Marxist Anarchism?

[Ilyich]

This may sound insane, especially to certain Leninists, reformists, and other state capitalists, but could Marxism be considered a form of anarchism? Please allow me to explain. Although Marxism and traditional anarchism (i.e. Bakuninism) have their differences, both Marxism and anarchism (in general) seek a stateless, classless world society as an end goal. Also, Marx was influence by many anarchists such as Proudhon and Stirner. There is no clear definition of anarchism, so how could it be said that Marxism is not an anarchist current according to a broad definition?

[Commie73]

There is quite a clear definition of Anarchism as a form of socialism. It would be a good idea to read Black Flame by van der welt and Schmidt. They systematically adress the ideas of the great sages of anarchism and try and see how they fit into anarchist theory - their conclusion is that many such as Stirner, Tucker, Tolstoy etc, have nothing to do with anarchism, and that proudhonian mutualism, whilst it influenced anarchism as it did marxism, can not be considered anarchism at all.

When we consider Anarchism in relation to Marxism, I think it is best to think of them as approaches to communism with many similarities but a lot of differences. However I think if we consider the differences between anarchists and marxists today, the main differences are around organizational form and the issue of the party. Anarchists and Marxists have many similarities including Internationalism, anti-parliamentarism, and the rejection of state capitalism and leftism.

[The Man]

Nope. Marxists support a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and therefore, are not Anarchists.

[Property Is Robbery]

There is a tendency known as "Libertarian Marxism". The fact is Marx didn't talk often about politics, mostly about economics so some people can interpret his ideas in different ways. If you agree with Marx's economic ideas but don't like the lack of popular democracy seen in previous "Marxist Leninist" states then I'd check it out

[Ilyich]

But the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will only be the Proletariat organized as the ruling class. It will not fit the traditional definition of the state and will be temporary. Even some anarchists hold a state-like entity necessary for the transition the a stateless, classless society.

[Tablo]

Both Anarchism and Marxism share strong similarities, but they are two separate entities that developed separately. I do think they have always had some influence on one another though.

[The Man]

But the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will only be the Proletariat organized as the ruling class. It will not fit the traditional definition of the state and will be temporary. Even some anarchists hold a state-like entity necessary for the transition the a stateless, classless society.

The point of Anarchism is to achieve Communism without a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. If these types of Anarchists exist, I would like you to show me some of their works.

[Dimitri Molotov]

wait a sec... didn't Lenin come up with the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat because it was difficult to unite Russians without it? so all Marxists wouldn't necessarily have to support a dictatorship of the proletariat, would they? only the Marxist-Leninists, not the straight up Marxists, right? correct me if I am wrong, i am still in my learning stages. :)

[The Man]

wait a sec... didn't Lenin come up with the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat because it was difficult to unite Russians without it? so all Marxists wouldn't necessarily have to support a dictatorship of the proletariat, would they? only the Marxist-Leninists, not the straight up Marxists, right? correct me if I am wrong, i am still in my learning stages. :)

Marxist-Leninists are straight up Marxists.

But anyways, Karl Marx himself came up with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and mentioned quite extensively in the 'Critique of the Gotha Programme'.



Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

[WeAreReborn]

wait a sec... didn't Lenin come up with the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat because it was difficult to unite Russians without it? so all Marxists wouldn't necessarily have to support a dictatorship of the proletariat, would they? only the Marxist-Leninists, not the straight up Marxists, right? correct me if I am wrong, i am still in my learning stages. :)
No Lenin did not coin the phrase. It is Marxist theory and at the core of it.

[Tablo]

wait a sec... didn't Lenin come up with the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat because it was difficult to unite Russians without it? so all Marxists wouldn't necessarily have to support a dictatorship of the proletariat, would they? only the Marxist-Leninists, not the straight up Marxists, right? correct me if I am wrong, i am still in my learning stages. :)
No, DOTP predates Lenin and the Russian Revolution. I would say that Lenin has a different interpretation of the DOTP than Marx and Engels though.

