Is anarcho-socialism and arxism the same?

[Marc24]

It seems like there pretty much the same. Both want a stateless, classless, moneyless(I think) society. Is the only difference the name? If there are more differences what are they?

And one more question, how does Anarcho-communism differ from Anarcho-Socialism?

[Widerstand]

What is Anarcho-Socialism.

and what is Arxism?

I have never heard either term.

[Victus Mortuum]

They are dramatically different.

Marxism encompasses the major conclusions that can be drawn from Marx's and Engel's works, namely:

- Material conception of history
- Economic critique of capitalism
- Proletarian revolution to establish "socialism"

There are countless variations of Marxism, but they all tend to hold these basic premises. Being a Marxist doesn't mean you support a -particular- type of socialism, but that you adhere to Marx's system of economic and social analysis and to his prescription of revolution. An individual can be a 'Marxist' and support one of the several brands of socialism that are out there. An individual can also support a brand of socialism and not be a Marxist (anarchists tend to fit in this category, but I wouldn't say that necessarily).

Anarcho-socialism is a particular type of social system that describes a certain set of political and economic relations. It really means support for both some given system of political anarchism and economic socialism (both of which are rather ambiguous terms).

This is how I use these terms, at least.

There may or may not be a difference between the terms anarcho-socialism and anarcho-communism, depending on who you ask. Anyways, perhaps an anarchist could answer the question, based on how they use the words.

[Paulappaul]

Proletarian revolution to establish "socialism"When did Marx say that a "Proletarian Revolution" will establish "Socialism"? The end of Capitalism is marked by the beginning of the "lower phase of Communism" to be superseded by the "Higher phase of Communism". Regardless, this is a part of the Materialistic conception of history.


Economic critique of capitalismWhich is in many ways a continuation of Proudhon's critique of Capitalism, so I wouldn't really say this is a point of separation.


An individual can be a 'Marxist' and support one of the several brands of socialism that are out there. An individual can also support a brand of socialism and not be a MarxistWith this said, there isn't any major distinctions between Marxism and Anarchism.


What is Anarcho-Socialism.

and what is Arxism?

He means to that Anarchism is a form of Socialism - which it is - and he forgot the M in Marxism.

[Victus Mortuum]

When did Marx say that a "Proletarian Revolution" will establish "Socialism"? The end of Capitalism is marked by the beginning of the "lower phase of Communism" to be superseded by the "Higher phase of Communism". Regardless, this is a part of the Materialistic conception of history.

Marx explicitly argued that the change of social system could only occur with a proletarian revolution ("Workers of the world unite"). And you can use whatever word you want, in Marx's time it's not like the two words referred to two distinct phases. I believe they both referred to effectively the same thing, at least when used as reference to a socio-economic system. The lower and higher phases of communism were mentioned once by Marx in the Critique of Gotha, but that doesn't mean that is a pillar of Marxism.


Which is in many ways a continuation of Proudhon's critique of Capitalism, so I wouldn't really say this is a point of separation.

I wasn't indicating it as a point of distinction between the two necessarily, just as a defining characteristic of Marxism.


With this said, there isn't any major distinctions between Marxism and Anarchism.

That isn't true. Marxism is the philosophy that I mentioned above. Anarchism is the idea that the state and monopolistic coercion are undesirable and should be replaced. Yes, there are branches of anarchism that advocate socialism, but there are also those that advocate capitalism or extreme individualism.

[syndicat]

Marx never claimed that communism would be "moneyless" in the sense of having no price system. For that matter, neither did all anarchosyndicalists.

In a speech in 1972 Marx said that the working class could create socialism peacefully thru the ballot box in England and USA. It was around that time he and Engels began talking about "winning the battle of democracy" and the essentil need for "political action", that is, participation in elections. This was the basis of the Marxist social-democratic movement's disagreement with revolutionary syndicalism which is an anti-parliamentary strategy.

Marx and traditional Marxist political organizations never clearly advocated for workers self-management of production or building the new society on the basis of assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods.

So these are a few differences from anarcho-syndicalism. On the other hand, there have been some Marxists who agreed with an anti-parliamentary syndicalist strategy. And of course anarcho-syndicalism believes that the working class creates its own liberation through mass struggle from below...and there are some (but a minority) Marxists who advocate this. there is no single political perspective that "Marxism" refers to. there are many forms of Marxism.

it would be inaccurate to say that anarcho-syndicalism is "anti-Marxist" since there is an overlap of ideas in a number of areas.

[Zanthorus]

When did Marx say that a "Proletarian Revolution" will establish "Socialism"?

Marx used 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangeably. In part 3 of The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850 Marx remarks that the proletariat rallies increasingly around "revolutionary socialism, around communism", indicating that for him the two were synonymous.


Which is in many ways a continuation of Proudhon's critique of Capitalism,

In what way exactly?


