So you admit to not having read Lenin, yet claim to disagree with Marx, Engels, and Lenin? Why not read them for yourself, so that you can judge them properly, alongside the texts you’ve provided? I never claimed you hadn’t read theory, I claimed you have a horrible understanding of Marxism and thus have likely read little to no Marx, and that you haven’t read Lenin. I fully believe you’ve read Anarchist theory, just that you lack the proper understanding of Marxism or Marxism-Leninism to come up with reasonable critique.
We therefore arrive at the true meaning of your first comment: Marxism isn’t Anarchist, so it isn’t Socialist. An absurd claim, you can absolutely recognize both Anarchism and Marxism as forms of Socialism without agreeing with both.
As for your sources, I read the first article you linked. I wish you did me the same respect and read the articles I linked, but that’s neither here nor there.
Rudolf Rocker is wrong, on quite a few levels. He claims that the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” is bourgeois! That implementing democratic institutions by which to control production as it advances in the hands of the Proletatiat is bourgeois! Additionally, he claims that the DotP will “give back” to the Workers once Socialism is achieved. This is nonsense! On the contrary, the Workers are already in control during the DotP, and Socialism has already begun. Rocker allows his Anarchist bias to decry any form of government as “not for the workers” and thus makes the case that a fully publicly owned, centrally planned, democratically controlled economy is somehow “bourgeois” despite utterly eliminating the bourgeois mode of production!
Rocker makes this case in 1920, after Marxism had produced the first Socialist State. It’s understandable to be wary in the first tender years, however since then Marxism has produced many more successful revolutions, and Anarchism very few. Modern Anarchists must learn from this and adapt their theory until it produces successful results, such as learning from EZLN. Rocker fails because he draws false dichotomies and wrote well before we had the knowledge that Marxism does produce consistent and successful revolutions and dramatic improvements for the Working Class.
This is why what you say is at its core idealist. You can claim that China isn’t Anarchist, but you cannot claim that it isn’t Marxist, so you have to redefine Socialism as Anarchism! You’ve moved the goalpost entirely.
You can continue to be an Anarchist, but I encourage you to read Marx, Engels, and Lenin if you want to speak about AES states and whether or not they are operating on Marxist principles and economics. Otherwise, everything on that subject that comes from your mouth is nonsense. You can make Anarchist critiques of AES, sure, as you have a background in Anarchist theory. You don’t, however, have a background in Marxist theory, so you can’t speak as though you do!
I fully expect you to ignore this, but you’d do well to read the first few sections at least of my Introductory Marxist Reading List.
We therefore arrive at the true meaning of your first comment: Marxism isn’t Anarchist, so it isn’t Socialist.
lol, not what i said, comrade.
You don’t, however, have a background in Marxist theory, so you can’t speak as though you do!
Yeah, that’s not true. I’ve read a bit of Marx and enough of Engels. I can barely keep up with the theory that’s coherent to my worldview. I’m not willing to read up on 100 years of outdated political theory.
As I’ve said a few times before: you’re way too commited to the leninist party line that you bend over backwards to justify your positions, claiming the “dictatorstip of the proletariat” is materialist, while ignoring the empirical evidence staring you in the face.
It isn’t what you said, but it’s what you revealed yourself to have meant. That’s why I said it was the “true meaning” of what you have said, you claim to only believe Socialism to be Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, but when I explain how the PRC already has that, and moreover elaborated more on what constitutes Socialism from a Marxist perspective, you used Anarchist reasoning that goes against all of Marxism, not just the PRC, such as the idea that having a government means you aren’t Socialist because of an ill-defined “beaurocrat” class.
You can claim to have read a bit of Marx and “enough of Engels,” but what’s shown practically by your reasoning and refusal to address direct quotations disproving your concept of Marxism is that you haven’t read enough. I don’t want to make this a reading measuring contest, which is why I asked you to counter the arguments made by Marx and Engels themselves.
Moreover, you claim Marxism is “outdated,” but here I am directly proving how the PRC is using Marxism as the largest economy in the world (by PPP) to tremendous benefit, meanwhile you give Rudolf Rocker’s article from before we had direct historical evidence counter to his ideas. Which is outdated, Marxism, which guides many really existing states and has produced numerous successful revolutions and working class improvements, or Rudolf Rocker’s conception of Anarchism, which largely just has the EZLN?
I don’t think Anarchism is a lost cause, but I do think you need to look in the mirror before you call practical, working theory “outdated” in service of actually outdated criticisms of said theory!
Finally, what on Earth do you mean when you say the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” isn’t Materialist? The DotP has practical, real world success and sees use in several countries around the world, the notion that it’s “idealist” makes no sense. You never back that up, I actually think you don’t really know what Materialism and Idealism truly are. I recommend Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy.
It isn’t what you said, but it’s what you revealed yourself to have meant.
