Marxism is probably the worst thing that ever happened to socialism in general. I am not sure why such a thing developed in the first place. But one thing is certain: Marxism and most versions of it have a negative legacy. I believe socialism would have been much better off if such an ideology never existed.
I don’t think it does anyone any favor if they identify as a Marxist in political conversation. I find it cringeworthy whenever I see someone do so, especially outside of online conversation. No matter what meaning you ascribe to such a term, it is ultimately nothing more than a devotion to the legacy of a single human being, and his collaborators.
Marx himself saw his theoretical contributions as nothing more than contributions to socialism. You would think it suffice to just call yourself a socialist or whatever idea you believe in, like anarchists and syndicalists do. If you agree with Marx’s analysis of capitalism, it would still be sufficient to just call yourself a socialist or communist. Calling yourself a Marxist implies something more than just agreeing with some of his analysis and seeing those as a contribution.
Most Marxists today are devoted to defending bad ideas, whether it be social democracy or Marxist-Leninism. They are also very insular and lack familiarity with other traditions. It’s very unhealthy and it’s bad for you and socialism.
And it doesn’t get much better if we are talking about more libertarian or anti-statist versions of Marxism.
My guess as to why Marxism…
My guess as to why Marxism developed: in order to keep alive ideas or programs that were discredited or unpopular (relative to other socialist ideas) or both, adherents wanted to invoke authority figures in support of those ideas. Remember the context is that anarchism and syndicalism was more prominent than social democracy up until the Russian Revolution.
And it persisted for ideas that we may find weird or unusual, like the idea of a semi-state and the rationale for that. A lot of these ideas cannot even be well argued for and justified, but you can just label it Marxism under the belief that Marx is the ultimate authority.
Developments within Marxism,…
Developments within Marxism, leading to offshoots, hinges on specific takes by authority figures. Things that don’t even matter, or is not the same as it happens in anarchism. I find this most funny about Marxism.
In anarchism, when most collectivists became communists, that makes sense. There are development of tendencies based on matters of principles regarding the future economic arrangement or strategies or tactics.
In Marxism, it went from Orthodox Marxism to Marxist-Leninism, and Trotskyism, and Maoism, and so on, each based on some peculiar take by a so called authority figure.
Jacques Camatte thought…
Jacques Camatte thought Baudrillard was into some oedipal thing with Marx. I don’t agree but it did make me think, how are anarcho-Marxists’ relationships with their fathers?