anarcho-marxism

[Philosophis Pony]

I'm wondering if anyone knows exactly the philosophical standpoint of Anarcho-Marxism and why there is so little info on the term being used. How are Anarcho-Marxist both anarchistic and marxist? The reason why I ask is because I normally define myself as an Anarchist as many of my ideals come from Individualism, Synthesis anarchism and the works of William Godwin. Though I often see things from a Marxist view and identify with some aspects of Marxism, would this make me an Anarcho-Marxist?

[Susurrus]

Probably. The DotP is actually quite libertarian, being based on the Paris Commune.

[28350]

There is no such thing as "anarcho-marxism."

[Philosophis Pony]

There is no such thing as "anarcho-marxism."

Thank you very much for your response. So there must be no such thing stopping me from coining the term and ideology myself, if it does not exist as of yet?

[mrmikhail]

Thank you very much for your response. So there must be no such thing stopping me from coining the term and ideology myself, if it does not exist as of yet?

There is no anarcho-marxism, but what you are seeking is Anarcho-Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism)

[Искра]

there's also libertarian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) and anarchists "invented" also libertarian marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism) as clasification.

[Philosophis Pony]

What I mean is an an ideology which opposes authority in the conduct of human relations with an Anarcho-individualist stand point while representing materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical view of social change and likewise elements of Marxism which holds that even in a stateless, classless communist society. This being rulership of the worker class once again only to a greater degree of freedom and being so would entice another revolution to form an Anarcho-Individualist society where each person would have means of production and forcibly reap the common residential property for the individual. This would inevitably lead the use of Anarcho-Capitalism in a free market until being replaced by Anarcho-Socialism and then Anarcho-Communism with each stage and age reflecting its age of development and advancement in the human race.
I theorize that this would only come to one conclusion that this would cause a repeating cycle of revolution with each stage before the last becoming more advanced as such the first example of communism in primitive tribes would be eventually succeeded by a greater form of communism with multiple possible stages between each era.
Of course this is incomplete and just a brief draft. This is still theoretical.

[RedGrunt]

Probably. The DotP is actually quite libertarian, being based on the Paris Commune.

It wasn't based off the Paris Commune from what I understand, I believe it was said that the Paris Commune was an example of the DOTP, but not based off of it.

Regardless, I wouldn't call Marx's thinking "libertarian" in the classic sense, he may have prized individual liberty but not over collective liberty; his was a rejection of bourgeois individualism. If you mean libertarian as anti-state, well obviously not that either. In either case one would have to reject or revise a part of Marx's theory.

To the OP, well everything's coined at some point I suppose(The forum has Anarcho-Trotskyist? :confused:), but most anarchists seem to respect Marx anyhow.

[Искра]

There's no such thing in Marxism such as "libertarian" and "authoritarian". These are anarchists inventions, and if you consider that they put Bakunin as libertarian and Marx as authoritarian, they are quite stupid and pointless.

[Koba1917]

It would reject Marx's and Engels concepts of Historical Materialism, DoTP, View on Authority and much more. Though Anarchists have used Marx's critique of Capital, which is understandable.

[Susurrus]

It wasn't based off the Paris Commune from what I understand, I believe it was said that the Paris Commune was an example of the DOTP, but not based off of it.

Regardless, I wouldn't call Marx's thinking "libertarian" in the classic sense, he may have prized individual liberty but not over collective liberty; his was a rejection of bourgeois individualism. If you mean libertarian as anti-state, well obviously not that either. In either case one would have to reject or revise a part of Marx's theory.



Well, the Paris Commune gave Marx a concrete example to point to, so you're right.

Marx considered society to be composed of individuals. And as in anti-state, he was firmly opposed to any state which was not directly controlled by the people.

[Dean]

This being rulership of the worker class once again only to a greater degree of freedom and being so would entice another revolution to form an Anarcho-Individualist society where each person would have means of production and forcibly reap the common residential property for the individual. This would inevitably lead the use of Anarcho-Capitalism in a free market until being replaced by Anarcho-Socialism and then Anarcho-Communism with each stage and age reflecting its age of development and advancement in the human race.

You can't break up capital such that each person has equal, mutually exclusive access to it. What needs to occur is a society of abundance where it becomes absurd to hold possessions in a mutually exclusive manner, since there is more than enough to go around. It's kind've like how air, sunlight or walking spaces are considered in most of society.

Likely, though a society of abundance will not occur in a capitalist paradigm. This is because capital goes on strike, and limitations on production and planned obsolescence are all valuable to the capitalists.

