What separates "libertarian marxists" and anarchists? [Archive]

View Full Version : What separates "libertarian marxists" and anarchists?

ContrarianLemming

11th April 2010, 02:19

What seperates "libertarian" marxists like council communists from anarchists?

Palingenisis

11th April 2010, 02:34

What seperates "libertarian" marxists like council communists from anarchists?

The theory of decadence.

The dictatorship of the proletariat.

ContrarianLemming

11th April 2010, 02:43

The theory of decadence.

The dictatorship of the proletariat.

What seperates a DoP withou the use of the state from an anarchist revolution?

I've never heard of the theory of decadence, what is it?

mikelepore

11th April 2010, 02:47

The task of a political party. A principle of Marxism is that the only way to dismantle capitalist political power is to get Marxists elected to political offices and use the power of their offices. Anarchists want the workers to seize control of the industries while supporters of the capitalist system still have control of the government.

Please read "As to Politics" by Daniel De Leon

http://slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/as_to_politics.pdf

ContrarianLemming

11th April 2010, 02:49

mikelepore

11th April 2010, 02:52

I thought council commies are against this?

I wouldn't know about that, but terms like "libertarian" socialism/communism/whatever means all groups that don't support state administration of the means of production, but instead support administration by workers' organizations.

ContrarianLemming

11th April 2010, 02:53

I wouldn't know about that, but terms like "libertarian" socialism/communism/whatever means all groups that don't support state administration of the means of production, but instead support administration by workers' organizations.

Then maybe council comunists are for yogoslavian federation style socialism, where workers controlled the means of production democratically with the backup of the state? I don't think that's it...Don;t we have any council commmies here?

11th April 2010, 03:26

Don;t we have any council commmies here?
You called?

The central argument of council communism, in contrast to those of social democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy) and Leninist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism) Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism), is that democratic workers' councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_councils) arising in the factories and municipalities are the natural form of working class organisation and governmental power. This view is opposed to both the reformist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformist) and the Leninist ideologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology), with their stress on, respectively, parliaments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament) and institutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_institutionalism) government (i.e., by applying social reforms), on the one hand, and vanguard parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_party) and participative democratic centralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism) on the other.

lulks

11th April 2010, 03:30

there isn't an exact line dividing them. a lot of the difference is in semantics. anarchists and marxists don't necessarily have the same definition of state. a marxist calls the transition phase to communism the dictatorship of the proletariat; anarchists believe the revolution itself is the transition (maybe not all do, i'm not completely sure). there's definitely a large difference between bordigism and anarchism, but a council communist and anarchosyndicalist could be pretty much the same.

cenv

11th April 2010, 04:05

What seperates "libertarian" marxists like council communists from anarchists?
In terms of theory and practice, not much. Whether people call themselves council communists, anarcho-communists, or whatever usually comes down to what historical tendencies and authors they identify most strongly with. Plus, since Libertarian Marxists identify with the Marxist tradition, they're more likely to incorporate Marxist terminology and ideas like the petty-bourgeoisie, dialectical materialism, etc. into their analysis -- then again, a lot of Marxism has bled into anarchist analyses too. Finally, even if they want the same thing, different strands of libertarian communism tend to emphasize different aspects of it: anarcho-syndicalists and unions, council communists and the formation of workers' councils, etc. But when it comes to praxis, trying to draw definitive lines between the different schools of libertarian communism boils down to splitting hairs using incompatible definitions. Better just to call yourself a communist. ;)

syndicat

11th April 2010, 05:59

lepore:
The task of a political party. A principle of Marxism is that the only way to dismantle capitalist political power is to get Marxists elected to political offices and use the power of their offices. Anarchists want the workers to seize control of the industries while supporters of the capitalist system still have control of the government.

total bullshit. Libertarian socialists also want the working class to replace the state with a popular power based on neighborhood and workplace assemblies. It's just that this wouldn't be a state.

