with that poll? Why are Anarcho-Communism and Council Communism the same option? Council-communism is a type of Left Communism, if anything it should be in the same option as Left Communism then.

Anyway, obviously they would be Bakuninists.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Tendencies already existed during their time, and so I think they would take the same position now as they did then.

[Althusser]

This is difficult. From what I've read, I'd have to say Trotskyism. I think they wouldn't find much of interest in the Marxist-Leninist bureaucratic party dictatorship. Or maybe left communism...


Anyway, obviously they would be Bakuninists.

I lolled.

[teflon_john]

i think they'd be mobbed up exhaling blunt smoke and pourin OE in a chief keef music video

[Rugged Collectivist]

Juche. Obviously.


I think they would scoff at the development of tendency culture.

Didn't they start tendency culture? I don't know much about the history of the first international, but didn't Marx try really hard to get the anarchists pushed out? I know he was always talking shit about Bakunin and his followers.

[ind_com]

They would write long columns on the ongoing people's wars, just like they did with the uprising of 1857.

[The Idler]

Anyone think that Marx would not belong to their tendency? Some of Marx's ideas about nationalism and anti-semitism I'm not a big fan of. Or the ten points in the Manifesto seem a bit reformist.

[Hit The North]

Anyone think that Marx would not belong to their tendency? Some of Marx's ideas about nationalism and anti-semitism I'm not a big fan of. Or the ten points in the Manifesto seem a bit reformist.

But of course if M & E were around today they would be men of this age, not time-travelling Victorians.

And only someone who had not read and understood On The Jewish Question would accuse Marx of anti-Semitism.

[The Idler]

But of course if M & E were around today they would be men of this age, not time-travelling Victorians.
Okay the anti-semitism is dubious. Since we can't assume for certain that they wouldn't still have nationalistic and reformist ideas then why not just be open about saying we pick and mix their ideas based on what we observe to be proven today?

[l'Enfermé]

Juche. Obviously.



Didn't they start tendency culture? I don't know much about the history of the first international, but didn't Marx try really hard to get the anarchists pushed out? I know he was always talking shit about Bakunin and his followers.
Bakunin started a secret-society type group inside the International in order to try and disband it form the inside(before he joined the International he advocated disbanding it also). But there was never a Marxist tendency within the First International really, it was pretty much only Marx and Engels. There's this anecdote from before the rise of the Marxist SPD: Marx's political opponents in Germany would say that the party of Marx consisted of Marx himself, and Engels his secretary in England and Wilhelm Liebknecht his "agent" in Germany..

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Bakunin was a secret capitalist wrecker, he was actually the original Trotskyite. Marx had to get rid of him to save Marxism.

[Hit The North]

Bakunin was a secret capitalist wrecker, he was actually the original Trotskyite. Marx had to get rid of him to save Marxism.

That's funny and illustrative of the absurdity of this thread. What the hell is it doing in Theory? It should be in Chit Chat.

[Comrade #138672]

This is kinda pointless, as everyone will say their tendency is the tendency Marx and Engels would agree with the most.Not necessarily.

[Let's Get Free]

I think Marx would cringe at "Marxism" and go to the bar with Engels to rethink his life. Maybe they'd all come up with a new matrix of ideas given the strange nature of capitalism these days (as we should be doing). Or maybe Marx and Engels would be split on the question.

[Sea]

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo cares?!

[Ottoraptor]

This is a stupid question since the number of experiences and the conditions that lead to the development of modern tendencies are quite large and obviously Marx and Engels have gone through them so we would have no idea how they have sided (assuming they would have sided with any of the now existing tendencies). Furthermore we can't judge based on what they wrote, since for all we know having experienced the events of the Russian Revolution, WWII, Paris 1968, Hot Autumn, etc they would have given up past positions and adopted new ones.

In the end obvious troll is obvious, 3/10 for making me respond seriously.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

They'd probably be trots. Since Trotskyites are probably the most orthdox of the tendencies listed.

