An Anarchist's Guide to Marxism

[Marks of Capital]

An Anarchist’s Guide to Marxism: Does such a thing exist? Should it exist? (Probably as a 'zine, because that's what anarchists read.)

If I wrote such a document (keep in mind that I primarily know about Marxism through Phil Gasper lectures), my outline would be as follows:

How Marx describes history
The development of class society and the material justification for a class society

How Marx describes capitalism
Creates own contradictions
Surplus labor value and the control thereof
Crisis of overproduction

How Marx describes revolution
"What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own gravediggers.”
Dictatorship of the proletariat
Minimum and maximum programs

Conflict with Anarchists
Kicking out the Bakuninists
"slowcialism"
electoralism v direct action
vanguardism

What about Lenin?
He's not Marx, but Marxism-Leninism is important to understand, no?
I actually don't know what Leninists claim his contributions to Marxist theory are.

Important writings of Karl Marx
The Communist Manifesto
Capital
Other works?

Quotes worth working in:
“Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!”
-Otto von Bismarck, dictator, Germany (said upon hearing of the split in the First International between Marxists and anarchists.)

“Marxism has tended to be a theoretical or analytical discourse about revolutionary strategy; anarchism, an ethical discourse about revolutionary practice.”
-David Graeber, anarchist anthropologist, ex-Yale University

“Marxism is a theory of revolutionary social change based on what a 19th-century German tailor thought industrial workers wanted.”
-Does anyone know who said this? I found it stuck in my brain somewhere. I'm not sure Marx was ever a tailor, though.

"I've never read Marx's Capital, but I have the marks of capital all over me."
-“Big Bill” Haywood, miner and union organizer, IWW and WFM


What do you think should be added, changed, taken away, etc?
What should be my reading list before writing this?
Also, what do you think anarchists should get out of an introduction to Marxism?
I'm interested in hearing from anarchists as well as Marxists.

hv

[Aurorus Ruber]

“Marxism is a theory of revolutionary social change based on what a 19th-century German tailor thought industrial workers wanted.”
-Does anyone know who said this? I found it stuck in my brain somewhere. I'm not sure Marx was ever a tailor, though.

I believe that comes from Mark Rosenfelder on his website www.zompist.com on one of his pages about the 20th century.

[Paulappaul]

“Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!”
-Otto von Bismarck, dictator, Germany (said upon hearing of the split in the First International between Marxists and anarchists.)

Bismarck is a wonderful writer/speaker. This is powerful as fuck.

[Tablo]

I think anarchists should just read more Marxist works. I don't think Marxism can really be summed up in a zine.

[Susurrus]

I think anarchists should just read more Marxist works. I don't think Marxism can really be summed up in a zine.

Agreed. I would personally suggest reading the Communist Manifesto, then read or re-read one or both of Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread and/or Field, Factories and Workshops, then read Das Kapital.

[Zanthorus]

I actually don't know what Leninists claim his contributions to Marxist theory are.

The 'orthodox' Leninist claim is that Lenin's unique contribution to Marxist theory lies in the theory of imperialism and the adaptation of revolutionary politics to the epoch of imperialism with the addition to revolutionary strategy of the idea of a vanguard party.


I'm not sure Marx was ever a tailor, though.

I'm not sure that Marxism is based on what Marx thought the subjective needs of industrial workers were either. Also Marx was not a tailor, although the confusion could perhaps arise from the fact that he was a member of the Communist League, of which many of the members were skilled artisans and master craftsmen.


What do you think should be added, changed, taken away, etc?

Well to be honest, I'm not really sure what the point of what you're doing is. It just seems like an attempt at a general introduction to Marxism, except with a 'tailored to Anarchists' label slapped on. I believe the libcom collective was actually thinking of doing a similar 'Marx for Anarchists' type piece btw although I have no idea what happened to it. Anyway the obvious subject you seem to have missed is ethics since no matter how they dress it up the opposition to hierarchy and politics from Anarchists usually boils down to an ethical issue.

