Marx is a Poor Man's Proudhon

Apex kek

Oh look, it's another useless poser trying to look radical while attempting to avoid scaring the bourgeoisie with big bad Marx.>>857511

Marx is outdated in today's advanched capitalism.

Later in his life he gave up on politics all together. That does not mean that he changed his philosophical leanings, he just gave them up all together.

You're the one who claimed that Joseph-Pierre "Property is Theft" Proudhon was a defender of private property, which indicates that you have never in your life read A system of economic contractictions.

No.
Fucking read the OP. Most, if not all of those things, Proudhon wrote about and indeed other wrote about it even before him.

So again, while Marxism is economic reductionism that has failed 30+ times, yet still claims to be science, perhaps those parts of the hypothesis that do not line up with the fact should be discarded, primarily the material laid forth by Marx.

And Proudhon isn't???

...

Mommy, daddy, please don't fight.

tbh Proudhon kinda sucks along with most classical anarchists. I can at least appreciate the complexity of Marxian political economy and its critique of capital, even though I'm not a Marxist.

Situationists are the legit heirs of Marxism tho. They fucking knew.

...

Go fetishize Kurdish women somewhere else faggot.

This is why the left will never win. Fucking sectarianism.

Can't we just all agree that Capitalism is bad and save these petty disagreements for when we are actually relevant?

So we ally ourselves with Fascists who think that capitalism is bad too?

Cancer? You're the one shitting up random threads with sectarian bullshit.

wew

Last I checked, fascists didn't mind Capitalism.

Proudhon's apathy is irrelevant. Nobody is apolitical, to claim such is a cowardly retreat. Proudhon still had many followers well into the 1860's and in the International, most of them, naturally as a result of Proudhon's stances, saw their main goal as nothing more than the reduction of credit rates. This was Proudhon's fault, it is unfortunate Marx could not win him over to a more radical position.

Standard illiteracy disguised as literacy, I sincerely doubt you've read any of those yourself. Yes, as pointed out above Proudhon was a firm defender of the existing social order, even Kropotkin noted as much in The Conquest of Bread. It's hardly any great secret.

Read Marx.

Has Proudhon's contributions been unfairly ignored by marxists? Yes

Did Proudhon ever write anything that thoroughly BTFO'd bourgeois economics in the way Capital did? No

His influence on Marx is understated, but Marx did not simply copy his ideas: he improved and expanded them

...

This

enjoy your cottage industry

I wish to get rid of all forms of domination. This means that I have as much reason to ally myself with and trust facists, ancaps and Marxists?

Why am I not supposed to equally trust those who wish to abolish capitalism, but not the state, and those who want to abolish the state but not capitalism

His will was broken after isolation and torture. He believed at that point that revolution was impossible and so he did not actively engage in politics anymore, possibly because of post-traumatic stress or depression.

First it was private property, now it's "the existing social order".
It's like you know you're full of shit and so therefore you're moving the goalposts.

I'm not sure if there's a point in refuting someone who claims that P.J. "property is theft" Proudhon was in favor of private property.

lmfao, I don't really agree with Marxists on a lot of stuff and don't trust the authoritarian variants, but this was a Holla Forums-tier statement

I'm pretty sure this guy fails to realize that Marxism isn't the same thing as Marxism-Leninism.

This is your brain on contrarianism.

Marxism effectively preserved civilization and prevented democracy from rising when it could easily have been dismanteled by the people. This is what shares with fascism and why any democratic movenent has as much interest in cooperating with Marxists as they do in cooperating with fascists and AnCaps

Marxism-Leninism is the natural consequence of Marxism, just as Fascism is the natural consequence of globalist capitalism. It's civilization in crisis.

That's fine by me. Democracy is shit.

Though not letting the Soviets organize on their own without a Party representative was def a dick move.

fam read Debord

Someone post that screencap of how Marx stole everything from Proudhon and Bakunin

Please kill yourself or crawl back to the IRC

Wow, you really are Holla Forums-tier ignorant.

This is a bad thing? What's wrong with civilization?

inb4 primitivism

...

liberal detected

Please name all those briliant examples of Marxism not eventually degenerating into authoritarian hellholes.

Because civilization is the opposity of democracy and society. It is domination, theft and hierarchy. It is the state, it is theorcracy, it is master and slave morality and the lack of authority in the hands of the individual.

The problem is not neceissary just with capitalism or even private property, but with domination and civilization itself.

