Why does no one label themselves Engelist?

[jacobin1949]

Why does no one label themselves Engelist or Engelism?

Why has there never been a movement of Engelists? Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, all call themselves Marxists yet reference their other founders. Engels on the other hand is never referred to as an ideology.

[Ismail]

Usually because when people think Engels they think «guy who expanded Marx's works» and few seem to view him as all that different.

[Zhou]

I would think because Engels never really created any distinct extension of Marxism that would qualify as his own unique philosophy; Engels was pretty much the first, and most orthodox, Marxist.

[Ander]

Why should they?

I think too many leftists go to great lengths to label themselves as "ists" for some strange reason. I find it slightly ironic that we consider ourselves progressives yet we try to adhere as strictly as possible to hundred year old ideologies.

Why be a Maoist or a Leninist? Haven't both approaches failed? Why not just call yourself a radical or a revolutionary?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:23 pm
Why does no one label themselves Engelist or Engelism?

Because you'd loose all your friends and credibility.

You'd never get hired and have no friends and would oneday steal a tin of floor polish, down it in a Tescos carpark at 1am and never wake up.


Why not just call yourself a radical or a revolutionary?

Are you a revolutionary? Really?

[Dros]

Why be a Maoist or a Leninist? Haven't both approaches failed?

Ummm... No they have both succeeded.


Why not just call yourself a radical or a revolutionary?

Because that is about the most nondescript thing you can say about yourself. If you are an actual revolutionary you need to understand how your revolution is going to progress, on what basis it will succeed, and what you will do after. If you don't know that, you will never accomplish anything ever.


I find it slightly ironic that we consider ourselves progressives yet we try to adhere as strictly as possible to hundred year old ideologies.

What the fuck?! I find it slightly ironic that you say that and post on this board...

[Tower of Bebel]

Because it should be Engelsist :P .

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It's a neat way of identifying those comrades among us who cannot think for themselves, and who thus accept his loopy philosophy hook, line and sinker.

For example, like those Maoists in the Maoism thread.

But there are plenty of others, alas.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:19 pm

Why be a Maoist or a Leninist? Haven't both approaches failed?

Ummm... No they have both succeeded.
Very true. They have done quite well at rapidly transitioning backwards countries into capitalist states.

[Ander]

Originally posted by William Everard+--> (William Everard)Are you a revolutionary?[/b]

Originally posted by dictionary.com+--> (dictionary.com)n. pl. rev·o·lu·tion·ar·ies

1. A militant in the struggle for revolution.
2. A supporter of revolutionary principles.
[/b]

I may not fall under category number 1, but I certainly believe that many of my ideas and principles are revolutionary. Aren't yours? Or are you some kind of non-revolutionary anarchist?


Originally posted by drosera99
Ummm... No they have both succeeded.

So your idea of a socialist republic is one where economic and political power is held tightly by a bureaucratic state instead of the common people? Does this vision of yours also include a ruthless secret police force that enforces the will of said state with brutality?

Alright, then I suppose they both have succeeded after all.


[email protected]
Because that is about the most nondescript thing you can say about yourself. If you are an actual revolutionary you need to understand how your revolution is going to progress, on what basis it will succeed, and what you will do after. If you don't know that, you will never accomplish anything ever.


drosera99
What the fuck?! I find it slightly ironic that you say that and post on this board...

I find it amusing that you have a problem with the fact that I refuse to follow some kind of strict ideological line. I will not apologise for being one of the members of this board who opposes dogmatism in the left.

You act as if Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc are infallible. Have you ever considered the possibility that Marx was wrong? Or perhaps at least a bit outdated? You do realise his works were published in the 19th century, correct?

We leftists stand against archaic practices such as slavery, racism, sexism, and other outdated beliefs, yet many of us tend to preach old Marxist theories as if they were holy text.

Think for yourself, ignorance is the greatest disease out there. Be your own revolutionary, don't be someone else's. Even Marx said "All I know is I'm not a Marxist."

