Anarchist critics

[Искра]

Does anyone have good critics of anarchism from Marxist perspective?

I'm not interested in texts by Stalin, Avakian, Trotsky, Lenin and Plekhanov.

[Paulappaul]

Amadeo Bordiga:

Socialism and Anarchy (http://www.quinterna.org/lingue/english/historical_en/socialism_and_anarchy.htm)
Socialists and Anarchists
(http://www.quinterna.org/lingue/english/historical_en/socialists_and_anarchists.htm) Bolshevism defamed by the Anarchists (http://www.quinterna.org/lingue/english/historical_en/bolshevism_defamed.htm)

Anton Pannekoek:

Anarchism not suitable (http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-not-suitable-anton-pannekoek)

Rosa Luxemburg:

Mass Strike Excerpts (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/ch01.htm)

[Искра]

Thank you! I've read only Luxemburg's article :)

[Parvati]

This is the analysis of our party, on a Maoist point of view :

Don Quijote Battles the Windmills

The myth of self-management


Translated from RCP(OC)'s Arsenal magazine, No. 2, March 2004.
The majority of men and women are forced to live under capitalism. Because of an unfavorable strength balance under capitalism, the proletariat is forced to consider its liberation only through its immediate living conditions. To say the least, the proletariat is the prisoner of a system which leaves it very few occasions of escaping.
Doing away with capitalism is the main task of the proletariat. But to eliminate a system so powerful that it will relentlessly defend itself and will not let the exploited organize, more than good intentions are needed: a clear separation must be drawn at all levels (theoretical, practical, organizational) from the bourgeoisie. As long as the bourgeoisie will prevail, this separation will need to neverendingly be started over. It is not spontaneous, neither is it innate within the proletariat: it requires going back more than once on questions that seemed resolved, reexamining, re-doing.

Utopia and revolution

From its beginnings as the proletariat's revolutionary theory, Marxism distinguished itself from utopian socialism, especially from that of Proudhon (1809-1865)'s followers, then those of Bakunin (libertarian communists and anarchosyndicalists), on the central issues of the goals, means and objectives of the revolution. This boundary between anarchists and communists, between utopian socialism and scientific socialism still prevails, although in a different manner. In the history of the proletariat and its struggle for communism, in the general history of the proletarian revolutionary movement, few issues were the subject of as many debates as the one over the content of the period which follows capitalism and leads to communism. While being opposed on this question, anarchists and communists have at least one thing in common: the objective of a free, equalitarian society rid of any form of exploitation and state. But from that goal, anarchists have made a utopia: communists a revolutionary project. This is a fundamental difference which reflects in all domains of revolutionary activity.
From historical experience, communists draw the following teachings: the proletariat cannot ignore to exert an integral dictatorship over the bourgeoisie in every field and at each step of development of the revolution. Any important change to the bourgeois system of property over the course of history, as much as through the substitution of slavery by the feudal system, as that from feudalism to capitalism, invariably began by the conquest of power, which supporting itself by the strength of the conquering, proceeded with the transformation of property on a large scale, to consolidation and development of the new property system.
What the dictatorship of the proletariat made up of? Marx gave the most succinct description: "What I did that was new was to prove: 1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."
To this conception, libertarian communists oppose their own vision of an anti-authoritarian socialism which aims to be "a radical change of society concretizing workers' spontaneous socialism, realizing libertarian and equalitarian aspirations so often expressed into the exploited's class-struggle and into the oppressed and women's emancipation fights." This project could be realized "because production intercourses, the wage-earning intercourse are broken, because big means of production are socialized, collectivized at the basis and not under state-control, because autogestion [self-management] substitutes to the ruler/ruled people intercourse, and because thus, the social division into antagonistic classes is replaced by a reunifying human community, socially and politically equal and free." Finally, anti-authoritarian socialism would be "an authentic democracy, because the state mechanic-i.e. the exploiting classes domination mechanic-is broken, replaced by a federalist organization of society and by generalized autogestion, exercized on every bid decision, the actual collective sovereignty, the 'down to up' or 'from the periphery to the center' democracy, the power to the basis Assemblies and to their freely associated Councils." "From this follows that the new power will not exclusively be the proletariat's power-even if it weighs in it in a decisive manner-and even less its dictatorship..."
These quotes are from the Manifesto for a Libertarian Alternative from the French organization of the same name ("Alternative Libertaire", or AL). From these is drawn the libertarian communist vision of transition to communism whose merit is at least to be written on paper. AL claims 1) that there is no State-run transitional society between capitalism and communism; and 2) that self-management, practiced on a large scale, insures this transition.
We will draw our attention to these two elements demonstrating that anarchist theses, when put to the test, contradict objective reality on every point. That the anarchist doctrine, as Lenin wrote over 100 years ago, "has produced nothing but general platitudes against exploitation. These phrases have been current for more than 2,000 years. What is missing is (alpha) an understanding of the causes of exploitation; (beta) an understanding of the development of society, which leads to socialism; (gamma) an understanding of the class struggle as the creative force for the realization of socialism."