[Dimitri Molotov]

Thank you comrades, I guess you learn something every day! XD my damn high school global class told me Lenin came up with the idea of DOTP, I try to keep up with what they teach me because that class has proven to be quite biased and unreliable in the past and I always research for myself what we learn in class as soon as I get home, I guess the DOTP must have slipped by. :P

[Kadir Ateş]

This may sound insane, especially to certain Leninists, reformists, and other state capitalists, but could Marxism be considered a form of anarchism? Please allow me to explain. Although Marxism and traditional anarchism (i.e. Bakuninism) have their differences, both Marxism and anarchism (in general) seek a stateless, classless world society as an end goal. Also, Marx was influence by many anarchists such as Proudhon and Stirner. There is no clear definition of anarchism, so how could it be said that Marxism is not an anarchist current according to a broad definition?


Check this out: http://libcom.org/library/marx-theoretician-anarchism

[ZeroNowhere]

The main difference is probably that anarchists, insofar as they are anarchists, support socialism on the basis of moral principles such as opposition to hierarchy, anti-authoritarianism, and so on, whereas Marxists neither characterize capitalism in terms of personal hierarchy as such nor have any pretenses that working class interests represent a universal and atemporal morality, or the social interest, and indeed don't connect morality with moral principles and ideals in any case but with concrete, free action ('objective' morality is either religion or disguised subjectivism, which is itself one-sided). Socialism forms a prerequisite for real, human morality, it is not a deduction from it. In addition, Marxism is less voluntaristic than most anarchism (and most 'Marxism').

I'm not sure that it's necessarily accurate to say that anarchists reject the dictatorship of the proletariat, as many don't, although they generally dislike the term (whereas I really like it for similar reasons). It would perhaps be more accurate to say that for Marxists the dictatorship of the proletariat forms our immediate end, while anarchism is more focused on ideal societies and does not necessarily take the rule of the proletariat as its aim by itself, sometimes taking up sectarian principles against it such as anti-political and majoritarian viewpoints. Anarchism can sometimes share the ethical localism of pacifism in this aspect.


There is a tendency known as "Libertarian Marxism". The fact is Marx didn't talk often about politics, mostly about economics so some people can interpret his ideas in different ways.'Libertarian Marxism' isn't so much a tendency as a term used by anarchists to designate Marxists which they like. Also, Marx talked about politics quite a lot, and his politics are hardly disconnected from his economics in any case.

[Rowan Duffy]

The point of Anarchism is to achieve Communism without a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. If these types of Anarchists exist, I would like you to show me some of their works.


Decades later, when Marx discussed what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant, he argued (in reply to Bakunin's question of "over whom will the proletariat rule?") that it simply meant "that so long as other classes continue to exist, the capitalist class in particular, the proletariat fights it (for with the coming of the proletariat to power, its enemies will not yet have disappeared), it must use measures of force, hence governmental measures; if it itself still remains a class and the economic conditions on which the class struggle and the existence of classes have not yet disappeared, they must be forcibly removed or transformed, and the process of their transformation must be forcibly accelerated." [The Marx-Engels Reader, pp. 542-3]

Clearly most anarchists would support the proletarian class transitioning to socialism through the suppression of the bourgeois class, through expropriation and political reconstitution. If that is what DotP means, then anarchists really have to support it to be communist.

The problem comes when the DotP is used to mean something else. Victor Serge being a prime example, who came to defend on theoretical grounds the "dictatorship over the proletariat". The fact that DotP has been used explicitly to mean a conscious minority holding the reigns in the supposed interest of the proletariat is enough to give one pause when the phrase is used. It's important to know what the person is actually trying to say.

Personally, I think the phrase is both hopeless bad propaganda and prone to causing confusion and should not be used by anyone.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Thank you comrades, I guess you learn something every day! XD my damn high school global class told me Lenin came up with the idea of DOTP, I try to keep up with what they teach me because that class has proven to be quite biased and unreliable in the past and I always research for myself what we learn in class as soon as I get home, I guess the DOTP must have slipped by. :P
Rule 1: Dont trust high school anything political.



anyways, Lenin didnt coin the term, but the Russian Revolution is kind of the first real attempt at implementing DotP

[The Idler]

The concept of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ has a central place in Leninist thought. The phrase was used by Marx and Engels to mean the working class conquest of political power. In State and Revolution (1917), however, Lenin wrote of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat under the guidance of the party.’ The Leninist theory of the vanguard party leads inevitably to the dictatorship over the proletariat.From the Socialist Party A to Z compendium of socialism (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/compendium/A_Z_D.html).

