Why I am now a Marxist

From The Expropriationist

Many of the people who know me on a political level know I’ve wrestled with what I call an “ideological dysphoria” for (at least) the past year. To put it simply, I questioned fundamental Anarchist theory of thinkers like Petr Kropotkin, Nestor Mahkno and Murray Bookchin, against that of Karl Marx. This has become less and less about not being an Anarchist, and more about the fact that I am undeniably a Marxist. I cannot use the label Anarchist in good faith anymore, I don’t think like an Anarchist.

In reality, my politics are not changing a great deal, this is indeed a transformation, and one that I can only say makes sense for me. I will always hold a high degree of admiration for Anarchists. Putting nearly a decade of Anarchism behind me doesn’t come without a feeling of having left something very influential behind. I still hold the Spanish Civil War in high regards as the greatest revolutionary period, and the groundbreaking society built around the CNT-FAI in such a short amount of time. I also remain, a vocal proponent of Revolutionary Syndicalism. I am still a Prison Abolitionist, calling for the immediate dismantling of the US Prison Industrial Complex.

So one might ask, if you are still inspired by the same revolutionaries and believe in much the same politics, why Marxism? The short answer is one that will likely annoy those who aren’t Marxist: Historical Materialism and Dialectical Materialism.

This calls for elaboration. I will make an attempt to point to basic contradictions between Anarchism and Marxism, and try to explain why I find myself to be a Marxist and not an Anarchist. The contradictions manifest more in philosophy and science, than that of the classic “authoritarian” vs. “libertarian” divide, that some believe to be the most significant contradictions between the ideologies. I abhor this dichotomy, and abhor those two classifications. They don’t make sense to the Marxist, because they are both dependent on “ideals”. They are certainly inevitable when speaking of revolutionary praxis, but we do not live in a revolutionary period. Marxism doesn’t have the emphasis on “ethics” that Anarchism has.

Dialectical materialism is the Marxist methodology and basic philosophy proposed by Marx and Engels. It takes Hegel’s “Dialectical Idealism”, which is the reconciling of ideas with a “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” through a negation process which begins anew upon synthesis. In short (it is hard to do the concept justice so) Marx takes this dialectical process and applies to material (economic) change. Hegel belonged to a school of philosophical thought known as “German Idealism”. Marx’s deviation (and ultimately his inversion) from the idealists was not simply his idea of “Dialectical Materialism”, but “Historical Materialism”. The significant departure from the idealists was that the advancement of history is not properly measured by new ideas, but a change in material conditions.

In a political sense (and in contradiction to many Anarchists) this is also significant in that Marx (and Marxists) did not believe that the “new age of socialism” (of which I am considering Anarchism a part of) would not be ushered in by new ideas, but systemic and material change. This is where I make a departure with Peter Kropotkin. Without him, there is no Anarchism for me. With all the respect to Bakunin (who scorned idealism in God and the State), his theory was never strong enough for me and is full of more contradictions, and Anarchists have been dismissing him since the split of the First International. Historically, it’s essentially the fault of Bakunin that I am probably even having to write this piece. Having an understanding of Hague Caucus and the Paris Commune is perhaps more significant than understanding the divides that Anarchists and Marxists had in the Spanish Civil War, Russian Revolution, and more recent revolutionary periods.

Kropotkin (and most other Anarchist thinkers) employ “straight to communism” theories that I cannot endorse. When put to a dialectical materialist analysis of history, revolution goes through a period of transitory socialism before reaching communism. This is not something I view as subjective, as communism is a material condition of society. Socialism may indeed refer to a period of “communization”, as I have heard many modern non-Marxist communists refer to, this is still bastardized and closeted Marxism to me, and I mean that in the most complimentary way. I am not endorsing a singular revolutionary road, slavery did not become feudalism overnight, neither did feudalism become capitalism overnight. Trying to transition to a period that is post-capital and post-market is not only an impossibility, but a recipe for disaster, and not the kind that will end in any form of communism. We’ve been socialized thus far to produce things under these institutions. A working-class under capitalism cannot reorganize themselves into a society which is devoid of not only market and currency, but organization itself. We do not simply abolish capital and market, we rule them obsolete through the process of socialism. Communism is built, not declared.

Anarchists have a bleeding heart that I admire. Action now, change now, you can say their idealism is as material as it gets. These ethics, found so ubiquitously in Anarchism, may indeed be enough to bring about their ends, which are ultimately our ends. In many ways, they understand the materialist position that “revolution is measured by material change” the best of all. The failure is that in my experience, is that when I ask the more difficult questions which challenge the bleeding heart, I am given answers which point to a different revolutionary conclusion than I: “that we will shape the new society with new ideas, values and ethics”. I find failure in these things.

Most Anarchism (and Anarchists) is idealist as I understand it. This is okay. Some non-idealist Anarchists will be very offended by this statement, and I certainly don’t mean to insinuate that all Anarchists are idealist or that you must be one to be an Anarchist, this is hardly true. Anarchism doesn’t function like Marxism this way, in that it isn’t built on a fundamental philosophy and economic theory. While Anarchists concern themselves with tactics, ethics and ideals; The Marxists concern themselves with strategy, science and philosophy. This is indicative of my personal transformation as a revolutionary.

