How exactly would Marx denounce Lenin? Or Mao? That’s a supremely goofy statement.
Bakunin was not correct in analyzing power. If saying “states have issues” counts as being “correct” enough to only approve a system that has only ever lasted a few years at a time, you’re intentionally missing the forest for the trees. The USSR was by no means perfect, but it was history’s first true Socialist state and managed to prove that Socialism does work.
While he didn’t specifically denounce Lenin or Mao, he himself exclaimed once, reacting to self-appointed Marxists: “All I know is that I’m not a marxist.” That’s what I was referencing.
Are you sure you read anarchist theory? Bakunin didn’t claim that states “had issues”. Here’s a quote, for example:
That is because no state, not even the most republican and democratic, not even the pseudo-popular state contemplated by Marx, in essence represents anything but government of the masses from above downward, by an educated and thereby privileged minority which supposedly understands the real interests of the people better than the people themselves.
The USSR was a state-capitalist state, where the bourgeoisy was replaced with bureaucrats - as predicted by Bakunin. If it were truly socialist, it wouldn’t have taken away power from the soviets and Lenin wouldn’t have abolished unions in favour of his high-modernist ideas.
That’s a bit ridiculous, with respect to the Marx claim. Marx was attacking Dogmatism, not his own ideas. Post-Marx’s death, people following his ideas understandably called themselves Marxists not because they worshipped Marx, but because they were working with his ideas!
As for Bakunin, he’s a pure idealist here. His rejection of the state is based on the notion that the elected cannot represent the will of the people because they are not the people. This, of course, is wrong, as it assumes the people do not want someone managing higher-order decisions! Letting vast improvements in material conditions be held back because workers had representatives is why Anarchism has failed to last very long.
As for the USSR being “State Capitalist,” that referred to the NEP. Judging Leftist movements by their structure as compared to perfect Marxism in a vacuum without considering the historical context is deeply silly idealism. You would have to do some heavy justification for why you believe a worker state to form a new class that isn’t just vibes.
I’m not claiming he denounced his own ideas, but rather the people claiming to represent marxism. I’m not claiming that anyone worshipped Marx, but that they misunderstood his work.
No, sorry. Claiming that a state can work to not enslave the masses, just because “the right people” are in charge is the actual idealism.
Your claim about representation is wrong, too. Sorry. Anarchist regions have collapsed due to external military pressure. You should read a book on how well the material conditions improved in Catalonia. Sorry, your claims about anarghist regions failing to improve their material condition runs counter to reality and to the actual Marxist theory (that only the people can free themselves, etc.)
The whole planned economy was bogus. What do you think a class is?
Again, you claim that you know anything about anarchist theory and show time and time again that you don’t have the slightest of an idea.
Yes, all of the Marxists have failed to understand Marx, it is in fact Prunebutt who resurrected Marx and got him to denounce everyone who used his ideas.
That’s a deeply silly statement, please explain why you think Lenin misunderstood Marx.
I believe that elected representatives can represent those that elect them if you don’t have Capitalism. Saying you can’t have that and just saying “no, you’re the idealist” is unproductive and goes nowhere.
Material Conditions did improve in Catalonia! Never said they didn’t, that’s a claim you lied about me saying, though I’ll let it slide this time. A lot did work, but a lack of proper organization led to losing to outside pressure.
Again, you claim that you know anything about anarchist and Marxist theory and show time and time again that you don’t have the slightest of an idea.
Yes, all of the Marxists have failed to understand Marx, it is in fact *Prunebutt* who resurrected Marx and got him to denounce everyone who used his ideas.
The role of money in soviet society was always subordinate to material production. Money was necessary only due to the technical limitations of planning a vast economy without sufficient computing power. The sphere of commodity exchange was supressed as much as possible. Much of the soviet citizen’s consumption was either heavily subsidised or free. This went all the way from food, transportation to even fancy entertainment (like spas and theatres). In fact, the heavy distortion of prices in soviet society is often cited as a reason for its eventual collapse.
Therefore, calling the soviet union state capitalist is absurd. Capitalism requires a dominant bourgeois class, the operation of the law of value and the anarchy of production. None of these elements were present in the soviet union.
What kind of Marxism? Marx’s Marxism, or that body of theory by his followers that even Marx denounced, i.e. ML, MLM, etc.
Anarchist’s analysis of power has been spot-on ever since Bakunin predicted the bureaucratic dictatorship that Russia became under the Bolsheviki.
