Have Marxism and Anarchism converged?

[JustMovement]

Have anarchists (I realise that it is a diverse movement but I mean by and large) completely incorporated a Marxist analysis of capitalism? I remember reading the conquest of bread and kropotkin tried to correct marx on some points but it seemed weak.

Are there any theoretical differences between anarchism and non leninist/trotskyist marxists beyond the dotp?

Also on a semi unrelated note is council communism impossibilist?

[Octavian]

Marxism and anarchism haven't really converged in the sense most anarchist and marxist theory are on the same line of thought. But there is a lot of anarchist who do agree with Marxist thought.

Lots, usually they involve details of the transitional stage to communism.

I suppose it could be but I'm pretty sure both are left communist being to the left of Lenin/Leninism on the political spectrum.

[Tommy4ever]

Well the original Anarchist ideals as developed by Bakunin and Kropotkin did derive their analysis of capitalism from Marx.

Really, the source of Anarchism is actually Bakunin, Kropotkin and Marx rather than just the first two.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I would say most anarchists agree with Marxian analysis of capitalism. The major difference is tactics and strategy to a classless, stateless society.

Although they had their bouts, Bakunin (unsuccessfully) tried to translate Kapital into Russian. It's tedious work (he averaged about 5 pages a day), and he wasn't in the best of health. This was even after a rather large fight between Marx and Bakunin.

[Thirsty Crow]

I would say most anarchists agree with Marxian analysis of capitalism. The major difference is tactics and strategy to a classless, stateless society.

It would be good to be careful with such statements since, I hope, we all know that the state is an integral part of the capitalist mode of production and that it cannot be separated from it (let's suppose that it can but only for analytical purposes). It seems to me that anarchism is predicated on the notion of state somewhat different from the usual Marxist one, the instrumental notion of state (that states function only as an apparatus of organized violence which represents class interests; a view which is not nuanced enough in my opinion).

This brings us to an important distinction in class analysis. While anarchists tend to accpet the Marxist class analysis, and they should by all means, they also tend to identify a specific, separate class distinct from the two main classes in capitalist society - the bureaucratic class, or "coordinator" class or whatever the term may be.

As to the justification of this theoretical framework, it's hellishly complex an issue, and right now I'd say that I think there is merit to it, but I'm not entirely sure if I support it.

[JustMovement]

What are the differences between how marxists and anarchists conceive the state?

[Cyberwave]

Anarchists reject the state, or moreover they often reject the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They instead believe that such things as direct action will achieve their goals.

I don't believe that anarchism and Marxism can go hand in hand. The two are opposite of each other in many instances, whether in regards to dialectical materialism, or other theories of Marxism. Historically anarchists and Marxists have clashed numerous times, especially in the Soviet Union often on such as issues as the vanguard, the state, and so forth.

[The Douche]

Its actually more accurate to say that anarchists accept the dictatorship of the proletariat, but not the term, or the Leninist application of the term.

Anarchists are for working class control of society (which is the DOTP) and some anarchist organizations also accept/use the term.

[Pretty Flaco]

Anarchism and Marxism can certainly go together in application. I have trouble believing that it would work for marxist-leninism however.

[PolskiLenin]

Marxism and Anarchism are incompatible. Enough said.

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.

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.

[The Douche]

Marxism and Anarchism are incompatible. Enough said.

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.

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.

:laugh:

Have you ever done actual, real political organizing in real life?

[Libertador]

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. I disagree. For the long term a stateless society is desired by all anarchists and communists so in this way I think that there can be cooperation. The issue arises in that both groups disagree on the necessity of the transition from state-capitalism to communism and then to pure communism (stateless communism). I'm still researching Anarchism but from what I've come to understand Anarchists are critical on the necessity Lenin's vanguard idea to help the revolution along. According to Marx Communism is wholly the logical and natural transition human civilization will take whether one likes it or not; it's just an issue of when this will take place.

So again, for the long term the two ideologies have much of the same goals. In the short term they are fractured ideologies with a huge variety of disciplines and handles. We have no choice but to stand to our common enemies but then to work out our differences amongst ourselves. The beauty of Marxist theory in all its forms is that it is social science truly applied to human life and civilization. Science is self-correcting; if something legitimately doesn't work then it can be scrapped and left by the wayside while we try someone else's idea. This is scientific and this is moral.

[Thirsty Crow]

What are the differences between how marxists and anarchists conceive the state?
Wel, I wrote that some anarchist currents (for example, the user syndicat and the American WSA, which is an anarcho-syndicalist org) recognize the capitalist state as a site of class formation, something which does not sit too well with most of Marxist currents since anarchists posit a third main class, the bureaucratic class, and Marxist cass analysis is focused on the point of production and the ensuing relations of production.

Also, as I wrote, the instrumental view of the state, which states that it is external to capitalism, relying on a rigid, mechanistic interpretation of the base-superstructure analogy, is not so uncommon on the Marxist revolutionary left, while I think that most of anarchist currents would rejct it in favour of arguing that the state represents a site of domination quite specific and different with regard to the primary site of production as a locus of exploitation and domination.

Though, to be clear, I'm very far from an expert on anarchist theory and I don't self-identify as an anarchist, but I think it's clear that what I said isn't actually a dishonest attempt at smearing the political theory and practice of anachism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Marxism and Anarchism are incompatible. Enough said. Only if you fantasize about becoming a godhead figure, or a new Lenin perhaps, which could enable you to lay down dogma to your followers.
In case you have no such intentions, we can proceed with saying stuff.


Since the Paris Commune, conflict and controversy has existed between two of the Left's largest ideologies: Marxism and Anarchism. Oh really? And I thought that the conflict was based on the experience of the First Interanational, which preceeded the establishment and downfall of the Paris Commune.

But please do elaborate on how the experience of the Commune brought about the great, mythical conflict.


In 1891, Engels wrote that "We...were engaged in the most violent struggle against Bakunin and his anarchists." Why would I care for what Engels wrote as part of the political conjuncture of that time, corresponding to concrete strategical and tactical aims of whichever org (I think that it is German SPD in question, but correct me if I'm mistaken) it was?

You should realize that quoting such a statement (also, you should provide source) does not and can not prove anything about anarchist politics because it is not even recognizable that the statement was conceived as part of an analytical asssault on the whole of anarchism.


It should be no surprise that anarchists and Marxists have been engaged in ideological warfare for more than a century. I agree, but I'm afraid that the real reasons were different from those you imagine them to be (again, there's no explanation as to why it shouldn't be a surprise).


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. And here we arrive at the introduction to a whole array of nonsense, straw man "arguments", and general lack of knowledge with regard to both historical and theoretical dimensions about which you speak.


Anarchism rejects any form of organized struggle, and relies completely on spontaneous action.A load of crap, unsubstantiated by what could be valuable comments upon certain anarchist currents which did overemphasize the dimension of sponatneity in working class struggles. Also, this pathetic excuse for an argument reeks of an ahistorical attitude and betrays the utter lack of historical knowledge, which is essential for revolutionaries.


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.
Bullshit, again.
The thing is that anarchists reject the notion of a revolutionary vanguard seizing power in the form of a party-state, excluding broader layers of the working class from the means to access the decision making process driven by the revolutionary program. They also reject inter-party structures which invest power in centtralized bodies that are not directly accountable to the base of the oganization.
And I shouldn't even need to address such a lame point as "they have no program", cause they do and they did historically (check out the program for the creation of national defense council and the sizure of power on behalf of workers themselves, drafted by the group of revolutionaries gathered around Durruti in the Spanish CNT after the initial gains of the Spanish revolution were threatened by the forces of the Popular Front)


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. Bullshit to the extreme.
"Government" or "governance" as a term is not interchangable with "state". There can be a revolutionar government by the working class and for the working class, but the state as a specific network of apparatuses invokes other connotations, which do not correspond with the political/military forms of workers' councils, territorial councils and the workers' militia through which the working class emancipates itself.


Revolutions need a program, need a vanguard, and need a means by which to maintain their fragile post-revolution order. History has proven this.Since you've proven yourself to be quite oblivious to real history, and not just the abstraction in our head, you should probably keep your mouth shut about it and go read a history book.

The rest of your ramblings and unsubstantiated assertions basically recycle the points you made earlier, so I dont think I need to respond to it.

[Libertador]

Anarchism rejects any form of organized struggle, and relies completely on spontaneous action. I suppose Spain was just spontaneous action?

