Rojava: reality and rhetoric - Gilles Dauvé and T.L

That's idpol as fuck. The article of Dauvé is moronic because he doesn't consider the context, but calling something colonialist because you disagree is equally moronic.

I agree that that statement is wrong, but that doesn't address the main points in any way.
I linked you to it in another thread the other day

I'm not the only leftcom on this board, might be that you linked it to somebody else.

It's still bullshit. The whole premise of this article relies on the assumption that social change in the periphery of imperialism will qualitatively be different than change in the western world which is wrong for different reasons. On local scale it might be true that due to the colonial history Chiapas and Rojava face different problems on-site. For example the fact that the economy in Chiapas is characterized by substitution farming. But we can't ignore the fact that both Chiapas and Rojava are part of the capitalist totality and thus subject to the domination of capital. This means that both ultimately face the same material conditions. The same conditions which are to be negated by the proletariat the author seems to think don't exist in the third world. This on the other hand means that you cant just pick some statements of the author's critique and dismiss others as they are all product of the author's post-colonial attitude.
Other than that the author is just whining about the fact that (who would've fucking thought) his favorite third world militias are subject to criticism as well. What an unsubstantial attempt at a critique.

like really, two thirds of his article is just whining about how Dauvé shouldn't criticize Rojava because the Kurds were thiiiis much oppressed by everyone for the last 100 years. This must render ruthless criticism completely obsolete, I guess.

The biggest private businesses they can think up employ 15 people? That's more leftist than even most "communist" states.

I do wish they'd do away with the remaining portion of the petit-bourgeois, and do fear the prospect of counterrevolution, but it's hard to deny their achievement so far.

rojava is a mistake

Based Assad liberate these people back into Baathist Syria

The cold war is over buddy

this is bait but people will fall for it.

salty anarkiddy tears, love them

learn how antiimperialism works, fucking plebs
communist parties stand with syria
everyone else are insignificant whiners that will get their ass handed to them soon enough

Jason your mom has dinner ready

he's a third-worldist faggot, he doesn't know jack shit about antiimperialism. if he happens to say something right-ish, he's still doing it based on completely wrong arguments.

suck it, faggot. rojava will get fucked really good from all sites in all its orifices like the bitch it is and syria will defeat imperialism once again.

ok then

xD

...

...

It's just some social democracy plus land reform plus arab nationalism

Anti-imperialism is not an excuse for literally anything. Ba'athism is turd-position Arab supremacy that only made people want to revert to theocracy, and Assad was a dictator living off of daddy's money.

Gilles Dauve is a retard, since when has the PKK advocated for Focoism/Guevarism or Thirld worldism? This is probably an senile attempt to describe the guerilla warfare which was originally based on the influence of the Maoist Turkish left in the 60's and 70's.
Left-coms are such colonialist chauvunists disguising their rhetoric in workerist discourse.

Also do left-coms not realise that socialism is still a class society?

Dauvé seems to have an idiotic idea that a communist revolution just appears out of thin air, Lenin was absolutely correct when he said a communist revolution is possible because of the conditions produced by revolutions and struggle preceding it - Rojava is producing such conditions. Hell, that place haven't even experienced real subsumption, he should be happy that they're connected to the capitalist economy.

Not even Marx himself was as puritanical in his ideas as leftcoms.

Dauvé and troploin believe in communization, they don't want a socialist transition.

Right I forgot about that, well that means Gilles Dauve is even more irrelevant and utopian than the average left-com.

shows how much you know
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athism#Allegations_of_fascism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba'ath_Party_–_Syria_Region#Founding_and_early_years:_1947.E2.80.931963
check the wiki citations if you don't believe me

The lower phase of communism ("socialism") is not the same thing as the transition to communism.
Fuggen stalinists.

not only is wikipedia a shit source, even the quotations alone show how shit your "argument" is
salty liberal anarkiddy, topkek

also

>>>/reddit/

I've read this one when it came out. It's spot on. Graeber is an idiot.

Ha!

Has Marxism just become a religion at this point?

He said, while defiantly still believing Rojava is anarchist.

how is that a bad thing?

Class struggle is capitalism in crisis, ie a reproduction of the means of production, thereon becoming more repressive through the state apparatus, and more obscure through the ideological, new forms of alienation emerge from behind the illusion of choice. If you want hierarchical struggle in a Marxist utopia you are not a Marxist.

fuck off tankie

Just wut are you talking about? Until the globe is socialist every communist wants the intensification of class-struggle.

