Communism Vs. Anarchism: what is the deal?

[Rebelwithcause]

What exactly is the debate between these two political groups? It seems to me like there is a great amount of disagreement between them. Why? Aren't anarchists and communists both aiming for a stateless, classless, egalitarian model of society?

Is it that they disagree on the transition of how this should happen? Or is it that some communists believe a state is always necessary? Is it just a battle between different branches of communism and different branches of anarchism?

I guess, I'd just like to know the general disagreements they tend to have. I read a great pamphlet thingy by Christopher Day called "The Historical Failure of Anarchism" and the only thing I got wind of in this argument is that anarchists will not admit their own failures and theoretical errors during the Spanish Revolution, choosing instead to exaggerate their victories. He also mentions how anarchists have failed in working out a planned system economically, militarily, and socially---all necessary for a successful revolution. But apart from that he does not mention the real struggles that occurred between the communist parties and the anarchists i.e. the struggles between their different interests.

I'd really like thoughts/info on this.

[hatzel]

I read a great pamphlet thingy by Christopher Day called "The Historical Failure of Anarchism" and the only thing I got wind of in this argument is that anarchists will not admit their own failures and theoretical errors during the Spanish Revolution, choosing instead to exaggerate their victories.

What, Marxists haven't done this? He must be joking :)

Anyway, if you're interested in knowing more about the interaction (and less hostile relationships) between anarchists and Marxists, it you might find Wobblies and Zapatistas (http://infoshop.org/amp/Wobblies_and_Zapatistas.pdf) interesting (that's a link to a full PDF of the book, by the way). I think it's possible for Marxists and anarchists to share knowledge and interpretations of things, as has always been the case, though I acknowledge that certain Marxist tendencies seem to have much more to offer than others. I think it's very difficult when one group totally misrepresents the other, though, and starts attacking strawmen and calling everybody else idiots :rolleyes:

[theblackmask]

What exactly is the debate between these two political groups? It seems to me like there is a great amount of disagreement between them. Why? Aren't anarchists and communists both aiming for a stateless, classless, egalitarian model of society?

Much of the enmity between the two groups stems from conflicts in history. From Marx vs Bakunin in the First International, to the Red Army fighting the Green Army, to Stalin selling out the Spanish Revolution, there are many historical cases where one side simply thinks they were correct. I think this is due to a really bad tendency among revolutionaries to look to the past for answers rather than try to figure out how to work towards the future (but that's a different subject :)).

Is it that they disagree on the transition of how this should happen? Or is it that some communists believe a state is always necessary? Is it just a battle between different branches of communism and different branches of anarchism?

Even assuming that revolutionaries could get over petty historical disputes, the real dispute lies not in "communism vs anarchism" but in how we treat the concept of the state. There are plenty of communist traditions, such as the council communists, who are probably closer to anarchism than any type of Leninist communism. The bottom line is that we want to create a society without coercion and hierarchy, and Leninists believe that they can use a hierarchical state to achieve this.

Personally, I think that's some faulty logic, and it hasn't worked yet...but that's just me.

[B0LSHEVIK]

What exactly is the debate between these two political groups? It seems to me like there is a great amount of disagreement between them. Why? Aren't anarchists and communists both aiming for a stateless, classless, egalitarian model of society?

Is it that they disagree on the transition of how this should happen? Or is it that some communists believe a state is always necessary? Is it just a battle between different branches of communism and different branches of anarchism?

I guess, I'd just like to know the general disagreements they tend to have. I read a great pamphlet thingy by Christopher Day called "The Historical Failure of Anarchism" and the only thing I got wind of in this argument is that anarchists will not admit their own failures and theoretical errors during the Spanish Revolution, choosing instead to exaggerate their victories. He also mentions how anarchists have failed in working out a planned system economically, militarily, and socially---all necessary for a successful revolution. But apart from that he does not mention the real struggles that occurred between the communist parties and the anarchists i.e. the struggles between their different interests.

I'd really like thoughts/info on this.

Authentic anarchists and true communists want working class control of the economy.

They differ on the means of achieving this goal. Anarchists believe in grassroots bottom-up revolutions. Some communists are state top-down communists who desire to preserve the state (tho Marx said burn it to the fucking ground) and institute change via the institutional approach and a vanguard for leadership. Of course they claim they'll introduce a gradual control of the decision making to workers. Other communists want something like the anarchists but again they differ on semantics.

The disagreements are historical as well as actual fact. Open hostilities between the two camps have erupted in any 'socialist' conflict everywhere in the world. The central issue though, is the state, and what to do with it, how to do it, and by whom; given of course a popular revolution.

[Rebelwithcause]

The bottom line is that we want to create a society without coercion and hierarchy, and Leninists believe that they can use a hierarchical state to achieve this.

Personally, I think that's some faulty logic, and it hasn't worked yet...but that's just me.

You don't believe this can be achieved with a heirarchical state? Why not?

