The fuck is even their problem?

The fuck is even their problem?
I know, I know, "muh Kronstadt", "muh Catalonia", "muh ebul tankies", "muh stupid anarkiddies", all that jazz. But seriously though, why are people here acting as if Marx's theories are somehow incompatible with anarchism just because two bearded guys had a feud?
You see this here when people talk about communization theory as "anarchists who pretend to be Marxists", like the idea of immediate revolutionary change is something that is exclusive to anarchists when nothing Marx wrote actually contradicts that. Or that stupid quote about anarchists who have read Marx but rejected him, despite the fact that pretty much every social anarchist today draws heavily from Marx (as evidenced by how An Anarchist FAQ constantly mentions him - 25 times in section A, 17 in section C, 2 long quotes in section D).
It really strikes me as odd how any social anarchist today can "reject" Marx. Just because his theories are associated with a bunch of state socialists doesn't mean you can't apply his theory to a different praxis than Lenin's (you know, like all the other Marxists did)
Hell, I don't know. I might have misunderstood something

Other urls found in this thread:

Royally fucked up the title

The beef between Marxists and Anarchists is the most stupid shit ever. Its mostly semantics and definitions. Beef between Anarchists and Leninist is much more justified.

of cause they do, marx wanted people to work and take part in civil society, that doesnt exactly mix with beeing a violent bum

It's not that Marxism is incompatible with anarchism, it obviously isn't. It's just that anarchism in general is just incoherent nonsense. If anarchists would just stop pretending their intention is to create a state they would quickly become Marxists.

Understanding the way Marx understands history pretty much rejects that fully.



Im no Anarchist but this is just wrong.

I try to read or read about everything that gets brought up on Holla Forums. I keep what sounds like a good idea, whether it comes from Marxists or Anarchists.

Really, I don't think Communism is possible without both, and I believe that the history of the 20th century sort of proves that.


marxists point out to the market as the foundation of the current econopolitical system called capitalism
anarchists, at least the serious ones, point to the influence of the nation-state as the "final boss" after the "final boss" that is capitalism - that is there is no such thing as globalism, only imperialism under guise of free trade

any serious dialectician has to recognise and contend with the primary antagonism of the state and the capital in order to destroy both - as it is obvious that they are one

Marx believed in revolution to usher a new era, but he didn't believe that the conditions of human existence (read: mode of production) would immediately change or could be abolished over night.

I mean, just look at feudalism and capitalism. It took, what, like 350 years before capitalism could get off the ground despite feudalism being in decline? We may have technocratic state socialism for 150 years before contradictions are entirely resolved. If we were to establish anarchism, it would hardly be socialist, it would be closer to a libertarian social democracy. That doesn't make anarchism inherently incoherent, but to think you'd get directly to communism with anarchism is just utopian. Marx simply believed that a state is more likely to get shit done. Anarchism is inherently decentralized, and as long as the law of value operates, it will very likely just degenerate back into capitalism. State socialism proven the ability to produce independently from the law of value.

I think the capitalist state is its own entity in history. It has nothing to do with a socialist state (although a socialist state could display "capitalistic" tendencies and a capitalist state could display "socialistic" tendencies), and I think to see the state and capitalism as this unbreakable bond is overly simplistic. Engels and Marx were nothing but nuanced though. Statehood can be identified previous to capitalism. What anarchists in the 19th century were fighting against was the bourgeois-monarchistic monster that was the early constitional nation-state. It is very telling that many younger anarchist theorists are massively backpedaling from that, like Bookchin, who are basically a-ok with some sort of bottom-up statism.

so far i have yet to see a socialist state, only states controlled by professed socialists. if ownership of mop is reclaimed by government but the structure of the state remains hierarchical top-down, revolution regresses into state capitalism. if the dissolution of state is aimed at without tackling capitalist mode of production the result is loss of democracy and rebirth of fascism

Very funny.
Socialist states don't have much of a dichotomy between state, society and government. It's called collectivization. It creates a cooperative economy where the surplus is allocated for social needs, not according to profitability. Only in capitalism the economy is "private", and is an antagonism to the public entities. You also can't force anarchism on people. When people prefer to elect a leader there is not much you can do about it. Once the contradictions are resolved, the state will wither away automatically.
Why? Hierarchies are a reality as long as there is scarcity. Revolutions always establish a hierarchy, in the case of a socialist revolution, a hierarchy of the proletariat over capitalists. And by capitalist I don't just mean bourgeoisie (they are just 1%) but everybody who organically wants to establish capitalist relations. A farmer wanting to hire day laborers will have to be stopped. Sorry for him, he might not even be a bad guy, but you need to go through with it.

There was a big feud between an antisemetic Slav and a caustic German in the 19th century and we're still butthurt about that. Here's a decent write up of an encounter between anarchists and leftcoms at a bookfair some years back : though it should be noted that for whatever reason anarchists tend to get along with leftcoms better than MLs.

All anarchists should read and try to understand Marx. There is literally no contradiction between being an anarchist and studying Marx.

A few thousand egalitarian primitive societies might disagree with you

Primitive societies pretty much had post-scarcity. Once the Neolithic Revolution caused populations to explode, land and resources became scarce, creating hierarchy.

Are you a communalist? I remember that Bookchin himself argued that hierarchies did exist before the Neolithic Revolution, and that Marx was wrong about that and based his view on outdated anthropology.

