The establishment vs Uber

[FireIceTalon]

I would say you know enough to ask difficult questions, but not enough to understand the answers.

perhaps you could be more specific? One of the strengths of Marxian analysis is being able to generate explanations for complex social and economic phenomena.

And... here is part in parcel of what I'm talking about. You don't get to redefine words to suit your purposes. Ideology is just that, a framework of thought or returning to our latin roots, thought narrative. Here is Wikipedia's view of what is defined there as Marxist ideology. Anti-ideology as discussed by Chomsky for example, was used to describe fear mongering propaganda and policy, such as in "anti-communism". Generally, anything followed by -ism can be described as an ideology. Marxism is an ideology. Luxemburg-ism is a more ultra-leftist schism of Marxism left of Leninism, left of Bolsheviks. Extreme is the concept of being not just to the left in this case, but to the extreme left. As opposed to centrist, or leaning left, or leaning right. You are, as we've discussed above, extremely outside the norms of political thought, and in fact, you appear pretty far outside the norms of Marxist thought.

So far out, in fact, that we're clearly using different dictionaries.

Yea, I don't really agree with this. The Wiki link you provided isn't a description of "Marxist ideology", but a description of how Marx observed the function and nature of ideology within a capitalist society. Marx wasn't pushing forth any ideology, but was describing the real world phenomena of class antagonisms. There is a huge difference.

To argue that anything ending with "ism" must be ideological is a deductive argument. Capitalism and Communism both end with "ism", but neither one is an ideology - they are a material condition of society defined by a particular set of social relationships that characterize them. They can be influenced by, driven, or otherwise justified by an ideological premise (in the case of capitalism, its driving ideological force could be Liberalism for instance, but capitalism itself isn't the ideology). Darwinism isn't an ideology either. Ideology can't simply be a mode of thought, it generally has to be something that has a particular goal with a set of views that is structured around that premise. Liberalism is ideological, as is egalitarianism. Marxism is an analytical mode of thought that is not structured around any belief system or an agenda, and therefore it can't be ideological. Rather, it is descriptive, meaning it describes and seeks to understand the world as it actually is....not as how it should or ought to be based on a particular set of beliefs or agendas (as seen in ideological thinking such as in most religions).

As far as my thoughts being far outside the norms of Marxist thought, this is a equally problematic notion.

Firstly, one would have to define the "norms" of Marxist thought, and outside of the basic tenets that make it what it is (a materialist understanding of history, analysis of class struggle, and many of the broader concepts in Marxian economics, etc) that is difficult to do, reflected by the fact there is literally dozens of different tendencies within it that have been developed by prominent Marxist thinkers through history. As you yourself mentioned, a Luxumburgist will have strong disagreements with a Leninist on a variety of key issues, and that is just two tendencies among many within the paradigm.

It is true that my politics lie farther on the left on the Marxist scale (i.e. I do not believe a Vanguard is necessary or even desirable for the working class to organize itself into a political force, and I disagree with the idea of Democratic Centralism and its rigid party politics), but there is nothing unusual about this, and in fact Leninism and its offshoots stands apart from most other tendencies in its advocacy of a vanguard party and Democratic Centralism - so in that regard my politics are well within the norm of most Marxist thought. Leninism comes across as too elitist in my opinion, and R. Luxemburg was proven correct when she noted that Bolshevism had the danger of slipping into authoritarianism (and this was well before Stalin even came to power).

Most Marxian tendencies have their merits and their weaknesses at the same time - ranging all the way from Left Communism to Marxism-Leninism. Wherever my politics lie though, I still think the things we analyze as Marxists (regardless of whatever tendency we identify as) are far more extreme than we are. For all intents and purposes, and for what its worth, I consider myself a non-doctrinaire communist, and I have influences from a variety of thinkers across the Marxist spectrum (as well as some outside of it). I'm not one who goes out of his way to promote sectarianism, as this has been more destructive for radical leftists than almost anything else. Sometimes I must engage in it, in particular when debating with loony Stalinists and Maoists, both tendencies which have far too many inconsistencies and diverge from the core tenets of Marxism.

At the end of the day, who cares really, where my politics lie? I don't see how this should even matter. Developing a proper material analysis for understanding the world (both in a social and economic context) using Marxism, is far more important. I have respect for anyone who does this regardless of their tendency, or even if they are some other type of leftist outside of the Marxist paradigm entirely. If all I cared about was being as far left as possible (which would be meaningless anyways), I'd just become an Anarchist and call it a day. And while I certainly respect the Anarchist mode of thought, there is a reason why I am not one.

Marxism is well outside the norms of political thought, but it's supposed to be, that is kind of the point.