Why Marx Said He "Wasn't A Marxist"

Yes there are. There is almost a weekly trans or prostitution thread that is locked or deleted.

To be fair this doesn't actually exclude reformism, it just emphasizes the socialism, not socdem, ought to be the ultimate goal of the working class movement.

I wasn't licking their boots, I was agreeing with OP by pointing out the dogmatism of MLs

This was written in 1847 and you're ignoring the fact that Marx himself where possible encouraged participation in parliamentary system to bring about reformist change throughout his life.

I've been conflicted over this for a long time now. What should our position be towards reformism? Most of us would agree that the socdem keynesian reforms don't actually work. Should we then lie our fellow workers and say it's actually something valuable to put time and resources in, while sneakily knowing that they will ultimately fail? I think there's little chance in actually radicalizing people this way yet most socialist political parties seem to operate this way.

thecharnelhouse.org/2016/07/05/against-political-determinism/

Marx was especially not a Marxist because he, as well as later Kautsky, saw the likes of Kautsky emerge; individuals who attempted to economize and politicize Marx's radically oppositional theory under the guise of advancing it.

Also
>To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of “socialism” has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.
(Manifesto of the Communist Party, Ch. 3, 2: Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism)

And huge lol at trying to raise what little confidence Marx had in parliamentarism and reformism when we've had a golden age of social democracy to gauge just how much of a joker those are who insist that it "shifted us closer to the real(tm) left". Yeah, we're totally closer to a proletarian insurrection with such high concentrations of capital and the ever more cushiness of a hyper-alienated proletariat.

Actual leftist reformism clearly works, it gives the masses an example of what socialist ideas can do for them, if you stubbornly refuse to actually help the working class then why would you expect them to back you once things deteriorate enough for revolution to come? The ideal leader of the revolution would be a former popular leftist parliamentarian, people meme about Corbyn but if the grenfell fire had happened 40 years from now when liberal capitalism was on its last legs then his cabinet could have been part of the revolutionary party. Some random guy from the internet doesn't have the same credibility with the public.

he, as well as later Engels*, saw the likes of Kautsky

How does a nicer capitalism show us what a hypothetical society free of all categories upon which nicer capitalism (capitalism) rests? And since we are clearly in a Marxist thread, what do you mean with socialist "ideas"?

The working class is not to back me or anyone but itself: the working class. Class unity is what revolutions are made of.

Classes can't lead themselves, they are led by either individuals or groups that have a wider agenda, it's down to us to make sure we're the ones setting that agenda. And as for nicer capitalism, yes, we should take credit for reduced working hours, the minimum wage, safety laws, the NHS, public railways, no they aren't 'true socialism' but the people need to see that the left is the side of the workers, they need to see that we are the ones trying to make their lives better. No reformism can't ultimately lead to the end of capitalism but it's an important strategy for weakening the stranglehold of capital and agitating to the people. The people have no interest in your fringe trot sect that meets in the pub biweekly, they are interested in the leftists they can see making statements on TV and that they can vote for.

Early Marx was shit, no wonder you still use the "alienated" theory meme.

How is that post bootlicking? He's just pointing out that uncritical reverence of Marx or other Leftist thinkers/figures can be dogmatic.

That said, I agree with OP, reforms are not a bad thing, and immiseration doesn't work as a strategy. The more alienated and dejected the Proletariat are the more hopeless and atomized they become. The more free time and job security they have the more they'll have time to organize and push for even better reforms. Immiserationism only makes sense if you're a sociopath who has absolutely no faith in mankind. Also, MLs and other "anti-revisionist" tendencies tend to be just as abstentionist as any strawman of a Leftcom I feel OP is referring to. At least that's how I too OPs meaning. But all the MLs I've interacted with on this board and twitter, no necessarily irl, can be even more ultra-leftist and against reforms and activism then you're typical Leftcom.

