Help with ideology

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I cannot figure out if I'm a communist or an anarchist, (or one of the varients).

Originally I fancied myself an anarchist, but I'm not sure now. I feel like both have fine ideas. I don't see why either one is bad. I figured I was an anarchist because I wasnt I love with the authoritarianism, and the willingness to give control of the revolution to others, and I know that might sound like I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm not sure how exactly to phrase it. I feel like its probably not as bad as I think. I like anarchisms, from the bottom up, approach, and anti-authoritarianism.

Im not sure how I feel on the transitional socialism, and use of the vanguard party though. I don't have much of an opinion, it seems like either the use of both, or the resistance of both could work. What are everyone's thoughts? Any reading, or preferably, your ideas/thoughts/your questions for me.

[Rocky Rococo]

First off, you have to define what your objectives in being a revolutionary are. Fundamental question to ask yourself, do you believe the purpose of a revolution is to take control of power, or end the power to control? Answer that question and you're 95% of the way home.

[Leftsolidarity]

First off, you have to define what your objectives in being a revolutionary are. Fundamental question to ask yourself, do you believe the purpose of a revolution is to take control of power, or end the power to control? Answer that question and you're 95% of the way home.

That's one of the dumbest things I've read today.

The differences between anarchists and communists usually come down to semantics. A big question is whether or not you view the state as a part of the transition to a classless society and whether or not there can be such a thing as a "workers' state".

[The Idler]

Well if you want anti-authoritarianism, you would do well to check out the World Socialist Party (WSPUS) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States). You're right about the bottom up approach although technically that still implies there is a hierarchy. The World Socialist Party reject the hierarchical approach as they do the transitional society aswell as vanguards. Here's some articles from WSPUS and its companion parties.

The Myth of The Transitional Society - World Socialist Movement (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/myth-transitional-society)

How the World Socialist Movement is different from other groups (http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/how_the_wsm_is_different.php)

Anyone for the Vanguard? | The Socialist Party of Great Britain (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1993/no-1071-november-1993/anyone-vanguard)

[Blake's Baby]

I'd back The Idler in recommending an engagement with the SPGB/its companion parties. Even if you disagree with things that they say, finding out what those those disagreements are will help. Their style is fairly easy to read and pretty clear.

As far as I know there isn't a yes/no flowchart with a 'do you think socialism can be built in one country? - yes >>> Stalinist/ >>> no everyone else' kind of route map to work through but that isn't so important I don't think. 'Picking a tendency' is overrated. It often means people just accuse you of things as a shorthand that you don't believe anyway. I'm always being told I'm a Bordigist because I'm a Left Communist. I'm really not.

Finding out what debates are going on and working out your position is more important. So what if you take an 'Anarchist' position on one thing and a 'Marxist' position on something else? RevLeft, though it sometimes seems like it, is not 'Tendency Wars' where we join guilds or alliances to pit ourselves against others and eventually have a 'winner' - "yes, the Heterodox Trotskyist Guild has become the top alliance on RevLeft - thanks for playing, a new forum will be opening shortly with slightly different rules".

It's more like 'Proletarian Gladiators' where an individual has to battle through a series of challenges to reach a prize at the far end (in this case, a better understanding of politics, the world, their place in it, and what it means to have a socialist consciousness). What colour your shirt is in that process is not so important.

But: important questions that plague the whole socialist project include - what is the relationship between the working class as a whole, and the political minorities of the class (the organisation of revolutionaries, the party, etc)? How will the revolution be acheived (by the working class organised in workers' councils; by the working class organised in the unions; by the party, etc)? What is the process (military; economic; general strike; wildcat mass strikes; electing socialist deputies, etc)? What is the attitude of the working class to different sections of the ruling class (outright hostility to all factions; support for 'progressive' factions; support for 'liberation movements', etc)?

