Marxist view on Libertarian Socialism

[Misanthrope]

What is the Marxist view of this branch of socialism? thanks

[Broletariat]

See, Bakunin Marx debates.
(http://www.connexions.org/RedMenace/Docs/RM4-DolgoffonBakuninvsMarx.htm)

[nuisance]

See, Bakunin Marx debates.
(http://www.connexions.org/RedMenace/Docs/RM4-DolgoffonBakuninvsMarx.htm)
If you want to read outdated strawman arguements.
Anyway, there isn't an all encompassing Marxist critique, since some Marxists are libertarian socialists/communists- for example autonomists, council communists and left communists.

[ed miliband]

I don't think 'libertarian socialism' can be thought of as a concrete term that describes a solid ideology, but rather an umbrella term that includes both anarchist and Marxist currents. Hell, some people know mostly associated with anarchism were arguably libertarian Marxists (Daniel Guerin, for instance).

[The Ben G]

I would happily align myself with Lib Socialists (and already have). I only see a few problems with Lib Socialism, but not too many problems, such as how would you begin agrarian reform without a state?

[28350]

Libertarian socialists find freedom an important and essential part of their ideology. A dividing line, as it were.
So-called "authoritarian" socialists don't.
It's why some anarchists consider, say, Leninists their class enemy, whereas most Leninists don't consider the opposite to be true.

[syndicat]

I've never run into any anarchists who consider Leninists to be "class enemies." Unlike some Maoists, anarchists don't tend to identify class with ideological position.

Anyway, Marxism has had a certain affect on libertarian socialism and some libertarian socialists agree enough with Marx's ideas to call themselves "libertarian Marxists." The important Uruguayan Anarchist Federation of the '60s-'70s (significant influence in those years in the Uruguayan labor movement) was sort of anarcho-Marxist. That organization explicitly rejected the individualist strain of anarchism with its fixation on personal autonomy...a view that I agree with myself.

The main difference between the majority Marxist political tradition and libertarian socialism is over the role of the party and the idea of a "workers state." The majority Marxist tradition is partyist in that their strategy for achieving socialism is understood in terms of a party taking power and running a state. All libertarian socialists reject this, whether they are Marxists or not. The libertarian socialist position is tht it is thru the mass democracy of the mass organizations and councils that the working class is to take over running of industry and society. Political organizations are not rejected but their role is conceived differently.

[Zanthorus]

What is the Marxist view of this branch of socialism? thanks

If we can get a definition of what "libertarian socialism" is that would be helpful. If "libertarian socialism" is meant to be a kind of socialism that values "liberty" over "authority" we would criticise you for raising abstract moral principles over solid analysis of material conditions. If "libertarian socialism" on the other hand is meant to refer to anarchism or anarchist-like-Marxism then it's difficult, since no single critique could encompass the whole of what passes for anarchism.


See, Bakunin Marx debates.
(http://www.connexions.org/RedMenace/Docs/RM4-DolgoffonBakuninvsMarx.htm)

Those debates missed probably the key issue at the core which was that Bakunin was a crude materialist who believed that participation in trade-union struggles would somehow magically develop out into international working-class consciousness whereas Marx's materialism had long ago surpassed "the chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism".


Anyway, there isn't an all encompassing Marxist critique, since some Marxists are libertarian socialists/communists- for example autonomists, council communists and left communists.

"Council communists" are Left-Communists and many of the early CC's called for a vanguard party. They were also heavily critical of anarchism. Even in his later years Pannekoek regarded anarchism as arising from the mindset of the petty proprietor.

As for Left-Communism in general being a variant of "libertarian socialism" let's just say that it's highly debatable (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm).


The majority Marxist tradition is partyist in that their strategy for achieving socialism is understood in terms of a party taking power and running a state.

This is slander. Marx never advocated the taking of power by a party. In the Manifesto he clearly states that the proletarian state will consist of the "proletariat organised as the ruling class".

