Anarchist critiques of marx.

Marx's role in the 1st international for one.

He rather sabotaged it into oblivion than to share it with the anarchist majority.

At 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).

He 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'.

This 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.

This 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 1848.
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 years.
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 contemporary socialists.
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.

Engels was a notorious homophobe.

Intersectionalism was not their thing: their class reductionism was appalling.

Most 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.

In 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 about socialism.

Marx set the development of socialism back hundreds of years by insisting a tested and failed strategy: the dictatorship and state capitalism.

Must we really go over Russia, Spain, Latin America, Spain '36 and the legacy of treason and fascism of marxian heredetaries????

Only 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.

I 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).

Just 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 anarchism).
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.

There 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 practice)
-etc etc

His 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).

"Armed people with a goal and collevtively agreed upon tactics = a military organization, fam"

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).

Sofisms, mystification, lame excuses and politispeach were fundamental.

Marx was wrong and authoritarian - suck it up so we can move forward.

( )

etc etc