Anarchist and Marxist Class analysis

[Zanthorus]

Besides, as an anarchist, I use anarchist class analysis.You mean you view the lumpenproletariat as the only revolutionary element :pSince when?

I was sort of half joking, however it is true that Bakunin viewed the lumpen as a revolutionary element:


To me the flower of the proletariat is not, as it is to the Marxists, the upper layer, the aristocracy of labor, those who are the most cultured, who earn more and live more comfortably than all the other workers...

By flower of the proletariat, I mean precisely that eternal “meat” (on which governments thrive), that great rabble of the people (underdogs, “dregs of society”) ordinarily designated by Marx and Engels in the picturesque and contemptuous phrase Lumpenproletariat.

I think this is a problem with viewing things in terms of "heirarchy" and "power" in that you end up by viewing the lowest of the low and the furthest away from the corrupting influence of the state as the most revolutionary class which Bakunin evidently did.

I don't really see what advantages anarchist class analysis has on Marx's analysis of surplus labour however I await someone to convince me otherwise.

[AK]

Lumpenprole pride.

Anyhow, I was meaning this (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB7.html) analysis from the AFAQ.

[BAM]

Bakunin does not mean by lumpenproletariat what Marx meant by it. For Marx it referred to gangsters, thieves and beggars, etc., (ie not wage-labourers) but for Bakunin it meant poor unemployed workers, landless agricultural labourers, poor peasants, etc. In fact, Bakunin is in this respect rather like Herbert Marcuse, who saw revolutionary potential in the groups "outside the system", outside the better-off stratum of the working class in advanced capitalist societies.

[Zanthorus]

Anyhow, I was meaning this (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB7.html) analysis from the AFAQ.

From a quick skim through it doesn't seem too different from Marx's contention that ruling classes use the economic power given to them by their monopoly over the means of production to force the labourer to perform surplus labour time over and above that needed for their own reproduction needs... so it seems disingenous to label it as specifically anarchist.

[AK]

From a quick skim through it doesn't seem too different from Marx's contention that ruling classes use the economic power given to them by their monopoly over the means of production to force the labourer to perform surplus labour time over and above that needed for their own reproduction needs... so it seems disingenous to label it as specifically anarchist.
Remember, you yourself said in another thread that financial capitalists didn't own means of production, and therefore being ruling class was defined by ownership of capital.

Marxist class analysis is something along the lines of either owning capital or performing wage-labour or a mix of both (as is the case of the petit-bourgeoisie).

I find the "sources of social power" anarchist class analysis to be much more useful in identifying class when it comes to individuals like executives, high-ranking party bureaucrats or politicians - none of them own capital or perform wage labour, yet we still consider them to be ruling class; why?

Marxist class analysis doesn't tell the whole story.

In a Marxist class analysis, many would simply call people like bureaucrats "class traitors". But that doesn't actually make any effort to explain why they have more power than others. The term "class traitor" can only really distinguish between ideas and beliefs, not socio-economic divisions.

[Zanthorus]

Remember, you yourself said in another thread that financial capitalists didn't own means of production, and therefore being ruling class was defined by ownership of capital.

Yes, in fact I would put that as a point against the analysis offered by the AFAQ since finance capital is a mode of surplus extraction that doesn't involve any immediate power over the producer.


I find the "sources of social power" anarchist class analysis to be much more useful in identifying class when it comes to individuals like executives, high-ranking party bureaucrats or politicians - none of them own capital or perform wage labour, yet we still consider them to be ruling class; why?

Because they are essentially instruments of the ruling class. Politicians, beuracrats and executives all enable the continued domination of capital over labour and the continued extraction of surplus labour by the capitalist class. It is true that the interests of say, the state, sometimes come into conflict with the interests of the capitalists but only to defend the capitalist mode of production in the long term. And I don't think anyone's ever called them "class traitors".

[BAM]

One thing to remember about Marx's class analysis is that it is essentially incomplete. It is only at the very end of Vol III - after elaborating the sources of income of the capitalists, landowners and wage-labourers - does Marx bring in class. And all we have is a mere fragment.


At last we have arrived at the forms of manifestation which serve as the starting point in the vulgar conception: rent, coming from the land; profit (interest), from capital; wages, from labour. But from our standpoint things now look different. The apparent movement is explained. Furthermore, A. Smith’s nonsense, which has become the main pillar of all political economy hitherto, the contention that the price of the commodity consists of those three revenues, i.e. only of variable capital (wages) and surplus value (rent, profit (interest)), is overthrown. The entire movement in this apparent form. Finally, since those 3 items (wages, rent, profit (interest)) constitute the sources of income of the 3 classes of landowners, capitalists and wage labourers, we have the class struggle, as the conclusion in which the movement and disintegration of the whole shit resolves itself.