You push for reforms as short term measures while still pushing for militancy. Revolution comes when all reformist measures have been exhausted and the bourgeois State proves itself both incapable, as well as unwilling, to give the people what they want. But this is all long term. It's like most Leftists want a revolution tomorrow, but we don't even have a moderately sized Left right now, but no one wants to put in the work of getting back to the point where the Left is a mass movement again, instead they want to wallow in the obscurity of tiny ML parties that amont to Soviet Historical Societies and even tinier Maoist LARPing collectives.

I don't really see reforms as the useful if they're purpose is really to just keep people alienated from politics and dependent on the state. The problem with welfare is that it eventually leads to a situation where militancy is less likely not more

The problem with accelerationism is that revolutions do not happen because the proletariat is in a uniquely desperate position. They often happen in times when there is some economic growth or the bourgeoisie is willing to compromise, but there is sufficient class consciousness for the population to make concrete demands.
We simply can't assume that there will be a proletarian movement just because we let the Right take away every form of welfare and labour protection.

I don't know if this is inherently the case though.

If that were the case then Burgerstan would be a hot bed of revolutionary ferver right now, we basically have the social programs and infrastructure of a third world shithole. Healthcare is unaffordable, education is unaffordable, the job market is shit, many Americans live without electricity, clean water, or access to cheap and healthy food, we live in an ever expanding police state, and yet it still remains a "fortress of reaction", as Marx and Engels once remarked in relation to the Germany of their own time. My point is, reforms and bettering the conditions of the working class can only help things, affordable healthcare, affordable educations, these are things you should fight for even if it is in a pre-revolutionary setting, a healthier and better informed population is always a positive, no matter what. If all it takes for people to rise up is for their circumstances to be shit revolutions would be a lot more common, I can tell you that, but it's usually the opposite, when people feel hopeless they certainly don't feel like there's much reason to strive for better.

That's not what Accelerationism is. You're referring to Impossiblism, Immiserationism, or maybe even catastrophism. Left Accelerationists believe in reforms and parliamentarianism as a means for praxis. As Jehu once said "reforms that can push revolution". I tend to agree when I'm at my most optimistic.

Aside from that, I agree with everything else you said. Marx and Engels always believed that the dichotomy between reforms and revolution was a pointless one. How so many Marxists turned into Blanquists, I'll never know.

This is the exact opposite of what Left Accelerationists call for.
criticallegalthinking.com/2013/05/14/accelerate-manifesto-for-an-accelerationist-politics/

Not necessarily but it's important to be wary of such things
Actually I think the left is doing better now then it has in decades. Are people becoming ultra tankies or ancoms? No, but people are certainly more friendly to socialism now then they have been for a while
All those are important but they have to be done through a dual power structure not through the state, otherwise you're not really fostering revolution
I didn't mean to imply that, but I think revolutionary moments come about through terrible conditions. What makes all the difference is is their a structure in place to take advantage of these circumstances, and we should be concerned with creating such a structure as opposed to engaging in parliamentary politics.

I don't think ubi is something we should strategically be pushing for. Try universal healthcare and nationalization of banks. UBI only extends capitalism whereas the others bring us closer to socialism.

Honestly I think if we are going to push for state mandated reforms, we should be pushing for a land value tax above all else

I don't disagree with anything you've said here tbh. My only conviction is that Dual Power and militant direct action are done side by side with electoral and reformist action, and that neither wing denounce the other, I think that was the formula for success during October, and a model for future praxis. But yeah, the Left is growing rapidly and exponentially, after decades of essentially being nonexistent, the '08 Recession and subsequent austerity woke something in people, and it's only just beginning. My only real gripe is that I think abstentionism and the rejection of activism and the clinging to some "revolutionary purity" could lead to the Left shooting itself in the foot. But reforms are not, and should not, be a replacement for militancy or the establishment of Dual Power.

Forgot my flag, but I'm the same user you were responding to obviously.

I think UBI could be revolutionary if done properly. Particularly if it's implemented without any austerity bullshit or social programs being cut, and as long as people still call for universal healthcare and education on top of UBI, as well as the nationalization of transport, gas, electricity, and banks. And if the State can't deliver that's when militancy and revolutionary action comes in, but you don't get that without first building class consciousness and Dual Power. The Left is on the rise, but only after 40 years of basically not existing at all, we have our work cut out for us. Honestly, I think this is what Marx himself would call for if he lived in our times.