Starting to approach positions on some of those questions might be helpful. But of course, bear in mind that any approaches may well be provisional. You may accept something now that in 6 months time as you read and debate more you come to see as an error. That's fine. It's a process.

[The Idler]

I'd echo what Blake's Baby says (in particular some of the questions), and many people do treat it as tribalism even though when confronted would agree this is the wrong approach. Although I think I'm in a minority on revleft who thinks (and created a flowchart) a scientific approach to answering societal-political questions, ie. tendencies are supposed to have internally consistent positions and ones falsifiable by evidence to the contrary. You can whittle away the tendencies with internally contradictory logic ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend", "lesser evilism" etc).

[Book O'Dead]

That's one of the dumbest things I've read today.

The differences between anarchists and communists usually come down to semantics. A big question is whether or not you view the state as a part of the transition to a classless society and whether or not there can be such a thing as a "workers' state".

That's the second dumbest thing I've read today; the first being what you're responding to.

No difference can be found between an anarchist and a communist unless we define what kind of communist we are talking about.

A Marxian communist maintains that socialism is impossible without creating a government with some kind of central directing authority, whereas an anarchist claims that any sort of governmental authority is an infringement on their individual right to self-determination.

Also, anarchism rejects the need for any theoretical analysis, relying mostly on spontaneity and individual action.

Marxists insist on a careful and methodical study of history, economics and politics.

Anarchists reject the need for political engagement. In fact, they see political action as downright harmful.

Marxists assert the need for political action as a means of achieving proletarian emancipation from capital.

Anarchists think with their hands, especially if there's a molotov cocktail in it.

Marxist think with their heads.

[Zav]

That's the second dumbest thing I've read today; the first being what you're responding to.
I guess you didn't read your post then.


No difference can be found between an anarchist and a communist unless we define what kind of communist we are talking about.
They overlap, but the words are different. For instance, Communism includes Anarchist-Communism, but also Marxism.


A Marxian communist maintains that socialism is impossible without creating a government with some kind of central directing authority, whereas an anarchist claims that any sort of governmental authority is an infringement on their individual right to self-determination.
So all Anarchists are absolute Individualists and oppose bottom up decision-making because it's a form of government? Read some theory.


Also, anarchism rejects the need for any theoretical analysis, relying mostly on spontaneity and individual action.
So there is no Anarchist theory?


Marxists insist on a careful and methodical study of history, economics and politics.
Anarchists do as well. This part is pointless.


Anarchists reject the need for political engagement. In fact, they see political action as downright harmful.
THis is a ridiculous and unfounded claim.


Marxists assert the need for political action as a means of achieving proletarian emancipation from capital.
You don't say? You mean we actually have to act to make change? As I recall, Anarchists have made a much larger contribution to the world, especially in the area of labor reforms, and tend to be the ones working on establishing communes while Marxists tend to sit back and call them 'lifestylist'.


Anarchists think with their hands, especially if there's a molotov cocktail in it.

Marxist think with their heads.
Thinly veiled flaming. You have just asserted that Marxists are more intelligent than Anarchists. This is highly untrue.


I have come to the conclusion that you are a troll. All your posts are bullshit.

TheMza, most Anarchists are also Communists. If by Communist you mean some flavor of Marxist, then that's different. I agree that both can work, and it would be lovely if Anarchists and Marxists could coexist in a political structure, but the methods of organization are polar opposites and thus the two do not like each other very much.

[citizen of industry]

That's the second dumbest thing I've read today; the first being what you're responding to.

No difference can be found between an anarchist and a communist unless we define what kind of communist we are talking about.

A Marxian communist maintains that socialism is impossible without creating a government with some kind of central directing authority, whereas an anarchist claims that any sort of governmental authority is an infringement on their individual right to self-determination.

Also, anarchism rejects the need for any theoretical analysis, relying mostly on spontaneity and individual action.

Marxists insist on a careful and methodical study of history, economics and politics.