[Kronsteen]

An Anarchist’s Guide to Marxism: Does such a thing exist? Should it exist?

I've never heard of one, but it's a good idea. Marxists and anarchists misunderstand each other badly.


The development of class society and the material justification for a class societyDo you mean 'material causes' or 'ideological justification'?


Creates own contradictionsTrue, but the idea is that all societies - except the primitive and post-capitalist kinds of communism - have their distinctive contradictions, which make them prone to crises and possible to topple.


Crisis of overproductionMarx wrote about crises in capitalism, but didn't live long enough to explain them. The notions of 'overproduction' and 'underproduction' were extracted from Marx's notebooks by Engels, and became accepted into 'marxism' by most marxists.


"What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own gravediggers.”Marx thought the overthrow of capitalism was inevitable, and only socialism could come afterwards - or a collapse into barbarism.


Dictatorship of the proletariatMarx used the term to mean 'the workers ruling themselves'. Plekanov and Lenin used it to mean 'the party ruling the workers with an iron fist, for the worker's own good'.


Important writings of Karl Marx
The Communist Manifesto
Capital
Other works?The Communist Manifest is more polemical than theoretical. Volumes 2 and 3 of Capital are difficult and fragmentary - but volume 1 is recommended.

The German Ideology for Marx's views on, well, ideology. And the (very short) Theses on Feuerbach for philosophy.


What do you think should be added, changed, taken away, etc?
What should be my reading list before writing this?Maybe a treatment of the marxist view of science (Engels 'Anti-Duhring') vs the anarchist view of science (Ferayabend 'Against Method').


Also, what do you think anarchists should get out of an introduction to Marxism?Honesty, not polemic.

You could also discuss whether a classless society is the same thing as an anarchist one.

[Marks of Capital]

I'm continuing to work on this, and I will post sections here for critique as I finish them.
There is some confusion as to what the value of a "Marx for anarchists" would be. I am motivated by a passage from David Graeber's book Direct Action:


“[A]narchists have long taken much of their political economy from Marxists – a tradition which goes back to Bakunin, who though he was a political rival of Marx, also was responsible for the first translation of Capital into Russian – rather than feeling obliged to set up some anarchist school of political economy of their own....

“For analyses of the nature of the commodity form or the mechanics of alienation, most have been content to draw on the written work of Marxist intellectuals (which are usually, themselves, drawn from ideas that originally percolate through a broader worker’s movement in which anarchists were very much involved). Which also means that, for all the bitter and often violent disagreements anarchists have had with Marxists about how to go about making a revolution, there has always been a kind of complementarity here, as least in potentia.” I think anarchists would can get two things from being familiar with Marx's ideas. One is to be more literate in leftist political economy which will help our understanding of the world, and two is to understanding better what differences actually exist between Marxists and anarchists, which should aid working together, and also aid not working together, as the situation calls for.

[Rafiq]

Keep in mind Marx denounced the Communist Manifesto in his later years, and wanted to write a new one. I do agree Anarchists have misinterperated Marxism badly. I think the only difference between Anarchism and Marxism is that the core of Anarchism is Structurally based off of Morality (all authority and heirarchy are bad). I do think Anarchists could make appropriate representations of the proletariat or sometimes peasantry(Makhnovtchina was an excellent force of workers, one of which I am still fascinated by)

[ZeroNowhere]

Keep in mind Marx denounced the Communist Manifesto in his later years, and wanted to write a new one.I don't believe that Marx 'denounced' the Manifesto of the Communist Party and wanted to write a new one, at most he wished to reword some of it, and commented that some of its 'planks' had become antiquated (although this wasn't really much of a break, he simply proposed new 'transitional measures' rather than abandoning the concept, for example in his work on inheritance and for the French party with Guesde; as he said, "The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing," hence no special stress is laid on measures appropriate to 1848 conditions in a later period).

"However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved."

