Charles, I think this may be the biggest disagreement I have with you, but it is a fairly important one.
Defending marxism or proving that marxism is true is not a very important task of Marxists. That is not how we win people to Marxism. I would even go so far as to argue that arguing for Marxism is a way of driving people away from Marxism.
^^^^ CB; Perhaps. Do you have empirical evidence to support this idea of yours.
^^^^
Marxism is a tool, not a religion, and "believing in it" can be more of an academic pastime than anything that should be of interest to marxists. It is perfectly possible to be entirely convinced of the absolute truth of marxism and of the personal infallibility of marx & engels but do nothing with it other than sit in a corner and think how much smarter one is than all those dolts out there. On the other hand, there can be and over the last couple centuries have been millions of committed revolutionaries who have only marginally if at all thought of themselves as "marxists."
^^^^ CB; I'd say Marxism is social science. It is a guide to action. Marxism itself holds that there is no absolute truth known, so it can't claim to be absolute truth, but we do have to make a case that it is the best theory corresponding to social reality today.
^^^^^
First we either involve people in struggle over specific issues or join those already in struggle. And if we are using marxism properly as a tool we will, because of the understanding of the world we gain from marxism, be able to contribute largely to those struggles, and we will be able to open the eyes of others to the larger context. Through this practice we will lead others to see the necessity of transforming the social order we live in, and even to see that that social order must be overturned. And there is no need whatever to label any of this "marxist." When we do label it marxist, it will be because we have moved others to want also to become revolutionaries, and to see (mostly through our practice and our analysis of specific questions and situations) that marxism is the most powerful tool for understanding and changing the world.
Attempts to "prove" that marxism is "good" in the abstract simply lead away from concrete struggle and the actual USE of marxism.
Carrol
^^^^ CB; Discussion of the role of Marxism in the U.S. Civil War is not proving Marxism good in the abstract. It is proving it good in the concrete, a concrete reality that might be important to the race of people liberated by the Civil War. It a very concrete , not abstract example. It's sort of using the historical practice of the Civil War to "open eyes" in the present.
Say we are talking about Karl Marx because of communism somewhere today. Then we might say, and Marx was a militant activist in support of the war to end slavery in the U.S. He organized British workers to keep them from supporting the South. See that's Marxist practice. Practice, not abstract theory.
References to Marxism in actual historical practice are not abstract references.
In general, I think you are wrong to separate theory and practice and give priority to practice. We should always seek to unite theory and practice, not give one priority over the other.