Since Marx basically just ripped off Proudhon, do we anarchists really have to refer to "Marxist" economics? Can't we just use Proudhonian economics with SNLT added and thus avoid the negative connotations that come with Karl Marx?
anarchism.pageabode.com
Other urls found in this thread:
northstarcompass.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Inb4 shitstorm
Bump. I want to see the marxist salt
I remember some kind of screenshot from an anarchist who BTFO'd some Marxist on this very same topic.
Anyone got it?
There was a guy on /anarcho/ who said that marx was a hack that systematically stole ideas from previous socialists. You could probably still find it that board is so slow kek
I do believe there is a difference between Proudhon's and Marx's economics. Like the article said, both Marx and Proudhon pretty much had the same critique of capitalism, but Proudhon advocated more Mutualistic ideas and equal exchange between between independent producers, which Marx disagreed with. This is probably the only post I'll make since I don't think I know enough about this shit to argue for one side or another. Feel free to BTFO me if this post is garbage. Also, bump.
Marxian economics are distinct from Marxism as a specific political ideology, of which Classical Marxism is just one subgroup.
That is very correct, but that is a minor difference in terms of solutions.
Marx had the idea that copetition itself leads to accumulation, and indeed it does.
This can be circumvented in many ways, with something as simple as progressive taxes and redistribute programmes, (which functionally adds more variable capital to a workplace that has shifted towards more constant capital, thus negating the tendency of the profit to fall) while still keeping the option of individual ownership, cooperatives lead by individual initiative and all other private ventures without class-antagonisms.
Abolishing inheritance would go a long way in this too.
Is there some sort of "mutualism with a basic income"?
That could very well be incorporated into mutualism.
Except proudhon was a reactionary who believed we could all return to peasant communes and ignore the progress of history.
...
that's not how you use that word.
...
BEFORE YOU REPLY:
Do you have any material to substantiate this claim?
Don't be retarded. Produce an anarchist critique of political economy that builds off of him – do it so well you place a dunce hat on Marx. Maybe then it'll stop Marxists from circlejerking each other to the point they're forced to produce a counter-critique. The left would benefit from that kind of productive ideological competition, rather than the usual shit-flinging.
t. marxist
this meme should die.
Dumbass. Is that you rebel? I thought you were gulag'd all the way to r9k.
...
For the most part Marxists have just ignored any and all criticism by calling anarchists children though.
You would think that Bakunin was reading for a cheat-sheet when you consider how many things about state-socialism he got right.
No, Proudhon was a kantfag who believed in making ethical arguments for socialism.
Yeah it's me, glad to know you enjoy having corruption on your board, I thought people here were smarter than to seriously be memed into scapegoating people.
Good thing I'm using Xexizy's VPN.
I'll admit that I'm not particularly well versed in Proudhon's work, but if it lead him to thinking Mutualism was the answer to overthrowing capitalist exploitation his theory was either undeveloped or deeply flawed.
inb4 black flag poster tells me that democratic organization means market pressures no longer exist
I miss when you put actual effort into your posts. We didn't often agree, but at least your weren't just constantly saying stupid shit to rustle someone's jimmies and attention whore. There's too many shitposters and not enough theory on this board these days.
Just like anarchists just call marxists fascists and leave it at that.
Yes, Marx is directly to blame for the mistakes of Lenin, and Stalin, Mao, etc. He wrote the game-plan for all of them :^)
The latter can do the former, yes.
IRC faggotry + power = cancer, who would have thought.
Considering figures like Stalin and Mao there's a little more merit to this than just calling someone babies, which is just an ad hominem.
Funny coincidence that Bakunin was right about Marxism devolving into totalitarianism every time.
It's like maybe he was unto something and the problem is indeed inherent within Marxism itself.
But yeah, it could also be a complete accident.
If you know Marx you probably know Proudhon. Marx only built slightly upon Proudhon to adjust it for industrialism.
The rest was ripped without credit.
please read
It's shitposting when it's theory you don't like?
Black flag poster is wrong for a variety of reasons I don't want to get into right now because I'm on mobile.
In short, you can't reform away the basic logic of the system. It's flawed at a much more basic level than he seems to be aware.
Just.
Let me remind you that we're obviously talking about a post-capitalist society here.
One where the bourgeois class has been abolished.
What is being proposed is not social democracy.