[Zanthorus]

Marx was influence by many anarchists such as Proudhon and Stirner.

First of all, Stirner wasn't an Anarchist. Second of all, the claim that Marx was influenced by him usually rests on the idea that Marx's pre-1845 work is tainted by a belief in Feuerbach's conception of an abstract human essence, whereas 'The German Ideology' supposedly marks a break where Marx criticises this and thus abandons his earlier ideas about alienation. If this was true, then a Stirnerian influence might be plausible, since Stirner had also criticised the idea of an abstract human essence. However, Marx was in fact clear that the human essence spoken of in his 1844 Manuscripts was a feature of men "not as an abstraction, but as real, living, particular individuals". The 'break' that occured in 1844/45 was a question of reinterpreting Feuerbach and realising that he had been mistaken in thinking that Feuerbach held to the same views as himself. Since Marx's break with the idea of an abstract human essence is already complete by his 1844 Manuscripts, there is no possibility that it was influenced by Stirner's book which came out a year later. Besides which of course, Stirner's critique of abstract man is not in order to return to human beings as they exist within varying social forms of life, but in fact has more in common with modern post-structuralism and opposition to 'grand narratives', and as such retains a kind of linguistic idealism which is opposed to Marx's practical materialist standpoint.

[Tim Cornelis]

This may sound insane, especially to certain Leninists, reformists, and other state capitalists, but could Marxism be considered a form of anarchism? Please allow me to explain. Although Marxism and traditional anarchism (i.e. Bakuninism) have their differences, both Marxism and anarchism (in general) seek a stateless, classless world society as an end goal. Also, Marx was influence by many anarchists such as Proudhon and Stirner. There is no clear definition of anarchism, so how could it be said that Marxism is not an anarchist current according to a broad definition?

Who uses "Bakuninism"? Bekunin is hardly "traditional anarchism", most contemporary anarchists are anarchist communists (in the tradition of Kropotkin) as they consider remuneration unjust, redundant, etc.

For Marxists socialism/communism is the end, the 'revolution'/DOTP the means to achieve the end, it seems.
Whereas for anarchists freedom is the end, and socialism is merely the means to achieve freedom.

That's why Marxists generally more tolerant of authoritarian-leaning means.

[Decolonize The Left]

Anarchism is a political theory.
Marxism is an economic theory.

They are fundamentally different yet it is totally possible to be a Marxist-Anarchist, or as they are more commonly called, an anarcho-communist.

- August

[Kiev Communard]

First of all, Stirner wasn't an Anarchist. Second of all, the claim that Marx was influenced by him usually rests on the idea that Marx's pre-1845 work is tainted by a belief in Feuerbach's conception of an abstract human essence, whereas 'The German Ideology' supposedly marks a break where Marx criticises this and thus abandons his earlier ideas about alienation. If this was true, then a Stirnerian influence might be plausible, since Stirner had also criticised the idea of an abstract human essence. However, Marx was in fact clear that the human essence spoken of in his 1844 Manuscripts was a feature of men "not as an abstraction, but as real, living, particular individuals". The 'break' that occured in 1844/45 was a question of reinterpreting Feuerbach and realising that he had been mistaken in thinking that Feuerbach held to the same views as himself. Since Marx's break with the idea of an abstract human essence is already complete by his 1844 Manuscripts, there is no possibility that it was influenced by Stirner's book which came out a year later. Besides which of course, Stirner's critique of abstract man is not in order to return to human beings as they exist within varying social forms of life, but in fact has more in common with modern post-structuralism and opposition to 'grand narratives', and as such retains a kind of linguistic idealism which is opposed to Marx's practical materialist standpoint.

As far as I know, social anarchists are just as opposed to Stirnerian idealism and extreme individualism as Marxists are, and even Alexei Borovoy, one of the leaders (so to speak) of early 20th century Russian individualist anarchists criticized Stirner for his abstract thought and praised Marx for his economic analysis, believing that Marxian communism is to be achieved for the "true Individualism" to triumph in future.

