[annatar1914]

I'm not putting this thread up as yet another stalking horse to attack Karl Marx and later Marxist theorists, but merely as a thought experiment to determine if others besides myself would consider themselves Communists without the foundation of Marxism in their political makeup.

Is there anyone therefore that would remain Communist despite a refutation of Marx? And why would you remain a Communist? Or, do you consider Marxism irrefutable and therefore essential to your adoption of Communism?

[The Immortal Goon]

Generally speaking, communists are socialists that are Marxists.

But there are other types of socialists:

How do communists differ from socialists?

The so-called socialists are divided into three categories.


[ Reactionary Socialists: ]

The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end.

This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons:

(i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible.

(ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests – a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution.

(iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians.


[ Bourgeois Socialists: ]

The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.

To this end, some propose mere welfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society.

Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow.


[ Democratic Socialists: ]

Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.

These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.

It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.

It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences.

[annatar1914]

I know there are many kinds of socialists and communists out there, marxist or otherwise IG. My question more simply put is this; would it be possible to separate marxism the political ideology from your belief in communism (communism as the final end state of mankind ), should it come to pass that even to you that marxism turned out to be inadequate as a political ideology?

Is Communism, the ideal end of all revolutionary striving, more integral to you than the ideology of Marxist-Leninism itself?

[Dagoth Ur]

Communism isn't necessarily the endpoint of civilization. It's simply the beginning of a new classless version of society. Which could go any number of ways that we cannot predict.

Also no I could not. Marx is why I believe in Communism in the first place.

[Brother of Karl]

Marxism is the only type of communism that really gained academic support. There are religious communists and utopian communists as well, but they mostly just form small failed cults, if they're lucky.

You know, I just had the strange hypothetical thought. What would have happened if Karl Marx had never been born? Were his ideas so intuitive at that period in history that another philosopher would have published a similar analysis of capitalism?Instead of debating Marxism, would we now be debating the same ideas, but under a different name? Or, would those memes never have crossed the threshold into being, and history would have unfolded completely differently since then?

These are the kinds of questions that keep me up at night.

[Dagoth Ur]

I think the essence would have still come out with or without Marx. However would someone as impressive as him personally be the one to flesh it out? That's a harder question.

[Paradigm]

Marx has a particular theory of history that predicts how communism will be achieved, and an interpretive methodology for understanding capitalism. One does not need to accept this theoretical framework to support the end-goal of communism. There is a long history of religious communism. Also, most anarchists are communists.

[The Immortal Goon]

William Thompson predates Marx and was almost there. He gets no credit, but Thompson+Hegel with a dash of Freunbach = Marx. That's not to take away from Marx, but the components were there. One of the people that ended up following Marx would have out it together, I'm pretty certain.

[Beren]

I think Engels is an essential part also, as he had a clearer view on practical issues and a more practical approach than Marx had. He really had an idea, which he could successfully communicate as well, as to what Communism should be and how it should be achieved. Contrary to Marx, Engels had a really enjoyable writing style, although I wouldn't call myself well-versed in Marxism.

[KlassWar]

Marx's writing style comes across as dry because he's discussing extremely dry stuff, mainly economics.

His writing style on other subjects (esp. historical commentary) was witty and entertaining.

[Beren]

Marx's writing style comes across as dry because he's discussing extremely dry stuff, manly economics.

His writing style on other subjects (esp. historical commentary) was witty and entertaining.

Economics can be discussed in an entertaining way too, in my opinion, but Marx wasn't an economist actually. Although he could be witty and entertaining, Engels still had a better style, I guess. I'd also believe he could be a more successful politician than Marx could be.

[annatar1914]

Marx has a particular theory of history that predicts how communism will be achieved, and an interpretive methodology for understanding capitalism. One does not need to accept this theoretical framework to support the end-goal of communism. There is a long history of religious communism. Also, most anarchists are communists.

Agreed, although i'm more firm on Marx having an 'interpretive methodology for understanding Capitalism' then a predictive model on how Communism is to be achieved.

Communism cannot be achieved as long as a Bourgeosie can 're-form' from elements of a administrative bureaucracy from the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Nonetheless, this isn't an Anarchist critique coming from me; there has to be a Dictatorship of the Proletariat to transition into Communism proper from Socialism.

[pugsville]

Communism would have been much much better without Marx.

Marx & Engels legacy was one of totalitarianism. They introduced the whole rubbish dogmatical style that was to characterize the central controlled crap that was the Bolsheviks and the official communists parties.

[Brother of Karl]

But in Marxist communism, the state is supposed to wither away once it has succeeded. It seems something about this isn't adding up.

[annatar1914]

I find it interesting intellectually that few Marxist Leninists of a materialist bent can rightly divide their attachment to Marxist Leninism and speak to what motivates them about their purported aim and goal-Communism!-to begin with.

I get strongly believing in a political ideology, but not as an end unto itself. If Marxist Leninism were false on a number of points, would the dedication to the end goal remain, or is every 'communist' in the modern sense just a wrecker, or an Anarchist at heart?

[KlassWar]

But in Marxist communism, the state is supposed to wither away once it has succeeded. It seems something about this isn't adding up.

What do you mean? They didn't have time to wither away, capitalism wasn't defeated. The worker's state can only begin to wither away once world revolution (or close enough) take root, until then the Workers' State is necessary to defend against counterrevolution and imperialist intervention.

[Technology]

After all this time, I'm honestly not sure what Marxists even mean when they say "state".

I've heard something like "the tool used for the repression of one class by another" before. The problem with this is that its pretty obvious that the state in reality is used for more than just class repression.

In this case, would a state stop being a state as soon as everyone is re-educated to be communist to the extent that they just naturally behave that way, and you weren't putting down rebellions any more? You could have a whole administrative class and authoritative organs of the state centrally planning everything, but the state isn't a state, because everyone is going along with the plan?