The line between Marxist and Anarchist.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I see it very often here that when you want to distinguish the differences between authoritarian and libertarian socialists, people use to call the authoritarians for marxists and the libertarians for anarchists.
Ive always thought that most anarchist used marxist class-analysis and had a materialistics view on the world, at least all ive meet, the real once (ofcourse here in Sweden most anarchist follow the syndicalist tradition thats always have used marxist basics).

Are there any anarchists here that reject the marxist class-analysis and if so how do you define the class system? Ore is this just semantics?

[Revolution starts with U]

I didn't know the dichotomy was between anarchism and Marx. I thought it was between anarchism and later developments like Stalinism. Anarchists just, unlike Marx, reject that the state can assist workers in their plight (we view the state as inherently pro-elite, no matter what you try).
I'm less than an ameteur tho, so, don't rely solely on me. :thumbup1:

[zimmerwald1915]

I didn't know the dichotomy was between anarchism and Marx. I thought it was between anarchism and later developments like Stalinism. Anarchists just, unlike Marx, reject that the state can assist workers in their plight (we view the state as inherently pro-elite, no matter what you try).
I'm less than an ameteur tho, so, don't rely solely on me. :thumbup1:
Of course, Marxists don't believe that the state can "assist workers in their plight either". The folks who do believe that are not Marxists.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Im glad for any try to explaine, tanks :)

But not all marxist see the state to be jused, there are also autonom-marxists and many council communists wants to achive the state and class-less society immediatly.

[Ovi]

You don't have to be a marxist to accept Marx's class analysis.

[Revolution starts with U]

Isn't that why the anarchists were removed from the first Commune (newb to the history, correct me if I am wrong. Tryin tho), because of their complete rejection of the state on the road to socialism?

[zimmerwald1915]

Isn't that why the anarchists were removed from the first Commune (newb to the history, correct me if I am wrong. Tryin tho), because of their complete rejection of the state on the road to socialism?
Not really sure what you're talking about. Much of the Paris Commune's leadership could be described as anarchist.

Are you talking about the First International (International Workingman's Association)?

[Zanthorus]

Isn't that why the anarchists were removed from the first Commune (newb to the history, correct me if I am wrong. Tryin tho), because of their complete rejection of the state on the road to socialism?

The grounds on which the Anarchists were chucked out of the First International were that they were members of a secret conspiratorial organisation set up by Bakunin called the International Alliance of Social-Democracy. Bakunin's polemics against Marx's theory of the state are, of course, usually taken as key texts for anarchists, with the only problem being that most of what Bakunin wrote was based on an analysis not of Marx's work, but the work of the Eisenach group led by Willhelm Liebknecht, and espeically the Eisenach programs mention of the 'free', 'people's' state, a concept rejected by Marx. Engels even wrote in a letter to August Bebel on the subject of the Gotha unification congress saying that he and Marx were getting fed up of Bakunin's pinning every theoretical and practical abberation of the Eisenacher's on them:


I shall desist, although almost every word in this programme, a programme which is, moreover, insipidly written, lays itself open to criticism. It is such that, should it be adopted, Marx and I could never recognise a new party set up on that basis and shall have to consider most seriously what attitude — public as well as private — we should adopt towards it. Remember that abroad we are held responsible for any and every statement and action of the German Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. E.g. by Bakunin in his work Statehood and Anarchy, in which we are made to answer for every injudicious word spoken or written by Liebknecht since the inception of the Demokratisches Wochenblatt. People imagine that we run the whole show from here, whereas you know as well as I do that we have hardly ever interfered in the least with internal party affairs, and then only in an attempt to make good, as far as possible, what we considered to have been blunders — and only theoretical blunders at that.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm

[Tavarisch_Mike]

You don't have to be a marxist to accept Marx's class analysis.

good point

[fa2991]

There isn't so much a big difference between Anarchists and Marxists as there is between Anarchists and Leninists, which most Marxists just happen to be. Catalonia was probably a lot closer to Marx's vision of socialism than Albania, etc.

[Kibbutznik]

I think it could definitely be argued that social anarchism is more or less a sub-set of Marxism, just as much as left communism, Marxism-Leninism etc. As an intellectual tradition, social anarchism is deeply influenced by Marx's theory of history, his writings on political economy and his philosophical treatises on alienation. Any distinction seems to be an artificial one, created by sectarian bad blood.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, the first international, my apologies :D

[Amphictyonis]

You don't have to be a marxist to accept Marx's class analysis.

Or his overall critique of capitalism.

[ContrarianLemming]

I think it could definitely be argued that social anarchism is more or less a sub-set of Marxism

please..don't belittle the theory, it is independant.

not all anarchists accept class struggle and materialism and economic determinism, they're usually socialist individualist anarchists or Insurrectionary anarchists.
I have never personally met an anarchist who did not accept the class struggle conception of historiy, I have met a few who were not entirely materialist and more that were not economic determinist.

[meow]

please..don't belittle the theory, it is independant.

not all anarchists accept class struggle and materialism and economic determinism, they're usually socialist individualist anarchists or Insurrectionary anarchists.
I have never personally met an anarchist who did not accept the class struggle conception of historiy, I have met a few who were not entirely materialist and more that were not economic determinist.
meet me. im a communist anarchist who rejects marxs conception of history (to a certain extent) and find his class analysis unuseful. however i am 100% materialist.

