Differences between anarchist and marxist class anaysis

[ContrarianLemming]

What, in your opinion, are the major differences between anarchist and marxist class anaysis?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Historically speaking...

- Anarchists have viewed the peasantry as more of a revolutionary force than the Marxists have (although the emergence of Maoism changed this a bit).

- Anarchists often have viewed the state apparatus as a class in and of itself.

- Some anarchists disagree with the notion that capitalism has to reach it's fullest stage (or indeed even be implemented at all) before communism can be implemented.

- Marxist theory dictates that capital will continue to be concentrated, and that large businesses would eventually gobble up small businesses. Some anarchists like Malatesta asserted that small businesses were a natural part of capitalism, and that they all wouldn't end up being consumed.

[syndicat]

There isn't really a single Marxist or anarchist "class analysis" so this isn't really a clear question. Marx never actually presented a theory of class. Different Marxist writers have drawn different conclusions by building on different parts of Marx's social theory. Also, Marx's social theory was highly influential on anarchism, so often the same class categories have been used by anarchists. For example, if you read the Spanish anarchist literature of the '30s they use the terms "bourgeoisie", "petit bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" to describe three classes in Spain at that time...the same taxonomy used by Marxists.

Because of the growth of the layer of professionals and managers with the growth of the corporations and the state in the 20th century, and the emergence of non-capitalist exploitative regimes (such as USSR), this posed a challenge that both anarchists and Marxists have tried to grapple with. Thus GDH Cole's 1948 book "The Meaning of Marxism" refers to the "new middle class" to refer to the top professionals and managers -- what I would call the bureaucratic class -- and this term was used also by some New Left Marxists in the '60s-'70s era.

That said, Marxism classically tended to define ownership of means of production as the primary class divider. This, plus Marx's theory of exploitation, which only recognizes two classes, tends to lead to a bipolar class division between capitalists and working class, based on the ownership of means of production.

But Marxists have often been unclear in how they use the term "petit bourgeoisie." Traditionally they've used it to refer both small employers and also the older class of self-employed artisans and farmers. but this is not really justified, given Marx's theory. For Marx, capital is a social reation, it is the capital/wage labor relation. Self-employed producers are outside this relation, and they are therefore not capitalists at all, and thus "petit bourgeiousie" is not appropriate for them since this should refer to small scale capitalists. this by the way helps to explain the differences between anarchists and marxists over the peasantry.

Because Marx regards class as configured by "the social relations" of production and class domination is a presupposition of exploitation, we should regard class as being a relation of power over others in social production.

Because anarchists are particularly concerned with hierarchy, this way of looking at class is particularly congenial to them. Thus, from a libertarian socialist point of view, the issue should be how the society is stratified in social production by relations of power over others, in particular, power over the immediate producers.

This has led over time to the idea that there are two structures of power over workers. There is a monopolization of private ownership of means of production, which is the basis of the wealth accumulators, the capitalists.

And then there is a relative monopolization of decision-making authority and key expertise related to planning and decision-making, which is the basis of the bureaucratic class, such as middle managers and high-end professionals (lawyers, judges, industrial engineers etc) within capitalism.

This then provides a way of understanding who the ruling class in the socalled Communist countries are, that is, they are a bureaucratic class, not a class of private wealth accumulators. This way of looking at class is more consistent with a libertarian socialist outlook because of its emphasis on hierarchy as a basis of oppression.

another difference is the way in which anarchist writers have focused on the state as a basis of class power. the "means of destruction" (the military and police power) is as much as "material base" in society as means of production. but, again, this comes back to my point about the importance of hierarchy in anarchist thinking because social anarchist opposition to the state is due to its being a hierarchical power structure, and this makes it conducive to a system of class domination.

[ContrarianLemming]

Historically speaking...

- Anarchists have viewed the peasantry as more of a revolutionary force than the Marxists have (although the emergence of Maoism changed this a bit).

- Anarchists often have viewed the state apparatus as a class in and of itself.

- Some anarchists disagree with the notion that capitalism has to reach it's fullest stage (or indeed even be implemented at all) before communism can be implemented.

- Marxist theory dictates that capital will continue to be concentrated, and that large businesses would eventually gobble up small businesses. Some anarchists like Malatesta asserted that small businesses were a natural part of capitalism, and that they all wouldn't end up being consumed.

great, just as I thought, just wanted to be sure, after all this time I never actually asked anyone

[ContrarianLemming]

There isn't really a single Marxist or anarchist "class analysis" so this isn't really a clear question. Marx never actually presented a theory of class. Different Marxist writers have drawn different conclusions by building on different parts of Marx's social theory. Also, Marx's social theory was highly influential on anarchism, so often the same class categories have been used by anarchists. For example, if you read the Spanish anarchist literature of the '30s they use the terms "bourgeoisie", "petit bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" to describe three classes in Spain at that time...the same taxonomy used by Marxists.

Yeah I don't think we can call the proletarians or beougeoisie marxist words anymore, anarchists use em just as much it seems.


