what does anarchism add to marx?

It means beyond organisation and historical experiences, does the rest really matter to anyone bar revolutionaries? If you ken what ah meen, chum

Well, I was making a broad statement, I'm not a scholar of Chinese culture, although I know from reading Jared Diamond that it is a country of incredible diversity and could be divided into 20 ethnic groups (don't hold me to this, statistical accuracy means nothing if the argument is sound)
I assume you've heard of Chang Khe Shek (Again, don't hold me to the spelling, etc, etc,), details don't concern me, I interpret the Weltanschauung of the racial and cultural unification which occured at the defeat of Chang Khe Shek, and only consider the material improvements to a population that would have most other governments realing and fainting in defeat if asked to manage it. Of course, the Western capitalist/colonialists were busy having their 1st and 2nd world wars, not to mention Korea and Vietnam, and all the while China was just rebuilding and revitalising a destroyed and raped country, from Chang Khe to the British to the Japanese, the average Chinese was the most exploited race on earth at the time. Oh, so the they have short memories, their culture which precedes Western by 2000 yrs doesn't maintain a history?
Well, I think they have more empathy for other under-developed nations, and sometimes some uppity factory workers or narcissistic students oppose the system that even ensured their survival need a little bit of re-education. I mean, couls you imagine a nation of 2 billion yuppies? That's friggin scary, I'll stay with the factory workers and farmers thank you very much!

Oh fuck, I posted on the wrong thread!

PS Also this idea of Maoist/capitalist modalities, I never associated Maoism with neo-capitalism, which would be the appropriate term for the hypenated modality you threw into this discussion. Rather I described the transitional stage via capitalist mass-production modes, Fordism for wont of a better term, without the capitalist labor value. I merely proposed that the enjoyment of material comforts, commodities (not capitalist ones produced in a system with a division of labor)purchased from wages which were the fair exchange value of the labor expelled could not be denied, except maybe by,,,,a jealous capitalist.

Yeah, but I think we would like to hear a response from Cooked who seem to think there were more than one “economic forcasts” (hence the plural) apart from the “death knell of capitalism”.

“Anarchism is almost extinct”? “Spanish version was leftist mutualism”? Defeating “2 billion Chinese Maoist” and a “billion hindu positivists”? What the heck are you talking about?

[i][i][/i]

Anarchism is almost extinct, the Spanish version was leftist mutualism, not real anarchism, and now the final wave is re-affiliating with Primitivism, after writing it off as a 90's doom and gloom association, which it was,,,umm,,,for instance, what happened to peak oil? And how can they defeat 2 billion Chinese Maoist/Capitalists and 1 billion hindu positivists. WTF has ideology got to do with feeling good?

“Anarchism is almost extinct”? “Spanish version was leftist mutualism”? Defeating “2 billion Chinese Maoist” and a “billion hindu positivists”? What the heck are you talking about?
/quote]

[/i]Sooo, you're the resident anarchist are we, hmm?
Firstly, what sort of anarchism are we talking about, the political or metaphysical type? I'm referring to the political one, and I think you are also, but you should have elaborated and saved me the trouble of having to investigate your tirade, after all, you are the attacker! Do I make myself clear!
OK, now political anarchism emphasizes the destruction of all statist and religious organisations and institutions, so, combining all religious and ideological states we have 99.95% of people living within this system. Anarchism must gracefully go the way of the dinosaurs, it is archaic. for the new millenium, we need a retrogressive return to religious hypocrisy with faith, encircled by the ravenous hordes of existentialists.

??????

What are you on about.

Yeah, I can't wait until batswill gets banned.

"rest is fluff": unimportant often rhetorical additions to an argument.

The first definition here: http://dictionary.reference.com/idioms/fluff

This descended quickly

rest of fluff is dinosaurish like the crapologists who can't,,,,,, mmm, noodles,,,,WTF! I refuse to get banned, it's not up to you, harrummph! capitalism is dead,

Hold onto them questions before they approach whining velocity!

What's going on here?