[28350]

I've never run into any anarchists who consider Leninists to be "class enemies."

I've run into several on this website, FWIW.

[Glenn Beck]

What is the Marxist view of this branch of socialism? thanks

http://marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1918/ps.htm

[syndicat]

Z:

This is slander. Marx never advocated the taking of power by a party. In the Manifesto he clearly states that the proletarian state will consist of the "proletariat organised as the ruling class".

I said "the majority Marxist tradition." Now, as to Marx, he advocated the working class to form political parties to "win the battle of democracy" at the time of the first international. Certainly this was the view of Engels. This was the main disagreement between Marx and Engels and the libertarian socialists in the first international. This led eventually to the formation of an international of socialist parties. Now, what does it mean to say the working class should form a political party "to win the battle of democracy", hmm?

[Crusade]

whereas most Leninists don't consider the opposite to be true.

What? I don't know about that.

[28350]

What? I don't know about that.

Personally, I don't find cooperation with anarchists to be objectionable in the slightest. I've done so many a time.
Leninists who do object to working with anarchists rarely do so on the grounds that "anarchists are class enemies." They usually do so on the grounds that "grr I don't want any pesky anarchists in my ideologically pure revolution," or something.
Libertarian socialists (usually) recognize a class distinction where "Authoritarian" socialists do not (or do not consider to be as important).

[Zanthorus]

Now, what does it mean to say the working class should form a political party "to win the battle of democracy", hmm?

Well let's look at the original phrase in the Manifesto:


We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

Clearly "win[ning] the battle of democracy" is concieved of as putting political power in the hands of the proletariat. Now as to why they should form a political party Marx says earlier in the chapter:


The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

I put emphasis on the important bit.

Now let's bactrack a bit. We both should know that working class struggle and hence consciousness develops unevenly. A minority initially are the only ones with any kind of revolutionary consciousness. Only this minority will be a "class for-itself" to use Marx's terminology. So the question becomes what should this minority do while the majority of the proletariat is still not a class for-itself? The classic answer given by Kautsky and Lenin was to form a political party to agitate and make the proletariat aware of it's position, disseminating knowledge through the ranks of the working class to prepare it for taking power. I believe this is also what Marx was trying to say. The purpose of a workers party is to form the working class into a class for-itself so that it is ready to take political power. Now as for Bakunin, it's obvious that he would've rejected this idea of out of hand since he was a crude materialist who believed that by socialists should fight on bread and butter issues since initially workers would be unable to comprehend ideas like collectivisation of property and that participation in trade-union struggles would develop outwards into international working class consciousness. Marx had already critiqued that materialism that forgets that "it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated" in 1845 so he wasn't susceptible to Bakunin's deterministic spontaneism and realised the need for a party to advocate socialism in order to aid consciousness.

[Glenn Beck]

Leninists who do object to working with anarchists rarely do so on the grounds that "anarchists are class enemies." They usually do so on the grounds that "grr I don't want any pesky anarchists in my ideologically pure revolution," or something.

Actually its more like this (from the link that I posted):


There are two sides of the workers' revolution: the destructive side and the creative or reconstructive side. The destructive side shows above all in the destruction of the bourgeois state. The social democratic opportunists claim that in no shape or form does the proletariat's capture of power mean the destruction of the capitalist state; but such a "capture" exists only in the minds of a few individuals. In reality the capture of power by the workers can become a reality only through the destruction of the power of the bourgeoisie.


The anarchists have a positive role to play in this labour of destroying the bourgeois state, but, in organic terms, they are incapable of creating a "new world"; and, on the other hand, once the proletariat has taken power, when the most urgent task is to build socialism, then anarchists have an almost exclusively negative role, harassing such constructive activity with their wildcat and disorganising actions.


Communism and communist revolution - that is the cause of the proletariat, of the productively active class, through the apparatus of large scale production. As for all the other strata of the poor classes, they can only become agents of communist revolution whenever they protect the rear of the proletariat.