[ZeroNowhere]

Anarchism is a political theory.
Marxism is an economic theory.

They are fundamentally different yet it is totally possible to be a Marxist-Anarchist, or as they are more commonly called, an anarcho-communist.

- August
Firstly, no, the distinction between 'anarcho-communists' and other anarchists is that anarcho-communists, and this is indeed their primary distinguishing characteristic, firmly reject the idea of labour credits which Marx had, far from rejecting, put forward, generally on the grounds of it being 'wages' or something of the sort. Not only is that differing with Marxism on one position, but on the entire analysis of the wages system.

Secondly, Marxism is just as much a 'political theory' as anything else, and indeed more than most other theories it rejects the concreteness of the division between political and economic, so that Marxist political positions follow not from abstract ideals of the social interest, but economic theory, while Marxian economic theory is at the same time political.

[Rafiq]

The point of Anarchism is to achieve Communism without a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. If these types of Anarchists exist, I would like you to show me some of their works.

You fool, that's not the point of anarchism.

Anarchism existed long before Marxism did, therefore how could the point of anarchism be to do the opposite of a tactic an Idealogy that doesn't exist upholds?

[Property Is Robbery]

Also, Marx talked about politics quite a lot, and his politics are hardly disconnected from his economics in any case.
What I meant was Marxist thought has been interpreted in many different ways, while usually maintaining the same economics. Obviously if Marx had described an ideal DotP similar to the USSR there would be no such thing as Marxist-Leninism just Marxism

[Zanthorus]

What I meant was Marxist thought has been interpreted in many different ways, while usually maintaining the same economics.

Actually there are probably more disputes about how to interpret Marx's economic theory than on what his concrete politics were. Questions such as whether Marx offers a theory of inevitable increasing impoverishment or a theory of inevitable breakdown came into existence almost immediately after the death of Engels and featured heavily in the revisionist controversy. Since economics and politics are intertwined in Marx's thinking, disputes over Marxist politics have commonly involved disputes over Marxist economics (Including whether or not the latter actually exists). Mattick's acceptance of Grossman's interpretation of Marx on the question of breakdown was heavily intertwined with his 'objectivist'/'councillist' politics. Similarly, Bordiga's 'objectivism' was heavily intertwined with his belief that the post-war boom was only temporary and would eventually give way to a new period of depression, which he upheld against the 'modernists'/'subjectivists' like Castoriadis.

[Kadir Ateş]

Marxism is an economic theory.

No. Marxism is not an "economic theorist" but his works are the equivalent of an intellectual deathknell of bourgeois society, especially of its economic theories. He does not propose one himself either.

[Zanthorus]

No. Marxism is not an "economic theorist" but his works are the equivalent of an intellectual deathknell of bourgeois society, especially of its economic theories. He does not propose one himself either.

To be frank, the debate over whether Marx had an 'economic theory' borders a bit on intellectual posturing. Is it true that Marx undermined the foundations of prior political economists and their conception of an abstract Robinson Crusoe type man? Yes. But this is not a purely negative enterprise, and anyone who is not into the intellectual equivalent of hipsterism will admit that yes Marx did put forward positive hypothesis and theories for analysing the economy. In that sense he did have an economic theory.

[Kadir Ateş]

But this is not a purely negative enterprise, and anyone who is not into the intellectual equivalent of hipsterism will admit that yes Marx did put forward positive hypothesis and theories for analysing the economy. In that sense he did have an economic theory.

I'm assuming that by "economic theory" the writer was trying to connect it to a more vulgar sense of professing a blueprint for life beyond capital. That's all. Although I am more inclined to see Capital and other such works more as critique than a collection of positive hypotheses.

Whether this amounts to "intellectual hipsterism" in so far as to suggest that I view no suggestions from Marx that would affirm revolutionary activity in spite of a negative critique of society I reject completely.

