Marxism or anarchism?

international | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis

Wednesday December 03, 2003 12:48

by Anarcho

This piece can be treated as a companion piece to the debate on elections as it deals with some of the odd misconceptions of anarchism that have cropped up there. However it also stands in its own right as explaining what the differences are between these two strands of left thought that often clash on indymedia and elsewhere.

Before starting, I would like to stress that I'm addressing mainstream Marxism here. In other words, Social Democracy and Leninism/Trotskyism. I am not talking about libertarian forms of Marxism which are close to Anarchism such as council communism or some forms of Autonomous Marxism. So, with that caveat, I will begin.

Marxism has failed. Where has it actually produced socialism? Nowhere. Rather it has created various one-party dictatorships presiding over state capitalist economies. Ironically, the "victories" of Marxism simply ended up providing empirical evidence for anarchist critiques of it. Social Democracy became reformist. The Bolshevik revolution quickly became the dictatorship over the proletariat. Just as we predicted.

In spite of this there are still Marxists around so I will discuss why Marxism was doomed to fail and indicate the anarchist alternative

Marxists versus Anarchism
Marxists tend to repeat certain straw men arguments about anarchism, so it is useful to clear the decks and go over them now.

Marxists like to assert (to quote Engels) that anarchists think of "the state as the main evil to be abolished." This is utter nonsense. If you read anarchist theory you quickly discover that we are clearly opposed to capitalism as well as other forms of hierarchy. We see both the state and capitalism being abolished at the same time. To suggest otherwise is to distort our ideas. [1]

Then there is the notion that anarchists reject collective class struggle. While this is totally false, Marxists usually say we do! In reality, you just have to read anarchist thinkers like Bakunin or Kropotkin, to see the truth. [2]

Another straw man is Lenin's assertion that anarchists "while advocating the destruction of the state machine, have absolutely no idea of what the proletariat will put in its place." Such an assertion is simply incredible, given that revolutionary anarchists had been doing this since the 1860s! For example, Bakunin argued that "since it is the people which must make the revolution everywhere . . . the ultimate direction of it must at all times be vested in the people organised into a free federation of agricultural and industrial organisations . . . organised from the bottom up through revolutionary delegation." These councils would be composed of "delegates . . . invested with binding mandates and accountable and revocable at all times." In other words, a system of workers' councils to both fight capitalism and replace it. And what Lenin only started to argue for in 1917, five decades after anarchists had come to that conclusion! [3]

And I must point out that anarchists do not think that the capitalist class will just "disappear" after a revolution. Thus we find Lenin quoted Marx suggesting that it was a case of the "abolition of the state" meaning the "laying down of arms." As if. Do Marxists really think anarchists are really that stupid? In reality, Anarchist opposition to the "workers' state" has absolutely nothing to do with defending a revolution. In fact, we argue for a federation of communes and a workers militia "for common defence" against the counter-revolution. To say otherwise is pure nonsense. [4]

In reality, anarchists do not think a revolution will create an perfect society "overnight" so to speak. Quite the reverse. We see revolution as a difficult process. There are no instant utopias. Kropotkin, for example, argued that a social revolution would "shak[e] the foundations of industry" and "inevitably paralyse exchange and production." Every revolution, before and since, have confirmed the correctness of the anarchist position. [5]

Then there is the argument that anarchism is "anti-democratic." This is derived from Engels equally inaccurate diatribe "On Authority" and like that full of straw man arguments (for example, Engels assertion that we reject "all" authority!). [6]
The "anarchism is 'anti-democratic'" argument is most associated with Leninist Hal Draper. He argued that "of all ideologies, anarchism is the most fundamentally anti-democratic in principle, since it is not only unalterably hostile to democracy in general but particularly to any socialist democracy of the most ideal kind that could be imagined." Such as argument is, of course, just ridiculous. So anarchism is less democratic than fascism, monarchism, Stalinism? Is it really less democratic than Trotsky and his "dictatorship of the party"? Of course not, yet Marxists repeat Draper's comment with a straight face!

The certain flaw in Draper's argument is the obvious fact that the majority can be wrong and minorities have the right and duty to rebel. To take a pertinent example, in 1914 the leaders of the Social Democratic Party in the German Parliament voted for war credits. The anti-war minority went along with the majority. Would Draper argue that they were right to do so? They were subject to the "most perfect socialist democracy" after all. Or take the recent wildcat strikes by Postal Workers. Would Marxists oppose them as they were initially the work of a minority and the majority of union members had rejected strike action in a ballot? I doubt it! [7]

Draper argues for "democratic control from below" instead of anarchism. Of course, anarchists like Bakunin had argued for elected, mandated and recallable delegates long before the Paris Commune but let us forget that little fact. So what does Draper's scheme actually involve. Marxism, as Lenin made clear, does not aim for direct working class power, but power to the party, which we have to obey (or else!). As Trotsky put it, "a revolution is 'made' directly by a minority. The success of a revolution is possible, however, only where this minority finds more or less support, or at least friendly neutrality, on the part of the majority." So Draper's "democratic control from below" simply results in power being centralised into fewer and fewer hands. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" becomes, in fact, the "dictatorship over the proletariat" by the party. [8]

And it would be churlish to note that, once in power, Marxists themselves have habitually rejected democracy when it suited them and justified it in ideological terms. So, remember when Lenin or Trotsky argue for the dictatorship of the party, the over-riding of the democratic decisions ("wavering") of the masses by the party, the elimination of soldiers and workers committees by appointees armed with "dictatorial" power or when the Bolshevik gerrymander soviets and disbanded any elected with non-Bolshevik majorities, it is anarchism which is fundamentally "anti-democratic"! [9]

Real Differences between Anarchism and Marxism

So those where a few of the most common Marxist fallacies about Anarchism. This brings us to the big question, namely what are, from an anarchist perspective, the real differences between Anarchism and Marxism.

Firstly, there is centralisation. Anarchists argue that this hinders participation of the many, marginalising the population. It places power into a few hands and, at best, we end up picking our masters rather than governing ourselves. It is top down and bureaucratic by its very nature as well as being rooted in the inequality of power -- those at the top have more power than those at the bottom. And I must stress that this opposition to centralisation does not mean opposition to co-ordination, a subject I will return to. [10]

Related to this is the question of the so-called "workers' state." Marxists are for it, anarchists are against it. As noted earlier, our opposition to the "worker's state" has nothing to do with having to defend a revolution. Rather, it derives from anarchists and Marxists having two different definitions of the state. For the Anarchist, the state is the concentration of power into a few hands. This, we argue, is because it is designed for, and required to, ensure minority class rule. In contrast, the Marxist definition of the state is that it is an "instrument of class rule." We argue that this is, unlike the anarchist one, a metaphysical definition and utter ignores the key issue, namely who has power. Moreover, it opens the door for the nonsense used to justify Bolshevik dictatorship during the Russian revolution. [11]

So our opposition to the "workers' state" is really about who has power: is it the working class or the party? For Marxists, it is the latter. As Trotsky argued in 1939 (18 years after he made similar arguments when he was in power) "The very same masses are at different times inspired by different moods and objectives. It is just for this reason that a centralised organisation of the vanguard is indispensable. Only a party, wielding the authority it has won, is capable of overcoming the vacillation of the masses themselves . . . if the dictatorship of the proletariat means anything at all, then it means that the vanguard of the proletariat is armed with the resources of the state in order to repel dangers, including those emanating from the backward layers of the proletariat itself." So much for "workers' power"! And, as everyone is, by definition, is "backward" compared to the vanguard, we have the theoretical justification for the party dictatorship. A conclusion Trotsky was not shy in embracing. [12]