Name a Marxist revolution that even partly abolished class-struggle.

Marxists intend to abolish capital and class through class struggle. Abolishing class struggle itself is reactionary class-collaborationist bullshit.

You know that class-collaborationism doesn't abolish class-struggle, right? it just abolishes class-consciousness.

The point is to abbolish the notion of the serperation between the worker and the owner and create a new worker-owner.
Just class-struggle is abolished, and that has nothing to do with class-colaborationism.

can you stop, plz?

UGH
I CAN'T EVEN
FUCKING ANARCHIST SHITBABBIES
CAN'T EVEN
UGH

Plebbit liberals will continue to insist this an anarchist group. With a police force.

KEK.

Abolishing the notion of something does nothing to change the material reality. Without the notion of classes class itself will still exist, people simply won't be aware of it.
Besides, the point of communism isn't to create "worker owners", but rather to abolish property and market exchange.
In a communist society there will be no owners.

Okay.
Take the "notion" part out of the statement and then present an argument.
How do you fit the fact that a mode of production with lack of class-struggle is different from capitalism and indeed all previous mode of production into your dialectics. What kind of class-stuggle will there be when there is only one class? What is the difference between one and zero classes when it comes to class-antagonisms?

Once capitalism has been destroyed there will be no classes at all. The point I was making before is that we don't aim to abolish class struggle but rather class itself. Obviously once there are no longer any classes class struggle will cease to exist, the disappearance of class struggle is caused by the success of class struggle, not by fighting against it.

How is a system with a class-unipolarity the same as capitalism, which is a system marked by the struggle of two classes?
You seem to believe that there more be either two classes, and then it is capitalism (or feudalism or slavery) or no classes, and then it is socialism.
That is not true. A unipoliarity of classes is still communism, albiet lower-stage communism exactly because it has no class-struggle, a feature it shares with higher-stage communism.

What the fuck are you on about? It's like you're responding to a completely different person.

Becaus you said once capitalism is gone (a system marked by the struggle of two classes), then we have no classes.
That means that either you believe that a system with a unipolarity of classes is the same as system with two classes, and thus that class-antagonism are not really that important OR you believe that society will either have two (or more) classes, or it will have none.

So which is it?

you might critique Dauvé, Nesic and troploin's communization but there's no need to go full gradualist tbh

The whole critique of it not being feminist enough because western media mainly shows the YPJ as proof for their claim is pretty bad. Ofc woman in the army can only be an aspect of the feminist struggle going on in Rojava. But there are a lot of civilian feminist projects in the region as well. They are far from reaching gender equality but that's to be expected since you can't change peoples minds in such a short ammount of time.

The whole argument boils down to: "They aren't effective as a feminist movement because western media portrays YPJ as proof" (not an actual quote from the text) wich is quite frankly ridiculous

this, the guy who wrote it is such a whiny cunt

I'm not the user you responded to but I'll try to clarify it. Class merely follows the social relations capital and labor are. Capitalists are produced by capital and not the other way around. This means that if the capitalist class is lacking another structure can fulfill its function, most prominently the state. The implications of capital are still in function though, their control is merely relegated to the state and its bureaucracy. The state controls the exploitation of labor and the reinvestment of the surplus value generated, in the name of capital. So yes, capitalism can appear as a society composed of only one class (in the strict marxist sense) without contradicting the notion of struggle as labor is still struggling against capital which appears in the form of the ideal capitalist ie the state.

Doesn't answer my question in the slightest. You've answered why the state itself can become a class and how class-stuggle will always exist as long as you have a state that is not a federation.

I'm asking what the difference in terms of class-struggle is in the case of a society that genuinely only has one class and one that has none.

Remember, a new exploitative class didn't "emerge" in the USSR. It took over a framework that existed already.

no I actually tried to avoid this
wat

I think my post answers this quite well. Class struggle in mono-class societies is relegated to the struggle between labor and the state which functions as the only & ideal capitalist while in classless societies there is no class struggle by definition.
I'm ok with this.

A long as you have a state that exploits labour (and thus is a state), then it is a ruling class, an expoiter of value in of itself.

See, no that wouldn't be a mono-class society.

then why are you arguing in favor of Rojava, if you consider the state (bureaucracy) to be a class itself?

Fucking leftcoms.

The state in Rojava has none to almost no power over the local assemblies, and because they understand that they do not have the resources to set up a system or voluntary mutual aid, they sell oil in order to maintain themselves rather than tax the voters. Likewise, about 80% or the economy is owned personally or collectively.

