Between Left Marxism and Anarchism

[BakuninFan]

I am stuck between anarchism and Left-Communism (specifically Marxism-DeLeonism), and am not sure exactly which ideology i should follow. Coulkd someone give me reasons why one is superior to the other?

[the last donut of the night]

You should reformulate your question because the arguments between Communists and Anarchists are pretty deep. You're likely to get a sectarian shitstorm. Try asking questions about these ideologies and decide for yourself. But go with Marxism.:D

[Niccolò Rossi]

I am stuck between anarchism and Left-Communism (specifically Marxism-DeLeonism), and am not sure exactly which ideology i should follow. Coulkd someone give me reasons why one is superior to the other?

Firstly, I don't think you have formulated the question. An 'ideology' is not something you choose to 'follow' like picking a dish to eat at a restaurant or trying on different jeans at a store.

Secondly, De Leonism is not Left Communism, or a sub-division of it. Whilst some might call it 'Left Marxism' I think it's a fairly meaningless category.

Maybe to give us more to talk about you could tell us a little more about your context? Where do you live? What political activity (if any) are you involved in? Could you tell us a bit more about your political influences and the history of your political sympathies?


the arguments between Communists and Anarchists are pretty deep

Whilst the divisions between Marxists and anarchists are real, I think many of the divisions between so-called Marxists are actually much more fundamental.

[BakuninFan]

Well, then let me simplify:

At the most basic level possible, Anarchists (particularly Anarcho-Syndicalists) believe in a collectivised system of worker democracies that society is to be based around; they are against a vanguard party aswell as a revolutionary socialist phase.

Marxist-DeLeonists, from what I understand, believe in Syndicalism also, but think that it is up to a vanguard party, and eventually, a transistory state, to achieve this proletarian worker democracy and collective living. For more information about Marxism-DeLeonism, check the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLeonism#Tactics

Essentially, Anarcho-Syndicalists believe in solidarity withought a state to achieve Syndicalism and ultimately classlessness, wheras Marxist-Syndicalists believe that a party and transition are necesarry.

Which do you think is better for the workers and for democracy? And which is more practical?

[BakuninFan]

Firstly, I don't think you have formulated the question. An 'ideology' is not something you choose to 'follow' like picking a dish to eat at a restaurant or trying on different jeans at a store.

Secondly, De Leonism is not Left Communism, or a sub-division of it. Whilst some might call it 'Left Marxism' I think it's a fairly meaningless category.

Maybe to give us more to talk about you could tell us a little more about your context? Where do you live? What political activity (if any) are you involved in? Could you tell us a bit more about your political influences and the history of your political sympathies?



Whilst the divisions between Marxists and anarchists are real, I think many of the divisions between so-called Marxists are actually much more fundamental.
I am/have been an Anarchist, an IWW member, and a union activist. I, looking back, am beggining to think that political action (as proposed by DeLeon) is necesarry for Syndicalism to work.

Really I am not sure.

[BakuninFan]

I'm afraid that a DeLeonist system (and a Marxist one in general) would lead to government corruption. I'm really not sure :blink:

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, in my opinion, the idea that a DeLeonist political party and a strong industrial union would simultaneously take power (which to the best of my understanding is what DeLeon envisioned happening) is kind of odd.

If the union gained strength prematurely without political power behind it, one would expect a crackdown by the state, and if a "socialist" political party gained control of the state in the absence of organic worker's power/initiative one would expect a bureaucracy of some sort to be born. I don't really see them developing in tandem.

[ZeroNowhere]

There is no necessary conflict between the two.


Marxist-DeLeonists, from what I understand, believe in Syndicalism also, but think that it is up to a vanguard party, and eventually, a transistory stateWell, that depends completely on what you mean by 'vanguard party' and 'transitory state'. If you mean 'the proletariat using political power [ie. enforcement through law and such] to end their social slavery during revolution', then yes, but then so do most anarchists. As for 'vanguard party', we've had threads here where it takes a page just to argue over its definition, so it would perhaps make sense to elaborate. Also, it's a shitty metaphor. If you mean a party made up of socialists, then sure. Also recall that De Leon was quite clear that, "The political movement of labor that, in the event of triumph, would prolong its existence a second after triumph, would be a usurpation. It would be either a usurpation or the signal for a social catastrophe." He saw the ballot as a destructive, rather than constructive, force, and as such those elected could only adjourn sine die, leaving power to the SIU and perhaps some other apparatus to tackle social issues (which, as they take their place in a government without recall and so on, and have the sole purpose of nullifying the state as weaponry of the capitalist class, rather than administration, would not suit them).