----

to op: to me to have a class analysis it has to be useful. i personanly think that the economic basis that marx uses isnt as useful today as other options. there are to many areas where there is gray rather then black and white. or else there are to many people who are petit bourgeois rather than proletariat. owning shares means you own a part of the means of production. if you own enoguh you dont have to work. if you have to work then you are not capitalist 100%. which means you are small capitalist. proletariat have to work and dont have capital at all. etc.

for me i use a notion of power. power being power over others. sorts of power include: political power (politicians etc.) economic power (owning shit) force power (e.g. police) and so on. using my conception of class we can see that the police are not the same as your ordinary worker. and most people have fuck all power. managers are easily classified (depending on level) because of hire and fire power as well as economic power.

i have in effect no power as i cant influence other peoples lives. the boss of my division who can fire upwards of 100 people has a lot more power in that regard. and earns lots more cash and so has economic power as well (probably also has shares and such). police who can shoot and kill with impunity (as well as beat people up etc.) have more power then me. of course if they tried it on someone higher in the food chain (a high ranking politician for example) they would realise that they dont have that much power. (only us plebs can get beaten without consequence.)

yeah. thats me and probably others will disagree with me. but im anarchist not marxist.

yes there are pleanty anarchist who do agree with most of what marx wrote but not all. not even all communist anarchists.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

The line started in the First International, although it tends to be blown up quite a bit. IIRC, after the Paris Commune, Marx wrote about it in a somewhat libertarian manner, and Bakunin embraced him, saying something along the line of: "That's what I've been saying all along!" (In general, they agreed a lot on the situation). Even after the delightful meeting, and Bakunin doing a heavy favor (attempting to translate Das Kapital into Russian), Marx continued to criticize Bakunin behind his back to people like Engels. I think even in the finer of times, Marx couldn't let go of past grudges, even if a comrade and himself would agree on certain topics.
Of course, they had their differences, but I think the early history of Marx(ism) and Bakunin/anarchism had unnecessary tensions due to their large personalities and egos (although, I'm not sure if I would call Marx "popular" or "large" for most of his life, unlike Bakunin). Political tendencies aside and looking at the facts, Marx took a lot of cheap shots.
...Small penis? :lol:
Further divisions between Marxists and Anarchists were drawn by themselves, rather then by actual ideologies. A lot of early anarchists drew heavily from Marx's analysis on certain things, and I think a lot still do.

Us radicals just love overblown shitstorms.

[Kibbutznik]

please..don't belittle the theory, it is independant.

not all anarchists accept class struggle and materialism and economic determinism, they're usually socialist individualist anarchists or Insurrectionary anarchists.
I have never personally met an anarchist who did not accept the class struggle conception of historiy, I have met a few who were not entirely materialist and more that were not economic determinist.
First of all, I very clearly specified "social anarchism", as in the the philosophical traditions of anarchism that are both collectivist and socialist in their orientation. Individualist anarchists need not apply.

Furthermore, I was commenting on the intellectual heritage of social anarchism, something which I am intimately familiar with. As a whole, social anarchist thinkers and writers have been generally derivatives of Marx's theories.

The fact that individuals may or may not fully comprehend the theoretical corpus is irrelevant. There are more than a few Marxists out there that fail to understand the full nuances of Marx and would often fail your litmus test, but that doesn't mean anything about the content of Marxism as a corpus of theory.

[ZeroNowhere]

Technically, Bakunin embracing Marx would be inconsistent with his anti-Semitism, wouldn't it?

Anyhow, there was a recent article on the subject of Bakunin and Marx here (http://libcom.org/library/marx-bakunin-question-authoritarianism).

[Tavarisch_Mike]

meet me. im a communist anarchist who rejects marxs conception of history (to a certain extent) and find his class analysis unuseful. however i am 100% materialist.

----

to op: to me to have a class analysis it has to be useful. i personanly think that the economic basis that marx uses isnt as useful today as other options. there are to many areas where there is gray rather then black and white. or else there are to many people who are petit bourgeois rather than proletariat. owning shares means you own a part of the means of production. if you own enoguh you dont have to work. if you have to work then you are not capitalist 100%. which means you are small capitalist. proletariat have to work and dont have capital at all. etc.

for me i use a notion of power. power being power over others. sorts of power include: political power (politicians etc.) economic power (owning shit) force power (e.g. police) and so on. using my conception of class we can see that the police are not the same as your ordinary worker. and most people have fuck all power. managers are easily classified (depending on level) because of hire and fire power as well as economic power.

i have in effect no power as i cant influence other peoples lives. the boss of my division who can fire upwards of 100 people has a lot more power in that regard. and earns lots more cash and so has economic power as well (probably also has shares and such). police who can shoot and kill with impunity (as well as beat people up etc.) have more power then me. of course if they tried it on someone higher in the food chain (a high ranking politician for example) they would realise that they dont have that much power. (only us plebs can get beaten without consequence.)

yeah. thats me and probably others will disagree with me. but im anarchist not marxist.

yes there are pleanty anarchist who do agree with most of what marx wrote but not all. not even all communist anarchists.

Actually i think i agree with all youve said here, we have to remeber that the marxist class analysis isnt the absolute true that has to be read in its evry singel word. Its more like a map that describes the terrain, the cardinal points and so, but like a map it hasnt all the dimensions, a path that on the map looks like a short way can in reallity be filled with big, slippry rocks. I agree that power plays a hughe roll and that some who traditionaly in marxists theory would be chategorized as petite bourgeousie, will have more incommon with the proletariat, such as a owner of a small corner shop where the only employees are hes wife and kids who lives togheter and therefor works for the same survival.
While in the other hand police officers that technicaly are just as much wage slaves as a waitress, will have very little interest with the proletariat, because of theire power, true.

But you see i think this power-thing is part in the description of production and dont clash with marxism, instead its already there.

[ContrarianLemming]

First of all, I very clearly specified "social anarchism", as in the the philosophical traditions of anarchism that are both collectivist and socialist in their orientation. Individualist anarchists need not apply.