As I said before, I remain a proponent of Revolutionary Syndicalism, and I think the Anarchist contributions to that school obviously outweigh the Marxist. However, I believe we have to also have revolutionary organization outside the economic field which fights to legitimize that of the economic struggle and advance the period in which they occur. I believe the only function of these political organizations is legitimize these economic victories, and develop and advance revolutionary ideology. To some these functions manifest in a party, and with partisan Marxism comes the idea of vanguardism. Despite my frequent mentions of Lenin and my encouragement to Anarchists to read and understand him (this is not new), I have no intentions of becoming a Leninist of any current.

The question of “Autonomist Marxism” has come up with many of the people who have been made aware of my decision to become a Marxist, and while I am influenced heavily by Autonomism (always have as an Anarchist), my ideology is Orthodox Marxism. For those of you who do not understand that, it is not simply the ideas of Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels, but that of their successor, Karl Kautsky. Other Orthodox Marxist thinkers that I would say identify my revolutionary theory are Daniel De Leon and Rosa Luxemburg. As I said before, I am still a Syndicalist; the ideas of Daniel De Leon, and his hybrid of Revolutionary Syndicalism and Orthodox Marxism, reflect my current ideological orientation.

With this comes the inevitable questions concerning the State. As all Marxists comes the demand for the overthrow of the bourgeois state and all it’s mechanisms, that much is understood. When it comes the idea of a “revolutionary worker’s state”, as theorized by Lenin (where state is defined “the mechanism in which one class oppresses the other”, I remain disillusioned. I do not, however, concern myself with ethics and values of Anarchists. I believe there is perhaps, a democratic socialist road to communism, which could be interpreted as “libertarian” but not every interpretation of stateless. You cannot organize the masses of society to build towards radical social change without looking like a “government”, no revolutionary should not ignore this.

I could say ethics and values are of absolutely no concern for me as a revolutionary. I am only concerned with the advancement of socialism, and the economic change. Reforms to capitalism only increase support for the capitalist class, that is not ethical but scientific, its a basic analysis of history. We can only legitimize and bring a political voice to the organizing being done on the economic field, and socialist parties should do only that. The economic conditions of the political base determine the politics (and thus culture and nature) of the political realm. As long as we remain capitalist, mainstream politics will continue to reflect the interests of the ruling class. As revolutionaries, we concern ourselves not with their politics but the politics of that of others socialists. Building popular support for Socialism is not the role of one party, but many parties and ultimately, the workers organizing to change the mode of production to socialism. Socialism is quite purely worker control, not party control. I also believe a socialist revolution can take the form of a pan-socialist movement that is also internationalist and spans ideologies working towards the same goals.

I call for the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. I believe in a proletariat capable of doing this. I also believe mass organization and popular support for socialism is needed for a viable communist revolution, both of which are measured by material change. I concern myself with these things, not vague appeals to anti-authoritarianism or extreme measures of egalitarianism within capitalism. Overthrowing the State is easy in comparison to overthrowing Capitalism. Even in an Imperialist super-state like the USA, the force of Washington pales in comparison to the forces of capital.

Anarchists are certainly not as wrong, as the Marxists are right. I still admire the work done by Anarchists, will always continue to organize amongst Anarchists, and will always respect Anarchists as comrades. We once marched all together underneath one red flag, I hope we can one day again. After our split, during the Hague Caucus of the First International, the Chancellor of Germany Otto von Bismarck said: “Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!” Let them tremble.



Well, excellent. I'm glad we got that cleared up.


"Socialism is quite purely worker control, not party control."

Worker control... got that, sir! Hence why the Socialist International bureaucrats. To better control the workers... I mean horizontally of course! lol

both karl marx and ayn rand marveled at the liberatory potential of the technologies of their day, namely the new train systems being built, and the fantasies of BOTH of those charlatans has been proven conclusively false when looked back upon from today. We are no more liberated now than when they heralded the promise of technologies, because they were both very WRONG about the way to freedom from the bondage of corporate capitalism. have fun mired in irrelevancy! i can guarantee that when all property is shared equally those who are doing the dividing will somehow end up with more.

If big daddy Karl Marx would live today in the US he'd be Alex Jones.

Cheap gold for the proletariat... 50% off!

do you have a web site for the 50% off deal, and do i need an id showing im a proleteriat to get it?
the movie 'treasure of the sierra madre' (1948, wikipedia) with my great grandchild humphrey bogart shows, in a positive way, how to turn gold into water and the reverse. (sometimes water is as valuable as gold).
there is also a nice story called 'the gold bug' by an alocholic who died in a gutter in baltimore (nice place for a 'permanent vacation', or a 'weekend' (jean luc godard ). the author, edgar allen poe, even made 100$ for this story, and i am sure using marxist theory (kliman, graeber, zerzan, and other white males) one can show this caused inequality.