Anarchists reject the need for political engagement. In fact, they see political action as downright harmful.

Marxists assert the need for political action as a means of achieving proletarian emancipation from capital.

Anarchists think with their hands, especially if there's a molotov cocktail in it.


Marxist think with their heads.

Why? Just why? What about the Marxian analysis of the state e.g; in Origin s of the family, private property and the state. What about all the anarchist theoreticians and anarchist analysis of history, economics and politics? What about anarchist participation in politics?Thinking with their hands? Are you calling them dumb, or implying Marxists are cowards?
The response you are quoting is textbook. The replies will be full of vitriol!

[Book O'Dead]

I guess you didn't read your post then.
[...]
So there is no Anarchist theory?
[...]


"Anarchist theory" is a contradiction in terms or, no pun intended, an oxymoron.

[roy]

Also, anarchism rejects the need for any theoretical analysis, relying mostly on spontaneity and individual action.

Marxists insist on a careful and methodical study of history, economics and politics.

Anarchists reject the need for political engagement. In fact, they see political action as downright harmful.

Marxists assert the need for political action as a means of achieving proletarian emancipation from capital.

Anarchists think with their hands, especially if there's a molotov cocktail in it.

Marxist think with their heads.

tendency-baiting and generalisations. anarchism does not reject theory nor political work and marxists throw molotovs too. anarchists have by and large long since moved beyond individualist tripe.

OP, i'd say forgot about trying to conform to a tendency. if you analyse everything critically and independently you will find what's right for you.

[Zav]

"Anarchist theory" is a contradiction in terms or, no pun intended, an oxymoron.
You have now confirmed that you are a troll and that you either do not comprehend the meaning of the word 'oxymoron' or the word 'pun'. Have a nice day.

[Manic Impressive]

I cannot figure out if I'm a communist or an anarchist, (or one of the varients).

Originally I fancied myself an anarchist, but I'm not sure now. I feel like both have fine ideas. I don't see why either one is bad. I figured I was an anarchist because I wasnt I love with the authoritarianism, and the willingness to give control of the revolution to others, and I know that might sound like I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm not sure how exactly to phrase it. I feel like its probably not as bad as I think. I like anarchisms, from the bottom up, approach, and anti-authoritarianism.

Im not sure how I feel on the transitional socialism, and use of the vanguard party though. I don't have much of an opinion, it seems like either the use of both, or the resistance of both could work. What are everyone's thoughts? Any reading, or preferably, your ideas/thoughts/your questions for me.
Here you go check these guys out http://wspus.org/

[Book O'Dead]

You have now confirmed that you are a troll and that you either do not comprehend the meaning of the word 'oxymoron' or the word 'pun'. Have a nice day.

I can't help it if my characterization of anarchism offends you. Also, you seem to think that by accusing others of trolling you can gain an advantage in discussion.

Face it, anarchism has no theory in the sense that Marxism has one. Anarchism is an infantile disorder characterized by a disdain of systematic analysis and a rejection of intellectual rigor.

Anarchism is most attractive to those who eschew the discipline of study. No wonder Marx waged a relentless battle against it within the International!

[campesino]

In my view.

Marxist/Communist see the evolution of society from
primitive communism>slave ownership>feudalism>capitalism>(socialism?)>communism.

Communism will come about as social relationships and material conditions change. Particularly class conflict and class consciousness, and the internal contradictions that will cause capitalism to collapse..

Anarchist have many theories, but are united by the desire for self-rule, and view all states as illegitimate. They don't see a worker's state as necessary.

Anarchist believe in freedom and liberty, and hold libertarian and democratic principles.

Most Marxist reject liberty and democracy, because these ideas are moralist, and have no materialist basis, plus these ideas have been exploited by the bourgeoisie.

You can also be a communist and not a marxist, and not an anarchist. By viewing a state as necessary, but rejecting some of Marx's ideas.