I'm talking about primitive tribes that exist today. And no I'm not a communalist although I sympathize with the movement

I got you. I really worded that part badly. I wasn't so much thinking that we'd have a revolution and then immediately have socialism, but more in the terms of communization theory of the constantly escalating revolution, of the proletariat immediately attempting to destroy capitalist relations and replacing them with socialist ones, instead of waiting until you have destroyed the capitalist states before you begin communization. Both theories of revolution are compatible with Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat.

This is why leftism won't succeed. You're too busy worshipping these old shitheads

t. brainlet

You worship a 71 year old Zionist who has to pay for wives.

There is no difference between a primitive tribe today and a tribe in the stone age. It's still basically the same concept, isn't it?

Also you must realize that these tribes operated in small communes with no division of labor. Size matters. I'm obviously not a communalist but I agree with Bookchin here that primitive societies had hierarchies. There is a difference between a class and a hierarchy, obviously primitive societies didn't have classes, but they indeed had hierarchies. There were always clan leaders, shamans, etc. - hell, I'd argue that even the neanderthals had it.

Not surprised, considering the tank.

The antagonism is simply displaced as dichotomy of workers and the party (which emulates capitalist class), worker strikes were very much a thing under ML government.

The state does not wither automatically as long as power over scarce material is distributed according to formal position

As long as allocation of work relations is governed by centralised state bureaucracy capitalist mode of production is preserved under different name.

I'm a centrist

this tbh
we can never compete with the new and modern intellectual giants of the right like Steve Molenayx and Lawren Sauthern
youtube videos truly are the researched and cited studies and tomes of the 21st century, burn the books and make the memes guys thats how /pool/ memed DOLAND DRUMPE to PRESIDENT OF UNIEDS STATES

It's a semantics game in the end, what you define as statism and what as hierarchy, etc. - however, my impression is that anarchists are looking at this through an ideogocial lense very often ("we don't care if it's effective it's a state and that's why it's bad") while marxists are mostly concerned with what works, what gets us to socialism. My critique of anarchism is the that it is decentralized, and this will most likely be the cause for a regression into capitalism; mostly due to the fact that the material base is unequally developed, creating underlying hierarchies between communes (because capitalism develops areas unequally). Add the law of value to that stew and capitalism will be reestablished.

I always thought that marxists are often utilitarians, while anarchists are Kantian. I might have not read enough anarchist theory though.

*not enough anarchist theory

No there are actual primitive societies right now that are more or less lack hierarchy
Even when in some cases these societies have chiefs and leaders they can ensure their powers are either symbolic and severely limited, or that their role is so burdersome that no-one would actually even want to be leader. Of course most primitive societies are hierarchical, some brutally so, but there are cases of tribes organizing on almost anarchist principles.

Nice strawman dude. All I'm saying is the "left" fights over this idiotic shit that doesn't apply to the modern day

the anarchist's point is that the supposedly decentralised capitalist class masks the centralised structure of the state, and the path to the classless staless society leads to decentralised form of cooperative resource management and communal bottom-top social order

Both are applicable using the Marxist definitions. It isn't semantics. It's just a question of what the revolutionary state looks like and how the transition is carried through (and whether you can talk about an explicit "transition stage"). It's a difference in revolutionary praxis, but not theory, and both can be applied and have been applied to Marx's theories.

First off, there is a difference between a "ML government" and a ML state. Laos clearly has a ML government, but isn't a ML state. Stop using this rethorical trick where you equate all socialist states as states with "ML government", implying there is no difference between Dengist China and, let's say, Albania.

Secondly, I don't think this is an antagonism, strikes under socialism is nothing but wrecking. I don't sympathize with it all. Surplus is already micromanaged and allocated to its maximum ultitily, the pay in the entire industry is the same, there is no reason to be entitled to higher pay than your fellow workers. I can't identify this "antagonism" between party and the workers except in revisionist worker's states.

We have capitalism. We have states. That pretty much implies that theory about capitalism and states is still relevant.

there are some very genuine differences in praxis and theory between different tendencies even within marxist tradition only
which you would know if only you READ BOOKS instead of smugposting like the post-ideological ideologue you are
also this


i only know how marxism-leninism looked like in polish people's republic. it was very much an ML state and there were both worker strikes and noticeable material inequalities between average worker and party aparatchik. i consider both to be more relevant to the critique than commodity shortages (products for use still were a commodity form) and m-muh invigilation, m-muh free speech

I know that, but I just don't think it'll work. Differently developed communes will have an underlying hierarchical order towards each other. If there was a large-scale anarchist society (which is entirely theoretical at this point), the reality of it would be that some communes would be capitalist, while some other won't be. I don't think anarchism is realistic as long as the law of value exist. I can see "communization" as a theory viable for the transition from lower stage communism to higher state communism, but not as a transitional model for capitalism to socialism

Poland isn't the best example. It was very much market socialist, with production according to profitability.

i think that's a pretty good example because most of ML states fucked up like that


Did that result in widespread income inequality? Higher reward for more qualitative work isn't necessarily bad. Equality of outcome isn't communism. Frankly, that argument comes over as unnecessary nitpicking, considering that many Marxist-Leninist states were the most egalitarian societies since the stone age.

