Aesthetic Materialism

   "Democratic Centralism" is Contrary to Marx Those who advocate for "Democratic Centralism" are forgetting their theory - and their history. First, let me apologize if this article is a bit "inside baseball".   It contains terms which will be relevant and meaningful only to those who are already fairly familiar with Marxist theory, and indeed anyone who reads this without having digested that tradition is apt to misunderstand what I am asserting here.  For starters, there is that very phrase, "Democratic Centralism," which contains the words "Democratic" and "Centralism." For many people, especially Americans, these words will have meanings and associations that are totally unrelated to the topic of this essay, and which will only cause confusion.  When we think of the word "democratic," we tend to think of the Democratic Party, which at times functions almost as a bourgeois reformist party, and at other times as a

 Evaluate the following sentence: "Nietzsche was resentful towards the growing power of the masses."

Karl Marx's corpus of theoretical work is both a vital, necessary tool for proletarian struggle, and an obstacle for proletarian struggle.  It is an obstacle that must be overcome, and it is the tool with which we will overcome it. In this essay, I will briefly sketch some of my most major disagreements with Karl Marx.  This list is not exhaustive.  But I want make it clear from the outset that I am not attacking Marx from a right wing, anti-communist position that supports capitalism.  On the contrary, I am trying to show that Marx was insufficiently radical, in the sense that in his analysis of political economy, he failed to go all the way "to the root."  I am trying to perform an immanent criticism of Marx - that is, instead of criticizing Marx from an external perspective, I am trying to point out how Marx failed from the perspective of the constitutive structure of his own project.  This is, of course, what Marx himself did in his own life, vis a vis the other l