Libertarian Socialism vs. Anarcho-Syndicalism

[Sosa]

What is the main difference between these two? are the synonymous? or rather, can you be both at the same time? Do they have more in common than they do differences?

I ask because as of right now I think I'm a Libertarian Socialist and from what I've read (not much really) these terms are interchangeable.

[Zanthorus]

Anarcho-syndicalism is usually considered a branch of the broader libertarian socialist tradition.

[Sosa]

So can one be a Marxist/Libertarian-Socialist/Anarcho-Syndicalist?

Sorry for showing by ignorance on the subject.

[syndicat]

So can one be a Marxist/Libertarian-Socialist/Anarcho-Syndicalist?

yes. there are members of my organization who would agree with all those labels.

Revolutionary libertarian syndicalism is a strategy which is based on libertarian socialist politics. Syndicalism is rooted in the class struggle. altho historically libertarian socialism has had a class struggle perspective, libertarian socialism is broader than the syndicalist strategy since it aims to do away with oppression and exploitation in its various forms and replace the state with social governance rooted in direct democracy and delegate democracy (as opposed to representative government).

[JosefStalinator]

Does Left-Libertarianism have anything to do with revolutionary libertarianism, or is it just another school within capitalist 'libertarianism'?

[syndicat]

Does Left-Libertarianism have anything to do with revolutionary libertarianism, or is it just another school within capitalist 'libertarianism'?


I use "Left-libertarianism" to refer to all the libertarian, self-management oriented forms of anti-capitalist or socialist politics. it has reformist forms as well as revolutionary forms, but any authentic left-libertarianism is anticapitalist.

there is a very tiny sect of the right-wing so-called "libertarians" who call themselves "left-libertarians" such as the Agorists around the late Samuel Konkin. but i do not consider them to be authentic libertarians. they use the phrase "left-libertarian" in a way completely different than the actual left libertarian or libertarian socialist tendencies because they're actually right-wingers.

[JosefStalinator]

Ok, I just recall there being a Libertarian Party debate in 2008 and one of the candidates for their presidential nomination was a woman described as left-libertarian. The only thing I remember about her was that there was some controversy about how her views supposedly allowed for child pornography to be legal or something.

[PoliticalNightmare]

So can one be a ... Libertarian-Socialist/Anarcho-Syndicalist?

Yes, anarcho-syndicalism is a fraction of the broader spectrum of beliefs labeled libertarian socialism.


So can one be a Marxist/Libertarian-Socialist/Anarcho-Syndicalist?

No.

Marxists advocate the working class seizure of state which no anarcho-syndicalist (or any other anarchist for that matter) advocates.

Marxism is another faction of libertarian socialism though, and most anarchists agree with Marx's critique of capitalism as well as his advocation of a stateless society, which is why some anarchists might flippantly use the term 'Marxist' to describe their political beliefs.

[Zanthorus]

Marxists advocate the working class seizure of state

No we don't. As early as 1853 Marx was saying that while all previous revolutions had built up the bueracratic-state apparatus (A process documented in his 18th Brumaire) the task of the working-class is to smash it. In The Civil War in France he states that one of the lessons of the Paris Commune was that the working-class cannot simply lay it's hands on the existing state apparatus and wield it in it's own interests. In the first draft version he praises the Commune as a revolution, not against this or that state or form of state, but against the state itself. In his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program he is scathing about the 'servile faith in the state' which he sees as characteristic of the 'Lassallean sect', and criticises the formula of the "free people's state". Engels, in an 1875 letter to Bebel on the subject of the Gotha program, states that "all the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term."


which no anarcho-syndicalist (or any other anarchist for that matter) advocates.

Well, that depends. A good deal of anarchists would certainly consider Bakunin as one of them, his anti-Marxism has certainly become something of an identifier for anarchists, yet in his coverage of the Marx-Bakunin conflict in his biography of Marx, Francis Wheen records Bakunin as arguing at the Basel congress of the First International for "the construction of the international state of millions of workers, a state which it will be the role of the International to constitute." Indeed, as Marx and Engels noted in their work Fictitious Splits in the International the 'anti-authoritarians' had been all in favour of centralised organisation when it looked possible for Bakunin to weasel his way onto the General Council of the International. At the Basel congress he had also argued for strenthening the power of the Council. Rather strange for someone who less than a year later would be raging against the dictatorship of the General Council over the workers' movement.