True, comrade! The very reason why Derrick Jensen is the only true Enlightened One, and true heir to Undefeated Comrade Stalin in this carbon-based climate capitalist world. All His predecessors didn't have the guts and pretense to take power... and fuck salmon.

haven't heard too much about doing that to salmon. i used to catch em on yukon river---they bite and got teeth. so, i returned the flavor and ate em---except the ones the martens got ---they took em (people told me i could make money by getting the skin---one time i did shoot one in the tail---leave my salmons alone, you're eating me out of house and home--i kept them i the refrigerator, also called 'outside', from-20 to -50 farenheit). at least the grizzly bears didn't mess with them (though they did object to other people who had hung their salmon in the refrigerator (outside)---and killed them too. i met a grizzly up there---it ran away. (i played it a song on my guitar, and then went and caught me some graylings---stupidest fish in the world, unlike the brookies--same family---i know; muhc more difficult ). you have to know how 'to build a fire' up there (jack london). i know how, but sometimes i put it off until i'm frostbitten and decide its time to move.

You should git yerself a rifle mountain-boy an become redneck anerchist county sheriff!

Ayn Rand believed in proliferation of technology. Karl Marx believed in the proliferation of technology. Therefore all Marxists are followers of Ayn Rand.

No it means Marxists and randians are the same type of ideology.

Primitivists reject technilogical progress. The khmer rouge rejected technilogical progress. Primitivists and The khmer rouge are the dame type of ideology.

John Zerzan opposes technology. The Amish oppose technology. Therefore John Zerzan is Amish.

John Zerzen is irrelevant. NEFAC is irrelevant. THerefore proletariats do graffities at the park.

this is true. john zerzan is amish, just look at his home in Eugene

i hear the ultra-rad eugene community has a nice us congressman (though maybe a sell-out). part of my family is from the 'brethrens' which is kinduh like the mennonites and amish (but the amish are corrupt). so it would appear zerzan is amish; plus he speaks at christian conventions (and of course he lives in a christian tendy country, and of course he better stay out of eastern oregon (walla walla, hell's canyon) so he better wear his eyeglasses (presumably a tool, not a technology, like his faux radio show). a d, b-c

Brains, brains everywhere, and not a thought to think.

So... the Amish are the real threat?

yes because traditional anarchism and Socialism are definitely the only two options that one can choose to be

While I agree that this person has a very narrow idea about anarchism, they did look into more than just trad marx and trad anok

I thought the idea of anarchism was constant transition to something better not STAGNANT IDEOLOGY NOW!


I stopped reading after the author called Murray Bookchin a fundamental anarchist thinker.


Amongst the arguments against Marxism, one must include the 85 to 100 million murdered by its adherents..


The author mentioned that, when he said, "I could say ethics and values are of absolutely no concern for me as a revolutionary".

One can be an anti-authoritarian Marxist. This dude is a bit of a straw an maker however.

You can be an anti authoritarian Marxist by not listening to Marx.

In other news; I realized today my favorite food was Chili Mac, not Pizza.

Wow thank you for telling the internet about this personal revelation. Mind blown times 2 today!

according to the bible, solomen verse2, paraphrazing marx (capital, the grundisse p. 42) both chili mac and pizza are not kosher. its haram. i reccomend instead a total pc (politically correct, or in other terms, personal computer) (my own) dollar brand---try the tower of pisa (italian, galileo), with no chili, or get silly (vic )or 'wobble baby' (youtube).

That the only book you read mountain-boy, just asking?

i disagree with the author about historial materialism and communism being a material condition.

For one, the path laid out by historical materialism toward communism is now materially impossible. As communists, how do we now get around this? It may have seemed like the mode of production would produce socialism/communism back in the day, but this it is ignorant of any coherent understanding of our CURRENT ecological situation. The science on peak resource usage is undeniable, and clearly overrides any path to communism being based on material super-abundance developed by capitalism. The author seems to have missed this point in their "readings" of Bookchin. Another good author that points out the folly of historical materialism being used as a road map for communism in contemporary times is Alan Carter.

We've always had the resources for communism when it comes to necessities. The problem is the hording of control over resources by the upper class (power relations), not that "the economy isn't developed enough." We had communism when production was absolute shit. We do not need to wait for the productive base to usher in the communist era. Importantly, We are no longer able to because it is an ecological impossibility. Our material ecological conditions DICTATE that communism must be established in the context of degrowth, not the super-industrialism required by Marx. The only way to establish communism without the dependency on capitalist industrialism is the "idealist" realization that communism is possible here and now, even with a much lower level of productivity. It was a long time coming, but the anarchist strategy for communism has, for different reasons than in the 1800's, become the most feasible path to communism. The Marxist faith in the mode of production generating socialism is in contradiction to what hard science is actually saying about productivity and what is possible with our current resources. Historical materialists are not in touch with current reality and instead hold to outdated perspectives on the production from more than 100 years ago.