[HoxhaLives]

Who cares? This whole thing sounds like Marx worship. Marx wasn't an omniscient being, I don't care what tendency he would follow.

[Die Neue Zeit]

May I dare suggest a "split" between the two, based on Engels' political material after Marx's death?

[ind_com]

They'd probably be trots. Since Trotskyites are probably the most orthdox of the tendencies listed.

No, they were the most advanced theorists of their time, and always empathized with all ongoing struggles against capitalism and imperialism. That points to only one tendency.

[China studen]

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Kimilsung-Kimjongilism（Juche idea）.

[YugoslavSocialist]

I would say Marx would of been associated with the Third Camp

[Yuppie Grinder]

No, they were the most advanced theorists of their time, and always empathized with all ongoing struggles against capitalism and imperialism. That points to only one tendency.

lol nope
SPGB Impossiblism is basically the sort of Classical Marxism Engels thought was neeto.

[Yuppie Grinder]

lol people voted anarchism

[ind_com]

lol nope

What was that for? Were they not the most advanced theorists, or did they not empathize with all ongoing struggles against capitalism and imperialism?


SPGB Impossiblism is basically the sort of Classical Marxism Engels thought was neeto.

I don't even know what that is. What a funny name for a tendency. :D

[Die Neue Zeit]

lol people voted anarchism

Well, Marx became more and more sympathetic to the peasant situation in Russia, as documented further by Teodor Shanin. I don't know where I would pin Marx, since he "vacillated," for lack of a better word, on the party form.

Engels, however, I would put firmly in the pro-party-movement camp. That's the basis of my "split" post above.

[Sea]

This whole thing sounds like (...) worship.Based on your username...

uh...

well..

yeah. :bored:

[Hit The North]

Actually, if Marx and Engels lived today, instead of in the Nineteenth Century, there would be no Marxism to speak of, as it would not have been invented, and therefore none of the Marxist tendencies would exist. Anarchism and various strands of pre-Marxist communism and reformism would be the order of the day. Marx and Engels influence in the German labour movement and beyond would not have taken root; the transposition of their ideas and analysis into the class politics of Russia would not have happened. And a big etcetera.

It would be a Wonderful Life type deal where M. and E. got to see what the world would be like if they'd never been born.

[Manic Impressive]

Actually, if Marx and Engels lived today, instead of in the Nineteenth Century, there would be no Marxism to speak of, as it would not have been invented, and therefore none of the Marxist tendencies would exist. Anarchism and various strands of pre-Marxist communism and reformism would be the order of the day. Marx and Engels influence in the German labour movement and beyond would not have taken root; the transposition of their ideas and analysis into the class politics of Russia would not have happened. And a big etcetera.

It would be a Wonderful Life type deal where M. and E. got to see what the world would be like if they'd never been born.
If it hadn't have been Marx it would have been someone else. There's no reason to think that things would have stagnated at all.

[Yuppie Grinder]

What was that for? Were they not the most advanced theorists, or did they not empathize with all ongoing struggles against capitalism and imperialism?




Yea exactly, that's why they wouldn't have fallen for something as stupid as Maoism. Maoism is class collaborationist "state-socialist" nationalist nonsense. Basically everything that makes it a distinct tendency is at odds with scientific socialism.

[Hit The North]

If it hadn't have been Marx it would have been someone else. There's no reason to think that things would have stagnated at all.

Who suggested it would stagnate? But it would be different. There's no reason to suppose that if Marx had not been born that history would have produced a person who would have formulated historical materialism; waged an ideological struggle against Bakunin in the 1st International; written Capital.

Without Karl Marx there would be no Marxism. Without Lenin, no Leninism. Without Trotsky, no Trotskyism. There might be equivilants but they would not be any Marxist tendencies that we know today.

Things exist because of other things that happened in the past, not because history has some fated plan.

