I consider myself an anarchist, but...

[hai]

I've been reading a lot of marx lately; Grundrisse, Capital, the German Ideology and other stuff I can get my hands on. I have to say I'm bewitched by his writings right now, the Communist Manifesto is easily one of the most powerful things I've read, the style and compressed intensity of the work is extraordinary, I know Marx was a voracious reader of literature and frankly, it shows.
Basically, my question is; to fellow anarchists, what do you agree with marx on, what is useful and essentially accurate of his analysis of capitalism and the material development of history, and what do you think is either dated or was indeed misguided and inaccurate from the point of inception? Of course, we can leave aside the easy stuff like the rejection of the means of production centralised in the state and the prediction of the "inevitable" collapse of capitalism like any other mode of production. In fact actually, do you necessarily disagree with that? Is it contrary to anarchism to say capitalism's very structure inevitably will lead to collapse?

[jack]

Dialetical materialism is bullshit, but Historical Materialism and his analysis of capitalism is dead on.

[African_Prince]

I agree with almost everything I've read about Marxism besides the idea that a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is a necessary transition period to a communist society.

[thelastindividual]

I agree with Marx on a lot of the issues however his tendency to take up other intellectuals on unimportant points (His failure to comprehend what proudhon meant by 'Property is theft') and in some cases brush their entire philosophy aside wihtout a second thought (Stirner) does make me a bit wary of him

[Janus]

I agree with someof Marx's points in the manifesto, but wondered on his intended audience,
His call cry was "workers of the world unite" yet the language contained seems to be aimed more at the intelligentsia than the proletariat. Perhaps I miss-read,

[patrickhenry]

I agree with most of Marx's points in the manifesto, but wondered on his intended audience,
His call cry was "workers of the world unite" yet the language contained seems to be aimed more at the intelligentsia than the proletariat. Perhaps I miss-read,

You did not miss-read. That has been my biggest issue with Marx. This may help http://www.ditext.com/avrich/russian/4.html

[Janus]

I agree with most of Marx's points in the manifesto, but wondered on his intended audience,
His call cry was "workers of the world unite" yet the language contained seems to be aimed more at the intelligentsia than the proletariat. Perhaps I miss-read,

You did not miss-read. That has been my biggest issue with Marx. This may help http://www.ditext.com/avrich/russian/4.html

Ahk, thanks, one of my Lib friends recently read the manifesto too so it was good to have a face to face discussion of it. His only real objection was that Marx was calling for the break down of the family unit.

[Guest]

I disagree with Marx over almost everything.

There are a few bits he said that made sense, but not many.

His assessment of class is still relevant today, up to a point, however his assessment of capitalism seems too simplistic to account for the situation we're in now. I don't buy the dialectal history stuff either, nor the suggestion that a forceful revolution is necessary or desirable.

Nonetheless, the notion of alienation has become more relevant - I think - than at any other point in history.

[Invictus_88]

More, Marxism seems to foster a sort of zealous certainty that can seem utterly baffling to outsiders and can function in a relatively sinister way to unite people around sacred principles about which they possess a quasi-religious type of faith.

I was at Marxism 2010 last week, and the line between solidarity and herd instinct was not always entirely clear.

[variagil]

Communists tend to leader autonomous groups and make them devotes of hierarchy and his sentences and publicity. But Marx and anarchists have faith in human being.