Marxist opposition to Anarchism

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Sorry I am unsure on this. I would like to know the views of some Marxists who oppose Anarchism and believe it does not work. Why is this, is it because you believe in centralisation and that you need centralisation? That is what I have come across but I would like to know.

[YKTMX]

The standard way of explaining it is to insist on a seperation of means (how do we get something?) and ends (what do we want?).

While the ends of the anarchist movement are broadly consonant with the ends of the socialist or communist movement, there is a disagreement over the strategy required to reach those goals. That is, both movements strive for a society free of the domination of capital, the profit motive and, in one fashion or another, the State. The question has arisen about what methods are effective and justified in reaching that goal.

This isn't, actually, all there is to say on the matter. Anarchists have tended to stress the emancipation of the individual from forms of arbitrary and unjust authority. Marxists have tended to stress that the emancipation of the individual can only take place within the broader of context of social emancipation.

In practice, this has expressed itself as, on the one hand, anarchists insisting on "day-to-day" individual acts of resistance, with socialists, on the other hand, insisting on the primacy of strategy and tactics.

The question of 'centralization' relates mainly to the question of the immediate aftermath of a successful revolution. Anarchists have tended to argue that the revolution is followed by, or perhaps is, a rapid process of decentralization and democratization of power. This being a neccessary condition for the eventual abolition of all social relationships based on coercion.

Marxists stress, on the other hand, the importance of a 'transitional period', between capitalism and communism, that invests political power in bodies accountable to and constituted by the working class. These bodies may or may not be 'centralized'. In this period, oppressive social relationships would still exist. These organs of transitional political power would ultimately replace the "old" institutions of political power.

I don't know if that's helpful.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The standard way of explaining it is to insist on a seperation of means (how do we get something?) and ends (what do we want?).

While the ends of the anarchist movement are broadly consonant with the ends of the socialist or communist movement, there is a disagreement over the strategy required to reach those goals. That is, both movements strive for a society free of the domination of capital, the profit motive and, in one fashion or another, the State. The question has arisen about what methods are effective and justified in reaching that goal.

This isn't, actually, all there is to say on the matter. Anarchists have tended to stress the emancipation of the individual from forms of arbitrary and unjust authority. Marxists have tended to stress that the emancipation of the individual can only take place within the broader of context of social emancipation.

In practice, this has expressed itself as, on the one hand, anarchists insisting on "day-to-day" individual acts of resistance, with socialists, on the other hand, insisting on the primacy of strategy and tactics.

The question of 'centralization' relates mainly to the question of the immediate aftermath of a successful revolution. Anarchists have tended to argue that the revolution is followed by, or perhaps is, a rapid process of decentralization and democratization of power. This being a neccessary condition for the eventual abolition of all social relationships based on coercion.

Marxists stress, on the other hand, the importance of a 'transitional period', between capitalism and communism, that invests political power in bodies accountable to and constituted by the working class. These bodies may or may not be 'centralized'. In this period, oppressive social relationships would still exist. These organs of transitional political power would ultimately replace the "old" institutions of political power.

I don't know if that's helpful.

Thank you very helpful. But I would like to ask you about the Marxist 'transitional period' where hierarchial institutions are kept in order to create a classless society. I want to ask if you think as Marx predicts these institutions will wither away or those in power will want to preserve their power and preserve class. Something Bakunin said that I agree with iwas something like this: "give the most commited revolutionary absolute power and within one year they will be worst than the czar himself" of course I am not saying that it advocates absolute power. Are you a Marxist? Do you think the state can wither away?

[LeninBalls]

To me, I just can't see how you can set up an anarchist/communist world without organizing yourself first. It just seems crazy that you can overthrow the government and then the next day everything is fine and dandy and your society is great.

What about the anti-anarchists? What if they are big in number and try to come back into power? Who knows who's going to produce what? What if a group of people get lazy and disrupt your commune? Many more things like this is why I'm a Marxist.

In socialism, these flaws are done away with, even if the price is high. Better safe than sorry!

[autotrophic]

To me, I just can't see how you can set up an anarchist/communist world without organizing yourself first. It just seems crazy that you can overthrow the government and then the next day everything is fine and dandy and your society is great.
This is not what most anarchists advocate. Most of us advocate a simultaneous destruction of both state and capital power (among other forms). Anarchists know that organizing is very important, it's not like we believe the only problem is the state, and then 'the next day' after abolishing the state everything will be fine and dandy. Revolution is a long process, not just an over-night event, and I think most Marxists would agree on that. In the Spanish Civil War, there was anarchist organizing generations before the actual revolution took place.


What about the anti-anarchists? What if they are big in number and try to come back into power? Who knows who's going to produce what? What if a group of people get lazy and disrupt your commune? Many more things like this is why I'm a Marxist.
That's why we organize. After the revolution, people won't forget how to do their jobs. Most farmers would continue to farm, most cooks will continue cooking, etc but they will no longer be exploited. If a group gets lazy we kick 'em out of the commune or negotiate a deal, not use the state against them.

As for the anti-anarchists, that is our biggest problem historically. I think that if there was an anarchist revolution going on, many socialists in general would support it, and if there's a revolution happening, the majority of people would be supporting it. If they weren't, a revolution wouldn't have started.

[Random Precision]

Thank you very helpful. But I would like to ask you about the Marxist 'transitional period' where hierarchial institutions are kept in order to create a classless society. I want to ask if you think as Marx predicts these institutions will wither away or those in power will want to preserve their power and preserve class. Something Bakunin said that I agree with iwas something like this: "give the most commited revolutionary absolute power and within one year they will be worst than the czar himself" of course I am not saying that it advocates absolute power. Are you a Marxist? Do you think the state can wither away?

First I would be careful about appealing to Bakunin on this matter, who was on the record as being in favor of an "invisible dictatorship" to guide the people toward an egalitarian society. Marx and even Lenin were better anarchists than Bakunin, as you'll find out if you read The State and Revolution.

But you have to understand that Marxists look at the institution of the State much differently than anarchists do. For anarchists, the State is an institution that will perpetuate its own structure regardless of who is in control of it. For Marxists, it is merely the expression of rule by a certain class and there are different types of states, with different goals depending on which class' dictatorship they are enforcing. The purpose of a bourgeois state is to enforce the domination of the bourgeois class over the proletariat within the capitalist mode of production. The purpose of a workers' state, on the other hand, is to crush the resistance of reactionary elements to ensure the development of socialism. This is in fact the only purpose of a workers state, so once the exploiters have been crushed it has no reason to exist anymore. This is what is meant by "withering away".

I think that in the case of an actual proletarian revolution, this difference between Marxist and anarchist revolutionaries would become purely semantic; as we saw in Russia many of the best anarchists became Bolsheviks. How strong or centralized control is after the revolution will of course depend on the conditions of each country: the strength of the working class, the strength of the exploiters, the class composition and territory of the country, the possibility of foreign aid coming to the reactionary elements, etc. etc.

From the few cases history has provided for us, I think the Marxist perspective on this matter has been vindicated. The Russian Revolution would have been strangled in the cradle without a strong state to combat the counter-revolution, and the failure of the CNT/FAI to establish a revolutionary dictatorship in Catalonia meant their eventual defeat.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

This is not what most anarchists advocate. Most of us advocate a simultaneous destruction of both state and capital power (among other forms). Anarchists know that organizing is very important, it's not like we believe the only problem is the state, and then 'the next day' after abolishing the state everything will be fine and dandy. Revolution is a long process, not just an over-night event, and I think most Marxists would agree on that. In the Spanish Civil War, there was anarchist organizing generations before the actual revolution took place.


That's why we organize. After the revolution, people won't forget how to do their jobs. Most farmers would continue to farm, most cooks will continue cooking, etc but they will no longer be exploited. If a group gets lazy we kick 'em out of the commune or negotiate a deal, not use the state against them.

As for the anti-anarchists, that is our biggest problem historically. I think that if there was an anarchist revolution going on, many socialists in general would support it, and if there's a revolution happening, the majority of people would be supporting it. If they weren't, a revolution wouldn't have started.

Exactly that's what I keep saying. Surely the Marxists must realise that we want organisation before and after the revolution to reach our goal. It will not be a spontaneous uprising we accept that.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

First I would be careful about appealing to Bakunin on this matter, who was on the record as being in favor of an "invisible dictatorship" to guide the people toward an egalitarian society. Marx and even Lenin were better anarchists than Bakunin, as you'll find out if you read The State and Revolution.



I think you have misunderstood the term. When he said this he was talking about Anarchists agitating and winning the leadership of ideas.


But you have to understand that Marxists look at the institution of the State much differently than anarchists do. For anarchists, the State is an institution that will perpetuate its own structure regardless of who is in control of it. For Marxists, it is merely the expression of rule by a certain class and there are different types of states, with different goals depending on which class' dictatorship they are enforcing. The purpose of a bourgeois state is to enforce the domination of the bourgeois class over the proletariat within the capitalist mode of production. The purpose of a workers' state, on the other hand, is to crush the resistance of reactionary elements to ensure the development of socialism. This is in fact the only purpose of a workers state, so once the exploiters have been crushed it has no reason to exist anymore. This is what is meant by "withering away".

Ok but who is decide when it will wither away. I am of the belief that anyone who has power will quickly be corrupted and will not just want to relinquish their power like that.


From the few cases history has provided for us, I think the Marxist perspective on this matter has been vindicated. The Russian Revolution would have been strangled in the cradle without a strong state to combat the counter-revolution, and the failure of the CNT/FAI to establish a revolutionary dictatorship in Catalonia meant their eventual defeat

I doubt setting up a dictatorship would have saved the Anarchist regions of Spain. Every force united to crush the Anarchists in this case and Franco would have taken power sooner or later.

[Forward Union]

This isn't, actually, all there is to say on the matter. Anarchists have tended to stress the emancipation of the individual from forms of arbitrary and unjust authority. Marxists have tended to stress that the emancipation of the individual can only take place within the broader of context of social emancipation.

In practice, this has expressed itself as, on the one hand, anarchists insisting on "day-to-day" individual acts of resistance, with socialists, on the other hand, insisting on the primacy of strategy and tactics.While this is a Marxist criticism to many forms of Anarchism. It doesn't apply to all, Syndicalism and Platformism for example. Both have demonstrated a strong emphasis on Strategy and Tactics, if not politically then in practice. Furthermore these tendancies are quite strongly anti-individual and draw from a strong class analysis.

The real crux of the disagreement is, as you later said, whether the working class should centralize or decentralize it 's power after the revolution. Take over a state, or manage society and the defence of the revolution through a federation workers councils.

Normally, most Marxists argue that workers democracy is incapable of effectively defending itself from counter revolution. This is normally drawn from a misunderstanding of the structure. Most Anarchists in history have advocated a centralised militarized army, and civil police force during a revolutionary period (the makhnovists had these as did the Anarchist Federation in the Korean war of independence) The mandate of this army would come from a regional delegates council, as opposed to a bolshevik government. My view is that this is perfectly capable of defending itself, and, unlike the marxist model, immune to political corruption or "troika" takeovers.

I strongly disagree with comrades here who have argued that the Russian revolution would have failed without a State. Certainly it would have failed without a strong centralised army, but no one argues otherwise.

[Rosa Provokateur]

To me, I just can't see how you can set up an anarchist/communist world without organizing yourself first. It just seems crazy that you can overthrow the government and then the next day everything is fine and dandy and your society is great.

What about the anti-anarchists? What if they are big in number and try to come back into power? Who knows who's going to produce what? What if a group of people get lazy and disrupt your commune? Many more things like this is why I'm a Marxist.

In socialism, these flaws are done away with, even if the price is high. Better safe than sorry!
Organize yourself if you want but dont force others to if they dont wanna. We've no illusions, we know it wont be perfect but then again who ever said anything about creating a society?

Let 'em do as they will; I can walk, I'm not paralyzed to live near them if I dont want to. People can produce based on what they think they need. They disrupt the commune, close shop and go start a new one.

Anything beats some Party, politburo, or comittee deciding everything. USSR, North Korea, China, Cuba have all played that game and I want no part of it:closedeyes:

[Bilan]

Green Apostle, that's one of the worst analyses of post-revolutionary states ever.

[LeninBalls]

And actually, the people are originally supposed to run the countries and the Politburo and whatnot were just delegates amongst other things. Sadly it hasn't really turned out like that.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I want to ask if you think as Marx predicts these institutions will wither away or those in power will want to preserve their power and preserve class.
The Marxist definition of the state is one class organized as the ruling class. The people power would be the proletariat, hence "dictatorship of the proletariat." As the workers gradually destroy private property, the basis of class, they are also gradually destroying their own class rule. When they suceed in eliminating private property, the revolution is complete, and there is no longer class or state. Institutions that were created by workers for suppressing capitalists, such as armies, would no longer serve a purpose, so yes, they would disappear.

Something Bakunin said that I agree with iwas something like this: "give the most commited revolutionary absolute power and within one year they will be worst than the czar himself" of course I am not saying that it advocates absolute power. Are you a Marxist? Do you think the state can wither away?
I would agree.

[JohnnyC]

Ok but who is decide when it will wither away.


You misunderstood Marxist definition of the state.Workers councils, which will temporary be the state (if proletariat decides that is the best way through which they will rule), will not "wither away" after DOTP is over, they will only lose their political function and therefore stop being a state according to Marxist definition of it.As long as there are class antagonisms, there must be a state, but that doesn't mean that working class organization, through which proletariat enforce its dictatorship over bourgeois, will cease to exist, it will only lose its political character while continuing to administer the economy.That is what Marx thought when he wrote about "withering away" of the state.



I am of the belief that anyone who has power will quickly be corrupted and will not just want to relinquish their power like that.

:D

You obviously think that Marxist want some dictator or political party to lead the state and decide when will it wither away, which is, of course, completely untrue.

Here is what Marx said when Bakunin misunderstood him in the same way you do:

Bakunin:The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?

Marx:Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

Also, no person of persons will decide when the state will wither away since that will only happen after international capitalist class is destroyed completely, and there exist no threat that can endanger proletarian rule.


The whole split, regarding the state, between anarchists and Marxists is only there because of semantics and Bakunin not understanding Marx, unfortunately.I only hope that anarchists today will not make the same mistake Bakunin did.Dividing over semantics is the last thing left need. Everything that can provoke more unity in revolutionary left is very welcome, in my opinion, and I think that clarifying this issue is one of those things.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

You misunderstood Marxist definition of the state.Workers councils, which will temporary be the state (if proletariat decides that is the best way through which they will rule), will not "wither away" after DOTP is over, they will only lose their political function and therefore stop being a state according to Marxist definition of it.As long as there are class antagonisms, there must be a state, but that doesn't mean that working class organization, through which proletariat enforce its dictatorship over bourgeois, will cease to exist, it will only lose its political character while continuing to administer the economy.That is what Marx thought when he wrote about "withering away" of the state.


:D

You obviously think that Marxist want some dictator or political party to lead the state and decide when will it wither away, which is, of course, completely untrue.

Here is what Marx said when Bakunin misunderstood him in the same way you do:

Bakunin:The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?

Marx:Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.



Also, no person of persons will decide when the state will wither away since that will only happen after international capitalist class is destroyed completely, and there exist no threat that can endanger proletarian rule.


The whole split, regarding the state, between anarchists and Marxists is only there because of semantics and Bakunin not understanding Marx, unfortunately.I only hope that anarchists today will not make the same mistake Bakunin did.Dividing over semantics is the last thing left need. Everything that can provoke more unity in revolutionary left is very welcome, in my opinion, and I think that clarifying this issue is one of those things.

Thanks that was a very helpful post. You seemed to have corrected all the mistakes on Marxist theory I made. So what would you say are the defining differences directly after revolution of an Anarchist and Marxist organised society?

[JohnnyC]

Thanks that was a very helpful post. You seemed to have corrected all the mistakes on Marxist theory I made. So what would you say are the defining differences directly after revolution of an Anarchist and Marxist organised society?
There shouldn't be any difference if we are talking about class struggling anarchists and non-Leninist Marxists.Although, I must say, Lenin said and supported the same thing Marx did. According to Lenin he only deviated from this position because of the special circumstances Russia was in, he didn't do it because of the ideological differences but because of tactics.I guess that many Leninist today would support the same things you and me do if revolution happened in advanced capitalist country such as USA.Whether his tactics were right or wrong is different but very interesting discussion.You should read Lenin's State and Revolution if you really want to know what Lenin (and Leninists I guess :)) think about role of the state and revolution in general.

In my opinion, the biggest differences between anarchists and Marxists are about which tactics should be used until revolution.You may often find anarchists agreeing more with some Marxists than other anarchists about tactical issues and vice versa.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Thanks that was a very helpful post. You seemed to have corrected all the mistakes on Marxist theory I made. So what would you say are the defining differences directly after revolution of an Anarchist and Marxist organised society?

There is also whether or not we will have some form of remuneration or free access after the revolution. Marxists generally argue for remuneration while anarchists generally argue for free access.


Normally, most Marxists argue that workers democracy is incapable of effectively defending itself from counter revolution.

Total Bullshit. :mad:

[JohnnyC]

There is also whether or not we will have some form of remuneration or free access after the revolution. Marxists generally argue for remuneration while anarchists generally argue for free access.



Total Bullshit. :mad:

You are right, although it must be said that there are anarcho-communists on this site (and in real life) that think there is a need for period where labour vouchers should be used.Also, there are some Marxists, like World Socialist Movement, that support free access economy straight away after the revolution.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yes I would agree with free access rather than renumeration for the ultimate goal. Whether this could function directly after revolution I'm not sure.

[YKTMX]

Thank you very helpful. But I would like to ask you about the Marxist 'transitional period' where hierarchial institutions are kept in order to create a classless society. I want to ask if you think as Marx predicts these institutions will wither away or those in power will want to preserve their power and preserve class. Something Bakunin said that I agree with iwas something like this: "give the most commited revolutionary absolute power and within one year they will be worst than the czar himself" of course I am not saying that it advocates absolute power. Are you a Marxist? Do you think the state can wither away?

As you probably know, it's difficult to say what Marx says about these post-revolutionary problems. He, of course, resisted the temptation to draw up "formulas" for the period after the revolution.

The problem of under what conditions power does 'wither away' is an important one. I don't think Marxists have done enough to theorize about these problems. Obviously, I can't say for certain if and how 'withering away' would occur. I would hope that institutions that are temporarily neccessary for the victory of the revolution would, having lost their purpose, cease to operable. In the same way we knock buildings down after they've served their purpose, we'd knock down the political structures we temporarily erected.

The problem with this is the one you've alluded to. Political power is seen as a corrupting influence, liable to send anyone mad with ambition and power. I don't to what extent these are scientific observations. They appear to be intuitively accurate but I don't know how we can substantiate them beyond that.

Nevertheless, it's a problem that deserves to be addressed seriously. What I'd say is that if the right practices, norms of behaviour and rules are established within these institutions, then I think the kind of events anarchists worry about can be, for the most part, avoided. For instance, I'd support instant recall of all officials; short term-limits for officials and administrative staff; and direct accountability to popular assemblies.

Measures like this can help ensure that no distinct 'class' or caste develops under the rubric of the temporary institutions.

As I said, there's much more to be said about all this. There is the obvious point that the "transitional period" could become another "war on terror" i.e. an endlessly escalating battle with no defined end and which justifies more and more power for political bodies. There certainly needs to be more thought about these issues in light of historical experience and new theoterical outlooks.

And yes, I am a Marxist.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

As you probably know, it's difficult to say what Marx says about these post-revolutionary problems. He, of course, resisted the temptation to draw up "formulas" for the period after the revolution.

The problem of under what conditions power does 'wither away' is an important one. I don't think Marxists have done enough to theorize about these problems. Obviously, I can't say for certain if and how 'withering away' would occur. I would hope that institutions that are temporarily neccessary for the victory of the revolution would, having lost their purpose, cease to operable. In the same way we knock buildings down after they've served their purpose, we'd knock down the political structures we temporarily erected.

The problem with this is the one you've alluded to. Political power is seen as a corrupting influence, liable to send anyone mad with ambition and power. I don't to what extent these are scientific observations. They appear to be intuitively accurate but I don't know how we can substantiate them beyond that.

Nevertheless, it's a problem that deserves to be addressed seriously. What I'd say is that if the right practices, norms of behaviour and rules are established within these institutions, then I think the kind of events anarchists worry about can be, for the most part, avoided. For instance, I'd support instant recall of all officials; short term-limits for officials and administrative staff; and direct accountability to popular assemblies.

Measures like this can help ensure that no distinct 'class' or caste develops under the rubric of the temporary institutions.

As I said, there's much more to be said about all this. There is the obvious point that the "transitional period" could become another "war on terror" i.e. an endlessly escalating battle with no defined end and which justifies more and more power for political bodies. There certainly needs to be more thought about these issues in light of historical experience and new theoterical outlooks.

And yes, I am a Marxist.

Yes Anarchists envision something similar for our transitional period. I do think that the revolution should mean the immediate decntralisation of power though. I do think there will be a transitional stage but I think it is not the duty of any central body to suppress Capitalist counter-revolution. It should be the duty of horizontally working federations and co-operating communities of workers who would allign to fight any attempts capitalists make to regain power.

[sanpal]

Why marxist is marxist? Because of the reason that he/she adopt Marx's theory including Marx's conclusion that during transition period the Proletarian State will wither away (And not merely a State, it could be a bourgeois State, but just Proletarian State i.e. the DADOTP State). Otherwise it isn't marxism, it's "someone-ism". For example "anarch-ism" which doesn't adopt in its conception transitional period of DADOTP. I'm far from the thought that the anarchist conception took from marxist theory the points which are its benefit and rejected those points which aren't suitable for it and thus speculated on marxism but ....

How does the process of withering away of the Proletarian State goes could be seen on this schema: http://www.revleft.com/vb/album.php?albumid=252&pictureid=1849

[Q]

I've been an activist for some years now and have of course protested and demonstrated with anarchists shoulder to shoulder on many occasions. I find them to be determined class fighters in general.

However, I also think their tactics are lacking. Anarchists are lifestylist in one way or another most of the time, making them a subculture. In demonstrations they often form a "black bloc" which seperates them from the rest of the demo, or, if they are the demo, seperates them from society, failing to get the message through to the larger masses. Also, I find anarchists to be rather aggressive and undisciplined during demo's; police confrontations are a regular recurring theme. This also doesn't helps in de-alienating anarchists from the masses and thusly organising the masses. That, as a marxist, is a critique I have towards anarchists.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yes I totally understand Q. There is a tendency for Anarchists to hang around with other Anarchists in a way it can seem very unwelcoming to a newcomer who may be interested in the movemnt.

[Random Precision]

I think you have misunderstood the term. When he said this he was talking about Anarchists agitating and winning the leadership of ideas.

I think Bakunin would disagree:


[t]here is only one power and one dictatorship whose organisation is salutary and feasible: it is that collective, invisible dictatorship of those who are allied in the name of our principle (...) this dictatorship will be all the more salutary and effective for not being dressed up in any official power or extrinsic character


We are the most pronounced enemies of every sort of official power -- even if it is an ultra-revolutionary power. We are the enemies of any sort of publicly declared dictatorship, we are social revolutionary anarchists. But, you will ask, if we are anarchists, by what right do we want to influence the people, and what methods will we use? Denouncing all power, with what sort of power, or rather by what sort of force, shall we direct a people's revolution? By a force that is invisible, that no one admits and that is not imposed on anyone, by the collective dictatorship of our organization which will be all the greater the more it remains unseen and undeclared, the more it is deprived of all official rights and significance.


Not the army of the revolution-the army must always be the people-but a revolutionary general staff composed of devoted energetic and intelligent individuals who are above all sincere-not vain or ambitious-friends of the people, capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instincts. The number of those individuals should not be therefore too large. For the international organisation throughout Europe, 100 serious and firmly united revolutionaries would be sufficient.

And from his writings on the war in Bohemia:


The revolutionary government with unlimited dictatorial power must sit in Prague … All clubs and journals, all manifestations of garrulous anarchism, will also be destroyed, and all will be subjugated to a single dictatorial authority.



Ok but who is decide when it will wither away. I am of the belief that anyone who has power will quickly be corrupted and will not just want to relinquish their power like that.

To Marxists, power and hierarchy, like everything else in a class society, are merely expressions of that society's relations of production. They have no separate existence. This is why, for example, the monarchy in the United Kingdom no longer has unlimited power like it did under feudalism. When feudalism went out, so did feudal expressions of power. When capitalism goes out, so will capitalist expressions of power. When there is no need for power to crush the exploiters, it will have no further existence.


I doubt setting up a dictatorship would have saved the Anarchist regions of Spain. Every force united to crush the Anarchists in this case and Franco would have taken power sooner or later.

Maybe. It certainly would have served them better than the road they took, collaboration with the bourgeois state and the Stalinists who were then able to roll back all the workers' gains with minimal resistance. On the other hand, I think a popular revolution in Catalonia would have spread throughout Republican territory, sweeping away the remnants of the bourgeoisie that hadn't yet gone over to fascism, and would have stood a good chance defeating Franco without the betrayals and cowardice of the Republic's leaders.

[Bilan]

While this is a Marxist criticism to many forms of Anarchism. It doesn't apply to all, Syndicalism and Platformism for example. Both have demonstrated a strong emphasis on Strategy and Tactics, if not politically then in practice. Furthermore these tendancies are quite strongly anti-individual and draw from a strong class analysis.

The Marxist criticism of anarchism is not limited to Insurrectionary, anti-organisational groups, and it never has been. Certainly, Marx's criticisms of Bakunin were not because he negated organisation.
Marxist groups have criticised Syndicalism, for example, for its view that the Union can be used as a means toward revolution.
This is criticised because the strength of the union is determined largelly by the nature of class conflict at a given period - i.e. in a period of non-open class conflict, the unions are likely to become weaker and bureaucraticised.
The Marxist critique of Syndicalism goes way back. Also the idea that all workers need to be organised into one mass union before they can overthrow capitalism.



The attitude of many trade-union leaders to this question is generally summed up in the assertion: “We are not yet strong enough to risk such a hazardous trial of strength as a mass strike.” Now this position is so far untenable that it is an insoluble problem to determine the time, in a peaceful fashion by counting heads, when the proletariat are “strong enough” for any struggle. Thirty years ago the German trade-unions had 50,000 members. That was obviously a number with which a mass strike on the above scale was not to be thought of. Fifteen years later the trade-unions were four times as strong, and counted 237,000 members. If, however, the present trade-union leaders had been asked at the time if the organisation of the proletariat was then sufficiently ripe for a mass strike, they would assuredly have replied that it was still far from it and that the number of those organised in trade-unions would first have to be counted by millions.

Today the number of trade-unionists already runs into the second million, but the views of the leaders are still exactly the same, and may very well be the same to the end. The tacit assumption is that the entire working class of Germany, down to the last man and the last woman, must be included in the organisation before it “is strong enough” to risk a mass action, which then, according to the old formula, would probably be represented as “superfluous.” This theory is nevertheless absolutely utopian, for the simple reason that it suffers from an internal contradiction, that it goes in a vicious circle. Before the workers can engage in any direct class struggle they must all be organised. The circumstances, the conditions, of capitalist development and of the bourgeois state make it impossible that, in the normal course of things, without stormy class struggles, certain sections – can be organised at all. We see even in Britain, which has had a whole century of indefatigable trade-union effort without any “disturbances” – except at the beginning in the period of the Chartist movement – without any “romantic revolutionary” errors or temptations, it has not been possible to do more than organise a minority of the better-paid sections of the proletariat.




The real crux of the disagreement is, as you later said, whether the working class should centralize or decentralize it 's power after the revolution. Take over a state, or manage society and the defence of the revolution through a federation workers councils.

Council Communists are not Marxists? Federated workers councils is not a strictly anarchist idea. It has more in common with the tradition of Communism, and in particular, Council Communism, then anarchism necessarily. And its practice was born out of the struggle in Russia, where anarchism was not dominant (note: Not not there, but not dominant).



Normally, most Marxists argue that workers democracy is incapable of effectively defending itself from counter revolution.

Some do. Workers Democracy is only an idea, it's practice is another thing. Democratic centralism could be sene as Workers Democracy; Councils could be seen as Workers Democracy, etc.
The necessity for centralisation is not a negation, necessarily, of Workers Democracy.



This is normally drawn from a misunderstanding of the structure. Most Anarchists in history have advocated a centralised militarized army, and civil police force during a revolutionary period (the makhnovists had these as did the Anarchist Federation in the Korean war of independence) The mandate of this army would come from a regional delegates council, as opposed to a bolshevik government. My view is that this is perfectly capable of defending itself, and, unlike the marxist model, immune to political corruption or "troika" takeovers.

That's a pretty inane assessment of the Communist model of organisation and its susceptibility to "corruption". It presumes that the Leaders in a communist party are self-appointed, which is not the case in a communist organisation.



I strongly disagree with comrades here who have argued that the Russian revolution would have failed without a State. Certainly it would have failed without a strong centralised army, but no one argues otherwise.

The Russian Revolution would have failed without a state, in the sense of an organ of class rule. If the Russian Revolution was absent of a proletarian nature, and absent of a method of organisation which strengthed the rule of the Working class, then it would have certainly failed. But not only that, it was inevitable.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I think Bakunin would disagree:







And from his writings on the war in Bohemia:






To Marxists, power and hierarchy, like everything else in a class society, are merely expressions of that society's relations of production. They have no separate existence. This is why, for example, the monarchy in the United Kingdom no longer has unlimited power like it did under feudalism. When feudalism went out, so did feudal expressions of power. When capitalism goes out, so will capitalist expressions of power. When there is no need for power to crush the exploiters, it will have no further existence.



Maybe. It certainly would have served them better than the road they took, collaboration with the bourgeois state and the Stalinists who were then able to roll back all the workers' gains with minimal resistance. On the other hand, I think a popular revolution in Catalonia would have spread throughout Republican territory, sweeping away the remnants of the bourgeoisie that hadn't yet gone over to fascism, and would have stood a good chance defeating Franco without the betrayals and cowardice of the Republic's leaders.

I've heard some about his conspiratorial methods but I've never seen the quotes. At first it does seem like he's talking about the force of ideas, but that gives way to quotes that sound like a literal elitist dictatorship. I searched them and found this one:


"it is necessary that in the midst of popular anarchy, which will make up the very life and all the energy of the revolution, the unity of revolutionary thought and action should be embodied in a certain organ. That organ must be the secret and world-wide association of the international brothers..."Sounds like some new world order stuff. Apparently Marx responded this way:

"To say that the hundred international brothers must 'serve as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instincts,' is to create an unbridgeable gulf between the Alliance's revolutionary idea and the proletarian masses; it means proclaiming that these hundred guardsmen cannot be recruited anywhere but from among the privileged classes."

From this article: http://www.connexions.org/RedMenace/Docs/RM3-BakuninvsMarx.htm

Anyway, it's been stated a couple of times, but I still don't think people are grasping it. Marxist don't support giving power to some undemocratic organization. Calling an undemocratic organization a dictatorship of the proletariat wouldn't even make sense. If the workers rule from the beginning, then no one has to "give up power" because it's already with the people that we want to have it.

[Idealism]

the state will wither away because its no longer needed? when was the state ever needed?

[Bilan]

the state will wither away because its no longer needed? when was the state ever needed?

The state has been necessary as part of the economic development of human society, and its existence is inseperable from most historical economic modes.

See in this. (http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/decadence/ch1/section1)

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The democratic nature, or lack thereof, has no bearing whatsoever on whether a dictatorship of the proletariat is bona fide. Otherwise you are just basing proletarian organizations on bourgeoisie principles. If a council gains only 49% proletarian support, and thus acts against the wishes of the majority, they are surely anti-democratic, but nevertheless may be an independent organ of the proletariat and act in their wishes. To hell with democracy, to hell with the state.

Are you seriously arguing that bourgeois "democracy" is actually democracy? Also, in what kind of democracy can 49% of the people override 51%? :confused:


the state will wither away because its no longer needed? when was the state ever needed?

As long as classes existed:


The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled.

[Idealism]

The state has been necessary as part of the economic development of human society, and its existence is inseperable from most historical economic modes.


i meant in recent times. And if the DotP is to dismantle the systems of private property and capitalist class, doesnt it simply create a new class of the people in the DotP "state" (i put that in quotes because im not really sure how the DotP would define state) and the people that the DotP governs?

[Idealism]

and if just because leaders are not self appointed does not mean that there is not the opportunity for corruption, as long as there are leaders there is corruption.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

i meant in recent times. And if the DotP is to dismantle the systems of private property and capitalist class, doesnt it simply create a new class of the people in the DotP "state" (i put that in quotes because im not really sure how the DotP would define state) and the people that the DotP governs?

How can the dictatorship of a class create a new class? Maybe the dictatorship of part of that class, but that's not what we want.


and if just because leaders are not self appointed does not mean that there is not the opportunity for corruption, as long as there are leaders there is corruption.

They aren't leaders. They do what their electors want or they're immediately recalled.

[Idealism]

How does the dictatorship of a class create a new class? The whole class rules.


They aren't leaders. They do what their electors want or they're immediately recalled.

im sorry for my mistake, i just always saw what you describe as delagate and not "leader"

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I'm seriously aruging that as Marxist, I couldn't give a shit about dictatorship or democracy as an a priori principle upon which to base my views. All I am concerned about is class. Whether the working class rules through majority rule or minority rule is of little consequence to me. I am interested in which class they represent, not the level of representation of that class. Seriously, read the Democratic Principle by Bordiga, or something.

Is this really necessary to mention? The level of countries that this is applicable to now is a lot less than during the times of Marx.


In a proletarian dictatorship, where 'people' is a useless concept designed to mask class relations. Unless, of course, you would like parliaments to remain since they are more representative of the 'people' and Soviets should be ignored owing to their lack of proportional representation. Yay democracy!Parliaments represent the interests of the people? :rolleyes:

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Anyway, the last example of 49% versus 51% was just to illustrate that the level of support of a proposal, or a party, or whatever, is not illustrative of the correctness of that principle. Communists aren't populists and have stances that shouldn't be washed away by democracy or inhibited by lack of popular support.

Right. And educated elites such as yourself get to decide the correctness of different proposals..:rolleyes:


Well they must be - since they were democratically elected! You don't seem to get the point; whether councils are democratically elected or not, it matters little whether they truly represent the interests of the proletariat. Only the stances of those organizations are relevant to this assessment; whether they are internationalist, support the socialization of society etc. You putting the precondition of democracy is liberal shit.I'm not so sure you know what you're talking about if you actually think bourgeois democracy is democracy. Representative democracy is not democracy. How the interests of the proletariat are supposed to be represented without allowing them any input is beyond me.

I'm not even sure why I'm even bothering to argue with a sockpuppet that's just going to end up banned again.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

SocialismOrBarbarism. What you are advocating, worker's councils, immediately recallable delegates seems similar to what Anarchism wants. So can you tell me do you believe in centralisation or not? I think this might be the difference between Marxism and Anarchist theory post revolution.

[Q]

SocialismOrBarbarism. What you are advocating, worker's councils, immediately recallable delegates seems similar to what Anarchism wants. So can you tell me do you believe in centralisation or not? I think this might be the difference between Marxism and Anarchist theory post revolution.

I do not understand this difference actually, I never really did. Capitalism has given us a highly decentralised economy. To produce a car for example, parts and raw materials of it come from all over the globe. This division of labour is something I see as progressive, as many things can be automated and we can reduce the working day, leaving more time for ourselves and to actually be able to participate in society. So, from this flows that autarky is a step back as it would reduce the division of labour and is thusly and in the end reactionary.

So, centralisation is not a moral, but an objective need. If we don't have any macro-economical planning and cooperation, society will fall back. That having said, I do think that power structures must be built bottom-up as workers democracy from the companies and communities is vital for running a socialist and communist society. Cooperation on regional, national and international level is however desired where that is logical and necessary.

This is the essence of soviet democracy, why anarchists disagree is really beyond me.

[ZeroNowhere]

Marxists generally argue for remuneration while anarchists generally argue for free access.
Well, not necessarily. I'd say that of the very few Marxist organizations, the WSM are perhaps the most major currently, and they're strongly in favour of free access immediately after a revolution (generally with some degree of rationing, though). Hell, they sometimes even try to sneak it into their definition of socialism, which can get annoying.


Yes I would agree with free access rather than renumeration for the ultimate goal. Whether this could function directly after revolution I'm not sure.
Of course, that's the main point of labour credits. They would gradually 'wither away', probably.


If it's working fine, we can slowly decrease labour credit usage and such, and, if consumption is too high and production too low, we'll have to use labour credits more. There's no need to take a leap of faith and hope for the best, and then cutback if it doesn't work; we should start from a system of rewards, which doesn't rely as much on 'the majority of the people will do so and so without encouragement' for no reason. If that works out, we can go further towards free access. Certainly, immediately after a revolution in an area (and yes, we aren't going to have a revolution everywhere successfully at the same time), we can't just rely on people working suddenly giving up enjoyable activities for work out of the goods of their hearts, and we can't immediately wave the Wand of Socialism and make all work enjoyable; that is, we've still got an economy to run.


SocialismOrBarbarism. What you are advocating, worker's councils, immediately recallable delegates seems similar to what Anarchism wants. So can you tell me do you believe in centralisation or not? I think this might be the difference between Marxism and Anarchist theory post revolution.
Not necessarily, 'centralisation' or its absence are not anything to do with the definition of anarchism. We're dealing with spread out resources, and an economy in which different industries must co-operate to function, etc, so at least some degree of centralisation would probably be necessary. Of course, this depends on what one means by 'centralisation'.


It is one of the absurdities to say that the Central functions, not of governmental authority over the people, but necessitated by the general and common wants of the country, would become impossible. These functions would exist, but the functionaries themselves could not, as in the old governmental machinery, raise themselves over real society, because the functions were to be executed by Communal agents, and, therefore, always under real control. The public functions would cease to be a private property bestowed by a central government upon its tools. With the standing army and the governmental police, the physical force of repression was to be broken.


National centralization of the means of production will become the natural basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan.

Complete 'decentralisation', if the words 'centralisation' and 'decentralisation' are to be used in this sense, would presumably be a return to the feudal mode of production.


I'm seriously aruging that as Marxist, I couldn't give a shit about dictatorship or democracy as an a priori principle upon which to base my views. All I am concerned about is class. Whether the working class rules through majority rule or minority rule is of little consequence to me. I am interested in which class they represent, not the level of representation of that class. Seriously, read the Democratic Principle by Bordiga, or something.
I generally prefer calling Bordiga a 'Blanquist', or 'ultra-Leninist'.


Marxist groups have criticised Syndicalism, for example
That would be more of a 'criticism of anarcho-syndicalism' than a 'criticism of anarchism'.


In demonstrations they often form a "black bloc" which seperates them from the rest of the demo, or, if they are the demo, seperates them from society, failing to get the message through to the larger masses.
I'd say that they scare them away with the ninja-wannabe look. Then again, quite a few anarchists, as far as I've seen, don't especially like the 'black bloc' thing.


The Marxist critique of Syndicalism goes way back. Also the idea that all workers need to be organised into one mass union before they can overthrow capitalism.
As does the Marxist embracement of syndicalism, in fact. Though I don't really see anything of relevance to that sentence in the Luxemburg quote.

[Bilan]

SocialismOrBarbarism. What you are advocating, worker's councils, immediately recallable delegates seems similar to what Anarchism wants. So can you tell me do you believe in centralisation or not? I think this might be the difference between Marxism and Anarchist theory post revolution.

It's not, though. The difference between Marxism and anarchism is that Marxism is an analytical framework which attempts to understand the rise and fall of class societies within a scientific framework. Anarchism does not, and when it does, not to the same extent. This is not to say anarchism is "bad", but that centralisation is not the "key" difference.

[Bilan]

That would be more of a 'criticism of anarcho-syndicalism' than a 'criticism of anarchism'.

Re-read what I was quoting. The purpose for mentioning Syndicalism as an example was because of the presumption of the person I was quoting - i.e. that Marxists only critiqued 'anti-organisational' anarchists, which is nonsense.



As does the Marxist embracement of syndicalism, in fact.

Indeed, considering Marxism does not have a unified practice, but this is however, irrelevant, as I was illustrating their were Marxist critiques of anarchist tendencies (and please don't bring up that syndicalism isn't always "anarchist", as I am well aware, but that too is not relevant).



Though I don't really see anything of relevance to that sentence in the Luxemburg quote.

From what you quoted when saying that:


Also the idea that all workers need to be organised into one mass union before they can overthrow capitalism.



This theory is nevertheless absolutely utopian, for the simple reason that it suffers from an internal contradiction, that it goes in a vicious circle. Before the workers can engage in any direct class struggle they must all be organised. The circumstances, the conditions, of capitalist development and of the bourgeois state make it impossible that, in the normal course of things, without stormy class struggles, certain sections – can be organised at all.



(The conditions of capitalist exploitation) can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.

source (http://www.iww.org/culture/official/preamble.shtml)


= IWA Statutes]
Against the offensive of Capital and politicians of all hues, all the revolutionary workers of the world must build a real International Association of Workers, in which, each member will know that the emancipation of the working class will only be possible when the workers themselves, in their capacities as producers, manage to prepare themselves in their economic organizations to take possession of the land and the factories and enable themselves to administer them jointly, in such a way that they will be able to continue production and social life

...
Revolutionary unionism, basing itself on the class struggle, aims to unite all workers in combative economic organizations, that fight to free themselves from the double yoke of capital and the State. Its goal is the reorganization of social life on the basis of Libertarian Communism via the revolutionary action of the working class. Since only the economic organizations of the proletariat are capable of achieving this objective, revolutionary unionism addresses itself to workers in their capacity as producers, creators of social wealth, to take root and develop amongst them, in opposition to the modern workers’ parties, which it declares are incapable of the economic reorganization of society.


source (http://iwa-ait.org/statutes.html)

[apathy maybe]

I think Bakunin would disagree:

And from his writings on the war in Bohemia:

Do you have any quotes from modern anarchists? Can you find any anarchist from the last fifty years who would support what Bakunin said about the "invisible dictatorship" or the "brotherhood" stuff?

'Cause you know, anarchist theory doesn't stand still. No anarchist today supports the racist and sexist writings (even if they support other parts) of Proudhon.

[ComradeOm]

Do you have any quotes from modern anarchists? Can you find any anarchist from the last fifty years who would support what Bakunin said about the "invisible dictatorship" or the "brotherhood" stuff? Read the post. RP was replying to a specific comment regarding Bakunin's views on the "invisible dictatorship". Indeed it was the OP who first introduced the old coot into the discussion in the first place

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Read the post. RP was replying to a specific comment regarding Bakunin's views on the "invisible dictatorship". Indeed it was the OP who first introduced the old coot into the discussion in the first place

Yes I did but I only used a quote of his I agree with. I do like Bakunin but that is not to say I agree entirely with him and I did not at all say I agreed with the "invisible dictatorship" although I disupute what he actually meant by this.

[Random Precision]

ComradeOm is entirely correct. I never intended those quotes to say anything about anarchist views in general, only about Bakunin's views.


Yes I did but I only used a quote of his I agree with.

What I am saying is that given Bakunin's idea for an "invisible dictatorship" and the fact that he intended to crush all dissent or "garrulous anarchism" during the (Paris-sponsored) uprising in Bohemia, his critique of Marxist ideas on the State as "authoritarian" loses all validity.


I do like Bakunin but that is not to say I agree entirely with him and I did not at all say I agreed with the "invisible dictatorship" although I disupute what he actually meant by this.

I think he made it pretty clear what he meant by it.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Green Apostle, that's one of the worst analyses of post-revolutionary states ever.

It's an honest one. I have no grand idea or vision of what a revolution will be or should nor of what the world after it will be or should be. I opt to live according to what suits me, harming noone or their belongings and interfering in nothing that doesnt concern or interest me.

[StalinFanboy]

It's an honest one. I have no grand idea or vision of what a revolution will be or should nor of what the world after it will be or should be. I opt to live according to what suits me, harming noone or their belongings and interfering in nothing that doesnt concern or interest me.
So you're a hippie?

[Bilan]

Bring it, one liner posts are not acceptable, and you continue to post them. Please post something of substance.

[Rosa Provokateur]

So you're a hippie?

Without the drugs and promiscuous sex plus I hate facial hair (my only pet-peeve) and love cleanliness.

[Hit The North]

Without the drugs and promiscuous sex

But they're the best things about being a hippie. Without the drugs and promiscuous sex, all you're left with is the sanctimonious attitude and unrealistic politics.

[StalinFanboy]

Bilan, one liner posts are not acceptable, and you continue to post them. Please post something of substance.

[Rosa Provokateur]

But they're the best things about being a hippie. Without the drugs and promiscuous sex, all you're left with is the sanctimonious attitude and unrealistic politics.
The potential for AIDS and brain-damage arent that appealing. As the saying goes; "Be realistic-demand the impossible!"