What did he mean by this?

hahahahahaha try again

Fuck yourself Proudhon. Get off the internet, you're a dead faggot.

Get over yourself.

...

Is Proudhon paying you? Why don't you dig up his course and suck his dick faggot.

No one fucking cares.

Marx systematically silenced Bakunin so I don't know who is buttmad or why you think the suppression of debate is a good thing, but then you're a Marxist obviously so why am I not surprised?

You could even postulate that Marx was in fact the downfall of the international.

*corpse

I'm not a mutualist, I'm honestly asking.

ITT: A bunch of mediocre faggots.

You're right, the international would've been much better if we all formed autistic secret societies to try and overthrow the State.

Ok here's a honest take: mediocre by who's standards? Who made anyone the judge?

Divine right?

I can call this faggot mediocre all day and my opinion will still be more valid because this faggot is dead and has already said and thought every last thought he can possible think.

He's literally a brain dead mediocre faggot at this point.

Cos at no point has any Marxist Leninist ever kept secrets as part of a society for revolutionary aims

The common interpretation is productive or motivated members of society receiving less than they actually produce in order to satisfy the needs of people who are less productive/motivated or simply completely non-productive. However it's in more loaded terms like my last post .

However this forgets:

It basically just states that the capable members of a community should care for those who are incapable. However fascists and capitalists inherent and baseless sense of superiority tries to spin it into the lazy gommunists obbressing the ubermensch, because asserting that they follow their convictions to their logical conclusions and apply them to the economic system is evil.

To this they might reply why they should work to support people who don't. The answer being everyone does not have to work, and why should you work to produce more value than you receive for your employer, and then give a chunk of what's less to a government who only give a shit about you every 4 years and would rather bomb the middle east than help the poor or the working class in their own country.

Marx had to silence the anarchist majority to put forward his autism. If it wasn't autism, why did he have to do that?

I'm not an ML, or a Marxist. I'm just memeing back at the OP for posting quotes out of context to the personal feuds that surrounded them.

fucking wew

it means fuck you and your central planning, faggot

Proudhon wrote this before Marx was a communist, let alone before the guy wrote the Communist Manifesto.

Only because Marx was buttmad people were taking anarchism more seriously than his communism.

so what did communism mean at that time?

The IWA literally came to the decision to kick out the anarkiddies democratically. Same with the left-liberal elements.

Authoritarian socialists, like the Blanquists and other groups.

"Your intelligence is asleep, or rather it has never been awake…You are a man for whom logic does not exist…You do not hear anything, you do not understand anything…You are without philosophy, without science, without humanity…Your ability to reason, like your ability to pay attention and make comparisons is zero…Scientifically, Mr. Bastiat, you are a dead man."

The man really knew how to deliver insults and it is a shame he never responded to "The Poverty of Philosophy". In his copy of the book, he is said to have written that Karl Marx was "the tapeworm of socialism" among other insults.

I know what it means, I was making a subtly mocking proudhon.

this guy is more savage than schoopy on hegel

You can be good at devising insults but terrible at winning economic and philosophical debates when it comes to the content of the subject. This is the case with Proudhon vs. Marx; mutualism and Proudhon was never taken seriously again ever, let alone even considered in revolutionary politics when discourse between the two of them ended. Of course there's a few special snowflakes on the internet that like to meme them up, but that's not really relevant to anyone.

This.

There was no discourse between the two of them. Marx was a fan of Proudhon for a while, wrote a really inaccurate hitpiece on the guy, and then Proudhon died without ever responding to Marx. Funnily enough though, the projects that Proudhon is best known for (aside from what is property?): Justice in the Revolution and in the Church, the Bank of the people, the mutualist credit schemes, etc. all come after Marx's "critique". Not to mention the profound influence that Proudhon has had in the anarchist history – like the fact that anarchism was a political ideology at all…

alt-right-tier criticism

I'm not saying you're wrong, but commenting on a single, completely out of context excerpt (without having read where it comes from) usually isn't a fruitful exercise.

is that any different to Leninism and all its derivatives?

...

I have no idea what Blanquism (or the other types of communism he was referring to) entailed. I'm just saying that he was most definitely not referring to Marxism. Although I'm sure he'd be against it as well (probably for some of the same reasons).

That's not the most accurate translation of what Proudhon actually said mind you, but I guess the basic sentiment remains largely the same. He spoke of communism in this manner in "What is Property" in 1840. This was before the modern Marxist or Marx-influenced communism had come into being: Proudhon's critiques were largely against the utopian socialists who he had come to know in his time.

Here's where the quote comes from:

Clearly he doesn't use communism to mean a stateless, classless, etc. society. Right before this he used ancient Sparta, which had kings and slaves, as an example of communism.

Why are marxists such sxumbags??