Anarchist Discussion Forums

I myself am a Marxist but not In the sense of the soviets or the peoples republic To me and others a Dictatorship of the portrait dose not mean one man and his bureaucrats saying what the working class wants but the working class working in a communal counsel and that there is no ruling "party" there are no party members simply all who live in communist domain are communists. Also I believe that us Marxist and you Anarchists we should both get over the fear we have of each other.(yes Marxism has back-stabbed you in guys in the past but those where power hungry totalitarians not true Marxist) perhaps our way of getting there are different but is it not simply that we both want classes societies with no bureaucrats telling us how to live but we ourselves deciding Marxism is not a hive mind but the growth of the individual collectively!

[color=blue]Orthodox marxists avoid basing their arguments on moral ("idealist") grounds. I would not describe them as being amoral, though</font color=blue> <br> <br>[color=green]Ah,this was exatly what i was trying to say in the other thread. Why is anarchism based so much on simple moralism (or idealism)?</font color=green> <br> <br>And [url=http://flag.blackened.net/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=genanarchism&amp;Number=56062&amp;page=1&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=]Marxism is not[/url]? At least, the morally-inclined anarchists are honest enough not to hide their idealism underneath a spurious rhetoric of "materialism". <br> <br>I know not of a [i]single[/i] amoralist marxist.

[b]Why is anarchism based so much on simple moralism (or idealism)?[/b] <br> <br>It's not. I don't want to be ruled by capitalists or Marxist tyrants. Why is it so hard for Marxists to comprehend that merely replacing one tyrannical class (capitalists) with another (state planners and bureaucrats) is not acceptable to anarchists who see rulers as undesirable? <br> <br>If Marxists are so concerned about the "welfare of the people," then they should cease being Marxists. Millions have been slaughtered and starved by Party-class rulers. <br> <br>Marxism is hardly much different from capitalism. <br> <br>Marxism = (Capitalism - capitalist class) + Party class

[color=red]Orthodox marxists avoid basing their arguments on moral ("idealist") grounds. I would not describe them as being amoral, though</font color=red> <br> <br>Ah,this was exatly what i was trying to say in the other thread. Why is anarchism based so much on simple moralism (or idealism)?

[color=green]The reason I said the most intelligent Marxists are amoralists is because it is difficult, at least for me, to look at some of the actions committed by Marxists, it would be more accurate to say Leninist-Marxists, and deem them to be 'moral'.</font color=green> <br> <br>They might not fit into your particular brand of morality, but they did and still do believe in their own brand(s) of morality. <br> <br>[color=green]If one approaches them from the idea of having a goal and moving towards it at any cost, then it is easier to understand how someone like Che Guevara could demonstrate such brutality against what he perceived as enemies and such compassion to others.</font color=green> <br> <br>... <br> <br>But Che Guevara [i]was[/i] morally inclined. I do not see why a moralist cannot be brutal and compassionate - both traits are quite compatible with morality. <br> <br>Need I point out that even Adolf Hitler was compassionate to some very selective others?

Replying to: <br> <br>[b]...[/b] <br> <br>Din, the work I've been reading lately which has been of great interest to me, and has given me Marxist [i]sympathies[/i] - not following but sympathy, is Trotsky's [i]Their Morals and Ours[/i], written shortly after his son's death. Regardless of what one may think of Trotsky personally, the man was brilliant. Anyway, it's been of great use to me in terms of understanding Leninist-Marxism. <br> <br>The reason I said the most intelligent Marxists are amoralists is because it is difficult, at least for me, to look at some of the actions committed by Marxists, it would be more accurate to say Leninist-Marxists, and deem them to be 'moral'. If one approaches them from the idea of having a goal and moving towards it at any cost, then it is easier to understand how someone like Che Guevara could demonstrate such brutality against what he perceived as enemies and such compassion to others.

[color=green]The most intelligent Marxists are amoralists.</font color=green> <br> <br>... <br> <br>Orthodox marxists avoid basing their arguments on moral ("idealist") grounds. I would not describe them as being amoral, though. Who are these intelligent marxists you are thinking of?

[b]Marxists are easy to deal with. Just memorise as many of their atrocities as possible and reel them off one by one until they get overwhelmed.[/b] <br> <br>The most intelligent Marxists are amoralists. Amoralism makes Marxism a lot easier to understand.

[color=blue]I said that, but he said that it shows the weaknesses of how anarchist organise.</font color=blue> <br> <br>Then it also shows the weaknesses of how Marxists organize since they did the exact same thing. POUM hailed the CNT's decision as 'moving towards a more Marxist conception of power.'

Hee is the link to the critique of the anarchists during the uprising. It is in english. <br> <br>[url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm[/url]

"You gotta remember it was the CNT leadership that joined the government, not the actual people fighting..." <br> <br>I said that, but he said that it shows the weaknesses of how anarchist organise. <br> <br>I can give you the thing the marxist qouted from Engels but i will have to translate it... <br>

As many as you want, just bear in mind no-one would listen.

''Just memorise as many of their atrocities as possible and reel them off one by one until they get overwhelmed. <br> <br>Its often useful to specifically refer to those times in which anarchists have been the target of their atrocities. '' <br> <br>how many times does it have to be said that anarchists have never been 'betrayed' in a violent or any other way by communists

In the Mexican revolution the syndicalists cooperated with the moderate socialists, not the liberals. The peasant anarchists did not. As I recall, Engels criticized the anarchists not for "betraying our ideals" but for following those ideals in the 1873 revolt. He claimed that the anarchists should have run for election and allied themselves with the capitalists. It's hypocritical for Marxists to criticize CNT collaboration with the state in revolutionary Spain, since every major Marxist party advocated the same. In Mexico, Spain, Russia and elsewhere the mistake was not so much in betraying our ideals as in making bad alliances. In the past anarchists have been far to willing to give state socialists the benefit of the doubt - they're a bunch of back stabbers whom we should be vary wary of.

[color=red]The commie that that happened with is a really nice person, but when it comes to his beliefs (he's quite into stalin) he's a complete idiot and fucked up. </font color=red> <br> <br>Heh, that just about describes about every authoritarian commie I can think of just replace stalin with trotsky, mao, whoever