Was Kropotkin a Marxist?

Similarly to how MTWs and Juchefags believed the strawmen about Marxism (Leninism) and thought that sounded cool, modern anarchists believed the stawmen about anarchism and thought that sounded cool. You can see this in how many embrace no rules man lifestylism without having read even the bredbook.

MLs in general today seem like they heard the strawman against MLs and decided it sounded cool. I don't think there were too many MLs in the 30's or Maoists in the 60's who's idea of Socialism was the creation of State Capitalism with an enormous internal bureaucracy that literally gets in the way of the proletariat abolishing it's own class, and yet these people come to their politics by way of fetishizing the histories and aesthetics of these former Socialist Republics as opposed to actually reading theory and criticizing these failed projects through the lens of actual Dialectical and Historical Materialism. At the end of the day the reason MLs and Maoists did what they did in their historical epochs was because they genuinly believed it would lead to Communism, today I'm not even sure most tankies care about that, a lot of them seem like they just want to create authoritarian Socialist Republics, and the Communism part doesn't matter as much, in fact, a few weeks ago I had an argument with an ML on this board where he essentially argued that the endgoal of ML praxis was essentially to create a point where the State is so enormous and bloated that ever single individual proletarian will participate in the State, i.e. the State will "wither" because it's so gigantic that there will be no discernible difference between who's apart of the State and who's not. And other MLs in the thread actually agreed with him. Now I don't know if that's what all MLs believe, but that's fucking retarded, and I have a lot of sympathy for the former USSR and Mao's China, I think a lot of the worst shit that went down there was out of their control and born out of unavoidable circumstances, but if that's what contemporary MLs think constitutes good praxis then I don't really think there's much reason to support them, let alone take them seriously. That being said, at least 90% of Marxists and Anarchists today are basically just LARPing to pass the time. especially tankies and Post-Left Anarchists, holy fuck

Lol

Sure, I understand that he's wrong to expect that people presently have the capacities to be egoists (a similar observation was made by Nietzsche) but…

theconjurehouse.com/2016/11/18/the-stirner-wasnt-a-capitalist-you-fucking-idiot-cheat-sheet/

Egoistically-determined utility is one thing which Stirner's egoist cannot disregard and label a 'spook'.

Toppest Kek

It's impossible not to like the freewheeling, "i don't give a flying fuck" attitude of Bakunin.

Stirner literally didn't believe anything.

His entire life and thought was dedicated to the (admittedly admirable) goal of pointing out the flaws in other people's thinking and viciously mocking them about it until they stop being stupid.

Yes, as had virtually everyone relevant to the working class movement of the day.
On the one hand, he found Marx's "scientific" approach to Kapital to be something of an embarrassment when compared to the academic background he was familiar with, though that was a criticism that was lobbied against a number of other contemporary economists as well. On the other hand, Kropotkin in many cases wrote with the understanding that the reader would be familiar with some of the economic critiques presented through Marx's works, as it freed his own writing to focus elsewhere with those foundations already in place. So I think a lot of it came down to a disagreement in regards to justification rather than substance.
There's more overlap than not (and a disturbing number of often cited differences come down to semantics), but among some key differences include the details in regards to state seizure, the acceptance (Marx) or rejection (Kropotkin) of party-form, and, as someone else had pointed out in the thread, Kropotkin discussed more at length ideas as to how a post-revolutionary society could be organized in order to accommodate the needs of the people while maintaining the principles of the movement that bore said society.

I think this was more in reference to the question of taking the responsibility of translation, not actually having read the work itself. He had already admitted prior to having read the work.
That being said, it is difficult to deny that Kapital IS quite the dry read.

Thank you! This is the best response I've got yet and very informative!

MARXFAGS BTFO

Let's be honest it can get pretty fucking boring

Idk, I'm not saying people aren't allowed to be Egoists, but I also don't really see how anyone gets anything out of it other then the blandest Positivism. I'll read the article you link, but while I agree that he wasn't a Capitalist, and that he wasn't a fan of Bourgeois culture as a whole, he also was a kind of proto-existentialist who's conception of a Union of Egoists does essentially seem to argue that people should just go off and "reject" Capitalist society by acting like class doesn't apply to them. It's some of the most retarded, Idealist, and fundamentally Utopian nonsense out there.