This is a massive problem with marxism since historical materialism is the main pillar of the theory. I think marxism will be popular for a while longer, but only because of dogma. Ecological conditions are going to eventually destroy the theory as a road map for getting to communism.

sorry for the roughness of this comment :P

Anarchism right now has no radical revolutionary rival. All that's left is for the right anarchism to rise

said like a politician

i was a marxist when i was 19, still am today, but the enemy is the state, without it capitalism wouldn't exist for more than 5 minutes.

i guess it all comes down to what do u think we should do once we reach critical mass?

actually it seems to me like marxist/anarchist divide is a bad one, anarchism and marxism are compatible imo, if an anarchist is defined by their tactics and goals then they are not opposed to marxists but leninists

but arn't tactics and goals completely different things to measure?

who says I want to measure?

fuck you marxist

Sometimes, I'm not exactly sure what Marxists mean by "idealism." By some definitions I've found, idealism is any philosophy that states that there is an ideal universe that underlies the material universe, such as mental monism, Plato's forms, or religions that claim that the universe runs on the will of God. These beliefs are obvious nonsense, of course, and I don't think too many anarchists believe anything along these lines.

However, Marxists also seem to use "idealism" to refer to the belief that ideas influence the course of history by influencing human action. This article seems to be using it in this sense when it accuses anarchists of being idealists, though I may be mistaken. This "idealism" is actually a defensible position, and has nothing to do with the silly metaphysical beliefs described above.

At this point, I've also abandoned anarchism but it's because fuck the teens and early twenty something's with their petty shit and fuck ID politicians, attention stareved idiots and scummy comfortable middle class liberal types who flood the milieu. Anarchism ain't worth shit now a days but Marxism? Seriously? Marxism? You're just trying to be retro.

What the fuck do you know about anarchists aside than your scene idiots? Ever been to Europe, or South America? Travel enlarges the mind, you know...

And no, that RCP gang won't be any better than those anarchoids. With luck they may even be secretly in the same team. Here's for the bump.

^^^ butthurt ^^^

Lived in Europe 10 years. Am Latin American. lol Keep crying.

Once European / South American type anarchy makes it to the US, I'll consider not laughing at you.

Till then go cry about your triggers and privilage or whatever.

Bachman gives props to China. We're almost there muchachos y muchachas!

Its alive, among some Native people.

Oh and stop being a jerk, btw. Merry XXXmas!

Yo, I want to troll this silliness, I really do, but I gotta say a serious thing about historical materialist dialectic: BULLSHIT.

The big difference between dialectical marxism and anarchism is that anarchy is driven by passion and relationships, while marxism wants to pretend history is a science and that we can reach objective conclusions about how we should live our lives. This kind of reductionist crap has nothing to offer someone who desires freedom.

Using words like 'idealistic' to describe this difference is just a cheap rhetorical trick for laying claim to truth. Fuck you. If you define yourself by theories, then your own experience will become an abstraction. Does your obsession with ideological identity bring you any closer to actually living the way you want to?


relationships are mediated by economic conditions and so not sure where these passionate relationships are supposed to form. I suppose they happen ex nihilo, you just gotta feel tha vibe dood! You are a fucking moron, an elitist, and the whole reason people write articles like this. Idealist liberal scumbag.

indigenous anarchists such as the EZLN reject the primacy of ‘reason’ or ‘theory’, demoting it to a support role, restore relations to its natural primacy over theory, as in our natural experience and as in nature generally and pervasively.

without the revolution that overthrows the unnatural supremacy of reason, there will be no freedom.

as you rightly say;

“If you define yourself by theories, then your own experience will become an abstraction.”

indigenous anarchism = ‘experience before theory’. that is why indigenous anarchist council meetings are in the form of a ‘learning circle’ where people share their experience and allow the collective experience to shape their collective behaviour, rather than coming into the meeting prepared to push their favourite theories and views and to fit any/all new experience data to the theories. the best outcome of this process is where there is no agreement on whose theory is correct, and the worst is where there is agreement on someone’s theory, because that is the point at which theory trumps experience and people stop tuning in to situational particulars and start marching to the voices-of-theory/reason in their head.

as emerson says, at this point the tools run away with the workman, the human with the divine.

so, where the author says;

“The failure is that in my experience, is that when I ask the more difficult questions which challenge the bleeding heart, I am given answers which point to a different revolutionary conclusion than I: “that we will shape the new society with new ideas, values and ethics”. I find failure in these things.”

he is implying that ‘the horses of instruction are wiser than the tygers of wrath’, the opposite of William Blake’s understanding, and the opposite of the understanding of indigenous anarchism, but fully in-line with the Enlightenment European archetype of man, organism and organization as an ‘independent reason-driven system/machine’.

The author further says;

“Most Anarchism (and Anarchists) is idealist as I understand it.”

and, like you say;

“Using words like 'idealistic' to describe this difference is just a cheap rhetorical trick for laying claim to truth.”

anyone who has ever attended an indigenous anarchist council meeting and participated in the ‘learning circle’ understands that these people are turning the theory-trumps-experience ethic on its head. this is a revolution that is referred to by “we will shape the new society with new ideas, values and ethics”

The author of this article is using ‘idealism’ ass-backwards, citing this and that theory and theoretician and building his foundations for actions on that basis, and dismissing anarchist values as ‘idealism’.