Are you a Georgist? Can you explain LVT? What would it look like if implemented today?

I guess it's because I'm a communalist, but I feel like maintaining the state structure was a massive mistake that lead eventually to the destruction of the revolution. The states power is irreconcilable with the soviets power
It's not so much that I think members should explicitly abstain from voting, but rather that their efforts be solely maintained within the dual power and that the party line should remind people of the irreconcilable nature of state and "soviet"

No I'm not a georgist, and honestly I only grasp a little of LVT but it's enough to convince me that it would be a good idea. Here's a decent video explaining it
youtube.com/watch?v=ok2uR3btMrE

This seems to me a ridiculous and frankly idealist position. It is not a matter of simply having the "right ideas" in the minds of the proletarians; communism arises out of the historical and material circumstances of class struggle. As Marx writes in the Manifesto:

Moreover, the idea that the proletariat must be led, as if people are unable to think for themselves, is patronizing as well as ineffectual. The proletarians are already treated as objects, whose only role is to enrich capital. In the revolution, they will regain their subjectivity, and that includes intellectual as well as physical subjectivity. They are not simply brute strength to be led by some "enlightened despot". Relevant quotes:

-Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme

-Eugene V. Debs, Industrial Unionism

Yes OP I agree, but UBI really is a steaming pile of shit and if you ever see it put to practice you'll remember this post.

Which is why reforms are something you push for only in the earliest stages of a movement when you're still building numbers and creating a base. I'm very skeptical as to how useful or advisable the seizure of state power is, I tend to agree with Communization Theorists and Communalists on this.

I really enjoyed this video, thank you.

You accuse me of being a Trot but parrot that revolutionary activity arises from circles that stand outside of class relations. Both ironic and laughable, and does a good job of demonstrating how hopelessly utopian your politics really are.

Capital 1, Marx's last work (until death), contains a higher "alienation"s/"alienated"s per page than any other text of him on average.

Thinking the concept of alienation and alienated labour are "early Marx" or "just a meme" shows that you've likely acquired (shitty) second-hand knowledge of Marx or don't understand what Marx means with those terms at all.

I thought Marx wasn't a Marxist in the same way Christ wasn't a Christian. Isn't it merely as simple as that? Why complicate things?

Nope

How could anything be more idealistic than the idea that the workers will simply revolt of their own volition spontaneously and in complete accordance with Marxist doctrine without being taught to do so? That is the peak of optimism. Most people will only ever be capable of living to the beat of someone else's drum, that's just a fact. I'm not even saying anything about despotism, in fact it's more democratic for the leaders of leftist parties to lead the revolution than military leaders.

Also, I never called anyone a trot, I dont go in for that kind of thing.
I don't really see how anyone can really disagree with the proposition that we need to show working people that socialists are on their side before the revolution so that we can gain their support during it.

First: I was using the term idealism in the philosophical sense (Kant, Hegel, etc. are called "German Idealists"), which refers to a kind of philosophy that emphasizes ideas and mental constructs over "objective, external reality". This is in contrast to materialism (as well as realism).

Second: You are creating a false dichotomy. From "workers will be led by socialist experts" to "workers will spontaneously revolt with a perfect plan", there are many other positions "in-between", so to speak.

Third: The idea that workers should be in accordance with Marxist "doctrine" is in complete opposition to what Marx and his method indicate. Marx does not prescribe any particular revolutionary actions that must be followed in a dogmatic way. Wherever he speculates about the revolution or about communism, it is based on a general understanding of the material conditions of capitalism, and he insists that the actual revolutions will vary depending on the local circumstances. He specifically criticizes those "utopian" socialists, who have some grand plan for the future and try to implement it. For instance, in the Manifesto:

In your earlier post, you wrote:
Perhaps you meant this in a general sense, but the poster you were replying to (not me) interpreted it as you calling them a member of such a "fringe trot sect".

That article is rlly good. I'm not I know what my own position toward reformists would be but I've heard Mattick wrote a lot on succdem/and keynesian stuff so that may be useful.