That has great potential to be turned into an actual monoclass society, especially when the local assemblies have so much authority over both the state, and indeed, the (petit) bourgeoisie.

Workers, rather.

the state isn't defined by its power though but rather by its function which is the maintenance of capital accumulation. The state can insofar be as horizontal and democratic as possible it would still function as the enforcer of capital and its main disciplinary entity. in fact I think that the relegation of some of its authority to the workers is a perverse way of self-discipline (Maybe some Foucaultian could shed some light on this issue). They are effectively coerced to manage their own exploitation. The same thing applies to capital. Capital can be managed as democratically and worker "friendly" as possibl, it can even be owned by a collective of workers and it would still exploit the labor of the workers subjected to it in order to grow. Likewise, it doesn't matter that 80% of the economy is owned "personally or collectively". This is essentially word-play. The sublation of private property implies that no one is excluded from owning property. This goes hand in hand with the notion that socialism is a worldwide mode of production an not some left-ish project started by left-to-liberal nationalist militias in the imperialist periphery.

And the aim of marxism - or the workers' movement in general as you seem to be pretty spooked by the term - isn't to establish a monoclass society which is an oxymoron. Classes are defined by their relations to the means of production. And if there is no disowned class to be distinguished from the owning class then the whole notion of class makes no sense.

But I think that we've already had such a discussion. I don't believe that we need to rehash it.

and we don't discard Rojava because it's not perfect or doesn't conform to theory in every way. We disregard its potential because we believe that communism can only be brought by an internationally organized working class movement. The YPD/PKK isn't part of such a movement and has clearly defined itself to stand in for the interest of "the people" (who are the people and why not just call them the working class, if they're truly a proletarian organization?) of the Middle East. And we disregard the claim that "real socialism" is being built in Rojava because of the simple fact that socialism can't be built in a geographically limited area which isn't even part of capital's real domination as some user mentioned a few posts ago.
You really don't seem to realize how stalinist this whole discourse sounds.

Whatever you say. The state still accumulates capital based on the work of other.

And to invest is not to exploit one self - to say so it to say that maintainance, risk-insurance ect. is all "exploitation".
Sure, it may or may nor be.
But it has no class struggle.

So all you're righting again is a long slew of words in hopes that you can sidestep the real issue and question:

Is a unipolarity of classes is the same as systems with two classes, and are class-antagonism are not really that important OR you believe that society will either have two (or more) classes, or it will have none?

Because the have realized that socialism will ahve to find new labels and reinvent itself because Marxists have turned most socialism with classical socialist terms into political poison.

Again "you can't have socialism in one country" is not a sentence that is supposed to be taken literally; it means that it is not very *pragmatic* to have it in one geographic nation, it doesn't mean that it not socialism before it dominates the entire globe.

So let me just make it clear: woker-owners are not a class, even though they have a speciffic relationship to the means of production?
By all means! If you insist this is true, you're merely conceeding the point that there is no real difference in terms of class struggle between a system that have worker-owners running coops and full automated communism.

which is happening in Rojava. So no socialism there.

The thing is not that they invest - their capital is literally growing for its own sake. It's not for maintenance or risk-insurance. It's happening so capital can grow with each cycle.

I hope you aren't seriously proposing that class struggle is the essential problem of capitalism and not a symptom.

cry me a fucking river.

I'm not dodging the problem I'm merely applying logic to your supposed dichotomy. You're asking the wrong questions. There is no real unipolarity of classes in a class society. As I've said, the relations that are set by capital are still functioning and thus the struggle shifted from labor-working class capitalists-capital to labor-working class state-capital. So my answer is that a unipolarity of classes IS the same as systems with two classes and that class antagonisms ARE important.

To be honest I don't care about terminology all too much but the way the YPD/PKK presents itself I wouldn't say that the use of the word "people" is coincidental or a try to get rid of a supposed marxist stigma. It's a deliberate try to appeal to the petite bourgeois.