Then there is the question of "socialism from above." Following Hal Draper, Marxists like to assert they are against this and in favour of "socialism from below." However, anarchists reject such claims. [13] Most obviously, we argue that the centralism Marxists support necessitates decision making and so rule "from above." Then there is the fact Marxism is rooted in "from above." As Lenin stressed, "the organisational principle of revolutionary Social-Democracy" was "to proceed from the top downward." Ironically, he stressed that "limitation, in principle, of revolutionary action to pressure from below and renunciation of pressure also from above is anarchism." This was no temporary aberration. He infamously repeated this argument in 1920, in his defence of party power "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder." Significantly, Lenin ignored the role of the proletariat in the "dictatorship of the proletariat." However, he did stress the role of the 19 members of the Central Committee. [14]

So in these days of protests against the G8, we find the key the difference between Leninism and capitalism. Under capitalism, 8 people make decisions for millions. Under Bolshevism, 19 people make them.

Then there is the question of "vanguardism," of the role and organisation of the "revolutionary" party. It must be stressed that anarchists do not reject the idea of revolutionaries organising together to influence the class struggle. Far from it. [15] We do, however, reject the Leninist way of organising and influencing implied in the term "vanguardism."
For anarchists, this is the "revolutionary" party organised in a capitalist manner: centralised, top-down, hierarchical. It recreates the very society it says its against and, if given the chance, will simply rebuild the "new" society in its own image. It is based on the premise that workers can only achieve trade union consciousness which lays the ground for party dictatorship as opposition to the party line can be dismissed as "petty-bourgeois"! As it was, once the party was in power. [16]

Moreover, it does not work that well. In 1917, Lenin had to fight his own party machine. It was only by ignoring its own rules that it was effective! Even more ironically, by applying its own rules post-1917, it helped to undermine the revolution. [17]

Lastly, there is the different visions of what socialism is. In 1917, Lenin openly argued for state capitalism. He considered "socialism" as being state capitalism made to serve all the people. For Lenin, "socialism" was not built on working class organisation but rather built on the structures created by the capitalist class and the capitalist state. Rather than see workers' self-management as the key issue in socialism, he considered nationalisation as key to determining if Russia was "socialist." Which, as he noted in "State and Revolution", was essentially universal wage slavery to the state! Unsurprisingly, given this, support for "workers' control" was quickly abandoned in favour of one-man management. A development, incidentally, which was never considered as a mistake or a retreat! [18]
Ultimately, the real differences between anarchism and Marxism is that we have totally different ideas of what socialism would look like and how to get there. [19]

The Russian Revolution
Which brings me to the Russian revolution. Indeed, if it was not for this revolution we would not be having this meeting. Social Democracy showed it was bankrupt in 1914 and without the apparent success of the Bolsheviks, Marxism would have been written off as flawed. The hope of the Russian Revolution saved Marxism and still inspires many today. Anarchists, unsurprisingly, do not see this event in quite the same light as Marxists. For us, it clearly shows the failure of Marxism. It simply brought the flaws in Marxism into the foreground.

When asked what they want, Marxists almost always point you in the direction of Lenin's "State and Revolution." This seems ironic, given that it did not last the night once the Bolsheviks seized state power! So asking us to read it and support Marxism is a bit like Tony Blair saying we should vote for him in the next general election as the invasion of Iraq was not in the Labour Party manifesto! [20]

The Bolshevik Revolution started to degenerate from the start. Once power was seized by the Bolshevik Party, they turned authoritarianism to maintain their position. Their secret police (the Cheka) was used to attack anarchists across the country. The Bolsheviks gerrymandered soviets and disbanded any they lost elections to. They undermined the factory committees, stopping them federating and basically handed the factories to the state bureaucracy. Lenin argued for and implemented one-man management, piecework, Talyorism and other things Stalinism condemned for. In the army, Trotsky disbanded the soldier committees and elected officers by decree. [21]
How Trotsky defended the appointment of officers is significant. He argued that as the government was elected by the workers, the workers had nothing to fear from its imposing appointees! He compared to the TU leadership -- you elected the committee, and can replace it. The committee is "better able to judge in the matter" of appointing people "than you"! He went on to ponder "how could the soldiers who have just entered the army choose the chiefs! Have they have any vote to go by? They have none. And therefore elections are impossible." If only the Tsar had thought of that one!

I know what the Marxists here will be thinking. Typical anarchist, not mentioning the civil war! Where are the Whites? Where are the 14 (or however many!) imperialist armies of intervention? Why has he not spoken of the civil war? There is a good reason why I have not mentioned the civil war: it had not started yet! As these authoritarian actions by the Bolsheviks occurred before the civil war broke out and so it cannot be used to excuse the Bolsheviks. Indeed, it could be argued that the civil war saved the Bolsheviks, as they could argue that the only alternative to their dictatorship was a White one. In summary, though, the civil war did not create, but simply increased the authoritarian tendencies of the Bolsheviks.
Anarchists predicted that the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" would simply become the dictatorship of a few party leaders. When we argue this, Marxists usually call his slanderers. Ironically enough, within a year of Lenin publishing "State and Revolution" the Bolsheviks had not only created such a regime, they were arguing that this was what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant! For example, Zinoviev proclaimed at the Second Congress of the Communist International that " the dictatorship of the proletariat is at the same time the dictatorship of the Communist Party." Lenin and Trotsky did not disagree, with both supporting this position to their deaths. [22]
In summary, there is a clear-cut link between what happened under Lenin and Trotsky and the later practice of Stalinism. This was not a coincidence. Rather it was a fatal combination of bad politics and institutional pressures. The Bolshevik vision of workers' power destroyed real working class power in society and in the soviets. Its vision of "socialism" destroyed real socialism at point of production. [23]

Excuses
Of course most Marxists are aware that something went wrong in the Russian Revolution, although they disagree about exactly when. Trotskyists have a few standard explanations of why Bolshevism became the dictatorship of the party and why Stalinism appeared.

The most common excuse is the civil war against the Whites. However, undemocratic activities started before it got going so that is factually wrong. Then there is the fact that, according to Lenin, civil war was an "inevitable" result of revolution. It is hardly convincing to argue that everything would have been fine if the inevitable had not happened, yet this is what the Marxist argument boils down to! [24]

Then there is the argument that "exceptional circumstances" meant that the Bolsheviks could not be as democratic as they would like. But, yet again, Lenin again thought that every revolution would face difficult circumstances. He even admitted that revolution in the west would see greater destruction and chaos! [25] So arguing that everything would have been fine if the inevitable had not happened is hardly convincing. Moreover, given that Trotsky slagged off the anarchists in Spain for blaming "exceptional circumstances" for their actions, it would be ironic (to say the least) for Trotskyists to excuse the Bolsheviks in these terms! [26] Lastly, anarchists find this excuse particularly unconvincing as the idea that a revolution would face economic desription was predicted by anarchists like Kropotkin. [27]

