Does anarchism have any economic theory? Like Marxism has Marxian economics, I mean

I wish you theory fetishizers once worked practical jobs to experience the constant breakdown of all theoretical planning of the managers.

This tbh.

There's what you want in planning and then there's whatever you end up with and you're fucking stuck with it.

...

read a book :^)

I'm sorry, but do you have any idea how Planned Economy works?

Theory ≠ planning

...

Yes, other than mutualism, anarchism does have its own economic theories.
Unfortunately however, they're often neglected due to the contemporary plague of mediocrity containing anarchism as a movement.

The post was not even remotely talking about a planned economy.

But we've had at least 2 societies (rojava and catalonia) that achieved a decent functioning anarchy, at least before being destroyed by imperialism, where as we've had literally no pure marxist societies that actually achieved what they set out to do before being destroyed imperialism or authoritarianism.

...

HAHAHAHA.

I've never seen a post this awful. I'm surprised someone was retarded enough to believe it, let alone save it to ever use it as an argument for anything. Are you a tankie trying to discredit anarchists?

I love threads like these because they just confirm how dumb anarchists are

There was Proudhon, but he's mostly deprecated. Most anarchists build from Marx or parecon theory (which is very anarchist).

Posts like this are what is making anarchism a meme. I've yet to see something this bad though, so congratulations I guess.

...

What part of that isn't true? And don't bother "debunking" Stirner when you haven't read Stirner, don't bother "debunking" Proudhon when you haven't read Proudhon, don't bother "debunking" Bakunin when you haven't read Bakunin.

W E W
E
W

shiiit, do you even the three pillars of marxist socialism?

Yes, quite a lot actually. But it varies as much as the various schools of thought do. Alot of it (atleast the more collectivist forms) is built in conjunction or along with alot of what Marx wrote. See Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, Josiah Warren, Joseph Déjacque, Josep Llunas i Pujals, Errico Malatesta, Ricardo Mella Cea, Isaac Puente and Michael Albert , to name a few.

All yall saying we dont got theory are so full of shit, its hilarious.

also
Bakunin got btfo in debates, which were organized by said international. He became such a joke that he was thrown out of debates by the people who were there to observe.

No, he had a dissenting view so he and those that agreed with him were kicked out of the first international. Learn your shit.

you need to read your history of the 1st internationale.

For one, it may simply be one of the most 'Holla Forumsified' takes on Marx's work and his influences from an actual (apparently) anarchists ever. And by 'Holla Forumsified' that it takes not only out of context, but also completely out of proportions things literally anyone who's read any (even cursory Wiki reads about) Marx and Proudhon out of context, and leverages the same entirely irrelevant semi-facts as well as complete falsehoods about him personally to discredit his works (which are what fucking matter).

Regardless of the misrepresentations that Marx inflicted on Proudhon (and there were many, and not just from Marx to Proudhon, but also Proudhon to Marx, who was basically the pioneerer of the 'Marx is part of a Jewish Rothschild conspiracy' meme, but let's drop that as we're talking Marx on Proudhon for now), it is explicitly stated by Marx that he learned from Proudhon. As Marx literally says, in Sozialdebat:
>Proudhon’s treatise 'What Is Property?' is the criticism of political economy from the standpoint of political economy… Proudhon’s treatise will therefore be scientifically superseded by a criticism of political economy, including Proudhon’s conception of political economy. This work became possible only owing to the work of Proudhon himself.
Why? Because Marx studied Proudhon. This is why the notion of 'theft' in philosophy is an utter meme, one even the neo-Proudhonians like Rudolf Rocker will tell you is even when they're critical of Marx and his modifications and adaptations of Proudhon's work. (Examples of this can be found in Rocker's The Poverty of Statism which, as silly as it sound, is worth looking at even for Marxists as it raises quite a few decent points, I'd say.)

So, Marx and Engels read Proudhon, and publicly released statements surrounding his influence on them and praise for him. What more? Marx met Proudhon and in correspondence debated him in person at IWA meetings, which is what subsequently led to the discrediting of the Proudhonists in France, but also the Bakuninists, within the entire First International. This is how the First International's principles operated, and Proudhon followed suit, never becoming relevant again in the IWA as he had lost face and even influence in it. Marx, in spite of it all, released Sozialdebat anyways to give credit where credit is due. Just like Marx cites Smith and Ricardo in the Capital footnotes, which addresses about another third of your terrible, terrible screencap.
(1/2)

The international was split, marx used sway to get rid of a dissenting view point that questioned his own, splitting it in half and fucking shit up for everyone involved. Marx basically acted like an irritated child and went sectarian as fuck. Learn your shit faggot.

Here's one thing, Marx and Proudhon fundamentally disagreed about where capitalism production started(Marx thought it was commodity production, whereas Proudhon was more focused on property). Marx didn't "steal" his theory and then rebuke him "just cuz", he rebuked him because he thought his theory was overall incoherent and contradictory.

The part about him not understanding dialectics until he read annotated versions by Bakunin is blatantly false. German idealism was taught to students all over Prussia, where Marx studied philosophy and economics. It's just falsification after falsification. No one ever claims Marx was the first socialist.

Bakunin actually asked friends about trying to form a secret society to take over the international leadership. In reality, Bakunin's autistic organizational structure kept getting btfo and the Marxist kicked him out of the international because what he said was retarded.

Youd be surprised

Thanks for posting this comrade.

Whatever, that has no bearing on the retarded screen cap

Its fun to watch them scramble isnt it?