Because of the growth of the layer of professionals and managers with the growth of the corporations and the state in the 20th century, and the emergence of non-capitalist exploitative regimes (such as USSR), this posed a challenge that both anarchists and Marxists have tried to grapple with. Thus GDH Cole's 1948 book "The Meaning of Marxism" refers to the "new middle class" to refer to the top professionals and managers -- what I would call the bureaucratic class -- and this term was used also by some New Left Marxists in the '60s-'70s era.I funnly agree, and I think the class would be called the coordinator class, ie: your immediate superior or supervisor.


That said, Marxism classically tended to define ownership of means of production as the primary class divider. This, plus Marx's theory of exploitation, which only recognizes two classes, tends to lead to a bipolar class division between capitalists and working class, based on the ownership of means of production.I also believe your relationship to the means of production defines your class, and I think most anarchists would also agree, theres a great deal of overlap.


But Marxists have often been unclear in how they use the term "petit bourgeoisie." Traditionally they've used it to refer both small employers and also the older class of self-employed artisans and farmers. but this is not really justified, given Marx's theory. For Marx, capital is a social reation, it is the capital/wage labor relation. Self-employed producers are outside this relation, and they are therefore not capitalists at all, and thus "petit bourgeiousie" is not appropriate for them since this should refer to small scale capitalists. this by the way helps to explain the differences between anarchists and marxists over the peasantry.
In my view the petit are simply the small bussiness owners and artists, I don't see the whole black and white capitalists vs workers dynamic as realistic, considering how much of a comeback artists have made lately, namely actors.


Because Marx regards class as configured by "the social relations" of production and class domination is a presupposition of exploitation, we should regard class as being a relation of power over others in social production. which confuses up the petit quite a bit for me


Because anarchists are particularly concerned with hierarchy, this way of looking at class is particularly congenial to them. Thus, from a libertarian socialist point of view, the issue should be how the society is stratified in social production by relations of power over others, in particular, power over the immediate producers.Which seems to me the difference between focus on political ideas and focus on the economic sphere (marxism)


This has led over time to the idea that there are two structures of power over workers. There is a monopolization of private ownership of means of production, which is the basis of the wealth accumulators, the capitalists.

And then there is a relative monopolization of decision-making authority and key expertise related to planning and decision-making, which is the basis of the bureaucratic class, such as middle managers and high-end professionals (lawyers, judges, industrial engineers etc) within capitalism. fully agree.


This then provides a way of understanding who the ruling class in the socalled Communist countries are, that is, they are a bureaucratic class, not a class of private wealth accumulators. This way of looking at class is more consistent with a libertarian socialist outlook because of its emphasis on hierarchy as a basis of oppression.
another difference is the way in which anarchist writers have focused on the state as a basis of class power. the "means of destruction" (the military and police power) is as much as "material base" in society as means of production. but, again, this comes back to my point about the importance of hierarchy in anarchist thinking because social anarchist opposition to the state is due to its being a hierarchical power structure, and ths makes it conducive to a system of class domination.fully agree again, wonderful post

If we consider the bueaucratic class the monopolizers of decision making, wouldn't they include political leaders? Is Obama a coordinator?

[syndicat]

well, i'd consider ordinary actors as part of the working class. I'm not talking about wealthy celebrities who invest their huge earnings.

[ContrarianLemming]

well, i'd consider ordinary actors as part of the working class. I'm not talking about wealthy celebrities who invest their huge earnings.

Well I should say "socialites" (as wikipedia calls Paris Hilton). Petit bourgeoisie are, to day, artists, self employed and socialites.

do we consider hollywood means of production? I suppose so, but it's rpetty different, considering the workers in this job must be treated well while the burocratic class (directors, producers) must serve the actors, or else, pay rise!

[syndicat]

okay, consider what happened in the Spanish revolution? The CNT was the dominant union in the entertainment industry and there were many anarchist actors, apparently. They seized the assets of the Spanish film industry and elected a Spanish film maker as the executive director of the socialized film industry. They equalized pay rates. Mostly the industry was converted to the production of documentaries and newsreels to support the revolutionary and anti-fasicst movement. The film industry was in fact one of the important assets of the anarchosyndicalist movement in the revolution.

In the USA today most members of SAG and Actors Equity do not make much money from their acting. the wealthy celebrities are a minority.

[ContrarianLemming]

okay, consider what happened in the Spanish revolution? The CNT was the dominant union in the entertainment industry and there were many anarchist actors, apparently.

I don't know why but I find this very funny :lol:


They seized the assets of the Spanish film industry and elected a Spanish film maker as the executive director of the socialized film industry. They equalized pay rates. Mostly the industry was converted to the production of documentaries and newsreels to support the revolutionary and anti-fasicst movement. The film industry was in fact one of the important assets of the anarchosyndicalist movement in the revolution.

In the USA today most members of SAG and Actors Equity do not make much money from their acting. the wealthy celebrities are a minority.

tru dat.
I think oyu mean wealthy actors, if you're a celeb you're probably wealthy.

Did they make any romance films? Like the untold story of durutti and emma goldmans affair?