When it comes to 'Marx for Anarchists', to be honest I'm not sure that there's much point in making something on Marx for anarchists specifically, since really if it's going to help them it's going to have to have the same content as any other work about Marxism for anybody else.

[Luís Henrique]

I believe that comes from Mark Rosenfelder on his website www.zompist.com (http://www.zompist.com) on one of his pages about the 20th century.

I love that site, particularly his discussions of language. His debunking of Greenbergian "proto-World" is precious.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Important writings of Karl Marx
The Communist Manifesto
Capital
Other works?

The 18th Brummaire, without any doubt. You can't really understand Marx without seeing his method applied to History. Besides that, it is brilliant literature, something you read with actual pleasure.

The Critique of the Gotha program. Marx's critique of the State and of working class delusions regarding the State is powerful and profound; might help anarchists with coming up with an actual critique of the State of their own.

I would say the Grundrisse, not because it is particularly relevant for anarchists and their relation to Marxism, but because it is a good read for anyone interested in how Marx worked (after all, it documents Marx work processes, better than anything else). The part on pre-capitalist social formations, often known as Formen, is a particularly nice reading.

Luís Henrique

[ColinAYB]

Read the book "Marx And Marxism" Iring Fetscher. It's an interesting analysis into the formation of Marx's theories throughout his life, from young Marx to old Marx, and what caused the shifts in opinion in his life.

[MarxSchmarx]

Why does there need to be a specific "anarchist" guide to Marxism that couldn't be found in a good, objective guide to marxism written by non-Marxists for non-Marxists?

[Leftsolidarity]

An Anarchist’s Guide to Marxism: Does such a thing exist? Should it exist? (Probably as a 'zine, because that's what anarchists read.)


I am actually working on something very similar with an anarcho-communist.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I love that site, particularly his discussions of language. His debunking of Greenbergian "proto-World" is precious.

Luís Henrique

Yeah, definitely one of my favorite sites even if I don't much agree with his politics.

[PolskiLenin]

Anarchism and Marxism are incompatible. Anarchism is the opiate of efficiently fighting capitalism. Read my blog.

[Leftsolidarity]

Anarchism and Marxism are incompatible. Anarchism is the opiate of efficiently fighting capitalism. Read my blog.

Just because you are a certain Marxist tendency that doesn't look kindly to Anarchism that doesn't mean that Marxism and Anarchism are imcompatible.

[ZeroNowhere]

Why does there need to be a specific "anarchist" guide to Marxism that couldn't be found in a good, objective guide to marxism written by non-Marxists for non-Marxists?
I'm not sure that a guide to Marxism by non-Marxists would be worth much either.


The notions of 'overproduction' and 'underproduction' were extracted from Marx's notebooks by Engels, and became accepted into 'marxism' by most marxists.There was really no need to 'extract' overproduction from Marx's works, unless you mean in the same sense that the idea that Marx was a communist was extracted from his works.

[Wanted Man]

Anarchism and Marxism are incompatible. Anarchism is the opiate of efficiently fighting capitalism. Read my blog.

Please don't post broad generalisations about tendencies without argument in the Theory forum. Consider this a verbal warning for trolling.

[PolskiLenin]

Since the Paris Commune, conflict and controversy has existed between two of the Left's largest ideologies: Marxism and Anarchism.

In 1891, Engels wrote that "We...were engaged in the most violent struggle against Bakunin and his anarchists."

It should be no surprise that anarchists and Marxists have been engaged in ideological warfare for more than a century.

What is surprising, however, is the fact that some Marxists and anarchists have "put aside their differences in an effort to unite a stronger left."

What an absurd, dreamy agenda. Anarchism and Marxism do have their common enemies, but it's their differences that are so extreme to the extent that it is impossible for the two to function alongside each other.

Anarchism rejects any form of organized struggle, and relies completely on spontaneous action. They refuse to accept the idea that for the people to beat the minority in the battle of democracy, a revolutionary vanguard is needed to spearhead the movement, along with a set strategy and program. And, most crucial, because in Anarchism any form of government or state is evil and intolerable, they reject the notion of a workers' state needed to tear down capitalism, organize the proletariat as the rulers of society, and eliminate the bourgeoisie.

