A lot of the conflict dates back to Marx personally. He was pressed because Proudhon cited his college rival when he wrote "The Philosophy of Poverty." so Marx wrote a book length review titled "The Poverty of Philosophy." Then because Marx had issues with Proudhon he naturally also had issues with Bakunin, thus leading to their constant arguments. Then when Bakunin was running late for the International – he stopped to fight nationalists in Poland – Marx debated the only anarchists who made it – they didn't do well. Afterwards Marx called to have Bakunin removed and also to move the International to New York. This led to Bakunin forming his own International.

Then once the old guard died you had Kropotikin who introduced Anarcho-Communism, and rumor has it that Lenin adored the guy. Gave him a house Named a city after him. Temporarily allowed anarchists to come out of hiding just for the guy's funeral. Named a mountain range after him. But Lenin still had beef with the anarcho-individualist like Proudhon and Bakunin (Which would probably make them proud given they defined their own success based on how reactionary future leftists will think of them.). So a lot of young leftists read the State and Revolution without context and assume that there's this huge feud between us. But truthfully, we're all communists, we just disagree on whether or not cops should exist.

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Worth noting that both Proudhon and Bakunin had... another problem with Marx on a both more and less personal level.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/1847/jews.htm

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/zoe-baker-bakunin-was-a-racist

[–] Sabbo@hexbear.net 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Good thing I'm an anarchist then. Would be pretty embarrassing to have to make excuses for long dead reactionaries rather than learning from their mistakes and reading theory written in the past century.

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yes, of course. I didn't mean to imply that that was an attack on you (or on anarchism), I just wanted to note what was likely a source of personal animosity between these individuals that also worsened the conflicts between them.

[–] Sabbo@hexbear.net 4 points 2 weeks ago

Ah, I see. I guess I'm used to mote animosity. I won't excuse their blatant bigotry, and the lack of intersectionality has obviously set movements back. But it also doesn't negate his work much in the same way that Marx "overlooking" (Despising) the permanent underclass doesn't make his work obsolete. And that's actually the only reason I bring up Bakunin anymore. There are countless authors who have rewritten and evolved anarchism to the point where the works of mutualists no longer make sense to cite. Which is exactly what Bakunin tried to emphasize in much of his work. Even the most radical of the past are nothing but reactionary by future standards.