Yugoslavia had fucking millionaires. Look at your flag.

have you ever played vidya where there's that double boss mechanic where unless you slay both in short succession they just respawn like nothing happened? well this is something like that. you might think it impossible but doing both is the precondition to successful revolution

dear t-34, it is literal income inequality, nitpicking or not
you come across as a tad defensive here

I agree very much. It's just two versions of Marxist thought that emphasizes different things. I don't mind it, mainly it's just a bit of banter

btw does anyone have the oic with the

quote where we see a black bloc guy next to a guy with Bordiga's head holding an armchair?

Dude, it's irrelevant. Pay in every respective industry was the generalized. What do you think the Gini coefficient of the USSR was? It is clear that ML states did abolish income inequality but they still get attacked for not being absolutely perfect and to not abolish work incentives, which would have crippled the economy.


that's fine, I'm a very pragmatic and opportunist socialist (hence the flag), I don't demand a socialist state to be perfect especially in the real conditions they faced.
but you did originally claim that ML states had no income inequality which is simply false. not to mention I wasn't sure if Stalin actually did implement wage incentives, so I was looking for confirmation. thanks for that I suppose.

I didn't know either, I assumed you were sure about this. Well, USSR has different pay depending on the quality of labor and the negotiation with the All-Union Council. Those are "wage Incentives", so to speak


Why couldn't Marx solve his differences like an adult instead autistically screeching anarchism is bad and declaring the 1st international over?

No it isn't, stop selling anarchism short.

Because philosophers shittalked each other to no end, Marx is just notable because his work is so well docmented. If we were to look Lasalle almost certainly had a vicious retort for the jewish nigger stuff.

This is like the ancaps that believe a fascist phase is necessary to cull leftists and social undesirables before getting to the true libertarian utopia.

Believing the state to be anything but the tool of the bourgeoisie, or that this will change because different people are in charge, is far more utopian than anarchism.

This. The only people who care about the the conflict between Marx and Bakunin are irrelevant left communists. The conflict between Leninism and Anarchism is somewhat more valid, but honestly we are both in favor of gulags, workers militias, red unions, and study groups so its not that big of a difference. It's just that Leninists think the study groups should be the ones in charge.


The state existed long before the bourgeoisie got control over it. The state is a tool of class oppression, just as Marx said

The state is not significantly different from a business though.

They are so very very different, comrade. Leninism is state-capitalism, and proto-fascism. But, indeed, it is possible to both a Marxist in that you accept his critique of capitalism, and an anarchist is that you don't support a socialist transition state, neither one achieved "democratically" through bourgeoisie electoral politics, or in a Marxist revolution.

Literally no such thing

off yourself

Lolwhut? What do you call the Russian Revolution then?

A proletarian revolution, just like every other revolution and attempted revolution in that period. Revolutions aren't built on ideologies, they're built on class.

Doesn't it make a different to you if the proletariate is expressing a Marxist message or not?

How much do you know about the Russian Revolution, fam? The soldiers and peasants weren't Marxists or any other ideology, they were acting as a class, not as representatives of some ideology. There were various ideological factions during the revolution, including the Marxist bolsheviks and mensheviks. The bolsheviks rallied the workers and soldiers behind them, which allowed them to seize power in the November Revolution, but the actual Russian Revolution was built on class, and only after shit hit the fan did the various ideological factions begin maneuvering for power. If the anarchists or SR's had seized power you would have called it an anarchist or agrarian socialist revolution, and you'd be just as wrong.

Were the Bolsheviks not Marxists? And is it not often called the Bolshevik revolution? Ironically, your strict class based analysis in inherently Marxist itself.

Fam, your reading comprehension is terrible. The point I'm making is that the revolution had been going on for nearly a year before the bolsheviks seized power. The revolution arose from class struggle, not because some Marxists decided to start a revolution. It's ridiculous to talk about a "marxist" or "anarchist" revolution, they are class revolutions, they arise from class conflict, and only once it is underway to the various factions start fighting for control, and in the case of the Russian Revolution the Marxists won.

Interesting. I appreciate your thoughtful response, comrade. I'll have to reflect on this.

I have no idea how you managed to come up with this conclusion. If anything, it is the Marxists who need to read anarchist theorists and stop treating their idols as infallible. We are already reading Marx and Marxists.

The picture you mention is from Basic Bakunin and it describes the situation in the First International. The anarchists there have read Capital, Bakunin praised it and the best abridged version of it – according to Marx himself – was written by an Italian anarchist. The point the picture is trying to make is exactly the opposite of what you are saying, that the anarchists managed to read Marx and incorporate what they found useful into their project without becoming a Marxist, which in this context mostly meant being a "statist." It has nothing to do with discarding everything Marx ever written.

This is the key point, the key disagreement. The two sides have fundamentally different revolutionary strategies.

I didn't say "anarchists should read Marx" or whatever, but I have seen a lot of anti-Marxist sentiment from anarchists on this board - specifically using the pic to criticise Marx, criticising more "libertarian" Marxists as "anarchists who don't want to admit it", and being hostile to the idea of cooperating with even those libertarian Marxists. I've seen those exact things being expressed just in the last few weeks.
Still, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Left-coms are cool, Leninists, and those to the right of him like Stalin are FASCISTS.

The jury's still out on Trotsky.

