Marx was a liberal thinker. There’s not as much difference between Marx or indeed Marxism and liberalism as many people think. This is because if you are against non-constitutional, authoritarian regimes, you are a liberal. That’s what the French Revolution was about, and that’s what the 1848 revolutions were about: they were about bringing constitutionalism and popular sovereignty, and representative and responsible government, to parts of Europe where the rulers and the church were fanatically dedicated to maintaining their own grip. This was only relaxed, rather slowly, in the 1850s and 1860s.
Marx was wholly in favour of popular sovereignty and representative and responsible government. His angle was to keep pushing on the economic side, and to insist that governments needed to take responsibility for the economic welfare of citizens. Essentially, he was a social democrat. But in order to pursue that kind of agenda, you had to be a radical, terrorist revolutionary and prepared to take up a gun. That’s what this flaring up of revolutions was about. It didn’t really hit Russia until about 1905.
The dividing of Marx from his liberalism is something that is projected onto his ideas, and particularly his politics, much later on. Now, in the course of doing this kind of politics, Marx wanted to push liberals into the economic realm. That’s exactly what social democrats do now, and that’s the argument that various political parties had with George Osborne. It’s not that much different, frankly.
I feel like he is showing his ass here. "Marx wanted to be this, but in order to be this, he had to be that." It's not as if there weren't social democrats in Marx's day. I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but I think it's pretty clear that, in comparison to his contemporaries, Marx's ideas have far more revolutionary implications, which is what separates him from contemporary and historical liberalism.
He makes a single assertion and rests most of his argument on it. An assertion that has not one shred of evidence and instead, lots of evidence that points to the contrary.
Here I can do the same thing: FDR was a communist. But he couldn't say outright he was a communist, so he had to be an almost-social-democrat in words and deeds instead. There, where do I get my PhD certificate?
This is legitimately like 10x worse than even like Lenin’s description of Kautsky.
This momo has a Twitter account (https://mobile.twitter.com/TerrellCarver), feel free to bully his ass
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/11/the-characterless-opportunism-of-the-managerial-class/ :amber-snacking:
Marx wanted to push liberals into the economic realm. That’s exactly what social democrats do now
:doubt:
"We need UBI so I can turn my brain off forever and never think about politics again"
That is the very best you can ever get out of a succdem under optimal conditions. Actual existing succdemmery is much worse, a succdem in power would say: "UBI? That is just crazy! Pure communism! (i.e. as bad as Nazism) How will you pay for it!? It is simply not fair that those who doesn't want to get a job should be provided for by ordinary hard working people!"
Some folks never read state and revolution and it really shows.
Hmm, I wonder what the bourgeoisie might stand to gain from hiring an imbecile to be one of their "Marx experts".
