The morphing of Anarchism and Marxism

[Amphictyonis]

I think it a necessity for a successful global revolution. I'd go as far as to say, in our modern world, anyone who thinks different is reactionary. Unfortunately I'm a very small minority when it comes to this (I think). In my view it really boils down to the state or the socialist period before communism. All of the historical personal arguments between Marx and Bakunin should be forgotten- we Marxists and Anarchists should work together to form a modern critique of the state and what it will take to abolish private property/capital. The sectarian bullshit within Marxism must end as well. We're in the 21'st century and obvioulsy communism needs a new approach as all of the past movements failed. In my opion the way forward is to go back and look at Marx/Engels original works, combine it with an anarchist critique of the state and apply it to our modern conditions in advanced capitalist nations.

What are your thoughts on a successful global revolution taking place with a divided working class? What do you see as necessary to abolish capitalism and why?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I think it a necessity for a successful global revolution. I'd go as far as to say, in our modern world, anyone who thinks different is reactionary. Unfortunately I'm a very small minority when it comes to this (I think). In my view it really boils down to the state or the socialist period before communism. All of the historical personal arguments between Marx and Bakunin should be forgotten- we Marxists and Anarchists should work together to form a modern critique of the state and what it will take to abolish private property/capital. The sectarian bullshit within Marxism must end as well. We're in the 21'st century and obvioulsy communism needs a new approach as all of the past movements failed. In my opion the way forward is to go back and look at Marx/Engels original works, combine it with an anarchist critique of the state and apply it to our modern conditions in advanced capitalist nations.

What are your thoughts on a successful global revolution taking place with a divided working class? What do you see as necessary to abolish capitalism and why?
To be honest, I think the conditions that workers find themselves in and the actions of the general movement, based on unity of forces and amongst all sections of the working class, will be inherently more important than the theories. Marx always said that the liberation of the working class will be an act of the working class themselves, this is echoed by anarchists too. As far as I can gather, the main divisions within the revolutionary left are to do with old theories and differences of opinion with regards to the Soviet Union, or China, or whatever, and a preoccupation with who was 'right' or 'wrong', or which abstract set of ideas was correct.

None of that really matters in the modern world though, we live in an entirely different age with a whole new international framework that has to be dismantled in a revolution. The most damaging thing in leftism is the dogmatism people suffer from with regards to their chosen tendency, as if there is any concrete historical proof that any one method is more correct than any other. These stupid divisions are beginning to look like christianity and all of its branches of sectarianism and belief.

Fuck that shit, I wont buy into it any more. There are a world of inspirational thinkers and actors in our history; Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Lenin and many more, but the most important people are the masses who should lead the revolution.

In short, what is needed for a revolution is a mass-mobilized movement of oppressed people who become conscious. In order to aid this, people should drop their dogmatic leanings, stop occupying their entire intellect with one single ideology, view the situation we are in rationally and fight unconditionally for the masses.

[Sentinel]

I used to be an anarchist, but now consider myself a left wing marxist-leninist, a trotskyist. When I was an anarchist I used to also see myself as an autonomist marxist, by which I meant that I believed in the anarchist revolutionary method -- the immediate abolishment of the state -- while I already then endorsed Marxist class analysis and historical materialism.

In this sense it is possible unite these two branches of leftist thought in one head -- as long as one realises one has to pick the practical method of one of them. But as everyone is convinced that theirs is the correct one, and people rarely change their minds on fundamental matter like this, such a unification on a large scale is unlikely.

And as they propose entirely different practical methods, it's not possible to reconcile marxists and anarchists before or during a revolution. Thus in the best case scenario, the one side with most support will lead the revolution, and individual members of the other one will have to choose whether they are 'in or out', on the terms of the dominant one.

The original main direction of the revolution combined with the influence of the internal opposition formed by those leftists of the opposite persuasion that stay within the movement, together with the material circumstances, will finally determine the end result.

In the worst case scenario, there will be internal fighting between leftist forces, such as at Kronstadt etc. This all depends on the balance of strength between the different branches though.

[Jalapeno Enema]

Isn't all of this a bit like taking an afternoon off, and arguing about whether to take the bus or go to the park? I never really saw the two as mutually exclusive. Indeed, the one may lead to the other.

