Anarchist economics?

[scarletghoul]

As far as I know the only major theoretical differance between anarcho-communists and Marxists seems to be on the issue of the state. Do they have any differing economic views (apart from obviously the state's role in economics)? Do anarcho-communists generally agree with Marxist economics or do they have some of their own ideas?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

As far as I know the only major theoretical differance between anarcho-communists and Marxists seems to be on the issue of the state. Do they have any differing economic views (apart from obviously the state's role in economics)? Do anarcho-communists generally agree with Marxist economics or do they have some of their own ideas?





Anarcho-Communism is based on the theory of gift economy, free access for all workers to the fruits of labour. And of course also based on the abolition of capital. I am not too well versed on the marxist line, does it differ?

[scarletghoul]

No, it does not. You have just summed up the final stage of communism in the Marxist view. The differance seems to be that Marxism offers not only the ideal, but also a scientific method of achieving this ideal.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

No, it does not. You have just summed up the final stage of communism in the Marxist view. The differance seems to be that Marxism offers not only the ideal, but also a scientific method of achieving this ideal.

Yes Marxism offers the path towards achieving this society. But Anarchists accept also that there is not an instant arrival at our destination of a gift economy and the abolition of capital. We accept a stage of transition towards this society will be neccessary. However we do not wish to map out this stage before the revolution has occured as Marxism does. Also, I am not critcising Marxist theory I am just citing another difference.

[scarletghoul]

Surely you should have some idea of what to do in advance?

Otherwise you'll overthrow the state and then be like "so umm what should we do now", which will of course give the counterrevolution the upper hand..

[eyedrop]

No, it does not. You have just summed up the final stage of communism in the Marxist view. The differance seems to be that Marxism offers not only the ideal, but also a scientific method of achieving this ideal.

Arguably marxism (Why name political hypothesises/theories/tendencies after persons?) offers a scientific theory of capitalistic economics and LTV, but I fail to see where it has a scientific theory of how to reach communism.

[scarletghoul]

Have you read Marx? He wrote quite a bit on this.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Surely you should have some idea of what to do in advance?

Otherwise you'll overthrow the state and then be like "so umm what should we do now", which will of course give the counterrevolution the upper hand..

Of course, but there is not one pravailing idea which we claim to be the way to do it. We can look to Spain for inspiration but no one model is pre-determined, we have to take into account conditions surrounding us at the time.

[Искра]

You should check this if you have more questions:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

[Tjis]

Have you read Marx? He wrote quite a bit on this.

But what makes it scientific?

[Искра]

Do you ask why Marx is scientific or what?

[Tjis]

Do you ask why Marx is scientific or what?

Yes.
I can see how his analysis of capitalist society is scientific. But I fail to see how any predictions he made on how revolutions would happen are scientific.

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

As far as I know the only major theoretical differance between anarcho-communists and Marxists seems to be on the issue of the state. Do they have any differing economic views (apart from obviously the state's role in economics)? Do anarcho-communists generally agree with Marxist economics or do they have some of their own ideas?



Well, if you read the Communist Manifesto and read Peter Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread, it sounds very different.

But if you read Bakunin's praise (an anarcho-collectivist and, in many ways, a proto-anarcho-syndicalist) of the Paris Commune, which was a very different uprising than what Marx and Engels discussed in the Manifesto, it's very close to Marx's praise of the commune (ironic, since they hated eachother so). Now in order for Marx to praise the commune in Paris, he had to basically say he was wrong in some regards, because the commune didn't require a transition "worker's" state or a Communist party to organize the proletariat. He basically said that the Paris Commune represented the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is a very different Marx than the one writing the Manifesto in the 1840's.

Your question depends on which Marx you want to believe. I think that basically the communism that Marx wrote about is the same communism that Kropotkin wrote about; it's just that Kropotkin was optimistic that communities didn't need to capitulate to a worker's state.

Your question also depends on your interpretation of Marx. There's a great deal of dispute over whether Marx was changing his tune in the 1870's due to the (very limited) success of the Paris Commune and libertarian socialist ideas, in general, or whether Marx had libertarian tendencies the whole time. As you know, many interpret Marx as being an authoritarian, while many interpret him as being libertarian in nature, and not a statist.

For this reason, your question is hard to answer empirically. It depends how you read the anarcho-communists, and how you interpret them, and Marx.

I tend to think that they are the same economic models (excluding, of course, the economic model posed in the Manifesto for a transitional state), and are based on something Marx himself said: from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs (to paraphrase).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The "economic" aspect of communism is up for interpretation. Since economics deals with scarcity, arguably there wouldn't be an economic component.

[ls]

excluding, of course, the economic model posed in the Manifesto for a transitional state

Why do you think an anarchist collectivist stage would be so different to a socialist stage.

[GPDP]

Wait, is this thread asking the difference between a Marxist economy and an anarchist one, or about economic schools of thought?

If the former, there's not much of a difference. If the later, I don't know. There is a school of economic thought known as Marxist economics, but I am not sure there is an anarchist counterpart, at least one that differs appreciably from the Marxist school.