But it is. Socialism implies a society freed from the chains of capital which have captured the whole world. From its naissance the communist movement will be in a constant struggle against capital until capital is completely rendered powerless. it's in the nature of capital and the communist movement to clash till the moment communism has defeated capital. Rojava is instead aiming to establish a peaceful coexistence with its neighbours and seeks to consolidate its position without expanding their supposed revolution.

oh god. "Worker owners" relate to capital insofar as other "worker owners" are excluded from owning this specific capital. In Socialism the whole society owns everything, which renders an analysis of property relations and thus of class as completely useless because there are no real property relations.

read this.

petit bourgeois class collaborationism is communism now
just fuck my shit up

The argument that we need subsumption before communism is drawn straight from Bordiga though. Now, I generally agree with Troploins analysis (hell, I posted and defended it myself here long ago) but it's obvious Dauvé is has unrealistic standards for what is possible in Kurdistan.

but that's kinda the point, isn't it? I remember how someone on fb said that with all due respect to the Kurds a global mode of production not based on money and wage slavery labor couldn't start from a rural region of destroyed Syria. And I agree completely.

On a very limited level, again limited to the oil-workers of a certain province, because they do not believe in state-owned industry and involuntary taxation. It is a hackneyed make-shift solution but it could be much worse.

Marx didn't mind that.
From the Critique of the Gotha Programme:

''To understand what is implied in this connection by the phrase "fair distribution", we must take the first paragraph and this one together. The latter presupposes a society wherein the instruments of labor are common property and the total labor is co-operatively regulated, and from the first paragraph we learn that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."
"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of society?
But "all members of society" and "equal right" are obviously mere phrases. The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the "undiminished" Lassallean "proceeds of labor".
Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.
From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.
These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

I have highlighted the most important part.

"Collective" ownership, does not mean ownership for all, "Accumulation" does not mean exploitation.

I am proposing that when others take my liberty away and I have to struggle against them, that is the primary problem I have with any system. Mainly because I am not a robot who considers society an excercise in economics, but a hinderance in the road to absolute individual autonomy.

So you're saying that because another two-class structure can arise, a one-class structure may not?
What if we abolish both the bourgeoisie and the state? Then what is the other class?
Who are there to exploit the worker-owners?

It has, and it should. Doesn't mean it's not socialism until it's global, just like capitalism was capitalism A WHOLE lot of time before it went truly global.

I want you to go through the Manifesto for a Democratic Society and tell me how many times it criticizes capitalism and hierarchy within workplace as something to be abolished. You'll find its quite a lot.

How is there bourgeoisie and class-collaboration when there is only one class?

How do you do this?

With cursive.
I found this appropriate.

And yet people were saying that for the Russian revolution too such as the Mensheviks or Kautsky. Face it you left-coms are eurocentric chauvinists looking down upon struggles in the global periphery.

I mean, how do you do cursive here?

With two apostrophes at both end end

''Take this sentence and remove the backslash'\'

Take this sentence and remove the backslash

Thanks

This is bullshit, we're looking here at an area that is under embargoes from all of it's neighbors and a good chunk of other countries and in the middle of a fucking civil war on several fronts. I think we can forgive them if at this time only 80% of it's economy is collectivized.
Do you think that Rome was built in a day? The economy of Rojava is certainly headed towards socialism and it's bullshit to say that it will never reach that goal just because it has material conditions that are preventing it at this particular moment. And yet you're criticizing them for saying "people" instead of "working class." It's completely ridiculous to think that they should further upset their already ridiculously fragile economy by making 20% of it illegal.
For someone that considers themselves a Marxist you sure don't seem to care for material conditions.

This reminds me of those that defended the Maoists in Nepal. Or in some cases those that defend Cuba and the DPRK. Same line of reasoning and total detachment from socialist theory as the tankies.

yes, you're right
we should throw away all legitimate socialist movements if they don't accomplish all their goals with the snap of a finger

DPRK and PRC had 0% worker ownership though…

It amazes me an anarchist would support state building so long as they claim to be a non-state or "of the people".

Just like Rojava.

Thank you for assuming my ideology despite never having stated I was an anarchist anywhere.
What part of "80% of the economy is worker owned" equals "no worker ownership" in your mind?

They've jumped through every hoop they could I'm order to limit the state though, even going as far as to refuse to collect taxes because mutual aid was unfeasible. Their intentions are clear though their praxis is imperfect. Regardless, as long as the local assemblies have almost autonomous power, chances are not that it's going to slide into leninist statism.

They have a police force. you idiot. Wtf do they need an apparatus to enforce state will if it's not "leninist statism"?

You utter, utter fuckwit.

An apparatus performing the same civic duty usually performed by the police force, is not a police force when it is not professional and subject to the direct will of the local assemblies.

This is what you fail to understand; the state is geographically very limited, only really existing where they have oil.

Except fucking Democratic Confederalism isn't a class theory, it's left-wing nationalism.

These fucking buzzwords I swear to god.

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_nationalism

Just ask and be educated rather than meme.

