Karl Marx a communist...?

[matiasm]

Some guy in my class today at Uni said that Karl Marx was not a communist, and others also said that marxism is not communism.

I know that Marism is not another name for communism, i know what marxism is. and i`m pretty sure that Marx was a communist? can someone confirm for me?

[KC]

Marxism is communism. Marx was a communist.

[matiasm]

yeh i said that, but the rest of the students would be skeptical unless i have valid arguement with some points on Marx being a communist. can anyone add to that!?

[Communism]

Marxism is just another idea which stems from communism, there are different forms of communism such as democratic communism (trotskyism) and authoritarian communism like stalinism. If they say that Karl Marx was not a communist they are just knit picking your arguement, I suppose technically you could say that he was a marxist but altogether he is collectively known as a communist.

[Dyst]

He is known as the inventor of modern, "scientific" communism.

There were many likeminded before him, but he was the first who really did a mathematical and political analysis of capitalism, or so I've heard.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 03:02 AM
Some guy in my class today at Uni said that Karl Marx was not a communist, and others also said that marxism is not communism.

I know that Marism is not another name for communism, i know what marxism is. and i`m pretty sure that Marx was a communist? can someone confirm for me?
Sounds to me like either they simply don't know what they're talking about or they're just trying to mess with your head.

Probably the former. :lol:

Ask them who do they imagine wrote The Communisy Manifesto?

Groucho Marx? :blink:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[matiasm]

yeh redstar.. thats exactly what i did. i said why did he write the communist manifesto?? then the bloke when quite for a few secs and the tutor interupted!!

i felt like grabbing his laptop and smashing on is head. Studpid arrogant prick!!

[Abood]

Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto to keep the communists busy so that he can start up the biggest corporation ever. I believe that Microsoft Corporation is Marx's.

What the fuck! Those people are just plain idiots. A person who advocates something surely must believe in it. It's as bad as someone who says that Castro and Guevara aren't communists - I've heard that before. Seriously, why would someone want the country he rules to be communist if he isn't? Why would someone write a manifesto that is one of the most famous writings ever if he doesn't believe in it?

[KC]

Groucho Marx?

Grouchism is a fastly growing ideology offering the best option for the liberation of the working class and should be taken seriously.





:D

[STN]

i dont know if i believe this or anything....but i read a karl marx quote that was "i am not a marxist"

[anomaly]

Originally posted by STN
karl marx quote that was "i am not a marxist"
I believe he was responding to some social-democrats who called themselves a 'Marxist group'. In the context, I think it went something like "if that's Marxism, I am not a Marxist" or something like that.

Karl Marx was a communist.

But Marxism isn't communism. Marxism is an idea of how to reach communism (also, adhering to historical materialism, why communism is inevitable).

[Janus]

But Marxism isn't communism. Marxism is an idea of how to reach communism
Right, but communism can also be considered as an ideology so Marxism would also be a branch of communism.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 05:12 PM
Right, but communism can also be considered as an ideology so Marxism would also be a branch of communism.
I agree. I just want to make clear that Marxism is a branch of communism. Not the other way around.

[Aurora]

Marx was a Communist there is no doubt about that.
But in a letter to a friend he complained that Marxism was obsessed with long words without knowing the meaning hence the quote "I am not a Marxist"

Dont ask me for a source I read that ages ago.

[Floyce White]

matiasm: "Some guy in my class today at Uni said that Karl Marx was not a communist, and others also said that Marxism is not communism."

Some guy is right. Karl Marx was not a communist. "Marxism" is not communism. In this post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=42974&hl=&view=findpost&p=1291981811) I made the following remark:

Marx was not a communist.

1. "Communism" is the condition of being working-class people in struggle to end their existence as workers. Marx was not of working-class family origin; therefore, he could not possibly be a communist. Marx was a socialist.

2. Marx opposed communism. His advocacy as a here-and-now solution of a "lower stage of communism" that had every form and substance of capitalism--in logical terms, this is opposition to "higher stage of communism" by continual postponement, delay, and diversion and substitution of struggle towards not-"higher-stage-of-communism" goals.

