Why anarchists promote communism (central banking) if Bakunin himself warned that Karl Marx was nothing but a jewish parasite?
>“Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of blooksuckers, a single gluttonnous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild.
>This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ....”
Source: Michael Bakunin, 1871, Personliche Beziehungen zu Marx. In: Gesammelte Werke. Band 3. Berlin 1924. P. 204-216.
>Why anarchists promote communism because they do whatever mass media tell them t do, similar to antifa and BLM crowd
Thomas Lewis
How many threads about DA JOOS are you going to spam? And communism predates marx. Anarchists have as much right to the word communism as marxists do. And communism is a moneyless society by definition, banks might not exactly work very well.
Brody Wilson
>And communism is a moneyless society by definition Only in your utopian mind. A central bank is needed, even Karl Marx and Engels admitted it. If the bank doesn't exist officially it will exist in the underground.
Hudson Fisher
>Only in your utopian mind You mean in the utopian mind of anarchists. Anarchists do think that a moneyless society can exist and therefore support communism, which answers your question. I don't care about your opinion on whether such a society is possible, and even less in reading you pretend to have read marx. Now back to your containment board.
How are you going to implement progressive tax without a central bank?
Robert Collins
In the same Chapter II, it reads: " Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
Is Karl Marx an anti-communist? wtf I love Karl Marx now
Jason Lopez
The communist manifesto is a political pamphlet. It's a series of economic measures in the transition to communism, not a description of communism. You'd have to read a passage that is actually about communism. >Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.
All of this is irrelevant of the question of OP, which I have already answered. Of course, the objective of the thread is to spread conspiracy theories and not discuss why anarchists support communism.
Oliver Gomez
>Finally, when all capital, all production... That's in the distant future. A central bank is needed. For how long no one knows, but anarchists defend a centralized bank at least for ''some period''.
Kayden Perry
For all the IWA catfighting and weird personal feuds, Bakunin produced the first russian translation of Capital and Marx was perfectly fine having it remain the standard during his lifetime. In short, just a bit of bants, lighten up lad
Camden Diaz
The infamous 10 planks. In one of his final bits of writing, it's admitted that the planks weren't really worth much, and if they had the opportunity they'd have removed it from the manifesto.
Christian Rogers
>but anarchists defend a centralized bank at least for ''some period''. No, they don't. Anarchists don't want a transitional state, they want to skip right into the stateless moneyless phase. And if you read Engels, his description of the transitional stage seems to be minimal too: >The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away.
Tyler Hernandez
Bakunin was right to expose Karl Marx plan to give all property to the hands of a jew hands. The entire Communist Manifesto could be read as ''The Rothschild Plan for Society"
>Give me your property and only allow a central bank to control you and money will eventually cease to exist That's when Bakunin realized it won't cease to exist but they will remain in power forever
Lucas Nelson
idk what you don't understand about the whole "bakunin made the first russian translation of capital and disseminated it" Hardly much of exposition if you then decide to do him a huge solid like that
Brandon Moore
>Anarchists don't want a transitional state That contradicts your statement. If anarchists don't want a transitional state they don't support communists... but in the real world they support communists and the communist plan of centralization even though Bakunin was against it
Isaiah Gomez
That's why the work against Karl Marx was written later in his life, years after ''the manifesto''.
Carter Kelly
Kapital was merely an analysis of 19th century capitalism, Bakunin may very well still have considered it a useful text while disavowing marx as a whole.
Cameron Adams
>If anarchists don't want a transitional state they don't support communists... Anarchists support communism, not communists. Although they share the same ends, so they sometimes do ally.
>but in the real world they support communists and the communist plan of centralization You might want to read about kronstadt, revolutionary catalonia, the free territory in ukraine, etc.
Colton Bennett
Kinda like his translation of capital when do you think marx wrote it lol If you take in someones text it ain't disavowal as a whole
Ryan Myers
They want the endgoal of communism
Gabriel Edwards
Name 1 reason to believe central bank will cease to exist after we give a central bank total monopoly.
Sebastian Adams
It a deduction from historical materialism explained by engels, quoted above. I have no interest in defending pseudoscientific theories of history.
Juan King
So your answer to my question is "Engels believes central bank will cease to exist because that's seems logical'' ?
Ethan Watson
How retarded do you have to be to think a central bank is communism?
Kevin Murphy
Logical to him, yes.
Michael Morgan
>state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie >Stateless society has never existed other than in the first stage of mankind >but trust me, I'm saying central banking will cease to exist because the state will cease to exist Engels is more retarded than Bakunin if you really think about it
Charles Wright
Wut Anarchists taking orders from mass media? No, anarchists generally view the media as being corporate shills.