[syndicat]

Bakunin was not a theorist but an activist. he was not always consistent or clear in what he wrote. of course this gives Marxist sectarians ammo. also, it's good to keep in mind, as Z. often does not, that libertarian socialism/social anarchism/anarcho-syndicalism is not "Bakuninism."

However, his vision of workers power was through the federation of the worker associations taking over the running of society. this would not be a state since it would not be a top-down bureaucratic structure. as to what B.'s views were, I recommend reading Mark Leier's biography.

in any event, Z. here initially gives a somewhat misleading account when he says that Marx was against the taking over of the existing state. This is true as far as it goes (tho in a talk to the international in 1872 he said he thought the revolution could be accomplished peacefully in UK and US due to "democracy" there). However Marx also advocated a transitional "dictatorship of the proletariat" and for Marx "dictatorship" is his name for a state. so, like Lenin, his view was that a new state had to be constructed. and that's where he disagrees with libertarian socialists/anarcho-syndicalists, including Bakunin.

now, that said, this is not all there is to Marxism or Marx's ideas, so it is possible for libertarian socialists to agree with various aspects of Marxism or some of Marx's ideas while rejecting the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or the advocacy of a strategy based on building up "workers parties" to eventually run a state.

[Zanthorus]

(tho in a talk to the international in 1872 he said he thought the revolution could be accomplished peacefully in UK and US due to "democracy" there).

No, this is just something you've inferred. The word 'democracy' was never used in the speech. In an interview with the New York World given a year earlier Marx had also said:



It would seem that in this country the hoped-for solution, whatever it may be, will be attained without the violent means of revolution. The English system of agitating by platform and press, until minorities become converted into majorities, is a hopeful sign.

I am not so sanguine on that point as you. The English middle class has always shown itself willing enough to accept the verdict of the majority, so long as it enjoyed the monopoly of the voting power. But, mark me, as soon as it finds itself outvoted on what it considers vital questions, we shall see here a new slaveowners's war.

[syndicat]

very well. in "The Meaning of Marxism" G.D.H. Cole interprets Marx as taking the position that the old state machine, evolved under capitalism and built to serve dominating class interests, had to be broken up, its undemocratic features attacked, and replaced with a new governmental system, somehow controlled by the working class. i think this is probably Marx's considered view. this seems clear from "The Civil War in France" for example.

the idea that the old state machine has to be broken up and can't be wielded by the working class is a position shared in common with libertarian socialism/anarcho-syndicalism.

[Widerstand]

very well. in "The Meaning of Marxism" G.D.H. Cole interprets Marx as taking the position that the old state machine, evolved under capitalism and built to serve dominating class interests, had to be broken up, its undemocratic features attacked, and replaced with a new governmental system, somehow controlled by the working class. i think this is probably Marx's considered view. this seems clear from "The Civil War in France" for example.

the idea that the old state machine has to be broken up and can't be wielded by the working class is a position shared in common with libertarian socialism/anarcho-syndicalism.

If you go by the definition of 'state' as an 'instrument of class rule', which many Marxists use, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is perfectly compatible with many Anarchists, as it really just means the oppression of reactionary elements in a revolutionary / post-revolutionary situation.