[B0LSHEVIK]

You don't believe this can be achieved with a heirarchical state? Why not?

Two reasons:

1) It hasn't worked, and if it did, it wasnt socialism or a workers state for that matter

2) Why do you say it can or does?

[Rebelwithcause]

Two reasons:

1) It hasn't worked, and if it did, it wasnt socialism or a workers state for that matter

2) Why do you say it can or does?

Not saying that it does. I actually agree with you very much. I don't think the state is necessary for a transition or revolution at all. Just wanted to see if you were willing to elaborate on your reasons why. I have a tendency of bumping into people who think the opposite.

[theblackmask]

You don't believe this can be achieved with a heirarchical state? Why not?

Simply look at the historical examples we have of what happens when you try to carry out a top-down revolution. If you need further proof, look at any of the number of ineffective Leninist groups in existence today.

[RNL]

As opposed to the many extraordinarily effective anarchist groups in existence today.

Also, saying "look at history" is usually pretty ironic, given that it implies a non-materialist perspective that assumes actions carried out under any historical circumstances will yield identical results.

[Agapi]

Also, saying "look at history" is usually pretty ironic, given that it implies a non-materialist perspective that assumes actions carried out under any historical circumstances will yield identical results.

This sort of reply is just as meaningless unless you successfully identify "where things went wrong" with the Leninist model, i.e. the conditions that exist today which would enable its success. Until then, that Leninism fails at certain goals is a fair assumption!

[Phonic]

No tendency fights here please

Anarchism and Marxism (they're all communists) differ on methods, these methods have lead to bitter battles between them, generally goes like:

*Marxists and Anarchists are fighting a common enermy, both decide to try out their ideas
*marxists have the state on there sound, fuck up the anarchists, another day.

[hatzel]

No tendency fights here please
marxists have the state on there sound, fuck up the anarchists, another day.Great :)

[RNL]

This sort of reply is just as meaningless unless you successfully identify "where things went wrong" with the Leninist model, i.e. the conditions that exist today which would enable its success. Until then, that Leninism fails at certain goals is a fair assumption!
I don't even consider myself a Leninist, but okay.

In an advanced capitalist nation, here are some things you don't have that they did have in backwards Russia: an immediate history of World War, a majority peasantry, a minority working class already decimated by that war, an entrenched etiolated aristocracy, a powerful church, underdeveloped industry, widespread illiteracy, a culture of autocracy, etc. And some things you do have that backwards Russia didn't: a liberal-democratic political tradition, mass media, information technology, stagnant late-capitalism with little prospect of improving living standards, etc.

Just a few off the top of my head.

[Psy]

It mostly boils down to the means to achieve the goal. You have a split between those that want to defeat capitalism by any means necessary and the those that wants to build a egalitarian society right from the word go.

Both concerns are valid, the Marxist fear is a revolution failing from bourgeoisie states thus the logic is that in a war against capitalism sacrifices have to be made for the greater good while Anarchists fears revolutionary states becoming counter-revolutionary. History have proved both of things happen in revolutions.

[Uncle Rob]

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm

Stalin:


Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that, in the opinion of these people, it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two trends.

This is a great mistake.

We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the "doctrine" of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects.

The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."

Read the whole work, it gives a detailed picture of the major differences from the Marxist perspective.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What Class Struggle Anarchist actually said "everything for the individual" though?

I believe the same as Stalin says though actually to some extent. I see Stalinism as a real enemy to working class emancipation.

[Uncle Rob]

I see Stalinism as a real enemy to working class emancipation.

Okay but that isn't the topic nor is this the place to discuss that. Nor is "Stalinism" a real trend in Marxism.

[Phonic]

Uncle Rob's quote is nonsense, claiming that anarchism is "individualist" versus marxist being more "collectivist" is meaningless, what does that even mean?

I don't buy into the "collectivist" versus "individualist" thing, I think they're both meaningless terms, groups are made up of individuals, individuals make up groups.

[Rebelwithcause]

@ Uncle Rob. I don't think the theoretical differences ever correspond to the practical differences between groups. I have to agree with Stranger Than Paradise..as far as I'm aware, no anarchist group in history has ever claimed individuality to that extent. In fact, I would say most anarchist groups have heavily identified with the idea of the masses coming together in order for liberation to succeed.

After much reading I have done lately, I have to agree with the previous responses. The fundamental difference between anarchists and Marxists seems to lie in the use of the state.

[RNL]

Except anarchists tend to characterise the Leninist position as being to "use the state", when in fact Leninists make a distinction between the bourgeois state and the workers' state, and advocate smashing the former to establish the latter. The class character of the state is fundamental for Leninists. Anarchists tend not to see any difference between one state and another in terms of class character, so usually their talk of 'the state' is abstracted from class society.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Okay but that isn't the topic nor is this the place to discuss that. Nor is "Stalinism" a real trend in Marxism.

Why did you describe a piece written by Stalin as it "a detailed picture of the major differences from the Marxist perspective." if you don't think it is?