Furthermore, I was commenting on the intellectual heritage of social anarchism, something which I am intimately familiar with. As a whole, social anarchist thinkers and writers have been generally derivatives of Marx's theories.

The fact that individuals may or may not fully comprehend the theoretical corpus is irrelevant. There are more than a few Marxists out there that fail to understand the full nuances of Marx and would often fail your litmus test, but that doesn't mean anything about the content of Marxism as a corpus of theory.

And who influenced Marx? Proudhon, Hegel, primitivist communes..does this mean Marxism is actually a subset of anarchism which in turn is a subset of Marxism? Or is Marxism a subset of Hegelianism or Primitivism?

you see where this line of thinking goes, it's belittling to state that; because anarchist thinkers were so influenced by Marx, they're a subset of Marxism, I need not explain how much Marx was influenced by the writings of bourgeoisie thinkers and prehistoric communism, that doesn't mean he's a primie.

I think it's intellectually dishonest when you say anarchists are actually all Marxists, like when a theist says to an atheist "you do actually believe in god" pulleez

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Technically, Bakunin embracing Marx would be inconsistent with his anti-Semitism, wouldn't it?

Anyhow, there was a recent article on the subject of Bakunin and Marx here (http://libcom.org/library/marx-bakunin-question-authoritarianism).
Yes, quite odd. Bakunin had his moments of anti-semitism, and Marx had his bouts of slavic/russia-phobia. Both men had their flaws, yet put it aside temporarily in that brief moment.

Thanks for the link.

[Os Cangaceiros]

After reading many, MANY of these discussions over the years I've been on this site, I've come to the conclusion that much of the difference is merely semantics, and nothing is more evident of that than discussions regarding "the state".

Don't get me wrong: there are HUGE differences between individual anarchists and individual Marxists, and even between anarchist sects and Marxists sects. But trying to draw conclusive dividing lines between Marxism and Anarchism as broad ideologies is next to impossible, due to the diversity of thought in both schools.

[AK]

You don't have to be a marxist to accept Marx's class analysis.
Whilst this is true, I would refrain from using it as the Marxist class analysis is almost exclusively based on direct property relations.

[fa2991]

The bourgeoisie. Anarchists are on the opposite side of the marxists.

:rolleyes:

[Apoi_Viitor]

The bourgeoisie. Anarchists are on the opposite side of the marxists.

In the words of George Orwell, "Just imagine how odious it must be to see a young 15-year old Spaniard brought back from the front lines on a stretcher, to see, poking out from under the blanket an anemic, bewildered face and to think that in London and Paris there are gentlemen dressed to the nines, blithely engaged in writing pamphlets to show this little lad is a covert fascist."

[AK]

The bourgeoisie. Anarchists are on the opposite side of the marxists.
http://aejjabaad.webs.com/riveting%20tale%20chap.png

[manic expression]

In the words of George Orwell, "Just imagine how odious it must be to see a young 15-year old Spaniard brought back from the front lines on a stretcher, to see, poking out from under the blanket an anemic, bewildered face and to think that in London and Paris there are gentlemen dressed to the nines, blithely engaged in writing pamphlets to show this little lad is a covert fascist."
How fair-minded of Orwell...perhaps he could apply the same judgment to himself when he told tens of millions of Soviet citizens that they fought and died for "Big Brother".

Anyway, it comes down to what you think is the basis of society. Do class and production define society or does the existence of a state? Anarchists either oppose or reject the idea of a working-class state, while Marxists embrace it and seek it.

[AK]

anarchists always betray the workers to the bourgeoisie. They did it in kronsdadt.
 

http://aejjabaad.webs.com/riveting%20tale%20chap.png

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Anarchists always betray the workers to the bourgeoisie. They did it in Kronsdadt.
you marxistn00b

[Kibbutznik]

And who influenced Marx? Proudhon, Hegel, primitivist communes..does this mean Marxism is actually a subset of anarchism which in turn is a subset of Marxism? Or is Marxism a subset of Hegelianism or Primitivism?

you see where this line of thinking goes, it's belittling to state that; because anarchist thinkers were so influenced by Marx, they're a subset of Marxism, I need not explain how much Marx was influenced by the writings of bourgeoisie thinkers and prehistoric communism, that doesn't mean he's a primie.

I think it's intellectually dishonest when you say anarchists are actually all Marxists, like when a theist says to an atheist "you do actually believe in god" pulleez
What part of "social anarchism" do you not understand?

Social anarchism is very much a derivative of Marxism. The majority of it's intellectual heritage is derived from or intertwined with Marxism.

Anarchism as a whole is not. If we were to draw a Venn diagram between Marxism and anarchism, then social anarchism would be entirely within the overlap area between the two theories.

Social anarchism is as much derivative of Marxism as it is of the rest of the anarchist tradition. Your argument is a strawman; there is no antagonism between social anarchism and Marxism. There is however, considerable antagonism between Marxism and it's antecedents in Hegel, Feuerbach, Proudhon et. al.

Marx defined his theory of history, his notions of human nature, and his political economy in opposition to his antecedents. He inverted Hegel's idealist dialectic, and reasoned a materialistic conception of history instead. He rejected Feuerbach's lack of historicity, and his continued preocupation with the evolution of ideas, and focused the study of history on political economy.

That's why we can say Marx's work may be derived from men like Hegel or Proudhon, but it is also discrete from it. Social anarchism, however, is not discrete from Marxism.

[MarxSchmarx]

Anarchists always betray the workers to the bourgeoisie. They did it in Kronsdadt.

You mean leninsists?

[Zanthorus]

Whilst this is true, I would refrain from using it as the Marxist class analysis is almost exclusively based on direct property relations.