Is saying that capitalism eventually leads to fascism or imperialism a slippery slope too?

Like who?
SocDems, who are pretty much a conscious rejection of Marx?

Yes, because Marx's criticism of capitalism was quite decisive, and the current day neoliberal nightmare is a result of a refusal to consider ANYTHING he has ever writte.

Yeah, seems like a liberal with delusions of radicalism who is butthurt at people in the IRC

...

...

I don't think you're a shill, I just think you're an ignorant kid parroting the same kind of anti-Marxist bullshit that actual bourgeois shills do.

Yeah. I'm curious as well. Unless I'm supposed to think that Lenin was a radical departure from Marx.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxemburgism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism

Need I continue?

Please name

1. A place any of those movements took power
2. It didn't eventually degenerate into either normal capitalism or an authoritarian hellhole

you should read this article from Bookchin's favorite anarchist Bob Black :^^^^^)

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-debunking-democracy

Fug, the latter part was for this post

What libertarian socialist movement ever took power and didn't either fall or regress back into Capitalism?

I don't know if I would call it so much as a radical departure as much as a change of emphasis (critique of capitalism v. how a revolutionary party is to gain power)

You're moving goalposts.
I didn't mention anything about "fall", because to be fair, I wouldn't necessarily hold that Spartacists could be used as evidence that Marxism degenerates into authoritarianism, because they fell fairly quickly.

However, all Marxists movements that actually made it, did.

But to answer the question:

Makhnovtchina
The Democratic Confederalists
The CNT/FAI
The Mazdaki religious movement
The Ikko Ikki

But the thing is, them not falling is kinda important for them being, you know, successful. Besides, no anarchist movement has actually 'taken power' either. They have never actually won a civil war.

Yeah. I was agreeing with you, friend.

Also should we really be pretending that Luxemburg and the situationists, etc were as influential as Marxism-leninism vanilla was?

Wow, that's a great argument.
I can use the same arguement to argue that liberalism is clearly the best ideology because all other ideologies have fallen to it, and that's even ignoring how hillariously ineffcient Marxists have been historically at administrating warfare, even with professional armies, numerical superiority and a huge industrial machine behind them.

Oh shit, I know you.

You're that preachy anarkiddie who got laughed out of the IRC.

But the liberals were successful. That's my point. No socialist movement has ever succeeded, whether Marxist-Leninist, Anarchist, or whatever denomination you prefer. If you judge ideologies based on their success rate, then you will inevitably come to the conclusion that Liberalism is the superior ideology, because they're the one we have now. But we all know that that's false, hence why we're on Holla Forums.

This. These shitposting arguments about which socialist tendency failed the most gracefully are petty as fuck and useless.

smh fucking read Nihilist Communism

I don't know who you think I am or why you think I am on the IRC.

That's also my fucking point.
If ideologies are to be determined by whether or not there were regimes behind them hostorically to back them up, then clearly liberalism is the superior ideology which is why the argument you were present was pretty irrelevant or at least unreflected.

Wait, so you're deriding marxists because their theories inevitably turn into state capitalism (marxism-leninism) and fail, say that more libertarian forms of marxism aren't relevant because they failed, but anarchism is somehow relevant despite having never formed a stable government?

Sources:

I didn't know Rosa Luxembourg was an ML

>theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-debunking-democracy
So, what type of system does Nihilist communism use to form decisions if it's not democracy?

Some anarchists don't refer consensus based dedication making as an actual form of democracy because it's ahistorical.

No I quite clearly differntiated between being eliminated through military conquest and degenerating into authoritarianism.
What I pointed out is that in all cases that have been even relatively sucessful, Marxism has degenerated into authoritarianism, whereas Anarchism hasn't.

So what about the libertarian marxists, then? They were taken down by force, just like anarchists.

Again, all demonstrations of Marxism have lead to totalitarianism, even the non-leninist ones.
The Anarchists ones at least existed long enough to demonstrate that this was not quite the same issue for them.

wew. great red herring when the alternative (minorities) aren't always right either.

7. Majority rule is not even what it purports to be: it rarely means literally the majority of the people. [31]

this isn't something solved by any other system either. What in the fuck.

that's not direct democracy jesus christ.

Did he even bother to pay attention to what in the hell he was talking about or did he just decide to wax on about anti-democratic sentiment without ever bothering to read what the hell he was writing?

