Why do anarchists reject historical materialism and marxist dialectics

I've seen some of those dudes saying it's all bullshit

he's not an anarchist

Those sound like some very rude dudes, my dude.
Most of the anarchists I know accept historical materialism. I wouldn't know about marxist dialectics, because I never really learned what that means.

There is literally not one single big anarchist thinker who ever wrote anything like this bar Stirner MAYBE at a shoehorn

Loaded question, we don't. But it also depends on who you ask, non-communist anarchists are often shit. The real question is why most self-identified "marxists" and "communists" don't actually read Marx or understand historical materialism. I keep seeing you faggots post shit like "socialism is the stage between capitalism and communism" and "muh dialectical materialism" as if it has anything to do with Marx.

Maybe it was some retards from reddit, sorry to generalize

wew, trots at it again with the hot takes

They are probably against it because they think Marx was racist or something.

No, you do have a point. It's not just reddit, you'll find them here aswell. Anarchists who reject Marx's great analysis of capitalism and historical progress are retarded.

...

I cannot speak for all anarchists, but if by historical materialism and Marxist dialectics you mean the belief that the real, material relations at a given time are what creates the following emergent reality, then I do not reject them.

If by historical materialism and Marxist dialectics you are referring to any vulgar conception such as that communism is inevitable, or ideas and superstructural elements aren't consequential, or that you can measure the value of an idea based on how consistent it is with Marx, or that the industrial proletariat is the only section of society with any revolutionary potential, then I do reject them.

I also do not like the way that Marxists use the term materialist. Marx did not right about metaphysics, and therefore by materialist he meant something different then what the term usually means. Hegelian idealism is also very different from platonic idealism, and most Marxist critiques of idealism are just criticisms of platonic idealism: strawmen. There is so nothing different about Marxist dialectics and Hegelian dialectics as to warrant calling dialectics "materialist".

I actually do reject that communism is inevitable since we are so far from it, communism is only accessible when the material conditions are right (capitalist market crashes, inflations, etc)

what is he?

Libertarian socialist Which is what we call anarchism when we want people to take us seriously

The organization of the Zapatista communities is very libertarian, though Marcos himself has many 20th century structural marxist influences

So, did we answer your question?

Well that's quite unfair to us here.

Black flags shouldn't count tbh.

I've read from some communalists that Bookchin kind of corrected the stance that the proletariat are the only class that can bring the revolution and includes non industrial workers and non burgouise classes

I saw some dumbass saying that here but it was probably a redditor making his first visit here.

Yes

Libertarian socialism doesn't necessarily imply the anarchist view when it comes to authority, so it's a poor substitute.

Relatively, workers as the ruling class is better than capitalists as the ruling class.

This is the problem with anarchists. You have no ability to understand nuance.

as much as i hate trots i have to agree on this one, the whole point of having a state is to oppress the bourgeoisie

It pisses me the fuck off when Bookchinites try to claim that they were the first to raise critiques that we have been making for literal centuries.

We have opposed Marx and Marxists on this issue since the second international.

marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1872/karl-marx.htm

Communalists are utopian liberals, and their words should not be taken to represent the views of those of us that hold genuine socialist convictions.

The pretence that the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat is something different, because we have here to do with the dictatorship of a class, not the dictatorship of individuals, deceives no earnest critic; it is only a sophisticated trick to fool simpletons. Such a thing as the dictatorship of a class is utterly unthinkable, since there will always be involved merely the dictatorship of a particular party which takes upon itself to speak in the name of a class, just as the bourgeoisie justified any despotic proceeding in the name of a people.

The only libertarian socialists who aren't anarchists are libertarian Marxists, and the semantics get a little tricky when you try to define exactly what the difference between a libertarian Marxist and an anarchist-communist is, considering that we use different definitions of the state.

All you need is rifles, guillotines, and a highly organized populace. This constitutes the Marxist definition of a state (an organ of class rule) but, depending on the organization structure, it doesn't necessarily constitute the anarchist definition of a state (a centralized institution with a monopoly on the use of force).

My greentext got fucked up. IT should look like this:

Bakunin wrote this criticism of Marx's historical materialism, which defends the revolutionary potential of the peasantry and the lumpenproletariat in 1872.

Yeah i know this except most of the time it does constitute a state in the anarchist definition, this is because a centralized institution with a monopoly on the use of force is much more practical and than a decentralized one.

the fuck

Color me surprised, the Trot can't read.

Only Bookchinites are dumb enough to reject that and they really don't even qualify as anarchists.

Don't Bookchinites say that dialectical naturalism builds on diamat/historical materialism?

I dont reject those things…

They say it sublates it. Autists.

They don't really tho? Unless you mean smashies and LARPers and shit.

Do they look like workers to you? Does this look like a society that is run, actually run and led, by at least most of the united proletariat, the people who do the actual labor to run society? I didn't think so. At least Luxemburgists and Council Communists have a state that at least fits the Marxist definition of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" as in the actual proletariat, and not some "vanguard" that has essentially formed the role of a new bourgeois. Don't forget that one of Marx's biggest models for praxis was the Paris Commune, which was democratic and proletarian-led in nature. Marx himself, so fond of criticizing the warnings of Bakunin about a "dictatorship of the proletariat", would be disgusted with how tankies have applied his ideas in praxis.

Dialectical naturalism isn't a rejection of the materialist conception of history; it's an expansion onto it. Of course you would know that if you actually read Bookchin instead of making uninformed and retarded posts on the Internet.

communism is the abolition of class, not the indefinite rule of "workers" (read, bureaucrats) over the population

I don't read any "theory" produced by professional academics in America.

I guess some people find it to be too teleological. Or maybe they think that material preconditions cant always predict what direction a society will move in. That the dialectic relation between material conditions and ideals doesnt always start with the former. Sorry for bad English btw

Council communism is pretty cool marxists should try it

I used to think anarchists were illiterate utopians but this thread proved me otherwise, good job guys

Claiming that it sublates it is worse than rejecting it. It is spitting in the face of Marx and Hegel. Can we get communalists their own board?

Something is not "spitting in the face of Marx and Hegel" because you don't like it, you autist