I find it interesting that you would know exactly what Marx's class analysis is based on, as he himself never wrote anything besides defining various historically specific classes. The manuscript for the Chapter in Volume 3 where Marx is about to define class cuts off before we get to the actual defintion. This issue is one of those things that should be hotly debated but isn't because everyone seems to (wrongly) take it for granted. In fact, it is highly likely that the reason Marx never defined what a 'class' is, that to define a supra-historical category like that would be totally alien to his whole project.

[Thirsty Crow]

Anarchists either oppose or reject the idea of a working-class state, while Marxists embrace it and seek it.
And what is a working class state?
Does it entail institutions of class self-management, i.e. soviets or other forms of councils (e.g. neighbourhood councils)?
Or does it entail a complex of institutions, disconnected from the wider society, with the vested powers of command (e.g. Gosplan and the Central Committee)?

Or more precisely, do Marxists seek a balance between these two within the period of transition or do they favour one over the other? And on what basis do they ground their preference?

[bricolage]

And what is a working class state?
I'm sure you'll get the response that a state is class rule so working class state is working class rule. Of course this is never what Marx meant a state to be, nor what anarchists have ever defined the state as. Ultimately its a meaningless definition but one that gets bandied around a ridiculous amount.

I think the problem is we still don't know what we mean by state. Here are two good starting points though;

http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpholloway.htm
http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html

[manic expression]

And what is a working class state?
Does it entail institutions of class self-management, i.e. soviets or other forms of councils (e.g. neighbourhood councils)?
Or does it entail a complex of institutions, disconnected from the wider society, with the vested powers of command (e.g. Gosplan and the Central Committee)?
This is exactly what I mean. Anarchists either oppose the idea of a working class state or they qualify the notion so much as to make it a meaningless impossibility. Here, Menocchio posits that a centrally-planned economy is inherently anti-worker, even though GOSPLAN represented objective progress for workers, by workers. Thus we see that either anarchist argument (that worker states are to be opposed or narrowly-defined to the point of nonexistence) is really one of the major dividing lines between Marxism and anarchism.

[Apoi_Viitor]

There really is no clear line between Anarchists and Marxists. When most Anarchists (myself included) refer to the state, we use the definition that The State is a system of power in the hands of a minority. When Marxist-Leninists use the term "State", they refer to political power exercised by one class over another. As far as I can see, I don't see why Anarchism is incompatible with Orthodox Marxism.

[LeninBalls]

You mean leninsists?

No, I think he means Anarchists. If he meant Leninists, then he would've typed Leninists not Anarchists wouldnt have he..????????

[Obs]

Awesome! Let's have this venomous sectarian fight between anarchists and leninists just one more time!

[revolution inaction]

No, I think he means Anarchists. If he meant Leninists, then he would've typed Leninists not Anarchists wouldnt have he..????????

if they had typed Leninist then the statement would have made sense and been historically accurate, as it is it's just gibberish.

[bricolage]

Awesome! Let's have this venomous sectarian fight between anarchists and leninists just one more time!
yay!

[Amphictyonis]

How fair-minded of Orwell...perhaps he could apply the same judgment to himself when he told tens of millions of Soviet citizens that they fought and died for "Big Brother".

Anyway, it comes down to what you think is the basis of society. Do class and production define society or does the existence of a state? Anarchists either oppose or reject the idea of a working-class state, while Marxists embrace it and seek it.

Define working class state.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Awesome! Let's have this venomous sectarian fight between anarchists and leninists just one more time!

In our defense, the history of the last 100 years shows that any powerful political party which bases itself off of Marxist-Leninist thought, hasn't treated anarchists all that nicely. In fact, I have yet to find a historical example, where after taking power (or even before taking power, as in the case of Catalonia), the communist party hasn't violently oppressed anarchist dissidents.

[manic expression]

Define working class state.
A state controlled by the working class.

[Soseloshvili]

if they had typed Leninist then the statement would have made sense and been historically accurate, as it is it's just gibberish.

Do you actually understand what occurred at the island of Kronstadt. The sailors there, which had previously fought for Leninism, turned against it and demanded a Constituent Assembly in which Bourgeois parties would be able to participate in the name of freedom.

Explain how that is in any way not betraying the revolution to the Bourgeosie as Anarchists.

[bricolage]

Do you actually understand what occurred at the island of Kronstadt. The sailors there, which had previously fought for Leninism, turned against it and demanded a Constituent Assembly in which Bourgeois parties would be able to participate in the name of freedom.
Where? The only demand related to elections was the first one;
"1. immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda."
But as you can see it mentions new elections to the Soviets not a 'Constituent Assembly'.

[Amphictyonis]

A state controlled by the working class.

Define what a state controlled by the working class would look like and...was this where Marx's vision ended? In my opinion the differences between anarchists and Marxists is found in patience. Anarchists want it all immediately while Marx saw a more transitional path to anarchism....albeit via socialist revolution in both cases. The state phase being necessary in Marxists opinion and anarchists wanting advanced communism to rapidly form.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Define what a state controlled by the working class would look like and...was this where Marx's vision ended? In my opinion the differences between anarchists and Marxists is found in patience. Anarchists want it all immediately while Marx saw a more transitional path to anarchism....albeit via socialist revolution in both cases. The state phase being necessary in Marxists opinion and anarchists wanting advanced communism to rapidly form.