[Zanthorus]

Actually its more like this (from the link that I posted):

Hmmm, you mean disorganising action like the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine saving the infant soviet state from annihilation by the white army?

[eyedrop]

I've never run into any anarchists who consider Leninists to be "class enemies." I've run into several on this website, FWIW.
If you rephrase it to "Leninists aspire to be class enemies" I wouldn't necessarily disagree with it.

[syndicat]

Now let's bactrack a bit. We both should know that working class struggle and hence consciousness develops unevenly. A minority initially are the only ones with any kind of revolutionary consciousness. Only this minority will be a "class for-itself" to use Marx's terminology. So the question becomes what should this minority do while the majority of the proletariat is still not a class for-itself? The classic answer given by Kautsky and Lenin was to form a political party to agitate and make the proletariat aware of it's position, disseminating knowledge through the ranks of the working class to prepare it for taking power. I believe this is also what Marx was trying to say. The purpose of a workers party is to form the working class into a class for-itself so that it is ready to take political power.

This doesn't make any sense. The process of the working class changing from a class in itself...an objective oppressed and exploited class...into a class for itself means that it acquires the skills and organizational abilities and knowledge and aspiration...in short, the consciousness...needed to have the ability to liberate itself. Marx believed that this would come about through struggle. And on that point he was right.

It would be highly implausible to suppose that a political or party-like minority organization is the means to this change in the class. Even many Leninists reject this over emphasis on the party-like minority.

Moreover, it's implausible to suppose that a party could be the organization of the class, rather than an organization of some minority of the class. Mass socialist parties have invariably been bureaucratic or hierarchical entities that aim to take power in their own right. Hence such parties are partyist in the sense I defined. Moreover, to say that it is the class organized in party that is ready to take power surely implies this power is to be taken by the party. Moreover, this is clearly what the majority Marxist tradition has believed. Where did the late 19th century Socialist International come from? How did these parties view the transition to socialism? Did they aim to get control of a state?



Now as for Bakunin, it's obvious that he would've rejected this idea of out of hand since he was a crude materialist who believed that by socialists should fight on bread and butter issues since initially workers would be unable to comprehend ideas like collectivisation of property and that participation in trade-union struggles would develop outwards into international working class consciousness. Marx had already critiqued that materialism that forgets that "it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated" in 1845 so he wasn't susceptible to Bakunin's deterministic spontaneism and realised the need for a party to advocate socialism in order to aid consciousness.

you talk about "slanders", well, that is what your mischaracterization of Bakunin's view is. What was the point to the Alliance for Socialist Democracy? This was a political organization to act as a catalyst and influence the class, not to take power in its aim. Moreover, it is a mischaracterization of the libertarian socialist tradition to suppose they never believed there was any catalytic or educational role for revolutionary political organizations to play. So, you have mischaracterized both Marx's view and the views of the libertarian socialist left as well.

moreover, trying to reduce libertarian socialism to the views of Bakunin is a fallacious marxist ploy. He was just one influence. In the '20s-'30s in Spain the libertarian socialists, in addition to the union organization, also organized many neighborhood centers called ateneos. these were working class education centers, with classes & debates on social theory & so on. the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists put a great deal of emphasis on capacitaction -- developing the skills, knowledge and capacity of working people to be an active factor in the revolution.

so much for "deterministic spontaneism." Determinism was more of a Marxist thing.

[Glenn Beck]

Hmmm, you mean disorganising action like the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine saving the infant soviet state from annihilation by the white army?

"Saving from annihilation" is a teensy bit dramatic don't you think? More like they participated in some important battles and won some victories over the Whites in their area of operations. Though their actions certainly made a difference I'm not sure that I would ascribe to them such an indispensable position.

In any case I don't see how any of that contradicts Bukharin's argument, which was precisely that while anarchists would play a useful role in destroying the established order, they were likely to become unreliable or outright disruptive in building the worker's state. I imagine even an anarchist would agree with his argument, with the caveat that the worker's state wasn't worth building...

