I actually made those posts. I was targeting them to /biz/ so I tried to make them approachable. I think in respect to actual Marxists it probably sounds a little heavy handed, I don’t really think Marx made a mistake or was “wrong” about revolution, Marx was kind of muddled at times on how much he truly prioritized violent overthrow of the state. I’d say he did have more of a tendency towards prioritizing steady development of the working class movement, it’s a part of why he was so critical of certain tendencies like in the case of denouncing Lassalle all the time. He would say something like some such tactic or goal proposed by his peers was misguided because it would result in confusion of the workers as to their class solidarity or power. So he treated strategy as very didactic, it’s like political goals were supposed to be the classroom or the forge of the new proletarian “ruling class” (understanding that the proletarian class would disintegrate the true ruling class and create classlessness by its victory). So in that sense I don’t think Marx was “wrong” about revolution, but I think he was responding to his times and his times seemed revolutionary. But people read Marx and draw dogmatically revolutionary conclusions when revolution (in my mind) is more of a chance event, a big break that is foisted on you because the ruling class won’t relent and people are desperate for change. Although I hope that I indicated that in the post when I said that sometimes violence is necessary, after all revolutions DO happen.
But the point was definitely more to dissociate Marxism from communism in a way, or you could say idealism from materialism, because I think I was responding to someone who was conflating the two which is common. To me Marxism is that more impartial attempt to understand human history and society, how humans develop socially. Marx himself was a communist, but the bulk of his work is about his social theory. Communism was his stance, it was what he advocated for as the way forward. He may have truly believed at times that it was inevitable but to the degree that he had such confidence it was just a motivated prediction like any other, he wanted communism because he had spite for the social contradictions he witnessed. He wanted them to be resolved positively. So communism was his program. But his social theory was the tool he used to help build that program, and his social theory suggested that ideology was second order to the relationships people had to production. So in that sense whether people are communist right now or not is irrelevant, you just want to push them to tear apart capitalism through antagonism to existing institutions and social relations whether they know they are doing it or not. That also doesn’t mean spreading Marxism or communism is a bad idea, but it is generally always going to be a small group that truly engages with that stuff. Those are the potential consciously political allies, but the goal isn’t to bring the whole working class into that group through education. Maybe in the long term, but success in such a project, analyzed through the lense of Marxism, almost seems to presuppose that the social system that exists benefits in some way from them being Marxists. In the future after drastic social change maybe it is normal to have Marxist ideas, but it mostly follows the establishment of a state of affairs that either isn’t threatened by or benefits from such beliefs.