* * * *

And "socialism" is a form of capitalism characterized by nationalizations of big business.

Every form of "leader-ism" is dogmatism in theory that is used to justify opportunism in practice. In another post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=39554&hl=&view=findpost&p=1292008872) I added:

Dogmatism is not about the usefulness or factuality of the opinions of an authority figure. Dogmatism is about submitting to authority. Adding "right about this" and "wrong about that" conditions to submitting to authority--is still submitting to authority. It is surrender to the carrier of the "right" ideas. (Reminds me of the movie The Messenger that is shown at colleges to recruit to Islam.)

Communists must abandon and criticize the method of relying on the opinions of long-dead authority figures from upper-class family backgrounds. It is not a matter of looking for honest mistakes. The difference between upper-class ideology and lower-class ideology is not a mistake--it is a function of class society. Upper-class persons produce upper-class ideas. That's why we have the Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Lenin, and other "leader" figures, instead of annual volumes of translations of the writings and speeches of lower-class activists themselves.

"We shall be all" means nothing until that "all" includes creating theory and practice without regard to authoritative opinion.

* * * *

You may be interested in reading my Antiproperty essays on this subject. Please click on the WEBSITE>> button below.

[Aurora]

1. "Communism" is the condition of being working-class people in struggle to end their existence as workers. Marx was not of working-class family origin; therefore, he could not possibly be a communist. Marx was a socialist.
What?You dont have to be working class to be Communist! who cares what his family origin was! if I go back far enough my family was rich but does that mean im rich no of course not!Does that mean I cant be a communist of course not!


2. Marx opposed communism
Have you read The Communist Manifesto?if you have did you happen to read the names on the cover?


Communists must abandon and criticize the method of relying on the opinions of long-dead authority figures from upper-class family backgrounds.
So we communists should just ignore marx and all his opinions?If you honestly believe this why are you here?without figures like marx,communism wouldnt exist!

I dont know who let you out of OI but I would question their decision!


You may be interested in reading my Antiproperty essays on this subject.If it holds the view you have here,not fucking likely!

[matiasm]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 14 2006, 12:07 AM
matiasm: "Some guy in my class today at Uni said that Karl Marx was not a communist, and others also said that Marxism is not communism."

Some guy is right. Karl Marx was not a communist. "Marxism" is not communism. In this post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=42974&hl=&view=findpost&p=1291981811) I made the following remark:

Marx was not a communist.

1. "Communism" is the condition of being working-class people in struggle to end their existence as workers. Marx was not of working-class family origin; therefore, he could not possibly be a communist. Marx was a socialist.

2. Marx opposed communism. His advocacy as a here-and-now solution of a "lower stage of communism" that had every form and substance of capitalism--in logical terms, this is opposition to "higher stage of communism" by continual postponement, delay, and diversion and substitution of struggle towards not-"higher-stage-of-communism" goals.

* * * *

And "socialism" is a form of capitalism characterized by nationalizations of big business.

Every form of "leader-ism" is dogmatism in theory that is used to justify opportunism in practice. In another post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=39554&hl=&view=findpost&p=1292008872) I added:

Dogmatism is not about the usefulness or factuality of the opinions of an authority figure. Dogmatism is about submitting to authority. Adding "right about this" and "wrong about that" conditions to submitting to authority--is still submitting to authority. It is surrender to the carrier of the "right" ideas. (Reminds me of the movie The Messenger that is shown at colleges to recruit to Islam.)

Communists must abandon and criticize the method of relying on the opinions of long-dead authority figures from upper-class family backgrounds. It is not a matter of looking for honest mistakes. The difference between upper-class ideology and lower-class ideology is not a mistake--it is a function of class society. Upper-class persons produce upper-class ideas. That's why we have the Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Lenin, and other "leader" figures, instead of annual volumes of translations of the writings and speeches of lower-class activists themselves.

"We shall be all" means nothing until that "all" includes creating theory and practice without regard to authoritative opinion.

* * * *

You may be interested in reading my Antiproperty essays on this subject. Please click on the WEBSITE>> button below.
you dont have to have the "working class" conditions to be a communist.

