patrickhenry wrote: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.
From the first article I linked to you
There are two alternatives: either one swallows everything Bakunin, Dolgoff, and Co. say, on faith, because they are anarchists, or one takes the path of intellectual integrity, and tries to discover Marx and Engels' views on the state by reading what Marx and Engels said about the state.
If one takes the latter course, one might start by reading Engels' March 1875 letter to Bebel, in which he says "it is pure nonsense to talk of a free people's state: so long as the proletariat still uses the state, it does not use it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore propose to replace state everywhere by Gemeinwesen, a good old German word which can very well convey the meaning of the French word 'commune.'"
It is possible, of course, to argue that the use of the state by the proletariat in the brief transitional period is dangerous, and could lead to the establishment of a permanent state. It must be noted, however, that Bakunin himself envisioned a form of post-revolutionary state, complete with elections, delegates, a parliament, an executive committee, and an army. (Bakunin on Anarchy, P. 153) Anarchists are curiously quiet about this however.
Nevertheless, it remains a fact that in balance, the concern Bakunin expressed about the possible degeneration of the revolution proved to be a valid one, and that Marx for his part failed to give sufficient consideration to the dangers posed by this threat to a future revolution. This criticism, however, must itself be qualified in a number of ways; and it is certainly a far cry from the claims of Bakunin and the anarchists that Marxism was a theory that aimed at the subjection of society to state.
i do, as far as his analysis of political economy, which is masterful, as might be expected having spent decades immersed in it.
Good, i'm glad to hear it. Do you also accept the inadequacy of anarchist thought on this and other subjects, adding nothing new and willfully misrepresenting their opponents ideas?
marx is awesome. i love marx. but 'marxists' are mostly vicious bastards, willing to crush the very proletariat they profess to be fighting for, if that proletariat follows marx's advice and attempts to take control for themselves, from the bottom up. intellectual 'marxists' in fact mistrust the proletariat and look down on them as inferiors. anarchists reject such notions. i'm an anarchist, who takes wisdom from marx, of which there's a huge amount.
Seems to be a mix between a strawman and an ad hominum. Be honest (your an anarchist, I accept this is hard for you) and come up with a critique not of various people that have claimed to be marxists but of actual marxist thought. What various people did in his name is irrelevant because it is attacking people rather than ideas and attributing these people's actions to Marx's thought. That or your just blurting out nonsense that has little to do with anything...