Anti-anarchism from marxists

[n0thing]

How prevalent is this? I've unsubscribed from two major marxist news sources in the past week because of their rabid anti-anarchism. I don't particularly care if leninists take an anti-anarchist standpoint, (I don't care about any leninist standpoint on anything), but I've always considered the historical, unrevised marxism to be a good ideology with some sensible adherants.

Thoughts from marxists?

[Prairie Fire]

1. Any "Marxist" that isn't a Leninist, didn't really read Marx.

2. Denouncing Anarchism is not an addition of Lenin. Karl and Friedrich Engels were explicitly clear on anarchism at the time (examplified by Bakunin, etc).

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/anarchism/index.htm



Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

F.Engels, On Authority
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

Lenin was simply carrying on the long standing Marxist tradition of criticizing all non-Marxist, non-working class trends.


3. This street goes both ways.

I have been to many an anarchist bookfair where the archetype "Leninist student" is portrayed in literature as a devil akin to any agent of the bourgeois state ( which may be an ironic sort of projection of their own self image, as the mainly student based anarchist left characterizes the Marxist-Leninist movement as being a campus trend :rolleyes:).

http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/rcp_flag.jpg
Anarchist cartoon, with the symbol of the RCP-USA burning


How many times do RAANites brag that they beat up RCP/ Leninist/ "Authortarian"/ Marxist comrades? In contrast, how many times do these RAANite brownshirts attack agents of the bourgeois state (because, to anachists, the state is enemy #1....right? :D)?

The interesting thing is that the amount of Marxist criticism of anarchism is dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of anarchist criticism of Marxism.

This has largely to do with the fact that anarchism has become something of a body of criticism (often unfounded) of Marxism, rather than a revolutionary theory in it's own right, as anarchist author Chris Day aknowledges in his text The Historical Failure of Anarchism:


...Reduced by devastating defeats to critiquing the authoritarianism of Marxists, nationalists and others, anarchism has become defined by this gadfly role. Consequently anarchist thinking has not had to adapt in response to the results of serious efforts to put our ideas into practice. In the process anarchist theory has become ossified, sterile and anemic. In the place of substantive political debate the anarchist movement has raised the personal quarrel to an art form. On the rare occasions that substantive issues are broached the response is invariably concerned more with the process by which they were broached or speculation on the character-structure of anybody who would question the received anarchist wisdom than with the political content of what has been said. This is a reflection of anarchism’s effective removal from the revolutionary struggle.
Chris Day, The Historical Failure of Anarchism,1996
http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/historical_failure_of_aanarchism_chris_day_kasama. pdf

Marxist literature from Marxist parties, on the other hand, has little to offer about anarchism. While behind closed doors criticisms are often made, any serious Marxist party usually publishes very little about anarchism, save a pamphlet or so, and then moves on to the real issues at hand.

I think that in general, any modern day organization that typifies their work and their political calls to action with critiques of other ideological tendencies really has nothing to offer the working class, because this is a clear sign that they have not developed their own politics and theory.

This goes for anarchists, Trots, left-communists, but also some Marxist-Leninists as well.

If the HU had any short comings, it was this.

Anyways, boo-hoo. Some "Marxist" publication (which obviously has a little too much free time if they are criticizing or rehashing a critique of an insignificant movement that has not played a role in most major struggles) dissed your utopian theory, even though anarchists do the same to reds, and now you are going to unsubscribe from their lists and sulk?

Instead, if you have that kind of free time, read some works:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm

[Kibbutznik]

1. Any "Marxist" that isn't a Leninist, didn't really read Marx.

Awfully axiomatic of you, comrade.


2. Denouncing Anarchism is not an addition of Lenin. Karl and Friedrich Engels were explicitly clear on anarchism at the time (examplified by Bakunin, etc).

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/anarchism/index.htm

F.Engels, On Authority
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

Lenin was simply carrying on the long standing Marxist tradition of criticizing all non-Marxist, non-working class trends.

An unfortunate knee-jerk reaction that ought not to be repeated by any honest, thoughtful revolutionary in this day, regardless of whether they fly a black or a red flag.


3. This street goes both ways.

I have been to many an anarchist bookfair where the archetype "Leninist student" is portrayed in literature as a devil akin to any agent of the bourgeois state ( which may be an ironic sort of projection of their own self image, as the mainly student based anarchist left characterizes the Marxist-Leninist movement as being a campus trend :rolleyes:).

Obviously anarchist groups have their own owning up to do. But the mere fact that both sides engage in the same self-defeating tactics doesn't make it right or conducive to our larger goals



http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/rcp_flag.jpg
Anarchist cartoon, with the symbol of the RCP-USA burning

Quite frankly, organizations like the RCP reap what they sow.


The interesting thing is that the amount of Marxist criticism of anarchism is dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of anarchist criticism of Marxism.

This has largely to do with the fact that anarchism has become something of a body of criticism (often unfounded) of Marxism, rather than a revolutionary theory in it's own right, as anarchist author Chris Day aknowledges in his text The Historical Failure of Anarchism:

Chris Day, The Historical Failure of Anarchism,1996
http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/historical_failure_of_aanarchism_chris_day_kasama. pdf

Again, this sort of thing did not develop in a vacuum. The repeated apologetics for Stalinist terror in the USSR by Marxists across made such an enterprise vitally necessary if ever socialism were ever to be seen again as anything other than brutal state terror.

We all have our owning up to do here. Do not pretend that the Marxist left is more blameless than the anarchist left.


Marxist literature from Marxist parties, on the other hand, has little to offer about anarchism. While behind closed doors criticisms are often made, any serious Marxist party usually publishes very little about anarchism, save a pamphlet or so, and then moves on to the real issues at hand.

I think that in general, any modern day organization that typifies their work and their political calls to action with critiques of other ideological tendencies really has nothing to offer the working class, because this is a clear sign that they have not developed their own politics and theory.

This goes for anarchists, Trots, left-communists, but also some Marxist-Leninists as well.

On this we are agreed.


Anyways, boo-hoo. Some "Marxist" publication (which obviously has a little too much free time if they are criticizing or rehashing a critique of an insignificant movement that has not played a role in most major struggles) dissed your utopian theory, even though anarchists do the same to reds, and now you are going to unsubscribe from their lists and sulk?

Instead, if you have that kind of free time, read some works:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm

Arrogantly calling anarchism insignificant (it isn't; anarchists have been a player in every major Western social movement of the past century and a half), and plugging State and Revolution isn't going to foster debate or the reconciliation of differences.

[Red Economist]

anarchist 'ideology' is incompatable with marxism because it is 'idealist' whilst marxism is 'scientific'. but french socialism (and anarchism, especially proudhon 'property is theft' arguement) had a direct impact on marx's ideas.

however, marxism sets out to abolish the capitalist state, and fuse the state with the proletariat ('proletarian democracy' and when it compells other people to abide by it's decisions by 'tryanny by majority', it's the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'- but not a one man dictatorship!) under socialism.

the line is of course that you need an 'intellectual' vangaurd to educate/agigtate/spread propaganda for marxism and but this should never be an elite setting out to control the workers (which then leads to stalinism and a big blood bath)

keep in mind that the communist manifesto also talks about the abolition of the nation (for the world economy/ world proletariat), family (for education), religion (for science), private property (for social ownership) as well as the state (for proletarian democracy). it is probably more anarchist in some respects than the original anarchists.

if you can swallow the vangaurdism and the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (where the 'state' is infact the largest class in society), marxism is still very 'anarchist', just in an ultra-collectivist way.

p.s. know the feeling of being an anarchist and a marxist...struggling to find any-groups myself. lenin and trotsky aren't completely wrong, just too controlling.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

How prevalent is this? I've unsubscribed from two major marxist news sources in the past week because of their rabid anti-anarchism. I don't particularly care if leninists take an anti-anarchist standpoint, (I don't care about any leninist standpoint on anything), but I've always considered the historical, unrevised marxism to be a good ideology with some sensible adherants.

Thoughts from marxists?
What news sources were they? If they were Leninist ones, it's hardly surprising.

Any "Marxist" that isn't a Leninist, didn't really read Marx.
Lol, go tell Devrim that.


the line is of course that you need an 'intellectual' vangaurd to educate/agigtate/spread propaganda for marxism and but this should never be an elite setting out to control the workers (which then leads to stalinism and a big blood bath)

That's Leninism.

if you can swallow the vangaurdism and the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (where the 'state' is infact the largest class in society), marxism is still very 'anarchist', just in an ultra-collectivist way.

But why would you swallow that vanguard? Are you familiar with anarchist (and libertarian Marxist, for that matter) critiques of why vanguardist organisations cannot create genuine communism?

[n0thing]

anarchist 'ideology' is incompatable with marxism because it is 'idealist' whilst marxism is 'scientific'. but french socialism (and anarchism, especially proudhon 'property is theft' arguement) had a direct impact on marx's ideas.

however, marxism sets out to abolish the capitalist state, and fuse the state with the proletariat ('proletarian democracy' and when it compells other people to abide by it's decisions by 'tryanny by majority', it's the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'- but not a one man dictatorship!) under socialism.

the line is of course that you need an 'intellectual' vangaurd to educate/agigtate/spread propaganda for marxism and but this should never be an elite setting out to control the workers (which then leads to stalinism and a big blood bath)

keep in mind that the communist manifesto also talks about the abolition of the nation (for the world economy/ world proletariat), family (for education), religion (for science), private property (for social ownership) as well as the state (for proletarian democracy). it is probably more anarchist in some respects than the original anarchists.

if you can swallow the vangaurdism and the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (where the 'state' is infact the largest class in society), marxism is still very 'anarchist', just in an ultra-collectivist way.

p.s. know the feeling of being an anarchist and a marxist...struggling to find any-groups myself. lenin and trotsky aren't completely wrong, just too controlling.
Please explain how anarchism is idealistic or unscientific.