Then there is the argument that the Russian working class "disappeared" or became "declassed," necessitating Bolshevik party dictatorship. The problem with this argument is that the Russian workers, although reduced in number, were still more than capable of taking collective action throughout the civil war period. As this action was against the Bolsheviks, it has been written out of history in Marxist accounts of the revolution. Indeed, strikes against the Bolsheviks took place from the start, as did repression by the Bolshevik state. Before, during and after the civil war Russian workers took collective action in defence of their interests and, moreover, faced martial law, lockouts, mass arrests of strikers and the imprisonment and shooting of "ringleaders." This happened all through the Civil War, which hardly makes sense. After all, if the working class had "disappeared," this would not be required! As such, the Kronstadt revolt cannot be considered as an isolated occurrence. Lastly, I must stress that this argument was first developed by Lenin in response to rising working class protest rather than its lack. [28]
Faced with all this, perhaps a Marxist will reply that Bolshevik authoritarianism was still a necessity. Anarchists refute such assertions by pointing to the anarchist influenced Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine. This movement successfully fought the Whites without creating or theoretically justifying party dictatorship. They successfully implemented soviet democracy and working class freedom of speech, organisation and assembly, advocated workers' self-management of production and the army implemented the election of officers. In summary, the Makhnovists prove that the failure of Bolshevism cannot be blamed solely on objective factors and that Bolshevik ideology played its role. They show the importance of politics and structures aimed for in a revolution. [29]

Anarchism
So Marxism does not work. What is the alternative? Unsurprisingly enough, it is anarchism!

Anarchists think that power should be in the hands of the masses themselves. We support direct action and self-management in workplace and community ("the development and organisation of the social... power of the working classes," to use Bakunin's words). Anarchists aim for people to control their own struggles and organisations. This requires decision making from the bottom-up, based on mass assemblies making the decisions. A federation of workers' councils/communes would exist to co-ordinate decisions (based on elected, mandated and recallable delegates). [30]
Such collective class struggle is the school of anarchism. People learn through struggle, and anarchists aim to aid that process. It prepares people to manage their personal and collective interests. It also creates libertarian social organisation which can resist the state and capital, win reforms and, ultimately, become the framework of a free society. As examples, anarchists point to the popular assemblies created in current revolt in Argentina or during the Great French Revolution and argue they would form the basis of a federation of revolutionary communes. In industry, we argue that strike assemblies would be the means of taking over production, forming the basis of socialisation of the economy and the abolition of the wages system by self-management. [31]

The Spanish Revolution
At this point, Marxists usually bring up the Spanish Revolution of 1936. For them it shows the failure of anarchism, arguing that it decisively showed that to overthrow the state meant replacing it with a revolutionary government. By failing to do the latter, the anarchists of the CNT and FAI betrayed the revolution and doomed it to defeat. [32]
Anarchists, however, are not impressed. For all their talk of materialism, Marxists fail to mention the objective circumstances facing the CNT-FAI when they discuss the decisions of Spanish Anarchism. As such, the critique is pure idealism. Which is ironic, given Trotskyists on rise of Stalinism! Moreover, given that the CNT did not destroy the state, nor create a federation of workers' councils, as anarchism argues, anarchists wonder how can anarchist theory be blamed? It seems ironic, to say the least, to complain about the failure of anarchism when anarchism was not applied! [33]

To understand why the CNT acted as it did, we need to do what Marxists fail to do, provide some context. The decision to collaborate was obviously driven by fear of Franco and the concern not to divide the forces fighting him, plus isolation in Spain.. It was made on the 20th of July in Barcelona, the day after the army had been defeated and when the situation in the rest of the was unknown. As a 1937 CNT report put it, the CNT had a "difficult alternative: to completely destroy the state, to declare war against the Rebels, the government, foreign capitalists . . . or collaborating." The CNT militants, faced with this situation, made the wrong decision. However, to ignore this situation and concentrate on anarchist theory is ridiculous, yet that is what Marxists tend to do. [34]

Moreover, it is easy to show that it was not anarchist theory which was to blame. Ignoring the example of the Makhnovists in the Russian Revolution, we can point to the Spanish revolution itself. Simply put, the Spanish Anarchists applied anarchist ideas in full in Aragon. There they created a federation of workers' associations as argued by anarchist thinkers from Bakunin onward. To contrast Catalonia and Aragon shows the weakness of the Marxist argument and, unsurprisingly, Aragon usually fails to get mentioned by Marxists. [35] The continuity of what happened in Aragon with the ideas of anarchism and the CNT's 1936 Zaragoza Resolution on Libertarian Communism is clear. Which shows how ridiculous the common Marxist claim that anarchist groups like the "Friends of Durruti" were forced to break with key aspects of anarchist theory and move toward revolutionary Marxism. [36]

Before ending this subject, I must mention Trotsky's "alternative" for the Spanish Revolution. He talked about the "revolutionary party . . . seiz[ing] power." Which, of course, is hardly an example of "workers' power"! A few months later, he argued that "because the leaders of the CNT renounced dictatorship for themselves they left the place open for the Stalinist dictatorship." This was part of his argument that the "revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party" being "an objective necessity." "The revolutionary party (vanguard)," he stressed, "which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the counter-revolution." A position which the Catalan CNT rightly rejected, but unfortunately they also rejected the anarchist solution! [37]

Conclusion
In conclusion, I would have to say that the fundamental difference between anarchism and Marxism is that we have radically different visions of what socialism is and how to get there.
Anarchists reject the Leninist top-down vision of socialism. Our analysis of the authoritarian nature of Marxism is not hindsight. We correctly predicted the failures of Marxism long before it was implemented. As the Russian Revolution proved beyond doubt, in a conflict between workers' power and party power Leninists will suppress the former to ensure the latter.

Anarchism is revolution from a working class perspective. It places working class power and freedom at its core, both individual and collective. It aims for the destruction of hierarchical power. We take "Power to the people" seriously. The power exercised by social elites must be dissolved into the people otherwise "Power to the people" means nothing more than power to a few "leaders", and so class society continues (as Bolshevism proved).
We have a choice between anarchism, real "socialism from below," or Marxism. Between a society based on liberty, equality and solidarity or one rooted in inequalities of power.
So in answer to the question, "Marxism or Anarchism?" we argue the answer is Anarchism, if you want to change the world and not just the bosses!

Footnotes
1. See "H.2.4 Do anarchists think "the state is the main enemy" rather than just "one aspect" of class society?" at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html#sech24
2. See "H.2.2 Do anarchists reject the need for collective working class struggle?" at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html#sech22 (To be fair, the AWL speaker did not make this claim).
3. See "H.1.4 Do anarchists have "absolutely no idea" of what the proletariat will put in place of the state?" at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH1.html#sech14
4. See " H.2.1 Do anarchists reject defending a revolution?" at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html#sech21
5. See "H.2.5 Do anarchists think "full blown" socialism will be created overnight?" at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html#sech25