Have we not seen enough of what happens when we put theory before experience? Whose theory wins out in the end? The theory of the most powerful. Debate is where theories are put into win/lose competition and who is the judge who picks the winner? “La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure”.

If your experiencing of the deployment of the theory is very painful, you are not going to get the opportunity to share it in a theory-over-experience driving Western culture, and it is certainly not the currency of social dynamics management of the theory-over-experience driving Western culture. ‘Bleeding hearts’ are not a sound basis for organizing a society, the author tells us.

But what if the world isn’t as we have captured it in formulating our theory? What if we are pushing forward putting theory before experience and people are squealing like stuck pigs? ... What if the whole biosphere-ecology is squealing like a stuck pig? Evidently the author would have us opt for letting such reason-driven pregnancies go full term even if the host is spitting up more blood each day.

please don't generalize

lol at basing anarchism on "passion and relationships."

Fuck all this bickering. Destroy the behaviorist finance beaurocrats before it's too late!

It's too late, we just need something to do while we're being managed to death.

I'm feeling what the original commenter wrote, whereas your shit is nonsensical and all over the place.

Yes, fuck any pretense that history is a science. That doesn't mean our lives, relations, and potential aren't framed by economic relations, but we can find threads in them that might lead to other lives/worlds/relations, if we follow them (call these passions or what you like)--and we won't recognize such threads if we are looking through the frame of Marxist economics/ontology that reduce all existence and experience to what can be crammed into Marx's impoverishing theory. See the historical failure of all Marxist projects (statist or not) to deliver worthwhile lives to the participants for proof.

"Marx (and Marxists) did not believe that the “new age of socialism” (of which I am considering Anarchism a part of) would not be ushered in by new ideas, but systemic and material change."

Read some history. By "systemic and material change," the Marxists (with the exception, maybe, of the POUM and a couple other groups) have always meant the BLOCKING of autonomous attempts to put new ideas into practice, by forcing impersonal and top-down systems on people.

In supposing the need for something "systemic" (when all that has gone by that name is about imposing a system on others), you simply reveal your eleutherophobia. Fine, fear it yourself, but don't conclude that that means we need you imposing shit on us.

Get your fucking hands off me. Your ideologies too, you fucking creep.

Interesting how anyone who has tried to do something interesting with Marx's good analyses and dump the rest have actually dumped Marxism itself, explicitly, and usually garnered universal abuse from Marxists and recognition from anarchists. Debord, for example.

so that when we overthrow the existing order, the Anarchists can voluntarily be murdered or be forced to become Marxists (like a secular Inquisition.)

Like China in the '20s? wtf history repeats itself!

I'll go for those self-managed intentional gulags with regular executions as relief for depression and internet-induced stupidity.

history, as usually taken, is like a very crude kind of science.. theories about 'the past'

Anyone who has read SCHTIRNER knows the past doesn't exist except as a SPOOK in MY MIND. In fact, SCHTIRNER only exists to the extent that is pleases I (but not THE I) that exist at this moment! It is so pleasing to talk about SCHTIRNER! I'm so pleased by acknowledging my pleasure, which is boundless and now now now!

Wolfy Landstretcher

Some people believe that Stirner was not a schtick in the cerebral mud of social identity, that outside of his enormous 'I-ness' he still had time for his marriage.

burn the heretics

It does not matter to me what "some people" "believe" "about 'Stirner.'" "Some people" pronounce SCHTIRNER wrong! Some people mis-translate his beautiful (please to ME!) title "The Unique and Its Property" as "The Ego and It's Own!" So unpleasing to me! If you want me to care about what "some people" believe they should please ME! Then I will care! They can start by chanting SCHTIRNER! Then I will choose to believe in their existence not as SPOOKS but as pleasure sensations to ME.

ME, that is, Wolfy Landstretcher

btw I have a new more pleasing to me translation of SCHTIRNER'S masterpiece THE UNIQUE AND ITS PROPERTY that will be finished soon, if it is pleasing to you to conceptualize the future, which I know is just a SPOOK that haunts you silly minds!

Amen, Brother.

Jason McSquid
Modern Spookery Magazine

Actually I prefer to say "the Stirner," it sounds cool like "the negation." I'm really into the-ing things, I mean not things, I'm not into reifying not things into things.

Alemacho Da Accosta'

Shut up with your postmodernist gibberish. Stirner wrote the only book that ever annihilated all sacred ideas by positing the radical position that ME. For 456 more pages on this, please send $15 to ME, Jason McSqids, for an issue of MODERN SPOOKERY featuring Wolfy Landstretcher and ME.

Jason I thought we talked about this, it's SCHTIRNER. It is important (pleasing to ME) to me (I not THE I, which means I may not be the same I I was when I was I, if the concept of the past is pleasing to I when I explain I not the I) that we (you and I, ME, Union of Egos that serve ME) form a union of egos on this point.

Wolfy Landstretcher

Yes, yes! How you and I might meet! I conceptualized and wrote about this, the phenomena of egoists forming unions with egoists! It might happen, and how! Check it out in (hushed, mumble whisper whisper)

The other egoists (ME) hate you.