[syndicat]

If you go by the definition of 'state' as an 'instrument of class rule', which many Marxists use, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is perfectly compatible with many Anarchists, as it really just means the oppression of reactionary elements in a revolutionary / post-revolutionary situation.

sorry, i don't agree with this at all. it starts with a way too simplistic conception of the state. the modern state is a bureaucratic, top down structure with a chain of command structure, it has hierarchical police and military forces at the call of the leaders. a bureaucratic class is a class whose class position is based not on private ownership of assets but concentration of decision-making authority and information and expertise and in the state this implies power over public workers.

in order for a dominating, exploiting class to sustain its position, it does need a state, thus defined. that's because if the people were to rule directly, through assemblies say, then they are liable to pursue policies and actions directly threatening to the interest of the dominating, exploiting class.

now, it is an essential position of libertarian socialism/anarcho-syndicalism that the corporations, the capitalists, and the state are to be replaced by generalized self-management, that is, worker self-management, rooted in workplace assemblies and accountable delegates in workplaces/industries, and social self-management, direct governance by the people, rooted in assemblies, such as neighborhood assemblies. any armed force is to be directly controlled this way, not a separate hierarchical apparatus as police and military are at present.

thus the sort of socalled "workers government" built by the Bolshevik party in the Russian revolution is inconsistent with libertarian socialist/anarcho-syndicalist politics...as can be seen by the opposition of Russian libertarian socialist/syndicalist groups to the Bolshevik state. for example: top down central planning, creation of a top-down Red Army with ex-tsarist officers appointed from above, "one-man management", bosses appointed from above in workplaces, topdown local soviets controlled by the party "intelligentsia" etc.

now, the sort of governance structure proposed by libertarian socialists/anarcho-syndicalists would have the task of pushing aside the capitalists, defending the conquests of the working class against any pro-capitalist gangs, against external invasions and so on. so there is coercive force available against the old dominating/exploiting classes and against any efforts by them to reimpose their power. hence in this situation the working class has power, is ruling, and is coercively pushing aside the former boss classes. but it does not follow that the governance structure they propose is a "state." That way of speaking is simply confusionist. that's because it wants to confuse the essential difference in the nature of the governance structure being proposed.

[PoliticalNightmare]

No we don't. As early as 1853 Marx was saying that while all previous revolutions had built up the bueracratic-state apparatus (A process documented in his 18th Brumaire) the task of the working-class is to smash it. In The Civil War in France he states that one of the lessons of the Paris Commune was that the working-class cannot simply lay it's hands on the existing state apparatus and wield it in it's own interests. In the first draft version he praises the Commune as a revolution, not against this or that state or form of state, but against the state itself. In his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program he is scathing about the 'servile faith in the state' which he sees as characteristic of the 'Lassallean sect', and criticises the formula of the "free people's state". Engels, in an 1875 letter to Bebel on the subject of the Gotha program, states that "all the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term."

Perhaps I should have expanded upon what I said then. I meant to say that Marx would advocate a worker's party taking over the state and then during the transitional phase to communism the state would gradually wither away over time into a stateless society as opposed to utilising the "state" in the isolationist manner of the democratically elected communes during the Paris Commune (which is why I categorised Marxism as libertarian socialism).

Would this be incorrect then? If not, how would Marxism and anarchism differ?

As for the latter part of your post, if I advocate a state, it is not government rather it is a basic infrastructure totally independent to parliament and completely dependent upon society: every man/woman would have an equal say in how communes were run. I'm not so sure that these communes should be bound together by an international federation of labour though as others seem to advocate as such a centralised form of organisation does seem to resemble a state in my mind. Should this organisation be necessary, I would insist that it was directly democratic (with each and every citizen having equal right to sovereignty and a democratic vote for decisions, etc.) though I don't personally see why communes should be bound to it if they don't want to be.

[papaspace]

No, this is just something you've inferred. The word 'democracy' was never used in the speech...

Are you saying that Marx didn't advocate seizing the state first?




We now come to the Chartists, the politically active portion of the British working class. The six points of the Charter which they contend for contain nothing but the demand of Universal Suffrage, and of the conditions without which Universal Suffrage would be illusory for the working class; such as the ballot, payment of members, annual general elections. But Universal Suffrage a is the equivalent for political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population, where, in a long, though underground civil war, it has gained a clear consciousness of its position as a class, and where even the rural districts know no longer any peasants, but only landlords, industrial capitalists (farmers) and hired laborers. The carrying of Universal Suffrage in England would, therefore, be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honored with that name on the Continent.

marxists <dot> org /archive/marx/works/1852/08/25.htm