This guide really should be required reading for any Leftist: http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionH

In short, the repeated argument made by Marxist-Leninists, that Anarchists just want "communism" over-night, is simply ridiculous. Rather I think the reverse is true. Instead of waiting for the radicalization of the working class, Lenin hoped to force-ably assert marxism from the top-down. I think that whether or not it was Lenin's intention, the standardization and acceptance of Marxist-Leninism as being the correct interpretation of Marx, has led to the now (near) universal rejection of Marxism by the working-class. The common assumption that "communism" = police state, slavery, etc. is hard to refute, because the history of the last 100 or so years, speaks so horribly of "marxism". In fact, if it weren't for the uniqueness of Catalonia, I probably would have given up on socialism, and categorized it as simply "Utopian".

[manic expression]

Define what a state controlled by the working class would look like and...was this where Marx's vision ended?
Long answer: Specifics do not equal a definition. There are many ways a worker state could look like: we have historical examples from many countries and many periods, the question is about what works.

Short answer: Cuba.

And no, that's not where the communist vision ends.

[Amphictyonis]

This guide really should be required reading for any Leftist: http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionH

In short, the repeated argument made by Marxist-Leninists, that Anarchists just want "communism" over-night, is simply ridiculous. Rather I think the reverse is true. Instead of waiting for the radicalization of the working class, Lenin hoped to force-ably assert marxism from the top-down. I think that whether or not it was Lenin's intention, the standardization and acceptance of Marxist-Leninism as being the correct interpretation of Marx, has led to the now (near) universal rejection of Marxism by the working-class. The common assumption that "communism" = police state, slavery, etc. is hard to refute, because the history of the last 100 or so years, speaks so horribly of "marxism". In fact, if it weren't for the uniqueness of Catalonia, I probably would have given up on socialism, and categorized it as simply "Utopian".

Lenin didn't have an industrial working class to work with. The reasons Russia failed are complicated. War, crop failure and the fact it wasn't an advanced industrial nation to begin with. Marx invisioned socialism being 'birthed' from the womb of advanced capitaoist nations. This has yet to happen so Marxism has yet to fail.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Lenin didn't have an industrial working class to work with. The reasons Russia failed are complicated. War, crop failure and the fact it wasn't an advanced industrial nation to begin with. Marx invisioned socialism being 'birthed' from the womb of advanced capitaoist nations. This has yet to happen so Marxism has yet to fail.

Yeh.....

I think my approach is more scientific than Marx's, here it is:

There are two pre-requisites for socialism:

1. a population that desires it
2. the successful implementation of radical democracy or the "dictatorship of the proletariat"

Socialism failed in Russia because it was forceful collectivization, and autocratic rule. Socialism failed in Catalonia because the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany helped suppress it.

[Amphictyonis]

Yeh.....

I think my approach is more scientific than Marx's, here it is:

There are two pre-requisites for socialism:

1. a population that desires it


Industrial socialism necessitates an (industrial) working class (which Russia didn't have) and a global revolution. A "population" cannot manifest as an advanced communist/anarchist nation isolated by itself. I'm not excusing Stalin here and would have liked to seen a more democratic approach in the attempt at building socialism in Russia but it still would've failed even if the workers councils made all the decisions.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Industrial socialism necessitates an (industrial) working class (which Russia didn't have) and a global revolution. A "population" cannot manifest as an advanced communist/anarchist nation isolated by itself. I'm not excusing Stalin here and would have liked to seen a more democratic approach in the attempt at building socialism in Russia but it still would've failed even if the workers councils made all the decisions.

Does socialism need to be focused on industrialization? This is why Anarchism was popular in Catalonia: because it wasn't based on an obsession with the industrial working class. I find it hard to believe that basic communal life (like feudalism, without the autocracy) necessitates industrialization.

This is probably where my intense disdain for Mao comes from (apart from the fact he killed millions of people) - it's that Mao's policies focused on this obsession with industrialization. After forcing people into communes (which seems fervently against the idea of a commune in the first place), Maoist policy was basically: stop it with this grain shit, we need industrialization now! And then, although revleft obsessively quotes him, I've never heard anyone hear mention his offhand remark, where he accused workers of "hiding grain" (this was in response to citizens requesting he open state granaries, because they were....starving). And also, before they were forcefully suppressed and relocated, there were examples of voluntary communes in Soviet Russia.

Basically, although I appreciate the advances of Marxism, and Marx's strides towards empowering the working class, I don't understand why people take his "scientific method" and apply it to all cases. Socialism in Russia didn't fail because only 8-10% of the working class was industrial workers, it failed because a tyrannical party came to power, which committed acts of genocide and general oppression, in order to preserve its hierarchical power. Neoliberal reform is occurring in China right now, not because socialism is "impossible to achieve in one state", but because party leaders and Chinese citizens are in agreement: at least capitalism is better than that Maoism (that and capitalists want greater exploitation of workers, which of course, necessitates healthy, exploitable workers). You can only starve and torture people for so long, til they demand change.

Also, given that you seem reluctant to embrace Anarchism and you deny the "socialism in one state" theory of Marxist-Leninism, I'd like to ask, what tendency do you define yourself as?

[Amphictyonis]

Does socialism need to be focused on industrialization? This is why Anarchism was popular in Catalonia: because it wasn't based on an obsession with the industrial working class. I find it hard to believe that basic communal life (like feudalism, without the autocracy) necessitates industrialization.

This is probably where my intense disdain for Mao comes from (apart from the fact he killed millions of people) - it's that Mao's policies focused on this obsession with industrialization. After forcing people into communes (which seems fervently against the idea of a commune in the first place), Maoist policy was basically: stop it with this grain shit, we need industrialization now! And then, although revleft obsessively quotes him, I've never heard anyone hear mention his offhand remark, where he accused workers of "hiding grain" (this was in response to citizens requesting he open state granaries, because they were....starving). And also, before they were forcefully suppressed and relocated, there were examples of voluntary communes in Soviet Russia.

