critiques of marx.
role in the 1st international for one.
rather sabotaged it into oblivion than to share it with the anarchist
the congress in The Hague he pushed for social democracy (the
'political revolution' as a solution for a 'materialist' analysis
that is clearly class reductionist LMFAO).
saw the full development of capitalism (monopoly) as a necessary
condition for the achievement of communism. Dictatorship (political
monopoly) was the logical political pendant for this economic
monopoly which he both cheered and welcomed – letting
capitalism develop and then take it over seemed to be an important
part of his 'strategy'.
included the necessary disciplining of the unruly workforce –
this bourgeois aspect (underpinned by his aristocratic background and
that of his industrial/financial sponsors like Engels) of his outlook
on the proletariat is often minimised or overlooked by his fans, but
it is one of the most fundamental drives for his authoritarianism.
is not about 'hate' (or any other emotional hyperreaction of any kind
- an all too common suggestion by marxians in the marxian tradition
of psychiatrising anyone disagreeing).
My position is based on
analysis of history and theory. My conclusion is (with Bakunin)
that state-socialism was all but abandoned by the working class and
the socialists shortly after the wave of European uprisings in
It was the sad legacy of marx to have revived this
catastrophic strategy and handed it over to his followers who made it
into an authoritarian machine that set socialism back hundreds of
The fact that in some of his books he said some things that
might be explained as 'we share the same goals' is a simple testament
to the fact that he was not taken seriously by many of his
After all he rather imploded the 1st
International than to admit that the anarchists were a great majority
(even after purging the mutuellists who were the largest faction in
the Paris Commune - not represented though in the decision process; I
see a pattern here).
Marx was an anti-semite and a patriarchal
shit who had a baby with an inliving underaged servant.
was a notorious homophobe.
was not their thing: their class reductionism was appalling.
of his ideas were taken from other people. As far as his socialism
went, he took everything he could from Proudhon and mixed it with
deeply authoritarian aspects of Hegel and others.
1848 Europe tried to rise up but failed because of the state
socialist approach – the socialist movement learnt this lesson
quickly after. It is the tragic achievement of Marx and the Marxians
to save state socialism from the dustbin of history while the
majority of the socialist movement and the working class finally
recognised the lessons they should have learnt from the French,
English, etc revolutions: the state is not a tool fit for bringing
set the development of socialism back hundreds of years by insisting
a tested and failed strategy: the dictatorship and state capitalism.
we really go over Russia, Spain, Latin America, Spain '36 and the
legacy of treason and fascism of marxian heredetaries????
marx's own utter vagueness can explain such disparate and desperate
multitude of opposing interpretations.
His writings were clearly
so vague metaphysics that nobody knows how to interpret them -
useless at best and tragically pestilent in most cases. Why would you
cling to such BS?
Almost nothing of his writings were proven by
reality and the rest he got from other people like Proudhon.
have no problem with people coming to anarchism from or over marx.
Although I struggle to see what they see in him or why they need him:
anything interesting he said was said much better by other people
(including the theory of labour value which was formulated by
Proudhon – just like, federalism, syndicalism, mutualism, etc).
like I respect people to come to anarchism by other routes than mine
without necessarily understanding them or living them: religious
anarchism, animal rights/antispecisism, feminsm, antimilitarism,
syndicalism, ecology, racism,...
I respect council communism as an
integral part of anarchism (but without the rest of anarchism it is
but a tactic turned -ism - and again the marxian claim on an
anarchist tactic in order to stay relevant and to destroy
Hell, I even quote the likes of Rühle, so I have
no fetishistic 'beef' with marx. But let's give him the place he
deserves - and that place is definitely not the spotlights.
are no 'anarchist military orgs suppressing the bourgeoisie':
anarchist military orgs Always stand in close relation to the
revolution and its organs and other movements, tactics and
organisations (hence not an 'army' but the people armed and thus not
following marxian codex or practice)
- anarchist military orgs are
directly democratic (hence not an 'army' but the people armed and
thus not following marxian codex or practice)
- their primary
function is the defence of the revolution, not the suppression of
anything or anyone (let alone a mechanistic and largely fetishistic
installation of a dictatorship of any kind) (hence not an 'army' but
the people armed and thus not following marxian codex or
analysis does not apply to any aspect of anarchism (as is often
claimed by Marxians) - that is a conscious attempt to recuperate
anarchism in the hope of staying relevant (in the tradition of their
master who did the same thing with the Paris Commune, syndicalism,
and various principles including his claims about the spontaneous
'withering away of the state' once the material conditions were
changed and the right dictarorship was installed, namely his own).
people with a goal and collevtively agreed upon tactics = a military
In the same tradition of that last :
any decision making process = the state = marx was right.
"The vagueness of Marx' description of socialism and communism
comes out of the fact that we have no way of predicting the material
conditions of the future"
He himself was pretty damned
sure he and only he predicted the future correctly. His own role
disproved even his materialist fetish and economic reductionism (that
he wanted to solve by entering bourgeois politricks btw - that was
the reason for the split of the 1st International after all - he
practically stood alone after pushing this position through by
manipulating and fabricating a 'majority' so he rather imploded the
organisation on trumped up charges and sheming).
mystification, lame excuses and politispeach were fundamental.
was wrong and authoritarian - suck it up so we can move forward.