How large is the marxist/anarchist divide and can they ever reconcile...

What if they are Marxist Hegelians like _?

tfw your ideology isn't even internally consistent, let alone consistent with reality

Abstract can also mean not fully formed. Just sayin.

intellectualism must be stopped

Maybe we aren't living in such a dystopia yet, but IdPol ridden Anarkiddies are legitimately sabotaging student groups already.

Just give them some molotovs and send them away, they'll be gone in a week.

Oh, and maybe this is an American thing again, but how the fuck have lolberts and fascists "similarities"? I don't see a single one.

ayncraps and fascists both want to make corporations the government

lolberts don't let their arguements proceed past the first point, they're arguing for corporate tyranny, while being on the surface insisting that they hate corporate tyranny, but all policies under their rule would give the haves even more power over the have-nots.

They don't understand their own economic theory.

The problem is fundamentally that anarchism is retarded.

But AynCraps want the corporations to control the government and fascists want the government to control the corporations. That's quite a big difference.

Agree

God this is so rich coming from an psuedo-Intellectual. Its almost like you are Richard Dawkins who excells at one thing and think he has an actual opinion on a subject where he is greatly ignorant about. I fucking love it when the supposed smart folk make sutch a fool of themselfs without them knowing it.

pretty big which is sad

honestly most of my friends are anarchists and are pretty cool

i dream of a world where the anarchists and tankies and trots all working together

imagine what we could achieve if we were united.

You've got quite the imagination.

...

...

sign.png
also-
sign.png
What is it Marxists don't understand about Hegel and why is Hegel necessarily right

Marxists want to take over the state and pray it doesn't work out as it has countless times in the past. Anarchists understand the state is not going to "wither away", it has to be crushed.

My sides!

Banjo and Kazooie?

Good ol Banjo-Tooie sound track. This is Grunty's Industries perfect theme for the porkies.

Yeah its really good though.

Finally! I was looking for the source of the porky webm music.
What about the mystery porky webm music, though?

Nevermind. Found it.
Normal porky:
youtube.com/watch?v=VJewWtX_JxM

Mystery porky:
youtube.com/watch?v=Vg7yGeySthw

Read "Who thinks abstractly?" by Hegel. It's short and basically written to make fun of you anarkids before you existed.

Far better than most, still wrong from the perspective of theory because they keep trying to derive theory from given experience rather than examining experience and seeing its inner logical development as such. This development does not actually lead us back to experience as such, but creates the foundation of the critique of existing affairs that fail to live up to what they should be.

Misuse dialectics, misunderstand Marx's project, misunderstand Hegel's project, and refuse to be self-critical. Hegel's project is discovering the absolute normative concepts of reality, discovering what things should be. What should things be? Free. Insofar as we find "concepts" (systematic self-determined social relations) which allow for mutual freedom we should aim for such. Marx's conception of human freedom is an attempt to eschew the responsibility of making freedom internally intelligible, and he leaves his project and critique unfinished as a purely negative judgment of what communism should not be, but his basis is a presumption of what humans are. Hegel and Marx are completely at odds on this question, the former thinking a level of alienation necessary and good, the latter claiming all alienation as a blight on the human spirit.

Your lack of self-awareness is amusing

i thought this was the agreement and end goal of communism anyway?

Just because you repeat it doesn't mean it makes any more sense the Nth time you say it.

Mmmmmmmnnno. Anarchism does not entail communism. Communism does entail anarchism, though. A world where material super-production is actual is a world where none has power over another through the threat of losing one's livelihood due to social exclusion.

Communism could exist without FALC my dude
Probably won't though

The lack of self-awareness is amusing.

the divide isn't that clear. There's a lot of divides within marxism as well and some marxists have more in common with anarchists than tankies.

That's pretty misleading tbh

wew. Yep, I'll bet tankiddies have every intent of actually dissolving the state after they seize political and economic power for their little kool kids klub.

I want Useful Idiotfaggots to leave. Leave and never come back.

you are the worst of all namefaggots tbh.

Maybe its more than just one person who is pointing out the fact that you can't see how much of a ass you make of yourself sometimes? It will fall on deaf ears since you always go "everybody else is retarded but me! I can't possibly be retarded!" like the manchild you are anyways.

Anarchism does entail communism. It's the way to reach the state of communism that is disputed. We might agree on the preliminary stages more than I would agree with anarchists, probably much more so, but there seems to be a major desynch on the end goal, here…

Anarchism wants to jumpstart the whole stateless classless society, and immediately just proclaim communism. Other fields of socialist thinking, typically marxist, take the context much heavier into consideration, and have a much heavier emphasis on why the state exists (i.e if you don't remove the reasons for why the state exists, you'll keep re-creating it); but also want, the same outcome…

What is it that you, want? An everlasting transitionary period?

Communism isn't just about social relations, it's about how they are possible. Super-production is a precondition of realized freedom from the tyranny of private property and instrumental labor. Without super-production of goods you're never going to be having free labor as the universal form of human living.

What I want is for you to get a fucking brain.