[Zanthorus]

There are plenty of positive hypotheses in Capital. Ever read the chapters on the working-day or machinery? General law of capitalist accumulation? And I'm not sure what the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is if not a positive hypothesis. Marx himself says in the 1867 Preface that "it is the ultimate aim of this work, to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society". The idea that no such thing as 'Marxist economics' exists seems to be to be part of a tendency to view Marx's work through the lense of idle academia, as if Marx's work is really just a purely negative critique of previous political economists then well, it doesn't really have much use. I think although there is an element of undercutting previous political economy, the overwhelming thrust of Marx's work (As evidenced in said preface) is to render a positive understanding of how the capitalist economy works, even if how this is done is at odds with how it was done in Smith or Ricardo.

The accusation of 'intellectual hipsterism' had nothing to do with you not affirming revolutionary activity, in fact I'm one of those people who doesn't have much truck with 'revolutionary activity'. The point was that the rejection of 'Marxist economics' tends towards a kind of purposeful obscurantism that leads anyone whose still thinking in everyday terms a bit mystified really because it's never entirely clear what it's supposed to mean. It seems to be the perogative of a certain kind of Marx interpreter who enjoy making controversial statements more than actually contributing to a proper understanding of Marx's work (Here I must admit to being not entirely foreign to this tendency). For some reason these are also usually the same people rabbiting on about how Engels distorted Marx, often on the basis of ironically poor readings of Engels given their hairsplitting when it comes to Marx interpretation.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm assuming that by "economic theory" the writer was trying to connect it to a more vulgar sense of professing a blueprint for life beyond capital.
I'm not sure that that's how the phrase is usually used? Certainly not in debates about whether Marxism is an economic theory.


That's all. Although I am more inclined to see Capital and other such works more as critique than a collection of positive hypotheses.Capital is a critique, but it shows previous political economists to be wrong precisely by showing how capitalism in fact is. It would seem a bit strange to say that 'Capital' does not contain positive theories, given that it's full of them, and indeed that these form the basis of the critique. It's even stranger given that Marx had decided to dedicate one volume to most of the critique, while the others were focused on describing capitalism as a basis for this critique.

Indeed, Marx himself commented to Engels in 1868 that, "Political economy can only be turned into a positive science by replacing the conflicting dogmas by the conflicting facts, and by the real antagonisms which form their concealed background." His concern was with doing this; the reason why prior political economy was not able to be truly scientific, as he says elsewhere quite explicitly a couple of times, was precisely that it ultimately could not accept the necessary finitude of capitalism, the fact that its contradictions lead towards its end, and hence had to stop at this point. I mean, it's true that Sismondi and such did note that the capitalist system would be finite, but only by historical analogy at best, rather than actual theory. His aim was not to simply 'critique' the categories, but rather to develop what was inherent in them beyond this pons asinorum, and hence to rid them of the illusions that had to be created to keep them within their capitalist integument.

Or, to put things in more Hegelian terms, while prior political economy had taken the finite as absolute, Marx showed within it its own negation, and hence took it as really finite, with finitude constituting a part of its essence rather than appearing as an external imposition, rather than absolute. The above act of taking the finite as absolute does not simply compose seeing capitalist categories as always existent, but rather making only capitalism its subject matter; for example, examining the capitalist production process, but not the concrete labour process, and hence not examining the contradiction between the two. It doesn't matter here whether the political economist actually said, 'Oh yes, and capitalism always existed', but rather that they didn't examine within capitalism its own negation, and hence precisely because they didn't see communism within capitalism. Only through revolutionizing political economy, or making political economy revolutionary, can this be done. The same applies to philosophy, where idealism can only be overcome by a form of materialism which is in its practical form communism, and also in ethics, religion and such as domains of philosophy (funnily enough, most people who will vehemently deny that Marx engaged in economic theory or political economy or whatever, as if there's something fundamental and deep behind this semantic quibbling, will often be quite willing to call Marx a philosopher or ethicist).

Incidentally, to end on a lighter note:
M. Proudhon has the misfortune of being peculiarly misunderstood in Europe. In France, he has the right to be a bad economist, because he is reputed to be a good German philosopher. In Germany, he has the right to be a bad philosopher, because he is reputed to be one of the ablest French economists. Being both German and economist at the same time, we desire to protest against this double error.- The Poverty of Philosophy.