[28350]

If you rephrase it to "Leninists aspire to be class enemies" I wouldn't necessarily disagree with it.

Case in point.

[AK]

I would happily align myself with Lib Socialists (and already have). I only see a few problems with Lib Socialism, but not too many problems, such as how would you begin agrarian reform without a state?
You need a standing army to reform the agricultural industry?

[Zanthorus]

This doesn't make any sense. The process of the working class changing from a class in itself...an objective oppressed and exploited class...into a class for itself means that it acquires the skills and organizational abilities and knowledge and aspiration...in short, the consciousness...needed to have the ability to liberate itself. Marx believed that this would come about through struggle. And on that point he was right.

Yeah, sorry but I don't buy it. Struggle is an important facet of building class consciousness, but it's not the only important factor. Some struggles can be tainted by reactionary concerns like the strikes at the Lindsey Oil Refinery and their sloganeering about "British Jobs for British Workers". Educational and organisational work needs to be performed by class consciousness workers in order to help people understand the interests at play in the struggle and the necessary outcome.


It would be highly implausible to suppose that a political or party-like minority organization is the means to this change in the class. Even many Leninists reject this over emphasis on the party-like minority.

I think it's more likely that workers will come to consciousness through educational and organisational work by revolutionaries than by simply participating in struggles for mere bread and butter issues.


Moreover, it's implausible to suppose that a party could be the organization of the class, rather than an organization of some minority of the class.

I don't really see where I've suggested otherwise.


Moreover, this is clearly what the majority Marxist tradition has believed.

I don't think there is really much evidence that Marx himself believed it though.


you talk about "slanders", well, that is what your mischaracterization of Bakunin's view is.

It's not a mischaracterisation. This is exactly what Bakunin says in his essay On the Founding of the Workers International:


The millions, the masses, not only of the proletariat but also of the enlightened and privileged classes, are carried away only by the power and logic of "facts," apprehending and envisaging most of the time only their immediate interests or moved only by their monetary, more or less blind, passions. Therefore, in order to interest and draw the whole proletariat into the work of the International, it is necessary to approach it not with general and abstract ideas, but with a living tangible comprehension of its own pressing problems, of which evils the workers are aware in a concrete manner.

[...]

And in laying before them the means to combat those evils and to better their position, it is not necessary at all to speak to them at first of the general and revolutionary means which now constitute the program of action of the International Workingmen's Association, such as the abolition of individual hereditary property and the collectivization of property the abolition of the juridical right and that of the State, and their replacement by the organization and free federation of producers' associations The workers, in all probability, would hardly understand all that.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/wrksint.htm

Quoting the rest of the essay would take too much space but needless to say he advocates starting with trade-union struggles and having those union struggles spread outwards instead of making revolutionary propaganda.


What was the point to the Alliance for Socialist Democracy? This was a political organization to act as a catalyst and influence the class, not to take power in its aim.

And influencing the class requires taking vanguard positions and being at the forefront of struggles bringing them forward not lagging behind.


Moreover, it is a mischaracterization of the libertarian socialist tradition to suppose they never believed there was any catalytic or educational role for revolutionary political organizations to play.

Well you specifically mentioned rejection of the partyist approach by the libertarian socialists of the first international. Of course there have been various libsocs like George Fontenis who even went as far as advocating vanguard organisations.

Like I said in my opening post, there is no single critique I could make of anarchism which would be applicable to all anarchists at all times and places.


"Saving from annihilation" is a teensy bit dramatic don't you think?

I may have exaggerated that slightly :p


In any case I don't see how any of that contradicts Bukharin's argument, which was precisely that while anarchists would play a useful role in destroying the established order, they were likely to become unreliable or outright disruptive in building the worker's state. I imagine even an anarchist would agree with his argument, with the caveat that the worker's state wasn't worth building...

Fair enough.

[syndicat]

Zanthorus: You're very confused. This is shown by your apparent inability to follow a line of argument.

