public

Marx was not a Marxist

The contradictions of Marxism are manifest. Firstly, Karl Marx was Jewish by descent and birth. He wrote vile and virulent Utopian propaganda.

5 months ago

Latest Post Realignment in a Forward Direction by André Malraux public

Marx was not a Marxist

p.(x) = Big Data Determinism (2020) by Daniel Sanderson - #Googleplanksip

Marx was not a Marxist

The contradictions of Marxism are manifest. Firstly, Karl Marx was Jewish by descent and birth. He wrote vile and virulent Utopian propaganda. His "final solution", to his Jewish "problem" was cultural assimilation and communal distribution. He left his religion aside, yet quickly filled the Nietzschean vacuum with a resurrection of "The" better world.

Following in similar footsteps, "In the Preface to the Hebrew edition of Totem in Taboo, in 1930, Freud described himself as - “as completely estranged from the religion of my fathers". But he went on - I quote again “If asked, ‘What is left to you that is Jewish?’ I would have to reply, ‘A very great deal and probably the essence.’” In the 1974 Massey Lectures Series, George Steiner takes Freud as meaning abandoning his cultural-historical background for a future of "intellectual pursuit", and, "high moral seriousness". If Karl was alive today I wonder if he would still justify, "high moral seriousness" with the millions murdered in the name of his name?

Dispelling the myths and justifying the claims is how you conduct the affairs of your intellect while under the spell of Marxism. Resist with our faculties and institutions. We should be teaching tolerance and universal acceptance towards improving our existing culture. Fraught with freedoms and burden by responsibilities, we are our own oppressors, slaves to our own master mentalities. It’s confusing and counter intuitive. Capitalism is the dominant ideology because it’s information flow is more efficient.

This is not the side of the debate I would like to argue from. Worse yet is the messianic fervour from which self-proclaimed Marxists recruit. Dispelling the myths is a bipartisan goal (of the Freudian subconsciousness), of which, two parties who couldn't be further from the truth.

Secondly, a systematic and biased (nonpartisan) appraisal of Marxist thinkers would be in order to summarize my position as a trusted public voice, philosopher and entrepreneur. I will send my Critique of Carnage on and inward sabbatical, a sojourn for the soul. Lest we forget, move on nonetheless.

"Marx was not a Marxist." This is an opinion of a number of people, mostly those who are not members of the international working class. In this article, I will show why it is not so.

For instance, let us look at what Engels wrote about the Mensheviks in his writings on the Paris Commune. Engels said that the Mensheviks were "the descendants of the Proudhonist sects". So what he was saying was that the Mensheviks were not from the working-class movement, but they were part of the petty-bourgeoisie. If he had been referring to Marxism, then he would have said that all the various revolutionary socialist parties were "socialist" and therefore were in the same category.

In the book The Origins of the Communist Party (see section 6) James Dayton McCulloch pointed out that at least half of the leading Mensheviks in the Paris Commune were socialists. If we apply this logic, it makes sense to say that if the Mensheviks were the descendants of the petty-bourgeoisie, then they were the offspring of socialism.

This also brings to light another point, which is that Engels was not a Marxist. He is well known to have fought against Stalinism and he also did a lot to support the Chinese Revolution. Nevertheless, he was a member of the First International in 1848. Therefore he was not a member of the International and was not a member of the Second International either.

Engels was a member of the left-wing of the First International. He was a member of the Social Democratic Party. He had the same perspective as many of the European Social Democrats, who were then members of the First International.

So when Engels said that "Marxism" is not the word for what the working class movement is, he was absolutely correct. As I showed in earlier articles, it is a nonsense concept that you can use to describe any movement that is led by the working class. It is a nonsense concept that is used by the Stalinists to describe any kind of working class movement. They call themselves "Socialists" but they are nothing else than revisionists.

Therefore we can conclude that if Engels had been referring to Marxism, he would have referred to a new political theory that we now call "social democracy" and not to a brand of socialism that does not refer to the working class but rather the middle class, the bourgeoisie, or the landowners, and their petit bourgeoisie friends. and relatives.

This leads me to another conclusion, which is that it is not the concept of "Marxism" that is correct but rather the reality of the concept. It is not true to say that any new type of working class movement will emerge spontaneously. The working class movement has to be prepared for it.

If we think about the industrial revolution, for example, we should look at the economic crisis in England and the rise of the industrial revolution, which occurred during a period of economic stagnation. When the economic stagnation became so acute that there were no more jobs, then there was a social movement, which is now called "the workers' movement", and which included the trade unions and other organizations. In the course of this movement, the left-wing of the working class emerged, with a different type of leadership that could bring into being a new working-class leadership that would fight for socialism.

We must recognize that the industrial revolution is something that occurred in England because the economic stagnation caused this. and not because of any spontaneous or accidental occurrence of the working class.

So if we want to describe the working class movement as a mass movement, or even a mass movement, then it is important to recognize that this mass movement has to be prepared for by the left-wing, including its leaders. It cannot spring up automatically out of anywhere.

We have seen that the workers' movement in England did not emerge out of a spontaneous mass movement. It took a series of developments, which were not spontaneous, but were necessary to create this mass movement.


Daniel Sanderson

Published 5 months ago

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.