A Critique of the Anarchist FAQ: On Marx and Marxism

From Revleft (link):

Quote :

A Critique of the Anarchist FAQ: On Marx and Marxism

Now, I take Rubel's view that Marx was a libertarian socialist. As it is, this provides a primary source of contention with the Anarchist FAQ. Of course, arguing over what a dead guy believed is somewhat irrelevant, but it's still incredibly annoying due to the sheer mass of distortions on the subject, as well as the misconceptions about us Marxists and our terminology that flows from it. Most importantly, the Anarchist FAQ is taken as, and is supposed to be, an authoritative source. Also, Marx had a cool beard, and you do not diss the beard. Therefore, I shall undertake to demolish, to quote Rubel, "the legend – Bakuninist and Leninist – of a Marx “worshipper of the State” and “apostle of State communism” or of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the dictatorship of a party, indeed of a single man." So anyways, let's begin with the section 'What was Bakunin's criticism of Marxism?'

Now, interestingly, it starts off with a confession that, "Both, moreover, had a tendency to misrepresent the opinions of the other on certain issues." I would say that Bakunin's tendency to do this was far greater, but that's neither here nor there. Now, the FAQ then goes on to reproduce these misrepresentations, which is... Somewhat interesting? However, warning bells begin to ring at, "Anarchists, unsurprisingly, argue Bakunin has been proved right by history, so confirming the key aspects of his critique of Marx." Not only is this not at all "unsurprising", but it also sets the stage for the silly, "The Soviet Union proves that Bakunin was right" silliness.

Alright, so the first critique. "For Marx, the proletariat had to take part in bourgeois elections as an organised political party." Now, by extension we need to be primmos, or we'll be using 'bourgeois technology'. Insurrection uses 'bourgeois guns'? General strike uses the 'bourgeois working class'? I don't-
Anyways, enough with the bourgeois rhetoric, let's continue.

"By the start of the First World War, the Social Democrats had become so corrupted by its activities in bourgeois institutions they supported its state (and ruling class) and voted for war credits rather than denounce the war as Imperialist slaughter for profits. Clearly, Bakunin was proved right." Yes, and I could say 'anarcho-communism leads to the same thing' with as much evidence.

"Comparing Bakunin and Marx, it is clear whom history has validated." Neither. We haven't had a successful international socialist revolution yet, so, again, history has not validated either of them.

Next, and this is one of the moments in the ⒶFAQ that leads inevitably to a headdesk, "Decades later, when Marx discussed what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant, he argued (in reply to Bakunin's question of "over whom will the proletariat rule?") that it simply meant "that so long as other classes continue to exist, the capitalist class in particular, the proletariat fights it (for with the coming of the proletariat to power, its enemies will not yet have disappeared), it must use measures of force, hence governmental measures; if it itself still remains a class and the economic conditions on which the class struggle and the existence of classes have not yet disappeared, they must be forcibly removed or transformed, and the process of their transformation must be forcibly accelerated." [The Marx-Engels Reader, pp. 542-3] Note, "capitalists," not "former capitalists," so implying that the members of the proletariat are, in fact, still proletarians after the "socialist" revolution and so still subject to wage slavery under economic masters." Alright then, you like to talk about the anarchist communes in the Spanish revolution. Did the bourgeoisie still exist? Well, yes, they were funding Franco (well, other than the Russian bourgeoisie, who were backstabbing the anarchists). It would appear that we have a problem here. See, Marx was looking at things from an internationalist perspective. Therefore, the proletariat and bourgeoisie had competing class interests. The bourgeoisie would wish to re-establish capitalism, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in a place after a socialist revolution. On the other hand, it is in the interests of the proletariat to abolish classes. However, unless we are to imagine a revolution that is successful internationally at the exact same time, which is unrealistic, there would be some places in which class was abolished, and others in which it was not. As the bourgeoisie would still exist in the places where it was not, they would still have class interests that conflict with that of the proletariat. Therefore, the places in which the proletariat had taken power, and, as Marx said, "It [the proletariat] can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat," therefore making the place a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', that is, the dictatorship of proletarian interests over the bourgeoisie. It has nothing to do with the former bourgeoisie, now stripped of their property, who are too much a minority to be a relevant threat. As the Marxist definition of the state is, basically, the enforcement of one class' interests over another's, a proletarian state is basically the enforcement of proletarian interests over the interests of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie being not within the state, but still relevant, as has been shown by previous revolutions. The other function of the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is to establish that it is the entire class, rather than just a minority as envisioned by Blanquists and many so-called 'Marxist-Leninists'. It was most certainly not created by Blanqui, which is a hoax.