6. See "H.1.8 Didn't Engels refute anarchism in his essay "On Authority"?" and subsequent sections at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH1.html#sech18
7. See "H.2.11 Are anarchists "anti-democratic"?" at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html#sech211
8. See "H.1.2 What are the key differences between Anarchists and Marxists?" at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH1.html#sech12
9. See "A.5.4 Anarchists in the Russian Revolution." for a summary at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA5.html#seca54
10. See "B.2 Why are anarchists against the state?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB2.html ; "Appendix 3.4 -- 4. How is the SWP wrong about centralisation?" at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append34.html#app4; "Appendix 3.4 -- 15. Why is the SWP's support for centralisation anti-socialist?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append34.html#app15; "I.5.2 Why are confederations of participatory communities needed?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci52
11. See "H.3.7 What is wrong with the Marxist theory of the state?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech37; "H.1.3 Why do anarchists wish to abolish the state "overnight"?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH1.html#sech12; "H.2.1 Do anarchists reject defending a revolution?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html#sech21
12. See "H.3.8 What is wrong with the Leninist theory of the state?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech38; On Trotsky see "Appendix 3.1 --15. Did Trotsky keep alive Leninism's "democratic essence"?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append31.html#app15
13. In fact, it is anarchists who first used the imaginary "from below." See "H.3.2 Is Marxism "socialism from below"?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech32; "Appendix 3.1 -- 14. Why is McNally's use of the term "socialism from below" dishonest?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append31.html#app14
14. See "H.3.3 Is Leninism "socialism from below"?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech33
15. See "J.3 What forms of organisation do anarchists build?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ3.html
16. See "H.8 What is vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH8.html
17. See "H.8.12 Surely the Russian Revolution proves that vanguard parties work?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH8.html#sech812
18. See "H.3.12 Is big business the precondition for socialism?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech312; "H.3.14 Don't Marxists believe in workers' control?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech314
19. See "H.3.1 Do Anarchists and Marxists want the same thing?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech31; "Appendix 3.1 -- 13. If Marxism is "socialism from below," why do anarchists reject it?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append31.html#app13
20. See "H.1.7 Haven't you read Lenin's "State and Revolution"?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH1.html#sech317; "Appendix 3.3 -- 12. Would the "workers' state" really be different, as Mitchinson claims?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append33.html#app12
21. See "A.5.4 Anarchists in the Russian Revolution." for a summary at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA5.html#seca54; "Appendix 3.2 -- 11. Why is Morrow's comments against the militarisation of the Militias ironic?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append32.html#app11; "Appendix 3.2 -- 17. Why is Morrow's support for "proletarian methods of production" ironic?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append32.html#app17;
22. See "H.3.8 What is wrong with the Leninist theory of the state?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech38; "H.1.2 What are the key differences between Anarchists and Marxists?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH1.html#sech12
23. I'm not suggesting that Marxists seek to become a new ruling class. Far from it. Most members of Marxist parties are honestly in favour of democracy and socialism. I'm arguing that creating certain forms of institution will produce specific social relationships which will shape the people within them and the political ideas they hold and vice versa. The state is designed for minority power and will reproduce it. Centralisation of power will result in top-down, bureaucratic practices. State capitalist institutions and social relations will never produce socialism. I would also suggest that most Marxists have little real knowledge of their own movement's history and what their leaders did once in power. Being ignorant of history, they will be doomed to repeat it -- particularly if they reproduce similar centralised, top-down structures as the Bolsheviks did and consider, like them, that they represent "workers' power."
24. See "H.7.3 Can the civil war explain the failure of Bolshevism?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH7.html#sech173; "Appendix 3.3 -- 15. What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append33.html#app15. Some Marxists argue that civil war existed from the start, from November 1917. They fail to see that this does them no favours, as they are implicitly admitting that revolution and working class democracy are incompatible.
25. See "H.7.4 Did economic collapse and isolation destroy the revolution?" at: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH7.html#sech174
26. See "H.7.2 Can "objective factors" really explain the failure of Bolshevism?" at:

save preference

Comments (48 of 48)

socialism, plausible and utopian.

by Adam Russell

Wed Dec 03, 2003 13:23

Why capitalist propaganda and anarchist critique is politically inaccurate...

The struggle for Socialism today
James Petras
http://www.rebelion.org/petrasenglish.htm

Introduction

A discussion of the struggle for socialism today should begin what is and is not socialism. It is important to have political clarity about false alternatives as well as the basic components of a socialist society. This essay will proceed by critically analyzing three of the most influential anti-socialist ideologies which claim to speak to a renovated left and propose an alternative socialist approach. This will be followed by a discussion of the militant road to socialism and a critique of the illusions surrounding electoral politics. The final section will focus on a discussion of the current world-historic context and the challenges and opportunities that confront the Left, in the face of Washington's world wide imperial offensive.

Cut and pasted article continued at:
http://www.rebelion.org/petras/english/struggle020302.htm

Sad pathetic middle class students sod off!

by An Evil (Bored) Leninist - Evil Leninist Party

Wed Dec 03, 2003 13:31

I can't believe the crap I read on Indymedia.ie because its ruined by sad pathetic middle class students and older people who should know better waffling about Marxism and Leninism and Autonomism and Libertarianism and why some subjective historical account of some revolution 100 years proves that their sect is more revolutionary than the next. Lenin was secretly a capitalist! Lenin ate babies! Lenin was a bloody heartless dictator! Who cares? Its 2003, the mans dead!
Lets have more news and events and less subjective sectarian and boring waffle from spoild rich kids from Blackrock!!!

???

by Ray

Wed Dec 03, 2003 13:33

The first 'comment' above has absolutely nothing to do with the article it replies to. Its a cut-and-paste of an unrelated article. (My e-mail has been down for a while, so I'm not going to delete it (or edit it down to the link) myself, but some other editor may want to...)

process that IS changing the world

by dunk

Wed Dec 03, 2003 13:45

to bored leninist bloke
why dont you comment to this
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=62497

and engage moreso in the process, whatever it is, that IS changing the world

spread of ideas and communication through the process's of social forum and indymedia

Dogma as a way of dodging difficult issues

by Joe

Wed Dec 03, 2003 14:18

The person who posted the article here actually lives in Cabra rather then Blackrock but don't let that get in the way of your leninist auto-defence reflex! [And they are not a student either!]. The original author also doesn't live in Blackrock.

As to not being interested in reading this sort of stuff can I ask
1. Why you then bothered to click on the link which brought you to the article?
2. Why you then bothered to comment on it?

I'd suggest that you are not interested in OTHER people reading this sort of stuff and your post is simply intended to undermine any discussion that might take place. This is because you rely on exactly the sort of misrepresentations countered in this article to prevent members of you own organisation considering what ACTUALLY seperates anarchism from marxism.

For those following this thread I suggest you compare the response so far to this article from Marxists to the response from anarchists to the marxist article on electoralism at http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=62484

Two VERY different methods of dealing with a worked out challenge to the ideas you might hold dear are displayed between these two threads.

Marxism failed? What ever happened to anarchism?

by C.S.

Wed Dec 03, 2003 14:19

I find it mind boggling when anarchists say that marxism failed when anarchism has never produced a revolution. Not only has it done that but it has produced social progress in the most backward, feudalist and poorest parts of the world, something which Marx thought difficult for socialism to emerge in the first place. It has been well documented, and again, anarchists should know this if they expect to be taken seriously, that marxism-leninism in Eastern Europe did not fail, or collapse, but was in fact defeated from both within and without. Do anarchists seriously beleive that after their "proper revolution" everybody will live happily ever after? The 'revolution' is constant and ever intensifying with the always existing threat of imperialism in all its forms, propaganda, social, cultural, military and economic. As for the Spanish civil war, despite what anarchists might claim, they broke off the oppositionist collective to the fascist regime and Franco won, to blame others for their failures is no arguement. The best way forward is to learn from history, in other words, to learn from what has ACTUALLY WORKED! and not by criticising everything without offering anything in return.

thanks for the Petras article!

by Alex

Wed Dec 03, 2003 14:31

I hope anarchists actually read it before they criticise it or disregard it as "irrelevant" or "authoritarian".