I used to be a "libertarian marxist." Official marxism is partyist. they believe that you need to build a party to seize state power. many libertarian marxists disagree with this. It's possible to believe that the role of the revolutionary organization is not to seize the state. Read for example "Workers Councils" by Anton Pannekoek...a classic libertarian marxist.

thus the main disagreement between libertarian marxism and anarchism seems to be about elements of marxist theory, such as historical materialism. I agreed with historical materialism when i was a libertarian marxist but no longer do. but i still agree with various aspects of marxism as many social anarchists do.

the ultra left libertarian marxists are problematic, tho, because of their rejection of the building of mass organizations such as grassroots syndicalist unions. on this point I think the libertarian marxists have their heads up their asses.

11th April 2010, 06:13

the ultra left libertarian marxists are problematic, tho, because of their rejection of the building of mass organizations such as grassroots syndicalist unions.
I myself don't necessarily reject building mass organisations. The only trouble I have with an organisation or vanguard of sorts is that it could seize control of the state. That's one point I'd like to make: never let the revolutionary organisation achieve executive power.

on this point I think the libertarian marxists have their heads up their asses.
I resent that.

ZeroNowhere

11th April 2010, 06:43

The task of a political party. A principle of Marxism is that the only way to dismantle capitalist political power is to get Marxists elected to political offices and use the power of their offices[/URL].
I'm [URL="http://www.slp.org/pdf/de_leon/eds1909/1909_aug03.pdf"]fairly sure (http://slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/as_to_politics.pdf) not even De Leon believed this.

Devrim

11th April 2010, 07:06

What seperates "libertarian" marxists like council communists from anarchists?

'Libertarian Marxist' is a pretty meaningless term. It is basically a term used by anarchists to describe Marxists that they like. Generally, it was used by the people who it refeers to, and they would have rejected it. Generally the whole authoritarian-Libertarian thing is not part of the Marxist discourse.The vast majority of people who are Marxists do not think of themselves as 'authoritarians'.

The term 'Libertarian socialist' is somewhat different and does have its own tradition.

I've never heard of the theory of decadence, what is it?

It is a theory about the development of capitalism, which was based on Luxemborg's work, and taken up by the communist international. Most groups that draw on the German communist left, and council communist would hold some version of it. To be honest it is just basic Marxism that says that modes of production have ascendant periods when they are historically progressive and decadent when they become a fetter on the development of the means of production.

Different groups place different interpretations and levels of importance on it. Our take on it is here:

http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/decadence

To be honest, I think we go on about it too much sometimes.

I thought council commies are against this?

Yes, they are. DeLeon wasn't a council communist.

Then maybe council comunists are for yogoslavian federation style socialism, where workers controlled the means of production democratically with the backup of the state? I don't think that's it...Don;t we have any council commmies here?

There aren't really any council communists left anymore.

They didn't support Yugoslav-style 'socialism' though.

but a council communist and anarchosyndicalist could be pretty much the same.

A lot of anarchists say this. I think it is because they are attracted to the theoretical work of the German left due to in basically being much more coherent than what passes for anarchist theory. Also they can feel sympathy with the principled stand taken against 'Leninsm', and the degeneration of the Russian revolution.

There are, however, more than slight difference. Anarcho-syndicalists believe that workers must form revolutionary unions. Council communists belived that unions were against the working class. It is not a small point.

I used to be a "libertarian marxist." Official marxism is partyist. they believe that you need to build a party to seize state power. many libertarian marxists disagree with this. It's possible to believe that the role of the revolutionary organization is not to seize the state. Read for example "Workers Councils" by Anton Pannekoek...a classic libertarian marxist.

Our organisation doesn't believe that 'you need to build a party to seize state power'. Are we 'libertarians' too now? Anton Pannekoek would have hated being called a 'libertarian Marxist'.

the ultra left libertarian marxists are problematic, tho, because of their rejection of the building of mass organizations such as grassroots syndicalist unions. on this point I think the libertarian marxists have their heads up their asses.

Hang on, just a minute ago you were recommending that people read, who by your own description "had his head up his ass", because he certainly rejected 'building mass organisations such as grassroots syndicalist unions'.

Devrim

syndicat

11th April 2010, 07:43

i agree with libertarian marxists like Pannekoek on some things, disagree with them on other things.

i know the ultras will disagree with me. who cares?

revolution inaction

11th April 2010, 10:14

'Libertarian Marxist' is a pretty meaningless term. It is basically a term used by anarchists to describe Marxists that they like. Generally, it was used by the people who it refeers to, and they would have rejected it. Generally the whole authoritarian-Libertarian thing is not part of the Marxist discourse.The vast majority of people who are Marxists do not think of themselves as 'authoritarians'.