Basically, although I appreciate the advances of Marxism, and Marx's strides towards empowering the working class, I don't understand why people take his "scientific method" and apply it to all cases. Socialism in Russia didn't fail because only 8-10% of the working class was industrial workers, it failed because a tyrannical party came to power, which committed acts of genocide and general oppression, in order to preserve its hierarchical power. Neoliberal reform is occurring in China right now, not because socialism is "impossible to achieve in one state", but because party leaders and Chinese citizens are in agreement: at least capitalism is better than that Maoism (that and capitalists want greater exploitation of workers, which of course, necessitates healthy, exploitable workers). You can only starve and torture people for so long, til they demand change.

Also, given that you seem reluctant to embrace Anarchism and you deny the "socialism in one state" theory of Marxist-Leninism, I'd like to ask, what tendency do you define yourself as?

A follower of Marx before the countless revisions by countless faces. Libertarian Marxism. Western Marxism. Call it what you will. Stalin was the one who advanced the theory that socialism could advance to communism in one country. I reject that. I also reject the Bolsheviks so I agree with much of the anarchist critique but it falls short by not taking the materialist conception of history along with other works from Engels/Marx into account. It was more than the anti democratic nature of Russia which made it fail.

[AK]

A state controlled by the working class.
...and if a state is a tool used by the ruling class to exercise its power over other classes, this leaves us with two options:


To assume that your socialism will create a new class of bureaucrats, etc. and therefore you might get an actual state which claims to be a "workers' state" or
To assume that since a socialist mode of production will not create new classes, a "workers' state" can never come into existence because it implies the working class ruling over other classes which are non-existent (since you have expropriated the other classes and not created new ones). Therefore the concept of a "workers' state" is an invalid one.

[AK]

Awesome! Let's have this venomous sectarian fight between anarchists and leninists just one more time!
Yes, let's!

[Amphictyonis]

...and if a state is a tool used by the ruling class to exercise its power over other classes, this leaves us with two options:


To assume that your socialism will create a new class of bureaucrats, etc. and therefore you might get an actual state which claims to be a "workers' state" or
To assume that since a socialist mode of production will not create new classes, a "workers' state" can never come into existence because it implies the working class ruling over other classes which are non-existent (since you have expropriated the other classes and not created new ones). Therefore the concept of a "workers' state" is an invalid one.



A workers state ,in my opinion, is a decentralized federation operating under worker direct democracy. I see no need for a long term centralized state.

[Apoi_Viitor]

A workers state ,in my opinion, is a decentralized federation operating under worker direct democracy. I see no need for a long term centralized state.

That's basically what most Anarchist-Communists (myself included), believe in. Anarchism has always been a rejection of the Leninist conception of the state (because in traditional Anarchism, the state has always been defined as political power in the hands of a minority, which is basically "democratic centralism"), and a call for decentralized federations. The problem with the whole Marxism-Anarchism feud, is that no one uses the same definition of the state. Because when I hear "Workers State", I immediately think of North Korea or Cambodia, or the Marxist-Leninist state, which I believe has come to be the antithesis of a "dictatorship of the proletariat".

[Amphictyonis]

That's basically what most Anarchist-Communists (myself included), believe in. Anarchism has always been a rejection of the Leninist conception of the state (because in traditional Anarchism, the state has always been defined as political power in the hands of a minority, which is basically "democratic centralism"), and a call for decentralized federations. The problem with the whole Marxism-Anarchism feud, is that no one uses the same definition of the state. Because when I hear "Workers State", I immediately think of North Korea or Cambodia, or the Marxist-Leninist state, which I believe has come to be the antithesis of a "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Ya but I think, perhaps, the bourgeoisie state must first be taken over before it can be abolished. Times have changed as have material conditions. I really have no idea how a revolution would manifest in America. The state is now so powerful. Lenin wasn't up against an opponent such as the US capitalist state, even so I don't advocate following the Bolsheviks road map. Unaccountable centralized hierarchy isn't my cup of tea.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya but I think, perhaps, the bourgeoisie state must first be taken over before it can be abolished. Times have changed as have material conditions. I really have no idea how a revolution would manifest in America. The state is now so powerful. Lenin wasn't up against a opponent such as the US capitalist state, even so I don't advocate following the Bolsheviks road map. Unaccountable centralized hierarchy isn't my cup of tea.

No, he was up against colonial europe and monarchy.
Tho I would agree with you (even as an anarchist). Abolish the current state would give way too much power to companies like Blackwater (I forget what they call themselves now), and I don't think it takes too logical a leap to see what happens next.
Aboloshing a capitalist state is a regressive step back to feudalism, imho. Private ownership of capital has to go before the state itself.

[manic expression]

...and if a state is a tool used by the ruling class to exercise its power over other classes, this leaves us with two options:


To assume that your socialism will create a new class of bureaucrats, etc. and therefore you might get an actual state which claims to be a "workers' state" or
To assume that since a socialist mode of production will not create new classes, a "workers' state" can never come into existence because it implies the working class ruling over other classes which are non-existent (since you have expropriated the other classes and not created new ones). Therefore the concept of a "workers' state" is an invalid one.


Yes, this is what I was talking about. Here, we find yet another anarchist reaction to Marxism along the predictable lines: the first argument insists that workers are incapable of wielding state power in the manner that every ruling class in history has; that workers, being less politically able, will inevitably lose control of the state, and that the bureaucracy will conquer authority. Its adherents may protest as they will, but that is the logic that follows from the first point, that workers can't handle what the bourgeoisie currently handles. Why else would they say the workers cannot accomplish what the bourgeoisie did before it?

