Thanks, I'd missed that. But one really has to look for it, right? Calling scientific socialism "Marxism" isn't something either of them did muchj, Marx, never; in a couple of letters, Engels reports that Marx rejected the label in particular contexts. I don't have the references to hand, but some of them are in my my paper that is posted on Kelly's popular culture studies website; however, my research indicated taht "Marxist" was originally a pejorative directed at folowers of Marx in the First International by Bakunin and his followers, and the "Marxists" objected. Later Kautsky made "Marxist" Into a term of honor.
The history is interesting, but the real question is what purpose and function the term now serves. Until the mid-late 20th century, when there were self-identified Marxist states and mass workers parties that called themselves Marxist, it indicated a political affiliation with the Communist movement -- roughly the people who thought that in some sense or other the October Revolution of 1917 had been a Good Thing. Practically speaking there are no such states and movements any more, and no more of a Communist Movement. Today, the term rather indicates (1) an academic brand name, useful for classifying a theoretical position or putting material in a syllabus, and (2) as Soula's useful post indicates, an expression of extreme and angry alienation from the existing state of affairs -- unconnected, in large part, with any movement. Of course there are local self-styled Marxist and communist movements are parties here and there, some boring and harmless, like the CPUSA or the CPF (France), some quite malevolent and evil, as in Columbia's FARC or the Shining Path of Peru, a few using the name for historical reasons but with no remaining living connection to any communist revolutionary movement, such as the CPRF (Russia) or the CPC (China). But the historical basis for the appellation is no longer alive. Perhaps it is time to return to the unsentimentality of Marx, who would have had little patience for grandstanding and posturing using his name. jks --- Jurriaan Bendien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In his foreword to his essay Ludwig Feuerbach and > the End of Classical > German Philosophy (1886), dated February 21, 1888, > Frederick Engels does use > the term ""Marxist", namely, he claimed confidently, > > "In the meantime, the Marxist world outlook has > found representatives far > beyond the boundaries of Germany and Europe and in > all the literary > languages of the world." > > Source: > http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1886-ECGP/lf0.html > > Justin is therefore wrong if he claims that Engels > did not use the term > "Marxist", but also correct insofar as the German > original text reads: > > "Inzwischen hat die Marxsche Weltanschauung > Vertreter gefunden weit über > Deutschlands und Europas Grenzen hinaus und in allen > gebildeten Sprachen der > Welt." > > The word "Marxsche" could be translated as either > "Marxian" or "Marxist" and > among English followers of Marx around the turn of > the 20th century these > terms were often used interchangeably. It referred > specifically to Marx's > view of history and economics. To my knowledge, > Engels did authorise the > English translation and therefore did not explicitly > object to the use of > the term "Marxist". > > In fact Engels considered it appropriate that Marx's > name should be attached > to the new scientific, materialist interpretation of > human history that had > developed during the 19th century in criticism of > religious-idealist > interpretations, and compared Marx's achievements in > social science to > Darwin's achievements in natural science. Clearly, > the main thrust was that > of breaking through the monopoly over the knowledge > about human nature, > history and society by religious authorities and > idealist ideologues of the > ruling classes. But it is true that the old Engels > himself hardly used the > term "Marxism" in his writings, even though he > sought to popularise and > propagandise the new world outlook. > > The problem was really that whereas the old Engels > sought to systematise and > propagate Marx's new world view, and the same time > he wanted to prevent that > world view from collapsing back into a general > philosophy which people would > accept without independent thought or doing any real > research of their own, > the latter which he knew Marx hated, since Marx's > point of view was that > philosophical generalisations had to be transcended > and replaced with > empirical, scientific knowledge, reducing the field > for philosophical > inquiry to epistemology, logic and possibly ethics > (although ethics for Marx > could not be discussed separately from real > practical activity, and > consequently could not be discussed separately from > class interests; ethics > abstracted from real practical activity he > considered an ideological > discourse). > > Jurriaan __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