[Red And Black Sabot]

Have anarchists (I realise that it is a diverse movement but I mean by and large) completely incorporated a Marxist analysis of capitalism?

No, anarchist's analysis of capitalism developed along side of the marxist analysis with many disagreements along the way. We essentially want a lot of the same things marxist-communists do and anarchism was born from the same place marxism came from but I'd argue it's no longer the same, plus the how to get there part has been and continues to be our biggest disagreement with marxists.
Anarchists were involved in the first international. If anything, we've split even further away from a lot of marxist tendencies since then and even more so after leninism. I don't think we've gotten closer at all...
I'll hypothesize though that what has actually happened is that more authoritarian forms of communism have fallen from popularity since the end of the soviet union while more libertarian currents within marxism/communism have become more popular which in turn has given anarchists more room to work with these tendencies.
In the nineties a lot of trots actually left their politics and became anarchists. (A lot of that in Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation) a lot of these folks brought with them some ideas from their former ideologies which have influenced certain tendencies.
It is not however uncommon these days to hear anarchists proclaim that they no longer identify as "left" or support the "left" even though once you talk to them about their ideas, they clearly are communistic.



Are there any theoretical differences between anarchism and non leninist/trotskyist marxists beyond the dotp?

That all depends on who you talk to and their tendency. Obviously greener anarchists won't see much commonality with the left even though there is plenty of commonality between them and the rest of the anarchist milieu. same goes for a lot of Insurrectionary Anarchists even though they also tend to be solid communists. They just tend to really not like the left and it's forms of organization. And again, same for a lot of strict black flag type anarchists, nihilists, and post-anarchist types and etc.
All that said, the Situationist International and the Autonomist movements were marxist but have influenced modern anarchism (In fact a lot of the tendencies I listed above) just as much as some of the most influential anarchist thinkers have.
As for Anarcho-Syndicalism, Platformist Anarchism and etc. there maybe some minor differences depending on the ideology but ultimately they're different flavors of the same thing. I've heard several of my friends in this camp actually argue for a dotp. They just use different words to explain what that is when compared to non-leninist marxists.


is council communism impossibilist?

Not at all esp not after what we've seen take place in Europe over the summer with huge popular assemblies and demands for direct democracy and etc.

[socialist_n_TN]

And to add just a little more to what PolskiLenin said, I've often wonderd and never had a satisfactory answer to the question of what an "anarchist" revolution would do about the INEVITABLE capitalist counterrevolution. I don't think they could have the organization to MAKE a revolution in the first place, but IF they did, how could they defend it?

[ZeroNowhere]

And to add just a little more to what PolskiLenin said, I've often wonderd and never had a satisfactory answer to the question of what an "anarchist" revolution would do about the INEVITABLE capitalist counterrevolution. I don't think they could have the organization to MAKE a revolution in the first place, but IF they did, how could they defend it?With weapons, I guess.

[Red And Black Sabot]

PolskiLenin... lol... Way to be dismissive. I'll try to answer your criticisms without being overtly rude but it might not be easy.


Anarchism rejects any form of organized struggle, and relies completely on spontaneous action.

You're not even close to being right. Syndicalism is organized struggle. Solidarity Networks are organized struggle. Affinity groups are organized struggle and if you think anarchist affinity groups take action "spontaneously" and off the cuff, you're a fool or the anarchists you're thinking about aren't doing it right. Networks of autonomous cells, Cop Watch, Food Not Bombs, cooperatives, collectives, solidarity actions, endless boring meetings, federations, fighting evictions, solidarity unionism, black blocks, study groups, squats, assemblies, tenant's unions, blockades, workshops, sabotage, confrontational snake marches etc. all make up what looks to me like some pretty damned well tied together if decentralized struggle and none of it sounds all that spontaneous to me. Believe it or not, people think and talk about these things and make decisions together (a novelty for you, I'm sure) which does not mean the same thing as "spontaneous" although spontaneity serves us very well depending on the situation. Some of us simply prefer very different form of organization to your typical top down, centralized, authoritarian forms is all and with good reason.
I don't even care if you don't have a fancy for these forms of organization, it's no excuse to be down right dishonest.
Bottom line is, you don't get to tell me what to do to get free. :p You mad?



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.