This whole paper is retarded, I can find glaring error after glaring error even with a basic skimming through of it, and you should feel ashamed for bringing it up.

I am not following your logic. You just said yourself that success-rate doesn't mean much in determining how good it actually is, since that's really just determined by how many guns you have, but you vehemently deny that libertarian marxism is relevant because they all failed, despite the fact that they failed because the current regime had more guns than them.

This is what we here in Holla Forums call…

No, I've said that all branches of Marxism have descended into authoritarianism, which means that while it is an assumption, it is a very reasonable assumtion to assume that even libertarian Marxism would do the same, given enough time.
That is because even libertarian Marxism, like Marx, seeks to utilize and preserve the state, that like all power can accumulate dominance and conoslidate its own power even further.

Well, that and how efficiently you use guns, which anarchists uniformily have proven themselves better at.

This is part of the reason I hate post-left anarchism. Particularly striking is the "preference" argument and conformity. Living in community with others necessarily means that you're going to have to give an inch. I don't understand his sort of thinking that individuals should never compromise, when in another argument he says part of the problem with democracy is that it goes against the community by only allowing certain people to vote.

You haven't even attempted to show HOW Marxism 'inevitably' descends into authoritarianism. You're literally just repeating tired old capitalist cliches.

Try making an argument in this form so people understand where you're coming from :^)

Proposition 1
Proposition 2
…etc…
Conclusion

It has in every case.
The reason is that Power likes to centralize.
When Power arises in priesthoods it eventually centralizes further into monotheism under a church that in many cases eventually becomes them basis of a state.

The same goes with Marxism. Marx himself allows for Power and domination. While he rejects domination in the workplace, he has no problem with domniation of the state itself, na dit is this domination and Power than has been able to centralize and consodilate power than inherently have done so every time.

That's kind of the rub, I guess, and I'm sure this post will sound like a copout for cashing out a rigorous programme that post-left anarchists and nihilists, insurrectionists, egoists, etc. would advocate. Monsieur Dupont in Nihilist Communism straight up says that anarchists have been just as much vanguardists as Marxists, even if they try to disavow it with shit like their appeals to democracy. Engels ironically was right to say that anarchists are secretly authoritarians, even if he displayed little to no understanding of classical anarchism. And better yet was Bakunin's idea of the "secret dictatorship", which again ironically is actually a great example of what anarchism actually advocates. Or maybe what it should, at least.

I think that you could argue, honestly, that the sort of thing that post-left anarchists and nihilists etc. advocate for is similar to vanguardism - though with the insistence on respecting peoples' autonomy and individuality and all that shit. I think that it's useful to look to Nietzsche for an idea of what it means to be critical of democracy while still being an anarchist. We don't intend to lower ourselves to the rabble, yet also don't wish to be condescending. What we expect from everyone is that they will walk their own tightrope. We can only show them the way.

The thing is though that nihilists, post-left anarchists, etc. all are critical of the idea of a worker-lead mass movement to begin with. Dupont in Nihilist Communism makes the argument that we revolutionaries are irrelevant to what leads up to a revolution, because the logic of capital doesn't really give a fuck about ideology or politics. We've seen how easily capital can recuperate any emancipatory struggles back into itself, because capitalism is brutish and logical system at its core. So at the end of the day it's up to the workers to simply push their self-interest more and more until capitalism reaches its breaking point. That's when revolutionaries will step in to lead things, and I guess that's where I would maybe imagine a nihilist or a post-left anarchist saying that we ought to essentially have a secret dictatorship that Bakunin talked about. We want to be able to guide people, but also not be under the liberal delusion that democracy is the best system and that everyone is an equal and special snowflake.

This is just my own answer to the question though. It's sort of open-ended, and really as a nihilist I don't think that it's all that important to imagine from within capitalism what will happen after capitalism. We can speculate, but it is the nature of revolutions to not be conditioned by the past but rather to be a wholly original Event (in the sense Badiou uses it). And really, as far as I'm concerned, we can't really trust ourselves, having been raised and conditioned by capitalism, to give an accurate picture of what things would look like after a revolution. Hence why I'm a nihilist and believe that what matters most of all to us is the pure negation of the existent by any means possible

But it hasn't. You just handwaved away examples of when it didn't.

Is Bob Black not post-left?

Those that didn't were those that never achieved power, or are SocDem "revisionists" which don't count as marxist to most marxists

I'm just now realizing that I misinterpreted your post. oops

What examples?
Can you name any examples of Marxism not centralizing power and degenerating into authoritarianism?
Would that not at least lend *some* creedence that Power itself seems to consolidate?