Devrim

I think it is usally used to mean the marxist who think the workers should take control during the revolution, rather than a party sizing control of the existing state.
The libertarian-authoritarian thing doesn't need to be recognised by marxist to be valid.

Devrim

11th April 2010, 10:30

I think it is usally used to mean the marxist who think the workers should take control during the revolution, rather than a party sizing control of the existing state.
The libertarian-authoritarian thing doesn't need to be recognised by marxist to be valid.

But it is applying a term to people that they would reject themselves. Generally people who are called 'Libertarian Marxists' would accept that label at all.

Devrim

Wanted Man

11th April 2010, 10:40

11th April 2010, 11:01

It seems like it's just a term used to lump together political tendencies that were, in reality, not particularly close to each other. Who has actually named himself a "libertarian marxist", besides "wikipedia communists" on Revleft who skim a bunch of online articles looking for something to identify themselves with? As if there is some big, happy "libertarian marxist" continuum...
Only slightly related but, why is there an Authoritarian Socialists group on here? I don't think all the Leninists, "Marxist-Leninist" Stalinists, Maoists and Trotskyists are exactly one big, happy family.

Devrim

11th April 2010, 11:13

Wanted Man

11th April 2010, 12:25

Only slightly related but, why is there an Authoritarian Socialists group on here? I don't think all the Leninists, "Marxist-Leninist" Stalinists, Maoists and Trotskyists are exactly one big, happy family.

I agree. Only Revleft members who have never read anything longer than one page would style themselves "Authoritarian Socialists".

I've joined the group to have a look at its contents, and it is indeed basically just for cheap laughs (the only problem is that it is not particularly funny).

Gravedigger01

11th April 2010, 14:33

Libertarian Marxists and Anarchists both believe that the State is used as a tool to oppress the working class however the Libertarian Marxists believe that the state can be used as a tool to help the working class whereas the Anarchists belive that the the state is always evil and thus must be dismantled

Android

11th April 2010, 16:30

Libertarian Marxists and Anarchists both believe that the State is used as a tool to oppress the working class.

Yes.

[H]owever the Libertarian Marxists believe that the state can be used as a tool to help the working class whereas the Anarchists belive that the the state is always evil and thus must be dismantled

I don't think this is correct, what you referr to as 'libertarian' Marxists could be argued were more consistenly anti-statist than anarchists.

x359594

11th April 2010, 16:31

What seperates "libertarian" marxists like council communists from anarchists?

This is the first time that I've encountered the expression libertarian Marxist. It sounds confusing to me. I think it's better to use the terms council communist or non-Leninist Marxist rather than libertarian Marxist.

I describe myself as an anarcho-Marxist in as much as I take from anarchism direct action, participatory democracy and libertarian socialism, and from Marxism the dialectical method, materialist interpretation of history and the analysis of capitalist accumulation through surplus value.

That said, there are anarchist thinkers such as Kropotkin who reject Marx's analysis of capitalism (he considered Marxism a pseudo-science) and draw on other traditions of socialism to arrive at conclusions about capitalism similar to Marx's. Other anarchists simply dump the theoretical baggage of Marxism and start their analysis with the given conditions in which they find themselves.

On the other hand, anarchists like Bakunin (in spite of his personal rivalry with Marx) found much value in Marx's analysis of capitalism and developed their ideas accordingly.

syndicat

11th April 2010, 19:55

Given that marxism has influenced anarchism and syndicalism since the first international, and given that some social anarchists often accept various aspects of marx's theory, "libertarian marxist" isn't a clear term.

But the majority tendency among marxist political organizations is in favor of a party gaining control of a state...either an existing state or building a new one (a dictatorship of the proletariat).

If someone still considers him or herself to be a marxist but rejects this party-takes-state-power doctrine, and believes in the autonomy and power to the mass organizations, then it would be reasonable to say that such a person is a "libertarian marxist."

