What is the anarchist position on Marx' materialist conception of history?

What is the anarchist position on Marx' materialist conception of history?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayni
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

it's reductionism

Most of Marxist theory has become default for the entire left tbh

It's generally accepted.

Pretty much this.
I would add that I think many Anarchists have a problem with how Dialectical Materialism was used to justify the totalitarianism of 20th century socialists states. I.e. "its a historical necessity to kill people in the thousands, lol, its just dialectics fam dont worry about it"

While insightful, the materialist conception of history was limited by the anthropology of the time it was developed in. Namely, Marx and Engel's concept of Primitive Communism, a concept developed based on the anthropology of Lewis Henry Morgan, whose anthropology has been virtually completely rejected by contemporary anthropologists as hopelessly outdated. Bookchin fixes this however, by updating the materialist conception of history with modern social evolutionist anthropology, thereby sublating materialism with his naturalism, as Marx sublated Hegel's idealism.

all the cool anarchists accept Marx's materialism, they just disagree with the conclusions that some marxists have drawn like what said.

Don't forget about the post-left!

They are ambivalent about it. On the one hand they ill swear up and down that they are totally in line with Marx but it's all completely abstract theory to them. It doesn't actually inform their politics, which is why they tend to be Utopian.

We're trying, unfortunatly you fags haven't hung yourselves yet.

post-left is like anarchism but actually retarded

anarchists are fucking retarded then and don't understand dialectical materialism to begin with

I have absolutely no problem with Marx methodology, just a couple of his conclusions , but more so the conclusions of some of his adherents

Dialectical Materialism is a bastardisation of Marx's Historical Materialism anyway. Its just a tool of Stalinist domination and should be abandoned by all Marxists and Socialists.

this

I hate that image. Lenin never held his fist like that for a photo.

Good thing it's not a photo then.

the "communist fist" has always looked super gay and retarded to me, I can't imagine doing it irl.

While insightful, Marx's conception of capitalist economics was limited by the economics of the time it was developed in. Namely, Marx and Engel's concept of the labor theory of value, a concept developed based on the works of David Ricardo and Adam Smith, whose economics has been virtually completely rejected by contemporary economists as hopelessly outdated. Tony Blair fixes this however, by updating the socialist conception of economics with modern neoliberal economics, thereby sublating Marxist labor theory with his neoliberalism, as Marx sublated Ricardo and Smith's classical liberalism.

come on now

would fuck the shit out of 3rd from the right blondie, regardless of what sex they're supposed to be.

eh… still looks stupid to me

I wish I could.

Nope, still looks dumb.

wow, man, that's pretty undialectical, you know

jej

...

Not even close to an equivalent comparison.

Marx' theories informed his predictions about how history would play out. He was woefully inaccurate, which is a reflection of his woefully inaccurate theories about economics and human nature in the first place. Marx is a meme. Take the black pill and get rekt, reds.

Reminder that full black flags are consistently the worst posters.

except he wasn't?

No joke.

historical materialism is dope, "dialectical materialism" is shit
so yeah I agree with marx but not with most marxists

Why? Didn't Bakunin disagree with Marx? Aren't there anarchists theories to turn to instead?

So what makes Dialectical Materialism bad? Outside of it being Stalin's interpretation of Marx's Materialism.

Nah, rampant Marxist revisionism has become the default for "the left." Actual Marxism is still the domain of M-L communists.

Oh? Please explain. I doubt you have any evidence of this.

they agreed with each other on some things though.

from my understanding, Bakunin agreed with Marx with the exception of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He argued for immediate dissolvement of the state.

someone correct me if I'm wrong however.

He agreed on the DoP somewhat, if you read Bakunin's Revolutionary Catechism you'll see what I mean. A lot of the feud between Marx and Bakunin is due to them both being cunts, the major practical disagreement was over participation in elections.

it's trash

thanks friend!

lmao

...

So, no arguments? I legit want to know.

"Historical materialism" is pseudoscience inconsistent with the well-proven sociobiological underpinnings of human behavior and with the findings of cognitive neuroscience in common with Hume (humans are driven by desire, not reason). Read Kropotkin.

How does literally any of that contradict historical materialism

historical materialism describes the sociological development of human societies, not biological evolution. Theres no reason it cant coexist with Kropotkin's writings.

Despite being at similar levels of technological development, the Inca Empire and Roman Empire had extremely divergent social structures from one another, the Incas being far more centrally-planned and mutualistic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayni
These tendencies are far better explained by Kropotkin's theories of mutual aid, which stipulate that mutual aid is more likely to present itself as a dominating force in the development of a species and/or society if harsh conditions are present, than by Marx's historical materialism. The problem with historical materialism is that it maintains a core of Hegel's process theology and its logic, which are doubly mistaken in taking the human to ever have an interest in trying to be rational and in presuming an idea of progress. Saying that "human society tends towards complexity and technological novelty" is not the same as an obscured reheated version of the idea of progress. It's just progress made punctuated by dialectical sublations to be able to argue that a radical change in social organization must constitute "a step forward" somehow. Kropotkin was much more pessimistic about the system's inherent capacity for structural change, and seeing the past centuries, rightfully so.
And Kropotkin's writings are evolutionary theory improved within its own domain and extended to the realm of sociology to constitute their own system apart from metaphysical interpretations of society and its change.

...

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

This just reduces the whole dispute to petty personal conflict from 150 years ago despite all the really existing disagreement between the movement.

this

This reads like a shitty forum debate.