Sum Marxism thus;
1. The working class, while the majority, receive less compensation for their contributions to modern (typically capitalist) society then the ruling class, who profit off the workers.
2. Therefore, a proletariat revolution is inevitable; sooner or later the working class will rise up, and take over governments, reform the system to benefit the poorer majority, and redistribute wealth (common ownership rather then private property). At this point you have socialism
3. Eventually, the difference between classes will diminish, and when society progresses to this stateless, classless phase, we have achieved communism.

Anarchism;
1. The state is bad. It perpetrates those in power retaining power, it infringes on the rights of the individual, when states are in conflict it leads to war.
2. We should abolish authority, and instead seek an equal, stateless society.

Okay, maybe one of these is like the dentist and the other is like the string method, but either way, the rotten tooth is pulled out. When you spend all of your time arguing; dentist, string. . .dentist, string; all you end up with is a toothache. Sooner or later you need to decide, and to act.

So some people want to do things right the first time. I admire that. When you get into the same old arguments about what to call the committee that names the various committees, it's just wasted breath.

So you can take the Anarcho-bus to Marx Park, or the Marxist-bus to Anarco Park. I think I'll just walk.

[Acostak3]

And as they propose entirely different practical methods, it's not possible to reconcile marxists and anarchists before or during a revolution. Thus in the best case scenario, the one side with most support will lead the revolution, and individual members of the other one will have to choose whether they are 'in or out', on the terms of the dominant one.





I think the practical methods of anarchists and marxist are pretty much the same except in semantics.

The free people’s state is transformed into the free state. Grammatically speaking, a free state is one in which the state is free vis-à-vis its citizens, a state, that is, with a despotic government. 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. The people’s state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen ["commonalty"] be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French “Commune.” - Engels

[Sosa]

Isn't all of this a bit like taking an afternoon off, and arguing about whether to take the bus or go to the park? I never really saw the two as mutually exclusive. Indeed, the one may lead to the other.

That's a good analogy. Although I see it more as which form of transportation to get to the park. A bus, a cab or walking there. We all want to get to the park, we just argue on which form of transportation is the best way to get there.

[Amphictyonis]

I think the practical methods of anarchists and marxist are pretty much the same except in semantics.

The free people’s state is transformed into the free state. Grammatically speaking, a free state is one in which the state is free vis-à-vis its citizens, a state, that is, with a despotic government. 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. The people’s state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen ["commonalty"] be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French “Commune.” - Engels

Ya, it is indeed a question of abolishing capital via the state or abolishing capital by abolishing the state. Other than that I see no big difference between modern Anarchists and modern Marxists. Anarchists should realize if a anarchist revolution took place in Canada and the US state was still in tact the same thing would happen as happened in Catalonia. The bourgeoisie would fund a Franco type to overwhelm Canada in order to reestablish capitalism. One would think a state would be necessary in order to fend off other capitalist states unless a global revolution happened all at once. I'd personally like to see the socialist period be as democratic as humanly possible.

[Amphictyonis]

together with the material circumstances, will finally determine the end result.


In the worst case scenario, there will be internal fighting between leftist forces, such as at Kronstadt etc. This all depends on the balance of strength between the different branches though.

I agree with the first quote but think issues such as Kronstadt should be dropped but not forgotten so it doesn't repeat in the future.Thats the sort of thing I see being a thorn in the side of any potential global revolution.

[revolution inaction]

Ya, it is indeed a question of abolishing capital via the state or abolishing capital by abolishing the state. Other than that I see no big difference between modern Anarchists and modern Marxists. Anarchists should realize if a anarchist revolution took place in Canada and the US state was still in tact the same thing would happen as happened in Catalonia. The bourgeoisie would fund a Franco type to overwhelm Canada in order to reestablish capitalism. One would think a state would be necessary in order to fend off other capitalist states unless a global revolution happened all at once. I'd personally like to see the socialist period be as democratic as humanly possible.

