Communists?

[thelastindividual]

Didn't Marx and Engels abandon the ten points later on anyway?

[Snowdrop]

a 'state as such' which looks like a bunch of people running their own lives, having smashed all the illegitimate apparatus, is probably not one an anarchist would want to smash further.

As long as it does not repress anyone no anarchist would want to smash it. and 'running their own lives' has nothing to do with 'repressing the bourgeoisie'; which is what I oppose... No logical anarchist society can be built on repression.

And yes, Marx and Engels did say they wanted to improve the planks later on, but not many people know that.

[jack]

a 'state as such' which looks like a bunch of people running their own lives, having smashed all the illegitimate apparatus, is probably not one an anarchist would want to smash further.

As long as it does not repress anyone no anarchist would want to smash it. and 'running their own lives' has nothing to do with 'repressing the bourgeoisie'; which is what I oppose... No logical anarchist society can be built on repression.

And yes, Marx and Engels did say they wanted to improve the planks later on, but not many people know that.

So you really expect reactionaries and bourgeois will simply let revolution happen if they can't convince the majority to be reactionary too? That's retarded and that's not going to happen, they'll take power as a minority (yes it is a fucking possibility, and has happened in the past), which is what makes them fucking reactionaries.

[Snowdrop]

So you really expect reactionaries and bourgeois will simply let revolution happen if they can't convince the majority to be reactionary too? That's retarded and that's not going to happen, they'll take power as a minority (yes it is a fucking possibility, and has happened in the past), which is what makes them fucking reactionaries.

Nope, but any reactionary revolution would 1) either fail 2) if it 'succeeds' the bourgeois would need to use constant violence to repress the masses, which is not so in present society (mostly, they brainwash). Thus, counter revolutions would fail to restore bourgois control, because a smaller force (the bourgeois) cannot win against a larger force (proletariat); especially when it comes to violent force.

I cannot see an individual (a minority) hold up a whole group of people (a majority) without a weapon (an army). And there are two ways for the minority to get an army 1) Gain the support of the proletarian-controlled army; unlikely, but if the proletariat lose control of the army, then the revolution fails anyways. 2) Use another state's army, which can and will happen, whether they are repressed or not. The point is: so long as the proletarians have control over the army, the bourgeoisie cannot win a fight. Well, they have a bigger chance with 2), but as I said, repressed or not, they can do it. Even if a counter-revolution was avoidable, I don't think repression helps us in any way achieve one very important aim of a revolution: freedom.

[AndyMalroes]

And your suggestion?

[jack]

And your suggestion?

You beat me to it.

[AndyMalroes]

[Guest]

You marxists are awful sensitive to any critique of marx or his theories. If I were that confident in my beliefs I wouldn't be so defensive

I'm not being defensive about Marxism, i'm being aggressive towards "anarchism" (whatever that's supposed to be...)
Not that I have a problem with anarchist ideas, i'm actually in agreement with most of them, but I do have a problem with the way (most) anarchists borrow so much from Marx then strawman him. Anarchism seems to be exactly the same as Marxism from my perspective, what exactly is the difference?

Bakunin didn't strawman Marx. Bakunin fully understood the proletarian dictatorship. It is basically a direct democracy. Direct democracy is dangerous; the rights of individuals (not limited to property) can be set aside to fulfill the desires of the so-called proletarian state. That is why I am a consensus democrat: every individual has a say in things in proportion to how much they are affected.
But it does not even matter how a direct democracy turns out: the state/government can never be handed over to the proletariat; for the same logic and reason that the KKK *spits on the ground* cannot be handed over to the democratic control of african-americans.
Marx himself said that the state is a tool used by one class to oppress another; it does not matter whether bourgeois is oppressing proletarian or the other way around, oppression is always oppression.