Marx died March 14th, 1883
Mao was born December 26th, 1893
Was Karl Marx a time traveler?
Yes. /j
How exactly would Marx denounce Lenin? Or Mao? That’s a supremely goofy statement.
Bakunin was not correct in analyzing power. If saying “states have issues” counts as being “correct” enough to only approve a system that has only ever lasted a few years at a time, you’re intentionally missing the forest for the trees. The USSR was by no means perfect, but it was history’s first true Socialist state and managed to prove that Socialism does work.
While he didn’t specifically denounce Lenin or Mao, he himself exclaimed once, reacting to self-appointed Marxists: “All I know is that I’m not a marxist.” That’s what I was referencing.
Are you sure you read anarchist theory? Bakunin didn’t claim that states “had issues”. Here’s a quote, for example:
The USSR was a state-capitalist state, where the bourgeoisy was replaced with bureaucrats - as predicted by Bakunin. If it were truly socialist, it wouldn’t have taken away power from the soviets and Lenin wouldn’t have abolished unions in favour of his high-modernist ideas.
That’s a bit ridiculous, with respect to the Marx claim. Marx was attacking Dogmatism, not his own ideas. Post-Marx’s death, people following his ideas understandably called themselves Marxists not because they worshipped Marx, but because they were working with his ideas!
As for Bakunin, he’s a pure idealist here. His rejection of the state is based on the notion that the elected cannot represent the will of the people because they are not the people. This, of course, is wrong, as it assumes the people do not want someone managing higher-order decisions! Letting vast improvements in material conditions be held back because workers had representatives is why Anarchism has failed to last very long.
As for the USSR being “State Capitalist,” that referred to the NEP. Judging Leftist movements by their structure as compared to perfect Marxism in a vacuum without considering the historical context is deeply silly idealism. You would have to do some heavy justification for why you believe a worker state to form a new class that isn’t just vibes.
I’m not claiming he denounced his own ideas, but rather the people claiming to represent marxism. I’m not claiming that anyone worshipped Marx, but that they misunderstood his work.
No, sorry. Claiming that a state can work to not enslave the masses, just because “the right people” are in charge is the actual idealism.
Your claim about representation is wrong, too. Sorry. Anarchist regions have collapsed due to external military pressure. You should read a book on how well the material conditions improved in Catalonia. Sorry, your claims about anarghist regions failing to improve their material condition runs counter to reality and to the actual Marxist theory (that only the people can free themselves, etc.)
The whole planned economy was bogus. What do you think a class is?
Again, you claim that you know anything about anarchist theory and show time and time again that you don’t have the slightest of an idea.
Yes, all of the Marxists have failed to understand Marx, it is in fact Prunebutt who resurrected Marx and got him to denounce everyone who used his ideas.
That’s a deeply silly statement, please explain why you think Lenin misunderstood Marx.
I believe that elected representatives can represent those that elect them if you don’t have Capitalism. Saying you can’t have that and just saying “no, you’re the idealist” is unproductive and goes nowhere.
Material Conditions did improve in Catalonia! Never said they didn’t, that’s a claim you lied about me saying, though I’ll let it slide this time. A lot did work, but a lack of proper organization led to losing to outside pressure.
Again, you claim that you know anything about anarchist and Marxist theory and show time and time again that you don’t have the slightest of an idea.
No. You’ve shown that you don’t argue in good faith, at least with the paragraph above that request. Good luck with your vanguard strategy.
I do argue in good faith, this entire time I have asked you to elaborate and you’ve ducked and weaved, now that you can’t duck anywhere else you run.
Good luck wishing for leftist movement to happen, surely another faithful will make it happen!
sure you do /s
You are wrong on the factual level.
The role of money in soviet society was always subordinate to material production. Money was necessary only due to the technical limitations of planning a vast economy without sufficient computing power. The sphere of commodity exchange was supressed as much as possible. Much of the soviet citizen’s consumption was either heavily subsidised or free. This went all the way from food, transportation to even fancy entertainment (like spas and theatres). In fact, the heavy distortion of prices in soviet society is often cited as a reason for its eventual collapse.
Therefore, calling the soviet union state capitalist is absurd. Capitalism requires a dominant bourgeois class, the operation of the law of value and the anarchy of production. None of these elements were present in the soviet union.
You’d know if you read anarchist theory 😂
Oh duh, just gotta ask the Anarchist necromancers