I'm curious whether they are an overwhelming majority here, or just the largest plurality out of several, and not actually a representative of most posters.
Don't get me wrong, Marx definitely made some major achievements, got a ton of stuff 100% spot on, quite impressively that still measures up after 150+ years. At the same time, I think a lot has been discovered and researched in that period of time that makes me doubt some significantly foundational aspects of it.
Part of what might make this difficult is pinning down exactly what it means to be Marxist, esp so since most are brought up being taught complete nonsense about it. I'd probably boil it down to "The Materialist Dialectical view of History as being driven by the conflict between social classes (Ruling Class vs Working Class)". If you think I'm way off base here, feel free to downvote away and/or bully, shame, mock and/or troll me, but also please do so while teaching me a better/more accurate definition.
And I also really want to stress this isn't disparaging Marx, I just don't think he had the right tools available in his time to come up with what I'd see as a more valid foundation. Given another 100 or so years, an the advent and maturity of things like Systems Theory, Chaos Theory, Information Science, Quantum Physics, Sociology (which Marx could easily be considered one of the founders of) I could see his output being much more agreeable with me.
And of course, the almost dogmatic devotion later thinkers would have defending its scientificity (is that a word?) that practically bordered on fanaticism doesn't do any favors, but I try hard not to let what later people would do to his ideas affect my view of them.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Based
Take Paul Cockshott for example. He's written about stochastic materialism which takes the traditional more "linear" progression, critiques it, and then offers an alternative that is still grounded in a materialist analysis https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2018/04/16/stochastic-historical-materialism/
Cockshott
:controversial-yet-brave:
I'd have a hard time labeling someone a Marxist if they don't have a "Materialist Dialectical view of History as being driven by the conflict between social classes", as I put it in my post. That seems like a pretty fundamental foundation to Marxism, it would be like being a capitalist without believing that humans are rational beings motivated by self-interest, or being a Christian who doesn't believe God sent his only son Jesus to suffer and die on the cross for humanity's salvation and he ascended into heaven on the third day and will come again in the end days to judge all mankind, or whatever their ridiculous creed is.
Obviously ideologies can and do change over time, and like I wouldn't say believe that capitalism/socialism isn't necessary to achieve socialism/communism disqualfiies someone from being a Marxist. But you change some foundational stuff and its just a different ideology at that point
I don't know why you're being downvoted, you are right.
Marxism is just that -- the belief that history is shaped by class conflict driving the reorganisation of society, this conclusion is acquired via the use of dialectical materialist analysis.
Communism, the ideology and goal of a communist society, does not HAVE to be marxist. Anarchist want to achieve a communist society but don't adhere strictly to any historical analysis (marxism). They derive ideas from Marx and his communist writings but don't have to be marxist.
Socialism again is not Marxism, it is an economic system that sits between capitalism and communism.
You are not wrong and people downvoting you seem to not really understand that these are all quite separate things that very precisely refer to parts.
Heck, you can be a marxist and be a member of the bourgeoisie fighting AGAINST communists. I have no doubt that there are members of the ruling class who are marxist, do believe in dialectical materialism, and do use it to fight for their own class interests despite believing fundamentally that socialism will eventually win due to a belief in Marxism(that socialism will eventually happen because of class conflict).
People that conflate what marxism is with socialism, communism, and so on haven't really understood the very specific things these refer to and instead just hear the media broad stroking all communists and anarchists as marxists and conflating them all.
I think it's more to do with the second part of their comment. The economic basis for the withering of the state (aka higher stage communism) in Marxism has always been the rapid and massive development of the means of production (under what Marx knew as capitalism but we might include ideas like the NEP or Socialism with Chinese Characteristics) because it is necessary to create a massive division of labor to supply everyone's needs and it takes time and education to condition people to a socialist system. Many of the liberal critiques of socialism due to "human nature" are actually bourgeoisie nature and the suppression of the bourgeoisie nature (along with the literal suppression of the bourgeoisie) will be necessary to achieve higher stage communism.
None of this can really happen directly from feudalism or a similar mode of production even if Marx was wrong about a dictatorship of the proletariat arising from feudalism.
Or maybe it's just trolls idk it's kind of a pedantic point.