Help. Anarchy or Marxism

[Triple A]

Maybe this is wrong section and sorry if it is.


My doubt is:
If been an anarchist for a while but ive been confronted with another ideas (marxism) who attracted me.
I am now undecided betweeen both and i hope some of you with a lot of theory knoweldge can help me.


I made this list on my mind:

Anarchy
Positive: freedom, self organization
Negatives: hard change from a capitalist society to anarchy, and lack of organization can be hard in a large scale

Marxism:
Positive: More organized than anarchy , and more easy to apply
Negatives: Danger of crazy dictators taking away freedom.


Help!:(

[SacRedMan]

Negatives: Danger of crazy dictators taking away freedom.


Click on the link in my signature ;)

[Per Levy]

why dont you just take the best out of both? or try anarcho-syndicalism, its more "organized".

[Triple A]

why dont you just take the best out of both? or try anarcho-syndicalism, its more "organized".


I've been in anarcho communism but maybe I've heard to many red army choir songs and seen to much movies about Lenin, and I just finished a book on Stalin (wich I liked).

This question is bugging me.

[red cat]

Maybe this is wrong section and sorry if it is.


My doubt is:
If been an anarchist for a while but ive been confronted with another ideas (marxism) who attracted me.
I am now undecided betweeen both and i hope some of you with a lot of theory knoweldge can help me.


I made this list on my mind:

Anarchy
Positive: freedom, self organization
Negatives: hard change from a capitalist society to anarchy, and lack of organization can be hard in a large scale

Marxism:
Positive: More organized than anarchy , and more easy to apply
Negatives: Danger of crazy dictators taking away freedom.


Help!:(

The problem with anarchism is that because it neglects the facts that the working class is not uniformly developed, and time and experience are very important conditions in a war, it is unable to militarily match the strength of the bourgeoisie.

As for "crazy dictators" taking away freedom in socialist countries, most of it is an over-simplification by pseudo-communists who take advantage of western nationalism for slandering socialist states. The real history of class struggle in which the proletariat temporarily overthrew the bourgeoisie but was defeated a few decades later, is much more complex than that.

The question of how to prevent a bourgeois counter-revolution is still open in Marxist theory. Several revolutionary groups are practicing certain methods which they think are correct solutions to this. You should study these movements and their theory to see if you are convinced or not. In the course of studying, you could even come up with your own solution to this problem, who knows?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

The problem with anarchism is that because it neglects the facts that the working class is not uniformly developed, and time and experience are very important conditions in a war, it is unable to militarily match the strength of the bourgeoisie.

I am an anarchist and I don't consider the working class 'uniformly developed' in the sense that you put it.

What is your solution to this problem, that makes your ideology better than an anarchist's?

[Zanthorus]

I don't want to sound harsh or insulting, but I think from the brief pro/con lists you gave for both Anarchism and Marxism it's clear that you don't really grasp either. For example, you mention a lack of organisation as a problem with Anarchists, and this was certainly a contributing factor to the ability of the Bolsheviks to grow exponentially compared to the Syndicalist movement in 1917, however based on the Russian experience Peter Arshinov and Nestor Mahkno drafted an 'Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/platform/org_plat.htm)' which outlines a theory of Anarchist organisation which had the authors denounced as Bolsheviks in blacks by others in the Anarchist movement. You also mention 'freedom' as a postive for Anarchists. It's not clear entirely what 'freedom' means but one of the breaking points between Marxism and pre-Marxian socialism was that the former was in favour of militant struggle to gain political freedom. As a negative for Marxism you mention 'crazy dictators' taking away freedom but again this has no relation to the Marxist idea of proletarian dictatorship which is explicitly opposed to the dictatorial rule of a few individuals in the name of the class as a whole.

I think it would help if you could tell us what works you've read so that maybe we could give reccomendations on reading material. Another obvious question would be, have you been in contact with or are you a member of any Anarchist/Marxist organisations?

[Tommy4ever]

Mabye you should look into a more Left Marxist tendency than Leninism.

In the middle between Leninism and Anarchism there are Councilist ideas, Left Communists, Syndacalists, Libertarian Communism etc

Or you could just say your a communist and that's all that matters :cool:

Who needs tendencies anyhow.

[Triple A]

I know of history even without knowing fancy words. Im aware of some anarchist organisation succeses like Catalonia but I doubt it could be done in larger scales

My doubt is is if Marx defended a final stage of revolution with small or no government or if he stood for USSR like government. This might sound stupid, but I've seen ppl saying both.


PS: I've been in contact with organisations but I'm undecided between comunist yout or FAI.

[Robespierre Richard]

I've been in anarcho communism but maybe I've heard to many red army choir songs and seen to much movies about Lenin, and I just finished a book on Stalin (wich I liked).

This question is bugging me.

To be honest, I'm as hardline anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist as they come, but that's a pretty bad reason to choose one ideology over another lol.