[OllyH]

I would suggest that anarchists are generally more weary of economic models than Marxists are. There's a good reason for this; we don't know exactly how people would act without the State, what will motivate them and so forth. This is really something for society to work out as they go, through trial and error. Personally I can't see any other way to conduct revolution without reverting to the authoritarian, command economies which Marxists invariably fall back on.
So on the question of anarchist economics I, like many anarchists, would leave that book open. The specific form that liberation takes should be completely in the hands of those being liberated and not some elitist vanguard who think they are in a position to mother the world. Thats counter-revolution.

[New Tet]

Arguably marxism (Why name political hypothesises/theories/tendencies after persons?) offers a scientific theory of capitalistic economics and LTV, but I fail to see where it has a scientific theory of how to reach communism.

Deleonism, a branch of Marxism has a plan on how to achieve socialism and simultaneously abolish the political state.

The plan is laid out here: http://www.slp.org

[New Tet]

I would suggest that anarchists are generally more weary of economic models than Marxists are. There's a good reason for this; we don't know exactly how people would act without the State, what will motivate them and so forth. This is really something for society to work out as they go, through trial and error. Personally I can't see any other way to conduct revolution without reverting to the authoritarian, command economies which Marxists invariably fall back on.
So on the question of anarchist economics I, like many anarchists, would leave that book open. The specific form that liberation takes should be completely in the hands of those being liberated and not some elitist vanguard who think they are in a position to mother the world. Thats counter-revolution.

"Invariably"? Acquaint yourself with the facts before making such statements.

[Искра]

Anarchist wrote books about economics.

This is one made by Diego Abad de Santillan, 1936 CNT member.
More about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Abad_de_Santill%C3%A1n

The book is called "After the Revolution". Off course this is an anarchosyndicalist view and a bit old one.

http://membres.lycos.fr/anarchives/site/syndic/aftertherevolution.htm
http://zinelibrary.info/after-revolution-diego-abad-de-santill-n

[ZeroNowhere]

Anarchism does not involve any view on economics. Marxism should, but 20th Century 'Marxism' has not. At least, nothing to do with Marx, generally. I should also add that, contrary to criticism of the 'anarchist conception/definition/analysis of the state', there is none.


Now in order for Marx to praise the commune in Paris, he had to basically say he was wrong in some regards, because the commune didn't require a transition "worker's" state or a Communist party to organize the proletariat. He basically said that the Paris Commune represented the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is a very different Marx than the one writing the Manifesto in the 1840's.Hardly. His views didn't really change a whole due to the Paris Commune, if at all, really. His views were different in the 1870s compared to the 1840s to some extent, yes, but that was more a result of the lack of crisis in the early 1850s, and the 1857 crisis. A bit more on that here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/huey-p-newton-t115341/index3.html). And he certainly didn't stop advocating proletarian revolution due to the Commune, as you seem to claim.


There's a good reason for this; we don't know exactly how people would act without the State, what will motivate them and so forth. This is really something for society to work out as they go, through trial and error.And therefore we should make them start from scratch?


I tend to think that they are the same economic models (excluding, of course, the economic model posed in the Manifesto for a transitional state), and are based on something Marx himself said: from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs (to paraphrase).You should be excluding the initial phase of communism from the Critique of the Gotha Program, which most 'anarcho-commies' (Potkrakin, the SPGB, etc) would disagree on, not Marx's ideas on what measures the proletariat would probably enact in a crisis-caused revolution, which would then outstrip themselves until the proletariat centralised all instruments of production into their hands.


I can see how his analysis of capitalist society is scientific. But I fail to see how any predictions he made on how revolutions would happen are scientific.Well, his contention that the proletariat are, to borrow a phrase, the stone which splits the stream of time in two, does flow from his analysis. Though that's not especially detailed, or something that most anarchists would reject.

[MarxSchmarx]

an american called Michael albert came up with something called participatory economics:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/participatory-economics-t104982/index.html?t=104982&highlight=parecon

Which he insists, with some validity IMHO, is an explicitly anarchist economic system. Threads about it pop up here from time to time.

It doesn't rely heavily on the Marxian analysis of capitalism and has something of a "de novo" flare.

[GPDP]

an american called Michael albert came up with something called participatory economics:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/participatory-economics-t104982/index.html?t=104982&highlight=parecon

Which he insists, with some validity IMHO, is an explicitly anarchist economic system. Threads about it pop up here from time to time.

It doesn't rely heavily on the Marxian analysis of capitalism and has something of a "de novo" flare.

Indeed, parecon theory probably is the closest thing to a coherent anarchist economic school of thought akin to Marxist economics. It postulates a differing class analysis of capitalism than the Marxist analysis, such as adding a third "coordinator" class of professional and managerial workers possessing a monopoly on empowering labor. Funnily enough, it ascribes Marxism as the ideology of this coordinator class, so take that as you will.

[Oneironaut]

Have you read Marx? He wrote quite a bit on this.
Actually, he wrote very little on the subject. He first and foremost criticized capitalism, and extensively at that. I don't know if that changes your opinion, just thought I would point that out.