>National self-determination

Sounds like supporting a nation-state, which Democratic Confederalism is against.

Except that's exactly what they're doing.

Wait, are you arguing against the praxis of the PYD in Syria right now, or the ideological doctrine of Democratic Confederalism?

Because these are distinct from each other.

Even so, to say that they're building an ethnic nation-state is a gross misunderstanding of most how geographically limited the state is within Rojava and how much authority it has.

It's going to be hilarious watching retards try to defend the PYD when they go full capitalist. Gonna be more fun than when SYRIZA did a 180 like I fucking told everyone they would.

A theory should be judged by what it produces.

And what the hell are these added goalposts of size and authority? This is why anarchists are so annoying on this topic, a state is defined by it's functions (mediating the class struggle) - not by some vague appearance or your own opinion of it. How do you think the "don't call it a state" meme started?

Rojava is an organized state, and it's based on national self-determination - that the Kurds (supported by other ethnic minorities) should have autonomy.

Now I'm not calling some psuedo-fascistic reactionary evil, I'm just saying that you shouldn't project your own fantasies upon it.

So you agree that we can discard Marxism at this point?

The fact that Rojava doesn't have a state; an area within Rojava has a state, but the state is geographically limited to only certain parts of the area, meaning that huge areas are indeed stateless and lead by local direct democracies.
Much like only 80% of the economy is collectivized.
That's not so much a problem YET as long as the (petit) bourgeoisie and the state are subject to the local direct democracies.

Not really. It based on the idea that local communities should have autonomy.
There's a reason there are extreme tensions between them and the Peshmerga, the actual nationalists.

You lying turd.

No, it's produced the most potent critique and successful revolutions against capitalism so far, and as foreseen the development of capitalism excellently. On the other hand, anarchists produced stillbirth after stillbirth and Proudhon relied on moral arguments to "prove" his economic theory correct.

So the YPG is not protecting them and they're not tied to the Rojava state, or am I missing something?

In Kurdistan, take note of that. It's not a class based theory.

What are you trying to say here?

what is this?!

I'm saying that it's left-nationalism, that's what this entire discussion is about.

He's criticizing the fact that it's gender-based feminism, rather than a critique of gender.

not really, hes saying its not a critique of gender and then rambles on about how women with guns dont make you feminist, with complete disregard for apoist feminst theory and practice…

Bunkermag actually hosted an article on this: bunkermag.org/principles-democratic-confederalism

TL;DR the commune is supposedly the root of all authority but it lacks formal recognition, and the jury is out on how the bottom-up organization holds the parliament to account.

You make it sound so simple. If there is no class there is communism. No one has achieved that yet. Removing the state with the bourgeoisie hasn't proven to be a short-cut in that regard.

Some head-honcho of one of the Cantons openly said they'd need foreign capital. I guess the litmus test would be how they manage it. That said, you can't have foreign capital without private property. Some kind of capitalism will remain in Rojava, provided the next few years see it survive rather than destroyed.

Someone understands. But is it really unreasonable for them to be feminists in the middle east? It seems like a natural starting point considering that relations between men and women remain religiously and often tribally dictated.

He's taking aim at Western commentators gushing over the feminist nature of Rojava, more than anything. He also has a point that Rojava's attempts to empower women are done by recruiting them into policing, the armed forces, and formal positions of authority (which is mandatory), not by fundamentally challenging male-female relations.

yes and no
the fact that there are women-only organisations and spaces, for example the womens councils, that are without male interference, does fundamentally change gender relations in the region. something like that didnt exist before.

In the early days of the PKK quite a lot of women who joined them werent communist, but fleeing for example forced marriage and other patriarcal practices and structures.
(though i dont exactly know if thats the case with the PYD)

I really don't care that they're not going full gender critique; however, I'm with Dauve that Westerners over-emphasize its feminist credentials as revolutionary. The fact that they're introducing things that weren't there before doesn't refute his point. Western feminism introduced a lot of organizations and spaces for women, yet we'd hardly call that a revolution of the leftist sort.

It is, it just has to work around the concept in a lot of ways because of the hugely negative stigma that comes with Marxism (despite the fact that you don't think that we can blame Marxian for the long string of absolute totalitarian nightmares it produced, a lot of people are less willing to jump through the same mental hoops. Marx stole his economics from Proudhon; he only added SNLT).
That's why they have to focus on face-to-face democracy in all spheres of life: democracy in the army, democracy in the workplace, democracy in the family, democracy at the local level.