I said I preferred it when he actually posted his opinions seriously even when we disagreed, right before that. Lrn2read.
It's just a little funny to complain about lack of theory in a thread about theory.
yeah, I mean those socialist sports threads and "lol stirnir wuz spugged" threads in the catalog are just memes!
Only guy who knows his shit ITT
And?
Market pressures don't change just because you've given the bourgeoisie the boot.
So are you just memeing by turning the "anarchists have no theory" thing back at us or do you really get all your knowledge of socialism from reading internet articles? If so, I'd suggest actually reading Marx.
Bakunin is the reason most anarchists would rather destroy socialism than see a revolution that differs even slightly from their ideal succeed. Peasants and workers rising up, destroying the old society, and seizing production for themselves, you hate all of this. This is why there can be no solidarity between us, it's entirely the fault of anarchists. We may have criticisms of Catalonia for example, but we don't openly denounce the sacrifice of the syndicalists there even if it was short-lived, un-democratic, and economically unsuccessful.
To be sure, you haven't proven this, and neither did he. I'm really happy that you guys have abandoned the old argument about Marx organizing a global Zionist-Communist conspiracy and all but just repeating "state=tyranny" for a century and a half hasn't convinced anyone.
So your definition of post-capitalist is just when a firm has a lot of shareholders, rather than a few? Don't be naive. Mutualism retains all the same basic functions of bourgeois society.
No, it will give workers slightly higher wages than that for sure. But it's not a substantial change in the system of production.
...
Do you actually think Proudhon advocated for this?
The question here is that you're assuming the logic of capitalism would exist outside of capitalism. It's incoherent, bub. If we don't have capitalists and capitalist forms of ownership, then obviously even the markets would behave differently.
No, I'm aware Proudhon's ideas were more complicated than what the average market socialist weenies come up with. I was directly replying to what that poster said, he implied an absence of bourgeois ownership is enough to destroy the capitalist system itself.
Would it not be the case that without private ownership over the means of production that whatever system comes up would in fact not be capitalism? It may not be socialism… But it would be post-capitalist if it no longer has a defining characteristic of capitalism.
Yes, but this can only be accomplished by common ownership of all means of production. Democracy within a firm is insufficient. As long as a group of people have monopolized the use of a firm to use it against others it still functions as private property.
The idea of self-exploitation doesn't make sense to me. Who is extracting the surplus value? How is it coercive?
I actually read Proudhon's "System of Economical Contradictions" e.g. The Philosophy of Poverty at the beginning of the year. It's filled with weird metaphysical notions trying to get across the idea that the notion of [Feuerbach's?] God is necessary for Political Economy and all other social sciences.
In the chapter on monopoly Proudhon seems to believe in and use Say's law - nullifying all his argument for me.
Say's law is obviously false in a monetary economy i.e. if supply did create its own demand then there is no problem of insufficient effective demand and overproduction therefore no economic crisis’s should ever develop. Proudhon didn't understand the role of effective demand, prices, and investments play in a credit based economy.
This may be a bit to ask for, but if you have a reference to where Proudhon used Say's law I'd appreciate it.
No, quite clearly Marxists have theory; what I am posing is that anarchists don't need him, because his contributions were to minor that what we loose by having to associate with him doesn't outweight what is gained from using his analysis for what it is.
Rather, anarchists can simply rip-off his contributions and give him no credit, just like he did to Proudhon.
I would say that all Marxist revolutions have differed more than *slightly* from the ideal, primarily in being closer to chattel slavery than actual socialism. Such is not temporary "small" hang-ups.
So indeed, if you consider there socialism, yes, I want to destroy socialism. If the road to totalitarianism is supposed to be the road to socialism, then I will oppose it at all costs.
And I agree.
The sooner you guys stop poisoning the leftist well and come out for the red fascists you are, the better.
It is true that in a philosophical sense, constant conjunction does not equal causation.
However, if we're to follow such philosophical doctrines, science (which socialism is supposed to be) is impossible.
I would say after 80+ experiments we get a pretty good indication of the direction a certain methodology goes in.
In this case Marxism devolved into authoritarianism every time, consistently, many times.
I think it is fair to say that the hypothesis is disproven.