Bullshit.
you used Anarchist reasoning that goes against all of Marxism
Not if you have a more narrow definition of Marxism, which only includes the theory Marx wrote himself, seated in his historical, social framework.
the notion that it’s “idealist” makes no sense. You never back that up
I did, but you refused to accept that by claiming that my definition of a class was wrong, or something. Then you claim that I haven’t made a point, just because it contradicts your sacred texts.
You’re obviously way too keen on mansplainingtanksplain socialism to people. I have reproductive labour to attend to, so I don’t have the energy and/or time to satisfy your need for theoretical circlejerking in ML theory. You can (and probably will) write your BS assumptions about me, while quoting Engels once more, if you want. Whatever makes you feel superior to the ignorant anarchist. But excuse me when I’m muting this conversation.
If I’m wrong, explain. I very clearly explained exactly why you’re going against Marxism to the point of invalidating it as Socialism.
Secondly, even if we only accept Marx alone, and ignore Engels, Lenin, every other Marxist who has expanded upon and contextualized Marxism (at which point we move from materialism to idealism, dogmatism), there is nothing Marx wrote that implies “beaurocracy” constitutes a class! The “administration of things” is done via *central planning and public ownership," and you cannot do so without managers! You even admitted to only reading “a bit” of Marx, and never once could explain why direct quotations that ran counter to your claims don’t matter.
Marx’s texts are not “sacred.” We keep what we can test and verify, and toss what we can’t. You haven’t made a proper case for tossing aspects of Marxism, and in fact in the Rocker article, you showcase endorsement for what History proved wrong! Your reply to direct quotations disproving you? Ignore them and call me a dogmatist. That’s not how we have constructive conversations, that’s refusing to engage with theory you haven’t made a case for ignoring!
Finally, you resort to gendered attacks. I have no idea what gender or sex you are, you don’t list your pronouns nor would I have any way of otherwise knowing. That’s a thought-terminating cliché that avoids the conversation. I am explaining Marxism to an Anarchist that displayed a lack of understanding of Marxism, at any other point you could have disengaged, but instead chose to resort to personal attacks the whole way through.
The good thing is that your comment string is useful for anyone walking in here to see an example of someone arguing in bad-faith.
Thanks for proving my point. Mansplaining can be done by anyone, btw. Not directed at your identity, but what you’re doing. Have fun writing the next essay as a reply. I probably won’t read it, as I’ve got a household to manage.
Edit: I changed my mind. Sorry for the gendered term. Should have said “tanksplain” or “MLsplain”.
Gotcha, you’re just going to double down on name-calling and thought-terminating clichés. I appreciate the removal of the gendered insult, but keeping the insult keeps the main point of issue I take with avoiding a conversation around Marxism.
You did, though, back when we were trying to have a conversation. Maybe that was one-sided, and it was only me trying to have a conversation, but then why bother replying to me?
So you admit to not having read Lenin, yet claim to disagree with Marx, Engels, and Lenin? Why not read them for yourself, so that you can judge them properly, alongside the texts you’ve provided? I never claimed you hadn’t read theory, I claimed you have a horrible understanding of Marxism and thus have likely read little to no Marx, and that you haven’t read Lenin. I fully believe you’ve read Anarchist theory, just that you lack the proper understanding of Marxism or Marxism-Leninism to come up with reasonable critique.
We therefore arrive at the true meaning of your first comment: Marxism isn’t Anarchist, so it isn’t Socialist. An absurd claim, you can absolutely recognize both Anarchism and Marxism as forms of Socialism without agreeing with both.
As for your sources, I read the first article you linked. I wish you did me the same respect and read the articles I linked, but that’s neither here nor there.
Rudolf Rocker is wrong, on quite a few levels. He claims that the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” is bourgeois! That implementing democratic institutions by which to control production as it advances in the hands of the Proletatiat is bourgeois! Additionally, he claims that the DotP will “give back” to the Workers once Socialism is achieved. This is nonsense! On the contrary, the Workers are already in control during the DotP, and Socialism has already begun. Rocker allows his Anarchist bias to decry any form of government as “not for the workers” and thus makes the case that a fully publicly owned, centrally planned, democratically controlled economy is somehow “bourgeois” despite utterly eliminating the bourgeois mode of production!
Rocker makes this case in 1920, after Marxism had produced the first Socialist State. It’s understandable to be wary in the first tender years, however since then Marxism has produced many more successful revolutions, and Anarchism very few. Modern Anarchists must learn from this and adapt their theory until it produces successful results, such as learning from EZLN. Rocker fails because he draws false dichotomies and wrote well before we had the knowledge that Marxism does produce consistent and successful revolutions and dramatic improvements for the Working Class.
This is why what you say is at its core idealist. You can claim that China isn’t Anarchist, but you cannot claim that it isn’t Marxist, so you have to redefine Socialism as Anarchism! You’ve moved the goalpost entirely.
You can continue to be an Anarchist, but I encourage you to read Marx, Engels, and Lenin if you want to speak about AES states and whether or not they are operating on Marxist principles and economics. Otherwise, everything on that subject that comes from your mouth is nonsense. You can make Anarchist critiques of AES, sure, as you have a background in Anarchist theory. You don’t, however, have a background in Marxist theory, so you can’t speak as though you do!