You should reformulate your question because the arguments between Communists and Anarchists are pretty deep. You're likely to get a sectarian shitstorm. Try asking questions about these ideologies and decide for yourself.Not really. In this case it's De Leonism, rather than, say, Leninism, which is at issue, and there are quite a few less of us, in the same way there are less fans of 'Ample Destruction' than Nightwish. And I'm not sure we could really be bothered with a shitstorm. Also, anarchists are communists (though not necessarily 'anarcho-communists').

[yuon]

You don't have to label your ideology anything in particular. Imagine the various ideologies spread out like a buffet. The anarchistic type ones are over there, various salads, some cold meats, and some different cheeses. The more libertarian Marxist are over there. Some other cold meat, some hot food, perhaps some soup.

Now, you, you can go and pick what ever the fuck you want from that buffet!

So, enjoy yourself. But, remember, some foods go together better than other foods. So, try not to pick food that won't mix well.

---

I'm sure I could make a car analogy if I thought hard enough, but I can't be fucked.

---

Now, anyway, I'm personally an anarchist. That isn't to say I reject Marxism (though, truth be told, there is a lot I don't think is useful), but rather that I think that the ideas of anarchism are more to my liking.

But, there are many Marxists whom I would get along just splendidly, with only minor ideological differences. (Perhaps over semantics, or some other non-issue.)

So, yeah, don't feel forced to pick one or the other. Do whatever the fuck you want.

[Steve_j]

I guess the fundamental here is the parlimentry system. You seem to be leaning towards the advantages of a party in the parlimentry system, but do u think it is viable to have a political party that will keep along the lines of what De leon propsed. Ie not reigning in the trade unions ect,

[nuisance]

Esstentially pick and choose, you don't have to necessarily conform to one sole ideological path if you don't so agree with it. This is probably a question which will be answered through your own participation in groups of each nature.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I am/have been an Anarchist, an IWW member, and a union activist. I, looking back, am beggining to think that political action (as proposed by DeLeon) is necesarry for Syndicalism to work.

Really I am not sure.
As a few people have said, what matters is that you do useful activity to advance working-class struggles, not that you label this activity as "anarchist activity" or "DeLeonist activity". On the specific question of political action: depends what you mean. I agree completely that we can't just have totally apolitical economic groups and expect them to bring about revolution - I'm a member of an anarchist political group, and the old CNT, which was pretty much the highpoint of syndicalism, still had the FAI which was a political group attached to it.
If by "political action" you mean standing in elections, tho, then I think that's a terrible idea, because the game's set up so we can't win.
Have you read Strategy and Struggle by Brighton Solidarity Federation (http://libcom.org/library/strategy-struggle-anarcho-syndicalism-21st-century), by the way? I have to admit that I've not actually read it myself, but if you're interested in anarcho-syndicalist strategy and tactics it's meant to be really good.

[BakuninFan]

I see. Thanks guys.

The theories are so damn similar it would be easier to describe myself as a "syndicalist", as I would participate in either a Marxist-DeLeonist movement or an Anarchist movement. I still, however, believe in Marxian economics, such as the theories on divisions of labor, ect, as well as a dialectical view of history.

So If the movement was strong enough, I would proibably classify myself as a Marxist-syndicalist or DeLeonist, although "libertarian socialist" is so kmuch easier to say :lol:

[Искра]

I see. Thanks guys.

The theories are so damn similar it would be easier to describe myself as a "syndicalist", as I would participate in either a Marxist-DeLeonist movement or an Anarchist movement. I still, however, believe in Marxian economics, such as the theories on divisions of labor, ect, as well as a dialectical view of history.

So If the movement was strong enough, I would proibably classify myself as a Marxist-syndicalist or DeLeonist, although "libertarian socialist" is so kmuch easier to say :lol:
I think that you, first, need to read a lot about anarcho-syndicalism and that marxsist-syndicalism.

For example, most of anarcho-syndicalist (I could say all) accept Marx.

Difference is in hierarchy and party stuff.