Why did Karl Marx have against anarchism?

Why did Karl Marx have against anarchism?

It's idealist nonsense.

...

That's not what he meant you fucking retard. Statelessness is possible, anarchism is idealist nonsense.

...

Marx's defined the state as the organizing committee of the ruling class. The entire point of socialism is the withering away of class and eventually the state. In Marx's view, one cannot exist without the other. If you have some other interpretation, please share, but to say that Marx didn't actually mean a stateless and classless society when he called communism a stateless and classless society sounds like quite a stretch to me.

Because Communists love betraying the proletariat via the state. It's what they do best.

by stateless they mean the state becomes merely a managerial thing.

The conflict is that Anarchists generally reject the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat and often believe that dismantling capitalism is merely a matter of getting rid of landowners and bosses, rather than destroying the fundamental characteristics of capitalism (hence the lionization of places like Catalonia as socialist).

The point of anarchism is that the working class can be organized without a state. It doesn't mean reactionaries will just be allowed to run rampant through the streets laying claim to whatever they want.

If the working class is organized to suppress reactionary activity, is that not a body created for the purpose of the suppression of one class by another, and thus a state by any meaningful definition?

see
Read Marx

I'm not saying statelessness in and of itself is idealist. I'm saying anarchism, as an ideology, is.

It is

...

...

Did you just now discover that anarchists have a different definition of states than Marxists have?

Sounds good to me bitch

Doesn't sound good to me bitch

So Marx's definition is the only meaningful one? I mean, I'm all for Marx but there are other socialist theorists who aren't over 100 years old. Other definitions of the state have been proposed and are worth considering.

I don't understand how a governing body that holds enough power to suppress an entire class can be considered anything but a state, by Marx's definition or any other.

Are you completely against representatives of any kind? Dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't mean literal dictatorship by one or a few people.

The only explanation for this is you don't know any anarchist definitions of the state. Perhaps reading some anarchist literature would help?

I don't think there's a need to argue, anarchists will just resort to the DotP with a different name once the time comes, like in kekalonia when they made the camps.

I agree with this. The only reason leftcoms and other non-anarchists whine about the state is because they're too attached to Marx's definitions and can't fathom entertaining any others. Most anarchists are statists by the Marxist conception. However, this doesn't illegitamize anarchist theory, nor does it mean anarchists aren't actually anarchists. Most anarchists can agree that Marx is pretty based, but we also read other theories as well.

To add to this, labor camps are shit and are not indicative of DofP

What's yalls definition of a state?

It varies, but generally anti-statism focuses on local governance, decentralization and direct democracy.

...

Were there actually labor camps in Catalonia? I know there were a shitton of random executions and 'paseos' but I can't remember ever reading about work camps (and I've read a decent amount about the SCW).

I don't usually like to defend anarchists but come on now

Why so vague?

How the fuckj is that vague?

yeah, there was, the labour was optional,(they where given time off their sentence

Hate to be a meme here, but you should really read up on anarchist theory in order to have a leg to stand on this argument.

YES
"Representatives" are bullshit. If the people have something to say, let THE PEOPLE say it.

Thats kind of the joke its going for.

This thread turned into the First International pretty quickly

tbh bakunin's critique of marx were garbage
marx and kropotkin not bakunin and stirner, ok?

...

Bakunin's Revolutionary Catechism is good and Stirner is invaluable for despooking.

Funny, because that's exactly how it's worked out literally every single time.