Protest struggle and revolutionary struggle

Beaten in its overt form of refusal to engage in the political struggle, the anarchist utopia of social revolution without political revolution, of creating a classless society without a stage in which the proletariat exerts its political leadership onto the whole masses (hence the dictatorship of the proletariat) reappeared under the guise of merging protest struggles and revolutionary struggle, as if both were the same thing and took the same shape. Contrary to anarchists, Marxists always took good care of distinguishing the masses' protest struggles (waged in order to keep or win gains, improvements from the bourgeoisie, forcing it to act against its immediate interests) and the revolutionary struggle led by the communists and the proletariat to conquer political power, eliminate the bourgeoisie and its state, establish the dictatorship of the proletariat to then make ahead towards communism. Between these two forms of struggle, there is a qualitative leap the anarchist movement completely ignores, refuses to make or shows itself incapable to accomplish.
For the anarchist movement, protest struggles simply have to go beyond the framework imposed by the ruling class and become less and less compatible with capitalism to see "counter-powers" spontaneously erupt within the base which is challenging the state. However, all of historical experience showed, costing the lives of thousands of revolutionaries, that revolution doesn't erupt simply from a multiplication of protest struggles, however radical they may be (let's just think of Argentina), but that it needs the unification of various objective factors: 1) an economical and political crisis which affects all classes; 2) the incapacity for the bourgeoisie to maintain its domination intact; 3) the incapacity for the proletariat and the masses to live like before; and a subjective factor: 4) the existence of a revolutionary political leadership, a Communist Party.
By not distinguishing the revolutionary struggle from protest struggles, the anarchist movement is brought to oscillate between direct action (dead propaganda) and an anarchosyndicalist strategy articulated around following the organized workers' movement and on the exaltation of all struggles carried by trade unions. This alternative is significantly reproduced in all of anarchism's history (from the Bonnot gang to revolutionary trade-unionism in France, from attacks to anarchosyndicalism in Spain, etc.).

A necessary political detour

According to anarcho-communists, the protest and social struggle leads to socialization of means of production, which would not be a concentration of the latter into the hands of the state, but rather collectively possessed by the whole of society, global self-management of production, and self-management of each unit by those employed by it. Everything looks fine on paper, but one essential issue remains: if government was to be abolished, the economy collectivized and self-managed, would exploitation and capitalism be eliminated? It is paramount to answer this question because it is the basis of the whole world conception of anarcho-communists since Proudhon, who claimed that society could develop on the basis of relationships among producers and between producers and consumers, independently from the state. Leaning on this notion, Bakunin then developed the idea of federalism based on workers' associations or companies, linked to one another, but free and independent in their decisions, property being managed on a collectivist basis.
To answer our questioning, a sufficiently complete example must be found in history to drive any teachings. Does this example exist? Yes, it does in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) which gives the most advanced example of self-managed anarchist communes, which embraced both agriculture and industry, countryside and cities, on a massive scale. Despite all precautions that have to be taken due to this experience's short life span, many teachings can be deducted from it, especially since anarchists are using it as an example and have made it "their revolution". However, as we will see, history's irony wanted-as is always the case each time doctrinaries come to power-that the Spanish anarchists had to do the opposite of what their doctrinary school taught them; in fact, they prove incapable of mobilizing the masses when they were confronted with the fundamental problems of transforming capitalism into communism.
In Spain, just before the bourgeoisie's attack led by Franco, anarchists were leading the most important mass trade union (the CNT had more than one million members) and had a political apparatus, despite what they claim, with the Federación Anarquiste Ibérica (FAI). In a dominating position, anarchists had the organizational capacity and the possibility to lead the proletarian and peasant masses to assault the bourgeois state, which they refused to do, conforming to their doctrinary apolitical stance. The Spanish Civil War was thus imposed by the bourgeoisie, depriving the proletariat and peasantry from the initiative.
From the first days of the civil war, the void left on Republican terrain by the fleeing of thee bosses' and administrative authorities allowed the proletariat and peasantry to easily take over economic power; but once that done, they still had to resolve the difficulty of defending and maintaining the new society. Which depended on the constitution of a genuine proletarian power capable of consolidating the gains and beat the enemy!