[Tim Finnegan]

You could take a look at some Platformist lit. They work with certain ideas that are approximately vanguardist, but without the anti-working class "professionalism" associated with Leninism. Or, coming from the other direction, you could read into council communism or autonomism, which come from a Marxist framework, but do away with the preoccupations with party, state and formal politics. They have a lot of stuff about all of them over on libcom.org

Honestly, at this point, I'd say you need to look to both anarchism and the various forms of what I will reluctantly describe as "libertarian Marxism" to get a decent handle on the world today. The only people who seem to think that an inherent and irreconcilable chasm exists between the two are ridiculous old dinsoaurs who think that cosplaying at 1917 has or could ever constitute useful activity, and, y'know: fuck those guys. And their newspapers.


I can't help it if my characterization of anarchism offends you.
You can help that you're being a prick about it.

[Book O'Dead]

In my view.

Marxist/Communist see the evolution of society from
primitive communism>slave ownership>feudalism>capitalism>(socialism?)>communism.

Communism will come about as social relationships and material conditions change. Particularly class conflict and class consciousness, and the internal contradictions that will cause capitalism to collapse..

Anarchist have many theories, but are united by the desire for self-rule, and view all states as illegitimate. They don't see a worker's state as necessary.

Anarchist believe in freedom and liberty, and hold libertarian and democratic principles.

Most Marxist reject liberty and democracy, because these ideas are moralist, and have no materialist basis, plus these ideas have been exploited by the bourgeoisie.

You can also be a communist and not a marxist, and not an anarchist. By viewing a state as necessary, but rejecting some of Marx's ideas.

Marx said this in reference to Bakunin's attempt to take control of the International:

"To address the workingman without a strictly scientific idea and a positive doctrine amounts to playing an empty and dishonest preaching game in which it is assumed, on the one hand, an inspired prophet and on the other nothing but asses listening to him with gaping mouths. Ignorance never helped anyone!"

[Book O'Dead]

[...]


You can help that you're being a prick about it.

So I'm a prick. But I hold fast to my principles as long as I deem them correct.

[roy]

So I'm a prick.

/thread

[citizen of industry]

So I'm a prick. But I hold fast to my principles as long as I deem them correct.

Fair enough, but you still have to justify your principles. Which are:
A) Socialism is impossible without a government and central authority
B)Anarchists reject theoretical analysis and rely on spontenuity
C)Anarchists reject political action while Marxists assert the need for politial action
D) Anarchists use force and Marxist's use intellect

My thoughts:
A) Don't forget that the Marxian analysis is to smash the state, not "lay hold of the ready made state machinery." Don't forget that the Paris Commune is the Marxian example of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And don't forget the big difference with the anarchists, that the state is a product of class differences, that abolishment of class results in abolishment of state.
B) I'm not an anarchist, so I don't know the names of many anarchist theoreticians, but there are gobs, from Bakunin to Proudhoun to Tolstoy to Kroptopkin to Chomsky, et al.
C) What do you define as political action in this case? If yo are speaking of parliament, for example, there are plenty of Marxists who reject electoral politics and plenty of anarchists who have been in parliamentary bodies. Political action is a loose term. Occupy could be considered political action. Many anarchists in that.
D) Come now, anarchists and molotav cocktails? Marxists have used molotav cocktails, formed armies, destroyed cities, executed, red terror, sectarian violence, prison cells, barricades, etc.. If you are squeemish about violence, Marxism is not a refuge. Theory leads you to the same place.

[Rafiq]

For christs sake, don't identify yourself with either of yorus solely because one has better sounding ideological rhetoric than the other. Sure, no one "Likes" authority, but whose to say it isn't necessary? Whose to say that everything we like, and everything we find appealing is in direct correlation with reality?

This is where Marxism comes in. I wouldn't recommend you declare yourself any of those things until you've researched a bit of that. Start with Historical Materialism, etc.

