Marxist in Theory but Anarchist Strategy?

[¿Que?]

I'm a little misinformed on what actually constitutes traditionally Marxist and anarchist strategies. So perhaps, someone could help me clear up some of the fog.

As I understand it, Marxist tend to favor organizing the working class into unions and working towards social reforms insofar as these represent part of a broader struggle to politicize the working class and wrest control of the State.

Anarchist, on the other hand, tend to resist all forms of authority, and thus express much antipathy towards unions as well as all social-democratic reforms in general, insofar as they occur within the larger authortitative capitalist structure.

They both seem to accept the general strike as a strategy, but my focus is mainly on where these two philosophies diverge.

On the theory, I think the main rift between Marxist and anarchists has to do with the role of the State. Anarchist reject the idea of a workers state or a transitional form, citing it as another form of authority which just replaces the old, whereas Marxists believe that a transitional state is necessary, since the state is part of the superstructure, getting rid of it alone does not fundamentally alter social relations.

I'm just explaining it how I understand it, so this is mainly a thread to clear up any misunderstandings I may have. Please be polite in your responses.

Based on these assumptions, I am wondering if it is possible to accept the anti-authoritarianism of anarchism, simply as a strategy for the ascendancy of the proletariat into power, but rejecting the theoretical basis of anarchism in favor of a Marxist transitional State.

[Tzadikim]

This is essentially my position. I agree almost completely with the underlying concepts of Marxism, and believe it to have the most highly developed analysis of any radical ideology; at the same time I reject it faith in the State. How can a State - which we might add has existed in its modern incarnation only since the Treaty of Westphalia and the early prehistory of the bourgeoisie as a class - which has hitherto done nothing but support that class be used against it?

However, I think this is rather a false dichotomy. I am convinced now, and have been for some time, that the further development of capitalism will see the "withering away" of the State (it is a holdover from late feudalism and hence essentially incompatible with capitalism) as individual bourgeoisie grow to find it too confining. I'm not convinced that history will show that it remains intact until the final assumption of power by the workers.

Too often we make the mistake of assuming that our own time has reached a stable state; we too often share the "end of history" nonsense that inundated mass culture in the late 20th century. I for one believe that this isn't the beginning of the end for capitalism, but, rather, the end of the beginning.

[Zanthorus]

As I understand it, Marxist tend to favor organizing the working class into unions and working towards social reforms insofar as these represent part of a broader struggle to politicize the working class and wrest control of the State.

The left-wing of the Communist Party of Germany which became the Communist Workers' Party of Germany in 1920 when they were ousted by bueracratic manuevering advocated the destruction of unions, based on the experience of their counter-revolutionary nature during the November revolution in Germany. Marx was in favour of reformist struggles which increased the self-organisation of the working-class as a class-for-itself, that is basically correct. However, he was against the working-class simply wresting control of the state machinery and wielding it for it's own purposes. As such, many of his proposed reforms were intended to decrease the power of the state, such as the direct tax on incomes, of which Arthur Bough commented that his reasons for advocacy were close to those of the taxpayers alliance than most of the modern 'left'. Some Marxists completely reject demands for reforms from the existing state apparatus.


Anarchist, on the other hand, tend to resist all forms of authority, and thus express much antipathy towards unions as well as all social-democratic reforms in general, insofar as they occur within the larger authortitative capitalist structure.

Anarchists are just as divided on this question as Marxists. As far as I can see, those in the Platformist tradition will tend to adhere more to what you regard as characteristic of Marxism, while others, like the AFed, reject unions as inherently reformist.


They both seem to accept the general strike as a strategy, but my focus is mainly on where these two philosophies diverge.

There is a long tradition in Marxism, starting with Engels and going through the 'centre' current of the second international around August Bebel and Karl Kautsky, which rejects the 'strategy' (The correct term would be tactic) of the 'general' or 'mass' strike as being a way of conning the working-class into power whilst avoiding the task of building a strong workers movement. On the other hand, Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg and the Council Communists embraced the 'mass' strike as a tactic.


On the theory, I think the main rift between Marxist and anarchists has to do with the role of the State. Anarchist reject the idea of a workers state or a transitional form, citing it as another form of authority which just replaces the old, whereas Marxists believe that a transitional state is necessary, since the state is part of the superstructure, getting rid of it alone does not fundamentally alter social relations.

Marx said that the Paris Commune was not a revolution to transfer the state from the hands of one ruling class to another, but a revolution to destroy the state itself. And he praises it for precisely this characteristic, for breaking down the 'horrid machinery of class domination'. The dictatorship of the proletariat, 'revolutionary workers' government', whichever of Marx's formulations you want to use, is not a new state form. It is the enforcement of the proletariat's particular interests as the general interest.