[Kadir Ateş]

You're both right, thank you for the corrections. I think I've been so flustered by arguing with the Stalinists that I've degenerated to their level and making base assertions. Thank you, comrades, I'll concede to both of your points.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Nope. Marxists support a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and therefore, are not Anarchists.

I'm a Marxist and I don't support a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Marxism-Leninism is not the exclusive current of Marxism.

[Q]

For Marxists socialism/communism is the end, the 'revolution'/DOTP the means to achieve the end, it seems.
Whereas for anarchists freedom is the end, and socialism is merely the means to achieve freedom.
There is no difference here. Communism is the general liberation of humanity.


I'm a Marxist and I don't support a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Marxism-Leninism is not the exclusive current of Marxism.
Then I don't think you understand what the term entails. There have been quite a few useful posts explaining this in this thread already, so I won't be repeating.

[red1987]

yes...and this dactatorship has a goal to create a stateless society...without exploitation...i mean the goal is the same ...but the methods vary...

[Mr. Natural]

Anarchism and communism are similar in many ways. For instance, Marx describes communism in the Manifesto as "associations will be formed in which the freedom of each is the condition for the freedom of all."

Marx didn't refer to a dictatorship of the proletariat in the Manifesto, but he did describe the transitional period when the old order was still powerful and counterrevolution a peril: "The first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy."

Anarchists (Bakunin) thought the state was the problem, while Marx saw capitalism and the capitalist state as the problem. Marx was right.

But both communism and anarchism value grassroots communities of associated producers.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Anarchism existed long before Marxism did, therefore how could the point of anarchism be to do the opposite of a tactic an Idealogy that doesn't exist upholds?
May I ask what are you talking about?
Anarchism, as a social movement of creating a classless society, was brought about after Marxism, with it's birth in the First International. It has only existed for 150 years.
Proudhon had a few ideas, but Bakunin, Malatesta, and Kropotkin got the wheels moving.

[Susurrus]

I've heard it suggested that the term dictatorship of the proletariat as used by Marx was intended to mean that the people would be the ruling political force, not the bourgeoisie, ie through the implementation of councils, soviets, syndicalism, etc, rather than a dictatorship on behalf of the proletariat. This is strongly supported by the fact that he believed the Paris Commune to be an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and also described it thusly:

"The Commune was formed of the municipal councilors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible, and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive, and legislative at the same time. This form of popular government, featuring revocable election of councilors and maximal public participation in governance, resembles contemporary direct democracy."

This is further supported by Engels, who said: "Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat."

Either way, until we figure out a way to resurrect the dead, it will probably be impossible to figure out what he meant.

[robbo203]

There is quite a clear definition of Anarchism as a form of socialism. It would be a good idea to read Black Flame by van der welt and Schmidt. They systematically adress the ideas of the great sages of anarchism and try and see how they fit into anarchist theory - their conclusion is that many such as Stirner, Tucker, Tolstoy etc, have nothing to do with anarchism, and that proudhonian mutualism, whilst it influenced anarchism as it did marxism, can not be considered anarchism at all.

When we consider Anarchism in relation to Marxism, I think it is best to think of them as approaches to communism with many similarities but a lot of differences. However I think if we consider the differences between anarchists and marxists today, the main differences are around organizational form and the issue of the party. Anarchists and Marxists have many similarities including Internationalism, anti-parliamentarism, and the rejection of state capitalism and leftism.

I dont think the "anti-parliamentarism" tag would apply to Marxists general in this case. Marx himself was certainly not opposed to the democratic capture of state power in order abpolish capitalism and its state

[Kiev Communard]

I dont think the "anti-parliamentarism" tag would apply to Marxists general in this case. Marx himself was certainly not opposed to the democratic capture of state power in order abpolish capitalism and its state

It seems that among modern Marxist currents it is impossibilist groupings of World Socialist Movement, such as SPGB, that keep the closest to Marx's original version of 'the democratic capture of the state', i.e. by advocating electoral policies in order to somehow capture the State without finding the struggle for purely reformist/transitional measures useful (unlike the parties of Kautskyan tradition, including almost all Trotskyist and Marxist-Leninist ones).