Progress

Wed Dec 03, 2003 14:45

The claim that marxism has produced "social progress in the most backward, feudalist and poorest parts of the world," is interesting.

Now its true that Marxist regime in China for instance produced social progress. But it also produced mass famines in which 30 million died (as a consequence of the great leap forward). And far from producing a free society they have ended up with something that looks a lot like a very authoratarian form of capitalism with a HUGE prison labour system.

But yes progress has happened even if at a cost. By the same token capitalism has made huge progress in moderninising many of the "most backward, feudalist and poorest parts of the world". South Korea being perhaps the best example. Here too this has been at a cost, another authoritarian capitalist state. In Indonesia the progress cost a million or so lives.

Both 'systems' have had their complete failures as well. North Korea or Albania under marxism and most of sub Saharan Africa under capitalism. But on balance both can make a reasonable claim to progress across a wide range of countries.

That said I'm not sure how relevant this is if you are interested not simply in (economic) progress but also in individual liberty and the creation of a free society. Both capitalism and marxism have justified the introduction of authoratarian measues against internal opponents in the name of progress. Both still do today, the rheoric of freedom that western capitalism uses is strictly limited to those sections of the population of the west that are obediant. The FTAA in Miami shows it can vanish when they step out of line.

Anarchism suggests that is no conflict between progress and freedom. Indeed that a truly progressive society must also be a truly free one. Of course such a society is far harder to create then an authoratarian one and of course to date we have failed. But once we lived under monarchies and all republican experiments had failed. Today we mostly live in republics.

I'm aware that some marxists will be unhappy with putting the label marxist on China. Fair enough, you can fight the correct use of the label out amongst yourself. I was using the label in this way because that seems to be the variety of marxism of CS whom I am replying to.

Wed Dec 03, 2003 15:14

Joe,
I think you miss the point, C.S. was referring to what has worked. There's a big difference between being an apologist for capitalism, as you have argued, and understanding history's revolutions as imperfect as they were as we humans who create them are. Anarchism suggests a lot of things but fails to produce anything, as C.S. pointed out. As for calling Maoist China a "huge prison labour system", only demonstrates your lack of knowledge on what actually occurred during the cultural revolution, from an historical point of view, it is irresponsible as Bush calling Cuba "a prison". You underestimate the support for revolutions.

Chinese capitalism today

Wed Dec 03, 2003 15:23

Joe, to save you the effort, from Petras' article:

"The third example of bogus socialism is the so-called "market socialism" practiced in China. The political reality in China is the subordination of social property to the capitalist market. There is absolutely nothing left to Chinese socialism: the workers have the longest hours, worst pay and least social rights of any workers in Asia. Chinese capitalists and their overseas partners extract the highest profits and illegally send overseas between $30 to $40 billion a year - creating the greatest inequalities in Asia. The state socializes the debts of private firms and corrupt state elites rob billions from the public treasury to finance their investments, their overseas accounts and their obscenely luxurious life style. "Market socialism" is an ideology to justify the transition from collective ownership to savage capitalism."

Ramblings

by Betwixt and Between

Wed Dec 03, 2003 15:57

Paris, Pre-Revolutionary Russia, Kronstadt, Barcelona etc. etc.
All examples of Marxists and Anarchists in some shape or form working together.
Don't bunch all Marxists together and don't bunch all Anarchists together.
How about Leninism?
How about those Green anarchists then?
I agree with Marx when he said:
"the philsophers have interpreted the world, our job however is to change it".
So really Marxists and Anachists and can continue the same argument that were had back in the 1880s or analyse our past and see what needs to be changed.
I agree with Bakunin when he said:
"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality. "
There can be no room for authoritarianism, its not socialism. Leninism and Stalinism have both proved that.
So time to synthesise, surely we all have more in common. If only we had a Bakunin or a Marx around today to see the mistakes made on both sides since they died. Instead all we have is a bunch of dogmatists on both side.
Just one question. Did Marx really ever put forward a view of the party or the future state? Don't blame him on those who claim his legacy.

problem is...

by Zed

Wed Dec 03, 2003 15:58

marxism vs anarchism?

why is the choice either/or?

why not take the best from each and bulid from there?

no need to get stuck on the domga of isms - do what works, learn, reflect, continue...

Re Alex

by 2legsgood

Wed Dec 03, 2003 16:08

>"The third example of bogus socialism is
>the so-called "market socialism" practiced
>in China. .....

Okay so marxists say this is not socialism but a bogus form of it.

You have to accept though that its inital supporters and instigators were much like the present day marxist parties.

Their members didn't want to create the authoritarian nightmare that is China today, any more than an SP or SWP member would want to do the same to Ireland now.

The point is though that marxist forms of organisation inevitably place power in the hands of a minority and cause this very situation, regardless of their members desires otherwise.

To say that anarchism is defunct because it had no successes is pure bunk. By that logic marxism would also be defunct as it has also had no successes. You can say it has but that is only measuring its ability to instigate a revolution, rather than the truer test of being able to sustain it and bring about a FREE and equitable society.

So on that score its currently a nil all draw between anarchism and marxism but with the best performance put in by anarchism as its has yet to have its practises proven unworkable(in terms of achieving freedom AND equality) by history.

Interesting

by From Belfast

Wed Dec 03, 2003 16:11

Sounds an interesting idea as I personally find much in both but if something was to mushroom from such an idea what ever it was called would eventually have an 'ism' attached to it such is the discriptive nature of most ideologies.

Ray

Wed Dec 03, 2003 16:14

"why is the choice either/or?

why not take the best from each and bulid from there?"

Tell you what - you point to some good feature of marxism that isn't already a feature of anarchism, and then we'll see whether it should be included.

Good ol' Ray

by Neanderthal watch

Wed Dec 03, 2003 16:31

The world will surely be a better place with the usual knuckle scaping 'my dicks bigger than yours'.
A true model of progress.

Question for you, why are the SP and SWP bigger than any of the organised anarchist groups in Ireland?

? for Neanderthal Watch

by pat c

Wed Dec 03, 2003 16:35

Why are FF, FG, Lab bigger than SP or SWP?

Come on now! You are the person whos says size matters.

Anarchism already is a synthesis

Wed Dec 03, 2003 16:38

>why not take the best from each and bulid
>from there?

Well really thats what anarchism is. Anarchism already contains and agrees with most of the marxist economic and class based analysis of society. All it really disagrees with is the organisational method, and in placing an equal importance on maintaining freedom as well as equality.

Sorry Pat

Wed Dec 03, 2003 16:41

1. I was being too cryptic.
2. I thought the conversation had something to do with the revolutionary left.
3. My main point was whether you love or loath them they seem to be able to organise and attract more people to their cause.
4. It struck me that Ray wasn't engaging just going uhh! Anarchism better than Marxism!
5. Apologies for baseness.

Spain a great example of how anarchist ideas CAN WORK

by conor (wsm personal capacity)

Wed Dec 03, 2003 16:44

cs sez "As for the Spanish civil war, despite what anarchists might claim, they broke off the oppositionist collective to the fascist regime and Franco won, to blame others for their failures is no arguement. The best way forward is to learn from history, in other words, to learn from what has ACTUALLY WORKED! and not by criticising everything without offering anything in return."