The lack of self-awareness STILL is amusing

… that was my point.
What I was saying was, your statement of anarchism not including communism, was to me fairly wrong. Different paths towards the state of communism, and I disagree with most (well, almost all) straight up anarchists when it comes on how to reaching, that. I do believe we need gain state power (in most societies in the contemporary world), and to, in a transitionary period, apply the tools of the state to develop and support (after nationalizing, and completely putting under public control all currency creation, and banks, as well as all services that should be considered as services that are necessities and towards the public good) coops and local control of most means of production, but with a heavy focus on setting up a chain of production for all life necessities, funded temporarily by a continuation of taxation (with a hard cap on high wealth, and income past (contextually calculated) a certain level being _100%_ taxed) to directly hire people, communally, by the "state" as it is - under the proletariat control, to labour.

Alongside this, heavy open investment (as in, we invest in this period, change the constitution of whatever country we're in to guarantee this proportion of taxes (temporarily) to be ushered towards it, regardless of which party or politician is in control) in arts, sciences and towards an independent media (funded solely by public taxation).

Gradually put every primary industry under more complete worker control, apply the best technology we are capable of achieving and building to automate as much as possible, put the biggest focus on energy, food, shelter. Etc.

Try to enable, and hopefully create in the future a system which has this working frictionless, while fostering education focusing primarily on research, and societal understanding, as well as engineering in general. Trying to aim for a point where a mixture of both the societal structure, as well as the automation that technology allows, and the education being given freely, leads to a state of… communism. Where communities simply do these things, with minimal required labour, and it is not questioned as a thing ala "What's in it, for me.".

What's your plan?

The real question is, can I call myself a Marxian anarchist without pissing off both sides? I bet the answer is no.

Probably shit on someone's lawn

You can most certainly call yourself a marxist anarchist. Applying the marxist analysis of capitalism, doesn't really apply how you would go about achieving a state of communism. Marx had his own views, that I'd be much more prone to agree with than probably your views, but analysing capitalism via the terminology created by Marx doesn't dictate anything whatsoever in regards to where you want to go, from there.

If you want to just crush the state, though, and go "Voila, Communism!", be prepared for me to call you an idiot.

Nah, I think abolishing the state is a gradual process, in line with the DemCons, hence my flag. But I also still agree with the anarchist principle of abolishing all unnecessary/illegitimate hierarchy. I suppose all of this would put me closer to left communism though.

Leftcoms are more concerned with abolishing the value-form than hierarchy, and work. How the hell we'll end abstract labor and surplus value is an open question, however, seeing how the complex division of labor (how we work) would be the main barrier.

You are hilariously full of shit, the fact that you even said means that you haven't read much Marxists at all, especially leftcoms, and neo/post-marxist.
Wow, what a true philosopher right there!
What is even more offensive is you have stated in the past that Hegel is quite clear in what he says(ignoring the fact that he is notoriously difficult to understand) when the only "understanding" of Hegel you spew is of 2nd hand interpretations that conform to a certain bias, while also completely underestimating how (naively put)philosophers can affirm, negate or transform a previous philosopher’s ideas at the same time.

Also please stop pretending that you are an authority figure on Hegel and dialectics when you have only been reading Hegel for a year without reading organon, heraclitus and the prior idealist works that lead up to Hegel, which is the bare minimum of anyone who seriously studies him.

Speaking as someone who respects left-coms, that's one compliment that goes too far.

Thank you for writing a whole lot of
←

...

You know, you should follow your own flag advice.

How about instead of namedropping you point out what he's actually getting wrong.

AW has read Hegel and other German Idealists directly.

Heraclitus isn't an idealist by the way.

I just noticed your dumb-as-fuck rant at the bottom of your post.

kek

You have no idea how Hegel writes or argues, don't you? Reading prior philosophers elucidates more of Hegel's specific insights and critiques of them, they negatively elucidate Hegel's own positions by contrast, not by positive insight. If you read Hegel you wouldn't be so stupid as to make such ridiculous claims about the necessary conditions for the comprehension of Hegel (and Marx).

I've gotten actual professors who are experts on Hegel call my article about it one of the best introductory elucidations of dialectics they've ever read. Eat that, you bookless fuck.

Also, Marxists and anarchists will never recover from the divide because in order to do so they need to recover from being fucking Marxists and anarkiddies.

Just because there is no better flag to use for Transhumanism. I'd use technocracy but I fucking hate people who claim to be "technocrats" so I'm stuck with this shitty anarchist flag.

an anarkiddie literally reduced our college socialist group from like 20 to 5 by saying in a public debate that our plan was to arm the homeless. and they were one of the ones who left too.

Threadly reminder that replying to A.W. only inflates his cancerous ego and as such should be avoided at all costs.

Marxism has always resulted in social democracy, before eventually degenerating into full blown neo-liberalism. Anarchism as a term has been taken over by lifestylists, and anarchist projects usually end up getting repressed by a mix of Marxists and Fascists. A pure dogmatic adherence to either is just dooming yourself to repeating the mistakes of the past. We need to look beyond both anarchism and marxism, and form a new theory concerning the failings and triumphs of both.

