[EastCoastAmerican]

Are the two phrases largely synonymous? They appear that way to me.

Is there a difference?

[Potemkin]

In theory, yes. However, Marx's theoretical works were so intellectually powerful and comprehensive that there is nothing else like them in the entire canon of communist theory, and so his theoretical positions have become the default for almost all communists.

[EastCoastAmerican]

In theory, yes. However, Marx's theoretical works were so intellectually powerful and comprehensive that there is nothing else like them in the entire canon of communist theory, and so his theoretical positions have become the default for almost all communists.

So it's safe to assume that they're largely synonyms?

[Potemkin]

Pretty much, yeah.

[EastCoastAmerican]

While we're on the subject, how come Friedrich Engels (comparatively) doesn't get much love?

[The Immortal Goon]

He's more or less the guy that puts the heady philosophical stuff that Marx put out into common language. He was always there discussing things with Marx, so they aided each other, but just from reading the work it's obvious enough that Marx was the heavy lifter in a philosophical sense and Engels was the heavy lifter in the application sense...The latter changes more quickly, but is still important.

You might get a kick out of Principles of Communism by Engels, actually.

[Ambroise]

In addition to what has been said above, I'd add that I don't even know why one, if one is a Communist, would even want to avoid Marx -- he's sort of the best part. Mature leftists, even if they are anti-Communist or they are opposed to the Soviet project, and don't even very much like the label 'Marxist' tend to have an awareness and appreciation of Marx.

So wanting to be a Communist while not being a Marxist is a pretty weird thing to aspire to. Typically it's the other way around: usually you get leftists who try to retain Marx while being opposed to Communism.

[Dagoth Ur]

Personally I'd call most real anarchists Communists as well. We all want the same thing in the end and even though we disagree on means we agree that the end of Private Property is our most immediate concern.

[Quail]

You can be a communist without being a marxist. I'm a communist but I don't call myself a marxist, although I have of course read Marx. "Marxist" usually refers to the more "authoritarian" (for want of a better word) communists, although libertarian marxists do exist. Anarchists don't tend to be anyone-ists.

Personally I'd call most real anarchists Communists as well. We all want the same thing in the end and even though we disagree on means we agree that the end of Private Property is our most immediate concern.

I think I'd go as far as saying it would be difficult to be a consistent anarchist without also being a communist. "Anarcho"-capitalism as an ideology frankly just doesn't make sense.

[Beren]

So wanting to be a Communist while not being a Marxist is a pretty weird thing to aspire to. Typically it's the other way around: usually you get leftists who try to retain Marx while being opposed to Communism.

Exactly.

You might get a kick out of Principles of Communism by Engels, actually.

[Cromwell]

You may want to look into Yellow Socialism, and, maybe even, the diggers from the English Civil War.

I, personally, am a socialist (although, anti-communist) but not a Marxist.

[qeddeq]

communism predates the writings of Marx. You can be a communist without reading a word of Marx. The ideas used by communists were used before Marx used them in his work. The labor theory of value, for example, is not Marx's idea, although this theory did not originate with communism but with classical economics.
I wonder how much the ideas of Marx played any role in the workings of the ussr. They used a planned economy with a central command structure. You don't need to read any Marx to create such an economy.
However, if you want to justify your noncapitalist views, you cannot do much better than Marx for the arguments. He provided the theoretical argument against capitalism. Probably better arguments can be made today but I haven't seen any. You can read about the calculation debate in the 1920's on efficiency of planned versus free market economies.
There is obviously no knock out punch argument against capitalism nor a convincing plan for a commie economy or else we'd be talking about it or doing it. Planned economies are considered inefficient by most economists with quantitative training.

[No 14]

There were many different forms of socialism and communism that predated Marx. Marx is usually credited with making a systematic analysis, though. One of the reasons why "scientific socialism" is also used. In the third part of the Communist Manifesto, you already see that there were loads of different currents and factions that Marx argued against, for instance all sorts of utopians.

As for Engels, I don't know why people pay less attention to him. He was a pretty interesting guy. Maybe it's his own modesty, for instance in his remarks about the authorship of the Manifesto.

[Paradigm]

As has been mentioned, communism is an old idea. The early Christians were communists, as described in the Book of Acts. Probably the most prolific non-Marxist communist(with the possible exception of Jesus) was the anarchist communist writer Peter Kropotkin.

[qeddeq]

i think it's important to disconnect marxism from socialism, or at least from planned economies. Have you ever read that dialectical nonsense? No one is going to accept that stuff, but they might accept an actual plan. That was the language of Hegel. I would stay away from it. A planned economy with 100% employment(unless old, disabled, etc.,) is feasible. 100% free medical care, schooling, water, housing and equality in wealth because there are no classes based on ownership. Doable.

[Decky]

communism predates the writings of Marx. You can be a communist without reading a word of Marx.

This.

Personally I'd call most real anarchists Communists as well.

And this.

However Pote is right that to say the vast majority of Communists are Marxists, the misguided souls who support non Marxian Communism are a tiny and irrelevant minority and have been even since we kicked them out of the first international.

[sans-culotte]

I would like the contradict the spirit of this thread and propose that Marxism has since first half of the 20th century devolved into a non-evolving dogma that is used by reactionaries more often than by revolutionaries.
Its living components such as histmat and diamat, on the other hand, have and are paving the way forward to new theories such as Dutch-German left communism, rotecommunism, anarcho-communism, autonomism, situationism, partly maoism, etc. A new unified theory is yet to be reached of course, but marxism will never again be the ideology of successful revolutions. It hasn't been such since the German revolution.

[Looter]

Lenin invented Communism, not Marx, people who call themselves Marxists are not Communists and they don't know what Communism is. You got to have Lenin, he's the guy who saved the World, he changed everything, without Lenin it is just make believe.

[Leninist]

Lenin invented Communism, not Marx, people who call themselves Marxists are not Communists and they don't know what Communism is. You got to have Lenin, he's the guy who saved the World, he changed everything, without Lenin it is just make believe.

While I sympathize with the sentiment, I'm pretty sure Marx and his associates actually coined the term "communism". And I wouldn't call this world "saved"

[Beren]

Lenin invented Communism, not Marx, people who call themselves Marxists are not Communists and they don't know what Communism is.

It's Bolshevism he invented, although I'm not surprised if some of Lenin's (or Stalin's) fans don't know the difference.