Karl Marx not a Marxist

[Colombia]

I have heard that Karl Marx said he was not a marxist. If this is true though, what ideals did he follow?

[sunfarstar]

GOOD QUESION!
DONT THINKING!JUST DOING!
THIS IS MARX.
YOU ARE A GOOD STUDENTER!

WELCOME TO CHE-LIVES!
THIS IS YOUR HOME.

[Wiesty]

all though i know crap all about marx. I do have some common sene. Marxism is based after Marx's theorys. So maybe he didnt call himself a marxist, he started it, giving him all the traits of a marxist.

[Bolshevist]

Marx said "Then all I know is that I am not a Marxist" when he heard about a german party calling themselves Marxist, but used methods which Marx did not approve of. Marx was a Marxist, but that quote is very often taken out of context.

[Pete]

Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew... you see? The movements that bare the name of an epynomous father usually do so when that 'father' claimed to be something else. Jesus the Jew, Marx the socialist. It only makes sense, as people are not arrogant enough, for the most part, to name their philosophy/platform after themselves.

[BOZG]

Actually the statement was made in an attack on Jules Guesde, a French 'Marxist'. After Marx had helped write the political programme of the Workers' Party in France with Guesde, he later accused Guesde of being revolutionary in words, not in deeds or something to that extent and if that was Marxism, then he was not a Marxist.

[gaf]

pffuuuuuuuuuuuuuhh!! he was a bourgeoi pffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhh!!!!annoying

[ComradeChris]

Marx was very wealthy, like almost any political theorist or philospher. I'm thinking about just majoring in Philosphy and Political Science, then get a unionized job or something so I can better represent the working class when I get into politics

[h&s]

During the first half of the 1850s the Marx family lived in poverty in a three room flat in the Soho quarter of London. Marx and Jenny already had four children and two more were to follow. Of these only three survived.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:22 PM
Marx was very wealthy,
What wealthy man loses children to poverty related diseases and has to sell the clothes of his back?

[DaCuBaN]

What wealthy man loses children to poverty related diseases and has to sell the clothes of his back?

The kind of man who refused to lower himself to doing manual labour to buy bread? <_<

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 10:06 AM

The kind of man who refused to lower himself to doing manual labour to buy bread? <_<
That&#39;s that most ridiculous thing i&#39;ve ever read...Ever&#33; It&#39;s not even point. It&#39;s an ad hominem attack.

You&#39;re becoming stupid.

[Zavara]

Marx wasn&#39;t that wealthy... actually at the end of his life he was very poor and only through help of his friend Friedrich Engels he was able to stay alive.


Marx’s life as a political exile was an extremely difficult one, as the correspondence between Marx and Engels clearly reveals. Poverty weighed heavily on Marx and his family; had it not been for Engels’ constant and selfless financial aid, Marx would not only have been unable to complete Capital but would have inevitably have been crushed by hunger and malnutrition.

source: marxists.org

[gaf]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2004, 10:32 AM
That&#39;s that most ridiculous thing i&#39;ve ever read...Ever&#33; It&#39;s not even point. It&#39;s an ad hominem attack.

You&#39;re becoming stupid.
it&#39;s a constatation not a stupidity.......he just couldn&#39;t get dirty hands so why speak and philosofing other prople he doesn&#39;t understand (if it&#39;s only from an altruism side then go to make wel in africa)

[Essential Insignificance]

BOZG offered and high-quality explanation; well done&#33;


The kind of man who refused to lower himself to doing manual labour to buy bread?

Wrong&#33;

Marx did apply for a train clerk&#39;s job in London; but unfortunately his notorious hand-writing was to "messy" for anyone to read it.


Marx wasn&#39;t that wealthy... actually at the end of his life he was very poor and only through help of his friend Friedrich Engels he was able to stay alive.

Marx was never wealthy in the usual sense associated with the word. But Marx, by the same accounts was indeed very poor until his late 30&#39;s, perhaps because of his own fault, and mismanagement. In his early 40&#39;s and onward Marx lived, for the most part, rather contentedly, throwing parties for himself and Jenny with upper class befriended citizens of London, and parties to attract worthy (wealthy) husbands for his daughters; trying to make sure they didn&#39;t make the same mistake as Jenny did, Marx said. :lol: :lol:

Marx was never good with money, at college we was spending twice as much as the richer kinds were, always writing home, asking for more money because he had run out; which was at times a great burden for Marx&#39;s father to maintain; his parents never worked out where it was going. :lol: :lol:

I think, if Marx had used his money judiciously, he would have been able to manage if not live comfortably perpetually; instead of living "high" for month then sinking to starvation for a month.

It&#39;s rather a funny story; the greatest economist ever, could not mange prudently his own funds. :lol: :lol:

[DaCuBaN]

Marx did apply for a train clerk&#39;s job in London; but unfortunately his notorious hand-writing was to "messy" for anyone to read it.

One job? One job? I know your point, and I am being a touch pedantic here, but going for one job screams out lazy bastard to me. From a man who proposed a form of society wherupon cooperation would be valued above competition, does it not seem to you that he wasn&#39;t pulling his weight?

Refusing to work in a price-society is cutting off your own nose to spite your face, after all...


You&#39;re becoming stupid.


Try disillusioned. Shall we go for frustrated too? I could do with a good vent... :angry:

[Essential Insignificance]

One job? One job? I know your point, and I am being a touch pedantic here, but going for one job screams out lazy bastard to me. From a man who proposed a form of society wherupon cooperation would be valued above competition, does it not seem to you that he wasn&#39;t pulling his weight?

Manually lazy, indisputable&#33; Mentally lazy, with conviction not&#33;

Marx wrote voluminously, just what was published was immense, not to mention, thousands of papers that have never been published.