[ZeroNowhere]

Please explain how anarchism is idealistic or unscientific.
Look at how many more Hegelian anarchists there are than Hegelian Marxists!


if you can swallow the vangaurdism and the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (where the 'state' is infact the largest class in society), marxism is still very 'anarchist', just in an ultra-collectivist way.Nah, we're not 'collectivist' as opposed to 'individualist'.

[Devrim]

Any "Marxist" that isn't a Leninist, didn't really read Marx.

Lol, go tell Devrim that.

I don't really call myself a 'Marxist' though the organisation that I belong to does. I don't feel personally comfortable with the idea of naming a political theory after an individual, which has certainly developed bad connetations in the workers movement since Stalinism.

However, the point that TUF makes is absolutely right. There are many Marxists who are not leninists and have certainly read their Marx. Harry Cleaver would be just one example, from a current completely different from ours, for those who have read his work.

Devrim

Devrim

[ZeroNowhere]

Harry Cleaver would be just one example, from a current completely different from ours, for those who have read his work.To be fair, PF said 'really read', presumably implying not misreading.

[9]

To be fair, PF said 'really read', presumably implying not misreading.

The meaning of the statement in question certainly seems to me to quite clearly be that "any 'Marxist' that isn't a Leninist did not, in actuality, ever read Marx" [the implication being that in spite of the fact that they call themselves "Marxists", they haven't even read the works of Marx].
Though I won't veer any further off the intended topic; perhaps the poster who made the comment will clarify as to his or her meaning.

--

In response to the OP, yes this problem is massive, but it is important to bear in mind that it most definitely goes both ways. The example you cite - of obsessive and pointless anarchist-bashing from Marxists - is just one of the countless examples of mindless sectarianism which seems presently to plague every current within the revolutionary left. Which isn't to suggest that Marxists, by and large, haven't historically been very critical of anarchism and vice versa. But the problem in recent times has become largely, if not near-exclusively, that the opposition by anarchists to Marxism and by Marxists to anarchism (and by every tendency to another) is based, not on sound critique of divergent tactics, but rather upon ignorant assumptions, inaccurate generalizations/associations, and the desire by individual leftists to achieve inter-group acceptance without really having to apply themselves. I think informed critiques by one group of another are incontrovertibly justified and healthy, but the chief prerequisite for an informed critiques is, as the term itself implies, that one has taken the time beforehand to thoroughly inform herself about the subject which she is critiquing. And it is the general absence of that seemingly-obvious prerequisite which is so problematic.

As to why this tendency-bashing (for lack of a better word) is now so prevalent and lacking substance so thoroughly... I think much of it may come down to the relative weakness of all tendencies within the revolutionary left at the present stage. That, in a time when the ("western") socialist/communist/anarchist left is enjoying little success or relevance with regard to the sentiments of the broader proletariat, the act of denigrating and ridiculing other similar (in the relative sense, with regard to the dominant ideology) leftist 'tendencies' becomes a way for one to attempt to validate their own tendency/current/ideology. It serves as sort of a herd mentality compulsion which creates the illusion, among one's own tendency, of possessing greater relevance and authority when neither claim can be substantiated by reality in the present.
Though I really don't want to start getting into my speculations on the psychology behind it all, so I'll leave it at that.

But I would simply conclude by saying that such behavior, insofar as it is characterized by ignorance and weak generalizations, is absolutely counterproductive to the broader fundamental causes shared by the major tendencies among the revolutionary left, in addition to being petty and immature. If any tendency is to gain greater popularity, authority, and relevance, it must honestly analyze its own positions and tactics, and provide an unbiased, informed critique of these and then apply this same process of analysis to divergent tendencies among the left.

EDIT: to the original poster, you may also be interested in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchism-and-whatnot-t115481/index.html?t=115481) by Comrade_Alastair (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=15425) very much related to the topic at hand.

[chimx]

From my experience, Marxists dislike anarchists because they are an irrelevant ideology that more often than not gives the socialist left a bad name.

[9]

From my experience, Marxists dislike anarchists because they are an irrelevant ideology that more often than not gives the socialist left a bad name.

I really could not have asked for a better comment than the most recent one to illustrate exactly what I was talking about in the third "mini-paragraph" of my previous comment. If you look at the majority of proletarians in the US, you are absolutely correct that anarchism is largely irrelevant to them. What you do not say is that Marxism is virtually just as irrelevant to US workers right now. I started out as an anarchist, I am now a Marxist. I think there are a whole host of problems with anarchism, which is why I broke with the tendency in the first place. But the idea that we can look around us at the proletarian masses embracing Marxism and rejecting anarchism as irrelevant is absurd. At the present time, the proletarian masses are equally rejecting both ideologies as irrelevant, and to pretend otherwise is to be completely removed from the reality of the working class in the present.
I really hope that you, the pot, can think of a better criticism of the kettle than merely to state "it's black". Because the kettle isn't the only one.

[manic expression]

What you do not say is that Marxism is virtually just as irrelevant to US workers right now.

I don't think so. Even if there wasn't a single communist party in the US, Marxism would still be just as relevant as ever to the workers of the US. Marxism is relevant to every worker, everywhere, precisely because it outlines the principles of revolution.

Now beyond that, Marxists in the US have been instrumental in organizing protests against imperialist wars, calling out the self-serving behavior of the capitalists and bankers, opposing anti-immigrant policies; if you go back 40 years, Marxists shook the foundations of American politics through the revolutionary activities of the Black Panthers and Young Lords. Marxists are definitely relevant to the US working class, even if they're relatively small at the moment (although that will change in the future).

[9]

I don't think so. Even if there wasn't a single communist party in the US, Marxism would still be just as relevant as ever to the workers of the US. Marxism is relevant to every worker, everywhere, precisely because it outlines the principles of revolution.

Now beyond that, Marxists in the US have been instrumental in organizing protests against imperialist wars, calling out the self-serving behavior of the capitalists and bankers, opposing anti-immigrant policies; if you go back 40 years, Marxists shook the foundations of American politics through the revolutionary activities of the Black Panthers and Young Lords. Marxists are definitely relevant to the US working class, even if they're relatively small at the moment (although that will change in the future).

Let me first say, as I said in my previous posts, that I am talking about the present. I realize Marxism, in the theoretical sense, is relevant to workers insofar as class antagonisms and interests are relevant to workers - and, of course, these things are infinitely relevant. But Marxism - Communism - as a political philosophy that the workers are supporting and uniting behind.... well, this is hardly happening at all. I go to work and try to talk to my coworkers about Marxism, I'm cut off right away. No one will even listen to anything I have to say if I so much as mention the word "Marxism", or say things like "capital/capitalism" or "imperialism" or "bourgeoisie" or "proletariat" or if I try to talk about class interests or worker control. I've even gotten shunned several times by a couple of my coworkers merely for suggesting we vote to unionize the lab. And from what I understand from talking to other people, this reaction is extremely common.
We can talk about the credentials of Marxism in the mid-20th century 'til our tongues dry up, but what is happening now, in the present - decades after McCarthyism and the Cold War - is something very much different.

[ZeroNowhere]

From my experience, Marxists dislike anarchists because they are an irrelevant ideology that more often than not gives the socialist left a bad name.But then surely we should commit suicide out of self-loathing?
And I assure you that the socialist left would be doing just as badly without anarchists, if not worse. Socialism is generally seen as bad because it is overly authoritarian, I'm quite sure that this isn't because of anarchists.

Unless that was satire, in which case, you're just not very original.


Though I really don't want to start getting into my speculations on the psychology behind it all, so I'll leave it at that.Good.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

anarchist 'ideology' is incompatable with marxism because it is 'idealist' whilst marxism is 'scientific'. but french socialism (and anarchism, especially proudhon 'property is theft' arguement) had a direct impact on marx's ideas.

How did you work that one out?


the line is of course that you need an 'intellectual' vangaurd to educate/agigtate/spread propaganda for marxism and but this should never be an elite setting out to control the workers (which then leads to stalinism and a big blood bath)

The Soviet Union already descended into a State-Capitalist bureaucratic state before Stalin came along.



keep in mind that the communist manifesto also talks about the abolition of the nation (for the world economy/ world proletariat), family (for education), religion (for science), private property (for social ownership) as well as the state (for proletarian democracy). it is probably more anarchist in some respects than the original anarchists.

Once again, how can you explain this ridiculous statement?


if you can swallow the vangaurdism and the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (where the 'state' is infact the largest class in society), marxism is still very 'anarchist', just in an ultra-collectivist way.

And what the hell does that mean? How does Anarchist and Marxist theory on collectivisation differ?

[chimx]

I really could not have asked for a better comment than the most recent one to illustrate exactly what I was talking about in the third "mini-paragraph" of my previous comment. If you look at the majority of proletarians in the US, you are absolutely correct that anarchism is largely irrelevant to them. What you do not say is that Marxism is virtually just as irrelevant to US workers right now.

I'm not suggesting that your average American has read Marx. But Marx's historical materialism remains relevant, even if those involved in class struggle are unfamiliar with his work on it. The social contradictions within production have been, are, and will be present regardless of the existence or knowledge of Marx the person. Class struggle develops with no regard for philosophers and theorists.

Anarchists on the other hand are busy fighting about platforms, whining about Krondstat, wasting time with food not bombs, day dreaming about the CNT-FAI, and embarrassing everybody else when they dress in black at rallies and demonstrations.

[willdw79]

I don't think so. Even if there wasn't a single communist party in the US, Marxism would still be just as relevant as ever to the workers of the US. Marxism is relevant to every worker, everywhere, precisely because it outlines the principles of revolution.