Ebin. Lenin was many things, but he was not a fascist, and he certainly wasn't more "fascist" than Trotsky

The picture is criticising Marxists, not Marx. Let's be honest, the vast majority of Marxists are utter trash who threat Marx as some kind of prophet and only read Marx (if they ever read him and not just rely on Stalin) to quote mine his works to prove that their party's interpretation is the only true one and they are unable to even consider that he might have been wrong about some things. They usually also have very little understanding of Marx, I've lost count how many times I had to explain basic concepts of their own ideology to them.

Those Marxists get called "anarchists who don't want to admit it" because that's what they are. Their whole theory is just a rebranding of the same things anarchists have been saying for ages and getting called petty bourgeois, stupid, counter-revolutionary, etc. for it but suddenly it's cool because some French guys managed to dress it up in Marxist jargon.

A lot of ML's might be cancer, but that's no cause to ignore the many other, older Marxist currents that have applied Marx's theories to a different praxis. Social Anarchists don't have a monopoly on their revolutionary praxis, and Marxists doing similar things doesn't suddenly mean that they shouldn't call themselves Marxists.

We don't ignore them… It's pretty hilarious that you are claiming that anarchists don't know anything about Marxists when it's clear that you, just like Marxists in general, don't have a single clue about anarchists. Maybe you should start with getting to know us instead of blaming us for not obeying your commands.

How has 0chan handled the migration?

Not very well but I'm hopeful that it can recover.

Well put, comrade. It seems to me that all radical leftists must recommit themselves to education, because otherwise we are but pawns being played by God know who.

Except you obviously are when you're saying that Marxists somehow converted to Anarchism but still won't admit that they were right when from day 1 there were different strains of Marxist thought and when there was very vocal criticism of Lenin coming from Lenin. This is not even to mention the fact that many of the movements that anarchists love to talk about, such as Kronstadt, weren't even anarchists. Some anarchists just decided to tag along with Lenin and Trotsky during the civil war and, after several years of war communism, saw what happened in Kronstadt and went "omg we have to stop this!"
I have read anarchists. I started out as an anarchist. My first introduction to Marxism was in Berkman's "What is Anarchism". Why the fuck are you acting pouty over the idea that a Marxist might agree with you on some things?

*coming from Marxists

Just to add to this, because I wrote way too fast: Anarchists are just as guilty of appropriating other people's movements as you say Marxists are of appropriating anarchist theory without acknowledging it. I'm starting to have a feeling that I've had this argument with you before.

I never claimed that they "converted" to anarchism. I'm honestly not sure what your problem is, maybe you are just not paying attention to my post or you already decided that you will just continue calling anarchists clueless retards like you did in the OP. Honestly, what did you except? "Oh those silly clueless anarchists they are so stupid and idealist why don't they just let us enlightened Marxists tell them what to do? It would make our life so much easier!" And you are still surprised why anarchists are extremely suspicious of your ilk.

Where did I say that? What the fuck is wrong with you? I've definitely argued with you before.

I have nothing against Marxists using anarchist theory. What I hate is when they do it but still act as enlightened philosopher kings and talk shit about us. That's the whole point of "it's like anarchism but you get to feel superior to anarchists."

I started off with Marx long before I knew anything about Anarchism. I would much rather live in a Anarchist society but I would gladly take a dotp over the Neoliberal hell that is modern America.

Because they aren't using anarchist theory, they're building off Marx. They use Marxist terminology, not anarchist.

Leftcom Master Race!




It's not, it's based on Marx's political opportunism.

wow, must be a day

This is not a bridge-building thread, the opening post is clearly hostile towards anarchists and blaming them.

More like coopting and subverting, fascist!

Anarchism is more liberating than Marxism.

If you're letting some century-old guys' personal feud define your opinion on an entire school of thought you're an idiot, fam, I'm sorry. There are fundamental differences Marxist theory and the theories of various anarchists that make them hard to reconcile, such as the definition of state and the theories of revolution. That doesn't stop them from arriving to similar conclusions, they just have different frameworks. Anarchists don't own their revolutionary praxis, and that praxis isn't a defining feature of anarchism, considering social anarchism is just a small part of wider anarchist thought.

From what I've seen in the past few weeks the anarchists here are far more hostile to anti-sectarianism than the Marxists. I've been arguing with a guy who's insulted at the idea of cooperating with even "libertarian" marxists. I started out as an anarchist and I'm still very sympathetic to it despite preferring the marxist framework, but if that's the sort of attitude I have to deal with you can't blame me for being a little hostile.

Marxism is a bastardization of Marx's thought.

Maybe because Marxist "anti-sectarianism" is always "we tell the anarchists what to do and they obey." If you want to work with anarchists, work with us, you don't have to ask for permission, go find your local anarchist space and volunteer. We don't have "democratic centralism" and stuff like that, you won't be kicked out just because you are a Marxist.

Unfortunately, so often these places are filled with secret Marxists and "platformist illegalists" who are pretty much just gangsters.

How the fuck else are you supposed to refer to people who apply and build on Marx's theories besides "Marxists". Your article is just talking about ML revisionism, but throughout the entire period there were Marxists who weren't ML's.

Ebin. Aren't you just being a bit of a hypocrite? You can cooperate on issues without bending the fucking knee. Quit being a bitch.

We shouldn't have a disagreement on this, we need to be united in our strategy otherwise we cannot succeed.

You wouldn't be a second class citizen in the anarchist organization, it's not like your parties where the experts tell everyone else what to do. It is cooperation. Of course you don't actually want to cooperate, you just want to order anarchists around.

We don't even need to have the same strategy, we just have to cooperate when it's actually in out interests to do so. You can have disagreements while still working together.

It's not like you have any kind of praxis, so what are we talking about?

Platformists are anarchists, and they have democratic centralism.

But in terms of what we are actually working towards, we need to have some clarity about what exactly a revolution looks like. I myself think that left-communism is the sweet spot between the two groups, and I think that's what we should be promoting, as a vision for the future.

No, I just don't want to be an anarchist when I'm a Marxist. My idea of good praxis is very different from theirs, so it wouldn't make sense for me to do so. Anti-sectarianism isn't joining eachother's organisations, it's different organisations working together to solve common goals instead of hindering and appropriating each other.

The Bordigafags are essentially ultra-leninists though.

No, we should be working to not have separate organizations at all. We need more dialogue between the groups and we need to reach some sort of consensus. Again I propose that leftcommunism is the right balance.

OK, clearly this term "left-communism" is ill defined. To be clear, I'm talking about libertarian communism with some degree of decentralized power as being the right balance.

Having lots of people with different ideologies in the same group is a bad idea. It creates conflicts, and essentially makes it so nothing productive ever gets done. It's better to have separate groups cooperating.

So what's stopping you? You are just whining to feel superior to us.

We can't tolerate leftists having such divergent ideologies if we are to have a successful revolution, comrade! We must have a discussion and come to a consensus, and move forward as a united front, otherwise there's no hope.

Global wealth redistribution with local control over resources, but that local control would be checked by the central government which could come in to stop corruption or exploitation by the local governments.

I wish that was possible, my dude. Unfortunately experience tells me that tankies are 100% not willing to let go of the part of their ideology that includes setting up a state-capitalist dictatorship and systematically exterminating all the other socialists.

Everyone agreeing on the same ideology isn't really a viable solution. People are always going to disagree on things, but that doesn't mean they can't work together when they do agree. Though now that I think about it, outside of the internet and the most insular organisations you are seeing a lot of cross-pollination between ideologies, especially with the many big-tent organisations that are popping up, so you may have a point. We'll just have to see if what arises isn't some watered-down, radical socdem version of socialism.

There's nothing stopping me from being anti-sectarian, you're the one demanding I join an anarchist organisation in order to satisfy your ego.

OK, well I have a hunch that if we got all the radical leftists together we could, through dialectical discussion, reduce that group to a tiny minority.

I mean I think ever the most hardened anarchist would have to concede that without some sort of "state" at least operating the military any sort of communist revolution is going to be put down by the local government that exists.


On the contrary, any anarchist will be able to correctly point out that any sort of communist revolution is going to be put down by the new state you erect.

Hell, what a Marxist would call a state might not even be a state according to an anarchist. I've often heard critici

Wow, I never realised Holla Forums was an anarchist organisation. I'm complaining about sectarianism here, not in some hypothetical anarchist organisation. IRL anarchism is far more broad than on here, and some are easier to reconcile with than others (unless you mean to imply I should join with the individualist anarchists).

*I've often heard criticism from Marxists that historical anarchist movements do actually qualify as states according to their terminology.

So your problem is that anarchists disagree with you on an imageboard?

Comrade, certainly we can imagine a just and democratic state that exists exclusively to protect people from exploitation and violence. Indeed, without such a state, how else can we prevent private property and markets from emerging. Anarchists claim that as long as the vast majority of the population was enlightened, exploitation could be prevented without a State, but I contend that even if 90% of the population were knowledgeable anarcho-communists, some sort of "state" would have to exist to deal with that 10% of fascist gangsters, and also foreign threats. And no, the idea of a perfectly spontaneous global revolution isn't feasible.

No, my problem is that anarchists are being idiots about it and pretending there's some sort of antagonism between Marxism and Anarchism when there isn't. Have you even read the OP?
Besides, you're the one acting butthurt about "muh smug Marxists want to boss me around". Smug anime faces isn't gonna hide that, famalam.

There very clearly is, as you have admitted so in the thread before:
Stop getting upset that anarchists are not thinking what you want them to think.

MY praxis is different to theirs. The whole point of the OP is that there isn't just one praxis to Marxist theory, and Marxism isn't just ML. Marx's theories aren't actually incompatible with a lot of anarchist praxis, and it is possible to reconcile the two, like I literally say here
Now, I might be wrong about your opinion on Marx, but considering your reaction I must have struck some sort of nerve.
I don't want to tell you what to do, I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but disagreement shouldn't turn into some blind feud where you bash "the other side" regardless of context, which is what I've seen happen repeatedly. Hell, a few weeks ago there was a thread about some anarchist's blogpost where he was talking about some basic anti-sectarian shit (such as how some of his IRL comrades had a warped view of Marx and Marxism) and literally the only people bashing on the article were anarchists. In fact, I heard an argument there quite similar to yours (literally word-for-word) about how smug Marxists just want us anarchists to bend the knee. It's nothing but willful blindness.

There are bullshitters in both groups that give both movements a bad name in the others' eyes.

I've already told you most anarchists don't "reject" Marx, although some do, the majority hold his economic theories in high regard and sometimes use other parts of his theories too. Of course we won't take everything he says as gospel as you do, and of course only anarchists bash an article that says that anti-sectarianism means that anarchists need to shut up and accept that Marx (and by Marx you obviously also mean Engels and a dozen other thinkers who shaped what is understood as "Marx" today) was right about everything ever. How come anti-sectarian is always, without exception, blaming anarchists for being sectarian and dumb, despite the fact that most Marxists will happily admit that they've never touched a single anarchist book because it's stupid petty bourgeoisie drivel?