Well As Murray Bookchin puts it,

"in Spain, millions of people took large segments of the economy into their own hands, collectivised them, administered them, even abolished money and lived by communistic principles of work and distribution -- all of this in the midst of a terrible civil war, yet without producing the chaos or even the serious dislocations that were and still are predicted by authoritarian 'radicals.' Indeed, in many collectivised areas, the efficiency with which an enterprise worked by far exceeded that of a comparable one in nationalised or private sectors. This 'green shoot' of revolutionary reality has more meaning for us than the most persuasive theoretical arguments to the contrary. On this score it is not the anarchists who are the 'unrealistic day-dreamers,' but their opponents who have turned their backs to the facts or have shamelessly concealed them." ["Introductory Essay," in The Anarchist Collectives, Sam Dolgoff (ed.), p. xxxix]

Me: Actually the two years 1936 - 37 are an absolute demonstration that anarchism as a set of ideas works and works well. Millions to part in anarchist collectives on the land and in industry. This voluntary collectivisation was amazingly popular and increased agricultural and industrial production. And it did not collapse due to "greed" "human nature" etc etc as is often predicted by oponents of anarchism (and Marxism too in fairness)

An interesting claim is made by cs that the anarchists "broke off the oppositionist collective" I'm not sure what this means but I think the author may be refering to the fact that rank and file CNT members and POUMISTs refused to join in the Stalinising process iniated by the Spainish communist party.

They believed - quite rightly too - that Fascism was best fought through a sucessful and thorough social revolution. The military defeat of the Spanish republic is an indictment of the communist take over and destruction of the Spanish revolution.

They (the commies) attempted to build a conventional capitalist army but were no match for the armoured divisions of Franco and his Italian and German allies.

What they did succeed in doing was taking away everything that workers were fighting for (in fact the commmunist tanks of General Lister destroyed collectives at gun point)

The collapse of the republic - when there was fuck all real to fight FOR was then a fore gone conclusion

Conor

short account of how anarchism worked in Spain

http://struggle.ws/ws/spain47.html

Masive index with very detailed analysis of the anarchist case

http://struggle.ws/spaindx.html

Excellent article on how the Spanish revolution conclusiovely proves the case for anarchist organisation from the anarchist FAQ

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI8.html

Conor

hey neanderthal

"Question for you, why are the SP and SWP bigger than any of the organised anarchist groups in Ireland?"

Why do more people buy the
Independent every day than buy Socialist Worker every year?

Why does Micheal Lowry top the poll, and Clare Daly miss out on a seat?

Why did the Bolsheviks declare martial law in 1921 ... sorry, different quiz.

Is your question anything more than an invitation to compare dick size? You don't see anything funny in the spectacle of the miniscule lording it over the minute?

Yeah, anarchist groups in Ireland today are tiny. Guess what? Marxist groups are almost as small.

Bigger

Wed Dec 03, 2003 16:47

>Question for you, why are the SP and SWP
>bigger than any of the organised anarchist
>groups in Ireland

Well there could be many reasons, but one of them i think is this:

People are conditioned by our current social setup to think of our existing power relations as natural. People accept we need leaders and led, and have had no real exposure to ideas expounding otherwise.

It is natural then when someone goes to "fight the power" they setup and organise themselves or join an organisation with a setup similar to what they are used to or find credible.

This then is one of the jobs of anarchism, to try and gain more wide spread acceptance of alternative forms of organisation.

This is essential as one of the main failings of marxism is its failure to correctly assess the nature of power and the negative affect its concentration even with good intentions can have on freedom and a healthy democratic process.

Size Does Matter

by TrotSPot

Wed Dec 03, 2003 16:49

Thats why the SP are proud of their recent massive mandate in the North. I think there are more Anarchists in the North than SP members. And despite the good personal vote for McCann the same would be true of the SWP.

To 2legsbad

by 4legsbad

Wed Dec 03, 2003 17:36

I never get the impression that Anarchists view Anarchism as being a synthesis. Most anarchist contributors usually have at least a paragraph denouncing Marxists.
Anarchists usually conflate all Marxism with Leninism, Trotskyism and Stalinism.

More fun then I thought

Wed Dec 03, 2003 17:42

This discussion is more interesting then I expected as a couple of 'stalinists' are also involved. This should keep the trots quiet as otherwise they'll end up coming out with the same stuff.

Alex and CS. If you hold up 'progress' as the yardstick then it is not good enough to excuse Mao's China but condemn South Korea. Both have made enormous leaps forward, both at large human costs (China probably the worst of the two).

The difference could be said to be that one had the eventual aim of a free society comunist society (China) the other did not. Yet neither have acheived this and neither are now pretending to be moving in this direction. My reference to Chinese prison labour was actually to China today rather then in the Mao period but that period also have a very high reliance on prison labour.

As Stalin had discovered a huge slave labour army that can be worked to death can acheive impressive acts of construction. And of course Trotsky in power was also very keen on concentration camps for sherkers and the militarisation of labour. As far as I'm aware Cuba may have a very high prison population but its not of anything like the size or economic significance of Stalins Russia or China today.

I have an advantage here as not being an orthodox Marxist or a leninist I'm not required to pretend capitalism stopped developing in 1914. So acknowledging progress under capitalism (internet anyone?) is not the barrier it is for trots of any variety.

HS the difference is not whether you think a similtaneous revolution is required across the globe. It is how you handle the transition period between the overthrowal of capitalism and a communism based on surplus rather then rationing. Are the difficult decisions made by a party that thinks it is acting on behalf of the working masses (a la Leninism) or directly by the working masses themselves (a la anarchism).

over generous

Wed Dec 03, 2003 17:50

>I never get the impression that Anarchists
>view Anarchism as being a synthesis...

Okay I was being over generous in the spirit of comradliness with my trotskyist chums.

We may denounce marxists, but in that sense we're referring to to whole kit and kaboodle of what is currently referred to as marxism. Also sometimes the whole concept of a seemingly strict and non fluid ideology.

But the fact still remains and most anarchists would agree with me that marx's writings on class and economy are largely also an anarchists view of the situation. The difference perhaps arises in that we perhaps don't see them as an abolute truth but more of a pattern which when applied to society gives us a lot of answers and works pretty well at the moment in certain but not all spheres of human endeavour.

So when an anarchist attacks marxism they're not trying to throw the baby out with bathwater just pointing out marxist organisational structure will fail to achieve what the marxist intends, amongst other things.

2legsbad

Wed Dec 03, 2003 18:37

"So when an anarchist attacks marxism they're not trying to throw the baby out with bathwater just pointing out marxist organisational structure will fail to achieve what the marxist intends, amongst other things."

Might be a idea to make that a bit clearer sometimes.
I still wasn't aware that Marx ever really put anything forward on organisational structures.
I wouldn't blame all on the stubborn ol' fellow. Can't imagine he would have had too much time for those who claim his legacy particularly going on his earlier writings.

poetry and politics

by commie

Wed Dec 03, 2003 19:03

Anarchists can never come to grips with the real world situation facing them.

They are much better at poetry. They should confine their efforts to installations and dramatic productions.

A social revolution was just not possible in Spain in 1936. How would it have been imposed? Anarchist dictatorship?

And the conventional armies of the commies worked pretty well on the Germans in the former USSR. Otherwise you would probably be singing some version of the Horst Wessel Song at state functions.

Marxism still has strong adherents in the parts of the world where political decisions can lead to one's death--the Philippines, Nepal, parts of the sub-continent..