"One" may think that a state would be necessary to do that, but an anarchist would advocat workers militias (you can call this an army if you want i dont care) and attempts to spread the revolution to other areas.
I don't think that a revolution would start simultaneously across the globe, but it must spread rapidly for it to be succesfull, there is no county that could successfully defeat all the others.
also what you say about catalonia makes little sense to me, franco's coup was what triggered the civil war and the unsuccessful revolution in some parts of the country like catalonia. And most anarchists agree (as far as i can tell) that one of the biggest mastakes of the war by the anarchists was there alience with the "communists" and there joining of the state rather than abolishing it from the start.
you point that the bourgeois of other counties would support counter revolutionary forces in any country where a revolution took place might be better applied to russia where the whites where deffeted but the revolution destroyed from within, at least in part due to the use of the state by revolutionaries.

[Amphictyonis]

"One" may think that a state would be necessary to do that, but an anarchist would advocat workers militias (you can call this an army if you want i dont care) and attempts to spread the revolution to other areas.
I don't think that a revolution would start simultaneously across the globe, but it must spread rapidly for it to be succesfull, there is no county that could successfully defeat all the others.
also what you say about catalonia makes little sense to me, franco's coup was what triggered the civil war and the unsuccessful revolution in some parts of the country like catalonia. And most anarchists agree (as far as i can tell) that one of the biggest mastakes of the war by the anarchists was there alience with the "communists" and there joining of the state rather than abolishing it from the start.
you point that the bourgeois of other counties would support counter revolutionary forces in any country where a revolution took place might be better applied to russia where the whites where deffeted but the revolution destroyed from within, at least in part due to the use of the state by revolutionaries.

Ya Stalin shat on any chance of solidarity and the militias were demoralized as a result but I think the Catalonia Offensive was successful beacuse of advanced industrial nations were the fascist invading hoard. Even if no Marxists had disbanded the militias I think it would've ended the same.

Fuck talking about the past anyhow- thats exactly what I'd like to avoid. What we need to worry about is now. In a region as big as the USA how could you expect workers militias to defeat the US military and marginalize capital?

There would have to be a socialist military coup because the modern bourgeoisie aren't simply running around on battlefields with rifles. It just seems to me, in modern times (especially in advanced capitalist nations) the state would have to be taken over.

[Amphictyonis]

"One" may think that a state would be necessary to do that, but an anarchist would advocat workers militias (you can call this an army if you want i dont care) and attempts to spread the revolution to other areas.
I don't think that a revolution would start simultaneously across the globe, but it must spread rapidly for it to be succesfull, there is no county that could successfully defeat all the others.
also what you say about catalonia makes little sense to me, franco's coup was what triggered the civil war and the unsuccessful revolution in some parts of the country like catalonia. And most anarchists agree (as far as i can tell) that one of the biggest mastakes of the war by the anarchists was there alience with the "communists" and there joining of the state rather than abolishing it from the start.
you point that the bourgeois of other counties would support counter revolutionary forces in any country where a revolution took place might be better applied to russia where the whites where deffeted but the revolution destroyed from within, at least in part due to the use of the state by revolutionaries.

Ya Stalin shat on any chance of solidarity but I think the Catalonia Offensive was successful beacuse of advanced industrial nations were the fascist invading hoard. Even if no Marxists had disbanded the militias I think it would've ended the same.

Fuck talking about the past anyhow- thats exactly what I'd like to avoid. What we need to worry about is now. In a region as big as the USA how could you expect workers militias to defeat the US military and marginalize capital?

There would have to be a socialist military coup because the modern bourgeoisie aren't simply running around on battlefields with rifles. It just seems to me, in modern times (especially in advanced capitalist nations) the state would have to be taken over.

[revolution inaction]

Ya Stalin shat on any chance of solidarity but I think the Catalonia Offensive was successful beacuse of advanced industrial nations were the fascist invading hoard. Even if no Marxists had disbanded the militias I think it would've ended the same.

The rusian revolution was defeated well before stalin came to power. The use of the state by revolutionaries in both russia and spain helped to destroy the revolution rather than enabling it to resist outside interference. The fact that the revolution could not have survived on its own supports the idea of spreading the revolution rather than attempting to implement socialism in one country



Fuck talking about the past anyhow- thats exactly what I'd like to avoid. What we need to worry about is now. In a region as big as the USA how could you expect workers militias to defeat the US military and marginalize capital?

i don't see that militias would nesseceraly be perticulay bad at this, if large numbers of weapons where sized and many soldiers defected to our side we would have a good chance, and i completely fall to see how the size of hte us is of any particular relevance.



