Marxism and Anarchism

[commie kg]

I am pondering the old "Marxism vs. Anarchism" thing again. I would like to know how they are different.
There has been threads on this before, but mainly comparing Leninism and Anarchism. I would like to hear how the "Libertarian Marxism" differs from Anarchism.

I am especially interested to hear from Redstar and other "far-left" communists on this.

Thanks!

[blackemma]

I would like to hear how the "Libertarian Marxism" differs from Anarchism.

In terms of practical application, there isn't much difference as far as I'm concerned. In my opinion, whatever the socialist or communist system may be after revolution, it ought to be as democratic as possible and as open to scrutiny as possible. In this sense, both anarchists and libertarian Marxists have long since recognized the need to abolish the State as an instrument of oppression, even if that oppression is against the bourgeoisie. Anarchists and libertarian Marxists believe that the State can only be a repressive force which serves to protect ruling classes. As Engels himself pointed out, the State has historically been used because, traditionally, it has been minorities oppressing majorities: masters over slaves, lords over serfs, capitalists over workers, and so on. The whole point of the State is that it exists to ease class antagonisms: it there were no class antagonisms, there would be no need for the State. Further, it is impossible, according libertarian thought, to use the State to bring about a people's state since it would be redundant: the people, being the majority, would have no need for the State to defeat reactionary forces. Basically, it's a matter of mathematics: the working class far exceeds the bourgeoisie in numbers and without a centralized government the bourgeoisie would be powerless against the great masses of the people.

One could argue that states have been used to repress minorities, but usually it has been a situation where a ruling class, for instance the bourgeoisie, denies rights to specific minorities in hopes of dividing the working class movement. In such cases, it is often the case that the ruling class oppresses the people as a whole, but targets certain sectors of the population for specific discrimination. A good example would be Nazi Germany: the Nazi government was a totalitarian institution which ruled over all Germans, but targetted the Jews for special discrimination. That the Jews received horrendous treatment by the Nazis does not mean that other portions of the population were not discriminated against - in fact, it was Communists not Jews who were among the first to be chosen for Nazi persecution. The point is that in all, or nearly all, situations the State serves the ruling minority and never the majority. Democracy, for this reason, is more a myth than anything as even elected officials become a ruling class distanced from the working masses once in power.

Both anarchism and libertarian Marxism share these beliefs. The difference, as I understand it, is that anarchists focus primarily on the dismantling hierarchy in society through education and direct action while libertarian Marxists utilize the Marxist class analysis, looking at class struggle as the basis for history and seeing the revolution coming about through the inevitable contradictions that exist within capitalist economics rather than direction action of the working class. There are of course anarcho-capitalists who would disagree with both positions, but anarcho-capitalists are really radical neo-liberals and have nothing in common with true anarchism and it would not be worth your time to look into that position unless you are a capitalist, which I suspect you aren't if you are interested in anarchism and libertarian Marxism.

Hope this helps.