Also, Marx had said, "If Mr Bakunin only knew something about the position of a manager in a workers' cooperative factory, all his dreams of domination would go to the devil. He should have asked himself what form the administrative function can take on the basis of this workers' state, if he wants to call it that." The "if he wants to call it that" is to show that when Bakunin uses the term 'state', he means something completely different to Marx. This, understandably, pissed Marx off, and also made most of Bakunin's criticisms of Marx just silliness based on different terminology.

"As the experience of the Russian Revolution showed, the position of Marx and Engels [on Feudalism -> Capitalism -> Socialism] proved to be untenable." Wait, a second ago, weren't we talking about people being 'proved right by history'? Because, y'know... Heh.

"The experience of Bolshevik Russia also confirms Bakunin's prediction that state socialism would simply be state capitalism." Wait, wasn't that Liebnecht? Either way, no, it doesn't. "As Bakunin stressed, the state "is the government from above downwards of an immense number of men [and women], very different from the point of view of the degree of their culture, the nature of the countries or localities that they inhabit, the occupations they follow, the interests and aspirations directing them - the State is the government of all these by one or another minority."" Um, so this is your argument against Marxism? I don't see it. Marx used the term 'state' differently, deal with it. I mean, what's your argument, 'Bakunin's definition of state is such and such, therefore as Russia turned into this Marx was wrong, even though he meant a completely thing by 'state''? As for the rest of their argument on this, my response is summed up by Marx's response to Bakunin's accusations in 'Statism and Anarchy':

Bakunin: "So the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, say the Marxists..."
Marx: "Where?"

A simple Marx quote should illustrate what the Anarchist FAQ lacks on this matter, “Does this mean that after the fall of the old society there will be a new class domination culminating in a new political power? No ... The working class, in the course of its development, will substitute for the old civil society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society. Meanwhile the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a struggle of class against class, a struggle which carried to its highest expression is a total revolution. Indeed, is it at all surprising that a society founded on the opposition of classes should culminate in brutal contradiction, the shock of body against body, as its final denouement? Do not say that social movement excludes political movement. There is never a political movement which is not at the same time social. It is only in an order of things in which there are no more classes and class antagonisms that social evolutions will cease to be political revolutions.” Emphasis mine. Also, "The existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery ... The more powerful a state and hence the more political a nation, the less inclined it is to explain the general principle governing social ills and to seek out their causes by looking at the principle of the state – i.e., at the actual organization of society of which the state is the active, self-conscious and official expression.” He also refers to, "The centralized State machinery which, with its ubiquitous and complicated military, bureaucratic, clerical and judiciary organs, entoils [enmeshes] the living civil society like a boa constrictor."

"Anarchists in the nineteenth century rejected the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in part because the proletariat was a minority of working class people at the time." Well, other than the fact that the 'proletariat' and 'the working class' are the same thing... "Schoolboy stupidity! A radical social revolution depends on certain definite historical conditions of economic development as its precondition. It is also only possible where with capitalist production the industrial proletariat occupies at least an important position among the mass of the people." As Marx then goes on to comment, "A fine idea, that the rule of labour involves the subjugation of land labour!"

"Bakunin continually stressed the need for a movement and revolution of all working class people (see section H.2.7) and that the peasants "will join cause with the city workers as soon as they become convinced that the latter do not pretend to impose their will or some political or social order invented by the cities for the greater happiness of the villages; they will join cause as soon as they are assured that the industrial workers will not take their lands away."" Holy shit, him and Marx agreed on something. Well, actually, they agreed on many things, but... Yeah. Marx proposed "measures through which the peasant finds his condition immediately improved, so as to win him for the revolution; measures which will at least provide the possibility of easing the transition from private ownership of land to collective ownership, so that the peasant arrives at this of his own accord, from economic reasons. It must not hit the peasant over the head, as it would e.g. by proclaiming the abolition of the right of inheritance or the abolition of his property." This in order to prevent the peasant from obstructing and destroying a revolution, "as he has formerly done in France".