Marx can be reconciled with anarchism, you can even argue that Marx was an anarchist theorist like Rubel does, but you will never reconcile Marxism with anarchism as anarchism is directly opposed to the reification that Marxism is. But let's admit that it's never about reconciling, it's always about pushing Marxism onto anarchism. When was the last time a Marxist tried to incorporate anarchist thought into their Marxist theories? Never, because Marx was right and we just have to constantly reinterpret him again and again until we finally find out that he perfectly predicted everything.

Lovely post, comrade!

I'm going to sleep now so I won't be able to reply until tomorrow evening.

Jesus christ, anti-anarchist marxists absolutely btfo

It sure as hell doesn't seem like it
Could you be more smug? You're literally saying you're more "enlightened" than Marxists.
Yeah, I've had this argument with you before, and you still haven't changed your bullshit. Here's the post by the way
Never once does he say that anarchists should bend the knee or that they should reconcile with authoritarian socialists or whatever, you're seeing things that aren't there. Sure, it's basic-tier shit meant for anarchists not from Holla Forums, but it doesn't say what you say it does.
No, I don't. After reading some anarchist theories I began with Marx. I haven't actually read beyond him yet. The fact that you're assuming these things about me is really fucking telling.
Also, the idea that Engels counts among the theorists that "misrepresented" Marx is conspiracy-tier. Engels co-wrote many of Marx's works. He would have had a far greater understanding of him than anyone. This only leaves the option that he deliberately misrepresented Marx, which is completely ridiculous
It's not, Marxists who say that are idiots, and your claim that they comprise the "majority" of Marxists is just as baseless as all your other claims. The reason why people call you sectarian is because you're acting like a whiny bitch at the mere thought of cooperating with someone, and demanding ridiculous concessions from people who are just calling for a degree of intellectual honesty and practical cooperation. Quit being butthurt. Do you want me to grovel before your feet for some imaginary wrong I have done you?
This is the biggest pile of bullshit I have ever read. You're literally arguing - at least this is how I read it, correct me if I'm wrong - that all Marxist thought is a reification of Marx, which of course implies that you know more about Marx than literally every Marxist on the planet, including Engels. And considering "Marxism" spans all the way from "basically anarchist" communization theorists to stalinists, that's a pretty big claim. Just say you don't want to work with ML's. That's okay. There's not exactly a lot for you to cooperate on anyway. But expanding that to literally anyone who disagrees with you is idiotic and no good for anyone. I struggle to see how you are capable of getting anything done IRL with that mentality, if you even do anything.
I've literally read people complain how Communization theorists are appropriating anarchist theory (maybe it's you?). Hell, that's one of the things that made me write OP. It reeks of possessiveness. You complain when we don't incorporate your theories and you complain when we do, it's rank hypocrisy. There's no winning with you. There's literally nothing that would satisfy you beyond us conceding that actually you were right about everything, that you are the eternal martyrs who died for our sins so that later generations could walk the one true path. You've done nothing but whine about how we want you to bend the knee, but all I've seen is you projecting and demanding the exact same thing from us. You claim to know about Marxism, but all you've come up with are shallow, strawman depictions of Marxists that you only see in the least nuanced anarchist works (Berkman) that only really apply to the most vulgar of Marxists. You call us smug, but every one of your posts reeks of smugness. The only thing I've ever seen asked for is some basic respect and cooperation between ideologies, but you seem to view even the mildest concession as an attack while demanding complete submission from us.

Like I've said before I started out as an anarchist. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me and god knows I've been BTFO many times on this board. Disagreement is good, but it seemed to me like the whole "marxism vs anarchism" thing was getting all too partisan over two extremely broad concepts that are neither irreconcilable or really opposed. Anarchism is way broader than social anarchism (which itself is very broad), and Marxism is way broader than just ML. Lumping them together and opposing them is just plain idiotic, and sorry but I don't buy your narrative that "Marxism" is all a crude perversion of Marx's theories, unless Marxism only means Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Whateverism (and even then it's a stretch unless your talking about people knee-deep in CCCP ideology). Antagonising me and acting like everyone who disagrees with you is a dogmatic brainlet sucking Uncle Joe's cock is not fucking productive.


Kek, you know what I mean. Did Engels actually argue for vanguardism?

No, but Lenin did, and that's what almost everyone thinks of when they think of "Marxism" hence these endless fights.

reminder that anarchists never read and only got their ideology through memes


hello cia

Zizek had it right on that one. Trump is bad for America which is bad for capitalism which is good for communism.

Chomsky is a terrible example of an anarchist and he admits himself he isn't a very good one. Still a smart guy and a lot of fun to read as a Marxist too.

OK, but certainly you agree that there are intellectual anarchists who read?

Of course there are. Why would anyone question that?

You tell me.

Private ownership of the means of production

Is not a corporation a virtual fiefdom, that exists by contract instead of defense of territory?

Mautists are to be ignored.

So are you a leftcom or what?

Somewhere in that realm.

That's the sweet spot, comrade.

Because sectarianism is way to fun to give up.

Excellent point, comrade!

