Oh look kkkynes is labeling a bunch of people as marxists. You never see that...
so, durruti aint a Marxist, he just believes in everything they believe in, organizes the same people in the same manner for the same goals, and fights the same foes as Marxists, but he isnt a Marxist, because he never stuck the label on himself, which MANY people of that time refused to do, because the Third Communist International was dominated by Stalinists, rather than "Pure Marxists", and "Pure Marxists" like Trotsky and the various Proto-Marxist groups didnt care much for the Bolshevik's excessive use of bureaucracy and repression against Marxism's more traditionalist segments.
wow you really dont know much about Socialism, Marxism or apparently why so many Marxists preferred to be called "Anarchists" despite their obvious affiliation with "Left" Marxism (note that Left, Center and Right do NOT mean the same things in Marxist Jargon that they do in more civilized circles)
a quick Primer on Marxism's use of Left Right and Center:
Left Marxism: Trotsky Style International Worker's Solidarity, Perpetual Revolution, exporting of Marxism to Bourgeois regimes and Pre-Bouregois feudalist/manorialist/agrarian societies through the traditional Intellectual Vanguard dynamic
Center Marxism: Stalin Style Marxist Bureaucracy, operated through the Industrial Worker's vanguard, Nationalism first, to secure Marxism in one country, rather than Perpetual Revolution
Right Marxism: Mao Style Agrarian Vanguard Marxism, centered on the peasant proletariat, and a distrust of the Intellectual and Industrial Vanguard models.
funny how it's all still Marxism.
in many countries, being a "Communist" or "Marxist" was a crime, but declaring yourself an "Anarchist" was not, so "Anarchists" could meet, organize and rally, in places where "Communists and "Marxists" could not.
Many segments of Marxism were also ideologically opposed to the implementation used by the Bolsheviks, so they refused to call themselves by a name which might imply they were Bolsheviks.
The same dynamic occurs today in many political ideologies.
Example: many conservatives prefer to call themselves Libertarians rather than "Republicans" despite an almost universal support for the Republic, but the Republican Party has offended their sensibilities to such a degree that they eschew the name.
when you examine their beliefs they remain strong Republicans, and Conservatives, usually much more stalwart in their beliefs than the "Republican Party" that has hijacked the term "Republican", despite being every bit as Federalist as the Democrats.
i'm surte by now you have TLDR'ed this commentary, and will simply post some trite slogan or one of your failed memes like: "the state exists to protect private property" despite the obvious fact that The State spends most of it's effort protecting The Commons, not private property.
who regulates fishing to protect the "commons" of fish population? The State.
who protects the "commons" of the public Parks from those who would log/mine/despoil them? The State.
who institutes regulations to protect the "commons" of the air , preventing trash burning or excessive sulphur dioxide? The State.
who regulates and secures the "commons" of navigable waterways? The State.
who regulates hunting of the "commons" of wild animals and fowl? The State.
who regulates and maintains the "commons" of the highways and roads? The State.
who regulates and manages the "commons" of public monuments, libraries, museums and schools? The State.
The State actually spends very little of it's effort protecting private property.
how does it feel to be so
UTTERLY WRONG so
UTTERLY CONSISTENTLY?