Okay, this is what I opened with:


The main difference between the majority Marxist political tradition and libertarian socialism is over the role of the party and the idea of a "workers state." The majority Marxist tradition is partyist in that their strategy for achieving socialism is understood in terms of a party taking power and running a state. All libertarian socialists reject this, whether they are Marxists or not. The libertarian socialist position is tht it is thru the mass democracy of the mass organizations and councils that the working class is to take over running of industry and society. Political organizations are not rejected but their role is conceived differently.

Notice that there are two points here:

1. The majority Marxist tradition is partyist. It's strategy is based on the party not being only a source of ideas and influence and education in the class, but of being an organization that is to take state power and implement socialism. So the idea is that the working class is supposed to take power through a party.

2. This strategy is also statist because it envisions either taking over the existing state or building a new state, with the party implementing its program top down through the hierarchies of the state.

These are two points that libertarian socialism rejects. These are the most important differences but not the only ones.

Now, first off, I want to point out that you responded with a blatantly fallacious argument. That's becuase you immediately started talking about Bakunin and his alleged "deterministic spontaneism" that supposedly doesn't see the importance of educational and organizing work by revolutionaries.

This is a type of fallacy that in logic is called a non-sequitur becuase you should note that this thread is about how libertarian socialism differs from Marxism, not how Bakunin does. Libertarian socialism isn't defined by Bakunin or any individual activist or writer.

Moreover, I pointed to some cases that clearly indicate the importance of educational and propagandistic and organizing work by libertarian socialist vanguard elements. One example was in the case of the revolutionary syndicalist movement in Spain in the decades leading up to the revolution of 1936. in that case anarchists produced a very large number of political magazines and set up many neighborhood popular education centers, called ateneos, to do trainings, classes, teach literacy, and so on. They also developed a separate vanguard organization, the FAI, to exert influence within the mass unions of the CNT.

Now, in regard to the "vanguard." This topic is tricky because we'd first need an explanation of this. I'll try to offer a neutral one that would probably be accepted by many anarchists or libertarian socialists and also by many Marxists including some Leninists.

Within the working class there are differences in how much opposition to and understanding of the system in the thinking of various workers. Also, some workers are more active, propose ideas for struggles and organizing, have more self-confidence in standing up to employers, some have developed more skills that are relevant to organizing and developing opposition. So the "vanguard" is that section of the working class who ave more active, more oppositional, more self-confident in standing up to the bosses, articulate ideas for the class and make proposals for change.

The "vanguard", thus understood, may or may not be revolutionary at a given point in time. They may or may not belong to political organizations. A "vanguard organization" is an organization of some section of the vanguard thus defined. Revolutionary vanguard organizations have a very ambitious agenda for how far they want to change the society.

Now, given this definition, libertarian socialism certainly is not opposed to the existence of vanguard organizations. There are many libertarian socialist vanguard organizations, that is, organizations put together on the basis of agreement with a fairly tightly defined set of revolutionary ideas. My own organization Workers Solidarity Alliance would be a vanguard organization in this sense.

In the libertarian socialist tradition there is the concept of "dual organizationalism" -- a notion developed by the Italian anarchists in the World War 1 era. This means a distinction is drawn between the revolutionary or vanguard organization and the mass organizations, such as a union, which is put together on the basis of getting workers together who are prepared to stand up to the bosses, and which has its own politics but a looser basis of agreement on ideology than a vanguard organization.

A large proportion of libertarian socialists and Marxists are in agreement on the need for vanguard organizations. Leninists and libertarian socialists differ about their role, not the need for their existence. Thus the libertarian socialist view is that mass organizations should be autonomous and self-managed by their members, not converted into a "transmission belt" of the "party".

But my main contention was that the dominant Marxist tradition is partyist. I think this is clearly true. The point to the "revolutionary party" in Marxism is not just education and propaganda, which you emphasize, but to take state power and then implement the party program through its control over the state. You refer to the section in the Communist Manifesto where Marx refers to the communists as the most advanced and determined section of the working class. But if this group is organized into a party and takes state power, note that it isn't the class that takes power but a minority of it. But parties were supposed to be the means for the working class to "win the battle of democracy," according to Marx and Engels.