Well i was gonna come up with a longer argument on direct democracy but your anarchist comrades did it for me! A vindication of my above point maybe?
On states, it seems the anarchist/marxist divide is merely semantics. The state, defined as a tool used by one class to rule another, is something every Marxist is against. What is being advocated is essentially self-government by the workers. All societies, especially collectivist ones, need some form of organisation which for lack of a better word is called a state and anarchists agree with this but choose to call it something different. Either anarchists are just strawmanning Marxists while stealing their ideas, they accept Engel's "strawman" of them was actually a correct representation of their ideas or they become some kind of "free" market capitalist (sometimes they call themselves mutualists but thats beside the point). I really don't see how their is any other option.
Your link only confirms my opinion that there was no real difference between Marx and Bakunin.

Oh and have another link

[thelastindividual]

Anarchism seems to be exactly the same as Marxism from my perspective, what exactly is the difference?

Mostly philosophical bullshit like dialectical materialism. Also most anarchists don't accept the materialist account of history (Or if they do they probably shouldn't, it's a pretty poor explanation IMO).

[marxist]

Anarchism seems to be exactly the same as Marxism from my perspective, what exactly is the difference?

Mostly philosophical bullshit like dialectical materialism. Also most anarchists don't accept the materialist account of history (Or if they do they probably shouldn't, it's a pretty poor explanation IMO).

Ok fair enough. But politically and economically what are the differences?

[thelastindividual]

Ok fair enough. But politically and economically what are the differences?

Well when Marx & Bakunin were around the difference was that Marx was firmly anti-money while Bakunin supported renumeration for labour. Post-Kroptkin I don't think there is much of a difference anymore apart from maybe emphasis (Marxists tend to focus on capitalism and ending exploitation of the workers while anarchists focus more broadly on every type of oppression/heirarchy).

I think there's too much difference between the various schools of Marxism and anarchism to make a decent judgement to be honest. At some points anarchism and Marxism are practically indistuinguishable and at other points they're quite clearly different schools of thought (The difference between anarcho-communism and left-marxism is practically nil while the difference between Marxist-Leninism and Mutualism is obvious).

[marxist]

Well when Marx & Bakunin were around the difference was that Marx was firmly anti-money while Bakunin supported renumeration for labour. Post-Kroptkin I don't think there is much of a difference anymore apart from maybe emphasis (Marxists tend to focus on capitalism and ending exploitation of the workers while anarchists focus more broadly on every type of oppression/heirarchy).

Again I disagree that Marxists don't focus on every type of oppression though it does vary from person to person. However the point of neo-marxism was to incorporate new things into the theory such as expanding on other forms of oppression.
On money I don't think it's that major a difference for two reasons. I don't think it's essential that a Marxist state removes money and from what i've gathered the anti-money position (anarcho-communism) is much stronger in anarchist circles than the pro money position (anarcho-collectivism and mutualism).

I think there's too much difference between the various schools of Marxism and anarchism to make a decent judgement to be honest. At some points anarchism and Marxism are practically indistuinguishable and at other points they're quite clearly different schools of thought (The difference between anarcho-communism and left-marxism is practically nil while the difference between Marxist-Leninism and Mutualism is obvious).

Personally I never understood why mutualism (other than a slight amendment to property rights) was that obviously different from capitalism but anyway...
The vangaurdist stuff come with lenin but his ideas are enough of a departure from traditional marxism to be rejected without hurting the overall theory. Like you say anarchism and Marxism are practically indistinguishable in many places (i'm arguing all) but the alleged difference has always been over "the state" and that's the issue I would like to settle here. I can see no difference in political organisation between Marxism and anarchism therefore Bakunin was attacking a strawman, do you agree or disagree?

[thelastindividual]

Personally I never understood why mutualism (other than a slight amendment to property rights) was that obviously different from capitalism but anyway...

Well the whole 'worker control of the means of production' thing might have something to do with it. And ya know, opposition to usury

The vangaurdist stuff come with lenin but his ideas are enough of a departure from traditional marxism to be rejected without hurting the overall theory.