Wolfy Landstretcher

Yes that's right you terrible philosopher. Try this on for size:

"I think therefore I am." Descartes

"I own therefore ME ME!" Stirner

How do you like them apples, Da Accosta'?

Jaysquid Mcsquid
editor of Modern Spookery magazine: the only anarchist magazine

You forgot this fool!

'The inside-outward motor-boat relation is yang' Emile

Saying "I" forgot something implies that there is a doer that did the deed of forgetting. Ho ho ho.

- Emile (real name Brandon or Mike or Kevin)

I would like to interject for a moment. What your refering to as 'I', 'in fact', 'declares' the notional 'existence' of a notional 'reason-driven automata with notional locally jumpstarting cozmic drive railgun and notional direction and intentional notional biohazard and biophysics intellectual and purpose notional all-chong-no-ching thing-in-itself blah moving about in a notional fixed empty void absolute terror field and absolute time operational theatre'

—emile (indian name Long Winded Baka)

I would like to interject here for a moment.

Ski bi di bi di do bap do
Do bam do

Bada bwi ba ba bada bo
Baba ba da bo
Bwi ba ba ba do

Ski bi di bi di do bap do
Do bam do

Bada bwi ba ba bada bo
Baba ba da bo
Bwi ba ba ba do

I'm a scatman!

-Scatman John

I have more rhythm, dig -

Mema me ma me me
I I me be I be me
Me be I be U
Scoo be me be I
Me ma be I be do be me
ya be de boo me I
Scoo be dee me be U
I me I me I me
Be I be I me be I be do!

Nice me yo?

So that we are clear on the strategy. We stealthily take power while everyone is laughing like crazies, right?

So this Gusselsprouts person seems to have dominated the internet with how they understand Anarchism. I've seen posts by this person on many different websites explaining what Anarchism is and is not...

Also, it looks like they help run Anarchistmemes on Facebook, which by my understanding has leaned towards a Liberal/Progressive/Marxist understanding of Anarchism.

Now they are out as a Marxist and they mention that they have struggled with Anarchist ideas over the past year or more leaning more and more toward Marxism.

But the damage is already done. They have blanketed the internet with posts, websites, and different projects on Anarchism. This whole time they were positing a Marxism, labeled as Anarchism.

And, not just the internet, did this Gusselsprouts go around talking to people telling them what Anarchism is really about (Marxism in actuality) ?

Leftist recuperators are ALL OVER the place in NA... anti-social media is just the tip of the iceberg... how about all those communautarian fluffies running the milieu and the book fairs as well?

What the hell can we do?

Confront them? Like one or a few against hordes of zealots?

Attack their places and make it look like it was the fascists who did it? Not sure.

how about lure them into a hole and then seal the hole

how about not worrying about facebook and book fairs and blog posts.

how about stop worrying about everything!? Just do the American way... sit down, eat salsa watching football as looong as Goldman Sachs and Obama allows you to! Forever paradise.

What the fuck is NA? There are leftist recuperators all over narcotics anonymous? Sorry to hear that. Please don't relapse.

What, leftist recuperators in my Celtic pagan ethnic tribe-without-a-state? Does that mean the sodomites and the race-mixers are next too?

-Andrew Yeoman

What, leftist recuperators in my Celtic pagan ethnically pure tribe-without-a-state? Does that mean the sodomites and the pornographers are next too?

-Troy Southgaye

I have a very long list of funny names. Do you think they might be useful for the revolution?

Obi Wan Kropotkin: These are not the silly names you're looking for...

NA: this huge shitty cold suburban wasteland between the Mexican gulf and the Great North.

lol NORTH AMERICA? What gives you the authority to speak for all of North America as if it were your scene? It would be better if you were talking about narcotics anon....

Sure, okay... the US is big and diverse, and my use of Canada as reference is awkward. Changes nothing to the fact that lefties still are dominating mostly all over the place, doing the petty social control jobs of the corporate State.

No, nobody has heard of this person, and his is not a name that comes up often when investigating what anarchism is. You probably just hang out in some shitty corners of the internet.

You may be correct.

I have noticed some of their stuff come up when reading random Anarchist blogs and websites. And, from what I understand this Gusselsprouts person helps run AnarchistMemes on Facebook, which has a large amount of people who have liked it and seen that webpage (it is superficial, but this is how non-anarchists probably learn about anarchism.)

A non-anarchist I know has mentioned AnarchistMemes and asked me why so many Anarchists love the Black Panther Party. How often do I have to debate Liberalism and Maoism when I am trying to talk about something completely different (Anarchism) ?

"In reality, my politics are not changing a great deal..."
This is the saddest thing from this anonymous marxoid.
Namely, how close do the traditional, leftist anarchists
remain to this ridiculous politics? How irrelevant do they
wish to remain in their embrace of this overall nightmare,
in that they accept all of its basics (i.e. the nature of mass society).

I agree, JZ.