Marx was no socialist. he was a communist.

[RebelDog]

Marx was a communist, of course he was. Anything on this thread to the contrary is intellectual holier than thow bullshit. People are coming here to learn about communism and what do they get 'Marx was not a communist' I'm sorry but I've never heard such crap in all my days.

[bezdomni]

Every form of "leader-ism" is dogmatism in theory that is used to justify opportunism in practice.
No, it is showing an agreement with the bulk of a person's theory. I have read Lenin and I agree with him on most things, therefore, I call myself a Leninist. This does not mean that I would bow-down to everything Lenin said, nor does it mean that I am not critical of Lenin at times - it merely shows an agreement with a person who made major breakthroughs in revolutionary theory.

You are being dogmatically opposed to people who have good ideas in your "anti-leaderist" bourgeois ideology.


"Communism" is the condition of being working-class people in struggle to end their existence as workers. Marx was not of working-class family origin; therefore, he could not possibly be a communist. Marx was a socialist.
And what factory did Marx own?


Dogmatism is not about the usefulness or factuality of the opinions of an authority figure. Dogmatism is about submitting to authority. Adding "right about this" and "wrong about that" conditions to submitting to authority--is still submitting to authority. It is surrender to the carrier of the "right" ideas. (Reminds me of the movie The Messenger that is shown at colleges to recruit to Islam.)
See my above comment on dogmatism.

Without giving in to authority, how do you suppose society would function? If people never gave in to any authority - then the purpose of democracy crumbles. Let's say the worker's vote to start work at 7am and end at 3pm by a majority (but not unanimous) decision. Whoever did not vote for working 7-3 still must do so, because it is the will of the majority that they do. If everybody was to show up when they felt like it and then do what they felt like, there is no purpose whatsoever to establishing worker's democracy - since people wouldn't even give in to the authority of the people.

Anyway, your position is self defeating. I cannot possibly accept your position even if I wanted to, because it would be leaderist dogmatism. Floyce Whiteism is something that need not be fought against, because you can't be a Whiteist - it goes against the doctrine.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy
You are being dogmatically opposed to people who have good ideas in your "anti-leaderist" bourgeois ideology.
It seems that the Trots' best weapon is the very label of 'bourgeois', which is applied to any ideology that does not fit nicely with the 'principles of Leninism'.

How is being anti-leaderist bourgeois? Just because it does not pay the sought for homage to your Trot leaders? Well, I have something to say here: fuck your Trot leaders.

Again, reading CLP's post, the reader will note the authoritarian flavor of Leninism. We just 'need' the designated Trot authority. We would succumb to barbarism without it! :lol:

Is this authoritarian shit really what we want? Think critically about this.

[bezdomni]

Fine,

Take out the word bourgeois from my post and the argument is still valid.

It seems that all you anarchists have is to label every person who disagrees with you as an authoritarian - which I am certainly not.


How is being anti-leaderist bourgeois?
It isn't necessarily ALWAYS bourgeois, but the manner in which Whitey presented it was bourgeois. He claims that we should abandon any idea that a political leader has, because it came from a political leader, even if that leader was of the working class.

He basically says that we shouldn't listen to anybody but ourselves...that sounds nearly objectivist. He says that Marxism is dogmatic just becuase Marx's name is used in the title of the idea. How is this not ridiculous?

We shouldn't agree with Bakunin because he was a leader of the anarchist movement. We shouldn't agree with Goldman because she was a leader of the feminist movement (as well as the anarchist or communist movement depending on how old she was). There needs to be leadership in SOME form! Be it purely ideological (such as Bakunin) or both ideological and political (such as Lenin or Trotsky).

[anomaly]

Originally posted by CPA
There needs to be leadership in SOME form!
The question becomes obvious: what is leadership?

Is it merely the act of guidance, the act of teaching? If you say yes, then I would agree, this 'form' of 'leadership' is not only needed, it is inevitable.

However, what must be avoided is what you term 'political leadership'. Put another way, this translates to the power of command.