If you find the political economy of Marxism-Leninism better, perhaps you should study it first (I know, there are like no good sources besides brief outlines on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_for_the_National_Economy_of_the_Soviet_ Union)). Also familiarize yourself with the basic political thought/language of Marxism-Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm), and see if you find it agreeable.

Of course before that there are some vital Marxist works to read like the Communist Manifesto (which you've probably read) and Capital, Volume One (http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Critique-Political-Economy-Classics/dp/0140445684).

[Tommy4ever]

I know of history even without knowing fancy words. Im aware of some anarchist organisation succeses like Catalonia but I doubt it could be done in larger scales

My doubt is is if Marx defended a final stage of revolution with small or no government or if he stood for USSR like government. This might sound stupid, but I've seen ppl saying both.


PS: I've been in contact with organisations but I'm undecided between comunist yout or FAI.

Don't feel intimidated by the pseudo-intellectual atmosphere you often get around lefties.

Marx advocated there initially being a state but it ''whithering away''. Lenin also advocated this idea. The thing about the Soviet Union is the state never did start to whither away. Both Anarchists and Marxists share the same goal, its just how they arrive there that they disagree on. Marxists believe there needs to be some sort of state during the socialist stage as society starts to move towards communism.

[human strike]

Autonomist Marxism, comrade. ;) It's like both at the same time! (kinda)

[Tim Finnegan]

I found myself in a similar position to you when I came to revolutionary socialism last year (yup, I'm a newbie), and while I was originally drawn to Anarchism because it wore its libertarianism on its sleeve- which seems to be the main attraction for you, if I read you correctly?- Marxism eventually won me over because it offered what I understood to be a sounder body of thought. However, I still think that certain anarchist thinkers have a lot of useful things to say, and that anarchist activists are in general at least as useful as revolutionary Marxists (A compliment or a veiled insult? You decide! ;)), so we shouldn't get too hung up on a divide which is very often as imagined as it is real. There's as many differences between Marxists and even Anarchist tendencies (even if they are often more flexible) as between Anarchism and Marxism in their general senses, and I know for a fact that there's plenty of anarchists who'd I'd want to work with before certain Marxists, both on this board and elsewhere


Anarchy
Positive: freedom, self organization
Negatives: hard change from a capitalist society to anarchy, and lack of organization can be hard in a large scale

Marxism:
Positive: More organized than anarchy , and more easy to apply
Negatives: Danger of crazy dictators taking away freedom.
Well, Marxism is a body of theory, not a dogma, so it can encompass a fairly broad range of actual programs. The distinctions you draw between it an Anarchism are not essential characteristics of Marxism as such, but of certain prominent strains of Marxism.


Im aware of some anarchist organisation succeses like Catalonia but I doubt it could be done in larger scales
Well, the thing to remember about "Anarchist" Catalonia was that it wasn't a stable anarchy society, but a transitional society. The anarcho-syndicalists were the largest faction in a diverse revolutionary movement that included Marxists of various stripes, and was organised primarily around the immediate demands of the war and the revolution. This means that its hard to infer any long-term predictions from it, because, had the war and revolution triumphed, approaches would necessarily have shifted over time.


My doubt is is if Marx defended a final stage of revolution with small or no government or if he stood for USSR like government. This might sound stupid, but I've seen ppl saying both.It's definitely the former. Marx pointed to the Paris Commune as an illustration of the dictatorship of the proletariat (and, contrary to some misconceptions, grew more radical in reaction to its failures, not more conservative), just as the Anarchists did, and constantly hammered home the fact of revolution as a collective process of social reconstitution, not as an imposed political event as favoured by the Stalinist regime.
After all, the Marxists-Leninists feel the need to constantly distort the actual nature of the USSR, which they wouldn't do if it was actually anything like what Marx envisioned the dictatorship of the proletariat. They could hold the iron fist of the politburo up high as Marx's vision made concrete, rather than having to bury it beneath mountains of awkward mumbling about soviets and "people's democracy".


Marx advocated there initially being a state but it ''whithering away''. Lenin also advocated this idea. The thing about the Soviet Union is the state never did start to whither away. Both Anarchists and Marxists share the same goal, its just how they arrive there that they disagree on. Marxists believe there needs to be some sort of state during the socialist stage as society starts to move towards communism.
Well, even then, there's disagreement, not least because there's no universally accepted theory of the "state". Marx saw the municipal council in the Paris Commune as constituting his "workers' state", while the Anarchists saw the commune as the absence of state, so right from the start it was clear that the division was often about theoretical understanding as much as actual practice.

[ZeroNowhere]

Mabye you should look into a more Left Marxist tendency than Leninism.

In the middle between Leninism and Anarchism there are Councilist ideas, Left Communists, Syndacalists, Libertarian Communism etc

Or you could just say your a communist and that's all that matters :cool:

Who needs tendencies anyhow.I don't think that 'Left Marxist' designates anything. In addition, left communism is not some sort of 'mean' between Leninism (whatever that may refer to) and anarchism, and 'libertarian communism' is just a word used by anarchists, while 'libertarian Marxism' is a similar word used by anarchists in order to designate Marxists which they like. I would find it somewhat peculiar if somebody were to designate, for example, Bordiga as being 'in the middle between Leninism and Anarchism'; left communism is not simply Leninism with more 'libertarianism' or whatever, it's a different group of tendencies which is not 'between' anything.