I fully expect you to ignore this, but you’d do well to read the first few sections at least of my Introductory Marxist Reading List.
lol, not what i said, comrade.
Yeah, that’s not true. I’ve read a bit of Marx and enough of Engels. I can barely keep up with the theory that’s coherent to my worldview. I’m not willing to read up on 100 years of outdated political theory.
As I’ve said a few times before: you’re way too commited to the leninist party line that you bend over backwards to justify your positions, claiming the “dictatorstip of the proletariat” is materialist, while ignoring the empirical evidence staring you in the face.
It isn’t what you said, but it’s what you revealed yourself to have meant. That’s why I said it was the “true meaning” of what you have said, you claim to only believe Socialism to be Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, but when I explain how the PRC already has that, and moreover elaborated more on what constitutes Socialism from a Marxist perspective, you used Anarchist reasoning that goes against all of Marxism, not just the PRC, such as the idea that having a government means you aren’t Socialist because of an ill-defined “beaurocrat” class.
You can claim to have read a bit of Marx and “enough of Engels,” but what’s shown practically by your reasoning and refusal to address direct quotations disproving your concept of Marxism is that you haven’t read enough. I don’t want to make this a reading measuring contest, which is why I asked you to counter the arguments made by Marx and Engels themselves.
Moreover, you claim Marxism is “outdated,” but here I am directly proving how the PRC is using Marxism as the largest economy in the world (by PPP) to tremendous benefit, meanwhile you give Rudolf Rocker’s article from before we had direct historical evidence counter to his ideas. Which is outdated, Marxism, which guides many really existing states and has produced numerous successful revolutions and working class improvements, or Rudolf Rocker’s conception of Anarchism, which largely just has the EZLN?
I don’t think Anarchism is a lost cause, but I do think you need to look in the mirror before you call practical, working theory “outdated” in service of actually outdated criticisms of said theory!
Finally, what on Earth do you mean when you say the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” isn’t Materialist? The DotP has practical, real world success and sees use in several countries around the world, the notion that it’s “idealist” makes no sense. You never back that up, I actually think you don’t really know what Materialism and Idealism truly are. I recommend Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy.
Bullshit.
Not if you have a more narrow definition of Marxism, which only includes the theory Marx wrote himself, seated in his historical, social framework.
I did, but you refused to accept that by claiming that my definition of a class was wrong, or something. Then you claim that I haven’t made a point, just because it contradicts your sacred texts.
You’re obviously way too keen on
mansplainingtanksplain socialism to people. I have reproductive labour to attend to, so I don’t have the energy and/or time to satisfy your need for theoretical circlejerking in ML theory. You can (and probably will) write your BS assumptions about me, while quoting Engels once more, if you want. Whatever makes you feel superior to the ignorant anarchist. But excuse me when I’m muting this conversation.If I’m wrong, explain. I very clearly explained exactly why you’re going against Marxism to the point of invalidating it as Socialism.
Secondly, even if we only accept Marx alone, and ignore Engels, Lenin, every other Marxist who has expanded upon and contextualized Marxism (at which point we move from materialism to idealism, dogmatism), there is nothing Marx wrote that implies “beaurocracy” constitutes a class! The “administration of things” is done via *central planning and public ownership," and you cannot do so without managers! You even admitted to only reading “a bit” of Marx, and never once could explain why direct quotations that ran counter to your claims don’t matter.
Marx’s texts are not “sacred.” We keep what we can test and verify, and toss what we can’t. You haven’t made a proper case for tossing aspects of Marxism, and in fact in the Rocker article, you showcase endorsement for what History proved wrong! Your reply to direct quotations disproving you? Ignore them and call me a dogmatist. That’s not how we have constructive conversations, that’s refusing to engage with theory you haven’t made a case for ignoring!
Finally, you resort to gendered attacks. I have no idea what gender or sex you are, you don’t list your pronouns nor would I have any way of otherwise knowing. That’s a thought-terminating cliché that avoids the conversation. I am explaining Marxism to an Anarchist that displayed a lack of understanding of Marxism, at any other point you could have disengaged, but instead chose to resort to personal attacks the whole way through.
The good thing is that your comment string is useful for anyone walking in here to see an example of someone arguing in bad-faith.
Thanks for proving my point.
Mansplaining can be done by anyone, btw. Not directed at your identity, but what you’re doing.Have fun writing the next essay as a reply. I probably won’t read it, as I’ve got a household to manage.Edit: I changed my mind. Sorry for the gendered term. Should have said “tanksplain” or “MLsplain”.
Gotcha, you’re just going to double down on name-calling and thought-terminating clichés. I appreciate the removal of the gendered insult, but keeping the insult keeps the main point of issue I take with avoiding a conversation around Marxism.
I’m not avoiding a conversation, I simply have better things to do.
You did, though, back when we were trying to have a conversation. Maybe that was one-sided, and it was only me trying to have a conversation, but then why bother replying to me?