I'm starting to think that Bakunin BTFOed Marx. From Statism and Anarchy:
and later
does anyone have a response to this?
I'm starting to think that Bakunin BTFOed Marx. From Statism and Anarchy:
Colton Cox
Xavier Cruz
It’s not “BTFO’ing” when Marx himself blows you the fuck out in reply. I can’t find the full version of the conspectus but Bakunin is a joke and Marx makes this very clear
Austin Bell
fpbp
John Nguyen
First of all it means acknowledging that immediately after a successful revolution the prior ruling class does not cease to exist only due to the fact that the revolution took hold. The status quo ante’s private property and capital might have been nationalized (or given to collective-holdings, or restructured into coops, etc.), but their political and economic power still resists this immediate post-revolutionary transformation due to their prior elongated rule, leading us, Marxists, to acknowledge that even after a (possibly fleeting!) revolution they still hold onto political and economic power:
1) economic, because the enemy of the proletariat have amassed internal and international connections, thus power, pertaining to his own (prior) class, convertible into diplomatic and conspiratorial potential through their connections;
2) ideological, because the proletariat’s has been subjected to the extended exposure of the bourgeoisie’s means of setting the ideological landscape, the general ‘agenda’.
Both of these have far reaching consequences, all being reflected upon in the Marxist tradition (and totally lacking in anarchist circles, mind you).
Your source (Bakunin) conceptualizes this burning question of power, force, policy, and political consequence in terms of ridiculous questions about (democratic) quantity; hence:
The answer is, obviously: no – and “thank God” that it is no, since the 40 million include the bourgeoisie and the lackeys (even among the working class) they created!
What must be noted here is how anarchist and Marxist analyses have diverged: for you, an anarchist, the question is about numbers – the ultimate proof of authenticity. For you, the question is always raised in relation to the State’s hierarchical power (something Marxists never denied), and trying to horizontalize it. The Marxist understanding runs contrary to this: for us the “main enemy” is not the State as such, but capitalism and its market forces, that which properly create our class society.
Who – ever – said this?! Yes, the dictatorship of the proletariat will mean the suppression of the prior bourgeoisie. Bakunin’s “entire nation” includes the capitalists, with their aforementioned anti-revolutionary potential. To spell it out: Bakunin doesn’t just rely on a kind of unreachable Utopia, wherein everyone is immediately equal post-revolution. This idiot moves further:
Yes, the communists want this! The fucking capitalists that have escaped our revolutionary terror (meaning: execution) shall be slaves: “second class citizens” – if you wish to frame it as such.
The proletariat isn’t a “small number of people” – in fact, they are 90-99% of humanity. On the “representational problem”: yes, Marxists acknowledge that actual organizational problems will give us less-than optimal outcomes, but how dare you – let me rephrase –, HOW DARE YOU, FUCKING ANARCHISTS, to JUDGE US on “not being representational ‘enough’”?!
NOBODY, let me repeat that: NOBODY elects a revolutionary government! In fact: a revolutionary MINORITY takes over the non-revolutionary MAJORITY – every single time. Got that?!
Alexander Parker
Go back to voting, retard!
Yes, without a doubt and with no regrets: the government of the proletariat (the latter meaning: the class-conscious element of the working class), a minority, will take over the “majority”: working class people who are still class-cucked, and the lumpens, and the bourgeoisie. Please tell me how this is a problem in your book!
Yes, it will consists of workers, specifically those workers who achieved class-consciousness (proletariat).
Finally, a legitimate criticism. Everyone constituting the workers’ state should be made accountable.
Yes, naturally, since “people,” here = proletariat + working class + lumpen + bourgeois.
human_nature.exe
Yes, we unironically say that!
No. Communism is the goal.
No. The DotP is not only the means, it is the very form that can bring about communism.
Wut.
Jackson Perry
oh wow look it's Marx btfo'ing himself attempting to "answer" Bakunin
Angel Murphy
more at >>>/netcom/627
Landon Turner
...