Now beyond that, Marxists in the US have been instrumental in organizing protests against imperialist wars, calling out the self-serving behavior of the capitalists and bankers, opposing anti-immigrant policies; if you go back 40 years, Marxists shook the foundations of American politics through the revolutionary activities of the Black Panthers and Young Lords. Marxists are definitely relevant to the US working class, even if they're relatively small at the moment (although that will change in the future).
I thought you might want to read the Panthers in their own words. I have some old school newspapers of theirs that I uploaded to the web.

http://www.scribd.com/share/upload/1...iu6qy16yeoehcw (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.scribd.com/share/upload/15612115/2l62mwiu6qy16yeoehcw)

[BobKKKindle$]

To the OP: You seem to be shocked at the fact that Marxists criticize Anarchism. Given that Anarchists frequently criticize Marxism (particularly the legacy of the Russian Revolution, historical events like the Kronstadt Rebellion, Lenin's concept of the party and so on - there is of course nothing wrong with this kind of criticism, if anything it should be encouraged to foster debate within the left, even if I don't agree with many of the points that Anarchists make) I don't see why this should be so shocking, or why you should view it as so problematic that it causes you to un-subscribe from discussion groups.

Also, as PF points out, the vast majority of Marxists also see themselves as standing in Lenin's political tradition. The groups that don't - like the WSM - are generally irrelevant.


Please explain how anarchism is idealistic or unscientific. The anarchist analysis of the state is idealist, in the philosophical sense of the word. Marxism's analysis of the state is based on the premise that the state is a tool of class oppression, used to protect the dominance of the ruling class by enforcing the prevailing relations of production, and so, given that the relations of production have changed throughout history, as a result of successive revolutions, the state has assumed different forms, and has functioned in different ways. For example, the capitalist state differs from the feudal state in that it does not involve the exploited population (the peasantry under feudalism, the working class under capitalism) being tied to a specific employer, and nor does it involve the same emphasis on kinship relations ad mutual obligations between the monarchy and local rulers, as occurred under feudalism. If you accept that the state is an instrument of class domination, and part of the superstructure, then it follows that, when it has raised itself to the position of the ruling class, the working class (which actually ceases to be the working class in the process of taking power) will require its own state, which is exactly what Marxists argue. Anarchists, on the other hand, seek to abolish all states as part of a revolution against capitalism*. The only way this program of action can be made coherent is if the state is seen as a universal and an ahistorical evil, i.e. as something that is oppressive in a way that is independent of its role as the instrument of the ruling class. I have never encountered an explanation of why this is the case (probably because Anarchism lacks a clear definition of what the state is, and how it differs from the institutions that Anarchists would support in a post-revolutionary society) and this stance is problematic because it robs the state of its historical and social function, considering the state entirely in the abstract, hence it is idealist.

*Just to clarify, Marxists seek to abolish the bourgeois state as well, and the ultimate goal of socialism is to secure the withering-away of the state that the working class will use to defend itself. The working-class state is based on the institutions that emerge during the process of expropriating the bourgeoisie, i.e. the Soviets, with the power of these institutions being centralized and transformed into an effective tool through the creation of similar institutions representing larger numbers of workers, such as the Petrograd Soviet, and the All-Russia Congress of Soviets.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I'm not suggesting that your average American has read Marx. But Marx's historical materialism remains relevant, even if those involved in class struggle are unfamiliar with his work on it. The social contradictions within production have been, are, and will be present regardless of the existence or knowledge of Marx the person. Class struggle develops with no regard for philosophers and theorists.

Anarchists on the other hand are busy fighting about platforms, whining about Krondstat, wasting time with food not bombs, day dreaming about the CNT-FAI, and embarrassing everybody else when they dress in black at rallies and demonstrations.
So we have to judge marxism on some pure, idealised essence of Marx that just floats around like the holy spirit, but we have to judge anarchism by the most embarrassing behaviour of the worst anarchists you can find? I see.

[Luís Henrique]

So we have to judge marxism on some pure, idealised essence of Marx that just floats around like the holy spirit, but we have to judge anarchism by the most embarrassing behaviour of the worst anarchists you can find? I see.

It doesn't work like that.

There is an enormous corpus of Marxist analysis and theory, that can be, and is, compared with the actual practice of soi-disant Marxists. A great part of the internal bickering among Marxists is actually that; discussing whether such or such other actual practice can be upheld by Marxist theory.

So that "pure, idealised essence of Marx that just floats around like the holy spirit" is indeed quite material, not to mention quite unholy.

It works differently for anarchists because to them it's more difficult to compare their practices with an established corpus of theory (because such corpus is in their case much less developed).

And so a huge part of anarchist-dissing by Marxists is a criticism of such lack of established theory, or a criticism of the inability of anarchists to hold their actions against a theoretical background (which many Marxists interpret as an "anything goes as long its done under a black flag with a circled A" approach), or a criticism of anarchist actions by confronting them against Marxist theory.

Luís Henrique

[Die Rote Fahne]

Marxists and Anarchists only disagree about the means. The end result is the same.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

It doesn't work like that.

There is an enormous corpus of Marxist analysis and theory, that can be, and is, compared with the actual practice of soi-disant Marxists. A great part of the internal bickering among Marxists is actually that; discussing whether such or such other actual practice can be upheld by Marxist theory.
But surely all actual practices can be upheld by Marxist theory, because Marxists always develop new theories to explain why their behaviour is objectively in the historical interests of the proletariat (or something along those lines), no matter how anti-working-class it becomes? Of course, you can dispute whether these theories are authentically "Marxist" or not, but it's hard to do that without reverting to the holy essence of Marx as a standard to use.

[willdw79]

To the OP: You seem to be shocked at the fact that Marxists criticize Anarchism. Given that Anarchists frequently criticize Marxism (particularly the legacy of the Russian Revolution, historical events like the Kronstadt Rebellion, Lenin's concept of the party and so on - there is of course nothing wrong with this kind of criticism, if anything it should be encouraged to foster debate within the left, even if I don't agree with many of the points that Anarchists make) I don't see why this should be so shocking, or why you should view it as so problematic that it causes you to un-subscribe from discussion groups.

Also, as PF points out, the vast majority of Marxists also see themselves as standing in Lenin's political tradition. The groups that don't - like the WSM - are generally irrelevant.

The anarchist analysis of the state is idealist, in the philosophical sense of the word. Marxism's analysis of the state is based on the premise that the state is a tool of class oppression, used to protect the dominance of the ruling class by enforcing the prevailing relations of production, and so, given that the relations of production have changed throughout history, as a result of successive revolutions, the state has assumed different forms, and has functioned in different ways. For example, the capitalist state differs from the feudal state in that it does not involve the exploited population (the peasantry under feudalism, the working class under capitalism) being tied to a specific employer, and nor does it involve the same emphasis on kinship relations ad mutual obligations between the monarchy and local rulers, as occurred under feudalism. If you accept that the state is an instrument of class domination, and part of the superstructure, then it follows that, when it has raised itself to the position of the ruling class, the working class (which actually ceases to be the working class in the process of taking power) will require its own state, which is exactly what Marxists argue. Anarchists, on the other hand, seek to abolish all states as part of a revolution against capitalism*. The only way this program of action can be made coherent is if the state is seen as a universal and an ahistorical evil, i.e. as something that is oppressive in a way that is independent of its role as the instrument of the ruling class. I have never encountered an explanation of why this is the case (probably because Anarchism lacks a clear definition of what the state is, and how it differs from the institutions that Anarchists would support in a post-revolutionary society) and this stance is problematic because it robs the state of its historical and social function, considering the state entirely in the abstract, hence it is idealist.

*Just to clarify, Marxists seek to abolish the bourgeois state as well, and the ultimate goal of socialism is to secure the withering-away of the state that the working class will use to defend itself. The working-class state is based on the institutions that emerge during the process of expropriating the bourgeoisie, i.e. the Soviets, with the power of these institutions being centralized and transformed into an effective tool through the creation of similar institutions representing larger numbers of workers, such as the Petrograd Soviet, and the All-Russia Congress of Soviets.
I'm not an anarchist, I'm a communist, but this analysis simplifies anarchists' stance and minimizes the work of anarchists.

This type of analysis is similar to saying, "well, women usually..." or "black people think that..." I know that generalization are useful and sometimes necessary, but this is going too far.

[Eat the Rich]

Marxists and Anarchists only disagree about the means. The end result is the same.

The end result will not be the same if the means are different.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

The end result will not be the same if the means are different.
Precisely. And that's why I'm an anarchist, because I recognise that you can't achieve communism with non-communist methods.

[BobKKKindle$]

I know that generalization are useful and sometimes necessary, but this is going too far.

I made no unfair generalizations. It's fair to say that Anarchism is less unified and coherent as a political grouping than Marxism and other groupings but there are still certain positions that constitute the essence of Anarchism, such that, in order to be an Anarchist, you must hold those positions, in order to prevent the word from becoming meaningless. One of these positions and arguably the most important is that the state is a universal evil that must be overthrown as part of a revolution against capitalism, designed to eradicate hierarchy in all its forms. I pointed out in my previous post that this robs the state of its class content, and so characterizes the state as something that is inherently bad regardless of whose class interests it represents, because if Anarchists accepted that the state is simply an instrument of class rule, as Marxists do, they would be compelled to accept that the working class will need its own state to defend its class rule. This theoretical flaw of Anarchism is closely linked to the fact that Anarchists like a shared definition of the state that is grounded in a materialist analysis. Your comparison between Anarchism and Black people is absurd because you would never expect the category "Black people" to exhibit a shared set of political positions, whereas, for Anarchists, this is a fair expectation, given that Anarchism is a political ideology.

[bcbm]

Anarchists, on the other hand, seek to abolish all states as part of a revolution against capitalism*. The only way this program of action can be made coherent is if the state is seen as a universal and an ahistorical evil, i.e. as something that is oppressive in a way that is independent of its role as the instrument of the ruling class.

except that this isn't what anarchists believe (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secB2.html) at all.