Because really, Anarchism and Communism aren't so much diametrically opposed ideologies as you'd like to think. Communism is a very vague term, it could mean Utopian Socialism, Scientific Socialism, Anarchism, etc. Anarchism is a mere current of the Communist/Socialist movement, so by definition, if you were to become an Anarchist, you'd still be a communist.

[Omsk]

Hi comrade, i have a question for you, since it is obvious that you started to abandon the ideological lines you followed, would you like to learn more about Leninism, specific advancements in Leninism?

[Tim Finnegan]

He said that's he unsure about certain aspects of anarchism, not that he's a massive tool.

[Omsk]

I asked him, not you, goodbye. I'm sure he will change his mind about things, one day.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Just to state it clear for the OP: It just doesn´t work that way that you can just ask a handful of leftists online (or i.r.l.) for a politically ideological diagnosis.
Rafiq brings up the very valid point here that you can´t just base your politics on ideological preferences independent of contemporary reality. It has to be grounded on real situations and not just subjective "likes" or "dislikes". Otherwise it´s just chasing illusions.
You should absolutely ask more experienced leftists about their views, the basis for those views and try to learn from them. It´s useful to communicate with different "types" of leftists and learn about different tendencies. That is more the way to find out where you stand yourself. You do it through learning. You can´t just ask for a political diagnosis.

[human strike]

"Identity is the reproduction of capital within anti-capitalism." - John Holloway

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Hi comrade, i have a question for you, since it is obvious that you started to abandon the ideological lines you followed, would you like to learn more about Leninism, specific advancements in Leninism?

Thanks for your question. I don't mean to say I've begun to abandon it, but instead, I started to consider another. Anarchism is still fine with me. And yes, I would like to learn about Leninism.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Thanks everyone! This has been very helpful, and I have a lot to consider now. Maybe I'll just go by Anarcho-Marxist for now. :)

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Marx said this in reference to Bakunin's attempt to take control of the International:

"To address the workingman without a strictly scientific idea and a positive doctrine amounts to playing an empty and dishonest preaching game in which it is assumed, on the one hand, an inspired prophet and on the other nothing but asses listening to him with gaping mouths. Ignorance never helped anyone!"
So a badly worded opinion from Marx is enough for you to try and disregard anarchism, as a broad school of thought, encompassing many different theoretical standing-points?

Perhaps you should get your head out of your arse, stop basing your entire judgements on little slanders that were said many, many years ago and that don't even attempt to critically assess anarchism and actually try and understand anarchism yourself, which isn't as easily defined as Marx attempted to do so. It is a broad school of thought that has changed and adapted in the many years that have passed since the statement you quoted was said. People like you only serve to confuse people that are new to revolutionary politics through your own confusion (or intellectual laziness).

This kind of 'ah well if Marx or Lenin said it, then it must be true!' attitude is totally regressive and disregards the evolution of theory and leaves many so-called revolutionaries making us look like dogmatists who have no capacity for critical thought. Consider at least that 'anarchism' is very different now to how it appeared as a discourse when Marx was active, not that this really justifies Marx's sweeping statement that you quoted anyway.

To the OP: read, read and study. For one thing, you don't have to align yourself to one doctrine as if it is the ultimate truth and for another, you can still be a revolutionary without committing yourself to one particular school of thought. I'm very active but don't really define myself politically any more because it isn't really useful in a practical sense and, at the arse end of alignment, you enter the realms of dogma and potentially end up like Book O'Dead, who is unable to critically assess anything without a quote from Marx to justify it, as if Marx was our all-knowing overlord. Make up your own mind through your own reading and ask for advice regarding it here and there, rather than asking a bunch of leftists online to figure it out for you. If you let others figure out your perspective for you, you'll repress your own capacity for critical thought, which is a necessary virtue in any mode of thinking that is concerned with revolution. Your best bet is utilizing your own intellectual capacity.

