What did he mean by this?

1) I demand legit source of this comment
2) Bakunin didn't have the the most consistent mind in anarchist movement and had spooky concepts as "dem jews" and "muh slavs"
3)still an inspiration yet i don't know anyone who calls himself a "bakuninist" so take what you can from his ideas and leave the spooky shit .
4)Malatesta was right about oldfarts.

Alright, that's cool. But since you have nothing to back any of that up I'll just laugh at you.

back what up?
what are you talking about?

Have you even read Plato? Have you read ANYTHING by Marx?

Because that's a pretty serious allegation about Marx's intentions, ima need you to back that up .

The quote seems to be real, it's on p. 119 of the book "Interviews and Recollections of Karl Marx" at archive.is/UjkHv (source is given on p. 120)

You doing OK there buddy? You might need to take a break.

You might want to try not dodging the question and being direct.

I've read both.
The entire conflict over the Paris commune and the purge or the anarchists showed very much that Marx was intending on leading the movement, wanted a state and didn't like people questioning his authority.

Regardless of whether this was Marx' intention or not, the result of Marxist praxis has always been almost exactly what Bakunin warned us about, which says a lot.

gee a man in the late 19th century hates jews

what a surprise

Please, just because Marx argued that the Paris Commune demonstrated the need for a worker's state and Bakunin got thrown out from the International meant he wanted to be a philosopher king?
Are anarkiddies still that butthurt about the Hague congress?

Well then don't say Marx wanted something he never made any implication of wanting.

I'm not sure where exactly Marx's praxis has been followed since I don't recall Marx ever advocating revolution in non-industrialised nations.

About Bakunin being a salty anti-semite who got sufficiently butthurt about being BTFO'd from the International to start arguing that Marx was in fact a subversive agent of Jewish bankers, yeah it does.

Eliminating the opposition and destroying the wroker's democracy sounds a lot like some kind of dictatorship - and no, not of the proletariat, for that is impossible.

Ah, so peasants are dirty pig-people who cannot free themselves and the Mazdaki and the Ikko Ikki never happened?
Great.
What a revolutionary notion.

Pic related.

hi space_, your waifu is shit

MEIN GOTT
pick one please.

nice shitpost

All those peasant revolts which totally established socialism and weren't crushed by contemporary feudal or capitalist adversaries.
Mazdaki were crushed when Mazdak stopped being politically convenient and Ikko Ikki were suppressed successfully everwhere.
No one is saying peasants can't free themselves retard, the point is they can't establish socialism and advance to communism by virtue of not having the developed industrial society created by capitalism.

No matter how much you may not like it, and as much as I sympathise with such emancipatory causes, material conditions exist and they are fundamental to whether we can achieve socialism and communism.

fite me irl

You're evading the issue. Whether they got crushed later, they still established socialism (or proto-socialism). Again, proletarians are not ubermenschen, and proletarians too would have been crushed the second they faced the same odds as these peasants did. Your proletarian elitism does not hold up to reality.

And what else, besides dogma, says that peasants cannot develop industry? Why can't they establish mutualist banks and work through this themselves?

This historical determinism is nothing but dogmatic pseudo-science.

Neither I nor anyone else to my knowledge claimed that proles are better than peasants, its a case of peasants signifying that an economy is still insufficiently developed. I don't claim proles have superhuman abilities to withstand counter-revolution.

Capitalism is really an amazing system, it can be incredibly efficient and ensure consistent and uninterrupted growth, this is hugely conductive the progress of society.
Capitalism drove the industrial revolution and the self-serving motivations of merchants, factory owners and tycoons served to develop the kind of infrastructure where a society without work and scarcity was possible.

Class society exists for a reason and we can't just revert to classlessness any time we feel like it. Like it or not society and class exist because of material constraints and until those problems are resolved we can't hope for communism.

Again, name a reason why the same route cannot be taken through mutualist banks?
Any other reason than that's not how it happened in the past?
I'm talking about some kind of mechanical reason here.

Sure we can. Every mode of production saw it. Marx didn't know about the Mazdaki and the Ikko Ikki of course, so he didn't take this into account when he wrote the holy gospel.

Mutualism is a meme :^)

Weren't the Ikko-Ikki hardly more than mobs of fanatically Buddhist peasants, monks and nobles?

...

The fact Bakunin was an antisemite is and was common knowledge among anarchist circles, and if I recall correctly several comrades at the time called him out on his shit

Marx, Bakunin, and their differing views on the Jewish Question are all addressed in this paper - with citations. To get a handle on all this shit, it's best to give it a read.

commonruin.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/the-origins-and-ideological-function-of-cultural-marxism-revised.pdf

Just like the black army were savage bandits and didn't advocate worker's ownership of the means of production.

To dismiss them as mere rabble is to fundementally misunderstand the nature of what they accomplished.

Sure they were spooked as fuck, but they were still mutualists, with volunteer monks defending the whole thing out of religious obligation. Far were they from perfect, but they were peasants who fought against class-struggle.