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ All the while ignoring the reactionary nature of existing bureaucracies (as opposed to bureaucratic processes in general) :glare:

[Rowan Duffy]

Abraham Guillén (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Guill%C3%A9n) constructs a Marxist-Leninist Anarchist fusion and describes a libertarian historical materialism. I found his writing on historical materialism to be really quite bizarre and his libertarian Lenin to be pretty much pure fiction, but he definitely has interesting stuff to say about military theory.

You can read a collection of his essays, including historical materialist and military translated into English in Philosophy of the Urban Guerrilla. (http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Urban-Guerrilla-Revolutionary-Writings/dp/0688001475)

Here is a transcription of his piece on the Tupamaros (http://red-anti-state.blogspot.com/2010/01/assessment-of-uruguayan-tupamaros.html).

[(-A-)sko]

Anarchism is a theory including several different schools, economic ideas and systems, anarcho-communism being the tradition sharing most with Marxist Communism. They have (one could say exactly) the same socio-economic goal (suprisingly, Communism; that is: a free classless society based on common ownership and free access to the material basis on well-being).
Though I know relatively well some main parts of Marxist theory and Marxist philosophy, for me it would be very hard to define Marxism, to define its 'minimum contents' so that we could 'objectively' state wether someone is a Marxist or not (the guy wrote a lot, you know, during a long writing career, not to mention that he corrected his stance on certain issues over years and decades). Maybe the hard(est?) bit in creating such a synthesis is the question of the transitory phase State, but for many, it's not really clear what do some Marxists really refer to when thinking about this transitory phase State, or maybe, just 'State', maybe it wouldn't necessarily mean anything even close to what we undersand as a State.
I've myself also been interested in the possibility to be both a Marxist and an Anarchist. I've discovered Internationale situationniste, an unorthodox revolutionary Marxist avant-garde arts and social group (though I've got the impression that it would have contained also some Anarchists too), Autonomism (originally Autonomia Operaia from Italy), a social theory and movement rooted in Marxism, some nowadays Autonomists consider thamselves Anarchists (some not strictly either one) and (perhaps the most intriguing) Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional with its main spokesperson Marcos using diligently tools of both Marxism and Anarchism in developing revolutionary theory and practice, though being a movement which politics, program and aims spring primarily sraight from the Chiapas Indigenous peoples communities and traditions.
I live in the belief that those are some, if not quite successful, at least close attempts of getting to a synthesis of Marxism and Anarchism.

[(-A-)sko]

Anarchism is a theory including several different schools, economic ideas and systems, anarcho-communism being the tradition sharing most with Marxist Communism. They have (one could say exactly) the same socio-economic goal (suprisingly, Communism; that is: a free classless society based on common ownership and free access to the material basis on well-being).
Though I know relatively well some main parts of Marxist theory and Marxist philosophy, for me it would be very hard to define Marxism, to define its 'minimum contents' so that we could 'objectively' state wether someone is a Marxist or not (the guy wrote a lot, you know, during a long writing career, not to mention that he corrected his stance on certain issues over years and decades). Maybe the hard(est?) bit in creating such a synthesis is the question of the transitory phase State, but for many, it's not really clear what do some Marxists really refer to when thinking about this transitory phase State, or maybe, just 'State', maybe it wouldn't necessarily mean anything even close to what we undersand as a State.
I've myself also been interested in the possibility to be both a Marxist and an Anarchist. I've discovered Internationale situationniste, an unorthodox revolutionary Marxist avant-garde arts and social group (though I've got the impression that it would have contained also some Anarchists too), Autonomism (originally Autonomia Operaia from Italy), a social theory and movement rooted in Marxism, some nowadays Autonomists consider thamselves Anarchists (some not strictly either one) and (perhaps the most intriguing) Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional with its main spokesperson Marcos using diligently tools of both Marxism and Anarchism in developing revolutionary theory and practice, though being a movement which politics, program and aims spring primarily sraight from the Chiapas Indigenous peoples communities and traditions.
I live in the belief that those are some, if not quite successful, at least close attempts of getting to a synthesis of Marxism and Anarchism.