• @captainlezbian
    link
    24 months ago

    My main issues are that he blatantly misrepresented Proudhon. I also think that he largely overestimated the inevitability in a way that’s been harmful to communists.

    And there absolutely anarchist Marxists, I just fall more along mutualist lines

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      24 months ago

      Well as someone who couldn’t get through the Poverty of Philosophy, despite having read lots of Marx including Capital: that’s fair. He was really gunning for the Young Hegelians. I thought his critique of Stirner was really good, and his debunking of Bauer was essential. But I didn’t get into PoP. Maybe some other time. He was too optimistic wrt how capitalism would create “gravediggers.” I think its an actual thing that happens, it happened to me for example, but he underestimated ideology, or maybe like over estimated the way capitalism would change people’s consciousness.

      You’re right there are individual anarchist Marxists, I study with one, but I guess I was referring to something more like a movement. I guess the Kurdish liberation movement kind of qualifies? Maybe my views are too west-centric.

      Any recommended Proudhon I should read? Maybe take on Philosophy of Poverty before trying Marx’s response again?