There would have to be a socialist military coup because the modern bourgeoisie aren't simply running around on battlefields with rifles. It just seems to me, in modern times (especially in advanced capitalist nations) the state would have to be taken over.
i don't think the bourgeoisie have ever made a habit of running round the battlefield with rifles, they prefer to hire members of hte working class.
How does the advancement of military technology make militias any less practical, or in anyway negate the counterrevolutionary consequences of attempting to use the state?

[Amphictyonis]

The rusian revolution was defeated well before stalin came to power. The use of the state by revolutionaries in both russia and spain helped to destroy the revolution rather than enabling it to resist outside interference. The fact that the revolution could not have survived on its own supports the idea of spreading the revolution rather than attempting to implement socialism in one country Again focusing on the past but I'll play along. Russia failed because you can't build socialism in one country. The advanced capitalist nations did not have socialist revolutions and Russia had not yet been through the capitalist phase of production.
i don't see that militias would nesseceraly be perticulay bad at this, if large numbers of weapons where sized and many soldiers defected to our side we would have a good chance, and i completely fall to see how the size of hte us is of any particular relevance Any revolution will take a mass movement. One mass movement not a bunch of people arguing over tendencies.
i don't think the bourgeoisie have ever made a habit of running round the battlefield with rifles, they prefer to hire members of hte working class.
How does the advancement of military technology make militias any less practical, or in anyway negate the counterrevolutionary consequences of attempting to use the state? I meant their grunts I would be an idiot to think capitalists actually physically fight wars. To the question concerning anarchist militias abolishing the state so long as you have tanks, fighter jets, a navy with long range missiles, assassins, spy's, drone aircraft, helicopters etc and so on you'd have a chance. A military coup would be necessary and to me that sounds like taking over the state :)

[revolution inaction]

Again focusing on the past but I'll play along. Russia failed because you can't build socialism in one country. The advanced capitalist nations did not have socialist revolutions and Russia had not yet been through the capitalist phase of production.

The russia revolution didn't have a chance to fail from a lack of international revolution, it was destroyed from within by the bolshevikes.




Any revolution will take a mass movement. One mass movement not a bunch of people arguing over tendencies.

i don't know what this has to do with what i said. but for a revolution to be successfully then it will need to use anarchist methods.



I meant their grunts I would be an idiot to think capitalists actually physically fight wars. To the question concerning anarchist militias abolishing the state so long as you have tanks, fighter jets, a navy with long range missiles, assassins, spy's, drone aircraft, helicopters etc and so on you'd have a chance. A military coup would be necessary and to me that sounds like taking over the state :)
a military coup is not the same as defeating whatever forces remain loyal to the state, and destroying the state is fundamentally different to taking it over.

[ZeroNowhere]

The russia revolution didn't have a chance to fail from a lack of international revolution, it was destroyed from within by the bolshevikes.And what allowed the Bolsheviks to suppress the working class despite growing opposition?


Citizens, let us think of the basic principle of the International: Solidarity. Only when we have established this life-giving principle on a sound basis among the numerous workers of all countries will we attain the great final goal which we have set ourselves. The revolution must be carried out with solidarity; this is the great lesson of the French Commune, which fell becaue none of the other centres -- Berlin, Madrid, etc. -- developed great revolutionary movements comparable to the mighty uprising of the Paris proletariat.

[ckaihatsu]

One would think a state would be necessary in order to fend off other capitalist states unless a global revolution happened all at once.





"One" may think that a state would be necessary to do that, but an anarchist would advocat workers militias (you can call this an army if you want i dont care) and attempts to spread the revolution to other areas.
I don't think that a revolution would start simultaneously across the globe, but it must spread rapidly for it to be succesfull, there is no county that could successfully defeat all the others.





There would have to be a socialist military coup because the modern bourgeoisie aren't simply running around on battlefields with rifles. It just seems to me, in modern times (especially in advanced capitalist nations) the state would have to be taken over.





i don't think the bourgeoisie have ever made a habit of running round the battlefield with rifles, they prefer to hire members of hte working class.
How does the advancement of military technology make militias any less practical, or in anyway negate the counterrevolutionary consequences of attempting to use the state?