[Manic Impressive]

Who suggested it would stagnate?
you did

Anarchism and various strands of pre-Marxist communism and reformism would be the order of the day.
There's a quote somewhere can't remember who said it (if I were to put money on it, it would either be Lenin or Engels). They say that even if Marx had not been around "someone else would have been obliged to fill the same historical role". Or something like that. That''s because capitalism compelled Marx to write Capital. If he were not around someone else would have written something very similar.

[ind_com]

Yea exactly, that's why they wouldn't have fallen for something as stupid as Maoism. Maoism is class collaborationist "state-socialist" nationalist nonsense. Basically everything that makes it a distinct tendency is at odds with scientific socialism.

Maoism is the most developed form of Marxism, and so most of the armed struggles today are Maoist. Of course, those like yourself that consider Maoism 'stupid', would also consider the freedom struggles of the Indian people 'stupid'. Considering that Marx and Engels sympathized with these struggles, it is clear that they would be Maoist, and consider your Marxism-clad imperialist apologism to be the real nonsense around.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Marx wasn't a Marxist. I also think if Marx and Engels were alive today and teleported to 2013, I think they'd be to busy shitting themselves and having simultaneous heart attacks due to the technological progress then giving two shits about 15.000 different tendencies. My vote is Juche btw.

[Ottoraptor]

Maoism is the most developed form of Marxism, and so most of the armed struggles today are Maoist. Of course, those like yourself that consider Maoism 'stupid', would also consider the freedom struggles of the Indian people 'stupid'. Considering that Marx and Engels sympathized with these struggles, it is clear that they would be Maoist, and consider your Marxism-clad imperialist apologism to be the real nonsense around.

Marx and Engels and in fact the early Marxist movement was pretty clear on being against alliances with petty proprietors, which peasants are (unless you are talking about rural proletariat in which case your redistribution program turns them into petty proprietors). Maoist is pretty big on that type of alliance. Marx and Engels would reject Maoism as a communist movement and probably see it as a progressive (or possibly Bonaparteist) (petty) bourgeois movement. Plus the PPW is pretty much just petty bourgeois adventurism. Basically my point is no amount of you declaring Maoism is the most advance form of marxism and your talking about indian freedom struggles (if it were for the India's geographic location, your CPs would have forced maoism on the Indian people), doesn't mean maoism is actually the most advanced form of marxism.

[ind_com]

Marx and Engels and in fact the early Marxist movement was pretty clear on being against alliances with petty proprietors, which peasants are (unless you are talking about rural proletariat in which case your redistribution program turns them into petty proprietors). Maoist is pretty big on that type of alliance. Marx and Engels would reject Maoism as a communist movement and probably see it as a progressive (or possibly Bonaparteist) (petty) bourgeois movement.

Blah blah Maoism bourgeois blah. The movement that Marx and Engels sympathized with declared feudal lords and monarchs their official leaders and just rulers of India. If Maoism is bourgeois then Marxism is feudal.


Plus the PPW is pretty much just petty bourgeois adventurism.

Yes, the millions belonging to the working classes of the rural and semi-rural areas are petty bourgeois. You got that one absolutely right.

.
Basically my point is no amount of you declaring Maoism is the most advance form of marxism and your talking about indian freedom struggles (if it were for the India's geographic location, your CPs would have forced maoism on the Indian people),

What does this even mean?


doesn't mean maoism is actually the most advanced form of marxism.

First have even a tiny fraction of the working class agree to whatever you advocate as Marxism, then talk about how Maoism is not the most advanced form of Marxism.

[Hit The North]

you did

There's a quote somewhere can't remember who said it (if I were to put money on it, it would either be Lenin or Engels). They say that even if Marx had not been around "someone else would have been obliged to fill the same historical role". Or something like that. That''s because capitalism compelled Marx to write Capital. If he were not around someone else would have written something very similar.