He means to that Anarchism is a form of Socialism

Well, if we accept that Proudhon was an anarchist, which you certainly seem to do, then it is clear that although Anarchism can be and has been historically tied to the socialist movement, this is not necessarily the case, as Proudhon's 'Mutualism' is a form of capitalism.

[Marc24]

Thank you all for the replies.


There may or may not be a difference between the terms anarcho-socialism and anarcho-communism, depending on who you ask. Anyways, perhaps an anarchist could answer the question, based on how they use the words.

I did some research and learned that Anarcho-socialism has a few different branches and Anarcho-communism is one of them.

[Paulappaul]

In what way exactly?

Particularly in the analysis of Surplus Value for one.


Well, if we accept that Proudhon was an anarchist, which you certainly seem to do, then it is clear that although Anarchism can be and has been historically tied to the socialist movement, this is not necessarily the case, as Proudhon's 'Mutualism' is a form of capitalism.

In what way exactly?

[StockholmSyndrome]

Marx and traditional Marxist political organizations never clearly advocated for workers self-management of production or building the new society on the basis of assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods.


I'm pretty sure he did in "The Civil War in France".

[syndicat]

actually a peculiar thing about "The Civil War in France" is that Marx said nothing about the neighborhood "sections" -- large, radical assemblies in the neighborhoods.

[ContrarianLemming]

Anarchism and Marxism are not the same, otherwise their wouldnt be anarchists and marxists

[Apoi_Viitor]

Anarchism and Marxism are not the same, otherwise their wouldnt be anarchists and marxists

I've never been able to locate any fundamental difference between Orthodox Marxism and Orthodox Anarchism.

[StockholmSyndrome]

"The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents."

You might be right. I think my original reading might have been confused. I might need help on this next passage:

"In reality, the Communal Constitution brought the rural producers under the intellectual lead of the central towns of their districts, and there secured to them, in the working men, the natural trustees of their interests. The very existence of the Commune involved, as a matter of course, local municipal liberty, but no longer as a check upon the now superseded state power. It could only enter into the head of a Bismarck – who, when not engaged on his intrigues of blood and iron, always likes to resume his old trade, so befitting his mental calibre, of contributor to Kladderadatsch (the Berlin Punch)[C] – it could only enter into such a head to ascribe to the Paris Commune aspirations after the caricature of the old French municipal organization of 1791, the Prussian municipal constitution which degrades the town governments to mere secondary wheels in the police machinery of the Prussian state. The Commune made that catchword of bourgeois revolutions – cheap government – a reality by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure: the standing army and state functionarism. Its very existence presupposed the non-existence of monarchy, which, in Europe at least, is the normal incumbrance and indispensable cloak of class rule. It supplied the republic with the basis of really democratic institutions. But neither cheap government nor the “true republic” was its ultimate aim; they were its mere concomitants."

What is he saying here?

[ContrarianLemming]

I've never been able to locate any fundamental difference between Orthodox Marxism and Orthodox Anarchism.

pretty simply, different class analyis, different definitions, different historical views and class definitions

what, you think you alone have realized theres no difference and all those millions of anarchists and marxists simply don't notice?

[Apoi_Viitor]

pretty simply, different class analyis, different definitions, different historical views and class definitions

what, you think you alone have realized theres no difference and all those millions of anarchists and marxists simply don't notice?

Many people I've spoken to, understand the fact that there's no legitimate difference between Orthodox Marxism and Orthodox Anarchism.

The truth of this is obscured to some however, due to the fact that

1. There are few Marxists who aren't of a Leninist strain. Quite obviously, Marxist-Leninism and Anarchism are somewhat incompatible...

2. Nobody uses the same fucking definitions. EX. "State": Marxist Definition - System of class oppression. Anarchist Definition - Political Power in the hands of a minority.

Now, these definitions aren't the same, but really, how do these definitions contradict one another? Both Anarchists and Marxists should take the time to understand each others political theories (and the discourse, terms and definitions each of them use), before they denounce each other as being 'utopian' or 'authoritarian'.

It reminds me of the numerous analytical philosophers who read a paragraph of Foucault and denounce him as "a nihilist who opposes all objective knowledge". If only they would take the time to understand what he means when he uses terms such as "truth" or "knowledge"...

[AK]

1. There are few Marxists who aren't of a Leninist strain. Quite obviously, Marxist-Leninism and Anarchism are somewhat incompatible...
"Marxism"-Leninism is not a Marxist ideology.


2. Nobody uses the same fucking definitions. EX. "State": Marxist Definition - System of class oppression. Anarchist Definition - Political Power in the hands of a minority.
I don't think Marx ever argued that the state was necessary for proletarian rule. If I understand Engels' well-known quote about the state and the Paris Commune (where it is generally argued that the working class held power) correctly, Engels said that the organs of working class rule were not synonymous with the state.