"He argued, in reply to Bakunin's question if all Germans would be members of the government, that "[c]ertainly, because the thing starts with the self-government of the township." Thank you. Of course, this is then followed by the inevitable silliness, "However, he also commented that "[c]an it really be that in a trade union, for example, the entire union forms its executive committee," suggesting that there will be a division of labour between those who govern and those who obey in the Marxist system of socialism." As Marx had written on Bakunin's work, "If Mr Bakunin only knew something about the position of a manager in a workers' cooperative factory, all his dreams of domination would go to the devil." The same applies. The quote, by the way, did not imply that Bakunin dreamed of dominating, but his dreams of Marx's socialism being authoritarian.

Time for another headdesk moment. They actually reproduce Bakunin's claim that Marx's use of the term 'scientific socialism' is authoritarian. Srsly.

Bakunin: "But those elected will be fervently convinced and therefore educated socialists. The phrase 'educated socialism'..."
Marx: "...never was used."
Bakunin: "... 'scientific socialism'..."
Marx: "...was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself; see my text against Proudhon."
Bakunin: "...which is unceasingly found in the works and speeches of the Lasalleans and Marxists, itself indicates that the so-called people's state will be nothing else than the very despotic guidance of the mass of the people by a new and numerically very small aristocracy of the genuine or supposedly educated. The people are not scientific, which means that they will be entirely freed from the cares of government, they will be entirely shut up in the stable of the governed. A fine liberation!
The Marxists sense this (!) contradiction and, knowing that the government of the educated will be the most oppressive, most detestable, most despised in the world, a real dictatorship despite all democratic forms, console themselves with the thought that this dictatorship will only be transitional and short." (The bit in italics was added by Marx. )
The conclusion, it... Y'know... It just doesn't quite follow...
!!!

The rest of this section was just mudslinging, and not worth my time.

Apparently the whole thing was too long for the post length limit here, so I'll have to split it up a little. Ah well.

Continued:

Quote :

Alright, now for the 'Fundamental Differences between Anarchists and Marxists'. Ooh goody.

"The important, fundamental dissension [between anarchists and Marxists] is [that] . . . [Marxist] socialists are authoritarians, anarchists are libertarians." Ah ha! But modern 'libertarians' are neoliberals! This shows a fundamental flaw with anarchism, as Lenin demonstrated! What, you think it's faulty reasoning? It is, so stop doing it. Kthx. Ehm, anyways. To quote De Leon, "As to Malatesta, the least said of him the better." Heh. Anyways, that's bullcrap, and you know it. "Anarchists instead maintain, that government cannot be other than harmful." Marx: "If a man rules [or 'governs'] himself, he does not do so on this principle, for he is after all himself and no other." Also, it's cute that us Marxists are now being referred to as 'Socialists', as opposed to 'Anarchists'. Come on, I expected better.

"Thus the real meaning of a workers state is simply that the party has the real power, not the workers." Oh, come on, that's all you've got? Silly assertions, eh? Well, you're a chipmunk and Britney Spears fan. So there.

"As an example, we can point to Lenin's comments..." In response, I can point to Rothbard's comments to prove that anarchism is an inherently bourgeois ideology...
No. Stop it.

"These arguments by leading Bolsheviks confirm Bakunin's fear that the Marxists aimed for "a tyranny of the minority over a majority in the name of the people - in the name of the stupidity of the many and the superior wisdom of the few."" These arguments by Ron Paul confirm Lenin's fear that the anarchists aimed for...

Ehm. Anyways, let me make it clear that I completely agree that Hal Draper's caricature of anarchism was bollocks. Ah well, he's trying to justify Kronstadt, which leads inevitably to bullcrap, give the guy a break. However, as for Marxism being socialism from above... No, it's not.