It's fair to say that Anarchism is less unified and coherent as a political grouping than Marxism and other groupings

anarchist, anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalism, insurrectionary anarchism, individualist anarchism...

marxism, left communist, trotskyist (this counts as at least 80 different tendencies), marxist-leninist, stalinist, maoist, hoxhaist...

well, looks like we're both pretty spread across the board, but i've noticed anarchists of different ideologies working together a lot more than the various parties of communists, whatever that says about "unity and coherence."

[Devrim]

It's fair to say that Anarchism is less unified and coherent as a political grouping than Marxism and other groupings but there are still certain positions that constitute the essence of Anarchism,

'Anarchism' is adoes cover a pretty diverse set of ideas, but then so does 'Marxism'. There is lots of individualist nonsense that passes itself as anarchism, but then there is a lot of pseudo-Marxism about too. For example, there is a Turkish parlimentarian who follows the three Ms 'Mohammed, Marx, and Mustafa Kemal'. What is that all about?

I think to make a fair criticism of anarchism, one must criticse the anarchist organisations as they exist today, which I think can be roughly grouped into three currents, the IWA, the IAF, and the Platformists.

One can of course make criticisms like this:


Anarchists on the other hand are busy fighting about platforms, whining about Krondstat, wasting time with food not bombs, day dreaming about the CNT-FAI, and embarrassing everybody else when they dress in black at rallies and demonstrations.

This is one of the most mild versions of this line I have seen too. Generally, the thing is about smoking dope, not washing, and taking food from the rubbish.

I know a lot of anarchists. I was one in my youth. I don't know people like this at all. Most of the anarchists I know are workers, generally in the public sector, in their 40s and 50s with kids. It is funny that, isn't it, because it fits into my demographic? These are the anarchists I know because they are the sort of people I know. I think that people's perception of anarchists as 'dope smoking hippies' probably has more relationship to their own social enviornment than anarchists, particulary members of actual anarchist organisations and not people who have just picked up a vaugely fashionable label, as a whole.

Devrim

[Devrim]

well, looks like we're both pretty spread across the board, but i've noticed anarchists of different ideologies working together a lot more than the various parties of communists, whatever that says about "unity and coherence."

Personally, I would rather work with some anarchists than the overwhelming vast majority of Trotskyists. At least amongst anarchist you can find people who take class positions instead of always falling in behind a different faction of the ruling class.

Devrim

[bcbm]

the thing is about smoking dope, not washing, and taking food from the rubbish.


fuck...


Personally, I would rather work with some anarchists than the overwhelming vast majority of Trotskyists. At least amongst anarchist you can find people who take class positions instead of always falling in behind a different faction of the ruling class.

i feel the same. i've met a lot of communists of various stripes but generally i've found more common ground than difference, especially when working on practical projects, and i find a lot of this hostility to be completely worthless. we can slag each others' theories until the end of the day but what really matters if what we're doing to build the strength of our class and i could give a shit what your position is on the dprk if we're both struggling on that front.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

except that this isn't what anarchists believe (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secB2.html) at all.

I totally agree what you're saying in this thread, but I'm not sure that we believe in a broken link. You might want to fix that. ;)

[bcbm]

works for me... it just goes to a section of the anarchist faq explaining why anarchists are opposed to the state and, relevant to this discussion, explaining how anarchists view the state. section b2 i think.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Oh, yeah, it's working again now. It must've just been a temporary error or something, nevermind.

[bcbm]

try to make me look bad will ya?

[Luís Henrique]

But surely all actual practices can be upheld by Marxist theory, because Marxists always develop new theories to explain why their behaviour is objectively in the historical interests of the proletariat (or something along those lines), no matter how anti-working-class it becomes? Of course, you can dispute whether these theories are authentically "Marxist" or not, but it's hard to do that without reverting to the holy essence of Marx as a standard to use.
While anarchists simply refuse to aknowledge things like Kropotkin defending an imperialist war, just because he was an anarchist?

There is no "holy essence" of Marx. There is actual theory - loads of it.

Luís Henrique

[ZeroNowhere]

Pierre Tremaux was a racist who believed that all evolution was based upon types of soil and was wrong about everything.No, he was not. (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003806/)Stop reverting to the holy essence of Tremaux, Tremaux's writing is not scripture, you dogmatist!
Debating truly requires salvation from religious metaphors and comparisons used as slurs. Seriously, it's annoying.

[JohannGE]

Marxists and Anarchists only disagree about the means. The end result is the same.

What about the end result of the existance of the state?

[ZeroNowhere]

What about it?

[JohannGE]

What about it?

Well it's not the same.

[Tjis]

While anarchists simply refuse to aknowledge things like Kropotkin defending an imperialist war, just because he was an anarchist?
I don't know any anarchist that defends that position. Even in Kropotkin's time most anarchists disagreed with him on that.

We don't refuse to acknowledge this.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

While anarchists simply refuse to aknowledge things like Kropotkin defending an imperialist war, just because he was an anarchist?

There is no "holy essence" of Marx. There is actual theory - loads of it.

Luís Henrique
What Tijs said. I acknowledge that Kropotkin was wrong on WWI, that propaganda of the deed was a pretty useless tactic, that Bakunin was wrong on what a revolutionary organisation should look like, and so on. None of this discredits anarchist theory or authentically anarchist practice, any more that Trotsky being wrong about WWII or the atrocities of Pol Pot discredit Marxism. If anything, it vindicates anarchism - even someone as intelligent as Kropotkin still made huge mistakes, which just goes to show why we're opposed to single leaders being given positions of hierarchical authority.

[ZeroNowhere]

If anything, it vindicates anarchism - even someone as intelligent as Kropotkin still made huge mistakes, which just goes to show why we're opposed to single leaders being given positions of hierarchical authority.But then again, so are most Leninists, as well as liberals, conservatives, and so on.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The end result will not be the same if the means are different.

Statelessness -- Check.
Classlessness -- Check
Moneyless -- Check

Of course this depends on Which branch of anarchy is prescribed to. The most popular being Socialist,Syndicalist and communist anarchy.

[Luís Henrique]

None of this discredits anarchist theory or authentically anarchist practice, any more that Trotsky being wrong about WWII or the atrocities of Pol Pot discredit Marxism.
The problem is that there isn't much theory. So it is almost impossible to discuss Kropotkin's or Bakunin's mistakes in the light ot anarchist theory. So even the rejection of these errors is morel like a gut feeling.

Luís Henrique

[Pogue]

The problem is that there isn't much theory. So it is almost impossible to discuss Kropotkin's or Bakunin's mistakes in the light ot anarchist theory. So even the rejection of these errors is morel like a gut feeling.

Luís Henrique

What are you talking about? I don't see how we have any absence of theory at all. What areas do you think we haven't covered enough?

[revolution inaction]

The problem is that there isn't much theory.



The important thing about theory is the quality not the quantity.

[Eat the Rich]

Statelessness -- Check.
Classlessness -- Check
Moneyless -- Check

Of course this depends on Which branch of anarchy is prescribed to. The most popular being Socialist,Syndicalist and communist anarchy.

Oh you didn't get me. I meant that we will never reach the end result with the anarchist method, simply because anarchism is utopian.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Oh you didn't get me. I meant that we will never reach the end result with the anarchist method, simply because anarchism is utopian.

I guess you forgot about The Spanish Revolution.

[Eat the Rich]

I guess you forgot about The Spanish Revolution.


I guess I did not, because its result was a bloodbath.

[Kibbutznik]

I guess I did not, because its result was a bloodbath.
A bloodbath caused in part by the Stalinists.

If the Spanish anarchists had any failings, it was trusting in the Stalinists and trying to form a united front against Franco.

[Eat the Rich]

A bloodbath caused in part by the Stalinists.

If the Spanish anarchists had any failings, it was trusting in the Stalinists and trying to form a united front against Franco.

No it was participating in the bourgeois government and forming a popular front with the "progressive" bourgeoisie (among a million other failings).

EDIT: I am not downplaying the betrayal of the Stalinists, but the anarchists as well, at least the leading ones (same goes for the Stalinists) betrayed the revolution.

[Pogue]

I guess I did not, because its result was a bloodbath.

Just like that Russian Revolution, which ended so fantastically for the working class.

Seriously, cover your bases before you take empty cheap shots.

[manic expression]

Just like that Russian Revolution, which ended so fantastically for the working class.

Seriously, cover your bases before you take empty cheap shots.

It did.

And as for the Spanish Revolution, don't even start. The Soviets gave the Republic far more support than any other group outside of Spain, and the International Brigades arguably saved Madrid in 1936. To blame the Soviet Union for the fall of the Republic is nothing short of inexplicable.

[Eat the Rich]

Just like that Russian Revolution, which ended so fantastically for the working class.

Seriously, cover your bases before you take empty cheap shots.

The Russian Revolution was a success. It overhtrew capitalism and the Czar, opened the way for socialist construction and was the spark for a wave of revolutions in Europe that failed due to the betrayal of the Social Democrats.

If the Soviet Union degenerated that was not a result of the Russian Revolution, but of the isolation and backwardness of the early Soviet State.

[bcbm]

god not this fucking crap about the russian and spanish revolutions again.


The problem is that there isn't much theory. So it is almost impossible to discuss Kropotkin's or Bakunin's mistakes in the light ot anarchist theory. So even the rejection of these errors is morel like a gut feeling.

what? (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/malatesta/ForgottenPrinciples.html)

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Socialism is generally seen as bad because it is overly authoritarian, I'm quite sure that this isn't because of anarchists.

This is my favorite quote in this thread.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

The problem is that there isn't much theory. So it is almost impossible to discuss Kropotkin's or Bakunin's mistakes in the light ot anarchist theory. So even the rejection of these errors is morel like a gut feeling.

Luís HenriqueI think you're confusing the fact that you haven't read much anarchist theory with anarchist theory not existing. I've never found anarchism to be lacking in theory, far from it.

