> Yeah, that sounds exactly like the hedging that I've heard, "no true Marxism".
There are lots of things that draw on some parts of Marxism, but, in fact, there's no pure Marxism that's been implemented (not that I think there should be such a thing, either, but there hasn't, in fact.) The main Marxist-influenced things that have been influenced are:
1) Systems deriving, through Leninism, from the both Marxism and what's often called "Russian Marxism" (which, while influenced by actual Marxism, didn't so much follow it as arise roughly contemporaneously and interact with Marxism), which reject Marx's preconditions in favor of vanguardism and are implemented in societies which don't meet Marx's preconditions -- that is, Soviet Communism and its Maoist, etc., descendants
2) Systems which build from Marx's preconditions in societies which meet them, and apply large portions of the program Marx and Engels lay out in the Communist Manifesto (but omit other key portions of it), which -- because they are implemented in democratic societies where there is no absolute conformity among the decision-making parties -- are full of compromises, lack a strong coherent ideological commitment either in terms of goals or mechanisms (even if part of the society is explicitly Marxist), and which retain the broad outline of the capitalism (though the resulting system is very different from the thing 19th Century socialists branded "capitalism" because of the elements of socialism, including elements specifically drawn from Marxism, implemented) -- that is, the mixed economies of the modern West.
Neither of these is purely Marxist. The former pays more lip service to Marxism. The latter likes to call the former "Marxism" and distinguish itself as the opposition to Marxism, but actually more closely follows Marx's model than the former.
> Marx believed in class struggle and had a favored side in that struggle. That's quite enough.
That's a rather cartoonish description which has no utility beyond "rah! rah!" cheerleading for the not-Marxist team in a dualistic worldview that, like the more extreme interpretations of Marxism (as seen in "Marxist criticism", and very much akin to extreme "feminist criticism") sees all the world divided between two warring camps but, instead of social class, views them as polar Marxist and not-Marxist ideologies.
There are lots of things that draw on some parts of Marxism, but, in fact, there's no pure Marxism that's been implemented (not that I think there should be such a thing, either, but there hasn't, in fact.) The main Marxist-influenced things that have been influenced are:
1) Systems deriving, through Leninism, from the both Marxism and what's often called "Russian Marxism" (which, while influenced by actual Marxism, didn't so much follow it as arise roughly contemporaneously and interact with Marxism), which reject Marx's preconditions in favor of vanguardism and are implemented in societies which don't meet Marx's preconditions -- that is, Soviet Communism and its Maoist, etc., descendants
2) Systems which build from Marx's preconditions in societies which meet them, and apply large portions of the program Marx and Engels lay out in the Communist Manifesto (but omit other key portions of it), which -- because they are implemented in democratic societies where there is no absolute conformity among the decision-making parties -- are full of compromises, lack a strong coherent ideological commitment either in terms of goals or mechanisms (even if part of the society is explicitly Marxist), and which retain the broad outline of the capitalism (though the resulting system is very different from the thing 19th Century socialists branded "capitalism" because of the elements of socialism, including elements specifically drawn from Marxism, implemented) -- that is, the mixed economies of the modern West.
Neither of these is purely Marxist. The former pays more lip service to Marxism. The latter likes to call the former "Marxism" and distinguish itself as the opposition to Marxism, but actually more closely follows Marx's model than the former.
> Marx believed in class struggle and had a favored side in that struggle. That's quite enough.
That's a rather cartoonish description which has no utility beyond "rah! rah!" cheerleading for the not-Marxist team in a dualistic worldview that, like the more extreme interpretations of Marxism (as seen in "Marxist criticism", and very much akin to extreme "feminist criticism") sees all the world divided between two warring camps but, instead of social class, views them as polar Marxist and not-Marxist ideologies.