Skip Navigation

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
106 comments
  • Lenin and Mao were not the ones who came up with the necessity of a Worker State, Marx was.

    One thing anarchists are objectively better at is accepting flaws in the people who wrote anarchist theory. Marx was capable of holding believs that were internally inconsistent. History has proven Bakunin right and Marx couldn't have known this. Just because a socialist state is an oxymoron doesn't make Marx a not-socialist.

    Marx was no Anarchist! He regularly argued against Bakunin.

    I know.

    I mean that you reveal yourself as an Anarchist that doesn't believe Marxism is Socialist.

    It has a fatal contradictionin its' worldview, yes.

    That makes Anarchists look bad, and is purely sectarian.

    Being consistent in my beliefs makes anarchists look bad? O.o

    Anarchists historically have fought Marxists as well. You can pass on long-term unity, but in the short term the only viable path to Socialism is a mass-worker coalition. You can argue why you believe Anarchism to be better, but by making enemies of other Leftists you weaken the movement and thus solidarity. I personally don't waste my time disparaging the hard work of good Anarchist comrades.

    ML vanguards have betrayed anarchists way too often. Broad coalitions: yes, please. But not under the direction of authoritarian commies.

    This is wrong! [...]

    Yeah, you didn't get my point about that class of bureaucrats, did you? That's why MLism is fundamentally idealist.

    Marxism is fundamentally Socialist, all you've done is display a lack of understanding why Capitalism itself is truly bad and must be eliminated.

    sure. /s

    • One thing anarchists are objectively better at is accepting flaws in the people who wrote anarchist theory. Marx was capable of holding believs that were internally inconsistent. History has proven Bakunin right and Marx couldn't have known this. Just because a socialist state is an oxymoron doesn't make Marx a not-socialist.

      None of that was objective, and you concluded that point by saying "just because I say I am right and Marx is wrong doesn't mean Marx wasn't a Socialist." Like, I would love for you to provide me with a point to discuss, but you didn't so we can't.

      You continue to just say you're correct, there's nothing to respond to here.

      I understood your point on Beaurocrats in Worker States. Correct me if I am wrong, but your central claim is that hierarchy inherently results in class distinctions, yes?

      The problem with that statement is that you equate management to ownership, falsely. Capitalism is bad because it results in exploitation due to the central conflict between workers and owners, in Capitalism, the workers have no say or ownership of the products of their labor, Capitalists do, who through competition seek more and more share of Capital at the expense of Workers.

      In a Worker State, this does not exist. Competition does not exist, and Workers democratically direct their labor. Instead of all profits going into the pockets of Capitalists, who purchase more Capital in a never-ending M-C-M' circuit, in a Worker State beaurocrats assist with planning and distribution of resources. These beaurocrats are elected by workers, the entire state is of the Proletariat, and rather than going into the pockets of Capitalists, profit is distributed towards social safety nets by the workers.

      The fact that you see hierarchy as the central problem of Capitalism, and not competition, the profit motive, and worker exploitation, is why I said you don't understand the fundamental issues of Capitalism. Hierarchy isn't class.

      It's incredibly rude to simply state that I just don't understand your points and then snark, rather than addressing mine in return. Rather than having a productive conversation, you just wish to be divisive and sectarian.

106 comments