[syndicat]

I don't think Marx ever argued that the state was necessary for proletarian rule.

then why did he talk about the "dictatorship of the proeltarat"? "dictatorship" is marx's term for any state.

[Paulappaul]

Dictatorship comes from the Roman Concept of dictatura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator), not "dictatorship" in the most classical sense of the term. The dictaturain concept meant basically "rulership", the Marxian version means Rulership of a certain class. In the case of Bourgeois we call it "the dictatorship of the bourgeois", in the Proletarian sense we mean "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" both which mean Rulership.

A class organizes it's power for class rule in the form of a "state". Not in the Classical sense of the term though, but we mean in the form of a Government to oppress bourgeois. Following any revolution such will be necessary.

[AK]

then why did he talk about the "dictatorship of the proeltarat"? "dictatorship" is marx's term for any state.
The whole proletariat seizes power, ending the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie? Just a suggestion. I believe Marx referred to dictatorship from a class perspective - like how he did with everything. Marx was vague on things, like his class analysis and his precise definition of the state.

[ZeroNowhere]

then why did he talk about the "dictatorship of the proeltarat"? "dictatorship" is marx's term for any state.
Technically speaking, 'dictatorship' was a word which Marx used against the Blanquists in order to differentiate himself from their small 'revolutionary dictatorship' by instead supporting the political rule of the proletariat as a class. This is why he generally used the term in times when Blanquism was common (as Hal Draper showed), and otherwise referred to the 'political rule of the producer', etc.


I don't think Marx ever argued that the state was necessary for proletarian rule.

And out of this very contradiction between the interest of the individual and that of the community the latter takes an independent form as the State, divorced from the real interests of individual and community, and at the same time as an illusory communal life, always based, however, on the real ties existing in every family and tribal conglomeration – such as flesh and blood, language, division of labour on a larger scale, and other interests – and especially, as we shall enlarge upon later, on the classes, already determined by the division of labour, which in every such mass of men separate out, and of which one dominates all the others. It follows from this that all struggles within the State, the struggle between democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, the struggle for the franchise, etc., etc., are merely the illusory forms in which the real struggles of the different classes are fought out among one another (of this the German theoreticians have not the faintest inkling, although they have received a sufficient introduction to the subject in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher and Die heilige Familie). Further, it follows that every class which is struggling for mastery, even when its domination, as is the case with the proletariat, postulates the abolition of the old form of society in its entirety and of domination itself, must first conquer for itself political power in order to represent its interest in turn as the general interest, which in the first moment it is forced to do.


[on mutualism as a form of capitalism] In what way exactly?It involves and supports generalized commodity production.

[syndicat]

Further, it follows that every class which is struggling for mastery, even when its domination, as is the case with the proletariat, postulates the abolition of the old form of society in its entirety and of domination itself, must first conquer for itself political power in order to represent its interest in turn as the general interest, which in the first moment it is forced to do.

political power is not the same thing as state, tho it may be that Marx means by "conquer political power" gain control of the state...altho that is not what this says.

Mutualism is a form of market socialism since no one can hire others to work as their subordinates.

[Zanthorus]

political power is not the same thing as state, tho it may be that Marx means by "conquer political power" gain control of the state...altho that is not what this says.

Marx generally defines the state as 'political society', in opposition to 'civil society', in a similar usage to Hegel, or Aristotle's definition of the state as the 'political community'.


Mutualism is a form of market socialism since no one can hire others to work as their subordinates.

Except capital is not a management structure, it is the self-valorisation of value, the self-expansion of capital, the production of surplus-value. The main element required for this to occur is a source of surplus-value, something which is both within circulation and at the same time outside of circulation. This element is labour-power, and the existence of capital, the whole system of capitalism, in the last analysis reduces itself to the buying and selling of labour-power on the market, the commodification of labour-power, 'wage'-labour. In 'mutualism' and 'market socialism', the worker's labour-power is still bought and sold on the market by competing firms, the fact that he gets a say in these firms, that the workers' act as their own self-managing collective capitalist, makes no difference to the continued existence of capitalism.

[syndicat]

Except capital is not a management structure,

but labor subordination to the separate capital-owner class is a necessary condition of the existence of capitalism. this is why capitalism was created through enclosures and other methods to deny to the farming population a way to make a living independent of subordinating themselves to an employer. Capital is just the other side of the capital/wage-labor relationship. Capital is the power to go out into factor markets and hire labor and managers and buy or rent means of production and then own the revenue from sale. This implies the capital owners are a separate class from the immediate producers.

I'm not a supporter of market socialism, but it's still a model of socialism. you don't get to have such a easy victory against the market socialists, by the sleight of hand of relabeling it "capitalism".