Anarchism has most of its adherents among the artistic middle class of the First World. Big suprise.

The statement about prisons in China was interesting. The United States has been the world's leading prison-state per capita for the last twenty five years, with a brief exception during Boris Yeltsin's declaration of a state of emergency in Russia. The US goovernment now holds about a half milliion more prisoners than China: eventhough China has four times the population of the US.

So much for anti-communist myths. Even 'leftists' are well-trained in these knee-jerk assumptions.

Missing the point on China

Wed Dec 03, 2003 19:10

The point is not the relative size of prison population but the economic role played by the prison population. In China in terms of the production of cash earning exports for the elite it is significant. The US prison population (which indeed makes a joke of the 'land of the free') is increasingly also involved in prison labour but not with the same economic significance.

Mind you the whole China has a smaller per capita prison population then the US only makes sense if you are arguing with someone who thinks the US is the 'land of the free'. For someone who thinks both regimes need to be overthrown showing one is 4 times worse then the other in a particular regard is irrelevant.

comment on anarchism

by Stans

Thu Dec 04, 2003 11:31

We always come to the same conclusion. Anarchism is nothing more than words and slogans. Let's all hold hands and "talk" to our class enemies. If they led any movement at all we'd all end up slaughtered by fascists. You want to know about struggle, check out what is happening in Latin America right now. What could anarchism ever possibly offer to the oppressed? One of the comments above raised a good point, what ever happened to anarchism? In the end, a critique is not a solution. Common sense?

Weirdness

Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:25

Err Alex/Stan/CS it might be easier to have a discussion if you didn't change names with every post. That aside the idea that anarchism = "Let's all hold hands and "talk" to our class enemies" is one I find oddly fascinating. By the same token I could claim Maoism amounts to 'lets hope the pixies come and whitewash our walls'.

What are you smokin

Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:49

>We always come to the same conclusion.
>Anarchism is nothing more than words and
>slogans.

Okay so I suppose taking action at shannon, being involved in the bin tax and numerous other campaigns is just a slogan then?

>Let's all hold hands and "talk" to our class
>enemies.

I've never head any anarchist suggest such drivel.

> If they led any movement at all we'd all end
> up slaughtered by fascists.

As opposed to being slaughtered by the glorious leadership of the party in an effort to defend the revolution, much of a muchness I'd say. Plus your point seems to indicate anarchists are incapable of putting up a fight, where does this come from.

>What could anarchism ever possibly offer to
>the oppressed?

A way to organise resistance thats open and inclusive and allows everyone to have a say. That empowers people to change their own world rather than wait for orders!

This isn't just rhetoric I have personal experience. Several years ago I was in the SWP for several months. I'm not going to attack them because i found many of them to be outstanding individuals with good intentions. However in my entire six months I had no input to any policy or decision on planned activities. What seems to happen is that when a party is small everyone has a say, but as it gets bigger the older members assume all the decision making with little or no input from others., unless you work your way up the ranks

The effect this has on new members is disastrous. The main thing most people dislike in their jobs is the lack of power and control over what they do, the last thing they want is the same situation in their free time.

Conversely my association with anarchists and anarchist related groups both here and in the states is that from the get-go I could give input (it was often argued against because my ideas were often stupid but I felt like I was taking part) and this in itself made me feel good, made me feel I could change things. To my mind this is the one thing that will make a revolution successful, changing the hearts and minds of people in preparation for a new society.

In contrast many party structures alienate people on the lower level and leave them feeling left out. One reason I think why some parties seem incapable of growing beyond a certain size, as beyond that, none of the new members get alook in and so they leave.

>One of the comments above raised a good
>point, what ever happened to anarchism?

Its here typing on the keyboard, and this evening will be making some banners for shannon, before typing up some minutes of the meetings I've been at this week, and then going on to organise a trip to limerick for a soldarity protest with fintan lane. How about youself ;-)

>In the end, a critique is not a solution.

Bollox, like any good political idea anarchism encompasses both. It has critique of society similar to marxism in many ways AND it has a flexible and democratic organisational structures to act on that critique and attempt to change society for the better

>Common sense

Anarchism you mean ? I know! ;-)

resorting to throwing stones and hiding now I see?

Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:57

"Joe", whatever your name is, you've got nothing to say, admit it.

Spainish Anarhhists "show the way"

by Abraham Lincon - Brigade

Thu Dec 04, 2003 18:04

An interesting contribution. The obvious question is - Where are the Spainish Anarchists now. I don't know much about Spain but the Anarchist movement doesn't seem to be any healthier there than anywhere else in Europe. Why didn't these ideas and organisations survive? This is not an attack on Anarchism but a genuine query.

a few comments...

Thu Dec 04, 2003 20:53

anarcho at geocities dot com

> A social revolution was just not possible in Spain in 1936. How would it
> have been imposed? Anarchist dictatorship?

A social revolution has to be "imposed"? Whatever happened to the idea
that social revolution was an act of liberation by the oppressed against their
rulers? The act of kicking the bosses out and defending your freedom? For
the vast majority, it is an act of liberation, not imposition!

And social revolution was more than possible in Spain, it actually happened.
And it required Communist dictatorship to stop it. And did the revolution
require "anarchist dictatorship"? Nope, far from. Just self-managed social
organisations like collectives, unions and co-operatives. Unfortunately,
the CNT in Catalonia refused to apply their ideas fully (for reasons I explored
in the original talk).

And it was possible in 1917? Spain was a capitalist nation in 1936, not the
semi-feudal nation that Russia was 20 years previously. So, presumably, Lenin
was wrong?

> And the conventional armies of the commies worked pretty well on the
> Germans in the former USSR. Otherwise you would probably be singing
> some version of the Horst Wessel Song at state functions."

And if it wasn't for the Americans we would have been speaking Russian :)

Yes, "conventional armies" are good at fighting for ruling elites. The Red Army
fought for Stalin's dictatorship, very true. But to fight for freedom, for socialism,
a "conventional army" is less than idea. Just look at Trotsky's Red Army -- very
effective in imposing Bolshevik dictatorship, not so good at defending socialism.

And should I mention that it Trotsky himself who argued that the rise of
the bureaucracy could be blamed on former Red Army officers taking civilian
posts and applying military methods? Of course, he forgot to mention who imposed
"conventional" military methods onto the Red Army or the fact he thought using
military methods in civilian posts was a great idea (in 1920!).

>Marxism still has strong adherents in the parts of the world where political
> decisions can lead to one's death--the Philippines, Nepal, parts of the
> sub-continent.

Unlike the good old days of the Stalinist (and Leninist) Russia, were making
a political decision not to be a loyal party member would lead to one's death?

> Anarchism has most of its adherents among the artistic middle class of the
> First World. Big suprise.

The "middle class"? Where does that fit into Marxist class analysis? Is that
the pettit-bourgeois? I don't know any peasants or artisans, sorry. As for the
"artistic middle class", well, every anarchist I know is a wage slave, a
proletarian like myself.

> The statement about prisons in China was interesting.

But not as interesting in the glib acceptance of prison labour, not to mention
party dictatorship, by our "communist" friend. Little wonder he thinks a
social revolution has to be "imposed" onto the masses!

Anarchists are Middle Class Web Crawlers!!

by Harry May

Thu Dec 04, 2003 22:42

The irish anarchists are al middle class do-gooders with nout better to do than to surf the web all day.