The second argument falls into a similar fallacy: it holds that if no new classes are created, then there is no class to oppose socialism. But what of the dispossessed bourgeoisie (who are going to be somewhat, well, bothered by having their luxuries, power and position taken away)? What of the capitalists of countries that have not yet been conquered by the workers? What of reaction? Surely these forces must be confronted and indeed suppressed. With the classes we have now, we have plenty of class conflict, so it goes without saying that even with no new classes, class conflict remains a distinct possibility, if not a matter of course.

[Apoi_Viitor]

No, he was up against colonial europe and monarchy.
Tho I would agree with you (even as an anarchist). Abolish the current state would give way too much power to companies like Blackwater (I forget what they call themselves now), and I don't think it takes too logical a leap to see what happens next.
Aboloshing a capitalist state is a regressive step back to feudalism, imho. Private ownership of capital has to go before the state itself.

Why can't they go at the same time?


Ya but I think, perhaps, the bourgeoisie state must first be taken over before it can be abolished. Times have changed as have material conditions. I really have no idea how a revolution would manifest in America. The state is now so powerful. Lenin wasn't up against an opponent such as the US capitalist state, even so I don't advocate following the Bolsheviks road map. Unaccountable centralized hierarchy isn't my cup of tea.

I have thought about this quite a bit. Although, it's over-referenced, I think the events of 68 are how socialism could be plausibly implemented in an advanced capitalist society. Sure, it was ultimately a failure, but I think socialism will ultimately come forth through spontaneous ruptures of protest, by workers advocating for greater self-control and autonomy.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Yes, this is what I was talking about. Here, we find yet another anarchist reaction to Marxism along the predictable lines: the first argument insists that workers are incapable of wielding state power in the manner that every ruling class in history has; that workers, being less politically able, will inevitably lose control of the state, and that the bureaucracy will conquer authority. Its adherents may protest as they will, but that is the logic that follows from the first point, that workers can't handle what the bourgeoisie currently handles. Why else would they say the workers cannot accomplish what the bourgeoisie did before it?

The second argument falls into a similar fallacy: it holds that if no new classes are created, then there is no class to oppose socialism. But what of the dispossessed bourgeoisie (who are going to be somewhat, well, bothered by having their luxuries, power and position taken away)? What of the capitalists of countries that have not yet been conquered by the workers? What of reaction? Surely these forces must be confronted and indeed suppressed. With the classes we have now, we have plenty of class conflict, so it goes without saying that even with no new classes, class conflict remains a distinct possibility, if not a matter of course.

Define State.

[manic expression]

Define State.
Engels in 1894:

“The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state."

In other words, it's the apparatus for the suppression of one or more classes by another class.

[Amphictyonis]

Engels in 1894:

“The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state."

In other words, it's the apparatus for the suppression of one or more classes by another class.

Flirting with anarchism as I sometimes do I'd like to point out Kropotkins Chapter on expropriation in Conquest Of Bread to ask the question - is a long term state the only way to keep the bourgeoisie from exploiting the masses?

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch4.html

[Apoi_Viitor]

Engels in 1894:

“The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state."

In other words, it's the apparatus for the suppression of one or more classes by another class.

Well, that's problematic. When we Anarchists advocate for the abolition of the state, we define the state as political power in the hands of a minority. A "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", or the rule of working-class, would be what I refer to as Anarchy.

[Amphictyonis]

Well, that's problematic. When we Anarchists advocate for the abolition of the state, we define the state as political power in the hands of a minority. A "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", or the rule of working-class, would be what I refer to as Anarchy.

There needs to be a "melding" of modern Marxists and anarchists. Especially in the west. People have been saying this for years but it just isn't happening. Ego's?

[syndicat]

but libertarian socialists or socialist anarchists, esp of the syndicalist variety, have conceived of a political power wielded by the working class, but not by a party, but through mass democracy...workers congresses or councils based on workers taking over the industries, the land and the towns and so on. and also fielding a militia under popular control. not clear why this can't do the tasks that Leninists propose for a "dictatorship of the proletariat." But note that I say Leninists. Leninists make this rather arrogant assumption that they are the "one true Marxists" but in reality Marxism has influenced anarchism and syndicalism and vice versa at times. There isn't really a hard and fast line between "anarchism" and "Marxism". Butween Leninism and libertarian socialism there is a hard and fast line.

[manic expression]

Flirting with anarchism as I sometimes do I'd like to point out Kropotkins Chapter on expropriation in Conquest Of Bread to ask the question - is a long term state the only way to keep the bourgeoisie from exploiting the masses?
The worker state must stay in place as long as it needs to. Whether it is "long term" or "short term" is, in addition to being an entirely subjective judgment, dependent on the status of class warfare. Again, the worker state is about what works. But yes, a worker state is the only effective way to keep the bourgeoisie from exploiting the masses, and history has proven this in spades. The establishment of a worker state signified the victory of the workers (or, conversely, the failure to establish a worker state signified defeat) in every proletarian revolution, and it is no surprise that such states have facilitated incredible progress for workers in virtually every category of life.


Well, that's problematic. When we Anarchists advocate for the abolition of the state, we define the state as political power in the hands of a minority. A "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", or the rule of working-class, would be what I refer to as Anarchy.
Is a weapon only a weapon when it is in certain hands? Is it suddenly not a weapon when it is used by the masses?

[Amphictyonis]

The worker state must stay in place as long as it needs to. Whether it is "long term" or "short term" is, in addition to being an entirely subjective judgment, dependent on the status of class warfare. Again, the worker state is about what works.




I'd say some sort of military would obviously be necessary until the revolution went global. To critisize the piece by Kropotkin I just posted I don't think he took the bourgeois military/intelligence aggression into account.