What would I 'recover' into from being a marxist, exactly?

You seem to be missing all of labor history from your memory that includes actual killings by state authorities of those that opposed the capitalist state.

"Hey, those sellouts, after killing off the real left, totally are the left now, look - it totally always turns into neo-liberalism! That dude wearing that other guy's face, after he cut it off and stapled it to himself, is totally the same guy."

The group of Marxists that did have a successful revolution ended up turning into an authoritarian socdem state.

Why not just run scared with your fingers in your ears?

Ultras will never make sense. At the very least capitalists and socdems who hate the Soviet Union realize that it wasn't a social democracy.

And the most notable anarchist revolution resulted in fascism.

...

...

wew lad

See

fucking sockdems, defend the ultra form

Kinda agree, even though saying that marxism degenerates into social democracy isn't accurate; it's the communist movement that degenerates. Marxism itself is merely the "science" of society.

Remember Stalin's patriotic capitalists?

Did not say he was, read closely.
I highly doubt that is the case, especially judging from what he posts, one good look of his reddit account is all you need to get a good idea of what he has read, he says so himself.

I'm not even sure what to say anymore, but the fact that you believe Hegel is a not a idealist but a materialist is illuminating enough really. That might be fine and all, but just don't call the vast majority that disagrees with you wrong.

Okay I'm listening, which professors might I ask?

And yet you're a total retard if you can't get Descartes on his own, just saying. Individual intelligibility and historical context aren't exclusively tied as a single moment, you moron.

you don't develop value-free production in one state and if you think that the Soviet Union and its Nomenklatura were on the path of "developing" (as if socialism was just another policy introduced by the state) you really know nothing about the economy of the Soviet Union and how it developed over the course of time.

Can you explain what in particular was not socialist?

Nice attempt, sadly you forgot that Hegel is not the father of modern western philosophy Rene Descartes.

They are quite different, Descartes broke with Aristotelian philosophy which was dominant at the time he was around and laid the foundations for modern western philosophy where as Hegel on the other hand built his work off other German Idealists.

Still waiting on the names of the professors that have considered your article to be "one of the best introductory elucidations of dialectics they've ever read".

He's referring at least to Sadler's praising comment on his blog piece on that very same blog site and shown as well through Twitter.

But Sadler is not even an expert in Hegel however he does have videos on Hegel due to him being an educator, Hegel is not even considered one of Sadler's influences on his own goodreads account.

Also while Sadler does have a doctorate he is not a professor, so I don't think A.W. was talking about Sadler but I will be very disappointed if he was or worse if he was lying about actual professors who specialise in Hegelian thought stating that his article was "one of the best introductory elucidations of dialectics they've ever read".

Ich gebe zu, mich manchmal sehr verschwurbelt ausgedrückt zu haben, was ich zumindest im Teil damit zu entschuldigen glauben könne, dass mir mein Leben lang die Zensoren im Rücken waren. Meine Bemerkung über abstrakte Denker bezieht sich im wesentlichen auf einen einfach gestrickten Menschenschlag, den man insbesondere aber nicht ausschließlich unter den obrigkeitstreuen Konservativen ausmachen kann; was nicht schwer zu erkennen sein sollte, wenn man die Bemerkung denn gelesen hat. (Eine Meinung zu bilden zu einem Text, basierend auf purer Vorstellung davon, was wohl in dem Text drin sei, ohne den auch nur übeflogen zu haben, ist selbst für mich zu viel Idealismus.) Das Beispiel mit dem Mörder könnte klarer nicht sein. Ein Mörder mag vielerlei Qualitäten haben, er mag auch schön und intelligent sein, aber für manche ist er eben ein Mörder und nur das. Manche mögen den Blick auf das soziale Umfeld des Mörders lenken und schauen, was ihn zu dem gemacht hat, was er geworden ist, andere können ihm nur mental den Zettel auf die Stirn kleben mit dem Begriff Mörder, und alles darüber hinaus übersteigt deren Vorstellungen.

Es geht mir nicht darum, einfach alles exakt umzudrehen und zu sagen: Genau so herum ist es richtig. Seht her, nicht der Mörder ist schuldig, sondern die Gesellschaft! Es geht darum, etwas aus mehr als nur einem Winkel sehen zu können. Meine Bemerkung bezieht sich exakt auf so vernagelte Vollpfosten, die es sich allzu einfach machen und meinen, zum erlesenen Kreis derer zu gehören, die die ewige Wahrheit gefunden zu haben, und so einen Scheiß von sich geben, wie das hier:

Ich vergaß, dies darunter zu schreiben:
t. Zombie-Hegel

it's a divide that cannot be overcome.
sectarianism isn't a problem,
the problem is the expectation that we must "act as one body" as though we are a church. ideology is Christianity in disguise. individuals can act for themselves, and find affinity groups to work with when need be.

so do the anarchists and marxists just go live on different continents?