marxist critique of anarchism

[Jenkins]

where can I find a good marxist critique of anarchism online?

I know that Marx and Bakunin disagreed on how the transition to communism was to take place but what were Marx's arguments? where can I find those online?

[Picky Bugger]

try here...

http://www.marxists.org/

[autotrophic]

There's one at Fightback
http://www.marxist.ca/content/view/157/51/

Although I do suspect that the author was putting some words into Bakunin's mouth, though I haven't read enough of Bakunin to know for sure.

Keep in mind that the Marx and Bakunin's conflict does not represent all Anarchists vs Communists viewpoints. I consider myself an Anarchist and do agree with Marx on many things.


I know that Marx and Bakunin disagreed on how the transition to communism was to take place but what were Marx's arguments? where can I find those online?
Basically, Marx advocated using the State as a means for revolution, while Bakunin insisted on the destruction of the State and Capitalism simultaneously through revolution. 'Revolution' meaning a process, not necessarily instantaneous.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

where can I find a good marxist critique of anarchism online?

I know that Marx and Bakunin disagreed on how the transition to communism was to take place but what were Marx's arguments? where can I find those online?

They didn't really disagree, it was mainly just Bakunin twisting Marx's words. Marx tackles a lot of Bakunin's accusations here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

[Blackscare]

They didn't really disagree, it was mainly just Bakunin twisting Marx's words. Marx tackles a lot of Bakunin's accusations here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm


That's a common argument against Bakunin, but why then did so many of his predictions about "Marxist" revolutions pan out?

What Marxists don't ever account for is that while Marx may have never explicitly said anything about a DotP, for instance, Bakunin saw in Marx's work fatal flaws that allowed for the abuse of power. Bakunin's critiques have been validated by history (take the degeneration of the USSR, for instance). I know what every Marxist says to that, "well x revolution was in a backwards country or y leaders strayed from Marxism", but when is true Marxism going to be a reality? Isn't the tendancy to degenerate and spin out into authoritarianism a flaw? This is the danger that Bakunin saw.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

That's a common argument against Bakunin, but why then did so many of his predictions about "Marxist" revolutions pan out?

His predictions were based on false pretenses.


What Marxists don't ever account for is that while Marx may have never explicitly said anything about a DotP, for instance, Bakunin saw in Marx's work fatal flaws that allowed for the abuse of power. Bakunin's critiques have been validated by history (take the degeneration of the USSR, for instance). I know what every Marxist says to that, "well x revolution was in a backwards country or y leaders strayed from Marxism", but when is true Marxism going to be a reality? Isn't the tendancy to degenerate and spin out into authoritarianism a flaw? This is the danger that Bakunin saw.He didn't see any fatal flaws in his works, so he made them up. Have you actually read the link I posted? EVER?

This pretty much sums up people like BlackScare's arguments and the Marxist response:


So the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, say the Marxists...


Where?

[Blackscare]

But then how did so many of his predictions magically materialize? I suppose there is no relation to what Bakunin said, and the events that came later, huh?

I agree that he should have avoided putting words in Marx's mouth to make his points, and rather said "here are aspects of Marxism that I think would lead to authoritarian abuses of power". If he had done this, and made his (correct) predictions about how a Marxist revolution would pan out, without twisting Marx's words, it would be much harder for the Marxists to actually defend themselves.

Bakunin's arguments are good (minus the word twisting) because they separate what Marx intended to happen, and what would actually happen. Bakunin's only flaw was making it sound as if Marx wanted things like the DotP (in all it's twisted, soviet glory), etc, rather than pointing out that these things were likely to arise.

Marxists love to point out how Marx never intended for x, y, or z to happen, but will never admit that there must be something wrong with his ideology if it's been allowed to become perverted so many times. It's easier to argue that the way Bakunin argued against Marxism was wrong than it is to actually refute his predictions.




So yes, Bakunin did regretably twist Marx's words, but his predictions and arguments are still valid otherwise.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

But then how did so many of his predictions magically materialize? I suppose there is no relation to what Bakunin said, and the events that came later, huh?

His predictions mean nothing without analyzing what he based those predictions on.


I agree that he should have avoided putting words in Marx's mouth to make his points, and rather said "here are aspects of Marxism that I think would lead to authoritarian abuses of power". If he had done this, and made his (correct) predictions about how a Marxist revolution would pan out, without twisting Marx's words, it would be much harder for the Marxists to actually defend themselves.
He did say "here are the aspects of Marxism that I think would lead to authoritarian abuses of power." When he pointed these aspects out, however, they were aspects that didn't exist. His predictions were solely based on twisting Marx's words. "ZOMG MARX USED TEH WORD DICTATORSHIP THAT MEANS THERE WONT BE ANY POPULAR DECISION MAKING LOLZ"



Bakunin's arguments are good (minus the word twisting) because they separate what Marx intended to happen, and what would actually happen. Bakunin's only flaw was making it sound as if Marx wanted things like the DotP (in all it's twisted, soviet glory), etc, rather than pointing out that these things were likely to arise. No, they aren't. They throw out Marx's actual ideas and replace them with Bakunin's twisted and made up version of Marx's ideas, and then use them to make predictions. Marx did want the DotP. I've read Marxism, Freedom, and the State, What is the Authority?, and Bakunin's works on the Paris Commune. Can you actually say you've read any Marx? It doesn't seem like you have.


