Marx: Authoritarian or Libertarian?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

From what I can see, Marx supported a dictatorship of the proleteriat, and, consequently, a flawed method of achieving communism that leads to dictatorship and the centralization of power. This evidence, from my perspective, comes from excerpts of his work and the feud between him and Bakunin.

However, do Libertarian Marxists consider Marx as having an anarchist view of the state? If not, why do they adopt an anti-statist (anarchist) approach to communism while continuing to identify as Marxists?

Sure, Marxist theory has beneficial points, but why would you consider yourself a Marxist rather than just a communist or anarchist?

[chimx]

More than anything he has a flexible view of socialist transition. His attacks on bakuninists or blanquists is more an attack on their rigidity of how transition occurs. the DofP can imply the revolutionary classwarfare advocated by anarchists as well as gradual democratic change as advocated by parliamentarian socialists, provided that the ultimate ends is the destruction of class and disintegration of the state.

[anomaly]

I've pointed out before that, using all that Marx ever wrote, one could support a 'Marxism' such as that which TragicClown promotes or support a 'Marxism' such as that which redstar2000 (and DJ-TC! :P ) supports.

So, as I see it, what Marx wrote is rather dubious as to what you mention.

Although, the socialists (most of them, anyway) see the DoP as dictatorship of a class, not dictatorship of a person. I'll say that for them.

When someone says "I'm a Marxist", the question must be asked: "Vanguardist or libertarian?"

Certainly both could rightly be called 'Marxist', simply because they agree with what Marx wrote. But what Marx wrote is ultimately dubious. (and thus the circle is complete :lol: )

Myself, I call myself 'anarchist' because I feel that represents better what I believe. Although, I consider any libertarian Marxist a comrade of mine as well. When you get down to it, there is nothing separating lib-Marxists and anarchists other than simple semantics.

What Marx wrote is far less important than what one does with what he wrote.

[redstar2000]

If, at times, I "call myself" a "Marxist", it's mostly because it takes less time to write that than it does revolutionary historical materialist.

It's the methodology that I most appreciate (and recommend) about Marx...not his speculations which were, perforce, limited by the time in which he lived, the technology and resultant culture that "produced" him, etc.

Our own speculations are likewise limited; we can't know yet what the objective material conditions will permit us to do at such time as proletarian revolution rolls around.

All we can reasonably do is try to be as clear as we can about what we want and what we will positively refuse to accept!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif