Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

Isn’t this basically what Marx said about communism? That it isn’t a set of goals and ideals to be realized, but the real movement to abolish the current state of things

4

ziq wrote

if he really wanted to abolish the current state of things he probably shouldn't have argued so strongly to uphold states, even going as far as to expel the anarchists from the International (in Bakunin's absence - he wasn't even in the country at the time) for desiring federations of self-governing workplaces and communes instead of states. Someone who would be that hell-bent on preserving state has no business claiming to want to abolish the system.

5

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

The Marxist understanding of the state is that of a neutral tool which can be used by any class.

2

ziq wrote

Did you maintain a straight face while typing that?

6

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

Yeah, I’m a marxist.

3

ziq wrote

So when Marx expels people for supporting self-governing workplaces and communes instead of states, you support that, right? Is it "neutral" to throw a spiteful tantrum and exile people for supporting self government? Is self government somehow not "neutral" but states are? And if the state is so "neutral" why did Marx refuse to entertain the idea of self governing communes because he decided they conflicted with his "neutral" concept of states?

6

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

I think that’s a very simplistic understanding of why the anarchists were kicked out of the first internationale. The internationale was a democratic entity and it decided on adopting the marxist perspective on building a successful social revolution. The anarchists, obviously, disagreed and subsequently left or were expelled.

Anarchism and Marxism are not ideologies which can coexist in the same organization. The debate and basic disagreements would paralyze it and force it into ineffectual academic arguments. This split was inevitable.

3

ziq wrote

A democratic entity that decided to cast out the anarchists while they weren't even present at the meeting? That was a democratic action? Marxists really are walking doublespeak vectors.

Since Bakunin and co were forced out due to their opposition to the state, you have no leg to stand on when claiming Marx had a different ("neutral") definition of states than everyone else in the world. Using your obtuse doublespeak definition, self governing communes would 100% qualify as "neutral states that work for every class", so Marx obviously wanted nothing to do with "neutral states" and in fact fully supported the actual states that he cast the anarchists out for opposing. He opposed self government and supported state rule. That was the whole reason they were expelled. Not because he has a different definition of "state" than the anarchists - he knew exactly what the anarchists were against and what he supported.

7