[Tommy4ever]

I don't think that 'Left Marxist' designates anything. In addition, left communism is not some sort of 'mean' between Leninism (whatever that may refer to) and anarchism, and 'libertarian communism' is just a word used by anarchists, while 'libertarian Marxism' is a similar word used by anarchists in order to designate Marxists which they like. I would find it somewhat peculiar if somebody were to designate, for example, Bordiga as being 'in the middle between Leninism and Anarchism'; left communism is not simply Leninism with more 'libertarianism' or whatever, it's a different group of tendencies which is not 'between' anything.

:rolleyes:

I just meant that Anarchism is usually regarded as the most leftwing communist ideology and Leninism as the most rightwing one. Those other ideologies I mentioned would be between the two on the left-right axis.

k?

[Dimmu]

You repeat the typical myth that anarchism is unorgianized.. That is not true, anarchism is all about organisation. To quote Malatesta
"Anarchism is organisation, organisation, and more organisation."


I also dont think that marxism is "easier to apply" since most marxists i know are doing nothing to educated the public of communism, instead they act as pseudo-intellectuals arrogant people who only focus their energy to debate each other.

[ZeroNowhere]

:rolleyes:

I just meant that Anarchism is usually regarded as the most leftwing communist ideology and Leninism as the most rightwing one.Lenin wasn't even on the right wing of the International, and was probably closer to the left at times. I'm not sure who 'usually' does this, though. Maybe a couple of anarchists, probably the same kind that talk about 'libertarian Marxists' frequently.


I also dont think that marxism is "easier to apply" since most marxists i know are doing nothing to educated the public of communism, instead they act as pseudo-intellectuals arrogant people who only focus their energy to debate each other.Generally 'educating the public about communism' refers to activity which indicates that its perpetrator is in no position to educate anybody about communism.

[Le Socialiste]

Have you considered Anarcho-Syndicalism? Surely you must have. The way I see it, Marxism maintains the state - all the while trying to dismantle it. (A withering away, if you will.) Unfortunately, this cannot work, as the very existence of the state ensures its continued presence. The state cannot destroy the state; only a revolutionized populace can. Self-organization and management, coordinated on local, national, and international levels, and steeped in revolutionary theory and policy, can work quite well - if the people are conscious of their needs and the necessity of a free, revolutionary program - one independent of the state. Either way, it is very possible. The proletariat is more than capable of organizing itself - it has proven this many times throughout history.

[Zanthorus]

My doubt is is if Marx defended a final stage of revolution with small or no government or if he stood for USSR like government.

For Marxists the question is not the 'size' of the government but it's form. Without the freedom of speech, association and the press, the right to bear arms, reccallability of delegates and so on, the level of state intervention in the economy or lack thereof doesn't really mean much. The working-class can only retain political power when the day to day workings of government have been made clear and see through. Otherwise the basis for the existence of a class of proffesional politicians will remain in existence and eventually they will most likely regain control. This is one of the major themes of Marx's writing on the state throughout his work. For example, in 1851 when writing about the constitution of the French Second Republic, he remarks on the article discussing the separation of powers "Here we have the old constitutional folly. The condition of a “free government” is not the division, but the unity of power. The machinery of government cannot be too simple. It is always the craft of knaves to make it complicated and mysterious."


I've been in contact with organisations but I'm undecided between comunist yout or FAI.

Personally as a Marxist I'd rather be in the FAI than 'Communist Youth', which I'm guessing is a Stalinist organisation.

[syndicat]

lack of organization can be hard in a large scale



why assume that anarchism is against organization? that is the bourgeois fallacy about anarchism. anarchism is about collective self-management. that requires organization.

[Rafiq]

You could be both... Depending on how YOU personally define anarchism.

[Mr. Natural]

Triple A,

You touched upon a pet peeve of mine: the false dichotomy and enmity between anarchists and communists (Marxists).

Marx describes communist society in the Manifesto as "an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

Could there be a better definition for anarchism?

[Aspiring Humanist]

I've been in anarcho communism but maybe I've heard to many red army choir songs and seen to much movies about Lenin, and I just finished a book on Stalin (wich I liked).

This question is bugging me.

An anarcho-communist switching to admiring Stalin after reading a book?
Well thats certainly a change of pace

[Kamos]

An anarcho-communist switching to admiring Stalin after reading a book?
Well thats certainly a change of pace

That's not what he said.

[bezdomni]

Why not have a little of both? Make something new, see if it works.

Communists and anarchists alike are stuck in a rut, experimenting with new ideas and methods is the only way to get out.

[iceLizard]

mix them both, but that depends on you anyway

[o well this is ok I guess]

There's no real need to choose between the two, is there? Many theories made by marxists have been adapted quite well by anarchist circles.