[bricolage]

I pointed out in my previous post that this robs the state of its class content, and so characterizes the state as something that is inherently bad regardless of whose class interests it represents

That's not actually true. As far as I understand anarchists agree with Marxists that the state represents the interests of a specific class except they maintain that whichever class assumes such hierarchical power will inevitably, due to the need to protect its own position of authority, become a bureaucratic ruling class in itself.

[Eat the Rich]

Barabbas
whichever class assumes such hierarchical power will inevitably, due to the need to protect its own position of authority, become a bureaucratic ruling class in itself.So if the proletariat assumes state power how can it become a bureaucratic ruling class ?:lol: It will be the ruling class and that's a good thing, unless you are petit-bourgeois or bourgeois

[BobKKKindle$]

....assumes such hierarchical power will inevitably.......and how would Anarchists define "hierarchy"? A quick look at the link that bcbm provided above indicates that Anarchists define the state in terms of two key attributes, one of which is hierarchy, the other being centralization. The hierarchy aspect of this is problematic because it does not acknowledge that a state can be hierarchical (however that's defined) in relation to some groups whilst being democratic and egalitarian in relation to the class whose interests it embodies. As someone who recognizes that revolution will not break out at the same time in all countries and that the proletariat will need to defend itself against a prolonged assault from the bourgeoisie, I have no problem advocating a set of institutions that are hierarchical in relation to the bourgeoisie, as well as other classes that do not share the same interests as the proletariat, such as the peasantry, but I would never dream of arguing that a workers state should be hierarchical in relation to the working class, in the sense of giving power to a small group, with no democratic safeguards such as instant recall. The centralization aspect of the definition is even more problematic because whenever workers have taken a step towards political power they have always created centralized institutions in order to ensure that the energy and resources of the class are not dissipated across many institutions but are concentrated, and thereby rendered capable of carrying out radical change, and defending working-class power. The most obvious case of this is the creation of the Petrograd Soviet, which drew on the energies of smaller district and workplace Soviets, as well as the All-Russia Congress of Soviets, which, as the name suggests, represented workers throughout the whole of Russia, and had the legitimacy to make decisions covering the entire country, even if a particular district Soviet happened to disagree with the decision. The rejection of "centralization" indicates that Anarchists reject these bodies as a state, and hence illegitimate, despite the role they played in the liberation of the Russian working class, and their historic prevalence.

[bricolage]

So if the proletariat assumes state power how can it become a bureaucratic ruling class ?:lol:

By ruling over others through bureaucracy. See what I did there :D

[bricolage]

...and how would Anarchists define "hierarchy"?

As it is defined by most people, as far as I'm aware anarchists haven't gone about messing with dictionaries.


The hierarchy aspect of this is problematic because it does not acknowledge that a state can be hierarchical (however that's defined) in relation to some groups whilst being democratic and egalitarian in relation to the class whose interests it embodies.Well yes anarchists are still arguing for worker control, just in a non-hierarchical manner. The argument is that a state will be hierarchical to workers even if it is a 'workers state'


thereby rendered capable of carrying out radical change, and defending working-class power.Except they've done the exact opposite of this.

[Eat the Rich]

By ruling over others through bureaucracy. See what I did there :D

Is that a bad thing, for the proletariat to rule over others? Well, unless you are a petit bourgeois pseudo-revolutionary, you wouldn't have a problem with that. If the proletariat ever takes power in modern conditions, with no illiteracy and backwardness to hinder its class rule, then there can be no bureaucracy ruling over the proletariat. We are talking about the democratic rule of the proletariat over other classes, ie the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarchism is petit-bourgeois in the sense that it doesn't recognize the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[BobKKKindle$]

As it is defined by most people, as far as I'm aware anarchists haven't gone about messing with dictionaries.

Fair enough. In this context, the most accurate definition of "heirarchy" is "a a body of persons in authority" or "any system of persons or things ranked one above another". If you accept this definition, do you then believe that the working class should not be placed in a position of authority over the remnants of the ruling class, and other persons and classes who are liable to oppose revolutionary change, such as the peasantry? Do you reject the idea that the working class may be faced with a need to impose its interests on other persons and classes, with violence, possibly acting as a minority of the population, if workers take power in an under-developed country?


The argument is that a state will be hierarchical to workers even if it is a 'workers state'

This is a truism, because we've just seen that part of the Anarchist definition of a state is that it involves hierarchy. The problem with this definition is that it doesn't establish the concrete meaning of hierarchy in a post-revolutionary society, i.e. it doesn't convey what hierarchy actually means in terms of institutions.


Except they've done the exact opposite of this.

Who are "they", exactly? These are the kinds of lazy and ambiguous assertions that drag down the quality of Anarchist analysis. The quote that you referred to was me pointing out that the All-Russia Congress of Soviets and similar bodies were created by the working-class, in all the countries where they have come into existence, and have, throughout the history of working-class struggle, played a key role in concentrating the energies of the class - something that was possible only because they were centralized bodies. Now you are telling me that "they" were responsible for bureaucratic degeneration. How could this be possible, given that all of the delegates (presumably the "they" you speak of) who were elected to these institutions were subject to instant recall, and payed no more than the wage of a skilled worker, such that, by any sensible definition of the word, they cannot be defined as part of a bureaucracy? More importantly, if centralization is somehow inherently prone to generate a new ruling class, then how do you explain the historic prevalence of centralized institutions, created by the working class, and what alternative set of institutions do you propose, given the need to concentrate the energies of the class, and make democratic decisions that apply to a large geographical area, and large numbers of people? I of course agree that workers power did degenerate in Russia but in my view this was the result of a specific set of material conditions, namely the failure of the revolution to spread, which allowed power to move away from these democratic institutions (i.e. the Soviets) and into the hands of people who were actually bureaucrats as the term is properly defined, i.e. full-time unelected officials, inside both the party and the government.

[Pogue]

Is that a bad thing, for the proletariat to rule over others? Well, unless you are a petit bourgeois pseudo-revolutionary, you wouldn't have a problem with that. If the proletariat ever takes power in modern conditions, with no illiteracy and backwardness to hinder its class rule, then there can be no bureaucracy ruling over the proletariat. We are talking about the democratic rule of the proletariat over other classes, ie the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarchism is petit-bourgeois in the sense that it doesn't recognize the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Anarchism is 'petit bourgeosie' because it doesn't recognize the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Ok. What does that even mean? Do you mean that our ideology, which constantly talks about working class revolution, and all our involvement, i.e. working with other working class people aiding them in the class struggle, is now the ideology of small shop holders because we reject your notion of the state? Or are you using some convenient new meaning for petit bourgeoisie that the party invented to make it easier for you to dismiss anarchists.

Of course anarchists won't recognise 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'. Its a term loaded with associations. It was distorted to mean a dictatorship of the party of the proletariat by Lenin and Trotsky (Trotsky even admitted that this was the case). It's a marxist term. Anarchists are not marxists so of course we reject it.

Perhaps your main problem is that we don't talk in the ancient words of a German sociologist who died 150 years ago from today. We talk about a situation where the working class will be in power and will, through its organs of struggle, in the opinion of myself and others ideologically close to me, an economic organisation, a revolutionary union, married to social/community organs (community councils), will hopefully defend and build towards a better society that will eventually be able to be called 'communist'. As was done in Spain, for example. This will represent the working class being in charge and yes, defending its movement against those who attack it. But obviously we don't want to use words like 'dictatorship of the proletariat', perhaps mainly because we're sick of having to adhere to Marxist terminology of the Marxist rules of the game.

As Holden has said you guys let yourselves down because you constasntly refuse to meaningfully engage with what anarchism or any non-Bolshevik form of communism proposes. Perhaps it'd do you well to do this so you can come back and meet us with one of the many sound criticisms of anarchism (shock! horror! an anarchist admitted that anarchism has flaws!), so we can all learn things rather than listen to whatever the Central Committee has decided is wrong with anarchism this week.

[Pogue]

...and how would Anarchists define "hierarchy"? A quick look at the link that bcbm provided above indicates that Anarchists define the state in terms of two key attributes, one of which is hierarchy, the other being centralization. The hierarchy aspect of this is problematic because it does not acknowledge that a state can be hierarchical (however that's defined) in relation to some groups whilst being democratic and egalitarian in relation to the class whose interests it embodies. As someone who recognizes that revolution will not break out at the same time in all countries and that the proletariat will need to defend itself against a prolonged assault from the bourgeoisie, I have no problem advocating a set of institutions that are hierarchical in relation to the bourgeoisie, as well as other classes that do not share the same interests as the proletariat, such as the peasantry, but I would never dream of arguing that a workers state should be hierarchical in relation to the working class, in the sense of giving power to a small group, with no democratic safeguards such as instant recall. The centralization aspect of the definition is even more problematic because whenever workers have taken a step towards political power they have always created centralized institutions in order to ensure that the energy and resources of the class are not dissipated across many institutions but are concentrated, and thereby rendered capable of carrying out radical change, and defending working-class power. The most obvious case of this is the creation of the Petrograd Soviet, which drew on the energies of smaller district and workplace Soviets, as well as the All-Russia Congress of Soviets, which, as the name suggests, represented workers throughout the whole of Russia, and had the legitimacy to make decisions covering the entire country, even if a particular district Soviet happened to disagree with the decision. The rejection of "centralization" indicates that Anarchists reject these bodies as a state, and hence illegitimate, despite the role they played in the liberation of the Russian working class, and their historic prevalence.

Anarchists are not opposed to this notion of 'centralisation', i.e. the idea of directly democratic councils federating up via delegates on a national basis. This is how our organisations work for example. We just disagree with the representative democracy model of centralisation, seen in for example most liberal democracies, or in your own organisation, where the central committee is elected to make decision on behalf of the membership rather than simply communicating the wishes of the membership to other areas of the national organisation.