"Decades later, Marx dismissed Bakunin's vision of "the free organisation of the worker masses from bottom to top" as "nonsense."" Ooh, interesting. Could you please provide the context in which Marx revealed his secret authoritarianism? Marx saw Bakunin's rhetoric as mere empty phraseology, for example, "[The rank and file of the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy (Bakunin's organization)] are told of nothing but pure anarchy, of anti-authoritarianism, of a free federation of autonomous groups, and other equally harmless things: a mere jumble of words." For Marx, a solid basis for communist practice is not provided by Bakunin, so he considers the phrases empty.

Anyways, fuck it.

Bakunin: "The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?"
Marx: "Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune."

Top-down or bottom-up, which one was Marx? In fact, here's an interesting little interjection.

Bakunin: "This dilemma is simply solved in the Marxists' theory. By people's government they understand (i.e. Bakunin) the government of the people by means of a small number of leaders, chosen (elected) by the people." Bolded text by Marx. This implies, quite simple, that Marx, in fact, does not. Thank you, are we done here? Well, it seems we aren't. Oh dear.

Anyways, the rest seems to be mainly treading old ground and complaining about the fact that Engels didn't mind using the ballot. Well, I'm a De Leonist, so I don't see this as much of a criticism.

"As Bakunin argued, Marxists are "worshippers of State power, and necessarily also prophets of political and social discipline and champions of order established from the top downwards, always in the name of universal suffrage and the sovereignty of the masses, for whom they save the honour and privilege of obeying leaders, elected masters."" Cool story bro.

Now, here's a bit that I find hilarious:

"Don't anarchists just quote Marxists selectively?"
"No, far from it."

Well, yes, not all anarchists. Still, you do a good job of it, here's an argument from the 'Is Marxism bottom up?' section that is particularly effective. It could easily mislead somebody. That would be this quote from Marx: the workers "must not allow themselves to be misguided by the democratic talk of freedom for the communities, of self-government, etc." Also, the workers must "not only strive for a single and indivisible German republic, but also within this republic for the most determined centralisation of power in the hands of the state authority." Dun dun. Caught red-handed. Now, let's see whether this happens to be quoting Marx (who was a Marxist, I would assume) selectively. So, this quote was from Marx's 1850 address. Even a short peek at the context reveals that Marx is talking first of all about a bourgeois-democratic revolution. "In a country like Germany, where so many remnants of the Middle Ages are still to be abolished, where so much local and provincial obstinacy has to be broken down, it cannot under any circumstances be tolerated that each village, each town and each province may put up new obstacles in the way of revolutionary activity, which can only be developed with full efficiency from a central point." Whatever you think of his position, it's clear that Marx did not think the workers at the time able to exercise political power. In fact, let's get a good look at the speech in which it was in, shall we? "As in the past [Hell, the description fits the American Revolution incredibly well], so in the coming struggle also, the petty bourgeoisie, to a man, will hesitate as long as possible and remain fearful, irresolute and inactive; but when victory is certain it will claim it for itself and will call upon the workers to behave in an orderly fashion, to return to work and to prevent so-called excesses, and it will exclude the proletariat from the fruits of victory. It does not lie within the power of the workers to prevent the petty-bourgeois democrats from doing this; but it does lie within their power to make it as difficult as possible for the petty bourgeoisie to use its power against the armed proletariat, and to dictate such conditions to them that the rule of the bourgeois democrats, from the very first, will carry within it the seeds of its own destruction, and its subsequent displacement by the proletariat will be made considerably easier." Emphasis mine. Of course, this also makes it clear exactly who he was referring to in talking about 'democratic talk', the petit-bourgeois 'democrats', "They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers' candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory." So it seems that at least one anarchist is quoting Marx out of context.

"Lastly, it seems ironic that Marxists accuse anarchists of quoting "selectively." After all, as proven in section H.2, this is exactly what Marxists do to anarchism!" Wait, I do? But I'm not even against anarchism, seeing as I am a libertarian socialist... "No! You're an evil authoritarian! Marx once said, "return to work", thus making him a Puritan! Eek!" Wait, that's out of contex- "No! You're quoting me selectively, because you're a Marxist!" What.