Now, in regard to the development of revolutionary consciousness. Marx said that the reason a revolutionary process is needed is because the working class changes through struggle. Now, in saying this, it does not follow that there is no role for efforts at education and the articulation of program and suggestions for the way forward by vanguard elements in the class. So, your second fallacy was in your making the following inference:

1. Mass struggle plays an indispensable role in the development of class consciousness.

2. Therefore, there is no need for vanguard organizations or an activist vanguard to engage in educational work in the class.

You were assuming that if a person says 1 they are committed to 2. But this is a fallacious inference on your part. That's because 1 states a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.

[Zanthorus]

syndicat:

I understood what you said completely but the fact is it is wrong. Was Marx being "partyist" in the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right where he advocates recallable delegates who are merely mouthpieces for the views of their constituents? Where he claims that the self-emancipation of the working classes is the only way to abolish all classes? In the Manifesto where he says that the proletariat itself must be organised as the ruling class? In the Adress to the Central Committee of the Communist league where he says that immediately after the petty-bourgeois democrats take power the workers must make themselves independent and form their own "revolutionary workers government" consisting of local executive committees and workers clubs and councils? In the Civil War in France where he praises the commune for carrying through his earlier demands for recallable delegates and for aiming not at a new type of state but the destruction of all states?

In regards to the stuff about Bakunin, I wasn't trying to critique Libertarian Socialism as a whole. You questioned the role of the party in Marx's writings and noted that this was critiqued by the libertarian socialists of the first international. Since Bakunin was about the only first international era libsoc I've read I merely noted why I thought Bakunin would reject the idea of building a party. How you took that as applicable to all libsocs I don't know.

In regards to the role of the state and the supposedly Marxist idea of taking state power this is a misunderstanding of how Marx viewed the state. The state for Marx was specifically the modern liberal state in which everyone is equal as a citizen even though they are divided on the basis of class within civil society. The modern state therefore is an abstraction based upon false interests which while claiming to represent the interests of society as a whole actually represents the interests of only the most powerful classes. When the proletariat asserts itself as the ruling class in the revolutionary period it als asserts it's own particular interests as the general interest of society and it's organisation constitutes a state until the emancipation of the whole society is achieved and class distinctions are thrown in the dustbin of history.

[syndicat]

Z, you were cherry picking a quote from Bakunin and misinterpreting him. A good corrective would be Mark Leier's biography.

The main disagreement between the liibertarian socialists, which included people like De Paepe (from Belgium) and Anselmo Lorenzo (from Spain, which had the largest section of the first international), disagree with the proposal of Marx and Engels to form workers political parties to run in elections. This they called "the battle for democracy." The libsoc counter to this was that the mass organizations of the class, the unions, should be the basis of revolution, hence the emphasis on the general strike...an idea that poo-poohed by Marx & Engels in a highly distored way, relying on mischaracterizations...their usual way of disputing the libertarian socialists.

How do you account for the emergence of the Second International parties and the overwhelmingly orientation of Marxists to such parties in the late 19th century and early 1900s?

Moreover, libertarian socialism has developed or evolved its conception of the role of the revolutionary political organization over time, so that you had the development of the idea of "dual organizationalism" in the World War 1 era, the example of the FAI in the Spanish revolution, the further evolution of the revolutionary orgaization in the Uruguayan FAU after world war 2 (an organization which was anarcho-Marxist). It's not a static concept, hence references to Bakunin are not adequate.

I think the dominant Marxist tradition is obviously partyist. The dominant Marxist tradition since the '20s has been Leninism which is partyist. Before WW1 the dominant form of Marxism was Second International social-democracy, which was partyist.
Only a small minority of Marxists have rejected partyism, mainly council communists.