Lol, if you're going to make an appeal to authority at least have a clue who's authority you are appealing to :rolleyes:.

But it's interesting that you do believe that history unfolds according to some preordained plan. This explains why you're a member of the sit-on-your-hands SPGB.

Btw, if "capitalism compelled Marx to write Capital", why didn't it compel John Stuart Mill to write it as well - or Dickens who was a better writer than both?

[Ostrinski]

I think that is taking things a little too far. Marx was able to formulate his method and analysis because he was able to draw conclusively from his own observations a patterns in historical events. Other thinkers both contemporary to Marx and Engels and since then drew different conclusions than Marx, many others and in fact very different conclusions from the bourgeois economists to anthropologists etc. It isn't as if Marx and Engels were gods that were privileged enough to have the gift of divine materialist analysis and that everyone else just didn't have the blessings from history.

Furthermore, regarding the complexity of Marx's approach to political economy and socio-historical analysis - you don't just pull something like that out of your ass because the material conditions of society have advanced so as to allow you to do so. It takes conscious reciprocation on the part of the philosopher, the social scientist, whoever to draw their own conclusions based on what the state of the material conditions will allow as far as access to documents of interest, ideological prevalence, technological capabilities, access to likeminded people, etc go.

[Ottoraptor]

Blah blah Maoism bourgeois blah. The movement that Marx and Engels sympathized with declared feudal lords and monarchs their official leaders and just rulers of India. If Maoism is bourgeois then Marxism is feudal.
Marx and Engels were gods, so it is possible for them to be wrong on something. Secondly maoism has produce capitalism and the most recent successful maoist group has become dedicated to developing capitalism. Maoism is in practice an ideology of national capitalist development. Being anti-imperialist doesn't make it communist. Also you ignored what I said about Marx and Engels rejecting alliances with petty proprietors which maoism openly advocates.



Yes, the millions belonging to the working classes of the rural and semi-rural areas are petty bourgeois. You got that one absolutely right. The PPW strategy is what I called petty bourgeois adventurism. You would be incredibly dishonest if you thought that millions of workers, industrial and rural, engage in the PPW. Furthermore more PPW doesn't require any involvement by the workers and could overthrow a govt without their support. PPW is an adventurist and substitutionist tactic plain and simple.

.


What does this even mean? I'm calling you all opportunists for picking an ideology of the most powerful country in the region and I'm saying you force it on the workers in your region. Also I'm saying no amount of you saying that maoism is the highest form of marxism makes it true. Maoism developed out of the collapse of the chinese revolutionary workers movement when the KMT slaughter the Shanghai commune and a large chunk of the original Chinese Communist Party.




First have even a tiny fraction of the working class agree to whatever you advocate as Marxism, then talk about how Maoism is not the most advanced form of Marxism. Well then I guess social liberalism is the highest form of marxism because more workers globally support that than Maoism. Seriously just because you have larger numbers doesn't make you any more marxist or the one true path. You treat marxism and communism as a religion and I'm of the opinion that anyone who tries to peddle religion can take their religion and shove it up their ass.

[ind_com]

Marx and Engels were gods, so it is possible for them to be wrong on something. Secondly maoism has produce capitalism and the most recent successful maoist group has become dedicated to developing capitalism. Maoism is in practice an ideology of national capitalist development. Being anti-imperialist doesn't make it communist. Also you ignored what I said about Marx and Engels rejecting alliances with petty proprietors which maoism openly advocates.


If Marx and Engels were wrongly supporting a movement upholding feudal lords, then undoubtedly they would again wrongly support a movement allying with petty proprietors. They would also wrongly identify with the ideology of that movement after witnessing the concrete economic and political gains of the working class from that movement.

The most successful Maoist groups are continuing the people's wars. There is one instance of defeat in Nepal, but Maoist forces worldwide identified that revisionist tendency years ago.


