Careful in categorizing historical (& contemporary) movements as "anarchist" vs "Marxist" (unless they explicitly ID as such). There are numerous revolutionary movements and socialist societies that do not fit neatly in this dichotomy. Not only is it implicitly Eurocentric,

1/

but it risks fundamentally misapplying concepts which do not actually befit the nature of a given historical society/movement.

We learn from Marxist methodology that each revolutionary situation or political-economic organization of a given society is historically specific,

2/

bounded by social forces rooted in (but not *reducible to*) the productive technologies and relationships formed in dialectic with them. Far from precluding human agency, this approach allows for history to be read in an open and rich way. To say that history and economy have

3/

so-called 'laws of motion', as in the realm of physics, does not imply a fatalistic framework (as an aside: the mind-bending complexities shown in chaos theory, even in such 'simple' cases as the double pendulum, are still strictly deterministic; nevertheless,

4/

the sheer magnitude of possible paths from such a 'simple' two-particle system as the double-pendulum alone, demonstrate that even with ostensibly 'perfect' knowledge about a system, the possible outcomes are myriad).

The act of interpreting history thus demands an

5/