Before World War 1 there were syndicalists who would qualify as libertarian marxists. For that matter, Gramsci's views during the biennio rosso (1919-20) might qualify him as a libertarian marxist...before he morphed into a Leninist.

devrim:

Hang on, just a minute ago you were recommending that people read, who by your own description "had his head up his ass", because he certainly rejected 'building mass organisations such as grassroots syndicalist unions'.

you're right. i was being inconsistent. you're referring I suppose to Pannekoek. Pannekoek has many good ideas but his views on unionism are not among them.

mikelepore

12th April 2010, 00:10

All Marxists understand the necessity of having a workers' political party take the weapon of the state out of the hands of the capitalist class.

People who call themselves Marxists while rejecting fundamental principles of Marxism are not Marxists. There's no adjective that someone can put in front of a noun could change such a fact, otherwise we would have to say that sometimes a circle can have four corners, if it happens to be a square circle.

The word "libertarian" means someone who supports liberty, alongside the historically related word "egalitarian", which means someone who supports equality. (Is there anyone at all here who would say that they oppose liberty?) No particular organizations can own such words. They are not anyone's trademarks.

Those who want the capitalist class to be in control of the political offices that give the orders to the police and the army, on the day when the working class seizes the means of production, are not, on that account, "libertarian." What they actually are is incapable of reasoning out in advance a multiple-step process to its inevitable outcome, which would be the widespread massacre of the workers.

______________________________________________

"Even where there is no prospect whatever of their being elected, the workers must put up their own candidates in order to preserve their independence, to count their forces and to lay before the public their revolutionary attitude and party standpoint. In this connection they must not allow themselves to be bribed by such arguments of the democrats as, for example, that by so doing they are splitting the democratic party and giving the reactionaries the possibility of victory."

-- Marx and Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, 1850

*

"Against the collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes. This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end -- the abolition of classes. The combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists. The lords of the land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defense and perpetuation of their economical monopolies and for enslaving labor. To conquer political power has therefore become the great duty of the working classes."

-- Karl Marx, International Working Men's Association Resolution on the Establishment of Working Class Parties, 1872

*

"As long as the oppressed class -- in our case, therefore, the proletariat -- is not yet ripe for its self-liberation, so long will it, in its majority, recognize the existing order of society as the only possible one and remain politically the tall of the capitalist class, its extreme left wing. But in the measure in which it matures towards its self-emancipation, in the same measure it constitutes itself as its own party and votes for its own representatives, not those of the capitalists. Universal suffrage is thus the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the modern state; but that is enough. On the day when the thermometer of universal suffrage shows boiling-point among the workers, they as well as the capitalists will know where they stand."

Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State

*

"The working class must above all else strive to get the entire political power of the state into its own hands. Political power, however, is for us socialists only a means. The end for which we must use this power is the fundamental transformation of the entire economic relations."

Rosa Luxemburg, The Socialisation of Society

The Vegan Marxist

12th April 2010, 03:38

Libertarian Marxists? Isn't that bit of a contradiction? I mean, we can't really just point our fingers to certain texts & say agree, then others disagree, this isn't the bible we're talking about here.

ContrarianLemming

12th April 2010, 03:53

syndicat

12th April 2010, 05:03

lepore:

All Marxists understand the necessity of having a workers' political party take the weapon of the state out of the hands of the capitalist class.

So by your "say so" council communists like Ruhle and Pannekoek aren't "marxists". Well, I'm not a marxist for the reason you cite: I don't agree with the idea that the working class could rule through a party or through a party controlling a state. On the other hand, there has been a minority who accept much of marx's social theory and who identify as "marxists" but who have abandoned the party-capturing-a-state path. And these people are sometimes called "libertarian marxists."

The word "libertarian" means someone who supports liberty, alongside the historically related word "egalitarian", which means someone who supports equality. (Is there anyone at all here who would say that they oppose liberty?) No particular organizations can own such words. They are not anyone's trademarks.

"Libertarian socialism" has been used at least since the 19th century to refer to a particular family of related viewpoints within the socialist movement. The word was chosen because of the emphasis on libertry, particularly in its positive form of worker and social self-management. You object to someone not going along with your definition of "marxist" but you then object to us having our own definition of "libertarian socialist." That's called hypocrisy.

