[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / builders / choroy / dempart / doomer / druz / film / islam ]

/anarcho/ - Anarchism Board

No Rulers
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: f3353075977f2f4⋯.png (12.95 KB, 83x137, 83:137, Boi.png)


Why arent you guys marxists? whats your problem with it?


i dont wanna be in marxs shadow ;~;

also marxism hasnt aged too well imo, it can only explain things in terms of two classes, an homegeneous working class and a seemingly omnipotent owner class. thats the real, original marxist analysis that they try to drag along past its obsolescense.

class analysis can work, but you need more classes: the class given by physiology, whether one is a man or a woman. patriarchy is class conflict.

you also have conflict between subclasses, men feeling threatened by attractive men, trying to lower other members of the class, keep low standards, etc.

also you have the aspirational, which are persons who look to climb the economic ladder at the expense of other persons. so they become thieves, unscrupulous landlords, are always looking how to exploit persons, etc.

in car-centric cities where about half of the population has access to a car, the aspirational take the bus but hold lowly those who take the bus, and don't pay the fare because they think that if they don't have a car or two and have to take the bus they're too poor to pay for it. they never have enough money. so marxism really breaks down and can't be salvaged.


this is an anarchism board


Labels are spooks.


"dictatorship of the proletariat" lol



it's so weird that Americans look down on people taking the bus



Also I think you're right but aren't describing classes, patriarchy is class war but the other things you are describing are effects of the capitalism


brb taking control of the state



Im a european and busses are shitty submarines filled with stinking and loud people.

Not to mention that they are never there when you need one.

In general its unpleasant so you only use them when you need to and you only need to when you cant afford a car so taking the bus = being poor and being poor = bad.


Because I think that money and regulated market economies are necessary for basic human freedom from the state.


For me, this does a good job at explaining it: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dave-antagonism-jacques-camatte-and-the-new-politics-of-liberation

But the short answer is that I don't think the proletariat is a revolutionary subject anymore (not to say that it wasn't in Marx's time) because:

1) "Worker" is not label with which people can rally behind. The fact that jobs are not stable, combined with the view that we are primarily consumers now erases any unity the proletariat had.

2) Dominant ideology is dominant. Everyone is a liberal. The ultraleft is the only strand of Marxism I could support, but even then it seems to require a near religious faith in the working class that, when "material conditions are right," they will choose to communize over other paths.

Also, the "transition state" is shit and I don't want to wait for a revolution that could never come in my lifetime. Changing society is secondary to changing my life. I'd much rather "arm my desires" and have fun than waste my time trying to organise people who just want a wage increase.







/pol/ pls go



This, in a nutshell.


Not against marxism, but against sacred marxism. I hold no idea higher than the individual.



You think jobs were stable when Marx was alive?



nah he's probably just a mutualist


Because Marxism is a failed economic system. Markets are not necessarily evil, as long as workers are in control of the economy.

I used to be an anarcho-communist myself, but then when I entered college and studied economics, I learned quite a lot about failed systems like laissez faire, goldbuggery and marxism.



The issue at hand with Marx was he was inherently collectivist, This is not to say we don't have left wing anarchists that deal with collectivism/individualism clashes better, IE Matt McGinn. We can't live under collective rule over ourselves, like Marxism advocates, at least in whilst maintaining any semblance of Anarchy or freedom. Syndicalism or Mutualism are much more rational left anarchist systems, especially when they don't enforce strict artificial economics like Marx did. It gets a boner going, but just doesn't work. Not to mention Marx in many ways was the Dave Arneson to Engels' Gary Gygax when they worked together.


to hold any idea as sacred violates the individual's freedom to express his right though, even the idea of the individual


assuming that just because I'm not a Marxist i must have a problem with marx is a way of saying i have rejected your religious worldview because I can't accept your ultimate truth for some reason.

Marx is fine. Althusser is better. jesus is lord.

I'm not a a marxist because I'm an anarchist.

Maybe try reading more than one book op. (I realize that implies an assumption that you've actually read marx)



>he doesn't realize that the DOTP is synonymous with proletarian democracy

Shouldn't have expected more from anarchkiddies



i despise populace




Because marxism isn't anarchic. It advocates for state. I am anarcho communist tho.


Marx is a political power freak for the most part. Anarchism has always been the ultimate anti-poltical anti-power worldview.



Contradiction, delusional faggot. Communism isn't stateless you fucking limpdicked neet.


Marxists want control of the state, anarchists want to destroy it.


Marx was good at economic theory- he was good at absolutely nothing else, especially solutions. Marxism is incredibly outdated in the current world, and often relies too heavily on the idea of a heterogeneous working class.



> He doesn't realize that a democratic (((state))) is an inherent evil of Marxism, which is why it's called a 'dictatorship'

No dude you don't have to actually read Marx. You can just watch the YouTube video.


Because the criticisms anarchists had for marxism back in Marx's day more or less came true when Marxism was put into practice.


File: b6081cb1f0df696⋯.jpg (28.82 KB, 275x283, 275:283, bakunin3-e1311921662597.jpg)

File: 58e916ec6cf0bbd⋯.png (80.12 KB, 900x600, 3:2, nMIsRAZ.png)

File: 147451a6d470778⋯.jpg (23.93 KB, 487x443, 487:443, b0e0a7a7dd5b735f0c1637fe70….jpg)

Answer in a nutshell is in the quote.



I don't believe in Marxist values and internationalised collectivism.


File: 6d8bd56f4071f1e⋯.jpg (59.48 KB, 500x1103, 500:1103, all power to teh soviets.jpg)

From a rhetoric perspective?

Marx wasn't a Marxist. I take a lot from him, but just because you stand on the shoulders of giants doesn't mean you have to stick to their way of thinking. That's how he saw socialism and capitalism - "thanks for industrializing the world, we're gonna take this and do something else with it now." Nor should you self-describe using a label that's misused more often than used correctly. Most "marxists" aren't materialists, don't understand Marx's theories of value or class or historical materialism. It's just something you can stick on yourself to seem edgy and cool like a Che shirt. Also, being an anarchist allows you to talk about communism (even directly quote Marx without attribution) without (red) scaring people.

From a theory/praxis perspective?

The major criticisms of Marx made by contemporary anarchists ended up being prophetic. Turns out power does corrupt, and seizing the state is going to create a new ruling class. Lenin may not have been so bad if he did what he said he would, but neither he nor Marx really understood the nature of power (muh hooman naychure). For the state to sustain itself, it has to repress people, including the people it's supposed to represent. It can't just let people do their thing because that undermines its sovereignty. Marx's problem here is almost like an inverted version of lolberts who recognize the state as inherently bad but not the firm.


File: cb1998868f89be2⋯.png (209.77 KB, 442x534, 221:267, tankie.png)

You should be better asking "Why are marxist always betraying and killing anarchists?"

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / builders / choroy / dempart / doomer / druz / film / islam ]