[Marxism] -ismic doctrine or science? (was: Cockburn contrarianism)

[Lüko Willms]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:02:54 -0500, Isaac Curtis wrote:

  I'm glad that the discussion can come back to the real issue instead 
of losing itself in quite esoteric exchanges about mathematics. 

> >   Why then not dropping this name "Marxism" (even with a big "M") 
> > which makes it appear as a doctrine?
> >
> >   Why not simply talking about science? 

> I identify as a Marxist for the same reasons that I identify 
> with a handful of other isms, especially feminism: 

  Feminism refers to the interests of a definite social grouping, namely 
women, and their oppressed status. It is not linked to a more or less 
fixed set of ideas or Holy Script, but the concrete interests of women 
as the oppressed sex. 

  What I am concerned about is the identification with the working 
class, its interests and its historic task of taking power out of the 
hands of the capitalist class. 

> At its worst, this sometimes operates as a form of
> red-baiting: "I'm not a Marxist, but I believe in 
> universal health care," or "I'm not a feminist, but 
> I believe in a woman's right to choose."

  On the other hand, there are a lot of people calling themselves 
Marxists and don't identify with the working class' strategic goal of 
taking political power, or not even with the working class as such, or 
even oppose the interests of oppressed nations. 

  Besides, many different people understand very different interests as 
"Marxism". 

  In the end, the term is useless as identification for anything. 

  And the dividing line in politics is not the reference to this or that 
doctrine and person, but the class line. Which side are you on? 


Comradely yours, 
Lüko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------
visit http://www.mlwerke.de Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotzki in 
German