The YPG is a voluntary militia; it is democratic and anyone can leave at any point. They also hold no authority over the local assemblies or tax them in any way.

Sure, it's not so obvious in its class-theory but again, because of Marxists it can't be and expect to be taken seriously.

Oh boy, leftcom autism inbound.

syriadirect.org/news/kurds-dodging-conscription-wary-of-rumored-offensive-for-a-raqqa-‘a-battle-that-is-not-ours-to-fight’/

Ummm… Growing and selling weed perhaps? Counter-economics in general?

Yes. I am sure that they would admit to raiding cities. On Facebook, no less.

Thank god this Pro-Assad outlet was there to pick up on it. That means that the people I know that left the YPG at their own volition somehow didn't.

Counter-economics won't build infrastructure. Rojava is small and poor. It will need foreign investment to industrialize, and I don't see how that won't be an exploitative arrangement considering capitalists don't invest in unprofitable ventures.

Uh-huh. Here's another """Pro-Assad""" source.

progressive.org/news/2016/01/188527/ground-syrian-rebels

Notice how that has nothing to do with your anecdote.

...

To require someone to participate in an otherwise democratic institution is bad but not soviet-welcome-to-trotskys-meatgrinder-tier. As long as the decision is democratically decided by the direct councils of the cantons it's only meh-tier.
Notice how it's only in one canton.

and how, beyond that article, the claim is unsubstantiated

Tell that to them I suppose.

A lot about Rojava is based upon hearsay by people who visited. There's far more than one source making the claim, though.

Stop it with the liberal buzzwords.

He based certain parts of it on him. But there's a huge difference. This isn't even considering Marx's is actually consistent and does not rely on moralism. Fucking read Marx and stop with the anarchist memes.

Really son?

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT SOCIALISM!™

Oh a HUGE difference, huh?
What's the difference beyond the socially necessary labour time?

Your old boy stole the majority of all what he ever made. He was a clever guy, but a prideful one too, and did not like sharing the prestige with others. To that end, he would lie, distort and even sabotage the socialist movement to satisfy his own ego.

(checked)
Man, wouldn't it be great if Marx had written, like, an entire book that outlined his differences with Proudhon in regards to economics and philosophy. That would really help this discussion.

oh wait

Never fucking claimed it was socialism, but totalitarianism is meaningless buzzword.

Oh please, the fallout between Marx and the Anarchists was completely natural, the former based his critique of capitalism upon a solid analysis of it's functions - the latter upon moralist and vague abstractions, this entire fucking debate is a case in point that anarchists don't have any fucking definition of state beyond "bad gov who tells me to do stuff".

He never did that.

UGH DON'T U KNOW THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH
UGH I CAN'T EVEN
I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO DEFEND MY POSITION
UGH IT'S 2016!

I guess that's why the state totally melted away all those times :^)

I love how Marxists are proud that they have no theory on what a state is and what its enternal materialist mechnisms are and they wear it like a badge of honour.

Are you kidding or do you just not know what The Poverty of Philosophy is

You don't even have a fucking critique, you've asked waste time trying to teach you economics based on a complete nonsensical statement, fucking find out for yourself and you might learn something.

This discussion is fucking over.

I know what the Poverty of Philosophy is.
I've read it.
However, it was when I read Philosophy of Poverty that I found out that the majority of the attacks he makes against Proudhon were based on falsehoods, lies and distortions.

That realization made me grow disillusioned with Marxism, because if he were willing to lie about that, what else did he lie about?

Just mention one difference.
One.
Beyond the "socially necessary" in labour time.

FUGGEN DIS

...

how does the "worker owned enterprise" transcend the capitalist enterprise as such?

haha, like, you read it or shit, haha xd lol kek

[source?]
marx is literally a neocon, u guys

“if one eliminates the capitalists, the means of production cease to be capital” - Theories of Surplus Value 3: 296

"when the workers are themselves in possession of their respective means of production and exchange their commodities with one another” [then these commodities] “would not be products of capital.” - Capital 3: 276

I would recommend just reading Proudhon really, but since you're probably to lazy to do that, here's someone who did it for you.

anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/appendix-proudhon-and-marx.html

Feel free to do it yourself if you doubt what he writes though.

wow, angry AND low information
what a great combo!

marxisthumanistinitiative.org/philosophy-organization/marx-proudhon-and-alternatives-to-capital.html

...

I like how they get to all this about how it's not like the "time chitters" and then leave the *entire* explanation of the differences to two-and-a-half sentences.