Marx & Bakunin

This but I'm a full blown anarchist. Bakunin is overrated

Marc better Academic, Bakunin better activist with better ideas about organisation

I'd say Proudhon is the OG but Kropotkin is still the Mac Daddy

And plus, many jews were not likeable persons. That doesn't mean he was an ideological racist.

Let's see:
versus

It's possible to trash Judaism in a coherent and universalist way instead of just calling everyone you dislike a Jew that's a part of a conspiracy to get everyone.

You better be memeing son.

you better be fucking off to the mausoleum granpa.

What if I identify as a member of Stiernerstan?

You better read some Bordiga youngin'

This I will allow.

Don't politicize everything, 'nationalistic' doesn't mean he admired nationalist politics and you know this perfectrly well, it only means he had healthy patriotic feelings. Let's perceive every trait of a person as a political programme then. I'm tempted to write 'kys". What kind of one-dimensional thinking is this, if you're not trolling.

Both.

Marx made more of a contribution to leftism with his critique of capitalism, but Bakunin was correct in pointing out the revolutionary potential of "lumpens" and peasants as well as his critique of DotP

Bakunin overwhelmingly, especially after he took over Kroptokin and preposed more resulte options with majority support opposed to Marx his reformist drivel.

I don't hate Bakunin at all, but you'e being extremely autistic. If there's anything to criticize Bakunin for it is how completely uncritical he was of Nationalism and Antisemitism.

So, national identities ultimately lead to a nation state?

No. Nation States lead to national identities. Your national identity is ideology that gets in the way of class consciousness and a true proletarian identity. Now the degree to which identifying as a proletarian is, in and of itself, a spook, is a whole other question, but I don't see how any Leftist can support Nationalism in the abstract, when even Revolutionary Nationalism and micro nationalism is a real double edged sword, as the various National Liberation movements of the mid-20th Century and idpol movements in the US proved. My point is, these things make sense tactically at best, and it's just a roadblock at worst.

Or rather, at worst it's pure reaction seeping into Leftist movements.

citation needed

Care to enlighten me on how "national" identities can precede the existence of actual Nations?

How come there existed Czech lands, Rus' lands etc. long before nation states, as parts of different polities, but for centuries they preserved their identity?

There is literally no opposition with the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat and class struggle anarchism. Only if one chooses to identify that dictatorship with that of a one party state, which of course would mean that it would not be the direct, self-organized dictatorship of the proletariat as a class.

Dude Ireland.

Ethnic, linguistic, and regional identities are different then a National identity tied to civics and the State. And while Bakunin identified as an Anarchist his idea of anarcho-collectivism falls very short of what most Anarchist today would consider "stateless", as the earliest Anarcho-Communists who broke from him pointed out.

Like I said, revolutionary nationalism, like the kind you fing in National Liberation struggles, make sense to support in the short term, but in the long run they seldom actually yield results or further the proletarian struggle, instead they usually just lead to more national bourgeoisie and Liberal nation states.

Theoretically, Bakunin is utopian garbage. Practically, Bakunin was a piece of shit who used all sorts of dirty tricks against the Marxists, tricks that in the long run costed the life of the International.

Bakunin and his faction were such colossal scumbags that after the International and their deaths, their followers's main task was to find their correspondence and literally destroy it. The followers of Marx, in contrast, collected and published every word. The conspiratorial nature of anarchists, who allegedly believe in an absence of hierarchies, is almost cartoonish.

Dude, the concept of a nation preceded the nation-state by millennia. Already in the middle ages there was the idea of a national identity (with pretty much every country having their own national myths), and the definitive examples of a modern nation-state, Germany and Italy, were formed //because// of the growth of popular consciousness of a shared national identity, which was exploited by powerful states within those countries to form the nation-state. National identity preceded the nation-state

citation needed :^)

Anarchism best but Bakunin had little babby theory. Kropotkin is A++ 10 atta 10

Reading a little medieval history would be a good start, fam.
In the middle ages people called themselves Franks and Danes and Englishmen. They identified themselves by their tribes (and nations are just big ass tribes with a lot of history behind them). Common people didn't go around saying "those sodding Plantagetians" or "those blasted Capetians", they said "those sodding Englishmen" and "those blasted Frenchmen" (the nobility probably didn't, since they both spoke French, but still). Finally, I actually live in a country that has existed as a nation for over a millennia, that has a mythos that stretches even further back, which flag is centuries old, and which empire was torn apart by nationalism 400-500 years ago (Denmark).
This is besides the point that the whole concept of a nation-state is ridiculous if you don't first have a nation from which that nation-state can be formed, as I just said.

marx was much smarter

Bakunin was right on everything he disagreed wtih marx about though