Dylan Sanders
Green = Bakunin / Red = Marx
The answer is always to READ MARX
Hudson Allen
This is pure retardism, see:
Ayden Bell
Kek
Nolan James
Joshua Martin
Lol & kek, and lfmao, and etc., you shit. Please tell me how the "nation" (as a category) or "people living here" (as a category) don't include the bourg. and the lumpen!
For me, when you say such ridiculousness as the "whole people" I hear the following: people to be eradicated and people to gain power.
:3
:3
:3
Easton Ortiz
Tbh, the real commiepill is when you realize that Stalin was right when he said that the withering away of the state is paradoxically achieved by the strengthening of the socialist state. Engels already outlined that the state changes character and becomes a scientific administration of production in socialism. This is precisely what needed to happen with the integration of all production into public property. The trend in the 20th century was the opposite of Stalin's idea, i.e. bourgeois elements in the Party introducing more market relations and destabilizing the system, strengthening the restoration of the borgeois state.
Camden Evans
>>>/netcom/627
where this shit got started
Jayden Evans
What did he mean by this?
Luke Ramirez
Lincoln Martinez
It makes sense to me. The Paris Commune was a good example of a dictatorship of the proletariat. Universal suffrage, the people armed, instantly recallable officials.
Benjamin Ramirez
The Paris Commune is a prime example of a minority "of the people" ruling: they overthrew the status quo, they executed the lackeys. They were anything but a "popular or majority''' government.
Daniel Scott
heil hitler
Christian White
read marx.
Alexander Campbell
Hudson Moore
Oh wow another thread made by an obvious recent convert to anarchism who hasn't read marx beyond the manifesto, probably has read no Engels at all, and hasn't read about the history of Marxism in the late 19th and 20th centuries making a thread with arguments that have been btfo a million times before appealing to the authority of an anarchist "theorist" that a lot of modern anarchists don't even take seriously or think is relevant anymore
God damn dude I am so glad we started encouraging reunification with Zig Forums and stopped being so hard on anarkiddy redditors, it's really improved the quality of discussion
Isaiah Gray
don't forget when he rightfully called him a kike
Blake Scott
Andrew Richardson
fuck off kike, Bakunin was based because he called marx a kike
Hunter Harris
The other user was correct, what you posted has nothing to do with anything.
Against this transformation of the state and the organs of the state from servants of society into masters of society – an inevitable transformation in all previous states – the Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts – administrative, judicial, and educational – by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. The highest salary paid by the Commune to anyone was 6,000 francs. In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates to representative bodies which were also added in profusion.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
marxists.org
Henry Clark
Another quote by Marx on the Paris Commune, this time from a letter:
If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire you will find that I say that the next attempt of the French revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is essential for every real people's revolution on the Continent.
marxists.org
reminder that these are all ideas that Lenin later repeated in State & Revolution.
Levi Lopez
Your position is called idealism, son.
Jeremiah Thompson
Hello durgen!
Cooper Diaz
...
Elijah Davis
Shut up
Josiah Flores
And his feelings of frustration will directly translate into a threat, without having control over anything anymore? The idea that the material means by which people actually change things are negligible and that we can meaningfully talk about what happens as if it came directly out peoples's heads is called I D E A L I S M.
Carson Ortiz
...
Austin Johnson
Parker Baker
...
Josiah Smith
Nicholas Rodriguez
t. lenin, OG of IDEALISM GANG
Lincoln Murphy
They didn't change the material base thoroughly enough.
Joshua Russell
Were you expecting them to completely destroy the bourgeoisie in a single stroke? We can quibble about when exactly a revolution is "successful", sure, but the context of the original post was clearly speaking of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a period in which class struggle still goes on - a period in which by definition the material base is undergoing change, a period that lasts longer than a single day or night, a period in which the proletariat now wields political power but must also contend with counter-revolutionary forces that do not just stop existing because the proletariat is in the saddle.
Jack Lewis
clarifying "original post" as