In this movement, there should ne no leader with the power of command over anyone else. Another way of putting this is that there should be no official leaders.

This means that the old vanguard party must go. However, as a Trot, I doubt you'll like this prognosis very much. :D

BTW, I'd like to apologize for referring to you as 'CLP' in that last post. I don't know where I got that. :P

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by anomaly+Apr 16 2006, 08:10 PM--> (anomaly @ Apr 16 2006, 08:10 PM)
CPA
There needs to be leadership in SOME form!
The question becomes obvious: what is leadership?

Is it merely the act of guidance, the act of teaching? If you say yes, then I would agree, this 'form' of 'leadership' is not only needed, it is inevitable.

However, what must be avoided is what you term 'political leadership'. Put another way, this translates to the power of command.

In this movement, there should ne no leader with the power of command over anyone else. Another way of putting this is that there should be no official leaders.

This means that the old vanguard party must go. However, as a Trot, I doubt you'll like this prognosis very much. :D

BTW, I'd like to apologize for referring to you as 'CLP' in that last post. I don't know where I got that. :P [/b]


BTW, I'd like to apologize for referring to you as 'CLP' in that last post. I don't know where I got that. :P
Yeah, I was confused by that. I guess CLP is the strawman version of me. :P


In this movement, there should ne no leader with the power of command over anyone else. Another way of putting this is that there should be no official leaders.

There should be no illigitimate command, I agree. Despotism must be avoided by all costs. However, I see the vanguard of the working class as being directly representative (ie, democratically elected) by the workers. Keep in mind, that the vanguard is supposed to be workers - not bourgeois despots. Unfortunately, many Leninist movements have been severely fucked up in this regard and capitalism (not socialism) arises from the ashes of the revolution.

I'm not sure about the other Leninists, but my vanguard is the essence of worker's democracy.

[∞]

Marxism is just another idea which stems from communism, there are different forms of communism such as democratic communism (trotskyism) and authoritarian communism like stalinism. If they say that Karl Marx was not a communist they are just knit picking your arguement, I suppose technically you could say that he was a marxist but altogether he is collectively known as a communist.



???? Marxism is a branch which includes the study of dialectics. Democratic Communism is more like Council Communism. Trotskyism or anything else which stems form the leninist concept is authoritarian by it's very nature. Democratic Communism would allow freedoms of ALL Leftitsts, not what Lenin did with social democrats and Anarchists.

[cb9's_unity]

Mother of all grave-digs!

Generally your not supposed to bump threads that have been dead for a decent chunk of a decade.

[Comrade Akai]

My comrades have already answered what I was going to say for me, so instead I would like to comment on how the education system molds students. Is purpose is not to produce critcal thinkers and intellectuals but to instead produce drones for the production lines. They don't want people who can think, they want dumb, blind workers who won't ask questions; who will sit down, shut up and do as they're told.

Your classmates are stupid, and it is not their fault. Look to the federal government, and the state-owned, bureaucratic, top-down authoritarian "education" system to see the problem.

Edit: I just realized that this thread was supposed to be dead. My bad.

[Luisrah]

Marxism is just another idea which stems from communism, there are different forms of communism such as democratic communism (trotskyism) and authoritarian communism like stalinism.

All communism is democratic, and all communists want the same communism here, there is no democratic communism nor authoritarian communism.
Socialism can take many forms, depending on the tendency, and I assume that is what you meant.
Stalinism and Trotskyism aren't ''communisms'' but yes tendencies that disagree on which form should socialism take.

It is true that ''stalinism'' was quite un-democratic, but how can you say surely that trotkyism is democratic, if there haven't been any examples?

[Nolan]

Necromancy gives you STDs.

[JazzRemington]

He's not a necromancer. According to 2e rules, the necromancer is not a class available to players.

[28350]

Of course Marx wasn't a communist.
Although the texts he produced were communist per se, this was actually just a clever guise. Marx secretly adhered to a syncretic philosophy composed of Scientology and the LaRouche movement. His actual politics are closer to those of the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party.
His façade was quite clever. We were only able to learn of it through use of necromancy like this.
Dohoho. :lol: