Marxists and Anarchists are allies.

[Cinemarx123]

This is something I have been thinking about for a while, and in light of the recent thread about anarchism and Marxism being "enemies", I decided to bring this up.

Let's discuss in what ways both anarchists and Marxists are united. Through what means could the (in my opinion) minimally divergent strands of thought be united?

Maybe it is my particular perception of Marxism that makes me virtually non-hostile towards anarchism, but I really cannot find a point of difference between Anarchism and Marxism that I can't personally explain away. Writing in my notes I'm looking for a way to unite the two, regardless of the history of both.

Any one else want to discuss? I'm new to this forum, and this is a topic I'm particularly interested in, simply because in the event of a revolution, I refuse to believe it is proper to exclude either anarchist or Marxist. We simply share too many values to focus on the values we do not.

[Blackscare]

I'd say anarchism and marxism are quite similar. I think that while Marxism is itself pretty libertarian in it's theory, anarchism fills an important role as a watchdog for the development of state oppression because anarchism's defining feature is it's attitude towards the state.


Not that I see anarchism as just being a supplementary or a niche-issue movement, I think however that if it became clear in a revolution that the masses had chosen Marxism (in it's pure form), anarchists should take part and serve the function of specifically defending against authoritarian deviations. If the shoe were on the other foot, I'd also expect Marxists to take part in the discussion of theory and practical economics in a post-revolutionary anarchist society.

[pastradamus]

Theres very little difference between the two theories. Bakunin himself was quite fond of Marx initially and one was just a slant on the others theory anyway. The fact of the matter is they were both philosophers with different ways of thinking and one ideal is quite compatible with the other such ideas as Anarcho-communism for example.

This Anarchist Marxist debate has fuelled on for two long now. Both sides can benefit from the others support and when this breaks down we see the worst possible outcomes such incidents as Communists and Anarchists at war with each other during the Spanish Civil war was an extremely Dark event for Leftism and both Marxists and Anarchists alike. Neither of these philosophers would condone war between the two groups.

[Rebel_Serigan]

I have to agree. Not only do Marxism and anarchy share a great deal of beliefs but also if there is to be any kind of revelution we all need to one (You know like exactly what we are fighting for, unity) If there is division in us then we will fail.I tire of silly bickering over which old theory is better when we should be creating a new theory that we all can live with and is more relevent to our time period.

[PRC-UTE]

thanks, I almost made a topic like this to respond to some recent anarchist/marxist debates. I think the present time isn't one in which revolutionaries should emphasis their differences but attempt to work together as much as possible.

[Blackscare]

The key issue that I have a tough time with is centralization. I'm opposed to it, but I don't think that it would keep me from participating in social relations assuming anarchism was not the dominant movement. Oh, and the idea of parties I find really distasteful, although I don't know if Marx had the idea of a party or if the was Lenin later on.

[Cinemarx123]

While I don't believe that an ever present, ever controlling structure of authority is necessary, I think certain forms of authority have to be taken into account based off of practicality. In the work place for example, authority is practical because it delegates responsibility in an efficient manner. Stripped of socio-economic foundations, authority is a practical tool. Of course, any structure of authority would have to be recursive, meaning it is fully answerable to whom it delegates responsibility.

I think this is one example of a system which anarchists and Marxists could agree on. It sacrifices neither practicality nor autonomy. In my opinion, an efficient and recursive system of authority would actually increase freedom, so that individuals within a non-coercive environment could not use that freedom to limit the autonomy of others.

Any thoughts?

[autotrophic]

Out of all political ideologies, Marxism and Anarchism are very similar in many ways. Actually I think most anarchists generally agree most of marxism, just without the leninism, maoism, trotskyism, etc attached. A lot of debate seems to be over semantics and misunderstandings (from both sides).

Of course, differences are to be expected because the starting points of each ideology are different

[StalinFanboy]

I most certainly consider anti-authoritarian Marxists to be comrades.

[PRC-UTE]

I most certainly consider anti-authoritarian Marxists to be comrades.

There's no such thing. Excepting maybe academics.

[ZeroNowhere]

There's no such thing. Excepting maybe academics.
Wait, there isn't?
I was not aware of this.


While I don't believe that an ever present, ever controlling structure of authority is necessary, I think certain forms of authority have to be taken into account based off of practicality. In the work place for example, authority is practical because it delegates responsibility in an efficient manner. Stripped of socio-economic foundations, authority is a practical tool. Of course, any structure of authority would have to be recursive, meaning it is fully answerable to whom it delegates responsibility.
Of course, in the same way that anarchism is not against people reading stuff on, say, physics, because it makes them an authority on the subject. Anarchism is hierarchal authority, a democratically elected and freely recallable manager of a co-operative factory would not count as hierarchal authority, for example.


Writing in my notes I'm looking for a way to unite the two, regardless of the history of both.
That sounds exceptionally easy.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

a democratically elected and freely recallable manager of a co-operative factory would not count as hierarchal authority, for example.


If he does not have power to control his fellow workers then he has no authority. He isn't authority. If he does then it is certainly hierarchial. Anarchists would be in favour of the first but against the second.

[Melbourne Lefty]

The biggest difference would be the marxist practice [if not theory] of placing all power in the hands of the state in order to better society.

The Anarchists of course are against the state, and dont think that initiating a hugely centralised dictatorship will ever lead to it dissolving.

I know that the above is a gross oversimplification, but on the face of it that would be the big diff.

I dont really see the problem though, Black and Red seem to get along well enough to march side by side on the same issues.

[bcbm]

If a successful revolution is to occur it will be made by the under-classes and they will decide the course of events and policy, not the bickering between a bunch of ideologues who in the course of such a struggle will be worthless at best and an obstacle at worst. These arguments are tedious whether we're allies or enemies because our role will be minimal in the long run, at least if anything good is to come.

[JohnnyC]

If a successful revolution is to occur it will be made by the under-classes and they will decide the course of events and policy, not the bickering between a bunch of ideologues who in the course of such a struggle will be worthless at best and an obstacle at worst. These arguments are tedious whether we're allies or enemies because our role will be minimal in the long run, at least if anything good is to come.
Completely true.Only proletariat can decide what will happen after the revolution.It isn't strange that Marx didn't write much about workers being in power until Paris Commune.As a materialist, he knew that only workers, in revolutionary times, can decide for themselves what is the best way for society to function.

[Yazman]

There's no such thing. Excepting maybe academics.

So do you seriously believe that Marxism is inherently authoritarian?


Maybe it is my particular perception of Marxism that makes me virtually non-hostile towards anarchism, but I really cannot find a point of difference between Anarchism and Marxism that I can't personally explain away. Writing in my notes I'm looking for a way to unite the two, regardless of the history of both.

It has historically been Leninists and derivatives of Leninism that are extremely paranoid of anarchists and anarchism in general. Its quite silly.

[Cinemarx123]

That sounds exceptionally easy.

It is, and that's why I can't figure why others refuse to find them.

[Dean]

This is something I have been thinking about for a while, and in light of the recent thread about anarchism and Marxism being "enemies", I decided to bring this up.

Let's discuss in what ways both anarchists and Marxists are united. Through what means could the (in my opinion) minimally divergent strands of thought be united?

Maybe it is my particular perception of Marxism that makes me virtually non-hostile towards anarchism, but I really cannot find a point of difference between Anarchism and Marxism that I can't personally explain away. Writing in my notes I'm looking for a way to unite the two, regardless of the history of both.

Any one else want to discuss? I'm new to this forum, and this is a topic I'm particularly interested in, simply because in the event of a revolution, I refuse to believe it is proper to exclude either anarchist or Marxist. We simply share too many values to focus on the values we do not.

I don't see how Anarchism and MArxism are really any different. Both propose a free, classless society. Both propose force in order to strip down and reorganize society. They tend to differ on the specific methodes, but so what? The methods are rarely intrinsic to the theory anyways.

[x359594]

I describe myself as an anarcho-marxist: anarchist in that I believe in the unity of ends and means, direct action and libertarian socialism; marxist in that I hold to the materialist conception of history, dialectical method and capital accumulation through surplus value. Long ago it led me to anarcho-syndicalism and the IWW.

[Cumannach]

It's difficult to work with an anarchist when he is throwing a tantrum cause someone gave him an order.

[LeninBalls]

It's difficult to work with an anarchist when he is throwing a tantrum cause someone gave him an order.

That, I really have no problems with Anarchists apart from the fact that they will ALWAYS shit on Marxism-Leninism/other schools of Marxist thought and have the same arguements "lol the USSR failed and wasn't real socialism look at Spain anarchism worked there haha u suck".

The problem I have with them is they seemingly refuse to work with anyone apart from Anarchists.

Myself, I would gladly participate alongside Anarchists if ever a revolution, if only they were willing to co operate with Marxists.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The problem I have with them is they seemingly refuse to work with anyone apart from Anarchists.

Anarchists in the United States frequently work with Marxists on various projects. (I don't know what it's like in Europe, though.)

[Yazman]

Anarchists in the United States frequently work with Marxists on various projects. (I don't know what it's like in Europe, though.)

They often do in Australia too (in QLD at least, I can't really speak for sydney/melbourne)

[LeninBalls]

Well not on Revleft anyways :p

[GeezAF]

I think a lot of the division is a result of the anarchists' mistrust of anyone with authority. For anarchists to take part in a revolution lead by a vanguard party would be against their principles. In my point of view, if someone is ordering another person about then that is not socialism. To allow this to happen during a revolution is to allow the destruction of the principles on which the revolution is based.

This may be a gross oversimplification but I see it this way

To marxists the anarchist revolution is inefficient, impractical and idealistic but workable as long as counter-revolution is resisted (which is what they think anarchists are bad at).
To anarchists the marxist revolution is well-intentioned but ultimately doomed to failure due to the fatal acceptance of (at least temporary) authority.

It is a minor difference, yes, but it can have massive implications.

Maybe one day unity will be achieved but it will be difficult.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Anarchists and Lenninsts are opposed when it comes to the issue of the state and thats a pretty big thing to be opposed over.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Anarchists and Lenninsts are opposed when it comes to the issue of the state and thats a pretty big thing to be opposed over.

With all the discussion that's been had about this lately, it's pretty disappointing that you'd just come in with this bullshit one liner.


The biggest difference would be the marxist practice [if not theory] of placing all power in the hands of the state in order to better society.

The Anarchists of course are against the state, and dont think that initiating a hugely centralised dictatorship will ever lead to it dissolving.

I know that the above is a gross oversimplification, but on the face of it that would be the big diff.

But in the Marxist definition the workers state is the proletariat organized as the ruling class, so that would make you against placing all power into the workers hands.

[bcbm]

It's difficult to work with an anarchist when he is throwing a tantrum cause someone gave him an order.

It's difficult to work with a marxist when they (we're not all boys, you know) are being a micro-managing authoritarian piece of shit. I've got enough bosses at work, thanks.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

With all the discussion that's been had about this lately, it's pretty disappointing that you'd just come in with this bullshit one liner.


Its a one liner but its true though.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Its a one liner but its true though.

Unless you just meant Leninists and not all Marxists as a whole, then no, not really.

[revolution inaction]

Unless you just meant Leninists and not all Marxists as a whole, then no, not really.

You didn't read it did you?

[PRC-UTE]

So do you seriously believe that Marxism is inherently authoritarian?

as Engels said, revolutions are authoritarian.

[Black Sheep]

You didn't read it did you?
He may not have, but if there is a climax of disagreement that is with the Leninist branch of marxism.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

You didn't read it did you?

A lot of anarchists that I've seen tend to associate all Marxists with Leninism. The anarchist FAQ seems to use Leninist and Marxist interchangeably.

[Tjis]

There are many marxist tendencies I have no problems with. Sometimes our differences are really only in the words we use.
But leninism, and anything that bases itself on leninism, is not like that. Our differences with leninism go much further.
Leninism isn't the only kind of marxism, but it is the biggest. We can't ignore it. We can't say that marxists and anarchists are allies, when there are people calling themselves marxist with opinions so in conflict with ours.

[GPDP]

Its a one liner but its true though.

Many of those "disagreements" really just boil down to semantics, though. The concept of a workers' state that many Marxists adhere to would be perfectly acceptable by anarchist standards. Anarchists just don't like the word state, though, which leads to a lot of misunderstanding.

Think of the Paris Commune, for one. I've seen both Marxists AND anarchists point to it as a successful implementation of their ideas. Marxists declare it the first "workers' state", while some anarchists refer to it as an example of anarchism at work. This is because by some Marxists' definition, a workers' state is radically different from a capitalist state, so much so that even an anarchist could look at it and say "that's not a state", because the anarchist definition of a state is different. So it stands to reason that one Marxist's workers' state may be another anarchist's non-state.

That's not to say that some Marxists don't envision "workers' states" that anarchists would be extremely critical about, of course. Namely, those that point to the USSR pre-Khrushchev as a working example of socialism.

[AnthArmo]

As far as Anarchists and Libertarian Marxists/traditional Marxists working together with the Leninist idea of "Government Coup", I honestly don't see that working out. But Anarchists and Marxists can very easily work with each other.

[Yazman]

as Engels said, revolutions are authoritarian.

This doesn't have anything to do with the ideology of Marxism being authoritarian. All revolutions, and indeed wars, can be seen as authoritarian because they are a social event in which one section of the population is overthrowing another by force. It doesn't mean that Marxists advocate an authoritarian system of government. Because we don't. Leninists do, though.



As far as Anarchists and Libertarian Marxists/traditional Marxists working together with the Leninist idea of "Government Coup", I honestly don't see that working out. But Anarchists and Marxists can very easily work with each other.

Libertarian Marxists are more likely to work against Leninists than to work with it, considering they generally oppose Leninist ideas of vanguards and states.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The reason us Anarchists wrongly have these ideas of Marxism are the various state capitalist regimes we have seen in the past century.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Many of those "disagreements" really just boil down to semantics, though. The concept of a workers' state that many Marxists adhere to would be perfectly acceptable by anarchist standards. Anarchists just don't like the word state, though, which leads to a lot of misunderstanding.

Think of the Paris Commune, for one. I've seen both Marxists AND anarchists point to it as a successful implementation of their ideas. Marxists declare it the first "workers' state", while some anarchists refer to it as an example of anarchism at work. This is because by some Marxists' definition, a workers' state is radically different from a capitalist state, so much so that even an anarchist could look at it and say "that's not a state", because the anarchist definition of a state is different. So it stands to reason that one Marxist's workers' state may be another anarchist's non-state.

That's not to say that some Marxists don't envision "workers' states" that anarchists would be extremely critical about, of course. Namely, those that point to the USSR pre-Khrushchev as a working example of socialism.

Agreed. Note how I said Leninist not Marxists.

[Hessian Peel]

'Leninists' are Marxists, the only ones that count anyway.

[robbo203]

'Leninists' are Marxists, the only ones that count anyway.

Leninism is a fundamentally different and opposed paradigm to classical marxism in many respects. Leninism was the ideology of state capitalism of the Bolshevik bourgeois revolution that established state capitalism in the Soviet Union which indeed Lenin himself candidly argued for (state capitalism would be a "step forward" in his view).

Marxists and Anarchists (or some varieties of anarchism at any rate) have certainly got far more in common with each other than they have with Leninism. The differences basically centre on the means to achieve a classless stateless communist society

[BobKKKindle$]

Anarchists and Lenninsts are opposed when it comes to the issue of the state and thats a pretty big thing to be opposed over.Except, this is a fundamentally meaningless statement, because the nature of this difference, and the extent to which it can be resolved in favour of joint revolutionary action, depends entirely on how both anarchists and "Leninists" (not all of the currents which draw inspiration from Lenin and admire the legacy of the Bolshevik revolution can be placed in the same category - "Leninism" is yet another meaningless term) define the state. There will never be a point during a period of revolutionary change when the working class is confronted with a simple choice of whether to create a state or not, in the sense of something that can be settled simply by implementing a particular decree, because states do not spontaneously come into existence out of nothing - there will be currents arguing in favour of different modes of organization, and the development of the revolution will depend on the relative strength of these different currents within the ranks of the working class. As other contributors have already pointed out, there have been historic examples of workers taking power that Marxists have interpreted as the creation of a workers state, because the workers who were involved created an apparatus capable of defending their position against the inevitable response of the former bourgeoisie - in other words, a set of institutions compatible with the Marxist analysis of what constitutes a state - and yet these exact same examples, of which the Paris Commune is perhaps the most famous, have also been praised by Anarchists as proof that the state needs to be overthrown and cast aside forever, with the emerging administrative body being of a qualitatively different form. This in itself is evidence that expressing the difference between Anarchists and Marxists as one "side" being "in favour" of the state is totally simplistic.

[Yazman]

The reason us Anarchists wrongly have these ideas of Marxism are the various state capitalist regimes we have seen in the past century.

Thats a problem with leninism, not marxism. Marxism without the crap pretty much has the same problems with leninism as anarchism does.

[Exploited]

Marxists and anarchists can never be allies.
The differences between the marxists and the anarchists are so big that no bride can unite them.
These are not just "abstract" differences on how society would look after the revolution. There are differences ranging in tactics (vandalism vs mass struggle), orientation ( independent revolutionary unions vs existing ones), understanding of capitalism and the state and many many more.

The truth is that both the Marxists and the anarchists are insignificant in most places of the world and both groups strive to diffuse their ideas and influence the working class with their ideas. Once one of the "two" trends ( trends which are subdivided in a thousand pieces), gains the ear and the support of the working class, the other one will be insignificant.

To try and work together with the anarchists (from my marxist point of view), is both dangerous and counter-productive. To abandon our ideas for conciliatory means of struggle (half independent revolutionary unions, half existing ones etc), is the ultimate stupidity. Let us march our own ways and history will prove who is right or wrong. Remember its not revolutionaries who bring about the revolution, but the working class!

[Cumannach]

Thats a problem with leninism, not marxism. Marxism without the crap pretty much has the same problems with leninism as anarchism does.

No it doesn't. Marxism includes the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a state power, an organized enforcement of repression against certain other classes. Anarchism has no ability to actually deal with class enemies.

There's no contradiction or discontinuity between Marxism and Leninism. Marxism is the theory of class struggle and the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat in general. Leninism is the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the proletarian revolution in the age of imperialism. Marxism was not a fixed world system it was a theory that had to be developed with developing material conditions. This development is Marxism-Leninism.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

No it doesn't. Marxism includes the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a state power, an organized enforcement of repression against certain other classes. Anarchism has no ability to actually deal with class enemies.

Sure it does. They just call it something different.

[Yazman]

No it doesn't. Marxism includes the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a state power, an organized enforcement of repression against certain other classes. Anarchism has no ability to actually deal with class enemies.

There's no contradiction or discontinuity between Marxism and Leninism. Marxism is the theory of class struggle and the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat in general. Leninism is the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the proletarian revolution in the age of imperialism. Marxism was not a fixed world system it was a theory that had to be developed with developing material conditions. This development is Marxism-Leninism.

Leninism is not some sort of "natural evolution of Marxism." It is an interpretation of the writings of Marx and Engels which built upon those writings in its own unique way. That Lenin took inspiration from Marx and Engels does not mean that all Marxists are Leninists or that they should be; nor does it mean that different ideas based on the same works have not been developed. You make it sound as if Marxism "inherently leads to Leninism" when quite simply, it doesn't. It can if one pays attention to the ideas and concepts of the Leninists but a Marxist movement can develop just fine without those works and they did quite well in some cases before Lenin, as well as after him.

Besides that, there is plenty that says Marxism is not inherently supportive of vanguards and authoritarianism or states; on top of this Marx and Engels themselves frequently wrote about their belief that vanguards in any successful revolution would never really reflect the interests of the class they claim to represent once in power, and they actually predicted fairly accurately what would happen (and what DID happen) to the revolutions and the countries they took place in if the people were so induced and led on by a small group.


There are differences ranging in tactics (vandalism vs mass struggle), orientation ( independent revolutionary unions vs existing ones), understanding of capitalism and the state and many many more.

Oh come on, do you really honestly believe that all communist movements, leninist or not, were built around mass struggle and unionism? There were plenty of Marxist-Leninist organisations that abandoned these ideas and took the vanguard ideal to a whole new level! Just look at the Weathermen, the Symbionese Liberation Army, RAF, and others. While I myself support some of these movements they were most certainly not grounded in mass struggle and definitely not grounded in ANY unions, revolutionary OR existing ones.

Marxism is not a monolithic entity and has just as many schools of thought as capitalism does - quite a few major ones and many more derivatives. There is also a lot of overlap in the revolutionary left and because of this you can't really draw the sort of lines nowadays that maybe you could have in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as there has been so much development and exchanges of ideas in the revolutionary left, not to mention that in the academic world the various disciplines have taken up and expanded our ideas as well.

There is so much overlap and cross-contribution that when describing marxism in general all you can really do is note the common traits; class analysis of society and the state coupled with fervent anti-capitalism. I'm not sure that there is much more you could include in a general description of marxism without excluding major schools of thought.

A lot of marxists do share a hell of a lot of ideas with anarchists - and vice versa - and to take an intellectually exclusive standpoint in regards to them, their analysis and their movement is something that I think is negative for us.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Except, this is a fundamentally meaningless statement, because the nature of this difference, and the extent to which it can be resolved in favour of joint revolutionary action, depends entirely on how both anarchists and "Leninists" (not all of the currents which draw inspiration from Lenin and admire the legacy of the Bolshevik revolution can be placed in the same category - "Leninism" is yet another meaningless term) define the state. There will never be a point during a period of revolutionary change when the working class is confronted with a simple choice of whether to create a state or not, in the sense of something that can be settled simply by implementing a particular decree, because states do not spontaneously come into existence out of nothing - there will be currents arguing in favour of different modes of organization, and the development of the revolution will depend on the relative strength of these different currents within the ranks of the working class. As other contributors have already pointed out, there have been historic examples of workers taking power that Marxists have interpreted as the creation of a workers state, because the workers who were involved created an apparatus capable of defending their position against the inevitable response of the former bourgeoisie - in other words, a set of institutions compatible with the Marxist analysis of what constitutes a state - and yet these exact same examples, of which the Paris Commune is perhaps the most famous, have also been praised by Anarchists as proof that the state needs to be overthrown and cast aside forever, with the emerging administrative body being of a qualitatively different form. This in itself is evidence that expressing the difference between Anarchists and Marxists as one "side" being "in favour" of the state is totally simplistic.

Simple problems get simple answers. I will be surprised if many people read that boring pointless chunk of pragraphless text which could be summed up in one paragraph.

Anyway down to business. You say that the working class "will be confronted with the choice" , well not really your will forgive me for being abit dubious if a group of people whom profess they need lead the working class, will give the working class that choice.

To put it simply , we dont trust you and have good historical reasons not too.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

'Leninists' are Marxists, the only ones that count anyway.

In terms of what , a big significant force?

The far left is not a big significant force in the west , including Leninist and anarchists.

[ls]

'Leninists' are Marxists, the only ones that count anyway.

Leninism is the most vile corruption of Marxism and really plumbs stinking new depths. You should really think about revising or removing that 100% incorrect, wholly and thoroughly shitty statement.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Simple problems get simple answers. I will be surprised if many people read that boring pointless chunk of pragraphless text which could be summed up in one paragraph.

Anyway down to business. You say that the working class "will be confronted with the choice" , well not really your will forgive me for being abit dubious if a group of people whom profess they need lead the working class, will give the working class that choice.

To put it simply , we dont trust you and have good historical reasons not too.

It would appear that you completely misunderstood his entire post.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

enlighten me.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

There will never be a point during a period of revolutionary change when the working class is confronted with a simple choice of whether to create a state or not


You say that the working class "will be confronted with the choice"

It might be beneficial to reread his post.

[YSR]

As many have pointed out, the terms are poorly defined here. I actually think that anarchism has very little in common with the majority of Marxist praxis. There are plenty of Marxist theorists, particularly those on the far left of the Marxian tradition, who fit quite nicely with anarchist goals.

One of the problems that further muddles this issue is the poverty of thought among contemporary revolutionary traditions. Marxists as well as anarchists often do little more than repeat outdated slogans that weren't terribly relevant when they were first introduced (notably propaganda by the deed for circle A's and the whole of Trotskyism in the Marxist category.) Instead of engaging with the reality of working class struggle, the push to simply state the "opinions" of past sloganeers seems to be the approach that most would-be revolutionaries take.

What continues to get me down about RevLeft and other leftist communities ostensibly devoted learning more about how the world functions (the ostensible goal of theory) and exchanging ideas to strengthen the class movement is a devotion to orthodox ideas. Some of the most fascinating thinking that's going on in anarchist and Marxist circles, which tends actually to be the thinking that shares a great deal of common values, is almost totally absent from discussion around here. Instead of dealing with the fascinating concepts advanced by those at the margins of the revolutionary canon (where, as we know, the real developments tend to happen) folks are content to argue over the meaning of a phrase of Marx or the legacy of the First or Second Internationals, as if those meant anything at all to the actual class struggle that is taking place today.

[redarmyfaction38]

This is something I have been thinking about for a while, and in light of the recent thread about anarchism and Marxism being "enemies", I decided to bring this up.

Let's discuss in what ways both anarchists and Marxists are united. Through what means could the (in my opinion) minimally divergent strands of thought be united?

Maybe it is my particular perception of Marxism that makes me virtually non-hostile towards anarchism, but I really cannot find a point of difference between Anarchism and Marxism that I can't personally explain away. Writing in my notes I'm looking for a way to unite the two, regardless of the history of both.

Any one else want to discuss? I'm new to this forum, and this is a topic I'm particularly interested in, simply because in the event of a revolution, I refuse to believe it is proper to exclude either anarchist or Marxist. We simply share too many values to focus on the values we do not.

"history" is the problem between anarchists and communists, the role of "communist" paRTIES IN THE spanish civil war, trotskys solution to the "anarchist" uprising during the russian civil war.
the "history" is worth researching, it IS contradictory.
"trotskyists" largely found themselves on the side of "anarchists" during the spanish civil war and suffered from "communist party" compromise with fascist and capitalist forces (george orwell, homage to catalonia).
YET, trotsky ordered the "shooting down like pigeons" of anarchists in the russian fleet during the russian civil war.
i woud argue "circumstances dictate" but the anarchists will argue they don't.

[BobKKKindle$]

On the subject of "Leninism", there is no coherent body of ideas that can be described as such. Not only have Lenin's texts been interpreted in different ways, often in order to justify a particular course of action, but Lenin was also operating under specific historic conditions, and his ideas on how revolutionaries should go about organizing themselves are derived from an analysis of those conditions - he was never under the impression that revolutionaries living elsewhere or during different historical epochs should take his ideas and experiences as dogma and apply them in exactly the same way in their own countries, without any alteration to suit local circumstances. In fact, this was exactly the point that Rosa Luxemburg made in 'Organizational Questionsof the Russian Social Democracy', in which she pointed out that Lenin's emphasis on internal discipline and a restricted party membership was based on the absence of political freedom in Russia under the reign of the Tsar, as well as the numerical weakness of the proletariat relative to the rest of the population, and so in more developed countries, in which political liberties had been won, revolutionaries can be more open in the way we organize ourselves, and open our party up to a wider scope of workers who are interested in radical ideas and struggle.

[apathy maybe]

*Yawn* This is a boring thread.

Marxists are nasty!

No, only Leninists are nasty!

No, anarchists are smelly children!

Am not!

Are too!

You're nasty!

You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny!

Marxists are power worshippers!

Am not!

Actually, only Leninists are power worshippers, some Marxists are nice!

Leninists are the only true Marxists!

Are not!

Are too!

Marxists and anarchists can work together, I've seen them.

Marxists are stupid.

Not as stupid as anarchists!
-----


Boring one line pieces of shit mostly.

So on that, I hereby call for this thread to be closed for being a large pile of shit, with only a few nuggets of chocolate. Unfortunately, the chocolate is shit coloured, and it is sometimes hard to tell it from the shit...

---

Last point, to generalise all anarchists as a single group, and all Marxists as a single group is fucking stupid. As mentioned, anarchists can and do work with Marxists (including Leninists). However, there are some issues that anarchists have a different opinion on to some Marxists (e.g. "the state"). Many of these differences are semantic, but not all.

Anyway, to generalise is fucking stupid, and you all should be ashamed.

[Hessian Peel]

In terms of what , a big significant force?

The far left is not a big significant force in the west , including Leninist and anarchists.

The West isn't likely to be an arena for intense class struggle anytime soon so in that regard it hardly matters compared with other regions like South Asia where there are certainly a lot more 'Leninists' than anarchists.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

It might be beneficial to reread his post.

Alright my mistake. The Working class will have the ability to choose if to build a state or not because a working class revolution is powered by the working class - no by middle class students whom have great ambitions to lead the "noble barbarians" that they see cleaning the streets and building their homes.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

The West isn't likely to be an arena for intense class struggle anytime soon so in that regard it hardly matters compared with other regions like South Asia where there are certainly a lot more 'Leninists' than anarchists.

Yes but all those maoists are doing is upgrading feudalism to capitalism. To be honest i seriously doubt they give a fuck about your cheer leading sqaud in the west.

[Forward Union]

Marxists and Anarchists are largely opposed.

Certainly they are united in the case of non political bodies such as unions and residents associations (if marxists even care about the latter) but when it comes to political bodies, they embark on different, even conflicting paths.

[Poison]

That, I really have no problems with Anarchists apart from the fact that they will ALWAYS shit on Marxism-Leninism/other schools of Marxist thought and have the same arguements "lol the USSR failed and wasn't real socialism look at Spain anarchism worked there haha u suck".

The problem I have with them is they seemingly refuse to work with anyone apart from Anarchists.

Myself, I would gladly participate alongside Anarchists if ever a revolution, if only they were willing to co operate with Marxists.

Really? Most anti-capitalist anarchists I know, including myself, consider themselves communist but simply not Marxist. I don't think any of us have any serious problems with Marxists or Marxism, just the occasional authoritarian types you'll find.

[Yazman]

Alright my mistake. The Working class will have the ability to choose if to build a state or not because a working class revolution is powered by the working class - no by middle class students whom have great ambitions to lead the "noble barbarians" that they see cleaning the streets and building their homes.

I don't know what country you live in but we don't all live in places with fully privatised tertiary education. "worker" and "student" are not mutually exclusive. You can have a tertiary education and still be a worker, I don't like this anti-intellectual attitude because it really doesn't get us anywhere to equate tertiary education with the middle or upper classes when in many countries workers are able to get an education free of charge.

[Marxist]

Really? Most anti-capitalist anarchists I know, including myself, consider themselves communist but simply not Marxist. I don't think any of us have any serious problems with Marxists or Marxism, just the occasional authoritarian types you'll find.
I see it exactly like that , just with the difference of being a marxist.

[BobKKKindle$]

Alright my mistake. The Working class will have the ability to choose if to build a state or not because a working class revolution is powered by the working class - no by middle class students whom have great ambitions to lead the "noble barbarians" that they see cleaning the streets and building their homesI don't think you're dealing with the central issues of the debate. The most basic premise of Marxism is that the liberation of the proletariat must be the work of the proletariat itself, conducted through mass struggle, whereby the proletariat makes itself the subject of history, freeing itself from the control of alien and hostile forces. Marx always argued against those who thought that liberation could occur through the intrigues of a small group separated from the rest of society, comprised of intellectuals who saw themselves as being uniquely positioned to implement social revolution in order to create a society based on rational principles and improve the lives of the working population, as advocated by various pseudo-socialists such as Lassalle, and the Fabians. Based on this, it would appear that your point about middle-class students does not add anything to the discussion.

If you go back and read my original post in this thread, you will find the point I took issue with was the characterization of the state as something that can simply be created by passing a decree - this characterization is present in many Anarchist critiques of Marxism, which warn that Marxists will inevtiably try and create a state during a period of revolutionary struggle, eventually resulting in the birth of a new ruling class. This characterization is flawed because whether a given set of institutions can be understood as a state or not depends entirely on how we analyze the state in the abstract - for Marxists, the state can assume many different forms depending on the balance of class forces, and is fundamentally the apparatus by which the ruling class is able to defend itself and enforce the dominant relations of production, which, in the context of a socialist society, would mean the proletariat fighting to defend socialism, and maintain collective and democratic ownership of the means of production. Anarchists, on the other hand, tend to conceive of the state as something inherently bound up with hierarchy and oppression - in other words, they derive their analysis of the state from how the state manifests itself in a society based on the rule of a minority. We can see, therefore, that part of the problem lies in the lack of a coherent definition of what the state is. This is not to say, however, that there are no meaningful differences between Marxists and Anarchists in terms of how we approach questions of political organization and strategy, but the point to keep in mind is that these differences will manifest themselves in the form of different pressures and trends within the revolutionary movement itself - such that Marxists are liable to argue in favour of greater centralization and the rule of majorities, whereas Anarchists may support a more consensus-based approach. There will never be a definite point at which we can say that a state has suddenly been created when none existed before, because any organizational trend gains support gradually over a period of time, and may eventually recede as a result of changing circumstances. For this reason, speaking of the state as something that people can just create out of thin air shows a failure to understand the fundamental nature of the state, and is not a helpful way to discuss Anarchism and Marxism.

[ls]

I don't know what country you live in but we don't all live in places with fully privatised tertiary education. "worker" and "student" are not mutually exclusive. You can have a tertiary education and still be a worker, I don't like this anti-intellectual attitude because it really doesn't get us anywhere to equate tertiary education with the middle or upper classes when in many countries workers are able to get an education free of charge.

What the fuck? He never said they were mutually exclusive, he said middle-class student not simply student.


..Based on this, it would appear that your point about middle-class students does not add anything to the discussion.

I'd disagree and say that there are many who may like to believe, they believe in Marxism but do not in fact adhere to its principles (ie marxist-leninism and its ultra-vanguardist bullshit).


for Marxists, the state can assume many different forms depending on the balance of class forces, and is fundamentally the apparatus by which the ruling class is able to defend itself and enforce the dominant relations of production, which, in the context of a socialist society, would mean the proletariat fighting to defend socialism, and maintain collective and democratic ownership of the means of production.

Anarchists, on the other hand, tend to conceive of the state as something inherently bound up with hierarchy and oppression - in other words, they derive their analysis of the state from how the state manifests itself in a society based on the rule of a minority.