The PPW strategy is what I called petty bourgeois adventurism. You would be incredibly dishonest if you thought that millions of workers, industrial and rural, engage in the PPW. Furthermore more PPW doesn't require any involvement by the workers and could overthrow a govt without their support. PPW is an adventurist and substitutionist tactic plain and simple.

This very clearly demonstrates that you know nothing about the PPW strategy or about the ongoing ones. Do some reading before you make such comments.



I'm calling you all opportunists for picking an ideology of the most powerful country in the region and I'm saying you force it on the workers in your region. Also I'm saying no amount of you saying that maoism is the highest form of marxism makes it true. Maoism developed out of the collapse of the chinese revolutionary workers movement when the KMT slaughter the Shanghai commune and a large chunk of the original Chinese Communist Party.

This is again another proof of your ignorance. Maoism developed throughout the later half of the last century, when many genuine communists broke with parliamentary revisionism and agreed upon the global line of need of armed and continuous revolution in order to establish communism.


Well then I guess social liberalism is the highest form of marxism because more workers globally support that than Maoism. Seriously just because you have larger numbers doesn't make you any more marxist or the one true path. You treat marxism and communism as a religion and I'm of the opinion that anyone who tries to peddle religion can take their religion and shove it up their ass.

I am not showing off our numbers, but any tendency that fails to expand beyond study circles and reformism, is definitely going wrong somewhere. As for Maoism, the concrete victories that the working classes have won by implementing it are much more important than our numbers. Our present numbers are nothing compared to what they will be by the next few decades.

[rolfwar]

I think it is highly wrong to claim that Marxism-Leninism= Stalinism .

[ind_com]

I think it is highly wrong to claim that Marxism-Leninism= Stalinism .

That has to do something with the historical usage of the term. Supporters of Stalin, Trotsky and Bordiga all claim to uphold both Marxism and Leninism though they have always been political opponents.

[Art Vandelay]

Marx wasn't a Marxist. I also think if Marx and Engels were alive today and teleported to 2013, I think they'd be to busy shitting themselves and having simultaneous heart attacks due to the technological progress then giving two shits about 15.000 different tendencies. My vote is Juche btw.

This really isn't true love. His famous quote of "I am not a Marxist" or however he articulated it, was in response to others claiming to be Marxists; it was along the lines of, if they are Marxists, then I am not. Unless you're referring to Marxism (as it was codified by other after his death; Bebel, Kautsky, liebknecht, etc..) in which case you are correct, since it only arose after his demise.

[l'Enfermé]

That has to do something with the historical usage of the term. Supporters of Stalin, Trotsky and Bordiga all claim to uphold both Marxism and Leninism though they have always been political opponents.
It actually has more to do with the fact that "Marxism-Leninism" was a forgery invented by Soviet Stalinists in the 1920s and 30s.

[DoCt SPARTAN]

Wouldn't they stay with the one they created?

[human strike]

Anti-Deutsche

[Ocean Seal]

They would tell us all to shut up and think and maybe we would have something more useful than a set of sects.

[Mackenzie_Blanc]

Marx and Engels would obviously be Anarcho-Communists, since that was their final objective, and the Spanish Anarchists would convince them on the possibility of such a society occurring without a worker's state.

[Orange Juche]

Really heavy into Juche, obviously.

[sixdollarchampagne]

If I remember correctly, the expression "permanent revolution" comes from the Communist Manifesto, so if Fred and Karl were around today, I think they might be attracted to Trotskyism, which, for my money, has a solid revolutionary record.

Or maybe it's a trick question, and we are all gonna be reprimanded in some way ... or worse! Who knows? :grin:

[Crux]

The judeo-bolshevik banker conspiracy obviously, or to quote Bakunin:

This whole Jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other... This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank? The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralisation of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found.

:laugh:

[kasama-rl]

I've always thought this talk of "what would XXX do?" is rooted in a lot of metaphysics.