[Pogue]

Who are "they", exactly? These are the kinds of lazy and ambiguous assertions that drag down the quality of Anarchist analysis. The quote that you referred to was me pointing out that the All-Russia Congress of Soviets and similar bodies were created by the working-class, in all the countries where they have come into existence, and have, throughout the history of working-class struggle, played a key role in concentrating the energies of the class - something that was possible only because they were centralized bodies. Now you are telling me that "they" were responsible for bureaucratic degeneration. How could this be possible, given that all of the delegates (presumably the "they" you speak of) who were elected to these institutions were subject to instant recall, and payed no more than the wage of a skilled worker, such that, by any sensible definition of the word, they cannot be defined as part of a bureaucracy? More importantly, if centralization is somehow inherently prone to generate a new ruling class, then how do you explain the historic prevalence of centralized institutions, created by the working class, and what alternative set of institutions do you propose, given the need to concentrate the energies of the class, and make democratic decisions that apply to a large geographical area, and large numbers of people? I of course agree that workers power did degenerate in Russia but in my view this was the result of a specific set of material conditions, namely the failure of the revolution to spread, which allowed power to move away from these democratic institutions (i.e. the Soviets) and into the hands of people who were actually bureaucrats as the term is properly defined, i.e. full-time unelected officials, inside both the party and the government.

We'd argue that the intervention of a very rigid and undemocratic party structure combined with the attitudes of the Bolsheviks towards what represented worker's power or a worker's state is one of the main reasons those institutions degenerated. I don't think anyone denies that material conditions had a part to play but it seems too often you play a game where you put forward material conditions as the main justification for the problems the Bolsheviks faced and then quickly gloss over the idea of a burecracy forming and assuming power.

[BobKKKindle$]

For the record, I don't think it's helpful or mature to condemn Anarchists as "petit-bourgeois" or whatever. I think Hal Draper was right when he argued that the most fundamental division between different groups of socialists, or rather those who call themselves socialists, is between those who believe that socialism can be brought from above, by a party which claims to act on behalf of the working class, or a military force, and those who believe that socialism can only come into being as a result of the working class seeking to emancipate itself from capitalism, by creating its own organs of political power, by seizing control of the means of production, and so on. I think, if you accept this definition, then Anarchists, however flawed I think their analysis is, however much I disagree with some of the things that Anarchist organizations have done in relation to working-class struggle at various points in history, are on the "socialism from below" side of that divide. In my view, Trotskyists and Anarchists are on the same side in that respect - although I don't expect you to agree with that.


Anarchists are not opposed to this notion of 'centralisation', i.e. the idea of directly democratic councils federating up via delegates on a national basis.I take it from your use of quotation marks that you don't actually view the Soviet governmental system as a form of centralization? I don't know how you could arrive at that conclusion. For me, decentralization, when used in the context of a discussion on the institutional framework of a society where the working class has established itself as the ruling class, means that individual Soviets at the local level should possess their own authority, so that, if a Soviet representing an entire city or country makes a decision, the local Soviet has no obligation to accept that decision if it's members decide to vote against it, such that each Soviet could theoretically have completely different laws from its neighboring Soviets and all the other Soviets that exist in the territory under the rule of the working class. You can kind-of compare this to the system of states that exists in the US today and other federal countries, as each state has a set of legislative competencies that can't be infringed on by the central government. If you think that this is a fair description of what Anarchists envisage when they talk about decentralization, and this seems to be the case from the discussions I've had with other Anarchists on this site, then it's far to say that the Soviet system in Russia had nothing to do with this, and was definitely centralized, because the decisions that were undertaken by the All-Russia Congress applied to whole of Russia regardless of whether local Soviets happened to agree with them or not. The Soviet system was further centralized in that one of the first decisions of the All-Russia Congress was to create the All-Russia Central Executive Committee, which had the authority to pass laws when the Congress was not in session, and was elected from the membership of the Congress itself, which was also responsible for electing Sovnarkom, of which Lenin was the Chairman. I think BtB drew out the meaning of centralization in a previous discussion well when he said that the ideal that Marxists want to obtain is the transformation of the whole of society into one big commune, whereas Anarchists want to create a system that involves large numbers of small communes.


where the central committee is elected to make decision on behalf of the membership rather than simply communicating the wishes of the membership to other areas of the national organisation. Well, not really, that's a bit unfair. The CC has never interfered in the activity of our branch, which basically functions as an independent body, based on consensus and discussion, and in that respect we're pretty similar to the Bolsheviks, as their CC was never as important as it was made out to be under Stalinism. Its main role as I understand it is to deal with day-to-day tasks that concern the whole party but aren't important enough to warrant the calling of a party council, which is basically an extraordinary conference. When there's something really important to be discussed, like the start of the crisis, then we call a party council. You might find this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1976/lenin2/ch08.htm#s8) section of Cliff's book interesting, on what the Bolshevik CC was really like, as well as this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1976/lenin2/ch08.htm#s7) section on how unimportant the party center was, relative to the branches - they're both fairly short, so I'd be interested to hear your views on the material.

[ZeroNowhere]

Anarchism is petit-bourgeois in the sense that it doesn't recognize the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Of course it does. Or are you arguing that using different terminology makes somebody petit-bourgeois? Or perhaps you're just misusing the term like everybody else.

[Pogue]

Do you mind if I just call you Bobkindles when I quote? Its a bit of effort typing out the new version :lol:



For the record, I don't think it's helpful or mature to condemn Anarchists as "petit-bourgeois" or whatever. I think Hal Draper was right when he argued that the most fundamental division between different groups of socialists, or rather those who call themselves socialists, is between those who believe that socialism can be brought from above, by a party which claims to act on behalf of the working class, or a military force, and those who believe that socialism can only come into being as a result of the working class seeking to emancipate itself from capitalism, by creating its own organs of political power, by seizing control of the means of production, and so on. I think, if you accept this definition, then Anarchists, however flawed I think their analysis is, however much I disagree with some of the things that Anarchist organizations have done in relation to working-class struggle at various points in history, are on the "socialism from below" side of that divide. In my view, Trotskyists and Anarchists are on the same side in that respect - although I don't expect you to agree with that.


Well we spoke about this briefly at Marxism didn't we. How our analysis is not that much different. Certainly I have identified alot of libertarian seeming rhetoric from the SWP. My belief with revolution and various organisations is that come a revolutionary period we'd see who is on the side of the working class, and in my opinion your organisation could fall either way depending on where its main influences come from. In my opinion your influence by Bolshevism and some of the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky and your interpretation of the role of the party in regards to the class on the issue of 'working class power' is what makes me sceptical of where Trotskyists would fall. I think talking about who falls on what side is too simplistic. I don't know the ideas and motivations of your Central Committee also, so how can I judge what their views on where power should be held are?


I take it from your use of quotation marks that you don't actually view the Soviet governmental system as a form of centralization? I don't know how you could arrive at that conclusion. For me, decentralization, when used in the context of a discussion on the institutional framework of a society where the working class has established itself as the ruling class, means that individual Soviets at the local level should possess their own authority, so that, if a Soviet representing an entire city or country makes a decision, the local Soviet has no obligation to accept that decision if it's members decide to vote against it, such that each Soviet could theoretically have completely different laws from its neighboring Soviets and all the other Soviets that exist in the territory under the rule of the working class. You can kind-of compare this to the system of states that exists in the US today and other federal countries, as each state has a set of legislative competencies that can't be infringed on by the central government. If you think that this is a fair description of what Anarchists envisage when they talk about decentralization, and this seems to be the case from the discussions I've had with other Anarchists on this site, then it's far to say that the Soviet system in Russia had nothing to do with this, and was definitely centralized, because the decisions that were undertaken by the All-Russia Congress applied to whole of Russia regardless of whether local Soviets happened to agree with them or not. The Soviet system was further centralized in that one of the first decisions of the All-Russia Congress was to create the All-Russia Central Executive Committee, which had the authority to pass laws when the Congress was not in session, and was elected from the membership of the Congress itself, which was also responsible for electing Sovnarkom, of which Lenin was the Chairman. I think BtB drew out the meaning of centralization in a previous discussion well when he said that the ideal that Marxists want to obtain is the transformation of the whole of society into one big commune, whereas Anarchists want to create a system that involves large numbers of small communes.

Well that depends. Did the Congress of Soviets act on the following basis: Each soviet at a local level elects a delegate to carry their vote to the top, at the top of this organisation the delegates vote, and the majority decision is passed (democracy), which all the local organisations have to abide by (on national matters, i.e. any issues locals couldn't decide on their own)? Because I support federalism but from the basis that the only legitimate basis for power at the top is that th decision at the top which affects the majority of the organisation reflects the opinion of the majority of the organisation through the decisions made at the bottom - i.e. delegatory direct democracy.

I think there should be autonomy at local levels, I just think the running of the area under worker control (country?) should be done through an national organ which will be decentralised in the way I mentioned above (delegates). So I do envisage a national government of the worker's territories, it will just be directly democratic.


Well, not really, that's a bit unfair. The CC has never interfered in the activity of our branch, which basically functions as an independent body, based on consensus and discussion, and in that respect we're pretty similar to the Bolsheviks, as their CC was never as important as it was made out to be under Stalinism. Its main role as I understand it is to deal with day-to-day tasks that concern the whole party but aren't important enough to warrant the calling of a party council, which is basically an extraordinary conference. When there's something really important to be discussed, like the start of the crisis, then we call a party council. You might find this (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1976/lenin2/ch08.htm#s8) section of Cliff's book interesting, on what the Bolshevik CC was really like, as well as this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1976/lenin2/ch08.htm#s7) section on how unimportant the party center was, relative to the branches - they're both fairly short, so I'd be interested to hear your views on the material.