Next, it claims that, "the idea of smashing the bourgeois state and replacing it with the fighting organisations of the working class" was appropriated by the Marxists in 1917. This is rather wrong. Not only was that, y'know, De Leon's idea in 1904, but it was also Marx's. “... If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare: the next French Revolution will no longer attempt to transfer the bureaucratic-military apparatus from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the precondition for every real people’s revolution on the Continent.” “Thus they [the proletarians] find themselves directly opposed to the form in which, hitherto, the individuals, of which society consists, have given themselves collective expression, that is, the State. In order, therefore, to assert themselves as individuals, they must overthrow the State.”

"A classic example of this appropriation of anarchist ideas into Marxism is provided by the general strike." The general strike? Ew. That's not any major appropriation, or anything to be proud of creating, really. Of course, they then quote Potkrakin, but this bit is all irrelevant, so fuck it.

Of course, I'm sure Engels did distort Bakunin's ideas occasionally. I'm not sure about it here, but he certainly did distort them with his statement about Bakunin seeing the state as something separate from capitalism, and thus theorizing that the state must be brought down, and capitalism would fall as a result. Of course, as I don't believe in free will (and being judgmental is sinful), I'm not going to be judgmental about Bakunin here, but he certainly did make more distortions about Marx than Marx and Engels made of him, though it seems that it was mainly Engels from their side.

Fortunately, it seems that the FAQ does admit to the limits of the general strike, but claims that this is because it doesn't lead to insurrection. Heh.

Final part:

Quote :

"""the economic theory expounded [by Marx] in Capital is based on the postulate that capitalism has managed completely and effectively to transform the worker - who appears there only as labour power - into a commodity."" That is generally referred to as 'accuracy'. "A novel factor has appeared on the labour market: the will of the worker!" Events since the 1970s seem to have undermined this 'novel factor'. Either way, I don't see any way that this undermines Marx's theories.

"For anarchists, the idea that a state (any state) can be used for socialist ends is simply ridiculous. This is because of the nature of the state as an instrument of minority class rule." All I see is an assertion. "As Kropotkin argued in his classic history of the state, "a social institution cannot lend itself to all the desired goals, since, as with every organ, [the state] developed according to the function it performed, in a definite direction and not in all possible directions."" Yes, the function it performed being that of an enforcer of bourgeois interests over that of the proletariat, as well as a way to combat socialist movements through reformism. Of course it's bureacratic, we can't have the bourgeoisie's representatives being forced to carry out the will of those who elected it! "In other words, the state is centralised because it is an instrument of minority domination and oppression." Sure. However, your assertions about the nature of the state do not follow from this premise, which, in fact, sounds startlingly Marxist. Are you an evil authoritarian in disguise? "Thus the argument that the state "is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another" is trying to draw out an abstract essence of the state rather than ground what the state is on empirical evidence and analysis." Hey, wait, how is that any worse than your statement about the 'nature' of the state? We're simply stating what you said in the startlingly Marxist premise, and taking out, "it is an instrument of minority domination and oppression", being more precise, thus calling it an instrument of the enforcement of bourgeois class interests over those of the proletariat, and using that part as our definition, seeing that part of your premise, "the state is centralised", as being merely a result of the current class relations in society, rather than an equally important part of the definition. How is this any more abstract than your definition?

Anyways, the rest of that section was pretty much pointless. "For example, as David W. Lovell puts it, "[t]aken as a whole, Marx's comments have dodged the issue. Bakunin is clearly grappling with the problems of Marx's transition period, in particular the problem of leadership, while Marx refuses to discuss the political form of what must be (at least in part) class rule by the proletariat."" No, I don't think so. Try again. He makes it clear that he calls for 'self-government', he wasn't creating concrete blueprints here. Of course, I don't have any problem with creating blueprints for a post-revolutionary society, my point was that Marx never did. "But, if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be." The FAQ then goes back to silliness involving the 1850 address, and I'm fucking bored by now. The rest of the criticism of Marxism on this page seems to be focussed on Leninism, so I'll skip that.