The real question comes down to what you see as a workers state. Direct or representative democracy. I think we've learned some lessons concerning the effects of hierarchy. The workers state MUST put workers in control of the means of production/planning.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Is a weapon only a weapon when it is in certain hands? Is it suddenly not a weapon when it is used by the masses?

If the "state" is in direct control by the masses, that would be "Anarchism". If the state is in control by the "communist party" that would not be anarchism. I think that the Anarchist definition of the state as only being "political power in the hands of a minority" is problematic, and leads to confusion, but I don't see any contradictions between Anarchism and Orthodox Marxism.

[manic expression]

I'd say some sort of military would obviously be necessary until the revolution went global. To critisize the piece by Kropotkin I just posted I don't think he took the bourgeois military/intelligence aggression into account.

The real question comes down to what you see as a workers state. Direct or representative democracy. I think we've learned some lessons concerning the effects of hierarchy. The workers state MUST put workers in control of the means of production/planning.
I agree wholeheartedly on all counts.

On working-class control, I think there isn't one answer to that. I think it would be short-sighted to say that there is only one way to organize working-class control of production/planning, and history has provided us with different examples: the Soviet Union, due to the Civil War and its aftermath, aligned those responsibilities with the vanguard party very closely. Part of this was because the Bolsheviks were the only political party left standing after the Civil War, and part of it was because the Revolution was on life support from 1920 onwards. Every step made after that point, too, seemed to drive home the importance of vanguard party state power instead of the opposite, which I think can be seen as reasonable in the context of the day.

If you accept that a vanguard party is nothing more than the most politically advanced sections of the workers (and thus the political voice of the workers), then full-on vanguard control of the state doesn't contradict the premise of working-class control. If you don't, then the Soviet system can be quite problematic. Fortunately for us, however, there are other historical examples to look at.

Cuba has a political system that is far different than the Soviet one. Generally, the communist party's only actual power in the state is through the seats and positions it is elected to (or appointed by elected officials) by the workers. The elections are not based on party but on small community councils that decide who represents their voice best (quite reminiscent of the Paris Commune's delegates). This follows up to the highest levels of the Cuban government, effectively meaning the will of the workers is enacted upon without going through the organs of any party.

The real point is that the worker state can take many forms and variations depending on the local conditions at hand.

By the way, if anyone here wants to say that Cuba is repressive and mean to journalists who take Miami money, I'm probably not going to respond because this isn't the place for that, this is about the issue of the state, which is a dividing line between Marxists and anarchists.

[manic expression]

If the "state" is in direct control by the masses, that would be "Anarchism". If the state is in control by the "communist party" that would not be anarchism. I think that the Anarchist definition of the state as only being "political power in the hands of a minority" is problematic, and leads to confusion, but I don't see any contradictions between Anarchism and Orthodox Marxism.
In that case, there is hardly a contradiction between anarchism and Marxism-Leninism, because you can just call the Republic of Cuba "Anarchism" and then we can stand in full solidarity.

The issue is how you define "direct control by the masses". I suppose that's something you have to answer. The only thing I'll say is that not everything can be direct: if someone sends a visa request to a country, does the proletariat have to review, process and stamp the application directly? Maybe a silly example, but the point is that the functions of a state would be difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish through purely "direct" mechanisms. Just something to think about.

[Apoi_Viitor]

In that case, there is hardly a contradiction between anarchism and Marxism-Leninism, because you can just call the Republic of Cuba "Anarchism" and then we can stand in full solidarity.

The issue is how you define "direct control by the masses". I suppose that's something you have to answer. The only thing I'll say is that not everything can be direct: if someone sends a visa request to a country, does the proletariat have to review, process and stamp the application directly? Maybe a silly example, but the point is that the functions of a state would be difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish through purely "direct" mechanisms. Just something to think about.

I agree that direct control is something that cannot always be accomplished through direct mechanisms, but I'm concerned with state control in its disciplinary, legislative, and executive functions. I think that some points of centralization are necessary, and that leads to abstractions. I wouldn't consider Cuba anarchist, because I believe their is a centralization of power in the hands of a minority, which often acts in contradiction to the whims and desires of the majority. I think the fundamental elements here should be accountability and representation: do the centralized figures of authority represent the desires of the majority? How accountable are they for their actions? I take the view, that the Greeks were sort of right, that political power should be a part-time jury duty action, were you were temporarily called in - because of the demands of the citizens to resolve a conflict. And that decisions should be made by those selected by lottery, and allowing for debate over the possible political solutions by varying interest groups in a public sphere.

Granted, what I ascribed above is mostly an abstraction, and fundamental details will have to be worked out through trial and error. But I don't believe any full-time, single party state, such as Cuba, are systems of a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".

[MarxSchmarx]

But note that I say Leninists. Leninists make this rather arrogant assumption that they are the "one true Marxists" but in reality Marxism has influenced anarchism and syndicalism and vice versa at times. There isn't really a hard and fast line between "anarchism" and "Marxism". Butween Leninism and libertarian socialism there is a hard and fast line.

Although that may be true on the basic level of who wrote more polemics over the last 100 years, the Leninist assumption strikes me as basically fair. No other "strain" if you will of Marxism has come remotely close to having anywhere near the "success", much less influence, Leninism has wielded. Even anarchists, who are routinely accused of having paltry results to show for their movement, frankly have a better track record than non-Leninist marxists.

For better or worse, when one wants to discuss with a proponent of Marxism, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of one discussing with a Leninist. It seems to me that the relative historical success of Leninism will continue entail that this is the case for many years to come. I just do not see much of an opening for "non-Leninist" marxism.

The one plausible exception might be certain social democratic movements in the western world, but their relentless capitulation over the last 30 years seems to more than adequately confirm that they are no more capable of staving off capitalist reaction than the leninists.