It's sad cause it's true, a lot of modern day anarchists are those who actually thought the stereotypes associated with it (smashing stuff, doing drugs, "I do what I want mom") were super cool
I like anarchism but damn do I despise anarchists

Doesn't the fact that Kropotkin was a WW1 apologist discredit his ideas/theories as "socialist"?

No, even the best among us can fall victim to nationalism and similar ills, its a powerful emotional force forced upon us by all of the sorrounding world during our youth. Not being able to shed that is sad but not damning.

Yeah, that was pretty embarrassing, but Malatesta is still Based and literally broke ties with Kropotkin for being such a cuck.

Woah, I don't know where you're picking this up from. Stirner wasn't that daft as to think we could just escape from class. He even suggests forming unions to escape the little pay given to people (albeit, vaguely).

>"For centuries we have handed alms to you from goodhearted — stupidity, have doled out the mite of the poor and given to the masters the things that are — not the masters’; now just open your wallet, for henceforth our ware rises in price quite enormously. We do not want to take from you anything, anything at all, only you are to pay better for what you want to have. What then have you? “I have an estate of a thousand acres.” And I am your plowman, and will henceforth attend to your fields only for one thaler a day wages. “Then I’ll take another.” You won’t find any, for we plowmen are no longer doing otherwise, and, if one puts in an appearance who takes less, then let him beware of us. There is the housemaid, she too is now demanding as much, and you will no longer find one below this price. “Why, then it is all over with me.” Not so fast! You will doubtless take in as much as we; and, if it should not be so, we will take off so much that you shall have wherewith to live like us. “But I am accustomed to live better.” We have nothing against that, but it is not our look-out; if you can clear more, go ahead. Are we to hire out under rates, that you may have a good living? The rich man always puts off the poor with the words, “What does your want concern me? See to it how you make your way through the world; that is your affair, not mine.” Well, let us let it be our affair, then, and let us not let the means that we have to realize value from ourselves be pilfered from us by the rich. “But you uncultured people really do not need so much.” Well, we are taking somewhat more in order that for it we may procure the culture that we perhaps need. “But, if you thus bring down the rich, who is then to support the arts and sciences hereafter?” Oh, well, we must make it up by numbers; we club together, that gives a nice little sum — besides, you rich men now buy only the most tasteless books and the most lamentable Madonnas or a pair of lively dancer’s legs. “O ill-starred equality!” No, my good old sir, nothing of equality. We only want to count for what we are worth, and, if you are worth more, you shall count for more right along. We only want to be worth our price, and think to show ourselves worth the price that you will pay."

Positivists like the New Atheist crowd are idealists false-flagging as materialists - it's no coincidence that they've always hobnobbed with Austrians and their ultra-idealist "praxeology".
Kropotkin fits better as a skeptical materialist in the line of Hume. It's why his analysis is so mechanistic, even fatalist at time, and much of it comes off as negative with a glimmer of hope for something better.
All the Bolsheviks had to do was listen! ;_;
If it hadn't been for the communization of Ukraine which allowed Makhno to muster an army and attack Denikin's supply lines, Denikin's White Armies (corresponding to the Fabians and reactionaries) would have defeated the Bolsheviks (social democrats) by taking Moscow and then fallen into infighting where the reactionaries would come out on top.

I don't think Stirner has much to do with Kropotkin. Stirner was incredibly critical of Proudhon, whose political ideas are at the root of Kropotkin's (despite a vast difference in epistemology).

Personal prejudices ingrained from childhood - he didn't see the war as righteous, it's that he really didn't like Germans. Lenin believed in nationalism. Does that discredit his thought as socialist? I would argue that it's not socialist, but on very different grounds

it is. Nobody actually reads any of the shit philosophers write unless there's a story.

It's why Ayn Rand is more popular than Max Stirner.

ayn rand seriously has the worst prose, i dunno how anyone finds her shit entertaining

Anarchists who reject Marx's fantastic dissection of how capitalism works are retarded. I've seen many anarchists shilling for dumb shit like worker's co-ops.

Worker co-opts are preferable to hierarchical corporate structures, so even though they aren't the end goal, it still makes sense to advocate for them within a capitalist system.

Oh, no shit. I couldn't get past the first couple chapters of Atlas Shrugged. Really bad.