Anarchists indeed, Middle class web crawlers more like it!

Interesting that!!!

by Interested

Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:13

A 7 page document denouncing Marx and those who are interested in his writings.

Plenty of info on Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev and Draper but nothing actually on Marx.

Now lets see - who was it that said don't count me as a Marxist, wouldn't have been Marx, would it?

And just for interest what happened to footnote 27 to 37.

Marx vs Marxism

by James

Fri Dec 05, 2003 13:57

The article isn't a denuciation Marx or even largely about his personal methodology. It concentrates on Marxism rather than Marx and the dominant traditions within it.
You make exactly the mistake you accuse the author of, namely of conofusing an article about this tradition with the person.
Trotsky, Lenin et al are major figures in the Marxist tradion and therefore warrant attention partticularly as their methods are still in vogue in some quarters.
Fair point on those lost footnotes though.

Perhaps James

by Still interested

Fri Dec 05, 2003 14:08

But my point - is still the same - even Marx wasn't prepared to call himself a Marxist.

If its Leninism call it that.
if its Stalinism call it that.
If its Maoism call it that.
If its Haddenism call it that. (or Taaffeism)
If its Allenism call it that. (or Cliffism)

We are not all the same!

Anarchists are not a homogenous bunch.
Lifestyle, Green, propagandists of the deed or Platform.

You are not all the same!!!

Answering some questions

Fri Dec 05, 2003 14:54

"Abraham Lincon - Brigade" asks where are the Spanish anarchists today and is under the impression that they are no stronger then elsewhere in Europe. In fact Spain continues to be home of the largest anarchist movement in Europe which continue to be syndicalist (ie unions).

There are several

One has the 'historic' name of the CNT and has around 4,000 members http://www.cnt.es

Another which is called the CGT has around 45,000 members http://www.cgt.es

A third with a couple of thousand members mostly in Madrid is called Solidiad Oberia (Workers Solidarity).

There are also a number of other local unions plus a very wide range of local affinity group type organisations.

Rather less of course then the 1.5 million or so of 1936 but not bad and growing fast.

Harry May who like the rest of us appears to have "nout better to do than to surf the web all day" seems to imagine that access to the internet makes you 'middle class'. This insisting your opponents are 'middle class' is a standard piece of leninist nonsence which looks bizarre here. Harry presumably spends most of his life down a mine and just happened to be in a field when a lap top backed into him enabling him to share his wisdom.

I don't know about you Harry but all the anarchists who have posted here are working for employers rather then being self-employed (middle class) or managers or whatever. You'll find quite large sections of the working class in Ireland can tell one end of a keyboard from the other because their employment requires it. And a lot of us have internet access through our jobs.

Finally 'interested' points out that the original article is addressing leninists etc rather then 'marxists'. Fair enough but the second paragraph does actually read
"Before starting, I would like to stress that I'm addressing mainstream Marxism here. In other words, Social Democracy and Leninism/Trotskyism. I am not talking about libertarian forms of Marxism which are close to Anarchism such as council communism or some forms of Autonomous Marxism."

Anarchism Vs Socialism

by working unsociable hours and bored

Sat Dec 06, 2003 05:56

The above would have been better titled @ Vs socialism, as all the Lenninist Trot Stalinist & other statists, groups in history & at present have rallied to this term, as a flag for their interputations of the marxist Ideology,. True some anarchists have as well, but they do it out of ignorance rather than deliberate chioce, at least thats what i think. Rather a Anarcho-Commie than a Anarcho-socilist its a unhappy concoction of terms.

marxism = economic ideology*
socialist = workers for stateism*
anarchist = workers for freedom*
communist = workers for workers*

(* : no i wont qualify this asumption )

NEXT

Marx, socialism and anarchism

by Ois

Sat Dec 06, 2003 17:14

Anarchism and socialism are not seperate. Socialism means essentially society constituted as society controling society. Malatesta wrote reminiscing about pre-social democracy/bolshveik days in italy 'we would often call ourselves simply socialists, sinve it was generally understood that sociailsts were also anarchists'. This was the case across most of southern europe and countries ouside of europe.

Which helps me reply to someone's comment saying that we should just look at 'latin' america to see that anarchism has nothing to offer. Ha. And what has bolshevism done down there? Sandino, Zapata, Villa and thier ilke were all infinitely more influenced by anarchism then by orthodox marxism. And pretty much all the socialist movement in south america have defined themselves against these revolutionaries, they're pre-decessors, rather then against a handful of eastern europeans. The only 'marxist' revolutionary movement in south america i'm aware of is the desciples of che (che of course being one of your hated middle class students, only difference is che was actually middle class, by marx's definition). And what has that given us cuba and the FARC. Ah yes a country where trade unions are illegal and the heads of the international cocaine trade. True working class heroes.

It should also be noticed that Marxist economics is merely a development on Proudhon's work. But anarchism could never have developed as it did with out that development. Really Marx was as much an anarchist as he was a Marxist. More so if you think Marxism = Stalinism.

history

by It's late

Sun Dec 07, 2003 04:37

Its history yer talking & thats all, live in the past with your pre-fall religous nostalga if oyu want, who am i to stop you. Socialism will always go hand in hand with stateism to me, and who are you to stop me.

never too late for a good tradition to blossom.

by anarchy!!!!!

Mon Dec 08, 2003 11:22

Anarchy.

what's the difference between anarchists and communists today?

by Samantha

Wed Dec 10, 2003 16:10

"all the socialist movement in south america have defined themselves against these revolutionaries" ?

It's only in Latin America that you will find anything that you can call revolutionary, and it's not anarchist, to the contrary, the continents revolutionary tradition has been greatly influenced by the Cuban revolution and marxism-leninism.

"And what has that given us cuba and the FARC." What are anarchists doing? What have anarchists ever produced? Nothing.

"Ah yes a country where trade unions are illegal and the heads of the international cocaine trade. True working class heroes."
That is insulting and just plain low considering the fact that they are real revolutionaries and in the most dangerous place in the world to be one, if you blame them for Colombia's problems then you really don't know what you're talking about.

In a world of states, to claim that a stateless society is possible overnight is ludicrious. State power is a reality, what we do with it and what we plan to do with it is plausible.

If there ever were "real" anarchists, that was a long time ago and they have nothing to show for it. Latin America is hope. The imperialist countries and their so-called "anarchists" are a joke.

Che lives.

how to be "revolutionary" without leaving your home

by virtual cyber language symbol anarchist

Wed Dec 10, 2003 16:37

be an anarchist in an imperialist country where it's easy to insult third world people who are fighting and dying to liberate themselves. No solidarity or class analysis needed. Just make them look stupid by criticizing them and telling them how a "proper" revolution should be like.

Thats What Trots Do

Wed Dec 10, 2003 16:50

"No solidarity or class analysis needed. Just make them look stupid by criticizing them and telling them how a "proper" revolution should be like."

Read the SP/SY comments on any struggle.

TrotSpot is a virtual warrior

by dando

Wed Dec 10, 2003 17:18

So TrotSpot you are now saying that SP/SY members have never engaged in any struggle? For your information it was SY members who were engaged on the bin truck blockades in their communities, anSY member was jailed for 3 weeks for his role in those protests. It's very easy for virtual warriors like you to come on here and snipe from the sidelines, at least SY and the SP have actually got some record.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Marxism or anarchism?

Comments (48 of 48)