[RedAnarchist]

I do agree that we are sometimes too obsessed with labels. There is this need to almost tattoo a label onto our foreheads and "god" help us if we don't stick to it, lest we offend the label. That being said, we do need to have labels for our ideologies so that people can put a name to it, but don't get all worried about what your ideas are called.

[R_P_A_S]

thats all we fucking need. and other "ism"

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There's nothing to differentiate the beliefs of Engels from Marx. Although Marx was critical of the term Marxist people tend to believe it helps, in discussions, to identify their beliefs from those of other communists.

[Dros]

I find it amusing that you have a problem with the fact that I refuse to follow some kind of strict ideological line. I will not apologise for being one of the members of this board who opposes dogmatism in the left.

That is not the issue. The issue is not having a line. I don't care what you call yourself but without a methodology you are never going to have a revolution.


You act as if Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc are infallible. Have you ever considered the possibility that Marx was wrong? Or perhaps at least a bit outdated? You do realise his works were published in the 19th century, correct?

No I don't. I have pointed out (in other threads) that these men made errors. I have considered the possibility that Marx was wrong. Then I looked at the world and realized he is as right today as he was in the 1800's. So no he is not outdated. He has been expanded upon and his ideas have been applied to our modern situation.


We leftists stand against archaic practices such as slavery, racism, sexism, and other outdated beliefs, yet many of us tend to preach old Marxist theories as if they were holy text.

No we don't (well some do but that needs to be discouraged).


Think for yourself, ignorance is the greatest disease out there.

Soooo.....


Be your own revolutionary, don't be someone else's.

Again, orginization and correct line and methodology are necessary. You will never have a revolution without that.


Even Marx said "All I know is I'm not a Marxist."

He said that in a very, very particular context to express his disagreement with a group who described themselves as Marxist.

[blackstone]

Cuz everyone would think your telling them your English.

[Herman]

Marx and Engels together formed what we know as "marxism".

So why marxism?

Because Marx was the first scientific socialist to make a coherent explanation on class struggle from a materialist point of view. Engels simply agreed with him and helped him expand and write a few of his works.

[Bilan]

Why not just grow the fuck up and call yourself a 'communist'?
Just saying.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:19 pm

Why be a Maoist or a Leninist? Haven't both approaches failed?

Ummm... No they have both succeeded.
LOLlercopter!!!!

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:23 am
There's nothing to differentiate the beliefs of Engels from Marx. Although Marx was critical of the term Marxist people tend to believe it helps, in discussions, to identify their beliefs from those of other communists.

I think there are two areas in which the views of Engels were different from those of Marx.

1. Whereas Marx believed that "the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it" [Theses on Feuerbach], Engels believed that it's necessary for socialist literature to address the laws of nature without pointing out any connection between that subject and changing society. In his books 'Anti-Duhring' and "Dialectics of Nature', Engels discussed the formation of the solar system, the properties of electric charge, etc.

2. See Engels' 'Origin of the Family....' It was Engels who adopted the entire theory of history proposed by of Lewis Henry Morgan, who explained all of human history in terms of the three stages of savagery, followed by the three stages of barbarism, and finally civilization. Engels was also uncritical as Morgan exaggerated how democratic and cooperative the tribal societies were, and underestimated the tribal societies' degree of superstition and conflict.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And these are among his worst writings; indeed, they are among the very worst ever penned by a revolutionary.

[Only Mao, Stalin and Lenin managed to produce anything equally as poor in this area -- ignoring, of course, Woods and Grant here (but only because of their secondary 'stature').]

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

i call my ideology Epicism, because its epic

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23, 2007 03:19 pm
And these are among his worst writings; indeed, they are among the very worst ever penned by a revolutionary.

But not the historical works like The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man and The Origin of the Family, Private Property & State, both of which are seminal attempts at applying historical materialism to substantive issues; skilfully utilising the scientific evidence that was available at the time. Certainly there's little to find in either text which Marx would have disagreed with.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, for once we agree. :o