Based on these assumptions, I am wondering if it is possible to accept the anti-authoritarianism of anarchism, simply as a strategy for the ascendancy of the proletariat into power, but rejecting the theoretical basis of anarchism in favor of a Marxist transitional State.

I don't agree that the tactics of rejecting unions and struggle for state reforms are 'anti-authoritarian', plenty of Marxists have advocated these same tactics on the basis of their own concrete analysis. Nonetheless, what you are describing is essentially Left-Communism.


at the same time I reject it faith in the State.

I think it was Sartre who noted the is an interesting trend within criticism of Marx where Marx will be criticised for holding to the view of one of his predecessors, who he actually criticised on precisely that point. In this case, Marx attacked Ferdinand Lassalle and the sect around his figure for their 'servile faith in the state'. Marx had no faith in the state, his first major work was a critique of the modern state.

[¿Que?]

Marx said that the Paris Commune was not a revolution to transfer the state from the hands of one ruling class to another, but a revolution to destroy the state itself. And he praises it for precisely this characteristic, for breaking down the 'horrid machinery of class domination'. The dictatorship of the proletariat, 'revolutionary workers' government', whichever of Marx's formulations you want to use, is not a new state form. It is the enforcement of the proletariat's particular interests as the general interest.

Ok, I seem to have gotten confused on this point. Wasn't Marx's argument that The Paris Commune failed precisely because they did not dismantle the state, but rather attempted to use the State, in its current form, to repress the bourgeoisie? This does not seem to be what you're saying, and thus I am confused...

[Zanthorus]

Ok, I seem to have gotten confused on this point. Wasn't Marx's argument that The Paris Commune failed precisely because they did not dismantle the state, but rather attempted to use the State, in its current form, to repress the bourgeoisie? This does not seem to be what you're saying, and thus I am confused...

If that was true, then it would make no sense for Marx to continually refer to the aspects of the modern state which the Paris Commune destroyed (The division between executive and legislative and the standing army are the first two that come to mind).

[crashcourse]

There are tremendously varied opinions within the marxist traditions and within the anarchist traditions on all of the points you ask about, Vagoneta. Marxism and anarchism are historically existing movements of people, not eternal bodies of theory. Furthermore, in some cases anarchist vs marxist is a false dichotomy. For anarchists and unions in particular, I strongly recommend the book Black Flame. Over all, "is it anarchist?" and "is it marxist?" are not particularly fruitful questions - "is it true? does it make sense?" are better ones. Many marxists and anarchists have ideas that fail the tests in those questions, unfortunately.

[ContrarianLemming]

As I understand it, Marxist tend to favor organizing the working class into unions and working towards social reforms insofar as these represent part of a broader struggle to politicize the working class and wrest control of the State.

Anarchist, on the other hand, tend to resist all forms of authority, and thus express much antipathy towards unions as well as all social-democratic reforms in general, insofar as they occur within the larger authortitative capitalist structure.

you are correct in that you are strongly missinformed, your description of anarchism is miles off. The description of Marxism applies to anarchism perfectly. anarchists don't reject all authority.


They both seem to accept the general strike as a strategy, but my focus is mainly on where these two philosophies diverge.

On the theory, I think the main rift between Marxist and anarchists has to do with the role of the State. Anarchist reject the idea of a workers state or a transitional form, citing it as another form of authority which just replaces the old, whereas Marxists believe that a transitional state is necessary, since the state is part of the superstructure, getting rid of it alone does not fundamentally alter social relations.

I'm just explaining it how I understand it, so this is mainly a thread to clear up any misunderstandings I may have. Please be polite in your responses.

Based on these assumptions, I am wondering if it is possible to accept the anti-authoritarianism of anarchism, simply as a strategy for the ascendancy of the proletariat into power, but rejecting the theoretical basis of anarchism in favor of a Marxist transitional State.[/QUOTE]

you're looking for left communism

[¿Que?]

I'd like to mention that part of this idea for me developed after hearing Chomsky talk about the Tea Party, and how the right was able to tap into their discontent more effectively than the left. I figured, and I realize it's a bit of a stretch, that if the left appealed to their sense of self interest, mainly by attacking government instituted social reforms and unions, they could be won over to Marxian theory. Because Tea Partiers equate Marxism with big government, which as has been elaborated in this thread, is not necessarily the case, and certainly not the ultimate goal.