Marxists love to point out how Marx never intended for x, y, or z to happen, but will never admit that there must be something wrong with his ideology if it's been allowed to become perverted so many times. It's easier to argue that the way Bakunin argued against Marxism was wrong than it is to actually refute his predictions.Yes, because someone distorting an ideology means it was wrong. Are you kidding? The way Bakunin came to his predictions was wrong, it doesn't matter if they actually came true. That's like saying my prediction that you will die in a week because of heart cancer was right if you die in a week because I put evil Marxist poison in your coffee.



So yes, Bakunin did regretably twist Marx's words, but his predictions and arguments are still valid otherwise.His arguments are based on false pretenses as you have admitted, so how could the possibly be valid?

Since you have come to realize that Marx's flaws weren't actually there, but were made up by Bakunin in his twisting of Marx's words, why don't you personally find some quotes from Marx that you think are problematic?

[ZeroNowhere]

But then how did so many of his predictions magically materialize? I suppose there is no relation to what Bakunin said, and the events that came later, huh?
"All revolutions up to the present day have resulted in the displacement of the rule of one class by the rule of another; but all ruling classes up to now have been only small minorities in relation to the ruled mass of the people. One ruling minority was thus overthrown; another minority seized the helm of state in its stead and refashioned the state institutions to suit its own interests. Thus on every occasion a minority group was enabled and called upon to rule by the given degree of economic development; and just for that reason, and only for that reason, it happened that the ruled majority either participated in the revolution for the benefit of the former or else simply acquiesced in it. But if we disregard the concrete content in each case, the common form of all these revolutions was that they were minority revolutions. Even when the majority took part, it did so — whether wittingly or not — only in the service of a minority; but because of this, or even simply because of the passive, unresisting attitude of the majority, this minority acquired the appearance of being the representative of the whole people.

As a rule, after the first great success, the victorious minority split; one half was satisfied with what had been gained, the other wanted to go still further, and put forward new demands, which, partly at least, were also in the real or apparent interest of the great mass of the people. In isolated cases these more radical demands were actually forced through, but often only for the moment; the more moderate party would regain the upper hand, and what had been won most recently would wholly or partly be lost again; the vanquished would then cry treachery or ascribe their defeat to accident. In reality, however, the truth of the matter was usually this: the achievements of the first victory were only safeguarded by the second victory of the more radical party; this having been attained, and, with it, what was necessary for the moment, the radicals and their achievements vanished once more from the stage."
-Engels.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Presumably the 'Libertarian' Party proves the assertion of some strange Leninists that anarchist 'libertarianism' is a bourgeois ideology.
Bakunin's predictions matching the Soviet Union does not imply anything about Marx. Then again, I would say that some of Bakky's criticisms do apply to Lenin.


Bakunin's arguments are good (minus the word twisting) because they separate what Marx intended to happen, and what would actually happen. Bakunin's only flaw was making it sound as if Marx wanted things like the DotP (in all it's twisted, soviet glory), etc, rather than pointing out that these things were likely to arise.
Arise from what? His arguments about Marx's state were based upon the twisting of words, and probably Marx being a Jew (Anti-Semitism being, after all, basically that them Jews want to take over the world).

Anyways, if you want a Marxist critique of anarchism, you ain't getting one. If you want a 'Marxist' critique of anarchism, go and visit your local Leninist party or group and ask for their 'Marxism vs. Anarchism' or 'Marxism and Anarchism' pamphlet. They all have one, so you should be fine. Just as long as you don't use them to debate against anarchists.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The problem I've found with many critiques of anarchism composed by Marxists is the fact that the critiques often center around individual anarchists, rather than the philosophy of libertarian socialism in and of itself. Often times they focus on some of the more loony and reactionary beliefs of prominent figures such as Proudhon and Bakunin. Either that or, more annoyingly, they'll attack strawmen (such as "anarchists don't believe in organization").

I'm sure that there are some good ones out there, though. Google is your friend.

[apathy maybe]

I've never seen a good critique of modern anarchism from anyone. Actually, let me be clearer, I've never seen a good critique of modern anarchism that goes beyond complaining about how broad it is, and about how anarchism doesn't mean anything (which is wrong).

When you focus on specifically revolutionary communist type modern anarchism, you more than probably will not find a good critique.

Most critiques of anarchism from "Marxists" are based on 19th century ideas of anarchism, or, sometimes, only focus on one aspect (such as black blocs). They generally ignore anarchist theory.

But, if you do find a good critique of a type of modern anarchism (preferably a revolutionary communistic type, such as what most of the anarchists on this board are), then please link to it for us.

[Bilan]

where can I find a good marxist critique of anarchism online?

I know that Marx and Bakunin disagreed on how the transition to communism was to take place but what were Marx's arguments? where can I find those online?

I enjoyed this one: Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm) on the Bakunin-Marx conflict.

It's hard, if not, impossible, to find a general critique of anarchism, but instead, different strands have different critiques, primarily because they're different.
What is Revolutionary Syndicalism? (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/118_syndicalism_i.html) is an example.

You need to be more specific in your request.

[Leo]

Few other links...

An article on anarchism and communism in mid to late 19th century: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/79_anarchism

The critique of anarchism during and anarchist arguements about the Russian revolution: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/300/anarchism-and-workers-control

Critique regarding the CNT's betrayal, Spanish Civil War and Friends of Durruti: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/79_anarchism

More on Spain: http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/294

Hope this helps.