Therefore, only once the movement of capital has been thoroughly demystified can Marx talk about actual class struggle in relation to what he has depicted (not that he avoids in it in specific instances such as the struggle over the working day). I mean, class struggle is on every page of the book, whether Marx is talking about it explicitly or not. Unfortunately, when it comes to the "concrete" dynamics of class relations, the book ends before Marx even got going ...

(That does not mean of course that there are not other examples of class analysis elsewhere in Marx's work).

[AK]

Yes, in fact I would put that as a point against the analysis offered by the AFAQ since finance capital is a mode of surplus extraction that doesn't involve any immediate power over the producer.
Do you always have to talk so confusingly?
Besides, is it really just coincidence then that all capitalists own capital and can then do whatever they want with it (accumulate private property, invest, etc.)? I see capital ownership as one thing that defines a capitalist, unless you don't think financial capitalists are capitalists at all because they don't own means of production.


Because they are essentially instruments of the ruling class. Politicians, beuracrats and executives all enable the continued domination of capital over labour and the continued extraction of surplus labour by the capitalist class. It is true that the interests of say, the state, sometimes come into conflict with the interests of the capitalists but only to defend the capitalist mode of production in the long term. And I don't think anyone's ever called them "class traitors".
I have heard people. On this forum, too.

I don't actually expect you to agree with me (you're a Marxist and I, an anarchist) but I also found this analysis to be instrumental in analysing the class structure of the USSR, etc. Otherwise we would just have called party officials and bureaucrats members of the working class - which is obviously just bullshit.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Bakunin seemed to take a liking to Kapital.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Well Bakunin apparently accepted Marx's economics.

But to be honest, i'm wondering really what exactly Bakunin is famous for? What did he exactly advance, theory wise, aside from a load of idealistic conspiratorial crap and vague accusations that Marx/ists were statists.

[Os Cangaceiros]

What did he exactly advance, theory wise, aside from a load of idealistic conspiratorial crap and vague accusations that Marx/ists were statists.

http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/bakunin.html

The whole "steering committee" concept (which is what I believe you're referring to by "conspiratorial crap") is far from being exclusive to Bakunin. :rolleyes:

[Zanthorus]

Do you always have to talk so confusingly?
Besides, is it really just coincidence then that all capitalists own capital and can then do whatever they want with it (accumulate private property, invest, etc.)? I see capital ownership as one thing that defines a capitalist, unless you don't think financial capitalists are capitalists at all because they don't own means of production.

I think your the one talking confusingly here. I said quite explicitly that finance capitalists are capitalists. That's the point. Finance capitalists don't have any immediate power over anyone.


I don't actually expect you to agree with me (you're a Marxist and I, an anarchist) but I also found this analysis to be instrumental in analysing the class structure of the USSR, etc. Otherwise we would just have called party officials and bureaucrats members of the working class - which is obviously just bullshit.

Why exactly would we need it to examine the class character of the USSR?


But to be honest, i'm wondering really what exactly Bakunin is famous for? What did he exactly advance, theory wise, aside from a load of idealistic conspiratorial crap and vague accusations that Marx/ists were statists.

He did a vaguely ok critique of the Eisenach program (http://libcom.org/library/a-critique-of-the-german-social-democratic-program-bakunin). However Marx's GothaKritik covered the same points about the absurdity of the "free", "people's" state etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Marx didn't critique the Eisenach program, which means something was good about it. Something was good about placing something like "producer coops with state aid" in the list of demands (implying political action), but also at the end of the laundry list and not first up as a panacea.

[AK]

I guessed I was talking confusingly, I was feeling pretty drowsy when I was writing that, too (but I wrote that in the morning?).

Back to the point: I'm confused and I've been interpreting Zanthy's posts in about 50 different ways. Fuck it. I'm out.

[Zanthorus]

Marx didn't critique the Eisenach program, which means something was good about it. Something was good about placing something like "producer coops with state aid" in the list of demands (implying political action), but also at the end of the laundry list and not first up as a panacea.

The absence of a critique doesn't necessarily imply that you agree with something. And what exactly is good about producer co-ops with state aid? What exactly are you going to do, outcompete capitalism?