Forgetting for a second that it would be nothing like having more share-holders because shares can be bought, sold and speculated upon, relations to the means of production within the work-place matters. If there are no workers and owners, but only worker-owners, then it is not capitalism.
Papa Marx would have agreed.
On individual ownership (which is marked by a worker-owner) of the means of production.
"The means of production and subsistence, while they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital. They only become capital under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as means of exploitation of, and domination over, the worker." When the producer owns his "conditions of labour" and "employs that labour to enrich himself instead of the capitalist" then it is an economic system "diametrically opposed" to capitalism. Capital 1: 938, 931
Under your logic the individual worker-owner would be a capitalist; Marx demonstrates that he would not be.
Thus a mode of production with worker-owners would indeed be post-capitalism, as it has transcended class-struggle something that marks capitalims.
Indeed it is! It respects personal initiative and workerplace-democracy, but it also uses the very mechanisms that capitalism uses right now and used in the past to shift the relationship of constant capital versus variable capital in the direction of more variable, thus either stabilizing the rate of profits, or pushing it up again.
This was another thing Marx was totally wrong on.
Capitalism can sustain itself through a succesion of Busts, New Deals, and Booms. As nightmarish as it sounds.
Thus the problems of capitalism have been abolished, save for the need to work itself; this, however, would come in time and technology develops and human input becomes less and less necessary, WHILE STILL protecting the individual's right to property, liberty and democracy.
Yet you're totally fine with the meme when it's not directed at yourself. Also dat projection about bookwaving
Yeah I'm sure if they let you keep trying a few more hundred times you'll succeed eventually.
I thought you read Marx? Inb4 leninist/maoist revisionism
Maybe try asking instead of telling people what they do not like.
Are "bullets" called "criticisms" now?
Great non-argument
Ah so you're an idiot. Glad I got so far through your post before realizing that.
Of course you would think that if you believe mutualism is capitalism with more shareholders(?)
haha benises
Nice meme.
The year is 1940.
I am arrested because I have written forbidden books, expressing forbidden ideas.
I don't get to defend myself in front of a jury of peers and I am summarily executed.
Am I in Italy, Spain, Germany or Russia?
Gotcha covered famalamaonichan
I love it when ML's get btfo
saved
B-But it's not real Marxism!
Looks like someone read too much Orwell bullshit.
...
Lol that's it
...
Russian government partly opened soviet archives, faggot. Do you think top-secret documents of the time were propaganda too?
...
...
We all can play that game, anarchokiddies.
Name one thing anarchists have to apologize for
Someone has been reading too much Solzhenitsyn…
THERE WAS NO CENSORSHIP
EVERYONE JUST HAPPENED TO AGREE WITH STALIN ALL THE TIME BECAUSE HE WAS SO KIND AND GREAT!
Don't put words in my mouth.
There was censorship, but it was in the form of "we're not gonna publish your bullshit, go cry in the corner"
You hate that, don't you.
Fixed that for you.
...
Off the top of my head, anarchists in Spain reported communists in Franco's dictatorship and also fought against them in the civil war. Of course, all of them were executed the very same day they in which they got reported.
You like to read a nazi paid by the USA to spread his word? Sure, go ahead.
The spanish May Days is a really bad example
en.wikipedia.org
BECAUSE THE WITH THE BOURGEOIS LIBERALS IN ORDER TO ATTACK THE ANARCHISTS!
*The Stalinists sided with
Are you some butthurt russian retard? Go back to sucking that putin cock, he will make mother russia great again.
Not just in spain
literally everywhere in Europe ML's were siding with liberals and conservatives
If I were to gather people of all political orientations into a room and explain to them my ideal state would be organized along of lines of a modernized Athenian-type democracy with common ownership and control of production, only the anarchists would call me a fascist. I don't know what it is about anarchism that attracts them but these people ITT seriously sound insane right now, their posts are totally indistinguishable from the anti-communism of Holla Forums.
tfw when nice thread devolves into tankie vs. anarchy bullshit.
Adios amigos.
...
No.
The anarchists would, rightly, point out that what you're advocating is not a state but a federation.
Maybe because we're both criticising leninism, a.k.a. not communism
don't kys fam
And anarchists sided with counter-revolutionaries who were suspected to be nazis.
Wew lad, we sure have to thank the anarchists for easing the work for Franco. By the way, what about the reports?
oh boy here we go
You might be russian nationalist for posting russian memes.
