Replies

What he means by that is Orthodox Marxism does not use cultural forces to force revolutionary change. Marx said that the Revolution would cause cultural change, but it was not to be brought about by anything other than the economic factors of Capitalism. Marx reiterates this over and over, that Capitalism's economic forces will inherently destroy itself, therefore it is not needed to induce a Revolution. Marx was fundamentally wrong, which is why he spent his entire life waiting for the Revolution which never materialized. He was a narcissistic egomaniac who believed that he discovered the course of history and therefore the destruction of Capitalism was inevitable. He never would have entertained the idea, because it was inconceivable that his precious theories were wrong. To use culture, education, media, as a way to create revolutionary forces is something that was adopted after Marx was proven to be demonstrably wrong. It was a cope by Leftists to address the fact that by the Late 19th Century Capitalism was not breaking down, and in fact it was able to address its flaws during the early stages of industrialization. To weaponize things like race, gender, came out of the Frankfurt School and Post-Structuralism as a way to cope with the failure of Marxism. Marx and Engels would never embrace the concept of White Privilege despite being anti-racist because the concept of having a racial or even a national identity was a "False Consciousness". To attack somebody for being White would be counter-revolutionary because a racial identity is a delusion and separates workers from having solidarity. Herbert Marcuse, a major Frankfurt School thinker and popular among the New Left himself stated that the Left cannot ever use the Working Class as a revolutionary force as it is inherently counter-revolutionary. Working class people will never support Communism, they are inherently religious, inherently patriotic, and inherently reactionary. The New Left needed an alliance among the college educated students, and minorities and outcasts who had grievances, in Marxian terms an alliance of the Bourgeois and Lumpenproletariat. Marx himself despised the Lumpenproletariat as he considered them nothing more than opportunist mercenaries for Capitalists and sell outs. He eviscerated them for being used by Napoleon III and being useless idiots.

" On the pretext of founding a benevolent society, the lumpen proletariat of Paris had been organized into secret sections, each section led by Bonapartist agents, with a Bonapartist general at the head of the whole. Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni,[105] pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux [pimps], brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars — in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème; from this kindred element Bonaparte formed the core of the Society of December 10. A "benevolent society" - insofar as, like Bonaparte, all its members felt the need of benefiting themselves at the expense of the laboring nation. This Bonaparte, who constitutes himself chief of the lumpenproletariat, who here alone rediscovers in mass form the interests which he personally pursues, who recognizes in this scum, offal, refuse of all classes the only class upon which he can base himself unconditionally, is the real Bonaparte, the Bonaparte sans phrase. An old, crafty roué, he conceives the historical life of the nations and their performances of state as comedy in the most vulgar sense, as a masquerade in which the grand costumes, words, and postures merely serve to mask the pettiest knavery. Thus his expedition to Strasbourg, where the trained Swiss vulture played the part of the Napoleonic eagle." (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte 1852, Chapter V)

Sounds like Antifa today if you ask me.

Where exactly do you get that notion?

Here are several quotes from Marx and Engels themselves in regards to Blanquism, which is where the concept of the Revolutionary Vanguard came from.

The phantasy of overturning an entire society through the action of a small conspiracy. Brought up in the school of conspiracy, and held together by the strict discipline which went with it, they started out from the viewpoint that a relatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able, at a given favorable moment, not only to seize the helm of state, but also by a display of great ruthless energy, to maintain power until they succeeded in sweeping the mass of the people into the revolution and ranging them round the small band of leaders. This involved, above all, the strictest, dictatorial centralization of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary government." (The Civil War in France via Selected Works, Volume I p. 31)

"We are not that stupid. The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried out by small conspicuous minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it a question of complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for with body and soul. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work we are now pursuing." (The Class Struggles in France 1848-1850 via Selected Works Volume I pp.250-251)

"...we say to the workers: 'You have got to go through fifteen, twenty, fifty years of civil wars and national wars not merely in order to change your conditions, but in order to change yourselves and become qualified for political power." (Selected Correspondence, p. 92) As you can see, Marx did not support the idea of a Revolutionary Vanguard. Marx despised Blanqui, because he was a narcissistic egomaniac who couldn't stand anyone who didn't agree with him. You cannot find any explicit reference to the Revolutionary Vanguard in Marx's writings, simply because he never supported the idea. Lenin took the idea and promoted it in What is to Be Done? which was controversial at the time. Rosa Luxemburg herself called Lenin a Revisionist and a Blanquist. Marxists used the term as an insult, as Blanqui was considered "unscientific" and "elitist". All of this reiterates the point Lindsay makes in that Marx is so completely and utterly wrong about everything, that the Left simply has moved beyond him. Marx's theories are as ridiculous as somebody today practicing psychology and telling women the reasons they have problems is because of Penis Envy. It's laughably absurd. Quite frankly, nobody reads him anymore because he's useless. The Left has moved onto to new tactics and new concepts like Critical Theory and Neo-Marxism because it's the only way for them to try to salvage things. Quite frankly, the only reason we're even having the conversation is because Lenin used Blanqui's ideology in Marx's name, doing everything in complete violation to Marx's own ideas of how Communism would develop. Most people can't even conceptualize Marxism without Leninism.

Marx reiterates this over and over, that Capitalism’s economic forces will inherently destroy itself, therefore it is not needed to induce a Revolution …

There you go capitalizing “revolution” again. And nothing in Marx’s words said such a thing, but in fact he absolutely calls for revolution in the Manifesto.

If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if by means of a revolution it makes itself the ruling class and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production; then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. …

Sounds like creating a revolutionary vanguard to me and fomenting a bloody revolution thereby. Of course, Marx is utterly wrong about such a revolution “swe(eping) away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms” because the “workers” now have become the antagonist as a class of people. But then again, he was wrong about a lot of things, and that does not prevent his acolytes/adherents from being just as wrong.

Marx and Engels would never embrace the concept of White Privilege despite being anti-racist because the concept of having a racial or even a national identity was a “False Consciousness”. To attack somebody for being White would be counter-revolutionary because a racial identity is a delusion and separates workers from having solidarity …

And yet they attack family, private property, religion and borders, all four of which the working class (in reality) champion.

So then, why did Marx attack Jews in Zum Judenfrage? He did not just attack Judaism, but Jews themselves (the descendants of Judah). That is absolutely attacking a race. And that is what this thread is about.