This post deserved a bump!

why ? Did you read Proudhon

state and the markets are one


Worse than that, Chomsky is a dishonest hack who misrepresents the things he reads. You must be new here if you still take Chomsky's politics seriously.

Tankies don't want Left Unity thats the problem. In all honesty we don't need them.

Antifa is the biggest Leftist movement in the world and it's mostly Anarchist / Minarchist.

mautist = maoist

Antifa is class collaboration. They have their uses but they will never create a revolution.

I bet if you could actually identify the ideology of the people who participate in antifa protests the majority would be anti-drumpf liberals or "soc"dems
there's nothing about antifa that pins it as an anarchist movement

Every major far left party/organization in the world is ML

Revolution is honestly something the world is not ready for or wants right now. Look at it.

Nobody is willing to DIE yet. Not me, not my friends. Change is what will come, a series of reforms at best. Thats good enough to me.

How long is the life of Capitalism? Compare it to that of Monarchy. It takes a while and the conditions must be met.
Right now I find it useful that Trump is in power because that unites a lot of people against Republicans who represent Capitalism even harder than Democrats (yes, even harder) since it makes some of those that worry about social issues be worried about economical ones too, therfore these liberals become Berniebros, from there everything is possible.

Antifa rn is overwhelmingly popular, they unlike the Nazis, KKK, hardcore Conservatives (the alt-right) are not seen as evil. On the contrary they're heroes to many, they have a good reputation among most liberals (not the media through), but street level they do. My friends are proof of that. I'll keep helping those friends out until they become anarchs, I don't do this for me, It's more for their own sake.
Realizing that all systems are actually imaginary & that all wealth is actually created by labor, it's not really money who runs the world but labor. Making them see reality is enough for me, they will take their own path from there.

Sorry to fucking bust your bubble but no one is getting subjugated "back". All thats gonna happen is that people will break their chains a little more, I wish they did it totally but not yet. No porky will become a slave either, that defeats the point of socialism/communsim.

Creating classes again is a failure. Thats where Marx is wrong, the analysis to capitalism is great, installing a new regime is not. If you know the descriptions of Socialism & more so Communism. That "transition" is pure bullshit, it doesn't has to be "global" either since nothing has ever been "global" anyway.

Focus on fixing your individual self issues first then help your friends with theirs then your friends other friends & so on. It's little by little, individual by individual. A State will just install a dictatorship: Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, etc & say it's just a phase. But the phase will last 69 years or total anal rape to the worker again, the workplace hierarchy needs to end.

yes I'm also saying those normal liberals are better than you, way more useful than you.
A dweeby religious fanatic chan user you rarely goes outside. Normal people are essential, popularity is a great power & I want more of it in Antifa.

Wake me up when Cuba or Venezuela give a fuck about the worker.

please kill yourself

I've read the article but I wonder if you did? All it says is that Marxists need to "respect" anarchists, but anarchists should adopt the Marxist method and read Lenin. Their whole solution for "class unity" is for Marxists to be kinder and for anarchists to abandon their positions and adopt Marxism. We need to read Marxists because it's "realistic" while Kropotkin's "scientific anarchism" is somehow not. It's literally the very thing that you are trying to deny!

The vast majority of Marxists are idiots, your leftcom tendency is a fringe and even it is full of idiots. Most "Marxists" are MLs, Maoists and other kinds of retards who would rather kill us than cooperate with us. But somehow you are upset when the anarchists call you "anarchists pretending Marxists," despite that you said you want to reconcile Marx with anarchists, but not when tankies and trots call you Marxists. You started an entire thread for whining about how anarchists called you an anarchist, like it was some kind of insult but we are the butthurt?

I have honestly no idea what the fuck are you thinking. "Oh no those anarchists called us anarchists, it's obviously an insult they don't think we are cool enough for the Stalinists and Maoists!" Or what the fuck? Every time it is mentioned your kind quickly distances yourself from us, no, you have nothing to do with us, you are cool Marxists who want nothing to do with those dirty anarchists, and then you make threads whining about how the rude anarchists told you to fuck off.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Reading Lenin does not mean adopting the Marxist method. You can read things you don't agree with. Quit being a faggot. If you're still stuck at that tiny thing there's no point in arguing with you. The fact that you're still stuck in "muh tankies want to kill us" rethoric in the fucking 21st century pretty much says it all in regards to how much your opinions are worth: jack shit. It's nothing but LARPing, which fits pretty well because that's all you are: a LARPer.
As for "muh basically anarchists, saying "oh we mean it as a compliment" is a straight up lie, and it rings really fucking hollow when you've done nothing but insult me this entire thread. Even if it isn't a lie, it's a pretty shitty fucking compliment. An actual honest compliment wouldn't be some patronising bullshit that will inevitably read as "oh how good of you to finally realise your mistakes and join us, you're almost as good as an anarchist". You are the fakest fucking person I have ever had the displeasure of arguing with. You can fuck off.