And that it's all too likely that any rule of a minority will lead to corruption. Here are fundamental differences in ethics and core values that cannot be overcome by a bit of whining.


We can see, therefore, that part of the problem lies in the lack of a coherent definition of what the state is.

Or your definition(s) of it suck.


This is not to say, however, that there are no meaningful differences between Marxists and Anarchists in terms of how we approach questions of political organization and strategy

Obviously..


but the point to keep in mind is that these differences will manifest themselves in the form of different pressures and trends within the revolutionary movement itself - such that Marxists are liable to argue in favour of greater centralization and the rule of majorities, whereas Anarchists may support a more consensus-based approach. There will never be a definite point at which we can say that a state has suddenly been created when none existed before, because any organizational trend gains support gradually over a period of time, and may eventually recede as a result of changing circumstances. For this reason, speaking of the state as something that people can just create out of thin air shows a failure to understand the fundamental nature of the state, and is not a helpful way to discuss Anarchism and Marxism.

The fundamental nature of the state is an opinion and not something you should try to force on everybody else, greater centralisation is entirely possible but the rule of majorities happening under Marxism more-so than under Anarchism is incorrect.

I think the two are quite fundamentally opposed to each other yet that doesn't mean collaboration isn't always impossible (ie the no2id stuff).

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

And that it's all too likely that any rule of a minority will lead to corruption. Here are fundamental differences in ethics and core values that cannot be overcome by a bit of whining.

As if this were something that Marxists advocated...

[Blackscare]

As if this were something that Marxists advocated...

When the job of directing society is delegated to a small number of elected people, it breeds complacency, and eliminates the chance of majority rule in any meaningful way. Those who seek to get elected to positions obviously want to be there, and given power (especially within a party framework, although granted that's not a marxist idea) they will inevitably use their influence to retain their power.

Even if elected democratically, representative government in any form is wrong. Only through direct democracy can true majority rule take place. Anything else is a minority rule, because those in power are much more able to effect the outcome of events and elections than those who are not.

Not so sure to what extent that ties into orthodox marxism per se, but that may have been what the person you quoted was getting at. And if he was instead referring to vanguard parties, it doesn't matter because I got to do a short rant against representative democracy :lol:

[Nils T.]

There's all kinds of marxists. But most of them are indeed favorable to the centralization of the power in the hands of a minority, elected or coopted.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

There's all kinds of marxists. But most of them are indeed favorable to the centralization of the power in the hands of a minority, elected or coopted.

Isn't this only true of the doctrines of Marxism named after a leader.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

When the job of directing society is delegated to a small number of elected people, it breeds complacency, and eliminates the chance of majority rule in any meaningful way. Those who seek to get elected to positions obviously want to be there, and given power (especially within a party framework, although granted that's not a marxist idea) they will inevitably use their influence to retain their power.

Even if elected democratically, representative government in any form is wrong. Only through direct democracy can true majority rule take place. Anything else is a minority rule, because those in power are much more able to effect the outcome of events and elections than those who are not.

Not so sure to what extent that ties into orthodox marxism per se, but that may have been what the person you quoted was getting at. And if he was instead referring to vanguard parties, it doesn't matter because I got to do a short rant against representative democracy :lol:

Uh, yes, representative democracy isn't democracy.


There's all kinds of marxists. But most of them are indeed favorable to the centralization of the power in the hands of a minority, elected or coopted.

Then they aren't Marxists. :)


Isn't this only true of the doctrines of Marxism named after a leader.

:lol:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What I meant SocialismOrBarbarism was a leader of a country. Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism etic. These theories are for centralisation are they not?

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

They are not allies.Anarchism is the system that serves imperialism and siply ruins things.It the thought of a foolish child simply wanting to rebel against everything.To sum it up thaey weaken the prolaterian cause.

[Nils T.]

Uh, yes, representative democracy isn't democracy. That's true. As much as democracy is not anarchy. The right to choose who exert a coercing power is not equivalent to exerting it directly.

Then they aren't Marxists. :)I trust them when they claim the name. But marxism is an ideology, a self-preserving and inbreeded mass of ideas which can be far off from marx's original works.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

That's true. As much as democracy is not anarchy. The right to choose who exert a coercing power is not equivalent to exerting it directly.

Anarchy isn't democracy? That's nice to know.

[GPDP]

Alright, this thread is going off the deep-end. Now we're accusing each other of adhering to things we may or may not actually subscribe to, based on stereotypical and misguided prejudices on what the other side actually advocates. And the confusion in terms does not help things.

[StalinFanboy]

They are not allies.Anarchism is the system that serves imperialism and siply ruins things.It the thought of a foolish child simply wanting to rebel against everything.To sum it up thaey weaken the prolaterian cause.
I know anarcho-punks that are smarter than you.

[bcbm]

The West isn't likely to be an arena for intense class struggle anytime soon

Uh... maybe you haven't been reading the news... if that isn't the case, what bizarro universe are you in and how did you stumble into ours?