I'll look at them then. But understand I am a bit sceptical of a Bolshevik's account of how a Bolshevik party functioned. I oppose the idea of representative democracy because I don't believe it is in line with what needs to happen to keep an organisation democratic, hence my rejection of democratic centralism. The central committee is essentially what governs your party on a national basis is it not? And you elect them as representatives on an annual basis? To me thats simply asking for trouble, the sort of trouble I believe the Bolsheviks experienced.

[Eat the Rich]

Perhaps your main problem is that we don't talk in the ancient words of a German sociologist who died 150 years ago from today. We talk about a situation where the working class will be in power and will, through its organs of struggle, in the opinion of myself and others ideologically close to me, an economic organisation, a revolutionary union, married to social/community organs (community councils), will hopefully defend and build towards a better society that will eventually be able to be called 'communist'. As was done in Spain, for example. This will represent the working class being in charge and yes, defending its movement against those who attack it. But obviously we don't want to use words like 'dictatorship of the proletariat', perhaps mainly because we're sick of having to adhere to Marxist terminology of the Marxist rules of the game.

Here you are describing the dictatorship of the proletariat in a distorted manner. Anarchists seem to have the state-complex, using a thousand and one words to describe their utopia, without once mentioning a workers state. They talk about a transition to a classless society, but they don't mention that in their transition a state is going to exist (the transition not being a stateless society). Instead they invent intellectualist terms that only serve to confuse people.

I never said that all trends of anarchism are petit-bourgeois. Most of them are though, especialy in North America. There is a general trend of being petit-bourgeois in anarchism. From the denial of class rule, to advocating decentralization and autonomy... The hardest thing to do is to criticize anarchism in general, because it has such a vast range of ideologies, reaching from mildly proletarian to completely reactionary.

[ZeroNowhere]

Ah, but aren't all communists simply naive utopians?
No? Then shut up and use the word properly.

Anyhow, by 'intellectualist terms', you seem to mean, well, definitions. And no, their definitions are no more confusing than the Marxist or Weberian ones (either of which they could use). Please explain how, say, the state as an organized means of domination by a minority ruling class is any more confusing than the organized means of domination by a ruling class? One could argue that it is not as useful, but then one would have to give up the anti-intellectualist pap, and surely that would be a betrayal of principles. They do talk about a transition to a classless society, yes, and it is generally called revolution. Which is the same transition Marxists refer to. Of course the transition doesn't take place under a stateless society, it takes place under capitalism. Most non-Marxist anarchists would not refer to the working class using political power to expropriate the expropriators and hence abolish itself as a state.


From the denial of class rule, to advocating decentralization and autonomy'Marxists' have done worse. For every CrimethInc, there's a Frankfurt School, and the latter is far, far worse. Well, excepting perhaps Grossman. Whose politics were still shite, but he wasn't horrible when it comes to economics, as much as he would have liked to be. Anyhow, are you certain that people who do the former make up the majority of anarchists in North America? And what exactly do you mean by the latter? And why does anybody still talk about 'decentralization' and 'centralization' without explaining immediately what they mean by the words?

[Eat the Rich]

They do talk about a transition to a classless society, yes, and it is generally called revolution. Which is the same transition Marxists refer to. Of course the transition doesn't take place under a stateless society, it takes place under capitalism. Most non-Marxist anarchists would not refer to the working class using political power to expropriate the expropriators and hence abolish itself as a state.The transition takes place under capitalism? Then you are either reformists, or completely irrational! How can a revolution last that long that it would bring about a classless, stateless society?The anarchist logic operates contrary to the laws of motion of the working class. A revolutionary period lasts for a year maximum. In France it was one month, in Russia 8 months, in Iran about a month. Either the workers capture state power or if they don't they are crushed. Period. You can't have a transitional period long enough for you to make a communist society. This is utter bullshit.


Anyhow, are you certain that people who do the former make up the majority of anarchists in North America? And what exactly do you mean by the latter? And why does anybody still talk about 'decentralization' and 'centralization' without explaining immediately what they mean by the words?Go to an anarchist bookfair in North America. From the 10 lectures, books etc. one will mention class. The rest will be about bicycles, veganism, dumpster-diving and other crap.

If you don't know what decentralization and centralization means, google them. Autonomy I mean it in the way described by Castoriades.

[Искра]

Eat the rich I think that you need a lot of reading about class anarchism before you write such nonsenses.

Also, claiming that anarchism is only "lifestyle" is idiotically.

[Luís Henrique]

I think you're confusing the fact that you haven't read much anarchist theory with anarchist theory not existing. I've never found anarchism to be lacking in theory, far from it.
It is possible, though I would phrase it differently: I could be confusing the fact that I haven't heard much about anarchist theory with anarchist theory not existing.

So explain me, which are the anarchist theories that I should know? And where can I read them, to form an informed opinion? Or are they secret?

And, en passant, I agree with this:


The important thing about theory is the quality not the quantity.

It seems to me to be part of the problem.

Luís Henrique

[What Would Durruti Do?]

So if the proletariat assumes state power how can it become a bureaucratic ruling class ?:lol:

This question always floors me. Do marxists just ignore history?

[bcbm]

It is possible, though I would phrase it differently: I could be confusing the fact that I haven't heard much about anarchist theory with anarchist theory not existing.

So explain me, which are the anarchist theories that I should know? And where can I read them, to form an informed opinion?

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/index.html

Have fun.

[Luís Henrique]

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/index.html

Have fun.

Not what I asked for.

If someone asks me what Marxist theories they should know, I would be able to tell them something like this:

- a theory of value, that you can find in the Capital;
- a theory of primitive accumulation, that you can find in the Capital;
- a theory of dialectics, that you can find in Engels;
- a theory of land rent, in Kautsky;
- a theory of crisis, in Luxemburg;
- a theory of degeneration of socialist movement, in Luxemburg;
- a theory of imperialism, in Lenin;
- another theory of imperialism, in Bukharin;
- a theory of permanent revolution, in Kautsky;
- elements of a theory of intellectuality, in Gramsci;
- elements of a theory of bourgeois democracy, in Gramsci;

etc. (And if I was actually responding to someone, instead of just giving an example, I would actually take the time to find the specific works and sections where those things can be find.)

I would like something similar for anarchism, so that I don't waste my time with the parts of Proudhon that are reformist, the parts of Kropotkin that are socialpatriotic, the parts of Bakunin that are conspirational, etc.

What do that people have to say, that I should listen?

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

I should clarify "a theory of economic crisis in Luxemburg."

The best "theory of political crisis" (if not the only one that is relevant for both advanced capitalist countries and modern times) is found in Kautsky's The Road to Power. :)

[chimx]

I know a lot of anarchists. I was one in my youth. I don't know people like this at all. Most of the anarchists I know are workers, generally in the public sector, in their 40s and 50s with kids. It is funny that, isn't it, because it fits into my demographic? These are the anarchists I know because they are the sort of people I know. I think that people's perception of anarchists as 'dope smoking hippies' probably has more relationship to their own social enviornment than anarchists, particulary members of actual anarchist organisations and not people who have just picked up a vaugely fashionable label, as a whole.

I've known many anarchists, and I was an anarchist when I was younger -- actually when I fist signed up for an account on these forums. Maybe the cause for differences are geographical, but from my experience, that description is not far off.

[Plagueround]

I've known many anarchists, and I was an anarchist when I was younger -- actually when I fist signed up for an account on these forums. Maybe the cause for differences are geographical, but from my experience, that description is not far off.

I'm going to go with:


Location: Seattle, WA

geographical differences. :laugh:

[chimx]

Personally I don't have much of a problem with anarchist theory. My sole complaint is that their apprehension towards authoritarian institutions, even democratic ones, creates a political vacuum in practice that is often filled by individuals despots such as Mahkno. But more often praxis is similar enough, plus they don't tend to obsess about newspapers as much as most Marxists, which is a big plus. My problem has always been with the anarchists I have met, and how they are always focused on "safe" yet irrelevant activism like food not bombs, ARA, etc. The most involved in actual class struggle I have seen anarchists in the US be is some syndicalists attempting to organize a handful of Starbucks coffee houses, which has yet to really win anything other than the right of recognition.

[Agnapostate]

1. Any "Marxist" that isn't a Leninist, didn't really read Marx.

Ah...don't we know it? :lol:



There are about forty million Germans. Will all forty millions really be members of the government?Certainly, because the thing starts with self-government of the township.


Esteemed Vladimir Ilyich...What are necessary and needed are local institutions, local forces; but there are none, anywhere. Instead of this, wherever one turns there are people who have never known anything of real life, who are committing the gravest errors which have been paid for with thousands of lives and the ravaging of entire districts.

;)

[Tjis]

My sole complaint is that their apprehension towards authoritarian institutions, even democratic ones, creates a political vacuum in practice that is often filled by individuals despots such as Mahkno.

Explain to me how Makhno was an individual despot.

[bcbm]

Not what I asked for.

Have you tried the anarchist FAQ?


And if I was actually responding to someone, instead of just giving an example, I would actually take the time to find the specific works and sections where those things can be find.

I don't really find the ridiculous claim that "anarchism has no theory" to be worth putting that much effort into.

[Jewish911]

i dont think anarchism is good cuz who will build the roads without goverment

[Agnapostate]

Sounds like a job for Superman and Walter Block, Robin! :laugh:

[Jonnydraft]

1. Any "Marxist" that isn't a Leninist, didn't really read Marx.

You're so full of sh!t it's not even funny.

I am nearly certain I have read more Marx than you, and I would, without a doubt, classify myself as anti-Leninist.

Out of morbid curiosity, have you read anything other than Cole's notes of Hegel or Adorno for example? I would be willing to bet you have not.

