The Bolsheviks legalized abortion in 1920 recognizing a woman's right to control her own body as a pillar of human emancipation. A century later these executioners of womens rights, these forehead engravers live permanently backwards in their commitment to barbarism. #BodilyAutonomy #ProChoice 2/2

It's not personal. It's a fundamental programmatic divide. Our frustration at each other, is two completely opposing worldviews that look at revolutionary politics and philosophy from completely different perspectives. 3/3

But you should really understand that my position on this isn't some niche Marxist position. From a Kautskyist social democrat to a Stalinist, to a Maoist, to me, will tell you the same thing about the Bakunin-Marx split. In fact most would probably tell you it far more aggressively. 2/3

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. I make a point of reading other tendencies, I really do. I don't like to sit in a hug box. But I need to reiterate this; you can obviously believe whatever you want to about the First International split. I can't make you believe anything. 1/3

Gladly. I will read it. I actually follow the Black Rose on Twitter, so this will be a fun exercise for me.

This is becoming circular and you're just regurgitating 150 year old beefs. I'll ask you a simple question that your tradition has failed to answer for 150 years. What is your material real world strategy for the working class to seize power other than hoping it happens spontaneously decentrally?

He was organizing his SECRET ALLIANCE inside of the International to sabotage it from within. This is a documented fact. You're just reducing everything to good guys vs bad guys. Anarchist theory is the left-wing of capitalist decay. 2/2

Marx and Engels did initially fight for Bakunin's formal inclusion in the International. This has nothing to do with endorsement of ideas, but a commitment to open debate - LITERALLY the opposite of secret conspiracy. But what was Bakunin doing meanwhile? 1/2

And I respect anarchist working class fighters. I do. But I don't respect Bakunin, or anarchist theory. And I won't apologize for the Marxist traditions defense of a scientific program against petty-bourgeois wreckers. 4/4

The working class 3) Marxism is based on the central revolutionary role of the proletariat. Bakunin looked to the lumpenproletariat and the peasantry as the main instruments of revolution. We resolutely deny this in the strongest terms possible. The split was two opposing worldviews. 3/4

Party vs conspiracy 2) Marxists fight to build open, democratic and centralized party of the working class built on a scientific program. Bakunin and his secret alliances relied on secret societies and conspiratorial methods, the opposite of proletarian democracy. 2/4

Ugh. You're a deeply frustrating person. The disagreement with Bakunin was about FUNDAMENTAL principles. The state 1) Marxists hold that the working class must seize state power to suppress the resistance of the ruling class. Bakunin opposed this, he thought any state was fundamentally evil. 1/4

You almost immediately opened this conversation with questioning my grasp of theory and how much I've read. That's not good faith.

I thought I wasn't a communist?

What you call betrayal, I call important and served the class by excising the wreckers. See? Different conclusions. It's quite a thing to see, eh? I'm a communist. Get over it.

And I told you I disagreed. Is that shocking we can come to different conclusions?