If you asked the "average" worker what they would prefer: to work a solid eight hours (nowadays) of manual labor or labor away in library&#39;s and studies, throughout all hours of the night... I think I know what they would opt for out of the two.

Besides what Marx was researching, writing and publishing was historically groundbreaking: I think it&#39;s thoughtless to "take shots" -- at his idleness.

[ComradeChris]

Marx went to university, thus implying some welath. He worked as an editor, both an administative, and a higher paying job in that sector. And also married a wealthier woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_marx#Marital_life

It was from outside factors. The bad living conditions in London itself and probably from lack of treatment, regardless of how much money you had.

[Essential Insignificance]

Marx went to university, thus implying some welath. He worked as an editor, both an administative, and a higher paying job in that sector. And also married a wealthier woman.

Both of Karl&#39;s and Jenny&#39;s parents were fairly well off -- higher middle class -- for there days. But neither were out rightly wealthy themselves; both relying heavily on family affluence and generosity, throughout their lives.

Karl was indeed an editor for a very short period of time; but where was he an administrator in a high paying job?

[RedAnarchist]

Marx may have had rich parents, but that doe not acutomatically make him unworthy of Communism. He was a good person and managed to write political literature that is still relevant today (although he doesnt descibe what a Communist society would be like too clearly)

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 06:01 AM
Marx may have had rich parents, but that doe not acutomatically make him unworthy of Communism. He was a good person and managed to write political literature that is still relevant today (although he doesnt descibe what a Communist society would be like too clearly)
I&#39;m not claiming he wasn&#39;t. I&#39;m saying pretty much all revolutionaries came from "wealthier" families. You need some education in order to inspire the masses.

[che's long lost daughter]

And we must also note that Che&#39;s family was also well-off. SO this only shows that you can be rich and still stand for the working class if you don&#39;t let your money eat you.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by che&#39;s long lost [email protected] 17 2004, 12:58 PM
And we must also note that Che&#39;s family was also well-off. SO this only shows that you can be rich and still stand for the working class if you don&#39;t let your money eat you.
Exactly. I&#39;ve brought up examples of people who made the social environment a lot more equal from 1000&#39;s of years ago. Solon, Lycurgus, Pericles, etc. All allowed the lower classes to participate in government and legal affairs. Unfortunately it wasn&#39;t until relitively recently (the last century) that women started to receive the same rights.

[RevolverNo9]

Exactly. Marx was a lawyer&#39;s son, Che&#39;s father was a succesful doctor and wasn&#39;t Engels a factory owner? Thinking of the recent death of SWP figure Paul Foot in the UK, he went to one of the great public schools and then Oxford. None of these peoples are belittled in their beliefs.

Back to the original question, I believe that Marx made a point that there was a difference between the belief in proletarian emancipation as seen by him and the rigid dogma of Marxism that quickly arose around him. Is it the preface to the Russian edition to the Communist Manifesto where he makes the point that not all that he has said is still valid. He made mistakes, he acknowledged that. He was willing to attribute historical aswell as active signigicane to that text.

[RedAnarchist]

Many amongst the bourgoisie are unhappy. Financial weath does not mean they are rich in happiness and life. Some may even wish to be communist, and we should allow them to do so. Communism is for the people.

[highway star]

Marxism is being renewed every day. We must renew it for new world situations and we must create it again and again. This is revolutionary. So in this way, Marxism in 1845 and 2004 is different. So in this way maybe we can say Marx isnT Marxist.

[Essential Insignificance]

You need some education in order to inspire the masses.

Theoretically of course you do, and a dam good one&#33;... but practically education is only a plus.


Marx was a lawyer&#39;s son, Che&#39;s father was a succesful doctor and wasn&#39;t Engels a factory owner?

Che&#39;s father wasn&#39;t a Doctor, but Che was.


Marxism is being renewed every day. We must renew it for new world situations and we must create it again and again. This is revolutionary. So in this way, Marxism in 1845 and 2004 is different. So in this way maybe we can say Marx isnT Marxist

Individually sure... we all have our own interpretations and thoughts on Marxism -- but we are not renewing Marxism, because Marxism is Marx works, not ours. Marx wrote deeply on several different (yet related) topics, some Marxist&#39;s stress and emphasize some of Marx&#39;s suppositions, while downplaying others... but this does not add or subtract to or from Marx&#39;s general paradigm.

Sure, material conditions have changed since Marx&#39;s time; but on the whole, very little has changed, to warrant a total overhaul of Marx&#39;s theory&#39;s.

Marx was Marxist, no matter what historical context you care to place him in.

[RedAnarchist]

Marx was an 19th Century Marxist. Whilst he had good foresight, he isnt a 21st Century Marxist. Yes, little has changed, but Marx thought that Britain would see the first revolution - then again, maybe it might see the first true Revolution.

[Essential Insignificance]

Yes, little has changed, but Marx thought that Britain would see the first revolution - then again, maybe it might see the first true Revolution.

It was smart of you to have taken that comment back, before moving on.

I don&#39;t think he ever said "explicitly"... where the "first proletarian revolution" would erupt... he generally just said "highly developed capitalist nations"... which properly referred to England, France and Germany.

If you were to ask me, I&#39;d say Italy, Greece or Spain -- in nowadays.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 25 2004, 07:43 PM

You need some education in order to inspire the masses.

Theoretically of course you do, and a dam good one&#33;... but practically education is only a plus.
And it is funny how many intellectuals are the ones who oppose capitalism. However, I don&#39;t think many of them were completely communist either. Intellectuals, like Einstein, was a democratic socialism. I&#39;m not quite sure he totally agreed with Communism; as socialism seems to be deemed as a viable end-result.