You must log in or register to comment.

subrosa wrote

a serious anarchist should read some Lenin, Mao, etc.

12 upvotes, no questions, no red flags

Quick to ring all alarms when someone suggests just a hint of anarcho-capitalism, but authoritarian Marxists are comrades for whatever reason.


tuesday OP wrote (edited )

I imagine, but have no proof, that people who say stuff like this are or were Marxists before coming to anarchy. so because they needed to have their exploitation pointed out to them and explained must mean that everyone else must too. where it's been my experience that people who experience various intersections of marginalization don't really need the primer, they get it even if they don't have the SCIENTIFIC explanation for it.

and like no shame to people who arrive at anarchism that way but there is no good reason to universalize that trajectory.


Potkea wrote

The great anarchist historian Max Nettlau had some fiery criticism of Marx:

I call Marx “triple-faced,” because with his particularly grasping spirit he laid a claim on exactly three tactics and his originality no doubt resides in these pan-grasping gests. He encouraged electoral socialism, the conquest of parliaments, social democracy and, though he often sneered at it, the People’s State and State Socialism. He encouraged revolutionary dictatorship. He encouraged simple confidence and abiding, letting “evolution” do the work, self-reduction, almost self-evaporation of the capitalists until the pyramid tumbled over by mathematical laws of his own growth, as if triangular bodies automatically turned somersaults. He copied the first tactics from Louis Blanc, the second from Blanqui, whilst the third correspond to his feeling of being somehow the economic dictator of the universe, as Hegel had been its spiritual dictator. His grasping went further. He hated instinctively libertarian thought and tried to destroy the free thinkers wherever he met them, from Feuerbach and Max Stirner to Proudhon, Bakunin and others. But he wished to add the essence of their teaching as spoils to his other borrowed feathers, and so he relegated at the end of days, after all dictatorship, the prospect of a Stateless, an Anarchist world. The Economic Cagliostro hunted thus with all hounds and ran with all hares, and imposed thus—and his followers after him—an incredible confusion on socialism which, almost a century after 1844, has not yet ended. The social-democrats pray by him; the dictatorial socialist swear by him; the evolutionary socialists sit still and listen to hear evolution evolve, as others listen to the growing of the grass; and some very frugal people drink weak tea and are glad, that at the end of days by Marx’s ipse dixit Anarchy will at last be permitted to unfold. Marx has been like a blight that creeps in and kills everything it touches to European socialism, an immense power for evil, numbing self-thought, insinuating false confidence, stirring up animosity, hatred, absolute intolerance, beginning with his own arrogant literary squabbles and leading to inter-murdering socialism as in Russia, since 1917, which has so very soon permitted reaction to galvanize the undeveloped strata and to cultivate the “Reinkulturen” of such authoritarianism, the Fascists and their followers. There was, in spite of their personal enmity, some monstrous “inter-breeding” between the two most fatal men of the 19th century, Marx and Mazzini, and their issue are Mussolini and all the others who disgrace this poor 20th century.


subrosa wrote

Nettlau is high up in my list of fave commies.


lettuceLeafer wrote

I have a very surface level view of Marxist adjacent stuff but one thing that confuses me is the importance of Marx to Marx communism. Like when socialist states actually rise it's because they decided Marx was wrong on key issues and made their own thing up.

Marc thought that it was industrial city workers who would rise up. Leninism on a fundamental basis was about Lenin thinking the what are basically peasants of Russia would be ripe for revolution and was right.

Mao thought the rural farmers were ripe for revolution and not industrial workers and was right. In Cuba it was not industrial workers again. And with the modern day the only ones into it are usually in the third world which are often less industry and moreso things like plantation workers or miners basically extracting the local resources to send to the first world.

Not to mention the concept of what is it called. Something about the middle class having the burgeous values of capitalists but not he owning capital part. Which is absolutely correct. I live near a steel mill, haven't tons of people in industrial agriculture which is as close to a factory as I'll get and in a strong teamsters union at ups.

And let me say these people who Marc say will revolt just have the values of capitalists but the only difference is money.

Idk what seems to me is Marx is kinda good for understanding how capitalisn functioned in the 20th century and mildly useful but mostly wrong in the 21rst and provides a guide how to achieve communism that is almost always wrong and unhelpful in all situations where state socialism happened and completely useful to me.

Having read a lot of Marx so this is just a surface level opinion.


tuesday OP wrote

the importance of Marx to Marx communism

We love a Great Man, you know?

I've never read Marx and I will continue to not read Marx purely out of spite now, if only to exist as an anarchist who pisses off all the other anarchists who think that anarchists must read Marx to be serious, whatever serious means in terms of anarchism.


RanDomino wrote

It's because authoritarian 'socialism' is really just millenarian nationalism.


deeppurplehazedream wrote (edited )

What I think they mean is: "I can’t explain it myself, but you don’t understand Marx like I do and if you did you’d agree with me and how I understand Marx." After 170+ years I don’t think you need to read Marx per se to get what Marxism is about. The analysis/critique of Capital is so well understood that even capitalists “accept” it- if only to refute it. This is more because it is a political ideology of certain actually existing States though.

Having said that, here are some Marxists I’ve read and like, sort of-some better than others: Theodor W. Adorno Bertolt Brecht Terry Eagleton Frantz Fannon Antonio Gramsci Che Guevara Frederick Jameson Georg Lukas Antonio Negri Paul Sweezy bell hooks

Many are academics. It’s their elitist politics that’s I can't agree wth. As a former very sad Raddler said: Take what you like, forget the rest. Or something like that.