It's not a compliment or an insult, it's just an accurate description. Acknowledging that tankie theory considers anarchists to be class enemies is not LARPing. Your fringe understanding of Marxism has a few thousand followers maximum, almost all exclusively online. You have almost nothing in common with the overwhelming majority of "Marxists," but you would rather be grouped together with them because calling yourself Marxist is cool and totally intellectual, anarchists are fucking idealist kids, Marxism is really serious and totally scientific! I would call this LARPing but it lacks both the "live" and the "action."

what the fuck

I swear this shit happens to every fucking thread

No but that article you linked does advocate for it. For being a self-described Anarchist it's strange the author has no faith in Anarchists getting anywhere and thinks the best Anarchists can do is tag along with a Marxist revolution in exchange for being respected. That isn't even to touch on the implication that any misunderstandings is on the anarchists, which makes the whole thing a I wonder who could be behind this post sort of thing.
If you've talked to a tankie online you'll have inevitably been threatened with the gulag. And the fact is that MLs, MLMs, and Trots make up the majority of Marxists, perhaps irl they'll be better behaved but I see no reason to trust them and insignificant gain from working with them. While I certainly don't think tankies of any stripe will be relevant again, the DeLeonists, Councilcoms, Communization Marxists, "Leninists", Orthodox Marxists, and any other various non-tankie Marxist-Snowflakists are significantly more irrelevant. Why in the world would we Anarchists search out for these fringe Marxists and throw our lot behind all 5k, to be generous, of them?
You're right, it's an insult to your powers of observation. Communizationfags who say they're marxists are closeted anarchists who try to compensate for being perceived as an anarkiddie with pretentious rhetoric and long-winded statements. You can repeat "the real movement which abolishes the present state of things" all you want, but the fact remains that you're going to look like an anarchist to both marxists and anarchists while advocating essentially anarchist praxis and views on revolution despite what terminology you use.

Good post

Good Job, guess half the job is already done, tell me when we got Socialism Tovarish, I'm taking a nap.

And not online, I've had plenty of shitty interactions with ML(M)s online and IRL. They all go the same way. When they find out you're an anarchist, they will call for solidarity and anti-sectarianism, then they tell you why their interpretation of Lenin (and/or Mao) was 100% right and you are petite-bourgious if you don't also think so. As soon as they realize that you aren't going to metaphorically suck Lenin's theory off they they threaten you with death and work camps ("You'll be the second against the wall (after capitalists,) or GULAG TIME BOYS").

Fuck MLs I know it's pure ideology to hate them based on a label (and I'm actually an anarchist who's perfectly fine with the state, sop I don't even have that disagreement with them), but they all suck. Leftism would be 20% better if Lenin ideas were treated as useful for other tendencies, but garbage when followed in a way that resembled anything like the R.E.S.-states.

I'll be honest and say that I've never talked to a ML long enough to get there IRL, not out of avoidance but because I've found no reason to talk to them. I just assume irl they're less autistic than on Holla Forums, which isn't saying very much.

Yeah, I haven't talked to a ton of them, but yeah, they try harder to see the other side, and not threaten you with gulag, but that just translates to the conversations lasting longer before they end up doing that (in my experiences), Out of the 4 or so IRL interactions, only 1 of them didn't end up this way, I would like to believe more than 50 non shitty Leninists exist, but I'm not hopeful.

like muke


Ancapism and libertarianism aren't serious political forces, they are just ideologies created to spread capitalist apologia.

that comes with the cringe of approaching political domination as if it is a science project

state has it's own logic and it is not by any means a laboratory that allows for pristine condition and precise economopolitical movements

No you don't, you crypto-fascist fuck.

If i remember correctly, Graeber (in anarchist anthropology) wrote a bit about piaora. They literally rape women if they commit adultery, something Pierre Clastres, a XIX century anarchist forgot to mention due to the fact he idealized primitiv tribes so hard

You are half right. An insurectionnary momentum arise from class conflict what turn this into revolution or reaction are the various ideologies present in the proletariat. History makes men but men also make History. Russian revolution would have been very different if the proletariat wasn't influenced by russian nihilists,SR, anarchists, communists etc…


Good stuff

In the sense that it has to exist for sometime, otherwise recapitulation to capitalism is inevitible, but the anarchist state needs to hold anarchist goals, like destroying itself as quickly as possible and being as democratic as technology and society will allow, the state can't be viewed as something that will wither away because that ignores power relations, and it can't be viewed as 100% terrible, useless garbage because that would ignore the real world, and history (including anarchist history)

Holy shit sounds awesome. Where are you from?

Marxism vs Anarchism is 100% a duel of semantics and personality cults. Both Marx and Bakunin saw the Paris Commune as an acceptable revolutionary organization very close to the ideas they had in mind. But they feuded anyway because their disagreements were entirely founded on personal animosity and had nothing to do with actual strategy.

Even today, people lose their hair arguing over whose dead old man was their favorite.

forgot to add a precision : gang rape

Have incels gone too far?

The problem with anarchism is that if an anarchist "territory" ever came to be, it would either stick to it's principles rigidly - and be mercilessly crushed by the capitalists because they wouldn't have a state (army, police) to defend themselves, OR they would abandon their principles and create a state with conscription and a secret police in order to defend themselves from destruction.

This happen to Makhno's movement in Ukraine, it started out all volunteeristic, but when it needed troops - it quickly dropped that and introduced conscription as well as various comittees which were a de-facto state.

probably. it's even worse than the state mandatory girlfriends meme

Read Bakunin or something this is seriously embarrassing.

They had very different views on the Paris Commune, Bakunin viewed it as a positive development because of its tendency to negate the State while Marx blamed this for its downfall.

Anarchists, like all revolutionary socialists, proclaim that the social revolution must be international in scope or it will inevitably fail.