Revolutions need a program, need a vanguard, and need a means by which to maintain their fragile post-revolution order. History has proven this.

Lenin wrote on controversy between Marxism and Anarchism in The State and Revolution, where he evaluated Plekhanov's pamphlet Anarchism and Socialism. From Lenin's writings, we can conclude that:

1. Anarchists lack the means of effectively launching revolution and struggle against the state, and refuse to recognize what's necessary to successfully "fix" society.

2. Any unification between Marxists and anarchists would result in the slowing down and retarding of the Marxist movement.

The elite minority- the capitalists, the bourgeoisie- will not be beaten by spontaneous uprisings here and there. To beat organization, you need organization, and Anarchism is the opiate of efficient struggle against capitalism, and the opiate of the struggle to construct a new society.

The Spanish Civil War is recognized as the event in history that proved anarchists just couldn't get the job done. In the war against the capitalist regime, workers' councils were set up and revolutionary militias were organized in a movement to bring power to the people - and the anarchists, the leaders of the movement, made it all go to waste. Being against all authority, they would not centralise the thousands of revolutionary committees into a workers' government, one able to stand as an alternative authority to the capitalist government. The capitalist state rebuilt its power and suppressed the revolutionary workers.1

Much like we cannot endanger the movement by dreaming that all Marxist tendencies can unite, we can't make the same mistake with anarchists. Marxism and Anarchism are incompatible. One has the ability to make lasting change, and the other doesn't. It's plain and simple.

1 - Spanish civil war: how the people’s front saved capitalism by Workers' Power

[MarxSchmarx]

Why does there need to be a specific "anarchist" guide to Marxism that couldn't be found in a good, objective guide to marxism written by non-Marxists for non-Marxists? I'm not sure that a guide to Marxism by non-Marxists would be worth much either.


Why not?

[Libertador]

Why not? Would you take medical advice from someone who has never had medical training?

[MarxSchmarx]

Originally Posted by MarxSchmarx http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2185974#post2185974)
Why not?Would you take medical advice from someone who has never had medical training?

You can't be serious. Marxism isn't medicine. In any event being a "marxist" does not confer a unique extent of subject matter expertise comparable to a modern medical doctor.

[Os Cangaceiros]

One has the ability to make lasting change, and the other doesn't. It's plain and simple.

Marxist "lasting change" seems to be about as theoretical as anarchism at this point.

I agree that all the unity crap is just that, though. Unity with all the internationalist communists and those in favor of vicious unending class war; spite and detached irony for all the prospective bureaucrats, class collaborationists and proponents of state capitalism masquerading as communists. :closedeyes:

[Sensible Socialist]

Revolutions need a program, need a vanguard, and need a means by which to maintain their fragile post-revolution order. History has proven this.

History has proven that those in power during a revolution don't seem to favor relinquishing that power once the battles have been won. A revolution is not a chess match. You don't need a grand strategy or a well-defined set of moves to outwit an opponent. Revolution is a continuous process where players and non-players alike contribute to one side gaining the upper hand and eventually gaining enough power over the other to control the opposing side. You can't plan a revolution. It's course is determined by every single person involved in it. Platforms and plans and vanguards fail when the people choose not to be led by a self-appointd group, but by themselves.

[TheGeekySocialist]

I generally take the view that traditional Marxism and Lenninist Marxism differ from Anarchism primarily in execution terms, whilst the former support things like Vanguardism and Dictatorship of the proliteriat achieved primarily through revolution led by a central force, Anarachists generally talk about democracy and a stateless form of socialism more akin to late stage Communism, they also seek to acheive this without central authority but people working together on the ground in the chaning situation. I may be wrong but that is my understanding of this at the simplest level, I also apologize if this lacks coherence as im very, very sleepy!