I think the discussion is heavily muddied by different uses of the word "democracy". Bob Black on the one hand notes that Proudhon criticized democracy, but he also argued in favor of federation which I'm not so sure that people today wouldn't identify as democracy of sorts.

Hate is a strong word btw. I hate egoists definitely. I don't necessarily hate nihilists, post-leftists and so on – I just don't see the appeal.

The Spartacists, as someone else already said. But you said they don't count because they where supressed(like every anarchist movement ever), and that they probably would have become authoritarian if they did last. In other words, you handwaved the example away.

At this point, I think you're just too thick to realize that you aren't even debating in good faith.

Why would you hate yourself, my property?

I just want to add on to this that the problem with listing libertarian Marxists tendencies in the first place is that they haven't actually been tested (AFAIK), so on top of not being as historically relevant as standard Marxism-Leninism or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, it also can't be used for argumentation purposes because we don't know one way or the other for sure how exactly they would behave in practice. We can only know for sure what every other tendency of Marxism has done in power and assume it holds true for the ones that haven't had their time in the light.

And how long did spartacist praxis exist?
Anything close to three years?

This.
It *is* an assumption that spartacism would also decend into authoritarianism, but seeing as every other branch of Marxism, including the non-lenininist once, have centralizied and become authoritarian, it's a pretty reasonable assumption.

I don't agree with the idea that people do or should only act in their self-interest.

So you're guessing. You don't know. Just like you don't know if anarchism can last in the long term.

Now, in Marxist theory, a state is part of a superstructure designed to support the economic system (in our history, Capitalism and Feudalism) and legitimise them. To put it in anarchist terms, the state exists to protect private property. That is the reason it exists.

However, the relation between the economic system and the superstructue is dialectic, which means they both affect each other; the economic system influences the superstructure and the superstructure influences the economic system. This is the crux of Marx' argument. The state has the power to dismantle the economic system and form a new one. All it requires is that we take control of the state and start fundamentally changing the system.

Furthermore, because the nature of the state is dependent on the economic system, who is to say that socialism would not create a better state?

So why did the Soviet Union fail? Because of the age-old anarchist argument: they were State Capitalist. In order to dismantle the economic system, they decided that they had to take full control over it, after which they could begin the necessary reforms. Lenin himself admitted that what they had was State Capitalism.

So what happened? Lenin died and Stalin took his place. The Soviet Union hadn't managed to dismantle the economic system (that shit takes time, yo), but rather than admit that was the case and keep cracking, Stalin went to the Soviet people and announced "congratulations! We have achieved Communism." And so the means of achieving the end, became the end itself. Fin.

So what did we learn from the Soviet Union? Don't stop half way. Also, that State Capitalism may not be the best way to dismantle Capitalism.

Finally, the state is not the only way of changing the economic system. The superstructure consists of everything not related to production, including culture, education, technology, and they all have potential for causing change. Marxism does not exclude grassroots movements.

And what does all this mean in terms of your argument?
1: We are not even close to exhausting the ways of using the state. We have pretty much only tried one way (two if you include Yugoslavia, and that actually worked pretty well).
2: Marxism isn't just the state
3: I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm literally playing devil's advocate based off whatever scraps of information I've googled and talks from people much more well read than me. I really need to read Marx one day.
So in conclusion: Read Marx.

Then you're delusional. It's impossible to act in anyone else's interests, unless it is your interest to do so/

...

It is, like most political and philosophical positions, an assumption.
I have put up a hypothesis that fits pretty neatly with the data. As all Marxist experiments have become authoritarian, there is at least some evidence that these marxist experiemnts would be the same.

And the experiments of the past shows that he was wrong. If anything it was much closer to a part of the base. That is anything "the base" is not so much economic, as it is about hierarchy and Power itslef. That if socialism is a science then we have to acknowlege this and adjust the hypothesis accordingly, rather than just do the same thing over and over, like it was religious dogma.

And this is why we have all the reason to expect that Marxism will repeat that the same mistakes of the past, and why they're as reliable allies as say, fascists or AnCaps.
They still embrace domination, which is the true base in the dialectic.

oh shit they know

I just see it as a system that doesn't take into account any real moral obligations. I don't see why acting in my self-interest is the right thing to do if at the same time it goes against another egoist who is also acting in his interest. We can't both be right. And if literally everything I do is selfish even when it's done for someone else, then the word loses its meaning and we're not even talking about the same thing.