Hey, this is awesome! In the section on the Russian Revolution, we have "How did the Marxist historical materialism affect Bolshevism?" Hey, something that hasn't been distorted yet! Let's go.

"Thus the Bolsheviks had the mindset that whatever they did there was only two possibilities: (their version of) socialism or the restoration of capitalism." And... The Bolsheviks restored (well, technically Russia was mainly feudalist before their revolution, so more accurately, they brought about) capitalism. This shows nothing. "Is it valid to assume that there is only one possible post-capitalist future, one that, by definition, is classless?" Sure. "If so, then any action or structure could be utilised to fight reaction as after victory there can be only one outcome." Ah, here we go. This statement just doesn't follow. The means shape the ends. Marx never said, "Any random revolution will bring about socialism."

"If we accept the Marxist theory and assume only one possible post-capitalist system, then all that is required of revolutionary anti-capitalist movements is that they only need to overthrow capitalism and they will wind up where they wish to arrive as there is no other possible outcome." Sure, or be demolished (see: Spanish communes). The Bolsheviks did not. What's your point? "As such, means become the key and they cannot be ignored or downplayed in favour of the ends -- particularly as these ends will never be reached if the appropriate means are not used." Correct, they won't. So, basically, you're grasping at straws. "As Bolshevism proved, there was always an alternative to socialism or a reversion to capitalism, in this case state capitalism." [Emphasis from original] So, I was saying... Seriously, you just outdid yourself. I mean... Come on...
So, in other news, state capitalism is not, in fact, a form of capitalism.

"By using the term "state" to cover these two radically different concepts, it allowed the Bolsheviks to confuse party power with popular power and, moreover, replace the latter by the former without affecting the so-called "proletarian" nature of the state. The confusion of popular organs of self-management with a state ensured that these organs were submerged by state structures and top-down rule." So... The Bolshies only took power because Marx and Engels used the term 'state' to refer to an instrument of the enforcement of one class' interests over another? Holy shit, talk about a butterfly effect!
This is not a strawman, I just really don't see how that could imply anything else. So, Marx's theory of the state was flawed because... Lenin misused it? I don't-

"Sadly, Marxist theory confuses popular self-government with a state so ensuring the substitution of rule by a few party leaders for the popular participation required to ensure a successful revolution." ...What.

And then, in another section, we get this: "they also keep quiet on Marx's anti-Jewish comments". Oh dear. How sad that such a mighty document must go down to the level of regurgitating bourgeois lies about Marx's 'On the Jewish Question' being anti-Jewish. It wasn't, it was, quite simply, anti-anti-Jewish, and anti-capitalist. I agree that Bakunin, Proudhon, etc, being racist and such has no impact upon anarchism, however, and that Bakunin's 'invisible dictatorship' doesn't indicate that anarchists are closet authoritarians.

As for the bit on libertarian child-rearing, I quite like it, though I do find the absence of focus on schools to be somewhat disturbing, being the staunch anti-schooler that I am. It ends with this, "Respecting children and educating them well was vitally important to the process of revolutionary change. Ignorance made people particularly vulnerable to oppression and suffering. More importantly, education prepared people for social life. Authoritarian schools (or families), based upon fear, prepared people to be submissive to an authoritarian government [or within a capitalist workplace]. Different schools and families would be necessary to prepare people to live in a society without domination." No, school reform is not enough. Hell, it would appear that you got out-libertarianed by a Marxist. :O

And that's all for now, folks. I'm sure that the Russian revolution section is not completely accurate, though, not being a Leninist, I don't really care enough to research its accuracy. Also, being a De Leonist, I disagree with it on the question of political organization, though these kinds of discussions have been done thousands of times, and I did not feel that they were necessary in this, and would be better discussed in a separate thread if you wish to. However, don't take this as meaning that the Anarchist FAQ is completely misleading, it's not. On the contrary, it's a wonderful resource, and any annoyance shown above was only at the distortions mentioned. It's a great way to get an introduction to libertarian socialist theory. My message is simply to take it with a grain of salt, and all that I am attempting is to make it as positive an educational experience as possible.