Marx was clearly wrong if he ever suggested physical uprising was
the only way to change<<
He did not. But he considered that capitalist power is inseparable from the potential use of force. It is usually the bourgeoisie that puts the bayonet first on the agenda. It is a fair reading of Marx that he considered it idealist and unhistorical to assume that political change could occur without phyical force being part of the equation of forces, potential if not actual.
Lenin was even more of that opinion, although he praised the progressive role of street demonstrations
There are different emphases on different aspects of this at different times. The Communist Manifesto declares that "the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie."
Writing in 1848, Marx would have had to be politically blind not to have seen the probabilities of revolution and counter-revolution. He also wrote about revolutions that did not serve the interest of the working class. But even on the assumption of "political supremacy" he recognised that change had to go through steps.
In the earlier 1845 "Theses on Feuerback" the final word is the German word "veraendern" meaning "gradually change", whereas "aendern" would mean "change". (Philosphers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point however, is to change it.)
In the globalised world Marx is not invalidated by any requirement that the global change must be virtually instantaneous. Nor is it invalidated by the fact that some of finance capitalisms methods are subversive and deeply controlling rather than directly confrontational.
The philosophy or political system you promote may be drawing on the reality that advanced finance capitalism is capitalism at a very high level of abstraction. It requires a vast layer of managers and administrators, who will identify with the capital of the organisation they run, and may get financial benefits from its stock exchange price, but are not necessarily outright owners in the way a small or medium-sized industrial capitalist might be in the 19th century.
Only a small minority on this list might think it relevant consciously to call themselves marxists, whereas other lists which cross post here, would have a higher proportion of self-identified marxists.
I doubt also if change will take place globally by rallying under the banner of Aikidio, although from a marxist point of view aikidio might have progressive features relative to the objective state of 21st century global finance capitalism. That will most persuasively emerge in the course of struggle.
I suggest
Chris Burford