[Tzadikim]

I'd like to mention that part of this idea for me developed after hearing Chomsky talk about the Tea Party, and how the right was able to tap into their discontent more effectively than the left. I figured, and I realize it's a bit of a stretch, that if the left appealed to their sense of self interest, mainly by attacking government instituted social reforms and unions, they could be won over to Marxian theory. Because Tea Partiers equate Marxism with big government, which as has been elaborated in this thread, is not necessarily the case, and certainly not the ultimate goal.

This is something I really agree with. It's apparent to me that the Social Democracy has run its course in Europe, and has been long dead in America (where it was even less strong to begin with). And, strangely enough, this murder has been committed by the hands of the working-class themselves. My thought is, if they no longer wish to preserve it, then it isn't worth our sacrificing ourselves for. Let the liberal capitalists take the hit while we come out unscathed.

[¿Que?]

This is something I really agree with. It's apparent to me that the Social Democracy has run its course in Europe, and has been long dead in America (where it was even less strong to begin with). And, strangely enough, this murder has been committed by the hands of the working-class themselves. My thought is, if they no longer wish to preserve it, then it isn't worth our sacrificing ourselves for. Let the liberal capitalists take the hit while we come out unscathed.
However, in my humble opinion, the left would have do develop alternative platforms from which to mobilize the working class, basically to fulfill the role that social democratic institutions have traditionally played within the radical left, much like the Tea Party is an alternative platform to the Republicans. I'm thinking ways to tackle immediate problems, although independently, as an organized, politicized working class acting in its own self interest as a class. Such things could include food drives, car pools, direct action against foreclosures, security apparatus to resist crime and the police (a la Black Panthers), ESL classes, community clinics and reproductive rights facilities, neighborhood beautification etc.

[Jayshin_JTTH]

Anarchists have 'strategy'? Like what exactly? Smashing windows and throwing bricks?

[Nuvem]

Anarchist strategy involves a 4 point program.

1. Play a lot of punk music and get really drunk
2. Set port 'o potties on fire and start throwing things
3. Upgrade fires to tires and start throwing more things
4. Get shot up with rubber bullets, get tear gassed. Try to fight anti-riot forces; fail. Disperse. Repeat a few months later.

There is no grander Anarchist strategy than that which has ever worked to any mentionable effect.


In a word: Fail.

Oh, and there's a 5th stage: Fuck up whatever the Communists are succeeding at.

[Jayshin_JTTH]

Anarchist strategy involves a 4 point program.

1. Play a lot of punk music and get really drunk
2. Set port 'o potties on fire and start throwing things
3. Upgrade fires to tires and start throwing more things
4. Get shot up with rubber bullets, get tear gassed. Try to fight anti-riot forces; fail. Disperse. Repeat a few months later.

Sounds like Greece.

[AK]

Anarchists have 'strategy'? Like what exactly? Smashing windows and throwing bricks?

Anarchist strategy involves a 4 point program.

1. Play a lot of punk music and get really drunk
2. Set port 'o potties on fire and start throwing things
3. Upgrade fires to tires and start throwing more things
4. Get shot up with rubber bullets, get tear gassed. Try to fight anti-riot forces; fail. Disperse. Repeat a few months later.

There is no grander Anarchist strategy than that which has ever worked to any mentionable effect.


In a word: Fail.

Oh, and there's a 5th stage: Fuck up whatever the Communists are succeeding at.
http://i56.tinypic.com/dw6ww3.jpg

[Zanthorus]

Anarchist strategy involves a 4 point program.

1. Play a lot of punk music and get really drunk
2. Set port 'o potties on fire and start throwing things
3. Upgrade fires to tires and start throwing more things
4. Get shot up with rubber bullets, get tear gassed. Try to fight anti-riot forces; fail. Disperse. Repeat a few months later.

There is no grander Anarchist strategy than that which has ever worked to any mentionable effect.

I'm sorry you feel the need to criticise anyone who doesn't fit up to your own immediatist, activist and leftist standards. Of course, if groups aren't engaging in 'action', getting 'results', they must be useless, as they can't use various forms of mystification to con the working-class into slaughtering each other in the name of their respective 'nations', participating in capitalist democracy etc.


Oh, and there's a 5th stage: Fuck up whatever the Communists are succeeding at.

I assume by 'Communists' you mean 'Marxist'-'Leninists'. In which case, this is a positive point.

[DaComm]

Anarchist strategy involves a 4 point program.
Oh, and there's a 5th stage: Fuck up whatever the Communists are succeeding at.

While Communists crush whatever Anarchists are having success with (and yes, Anarchist scoeities do have a good deal of success to their name); namely Makhnovist Ukraine and Catalonia. Besdies, if Anarchist strategies are so useless and uneffective, how is it that they are cpaable of seriously tampering with the Communist system?