Look at how the author of this piece describes their views (Gusselsprouts): http://theexpropriationist.org/authors/

I wonder how many more self-described Anarchists are like this Gusselsprouts. Secretly wanting to be a Marxist, but calling themselves Anarchists, Nihilists, Queers, etc. to be hipster assholes and dominate anarchist bookfairs, infoshops, and collectively-run bookstores.

These Marxists will use any updated terminologies possible to keep their oppressive ideology alive (post-marxism, Meowism, neo-marxism, no-pants-marxism, kasama project, birthdayparties24/7-marxism )

lol it's soooo funny that the Chinese name Mao sounds like the English word meow, MEOWISM, wow, good comedies!

Maoism is an ugly enough word to just call it what it is and drop the cutesy-barfy internet humor bullshit.

Buttocks Marximus is an infallible doctrine Biggus Dickus!!

This is an improvement from "meowism" actually, keep trying

Leftus Statism takes it in the Buttockus Centralis? Should I continue as a comedian?

I'm not sure of the joke, but I know the punchline...SCHT(wait for it)ERNER!! Haha, dialectics is just in yo mind sucka!!!!!

"In a political sense (and in contradiction to many Anarchists) this is also significant in that Marx (and Marxists) did not believe that the “new age of socialism” (of which I am considering Anarchism a part of) would not be ushered in by new ideas, but systemic and material change."

I think there's a typo here. Minus the complications, this sentence reads:
Marx did not believe that the new age of socialism would not be ushered in by new ideas."

He did not believe that it would not be ushered in? So Marx did believe that new ideas would usher in the new age? I think this is the opposite of your meaning.

There was another place where I think he screws up the logic. I'm not sure if it is intentionally misleading or accidental.

You know, I actually have enjoyed some stuff on the expropriationist. I'm a pretty eclectic individualist and I've found some stuff to hate there buy that goes for everything just about. I enjoy the blending of more traditional class war and insurrection, two things I see value in that aren't often put together. The turn to Marxism isn't encouraging (fucking hate that guy) but there have been some cool insurgent shit put out by fans of Marx so who knows. I just don't get why people gotta be so intense about Marx when they're into him. I don't feel the need to tell everyone how I'm not the same thing anymore cause I read a book I liked.

SCHTIRNER would laugh at them for worshipping Marks. Did I mentioned SCHTIRNER?!

- Wolfy Landstretcher

Stirner would laugh at any statist puppet including a laugh at the whole Mandela puppet show. Where have all the real anarchist gone?
"Go to prison, then become president" says it all!

Stirner would laugh hardest at his followers, with their copycat lingo and desperate attempts to justify every last action they take by connecting it to their ownness and unique selfs. I love the ego and its own but Jesus Christ some people read it like a bible instead of a hell of a rant against needing one.
I'm a pretty nice person. Cause I wanna be. No explanation needed, American egotists.

How the fuck is this news?

Good riddance to bad garbage.

Without the unfounded teleological assumptions in those thought totalities Marxism would fall apart. Let's not even mention the assumed separation between base and surface without which materialism would not be possible.

Oh well, after all the rhetorical drama you can't take away from Marx the fact that he composed the original critique of modern capitalism, and you have to accept that it was eloquent and well timed for that era. Concepts like labor value and the division of labor were alien terms to a largely post-feudal colonialist monarchist society at the time.

Someone once said that knowledge is inseparable from the uses to which it is put. Judging the relative merits of a critique is usually done by examining the legacy of that critique rather than pointing out how innovative it was at the time it was first noticed.

please don't generalize

Knowledge is not put to uses. Uses don't put knowledge to uses; what puts knowledge to uses, as that someone said? What was that someone admitting.

Name of person who said that, also in what context, aaaand, ideology is anti-knowledge, every rule or system of behavior which is deflected from its own path is just another incremental chip of 'knowledge' taken off of the block of individual ontology.

"examining the legacy of that critique rather than pointing out how innovative it was at the time it was first noticed"

Ahem, ok Mr Grumpy, umm, the world is round and not flat! We were oppressed by the legacy of maritime colonialism using round-world knowledge creations like chronometers and sextants, and now 'round-world critique' has evolved to its modern version i.e. globalization and intercontinental thermo-nuclear missiles. Your vague flat-world comment really negates reality! Round-world knowledge CAN be separated from its uses if people weren't so worldly orientated and had an autonomous regional identity rather than hopping on the imperialistic state-ist ship.

All by himself?

No I don't get fucked.

The legacy of Marx is what is damning. He ultimately became a tool of not only recuporation but another century of modern productionist horror as well as a lynchpin of the modern institution.

Marx should not be judged by the historical legacies of ideological nationalism and their inherent failure to deliver 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'. Are Bauer, Sartre, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche or Stirner going to be chosen as the architects of the new world order!? Of course not, they were too intellectually abstract for the proletariat to grasp in that era, Marx's ability to sway the workers with passion and eloquence is what politicians latched onto, Marx was exploited by them just as much as were his beloved working-class. So yes, he became a tool but against his wishes.

Not only did Marx articulate a thorough critique of "everything that existed" (his own words),but his ideas have influenced revolt all across the world for over a hundred years. And, no, not all of it was terrible.