I think we're watching someone in a dissociative state trying to use a keyboard.

Partially correct, I drank too much, one of my better habits, regards

This thread was good until #27 (including). The rest is just fluff though.

yeah I agree. I especially enjoyed ocelot's post. There is two 'down' votes on that but nobody seems to have challenged it directly. Maybe those two downs could say something .

Ok, I'll chance me hand... not because I have anything much to say, but because I'm curious and probably have a lot to learn.
His analysis of capitalism hasn't been pipped - though has been since better presented by many writers.
His analysis of class is of it's time, and of not much help these days.
His value theory - though, I understand, comes by and large from Ricardo - is bang on, incorporating social necessity into the mix and creating the basis on which to build a society organised on communist lines.
His "politics" and what we should do as a class are pretty damned poor even for his day.

I'm curious as to why people who reject his political proclamations for what us daft proles should do - the stuff that gives political structure and outlook - still define themselves as Marxist? Yes, he was a great writer that contributed some important stuff, but when I look at all the prefixes that Marxists use to qualify their own personal political labeling, I often feel I'm missing a big point somewhere. Is it because to understand makes you clever, or something?

Who the fuck is this nutter? and where the hell did he come from?

Well,,,maybe I'm what you would call a libertarian-nihilist, sure, I may be a nutter, I've recently emerged from living with a hunter-gatherer society, it does tend to turn ones values upside down, and isn't insanity just a version of the inverted status quo. But you wouldn't understand maybe? My ramblings are just rantings, I don't wish to oppress others, I merely express my holistic view of things, and isn't this the libertarian-commie precept, or are you all going totalitarian on me?

Well being a social-anthropologist I fully understand this, but I've failed to meet many ethnographers who have came out of the field with "hunter-gatherers" spouting about how Mao indefinitely improved the lives of many over what any anarchists have done. Also, most people who have spent time with these people also tend to bring a coherent discussion and argument to the table on their return, rather than turning up describing nonsense in completely irrelevant topics. I would also sincerly expect that these people who you were living with could probably speak and make alot of sense, somewhat rendering your excuse of being around them, void.

Well it's good to know someone here is on my side! It was only after my comment 26 that this damn good friend of mine brought around some booze looking for intellectual intercourse which I offered in exchange. Conversation is a game, we never mean what we say, we are actually plumbing the inner sentiment and body language of those that we let into our lives, by physiognamy we can learn so much.?

I'm getting this as a tattoo!

As well as the part about being drunk. There have been many libcom contributors who have posted drunk before and still made a lot of sense.

And I'm sure Marx and Bakunin were quite drunk when they made their contributions to the historical socialist movement and look at what they accomplished.

Well it's not like they are in their pristine state, find me a group of H/Gs that are, maybe in some last inhospitable remnant of Brazilian forest, or the various deserts of this world, but mostly they wear T-shirts, and have substance abuse problems on the fringes of the neo-colonialist enclaves, but some who are less invaded still retain a value system akin to their ancient lifestyle, it's obsolete of course, yet it's interesting to observe and analyse its basic tenets, at first one is shocked, these people were christian before ever hearing about christ. Now we see the bigger picture, as Nietzsche said, there was only one christian and he lived 2000 years ago, the point is that the christian ethic is really the personal ethic, and in the extended family clan it is an innate quality. Only the clutter of capitalism alters these precious and loyal values with the proletariat cling to desperately while they are sucked into the fascist void of totalitarianism.

Also I forgot to mention that they have no prisons, which you know since you are a social-anthropologist, but anyway, I look at it this way, the social benchmark to approaching a classless egalitarian society which nutures all of its members must NOT have confinement as an option. I gone off topic here, hey, I wonder what Marx's views on prisons were, just to go back to the initial topic, what does anarchism add to Marx. Maybe that's it, no prisons in the new society?

A facial tattoo NO! One mustn't let the deceivers know we are onto them! It is a science, almost esoteric, reading the mind by body language. Authoritarian forces are into this, do not divulge your knowledge of physiognomy.

By... say, posting about it on the internet?