Well the original 'Vanguardists' as far as I can tell were the Blanquists:

"The Blanquists fared no better. Brought up in the school of conspiracy, and held together by the strict discipline which went with it, they started out from the viewpoint that a relatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able, at a given favorable moment, not only seize the helm of state, but also by energetic and relentless action, to keep power until they succeeded in drawing the mass of the people into the revolution and ranging them round the small band of leaders. this conception involved, above all, the strictest dictatorship and centralization of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary government. " - Friedrich Engels, Postscript to the Civil War in France

And Engels says that by acting against their centralising tendencies the Blanquists afirmed Marxian thought rather than their own. If even Engels clearly rejects vanguardism you do have to wonder at how Marxist-Leninism ever actually came into being.

Like you say anarchism and Marxism are practically indistinguishable in many places (i'm arguing all) but the alleged difference has always been over "the state" and that's the issue I would like to settle here. I can see no difference in political organisation between Marxism and anarchism therefore Bakunin was attacking a strawman, do you agree or disagree?

Judging by what I've read from Marx so far. No, there is no real reason for their to be a seperation between Marxism and anarchism apart from bullshit semantics and some less than accurate interpretations of Marx's thought.

[patrickhenry]

I suppose that the question of the workers state is the biggest of the big. Marxists call this state many names: "workers state," a "semi-state", "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and so on. For anarchists, no matter what you call it, we are opposed to it. Why? First of all, our opposition has absolutely nothing to do with defence of the revolution. I must stress this, as Marxists tend to say that anarchist opposition to the "workers' state" means we think the capitalist class will just disappear. No, our opposition is based on an awareness that any revolution will need to defended. As such, it is really based on the question of who has power, the working class or the party.

I should point out, firstly, that when Marx first used the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", the proletariat was a minority of the working class everywhere bar the UK (and, indeed, for many decades after his death too). Thus, if we assume that Marx meant direct rule by all the proletariat by this term, he was still advocating rule by a minority. For Bakunin, this could not be justified nor supported. Secondly, what does the "dictatorship of the proletariat" mean in practice? Does it mean the "rule by the majority" or the minority elected by said? The two are by no means the same.

So which was it? Well, the evidence points to the latter. Marx, for example, argued in 1850 in his "Address to the Communist League," for "the most determined centralisation of power in the hands of the state authority." He thought that "the path of revolutionary activity . . . can only proceed with full force from the centre." Needless to say, if power rested at the centre, it could only be exercised by a few, by the leaders. This conclusion is confirmed by Engels, who noted that as "each political party sets out to establish its rule in the state, so the German Social-Democratic Workers' Party is striving to establish its rule, the rule of the working class." Elsewhere, he considered what would happen "as soon as our Party is in possession of political power." All of which simply (and dangerously) confused party power with working class power.

Thus working class "political power" simply meant the ability to nominate a government. "Universal Suffrage," argued Marx in the 1850s, "is the equivalent of political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population . . . Its inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class." This position was echoed by Engels decades later:

"In every struggle of class against class, the next end fought for is political power; the ruling class defends its political supremacy, that is to say its safe majority in the Legislature; the inferior class fights for, first a share, then the whole of that power, in order to become enabled to change existing laws in conformity with their own interests and requirements. Thus the working class of Great Britain for years fought ardently and even violently for the People's Charter, which was to give it that political power."

Thus we have the "dictatorship of the proletariat" based on the proletariat delegating its power to a handful of leaders. As Bakunin argued, no matter how you look at it we get the "same dismal results: government of the vast majority of the people by a privileged minority." This is to be expected, as any state is based on inequality in power, with power lying at the top, in the hands of a few. The state structure, anarchists have long argued, has evolved to maintain minority class power and so marginalises the population by its very nature. Therefore a "workers' state" is a contradiction in terms for if the working class was in power, then the state would not exist and if a state existed, then only a few leaders would have real power. This would soon create a new class system, simply due to the institutional processes at work within any statist system.

[patrickhenry]

Don't get me wrong. I agree with Marx way more then I disagree. The same goes for most anarchists. I think we HAVE to work together but blindly following one man's doctrine 100% is lunacy. That goes for Bakunin,Proudhon and all other anarchist too. If there is the slightest doubt then critiquing should be a MUST.