I'm equating you with russian nationalists for using the same types of arguments.
Oh. You mean the Trots?
What, because some people testified they were under kangaroo courts?
"On April 25 a force of Carabineros under the Pro-Stalin Finance Minister, Juan Negrín, took over the customs house at Puigcerdà on the French border [5] killing the anarchist mayor, Antonio Martin, and three of his comrades. After this, the violence flared up along the entire border, the CNT, determined to maintain antifascist unity, reacted to these provocations with disciplined restraint, confining themselves to self-defence"
Clearly, it was the anarchists who made it easy for Franco…
Clearly…
If its true, understandable after the May Days.
It wouldn't be a state in the traditional sense but it would still be a central political authority that claims monopoly on violence over a given territory for the purpose of managing class affairs. Is that your anarchy?
Leninism just means doing whatever is necessary to win. There is no such thing as a Leninist model for an economy, party, or state no matter how many times you insist there is. But go on, mention vanguardism again so you can embarrass yourselves, as if you haven't done that enough already.
W E W
From when russian nationalists defend SU? Last I remember, they were full of shit even more than you.
Muh evil commies disrupted natural course of history, and that's why russia is such a shithole.
Is association with said organization free? Is it top-down?
When did anarchists aggress against Marxists?
That's some real nice revisionism right there.
The communists alongside the liberals, seized several collectivised workplaces (starting with the barcelona telephone exchange) after wich CNT members were understandably incensed. Only after the fights broke out did the POUM really decide to side with the anarchists. The POUM never had a part in the orignal catalyst.
It was the communists, allied with liberals who began counterrevolutionary practice in catalunya.
Teehee
Notice the degeneration of the tankie brain, incapable of grasping any concept of analogy
okay yeah lol
tankies are counterrevolutionary anywhere
the reason I'm not on Holla Forums more often. Ivans are all over the internet spewing their propaganda. At Holla Forums they invoke racism. At Holla Forums the invoke nostaligic communism. I'll be a lefty, but I'm not fighting your geo-political battles for you you Paid Putin Prostitute.
FTFY
Sure sounds like communism to me!
Maybe because Lenin had no fucking theory and just invented shit to justify his actions
Meh.
Holla Forums has gotten pretty /anarcho/ recently.
There was no analogy you retard.
You literally said that i use the same kind of arguments as russian nationalists use, which is bullshit.
Same KIND of arguments. Not the SAME arguments. Jesus.
Point is, i'm not using even the same KIND of arguments, because i'm arguing entirely different point than russian nationalists.
These are both the same kind of argument (ad hominem) but they argue in opposite directions. Clear?
You don't know what you're talking about.
...
Reminder
It doesn't seem that unreasonable.
How the fuck did you graduate highschool
Surely they taught you english classes
bemp
Dude, I love Proudhon, but remember that Marx's critique of bourgeois economics in Capital was so devastating that the neoclassical school had to be invented.
We can acknowledge Proudhon's contributions while recognizing that Marx built on and expanded them.
The socialist project is a collective effort silly
Maybe Marx could have given just a little credit then?
Its sad that you have to be so fucking disingenuous and pretend that state capitalism is Marxism.
Dear lord the shitposting is strong.
...
Shitcunts like these people should just stay on their own board instead of sowing discord on Holla Forums between marxists and anarchists.
They are more destructive to Holla Forums than the retarded tankies and I fucking hate the tankies.
Also why is it that these people think that all marxists are tankies?
Cambodia under Pol Pot was marxism too :^)
Can you mention an instance of Marxism not devolving into authoritarianism?
No.
Then perhaps a leninist take-over is indeed inherent to Marxism.
USSR told its satellite states that state capitalism was socialism, that is not Marxism devolving into authoritarianism.
Or inherent to the USSR being a imperialist asshole or just derivatives of Leninism or Leninism itself.
...
What about the USSR itself? What about PRC, which was not a USSR satillite?
It's a little funny how it just can't be systematic, but you'll still accept that AnCapism can't lead to statelessness.
this
Took some ideas from Leninism, the rest of it was "Chinese characteristics". Come on now, this is just as bad as saying that Junche is socialism or Marxism.
kill yourself fam
Marx pretty much ripped off everyone and tacked "muh revolution" on the end. its what jews do. they're coopters and scammers