[Rebel_Serigan]

I also have an issue with the practicality of Anarchism. So let's move past the obvious problems that all revelutionary groups face during a coup and say it happened, now what? How can you possibly impliment an anarchist government? Give people guidle-lines for life and tell tem to have a good time? If everyone worked together willingly and heled eachother beause it is the right thing to do you think we would be in the current political system we are in? An anarchist civilization is decentralized andthus truely has nothing. The people CAN do what they want. Now no, not EVERY anarchit in the world is a hippy or a mad criminal but that does notean there are NOT any. In fact, I a willing to bet that those few people who want to rape pillage and kill would do jut that. How do you stop them, with a civil millitia? If history is guide and an army or oher exeutive force is left unchecked it will take over. I psychology they teach you to watchout for out-lyers on a chart, that is because just one or two throws off our reading, so if just a few people have in thier head they don't want to be Mr. Rodgers then the whole non-existent foundation crumbles. Anarchism is a cool theory and it would be nice if it could work, but it can't, not on a large scale anyway.

[revolution inaction]

I also have an issue with the practicality of Anarchism. So let's move past the obvious problems that all revelutionary groups face during a coup and say it happened, now what? How can you possibly impliment an anarchist government? Give people guidle-lines for life and tell tem to have a good time? If everyone worked together willingly and heled eachother beause it is the right thing to do you think we would be in the current political system we are in? An anarchist civilization is decentralized andthus truely has nothing. The people CAN do what they want. Now no, not EVERY anarchit in the world is a hippy or a mad criminal but that does notean there are NOT any. In fact, I a willing to bet that those few people who want to rape pillage and kill would do jut that. How do you stop them, with a civil millitia? If history is guide and an army or oher exeutive force is left unchecked it will take over. I psychology they teach you to watchout for out-lyers on a chart, that is because just one or two throws off our reading, so if just a few people have in thier head they don't want to be Mr. Rodgers then the whole non-existent foundation crumbles. Anarchism is a cool theory and it would be nice if it could work, but it can't, not on a large scale anyway.

you don't have a clue what anarchism is, read this http://www.anarchistfaq.org/

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

Personally I don't have much of a problem with anarchist theory. My sole complaint is that their apprehension towards authoritarian institutions, even democratic ones,

I think this is an oversimplification. I won't speak for all anarchists, just myself.

A democratic authoritarian institution is an oxymoron. We're (most of us, at least), are all for institutions, and democratic institutions certainly. This would throw us into the "What is democracy?" question. Certainly workers' councils, community councils, neighborhood councils, collectives, etc., can be democratic institutions. If you mean more traditional, parliamentarian institutions that are not directly controlled by people then, yes, we do not want those. Those are not democratic institutions, though. I tend to think many Marxists, of the non-Leninist variety, would concur.






they are always focused on "safe" yet irrelevant activism like food not bombs, ARA, etc.

Most anarchists now are critical of these practices as well. Also, I don't see anything wrong with FNB as long as it's not the only thing we do. It's a nice gesture, feeding people for free. But it's not revolutionary, per se.



The most involved in actual class struggle I have seen anarchists in the US be is some syndicalists attempting to organize a handful of Starbucks coffee houses, which has yet to really win anything other than the right of recognition.

And Marxists are doing so much more, right? Yeah, I'd agree with you that these aren't the most important actions in-and-of-themselves, but I don't think they're totally benign. They can act as a catalyst, and a way in which the IWW can at the very least expose itself to people who aren't allowed to unionize.

[Random Precision]

Posts on the Spanish war split to History

[Die Neue Zeit]

My problem has always been with the anarchists I have met, and how they are always focused on "safe" yet irrelevant activism like food not bombs, ARA, etc. The most involved in actual class struggle I have seen anarchists in the US be is some syndicalists attempting to organize a handful of Starbucks coffee houses, which has yet to really win anything other than the right of recognition.

There's nothing wrong with "food not bombs" as an organizational premise. I need to know the details, but I've suggested that the left consider as part of the overall organization question the establishment of workers' food banks.

However, the pre-war SPD model showed that such organization is effective only when it is part of a broader alternative culture (cultural societies, recreational clubs, and so on) that complements political activity (i.e., it is part of party organization itself). "Changing the world without taking power" has severe limitations.

[chimx]

A democratic authoritarian institution is an oxymoron. We're (most of us, at least), are all for institutions, and democratic institutions certainly. This would throw us into the "What is democracy?" question. Certainly workers' councils, community councils, neighborhood councils, collectives, etc., can be democratic institutions. If you mean more traditional, parliamentarian institutions that are not directly controlled by people then, yes, we do not want those. Those are not democratic institutions, though. I tend to think many Marxists, of the non-Leninist variety, would concur.

Most Marxists I think would agree with Marx and Engels. The state should transform into an administrative body. To me that implies positions of authority, democratic representation, etc. -- things that anarchists tend to shy away from for some reason.


And Marxists are doing so much more, right?

Some Marxists do retarded shit. Most that I know are involved in labor unions though, and try to effect change in labor relations.


There's nothing wrong with "food not bombs" as an organizational premise.

It is far detached from class struggle.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So are you questioning, then, the pre-war SPD's "alternative culture" organization?

[yuon]

While anarchists simply refuse to aknowledge things like Kropotkin defending an imperialist war, just because he was an anarchist?
Have a look at the thread in the anarchist group on the topic.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2135
(If you can't see it, here are some choice quotes:

Kropotkin was wrong, but he's also like eighty years dead and the war is ninety years done, so his opinions about the war don't really mean much to me today.

Kropotkin took an incorrect position, and he was a fallible person just like the rest of us. His mistake in this area doesn't invalidate the areas where he was right, which was on a lot. Anarchists aren't "Kropotkinists", and we don't have to support every thing the man did. He was right on a lot of stuff, and he was wrong some times, so we take the good and don't have to take the bad. Bakunin had good ideas, but he was also an anti-semite, so we take his good ideas and don't have to take his racist baggage. This is what makes anarchism so much more flexible and dynamic than ideologies that are dependent on *insert x dictator/revolutionary/wanke-rism*

Anarchists don't need "great men", and we don't need to worry that some theoreticians made mistakes. We accept that not everything a person wrote or thought is correct, and we move on.
Also, of course, the link provided earlier by bcbm to writing by Malatesta.)


There's nothing wrong with "food not bombs" as an organizational premise. I need to know the details, but I've suggested that the left consider as part of the overall organization question the establishment of workers' food banks.
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Not_Bombs and http://www.foodnotbombs.net/ but remember that many people operate under the label, and don't accept all that is suggested, ideologically, by these two websites (e.g. anti-violence). (I think that's relevant. *shrug*)


However, the pre-war SPD model showed that such organization is effective only when it is part of a broader alternative culture (cultural societies, recreational clubs, and so on) that complements political activity (i.e., it is part of party organization itself). "Changing the world without taking power" has severe limitations.
I think that a broader culture of change is required. Many FNB chapters do operate as part of a bigger anti-capitalist movement. For example, providing food to radical conferences, or at protests. However, the FNB idea is implicitly against being part of a broader party organisation.

[yuon]

Also, @ Luis, I suggest reading the following for some idea of "anarchist theory".

I must note that I have not read all of these in all their entirety, but am just providing links that look appropriate. If you really want basic texts (which may well be better for you), have a look at the stickied threads in Learning.

Bakunin:
The Capitalist System (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bakunin/capstate.html)
God and the State (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html)
Stateless Socialism: Anarchism (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bakunin/stateless.html)

Kropotkin:
Communism and Anarchy (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/kropotkin/commanar.html)
The Conquest of Bread (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html)
FIELDS, FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS: or Industry Combined with Agriculture and Brain Work with Manual Work (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/fields.html)
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html)

Malatesta:
Towards Anarchism (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/malatesta/towardsanarchy.html)


But in the long run it is always the searching for a more secure guarantee of freedom which is the common factor among anarchists, and which divides them into different schools.

Tucker:
Why I Am An Anarchist (http://praxeology.net/BT-WIA.htm)

I would also strongly suggest reading Emma Goldman for more thoughts on atheism, and particularly on women's rights, sex, abortion, and similar topics.

There is stacks more anarchist theory, I really can't be bothered categorising it into subjects such as "what is anarchism", "what is the state", "what is hierarchy", "violence" etc. Much has been written on these subjects by anarchists, and to think that there is little anarchist theory, that is mere ignorance, rather than fact. It would be akin to me saying, "there is little Leninist theory beyond State and Revolution" simply because I hadn't heard of any more. All it would take for me to find more Leninist theory would be to do a simple web search. Oh, and here is a list of possible topics from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anarchist_theory

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Most Marxists I think would agree with Marx and Engels. The state should transform into an administrative body.
That's also the official line pushed by many neo-liberals, isn't it?


It is far detached from class struggle.
I think that class struggle can only be carried out by the class, and in times when the general level of class consciousness is low, no revolutionary minority will be able to independently carry out class struggle. That's not to say I see FNB as being particularly useful, but I find it hard to see it as being much further detached from the class struggle than, say, selling papers.

[chimx]

That's also the official line pushed by many neo-liberals, isn't it?

I don't see how that is relevant at all.


That's not to say I see FNB as being particularly useful, but I find it hard to see it as being much further detached from the class struggle than, say, selling papers.

They are probably both on par with each other with their irrelevance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So you don't have an opinion on the pre-war SPD, then?

[ls]

There is no reason to attack food not bombs, other than like yuon said for its other stances (pacifism), it's really strange to see people attacking good initiatives like that in fact.

[TheAnarchistSyndicalist]

Anarchism has clearly been the motive for the Marx thought. If any of you guys read his various works he states that state should "whiter away". Unfortunately it doesn't quite work out like that so maybe we can first establish trade unions freely and independently, revolt and set up a democratic constitution which emphasises "Temporary State"

[9]

revolt and set up a democratic constitution which emphasises "Temporary State"

That's basically what Marxists already call for.
Also, you might find this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/unions/4-errors.htm) to be an interesting read.