No.2636
Idk, I enjoyed reading Marx too and Lenin is sometimes really verbally violent and fund because of that, but anarchists do right less formulaic than marxists in general. I think thats because of the whole "immortal science" thing. They like to write very encapsulated if that makes sense. If you write not only with the intend of expressing a certain idea or analysis, but also trying to adhere to the hegelian sound of wording the marxist formular is just what you end up with.
Also many anarchists write with a healthy dose of jest (especially stirner), which I do enjoy but I could see fans of sober philosophy not enjoying.
No.2638
I dont like to read bombastic writing by some faggot ass university student
No.2639
>>2638Are you talking about Marx?
No.2640
>>2639I never thought marx as bombastic but you know go ahead and pretend like I wasnt talking about the greek fags and their counterparts who are totally not upper middle class people
No.2641
>>2640Don't disrespect the CCF like that, they are following the age-old proletarian tradition of only writing while in prison. Maybe if you said CrimethInc I would have said OK, but this is just plain dumb.
No.2645
>>2641>they are following the age-old proletarian tradition of only writing while in prison.They were weiting sometimes lengthy communiques after actions tho.
No.2654
>>2633>Why is reading anarchist texts so much more enjoyable than leftist texts?because you like to read things you already agree with and thus feel validated in your believes
No.2655
Marxist are incredibly dry writers except for Trotsky.
To Marx’s credit, he is possibly the least dry economist of his time.
Also, Stirner’s writings are almost purposefully flamboyant and use a lot of literary devices to drive a point.
Marx was a much more systematic and you can see this clash of styles in his flat interpretation of Stirner.