That's because there is no such thing as an objective "right". Whether you are right or wrong is reasoning you invent in your own head. You behave in your own interests not because it is moral, but because that is what it means to act. You are the source of your own actions. If you choose to do something for someone else, it is still you who chooses it, because you want to.

TL;DR stop being so spooked fam

Anarchist states did the same thing. Had secret police, work camps. In the other thread thats up, it's pointed out political dissent was even banned. as well as having hygienic standards to be met.

Anarchist were as authoritarian as they could be while still maintaining the label of anarchist.

To this I also like to point out that a revolution is one of the most authoritarian acts one can partake in.

Also yes, domination is the true base(and the basis of the superstructure) but as pointed out, domination is dialectic. I hardly consider domination of the working class, even if it is to be through a state, to be a hinderance rather than a blessing.

My assumption based on looking as past anarchist experiments is that they are authoritarian(and would continue to be so if they lasted more than 5 years-see point two), and fall quickly. At least the anarcho-nihilist admits this, and his theories seem a lot more intellectually honest than the sectarian shit-flinging you've been preaching the entire thread, expecting Marxist to admit defeat without having to critically analyze any of the "real world examples of anarchism" anarchist hold up themselves.

I see you have the YPG flag, but I would hardly call Rojava "stateless", and I don't think the social trust present in a Kurdish nationalist state would be present in a population as alienated as the United States.

I think you're misguided here. In the case of the USSR, for example. The economic system was tied to the state with the state effectively taking on the role of capitalists. If all the Mops belong to the state, then that's part of the economic system fundamentally as a class – which is already understood to be part of the base of society because it pertains to a relation in the production process.

Wew. Leftcoms usually aren't this lazy.

Yes.
Which demonstrates that as long as there is Power and Hierarchy, it is consoldidate and centralize itself as it has in every single case, further cementing the point that indeed, this tendency is inherent within any system that seems to utilize a hierarchical structure, almost regardless of whether it seeks to abolish the hierarchy in the workplace or not.

Fuck, wrong flag

...

I guess this is what you can expect from people who get their history from Marxist blogs rather than actual history books like this one.

Right. I don't think this is actually the case. I think it's wrong to assume that just because two people disagree on something, then that means that there's no correct answer. I only do something because i choose to do I guess is literally true, but idk what I'm supposed to take away from that. This doesn't even describe what my motivation for acting was in the first place.

Correct answer to what? Every single person has different values, different objectives, different needs and wants. We all make choices to our best ability to meet our own sense of "morality" but who are you to say one person's morality is superior to the other, especially when that "correct" morality comes at the expense of the other's? Who gets to make that call?

We seem to be on the same page. My problem was specifically that we can't assume that the state is part of the base in all cases, since in the case of the USSR it basically hust replaced the capitalists' relation to economic organization.

Correct as in: two people may disagree on whether slavery is right or wrong, but that there is an actual answer. its not just: "well the slave says it's wrong, but his master disagrees."

Would that not make an even stronger point' that it as a part of the base?

sometimes and not necessarily

Then could it not at least be said that the orthodox Marxist interpretation requires revision and that indeed, domination easily plays into the base, historically have always centralized and consolidated power, and thus that the problem might indeed, be inherent to hierarchy itself?

Hmmm… Yes

Real question, how?

Any value judgement you draw from empirical or theoretical examination of it only makes sense when you pick one value system over the other to analyze it in.

Egoism is just another one of those value systems. Maybe we can't know the right thing to do in every scenario. I'm not the one saying it doesn't exist.

Egoism isn't really a "value system" though.

This board sometimes.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding egoism.

It's as much a value system as athiesm is a religion. Which it can sort of be sometimes but regardless

I'm going to link you something really interesting here that I think should help demonstrate the point I'm trying to make. It'll seem kind of unrelated, but it phrases the question of individual values well.
lesswrong.com/lw/ld/the_hidden_complexity_of_wishes/

Much too humanist for my taste, but the dude was a fantastic writer

Why don't you just kill yourself already?

why don't you just become a council communist already?

Both of you need to read Apo

no thanks anone

read
apo

why are you spamming every single thread with this?

my god

Only threads where apo is relevant.
You need apo in your life, you just don't realize it yet

Marxists are breddy fascists tbh