If something magical happened, who knows what Marx would think? And why would anyone think his feelings would be insightful or relevant?

If you brought people back to life (over a century after they worked, studied and struggled), it is hard to imagine that they would be able to orient themselves easily or reliably in a very different world.

You would have to have a kind of genius theory or a kind of "revealed truth" theory to believe that two communists from the 1800s could discern right from wrong on complex questions in 2013.

[kasama-rl]

If I remember correctly, the expression "permanent revolution" comes from the Communist Manifesto, so if Fred and Karl were around today, I think they might be attracted to Trotskyism..... :grin:

Ironically, I think Trotskyism is more similar to 19th century socialism than the politics needed for our century. Trotsky promoted a kind of classical ortho-Marxism within the Russian and international movement -- after conditions had changed significantly (by the growth of colonial empires, anticolonial struggle, and the emergence of new experiences with state power).

Resurrected communists from the 1800s might find some trends today that seem familiar to their 19th century politics.... but might that not be precisely because some trends today have backward-looking methods, and essentially outdated views?

What is important about communist theory is not simply its continuity with Marx, but also its significant and repeated breaks with specifics of Marx's politics. I.e. communism is not a "tradition" it is a set of living syntheses and practices.

[sixdollarchampagne]

:" ... to quote Bakunin: ... 'a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite ... this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx ..'"

Wow! Did Bakunin really write that? I am not an expert on Nazi anti-semitism, but, to me, the repulsive anti-Jewish rhetoric in the quote attributed to Bakunin, could have come straight out of Der Stürmer. I never knew Bakunin was a raving bigot: another good reason (along with the fact that Spanish anarchists joined a bourgeois government, which then proceeded to break strikes, during the Spanish Civil War) not to adhere to anarchism.

[kasama-rl]

"If it hadn't have been Marx it would have been someone else."

Is this really true? That certain ideas are inevitable, just floating around in the patterns of the world, just waiting for a brain to think them? And if it doesn't happen in one brain, then another will emerge to think it?

On the contrary: I suspect if Marx had died early, modern socialism would look radically different in both theory and practice.

[Crux]

Wow! Did Bakunin really write that? I am not an expert on Nazi anti-semitism, but, to me, the repulsive anti-Jewish rhetoric in the quote attributed to Bakunin, could have come straight out of Der Stürmer. I never knew Bakunin was a raving bigot: another good reason (along with the fact that Spanish anarchists joined a bourgeois government, which then proceeded to break strikes, during the Spanish Civil War) not to adhere to anarchism.
Yes, he did. Then again Bakunin also wrote some pretty great stuff, but this was post-the anarchist split from the International so I suppose he grew bitter and paranoid. It's eerily similar to some of the modern "NWO" types though. So I guess we know what a brought back Bakunin would do. Or maybe not.

I don't really see the point of this exercise. Can someone illuminate me?

[MarxArchist]

They'd laugh at all of us and then break down into tears after hearing about what has been done in the name of communism.

[kasama-rl]

They'd laugh at all of us and then break down into tears after hearing about what has been done in the name of communism.

Marx discouraged the seizure of power in France during the 1871 war. But when the people of Paris rose up, he supported them, analyzed the experience deeply, and welcomed the traumatized survivors who made it to London. In other words, we communists deal with all kinds of revolutionary actions that don't turn out the way we wanted or expected. Why is that surprising? What is more unpredictable than revolutionary struggle?

I imagine that any communist learning (for the first time) of the vast, complex and illuminating experiences of the 20th century would be fascinated, and eager to learn all that can be learned from this. (Not simply mocking us, or simply overwhelmed by despair).

We Maoists say that there are things to celebrate and things to grieve in the experience of socialism in its first great wave. (And how could it have been otherwise in a global movement of tens of millions of people.)

That summation (both celebrate and grieve) is rather different from a one-sidedly negative summation that suggests only laughter and tears.