I meant their grunts I would be an idiot to think capitalists actually physically fight wars. To the question concerning anarchist militias abolishing the state so long as you have tanks, fighter jets, a navy with long range missiles, assassins, spy's, drone aircraft, helicopters etc and so on you'd have a chance. A military coup would be necessary and to me that sounds like taking over the state :)





a military coup is not the same as defeating whatever forces remain loyal to the state, and destroying the state is fundamentally different to taking it over.


So here's the crux of it, all laid out -- would there need to be a workers-based military coup to assert control over the state's weaponry, and then what would be done with it at that point?

-- And / Or --

Could an insurrectionary-type movement spread worldwide and be so broad-based and evenly spread throughout that the state's concentrated military forces would just dissolve in such a sea of opposition, rendering the weaponry irrelevant -- ?

[Ovi]

To the question concerning anarchist militias abolishing the state so long as you have tanks, fighter jets, a navy with long range missiles, assassins, spy's, drone aircraft, helicopters etc and so on you'd have a chance. A military coup would be necessary and to me that sounds like taking over the state :)
I always wondered what do people understand through taking over the state. It's like the state is some sort of place where those who live there automatically have control over the country. Abolishing the state is not any more difficult than taking over it. The power of the state rests in the loyalty of the military. As long as there's an army on the side of the ruling class, there will be capitalism. Just because you organize a coup d'etat and occupy the parliament, that doesn't mean the state army is on your side. If during the revolution, the soldiers will still fight for the reactionaries, we will need to fight back, whether we try to take control of the state or abolish it. It doesn't make any difference.

[Amphictyonis]

I always wondered what do people understand through taking over the state. It's like the state is some sort of place where those who live there automatically have control over the country. Abolishing the state is not any more difficult than taking over it. The power of the state rests in the loyalty of the military. As long as there's an army on the side of the ruling class, there will be capitalism. Just because you organize a coup d'etat and occupy the parliament, that doesn't mean the state army is on your side. If during the revolution, the soldiers will still fight for the reactionaries, we will need to fight back, whether we try to take control of the state or abolish it. It doesn't make any difference.

The state is an institutional monopoly on force and I agree without a monopoly on force capital or concentrated wealth in a minorities hands cannot exist. I don't dislike anarchists at all, don't want to have a disrespectful 'argument' but the only real difference we have is concerning what it will take to abolish capital/private property and what it will take to keep the bourgeoisie from reestablishing it via force. They wouldn't be able to do it without the state (public or private) and I'm not a fan of hierarchy at all either but it just seems a socialist period is necessary. Going straight to anarchism or advanced communist from the get go sounds a lot like Stalins "communism in one country" mess.

I'm no fan of the Bolsheviks because they took economic power from the Soviets and handed it to the party but I can still see the need fora sort of state apparatus (organized and even hierarchical monopoly on force) to fend off the attack by the bourgeoisie. I don't have some crystal ball and I'm not even sure if the world can take another large scale war between advanced nations. I think we can obviously agree revolution is going to take a mass movement and I agree with you're critique of Stalin being an idiot- Kropotkins work on expropriation made sense to me but he didn't take into account the bourgeoisie's use of force.


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


This does make sense to me but as I said he assumes the bourgeoisie won't use all manner of threat, violence, trickery and lies to protect or reestablish their power. It just seems to me a socialist period (as shot and as democratic as possible) would be the safest way to establish communism. One where Anarchists are constantly reminding us of the nature of the state/hierarchy.





"You cannot bring about a revolution all over the world at the same time. Well, then, are you going to establish custom-houses on your frontiers to search all who enter your country and confiscate the money they bring with them?--Anarchist policemen firing on travellers would be a fine spectacle!"
But at the root of this argument there is a great error. Those who propound it have never paused to inquire whence come the fortunes of the rich. A little thought would, however, suffice to show them that these fortunes have their beginnings in the poverty of the poor. When there are no longer any destitute there will no longer be any rich to exploit them.

Times have changed since his time. Capitalism is now global so if you fuck with their interests in South America or India they're going to fight to protect their interests. Kropotkins analysis sounds good in an advanced global communist society- a way of explaining why the capitalists would not be able to re-establish wage slavery/private property but until communism is global we're going to have some fierce angry and afraid bourgeois bastards to deal with.