The Paris Commune, for one. The old workers movement in in the 20's and early 30's. The European autonomist movements in Italy, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, and elsewhere. May 1968. There are so many more.

a thorough critique of "everything that existed"

There's maybe ten percent that is aplicable to anarchists. Better to go with the likes of Stirner or Fourier who actually said and proposed good things against civilization.

The infuences you list were for the worst.

"Not only did Marx articulate a thorough critique of "everything that existed" (his own words)" And if one of your friends or acquaintances said something similar, you'd probably want them to have their head examined. Megalomania for the win!

In order for your statement to be more accurate, you should say "but lip-service to his ideas have influenced revolt..."

Marx was opposed to the formation of the Paris Commune, and only became a cheerleader for it after his more shrewd paymaster Engels decided that it would be a good idea not to back away from a revolutionary experiment.

The "old workers movement in the 20s and 30s..." you mean many of the radical trade unions BEFORE they were assimilated into the Red International of Trade Unions or destroyed due to their refusal to bow to the demands of the Marxists in Moscow?

The European autonomist movements that used Marxist methodology to eviscerate Marxism? May 68, where the Marxists of the CP denounced the student radicals? Where the Marxists of the various leftist sects of the old and new left tried to manipulate the horizontal self-organization of students and workers, and who ultimately capitulated to the sleights of hand of the bosses and Marxist union/party bureaucrats?

Yeah, there are indeed so many more instances of Marxists fucking up authentic self-organized working class experiments in revolutionary practice. Let's see...
Mexico, 1910-1919; China, 1920-1927; Russia, 1917-1921; Spain, 1936-1939; East Berlin, 1953; Hungary, 1956; Czechoslovakia, 1968; Poland, 1971; Italy, 1977; Vietnam, 1945-1956; Cuba, 1959-1961. Not too pretty, but all based on a thorough critique of everything that existed, including direct action, mutual aid, voluntary cooperation, and other bourgeois prejudices (that's ironic, just to be clear).

please don't generalize

thank you

The Paris Commune was a constitution of many social theories of the time which resembled what Marx and Engels would later describe borrowing the term 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' coined by Joseph Weydemeyer, who later went on to found The American Worker's League in 1852. May 1968 was the predictable social rupture fomented by the influences of existentialist autonomous movements and the proof of State-capitalist sanctioned war crimes, and the influence of Marx could be equally attributed to Groucho as much as to Karl.

"Mister Grumpy" has been a politically worthless subculture crank for a solid 30 years now, voting with his feet in regards to his dearly-held anarchist convictions by never taking them out from under a pristine tarp in an air-conditioned garage for a test-run among real people and their struggles in the larger world around us. He can't come out of his comfort zone; he might melt.

He gives himself endless big props for being a pedant about the events of the Spanish Civil War -- but could this asshole even get it together to vandalize the monument to the Stalinist version of events on San Francisco's Justin Herman Plaza? No way. Never happen. It's only been given the treatment it deserves once, and that wasn't by some lightweight ersatz anarchist.

Marx should have fucked over Bakunin more energetically. "Spain 1936 - 1939" -- the failure here, as well as the credit, goes unilaterally to the anarchist movement. How 'bout Proudhon? Supported the plantation south in the U.S. Civil War, thought women should be the chattel of men, called for all the Jews to be driven out of Europe or killed, and, the creme-de-la-creme, was for self-managed petty commodity production and wage slavery without wages.

I'm not a collectivist or anything, but why should Marx have fucked over Bakunin more energetically?

I'm not the poster of the comment you are referring to, but I believe it refers to the relative naivety of anarchists in Spain in understanding the rivalry between Leninists and Bakuninists, and the Leninists' ultimate goals, and that had the anarchists been knowledgeable of Marx's unadulterated pragmatism rather than Bakunin's idealistic doctrine, and been more discerning of the ideological nuances therein and seen that Soviet was not Marx, they would not have been fucked over by the Leninists, and seen through their duplicity. This is just a broad opinion, I don't dwell on the failures of the Spanish Civil War for the Anarchists, logistics played a large part in their defeat. The Soviets never attained freedom of the sea or air, the importation of armaments to Spain was difficult, impossible through Nazi Germany and a mostly fascist leaning Europe terrain. Compared to the massive supply of Soviet weapons to the North Vienamese people overland or by air 25yrs later, outgunned is what usually determined the outcome in most modern wars, or underfed, an army will not fight on an empty stomach.


Signed, police snitch, advocate of voting and woman-harassing mental case GH

I'm the real GH!

signed, can't imagine there's more than one person who can see through my obvious prose, one trick pony wannabe working class activist hero, paranoid, lurker on the only website where I can still post my anti-anarchist drivel, KK.

pretty sure GH doesn't even look at this site, much less troll for flamebait, you poor sod.

But this is! Wheeeeeee!

Syndicalists to statist...sometimes that not as big of a jump as I'd hope to think.

MARXIST: After our split, during the Hague Caucus of the First International, the Chancellor of Germany Otto von Bismarck said: “Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!” Let them tremble.

I: It was called Nazi Germany, wasn't it?

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "Why I am now a Marxist"