Hunter Stewart
>Occupy Wall Street and BLM were spontaneous movements
Chase Wright
Neither of those was an anarchist movement, although Occupy did have a strong anarchist contingent.
Mason Roberts
>Because it hasn't happened yet, it will never happen
Not an anarchist by any means but you're committing an inductive fallacy here.
I know you're probably just a stormtard, but the answer is: they don't. Anarcho-communism and state communism are completely different things, they hust both use the word "communism" (and fight over who gets to claim it).
Gavin Robinson
All I'm saying is that according to Engels the stateless society will exist because of historical data (?) Historical data shows that slave-ruler relation never ceased to exist therefore there is no reason to believe the state will cease to exist. Engels goes even further by saying progressive tax is a way to destroy the state
Caleb Smith
see:
Anthony Taylor
I don't think there are any big ones. Anarchism isn't very popular.
Austin Wilson
>state >Communism
Elijah Walker
daily reminder that even the most violently radical "communist" is really just an edgy liberal
Henry Nguyen
>All I'm saying is that according to Engels the stateless society will exist because of historical data (?)
Where are you getting this claim from?
>Engels goes even further by saying progressive tax is a way to destroy the state
No he doesn't. He supports a progressive income tax because it limits the accumulation of private property (whether that's true is a different matter). Its only one of the many policies he wanted to implement.
Ian Ward
>Where are you getting this claim from? Engels described the future stateless society based on historical observation just quoted in this thread >He supports a progressive income tax because it limits the accumulation of private property Correct. But also you'll find in Chapter II things that the state will have to spend like public education how can you support public education without money or some sort of wealth to distribute to teachers?
William Martinez
Because he's not describing a communist state. He's describing a socialist state. Neither Engels nor Marx actually believed a communist utopia was possible in their lifetime. The policies of a socialist state are meant to foster equality between all of its citizens and eventually erode class structures. He explains why he believes the transition from state to stateless is possible right after he describes these policies:
>When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
Cameron Richardson
>Because he's not describing a communist state I know but my main point is how can he claim a stateless society will happen if historical data shows the opposite? I do understand how they wanted to exterminate class but
a) if you are having a central bank it's more likely the bank will never cease to exist than it will cease to exist b) if you have a heavy progressive tax system used to pay teachers and public workers this system is unlikely to die
Nathaniel Thompson
He explains why he believes it will happen in the passage I quoted. For the record I don't think its as simple as he says and neither do most serious Marxists.
You also can't rely on "historical data" to invalidate his materialistic point of view. What enabled his entire philosophy was the industrial revolution, which was totally unprecedented. He goes into a lot of detail in a lot of places about how the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have a different dynamic than the slave/serf and the master ever had.
I believe he recognizes the need for a central bank because a socialist society is still theoretically subject to market forces. Central banks were also seen as a primary goal for socialists because they provide financial stability, which was a massive concern during a time period when there was a serious downturn in the global economy every 5-7 years. That's important because most of the works that mention it (Principles of Communism, the Manifesto) are laden with populist appeals. He wrote very extensively on "the withering away of the state", and how seemingly permanent institutions like a central bank could theoretically vanish, and i'll direct you to the Anti-Duhring if you want to read about that in detail.
and them BAM magic this is some underwear gnomes level of planning
Josiah Torres
>I don't care about your opinion on whether such a society is possible, and even less in reading you pretend to have read marx. Every single time.
Caleb Murphy
>Central banks were also seen as a primary goal for socialists because they provide financial stability, which was a massive concern during a time period when there was a serious downturn in the global economy every 5-7 years. And they still believe in that. I don't know any marxist that think a central bank (or a moneyless society) is something possible. What Engels and Marx didn't realize (or they wrote in bad faith) is that progressive tax and government spending on public workers always expand, even if your society has birth planning like China.
Jaxson Harris
also I think social-democrats understood Marx and Engels better than utopian socialists/anarchists than think an ''open society'' is possible When everyone relies on bureaucracy the elite will always have jobs and opportunities
Benjamin Flores
You can't seem to wrap your head around anything I'm telling you. Maybe its because you're a stormfag (if you're OP) or you're just being deliberately obtuse. He laid out his theory on why the central bank and why taxation wouldn't persist after a certain stage of development. I've been repeating myself for 3 posts now.
Isaiah Gutierrez
You do realize that anarchism isn't a monlithic movement, right? There are several strands.