[Rafiq]

Thanks everyone! This has been very helpful, and I have a lot to consider now. Maybe I'll just go by Anarcho-Marxist for now. :)

You do realize that's completely contradictory, right? You can't be both an Anarchist and a Marxist. Hell, what split the socialist movement at the first international was the Anarchist and Marxist camp. Sure, you can adhere to some aspects of Marxism and some aspects of Anarchism, but ultimately what divides Anarchism and Marxism remains, and you have to choose a position in regards.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

You do realize that's completely contradictory, right? You can't be both an Anarchist and a Marxist. Hell, what split the socialist movement at the first international was the Anarchist and Marxist camp. Sure, you can adhere to some aspects of Marxism and some aspects of Anarchism, but ultimately what divides Anarchism and Marxism remains, and you have to choose a position in regards.
You don't have to choose any position. Why is this definition important? I utilize the Marxian historical analytic method, largely, while upholding anarchistic principles of anti-authoritarianism. If we have to make concrete definitions in order to explain our ideology, then I could be seen as some kind of Marxian-anarchist. This is a fair statement given that both Marxism and anarchism are adaptive theories which deal with certain historical instances - the idea of defining yourself as either one or the other in a rigid sense is an idea that pretty much lives in the historical instance of the first international as you said. Theory and practice have changed considerably since then and being a first internationalist Marxist or anarchist outright is being pretty much stuck in the past given that 'things have changed'.

Don't Marxists understand that history is a process of flux and change? In that, so do theories and adequate methods of practice. Marxism and anarchism as schools of thought have differences to how they were initially conceived because the material reality that surrounds us has differences to the material reality that these schools of thoughts were conceived in. If this were not the case, history would not have progressed and anarchists would all be strictly following Bakunin, or Marxists would strictly be following Marx without the influence of his own successors (Lenin, Trotsky etc)

[Tim Finnegan]

You do realize that's completely contradictory, right? You can't be both an Anarchist and a Marxist. Hell, what split the socialist movement at the first international was the Anarchist and Marxist camp. Sure, you can adhere to some aspects of Marxism and some aspects of Anarchism, but ultimately what divides Anarchism and Marxism remains, and you have to choose a position in regards.
Not everybody feels compelled to dwell six inches up the arse of people who've been dead for more than a century. Synthesis is possible.

[Drosophila]

No, Rafiq is right, the term is wrong. Sure you can be a Marxist with anarchist influences (or vice versa), but that doesn't mean you're an "Anarcho-Marxist". That would imply that the anarchist and Marxist methods can somehow be done in harmony with one another.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

No, Rafiq is right, the term is wrong. Sure you can be a Marxist with anarchist influences (or vice versa), but that doesn't mean you're an "Anarcho-Marxist". That would imply that the anarchist and Marxist methods can somehow be done in harmony with one another.
What are the anarchist methods and what are the Marxist methods?

[Engels]

Like the others have said, there's no need for you to pick a single tendency and stick to it dogmatically.
You could simply pick and choose the aspects of the different traditions that you like. For example, Marxism may best serve as a critique of capitalism while one of the various anarchist currents could serve as an approach to understanding post-capitalist societies.

[Book O'Dead]

You don't have to choose any position. Why is this definition important? I utilize the Marxian historical analytic method, largely, while upholding anarchistic principles of anti-authoritarianism. If we have to make concrete definitions in order to explain our ideology, then I could be seen as some kind of Marxian-anarchist. This is a fair statement given that both Marxism and anarchism are adaptive theories which deal with certain historical instances - the idea of defining yourself as either one or the other in a rigid sense is an idea that pretty much lives in the historical instance of the first international as you said. Theory and practice have changed considerably since then and being a first internationalist Marxist or anarchist outright is being pretty much stuck in the past given that 'things have changed'.

Don't Marxists understand that history is a process of flux and change? In that, so do theories and adequate methods of practice. Marxism and anarchism as schools of thought have differences to how they were initially conceived because the material reality that surrounds us has differences to the material reality that these schools of thoughts were conceived in. If this were not the case, history would not have progressed and anarchists would all be strictly following Bakunin, or Marxists would strictly be following Marx without the influence of his own successors (Lenin, Trotsky etc)

Oh god!

Why do anarchists indulge in such oxymorons?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Oh god!

Why do anarchists indulge in such oxymorons?
You clearly didn't get the point of my post, which completely legitimated it.

The key word is if! Read it again and think.

[Book O'Dead]

You clearly didn't get the point of my post, which completely legitimated it.

The key word is if! Read it again and think.

Must I?

[Geiseric]

It has been and will always be impossible to carry out a revolution without any authority, and the authority might as well be in the working class's most revolutionary segments which form a group that cohesively sets fowards demands, organizes the class, and provides some kind of initiative for the working class's activities. The bolshevik party only had a very small minority who were the "old bolshevik," intellectuals. Most of the members and most of the leadership were working class themselves.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Must I?
Yes, if you want to make smug, uninformed replies to it without even reading it/understanding it.

[Book O'Dead]

Yes, if you want to make smug, uninformed replies to it without even reading it/understanding it.

It seems that "anarchists" of your ilk have no problem with authoritarianism. Especially when they complain to admin or downrate other peeps rep because they feel their pet ideology has been "slandered".

What a joke!

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

It seems that "anarchists" of your ilk have no problem with authoritarianism. Especially when they complain to admin or downrate other peeps rep because they feel their pet ideology has been "slandered".

What a joke!
So neg-repping is akin to the kind of institutional, political authoritarianism I criticize as someone influenced by anarchist theory? How about you learn about what it is you're trying to criticize and construct a proper argument before you say something stupid, uninformed and then get neg-repped for it?

[Drosophila]

What are the anarchist methods and what are the Marxist methods?

Marxist - political struggle, transitional phase, dictatorship of the proletariat

Anarchist - trade union struggle, mass strike, no transitional phase

[Book O'Dead]

So neg-repping is akin to the kind of institutional, political authoritarianism I criticize as someone influenced by anarchist theory? How about you learn about what it is you're trying to criticize and construct a proper argument before you say something stupid, uninformed and then get neg-repped for it?

No amount of rationalization can explain away the contradiction between your alleged anarchism and your own actions.

This is something that Engels pointed out about anarchists. The proof is right here.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

No amount of rationalization can explain away the contradiction between your alleged anarchism and your own actions.

This is something that Engels pointed out about anarchists. The proof is right here.
How do you know what my actions are? And how can you claim that my actions represent any kind of contradiction if you don't know what they are? What makes you think that all Marxists and all anarchists use a set of ideas and tactics that is completely in line with a single discourse? Think of anarchism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, individualist anarchism and then think of orthodox Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, left-communism and then think of the redundancy of your argument. The argument of ideology in revolutionary politics contains many grey areas - surely as a Marxist, you would understand this.

This is the point that you can't get your head around, you are trying to criticize something that you don't understand whilst trying to use quotes from Marx to try and add legitimacy to them as if his statements he made then are as relevant today as they were then and as if you are involved in some kind of black and white, right and wrong argument.

Marxism isn't a genuinely rigid ideology and neither is anarchism, so your attempt to create a definable difference between the two based on a couple of assumptions based on both ideologies is invalid. In a crude overview they both run on certain understandings and principles, but your understanding of them as two absolutely distinct but consensually solid discourses in themselves is incorrect and, at the very least, rooted in statements made a very long time ago before both discourses progressed into the fragmented ideological camps they are today.

You should join the OP in studying political theory.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Anarcho-Marxist was supposed to be a joke. I meant since I couldn't decide, I would just combine the names together.

[The Idler]

You could have a look at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Marxism
Daniel Guerin might be an Anarchist/Marxist you might like to look into
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Guerin