What will like spur a communist revolution is the consistent exploitation of labor by capital, and the inefficiencies thereof. The collapse of global credit, the decreasing value of production compared with financial services, all point toward a capitalist economy which is increasingly excluding the working class from employment and consumption.

[The Douche]

It would reject Marx's and Engels concepts of Historical Materialism, DoTP, View on Authority and much more. Though Anarchists have used Marx's critique of Capital, which is understandable.

I tend to identify as an anarchist, and I agree with Marx on historical materialism, and the DotP, and his views on authority.

Your interpretation of his concepts of these things is not the only interpretation of them.

[The Insurrection]

Marx considered society to be composed of individuals. And as in anti-state, he was firmly opposed to any state which was not directly controlled by the people.

The state is the centralisation of political authority for the purposes of suppressing a class. How can this be "directly" controlled "by" the people? What is the actual process for that?

[The Douche]

The state is the centralisation of political authority for the purposes of suppressing a class. How can this be "directly" controlled "by" the people? What is the actual process for that?

Marx believed the state was any organ used by one class to maintain its authority over another class.

Of course anarchists seek to use some forms to establish a communist economy, marx would conceive of these forms as a "state".

I believe Susurrus meant to use the term "working class" instead of "the people".

[The Insurrection]

Marx believed the state was any organ used by one class to maintain its authority over another class.

I mean, if you want to call the decentralised and federal political organisation a state, then you can, but that ignores the historical nature of what a state is beyond a rhetorical statement.


Of course anarchists seek to use some forms to establish a communist economy, marx would conceive of these forms as a "state".

Yeah, anarchists seek to do this without centralising political authority, because once you do that the revolution will fail to create a communist society.


I believe Susurrus meant to use the term "working class" instead of "the people"

Yeah.

[Nox]

I'm wondering if anyone knows exactly the philosophical standpoint of Anarcho-Marxism and why there is so little info on the term being used. How are Anarcho-Marxist both anarchistic and marxist? The reason why I ask is because I normally define myself as an Anarchist as many of my ideals come from Individualism, Synthesis anarchism and the works of William Godwin. Though I often see things from a Marxist view and identify with some aspects of Marxism, would this make me an Anarcho-Marxist?

You are a Left Communist.

There is no such thing as Anarcho-Marxism.

[The Douche]

I mean, if you want to call the decentralised and federal political organisation a state, then you can, but that ignores the historical nature of what a state is beyond a rhetorical statement.

I don't want to, and don't call that a state. I agree with you, I don't particularly think that is what a state really is. But thats the term marx used, so while I disagree with his terminology I believe in can be interpreted in a manner that coincides with my ideas.


Yeah, anarchists seek to do this without centralising political authority, because once you do that the revolution will fail to create a communist society.

Obviously (since I consider myself an anarchist) we are in agreement here. And I think marx also agrees with us here (though obviously the leninists would disagree).



And to be clear, I don't consider myself an "anarcho-marxist", I think that term sounds like one that would be generated by an individual who is kind of just starting to learn about anarchism and/or marxism. I think it is perfectly fine, and quite common to be an anarchist who is influenced by marx and adheres to certain marxist ideas.

[Susurrus]

The state is the centralisation of political authority for the purposes of suppressing a class. How can this be "directly" controlled "by" the people? What is the actual process for that?

Worker's councils, general assemblies, etc. And yes, working class, but once class divisions are abolished, that becomes "the people."

[IndependentCitizen]

Thank you very much for your response. So there must be no such thing stopping me from coining the term and ideology myself, if it does not exist as of yet?
Well, a transition from socialism to communism would require a state, and that's what Anarchists reject; the state. Marx places some emphasis on the state, but ultimately Marxism is anarchism, just a gradual phase into it. As he writes "The state will wither away".

Obviously we can all agree on many things Marx has noted, but to be Marxist is to agree the state plays a role, but eventually will be phased out.

[The Douche]

Well, a transition from socialism to communism would require a state, and that's what Anarchists reject; the state. Marx places some emphasis on the state, but ultimately Marxism is anarchism, just a gradual phase into it. As he writes "The state will wither away".

Obviously we can all agree on many things Marx has noted, but to be Marxist is to agree the state plays a role, but eventually will be phased out.

There are a large number of just what constitutes a state, and what form the state will take.

The way autonomist marxists see a "state" is much closer to what anarchists want than it is to what trotskyists or marxist-leninists want.

[The Idler]

Socialism and communism is the same stateless classless society, so a transition would be unnecessary. As gradual as "wither away" sounds, it has also been translated as "die off".

[Paulappaul]

there's also libertarian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) and anarchists "invented" also libertarian marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism) as clasification.

I thought Daniel Guerin, a Marxist, invented Libertarian Marxism?