Yes... I refuse to accept that which I absolutely believe to be false, counter productive, and totally counter revolutionary.
The proletariat can do just fine without being kept under the iron thumb of a vanguard or allowing one to be our baby sitter. No thanks.



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.

I don't know if I would say government. That depends on the individual anarchist and how they define governance. If we're gonna be totally honest, most societies have had some way to govern even decentralized, horizontal ones. Hell a lot of anarchists are federalists. But still... You are correct that most anarchists don't agree that a "workers' state" (which has never existed) is needed.



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

Us working folk aren't helpless victims either. (It's almost depressing how some leninists view the working class) When people fight hard to win something, I don't think they need leadership to tell them it's worth defending.
And history? Lets take a look. Yep... There it is... Leninists acting as some of the most anti-workerist murderers in history.



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

You don't have to worry. Leninists and Anarchists should probably never work together under any circumstances. Plenty of marxists and anarchists on the other hand compliment each other quite well.

[PolskiLenin]

I have indeed.

[PolskiLenin]

The Spanish Civil War is where history proved that anarchist tactics don't work, and are ineffective at creating lasting change.

The people, the workers, had every means for fighting back against the capitalist regime except the most important: a workers' state. Even workers' councils and a revolutionary militia were set up - all to be put to waste by the anarchists whose "against all authority" prevented any efficiency in consolidating the workers' councils into an alternative government capable of beating the capitalists.

Anarchism's naive "oppose everything!" policy failed. History speaks for itself.

[Libertador]

The Spanish Civil War is where history proved that anarchist tactics don't work, and are ineffective at creating lasting change.

The people, the workers, had every means for fighting back against the capitalist regime except the most important: a workers' state. Even workers' councils and a revolutionary militia were set up - all to be put to waste by the anarchists whose "against all authority" prevented any efficiency in consolidating the workers' councils into an alternative government capable of beating the capitalists.


It was the first time I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen. Every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivised; even the bootblacks had been collectivised and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said Señor or Don or even Usted; everyone called everyone else Comrade and Thou, and even said Salud! instead of Buenos dias.
—George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia, ch. I

Orwell sums it up better than I ever could.

[The Douche]

Ban this fucking troll.:rolleyes:

PolskiLenin, do you get off on misleading young comrades who don't know the history of the movements of anarchism and communism? Or are you really just stupid?

[Magón]

The Spanish Civil War is where history proved that anarchist tactics don't work, and are ineffective at creating lasting change.

The people, the workers, had every means for fighting back against the capitalist regime except the most important: a workers' state. Even workers' councils and a revolutionary militia were set up - all to be put to waste by the anarchists whose "against all authority" prevented any efficiency in consolidating the workers' councils into an alternative government capable of beating the capitalists.

Anarchism's naive "oppose everything!" policy failed. History speaks for itself.

I think the Spanish Civil War showed that Leninist tactics in an International sense proved to be weak, faulty as all hell, and good for no one. Nothing changed when the PSUC (with the aid of the USSR) took charge, everything just went down hill from May onwards.

[The Douche]

I think the Spanish Civil War showed that Leninist tactics in an International sense proved to be weak, faulty as all hell, and good for no one. Nothing changed when the PSUC (with the aid of the USSR) took charge, everything just went down hill from May onwards.

No man, don't you get it, the millions of workers who were organized in/supported the CNT and who organized the colectivization of agriculture and industry, and were the first to sieze arms in defense of the republic and social revolution against fascism were just naive idiots who were incapable of creating lasting change.

Good thing the PSUC had them murdered and turned the land and industry back over to the bosses to make a smooth transition for Franco's forces after they disarmed the working class.

[Os Cangaceiros]

A lot of anarchists have turned to Marxism in order to fill out holes in their ideology, to give their body of thought a more concrete basis (through historical materialism etc)

The heyday of anarchism & fellow travellers featured two main trajectories of activity: 1) violent, often fatal acts towards the wealthy and aristocrats, and 2) contributing to the large scale organization of the classical proletariat, in locations from Chicago to Barcelona to the Phillipines. I wouldn't think that the Lennies would be opposed to either of these activities, judging from their history...(to add to cmoney's first post in this thread)

[ComradeGrant]

This^
Marxist analysis of Capitalism, Anarchist analysis of the solution. That's how I look at it anyway.