[jl2718]

I had a Marxist teacher in high school, and I wanted to learn more about it, so I read a lot of Marx and other foundational socialist literature. I was very confused every time he infused racialism into contemporary issues, which didn’t seem to exist anywhere in the doctrine. I came to understand that racialism and genderism are mostly just tactics to dismantle capitalism ‘by any means neccessary’. But these are the same division tactics that utopian Marxists accuse capitalists of exploiting in class warfare. From that vantage point, the distinction fades between the depictions of capitalist exploitation and of revolutionary Marxism. It turns out that politics and war are defined more by tactics than doctrine, and tactics themselves by effectiveness rather than any moral or rational basis. This seems to be the point actually, of revolutionary Marxists, who observed that “power comes from the barrel of a gun”, and adapted their tactics to match, to win the battle over their utopian doctrine. If they had logically recursed one layer deeper, they would have seen that they are not fighting for the doctrine, they are fighting for the fighting. The other side is also full of empty philosophy, and the distinction between doctrines fades away when given either their best interpretation, or their worst.

So I wonder what he means by calling himself a Marxist. Clearly he’s diverging from the party lines.