Those who want the capitalist class to be in control of the political offices that give the orders to the police and the army, on the day when the working class seizes the means of production, are not, on that account, "libertarian." What they actually are is incapable of reasoning out in advance a multiple-step process to its inevitable outcome, which would be the widespread massacre of the workers.

If workers can effectively disobey the authority of the managers and captialists in workplaces, why can't the state personnel disobey their managers and bosses?

You present the DeLeonist scenario but when has anything remotely like that ever happened? The conditions required in order for a party to win a majority of seats through a prolonged period of participation in electoral politics are not consistent with doing what the DeLeonists envision them doing.

On the other hand, there have been revolutions and near-revolutions where workers have been able to set up new institutions of governance without doing so on the say-so of elected parliamentary leaders.

Just to take one example, the largest worker seizure of industry historically occurred in Spain in 1936. This occurred after the army was defeated in two thirds of Spain initially in an attempted military coup. This initial victory occurred partly becuase two important sections of the rank and file of the state armed forces went over to the side of the workers...the rank and file of the paramilitary Republican Assault Guard and the Navy. The workers who seized the industries did not do so on orders from any political party leaders and did not wait upon some law being signed by thee parliamentarians.

Devrim

14th April 2010, 22:02

If someone still considers him or herself to be a marxist but rejects this party-takes-state-power doctrine, and believes in the autonomy and power to the mass organizations, then it would be reasonable to say that such a person is a "libertarian marxist."

But the people who use that term are anarchists. Those people themselves tend to consider themselves as the real Marxists, and would explicitly reject your term

For that matter, Gramsci's views during the biennio rosso (1919-20) might qualify him as a libertarian marxist...before he morphed into a Leninist.

I would say Stalinist. Gramsci was Stalin's man.

So by your "say so" council communists like Ruhle and Pannekoek aren't "marxists". Well, I'm not a marxist for the reason you cite: I don't agree with the idea that the working class could rule through a party or through a party controlling a state.

Neither do I, but I am part of an organisation, which considers itself Marxist, and holds the same ideas.

Devrim

Zanthorus

15th April 2010, 11:39

The only person I can think of who actually referred to themselves as a "libertarian Marxist" would be Daniel Guerin who was actually an anarchist. For the most part "libertarian Marxism" isn't really an identifiable current since Marxists don't start from moral positions like libertarian or authoritarian but from material conditions and try to analyse what the best course of action is. Sometimes their analysis ends up being what some would call "libertarian" and sometimes it ends up as "authoritarian" but I don't think these classifications really work that well to describe any currents in Marxism.

Red Saxon

15th April 2010, 12:22

When someone in the United States thinks of Libertarianism, they are thinking about the Libertarian Capitalist movement.

Libertarian Socialists as apposed to Anarcho-Socialists believe that a form of government is necessary in any society, whereas Anarcho-Socialists almost all agree that government should be done away with completely.

I myself walk a thin line between the two.

Bilan

15th April 2010, 12:32

What seperates a DoP withou the use of the state from an anarchist revolution?

I've never heard of the theory of decadence, what is it?

This is a theory of decadence. (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/2008/135/ascent-and-decline-of-societies)

Ravachol

15th April 2010, 12:46

After reading all this it is in my opinion that the difference between marxists like council communists and anarchists is nonexistent in practice, though council communists still believe in the various marxist philosophical ideas like dialectic materialism and have a different class analysis (ie: peasants are useless)

I don't think that is entirely true. Where Marxists usually consider certain power relations as politically neutral 'tools' that can be used by either class to their advantage, Anarchists consider those power relations to adhere to an intrinsically opressive logic that, when used will do nothing but reproduce that logic. Obviously this varies between tendencies.

syndicat

16th April 2010, 02:33

Libertarian Socialists as apposed to Anarcho-Socialists believe that a form of government is necessary in any society, whereas Anarcho-Socialists almost all agree that government should be done away with completely.

I would say this is a distinction without a difference. Doing away with all government is really an individualist position. The Platformist tradition of anarcho-socialists would say that a form of popular power or self-governance is necessary, as did many anarcho-syndicalists historically, as did the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (admittedly influenced to some extent by Marxism). Libertarian socialists hold that the state has to be dismantled, but there are different forms of governance institutions than the state. Social self-management -- popular control over the rules of society and their enforcement -- presupposes institutions through which the society governs itself.