why isn't everyone on the left an anarchist

[Blagsta]

fucking trots innit....

I wouldn't say that, no.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I wouldn't say that, no.

so what would you say then?

 

[kyser_soze]

@ Blagsta

Depends on a lot of external factors, and the level of conflict present in the system really.

If you've got a situation where food production, for example, is in trouble and affecting a great number of people (especially if previous conditions had been good), the potential for even unwitting counter-revs (awful term) who thought they were doing right to create chaos by attempting to 'sort things out' could be great. Then you've got stuff like cults of personality that would crop up, all kinds of stuff that wouldn't be 'counter revolutionary' in a conscious ideological sense, but would have to be accommodated in an anarchist society.

Anyway, I'm off to watch Stargate Universe, then going to be

 

[love detective]

Bakunin thought Marx was part of a Jewish plot? Never heard that before.

Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of blooksuckers, a single gluttonnous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild.
This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ....

Michael Bakunin, 1871, Personliche Beziehungen zu Marx. In: Gesammelte Werke. Band 3. Berlin 1924. P. 204-216

http://www.connexions.org/RedMenace/Docs/RM4-BakuninonMarxRothschild.htm

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

accomodated

 

[Blagsta]

so what would you say then?

Something along the lines of trots having their hearts in the right place.

 

[Blagsta]

Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of blooksuckers, a single gluttonnous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild.
This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ....

Michael Bakunin, 1871, Personliche Beziehungen zu Marx. In: Gesammelte Werke. Band 3. Berlin 1924. P. 204-216

http://www.connexions.org/RedMenace/Docs/RM4-BakuninonMarxRothschild.htm

I was aware of Bakunin's anti-semitism and his liking for secret plots etc. However, the main argument between Marx and Bakunin and the split in the First International was about the role of the state in a revolution. What you posted doesn't change my opinion of that.

 

[love detective]

you said above that you were not aware of bakunin's hysterical ramblings about marx being part of a jewish plot - that was the point of my post

 

[Blagsta]

you said above that you were not aware of bakunin's hysterical ramblings about marx being part of a jewish plot - that was the point of my post

I wasn't, no. It was contextual though. Someone (Ibn someone or other) claimed that Marx was an anarchist-communist. True in one respect I suppose in that the ultimate aim of communism is anarchism. However, there were fundamental disagreements in methods between Marx and anarchists, summed up in the disagreement between Marx and Bakunin and the split in the First International. Not really to do with Bakunin's more mad pronouncments. That's how I understand it anyway.

 

[butchersapron]

Not me. That was all about two ego-jockeys rubbing each other up the wrong way. Marx is the premier theoretician of anarchism.

 

[Blagsta]

Not me. That was all about two ego-jockeys rubbing each other up the wrong way. Marx is the premier theoretician of anarchism.

That's a very long article! Any chance of a summary?

 

[butchersapron]

The title pretty much gives the game away tbh. Rubel is not just some passing internet nut btw - he was probably the premier marxologist of the post-war years. It's not a massively important articel or anything but it's really worth a print off and read - it's only about 14-15 pages.

 

[Blagsta]

The title pretty much gives the game away tbh. Rubel is not just some passing internet nut btw - he was probably the premier marxologist of the post-war years. It'snot a massively importnat articelor anything but it's really worth a print off and read - it's only about 14-15 pages.

Cheers, I may do. I find it hard to read more than a couple of paragraphs on a computer monitor.

 

[kyser_soze]

Blag, on the top right of the first link there's a pdf it button, if it's easier for you to print&read...

 

[ViolentPanda]

I actually think most brands of anarchism are fairly close to each other.

I agree. My point is that they're not homogenous.

Ignoring anarcho-capitalists (who aren't anarchists)...

Although they'll argue until they're blue in the face that they are.

...and anarcho-primmos (who are nuts and I'd argue not really anarchist either).

Shouldn't that be "nuts with a troglodyte fetish who obviously sustained brain damage while attending an 'Iron John' seminar"?

 

[Knotted]

Bakunin was completely incoherent even when he was not being anti-semitic. His writings are full of vague sloganeering and savaged straw men. Whenever anarchists and Marxists talk about their differences they simply don't understand each other and this a result of the confusion Bakunin sowed. So it's hard to put a finger on the actual differences between Marx and Bakunin. Basically the latter was suspicious of any centralised organisation. For example Marx, like Bakunin said that the working class could not seize hold of state power. Marx, like Bakunin favoured organisation based on direct democracy, recallable delegates and peoples militias. The only real difference was that Marx saw the centralisation of the modern state and modern industry as progressive and so never talked about autonomy. The actual dispute between Marx and Bakunin had very little to do with their "ideological" difference - it revolved around Bakunin's conspiratorial way of organising and his belief in the propaganda sect.

 

[Knotted]

Not me. That was all about two ego-jockeys rubbing each other up the wrong way. Marx is the premier theoretician of anarchism.

My word. Who ever thought philistinism could be so bland?

 

[butchersapron]

Or glib. Now, here's Kautsky with the the Sports News.

 

[butchersapron]

Whenever anarchists and Marxists talk about their differences they simply don't understand each other and this a result of the confusion Bakunin sowed.

Come on.

 

[Knotted]

Come on.

Well you know your Marx and I'm guessing you know your Bakunin. Bakunin on Marx is one long stream of misrepresentations. I'm not saying Marx was an angel, but Marx wrote next to nothing on Bakunin's ideas. Marx was simply dismissive about the anarchists - he was only concerned about the fact they were organising a hostile faction in the IWMA.

The difference between modern day Marxist-Leninism and libcom anarchism is one of important subtleties mainly on organisational issues. There aren't stark "authoritarian" vs. "libertarian" doctrines. If Rubel thinks Marx was a libertarian then he should think Lenin was doubly libertarian at least in his pamphlet "State and Revolution". When it comes down to it since both libcom anarchists and Marxist-Leninists are orientated to class struggle both are shaped by the same historical forces. But anarchists are still repeating Bakunin's vitriolic but confused polemic and Marxists are still replying in kind.