It were the anarchists that caused the split in the first place and made leeway for various bourgeois ideologues and fractured organization within the Internationale. You are a huge memer if you think Marx had as much authority in the 1st internationale as you make him out to have, it was ultimately the majority choice to kick them out.

So they kicked themselves out then? Oh wait, no, that was Marx and his supporters. Bakunin and his supporters made their case, which pointed out problems with what Marx and the other state center socialists wanted.
HE did have power, he had support for his position, same as Bakunin, and Marx used that support to expel a dissenting view. It was a spilt because the two sides could not get along for various reasons, and Marx and his supporters push the anarchists away arguably makeing the entire organization weaker with his own sectarian bullshit.

We can continue to fight about this, as anarchists and state socialists have done since this fucking happened but thats not going to really do much, you'll refute what i say, ill do the same thing.

Debunking Stirner is not on my to do list, because admittedly I am completely ignorant of his works (I was here that he was just another one of the many now meme-tier neo-Hegelian philosophers like Feuerbach when I inquired on whether I should bother checking him out, so I didn't). However, I find your claim that materialism was developed from Feuerbach incredibly probIematic and incredibly inconsistent with not just historical records of the term itself (because Marx in fact developed materialism from Diderot's French machinic materialism), but the fact that Feuerbach's dialectical method was an adaptation of the German idealist (Hegelian) tradition, not Marx's inversion of the Hegelian dialectic meshed with a materialist philosophy. Once again, in Theses on Feuerbach (within the first 20 pages!), Marx explicitly states where he did obtain influence from Feuerbach and that his critique lies in Feuerbach's shoddy methodology and propositions. This is Marx's Proudhon influences all over again.

Again this term 'debunking' in conjunction with a philosopher, when it is an improper term for this farce of an exchange we are having, which is really about debunking the absurd ahistoricisms in that meme of a jpeg. Ahistoricisms which should, quite ironically in spite of your claims that nobody reads those you dearly defend from criticism, not occur if one had actually read Marx on any of the subjects you contest. To paraphrase Marx's late wife Jennifer (one line of hers which will turn out to be prophetic): People may do him the honor of abusing him; read him they do not.
(2/2)

Bonus mention of Feuerbach's influence on him [Marx] in Critique of the Gotha Programme (quite an essential work, which I'm surprised you're not aware of, or at least Marx's mention of Feuerbach in it!).

And after making their case the majority of people decided to kick them out. They found them to be divisive and the "state socialist" were hoping that a party could be formed out of the first workers international that could be used to push for reforms like shortening the working day, something the anarchist were vehemently against.

He had support for his position because it was more coherent.
Because they had completely different goals. Bakunin wanted to organize secret societies to try and take over the Government and Marx wanted to form a party that could try and push for reforms and raise class consciousness.

You have yet to refute anything, other than point out that the majority of those in the international favoured Marx and wanted to pursue entirely different goals that were unobtainable while the anarchist were dividing the international.

Lol wut. The anarchists were the majority within the international. Marx used his authority as general secretary to kick them out, and went so far as to move the international out of Europe entirely due to the ever growing influence of bakunin and the anarchists.

DONT ASK ME TO CENTRALLY PLAN LIBERTY SAM!!

Except the first half of this is complete bullshit. The real divide was based around whether or not to organize the working class using unions and exerting power from the bottom up as opposed to what marx wanted which was to take over parliament and exert power from the top down.

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

This very article opens with the very same three citations I raised (Marx and Engels' Sozialdebat, Rocker's Poverty of Statism and Proudhon's What Is Property?). I'm surprised that you did not only read it (or my posts, who knows?), but I'm also surprised at the tone of the article which seems to very positively reconcile the differences anarchists and Marxists have with one another. It's not bad for a hobbyist blogger's take.

Actually read the article faggot.

I did! Have you? Scroll down a little, my friend! You should notice…:

Are you okay? :-(

Leftcom poster can you explain why the USSR was State Capitalism? I'm not completely convinced.

read
the
article
faggot

*this
Woops

Double woops

To summarize (because there truly is a lot to say): production served the purpose of capital accumulation for the Russian state, even if there was no private accumulation into individual proprietors. Elaborated (very recommended, and quite a quick read): marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1942/russian-economy/index.htm.

But I've read the whole thing, my very asspained friend, and I told you it was quite good for a free webspace blogging website! I mentioned that it took three of the citations I myself brought up to negate the claim that Marx plagiarized Proudhon, which the blog post itself reasserts (which is why they're popular references used to counter defamation of Marx). Don't get all angry, man. :-(

Hang on, wait.

So they BOTH had disagreements, BOTH had supporters, BOTH used their influence to make their supporters irritable and eventually this led to a split where Bakunin's supporters left and Marx's supporter's stay.

So how come Marx is an autistic child/evil genius who forced Bakunin out while Bakunin is just an innocent victim here? Nigger either you aren't telling the whole story or you never went to any clubs before and are getting all knowledge of human interaction via hollywood teen movies.

That's it?

They didnt leave, they were kicked out.

Bakunin AND his supporters. Marx used his influence to split the international to get rid of people who disagreed with him and his supporters, this mainly being Bakunin and the anarchists. Read what i fuckin wrote.

wow, just wow

I've read this when a tankie and a leftcom were fighting in the RD Wolff thread, he seemed like he had pretty good explanations for hat Dunayevskaya rebukes the USSR for.

Please. This entire thread has been nothing but assblasted anarchokiddies making personal attacks or ad hominem because they've not read a single fucking page of Marxist theory.

Man, I wonder why they kicked him out?