With self-management, did production escape the laws of capitalism?

Spanish anarchists believed, like today's ones, that a system of autonomous self-managed communes, with the weakest links between each other, was the alternative to capitalism and Marxism. Hence they thought that as soon as they had collectivized villages in the countryside and places of work in the city, they would have, they thought, suppressed inequalities, capitalism, money, government, the state. But this prove to be untrue. Anarchist comrades should have rather known that when production is the result of small (or large) independent companies, whether managed by a capitalist or a workers' collective, this production does not lead to more freedom, but quite the opposite: it becomes the most firm basis of development for exploitation and capitalism. Self-management within the federalist framework promoted by anarchists (allowing thousands of businesses, factories and proletarians to be linked not by a conscious and discussed plan, but by the sole forces of the market) though the result of thousands of transactions between these small groups, will constantly regenerate capitalism, divisions between the poor and rich and finally end up with monopolies.
What we will try to shed some light on is that despite the incredible heroism of anarchist activists, the anarchist project in Spain failed because the material bases which gave birth to capitalism, social classes, the capitalist state, are compatible with production, even collectivized. Anarchism failed because it saw in small affinity or production groups (basic assemblies) self-sufficient units, while only proletariat in its entirety-by building its party and leading the revolutionary struggle-can get to control and master the economy, restricts the bourgeois right and at the same time overcome its own exploitation (which is the content of the dictatorship of the proletariat). Finally, anarchism failed because it did not understand the link between freedom and mass revolutionary activity; by the fact, it reflects the bourgeois ideology of "everybody for himself".
More specifically, the forces of capitalism (market laws) rapidly asserted themselves within communes led by anarchists. These forces were not mainly linked to difficulties of the civil war, but by economical relationships (or absence of) between communes. The communes' incapacity to overcome inequalities, as with other problems, was noticed by all serious civil war commentators, from various tendencies, and even by some leaders of the CNT. This cannot be denied, except by those who are turning Spain into an Eldorado of revolution but refuse to study what actually happened.
This incapacity to overcome inequality does not mean that the communes were a failure. Some functioned well, others not: positively, they allowed the masses to take charge of business and demonstrating that proletarians could continue production without bosses. But at this point, it is only was a means of struggle, nothing more.

Abolishing the state

Taking control of factories and various workplaces is an inevitable step in the revolutionary process. But to stop there necessarily means that one does not understand the requirements of revolution and the tasks to be accomplished to really abolish capitalism. As Lenin explained, what is to be done is to transit "from the very simple task of further expropriating the capitalists to the much more complicated and difficult task of creating conditions in which it will be impossible for the bourgeoisie to exist, or for a new bourgeoisie to arise". For the proletariat, it is necessary to repress the bourgeoisie and counter-revolution, to expropriate the upper bourgeoisie, among others banks, major industries and communication networks; to nationalize real estate and other major assets, lands, subsoil and waters; to develop social and collective property of the main means of production; to constitute in all units of production a leadership that will act in the general interest of the proletariat i.e. in the goal of satisfying collective means and serve world revolution; to manage companies according to a national plan and local plans that assign tasks to be accomplished, allocate resources and determine the destination of products.
This demands a proletarian state, since production relationships will not be able to be transformed completely and at all levels at the first attempt; consequently, classes will subsist. Forms of small production will also subsist (let us think of the thousands of small businesses), as repartition according to work, in opposition to needs, will be maintained. Inequalities will persist, for example between those who lead and those who execute.
The anarchist theory during the civil war, as for today, was allergic to all forms of state, centralism and central planning. For anarchism, centralism and democracy are basically incompatible. Facing the necessity of making the communes work with one another, anarchists did not see that revolution required in the first stage a strategic centralization which lays on grassroots initiatives. Instead of directly (by authority, we would say) and globally taking productive forces, they preferred letting things go, hoping that coordination if necessary between communes would easily be attained through "mutual aid" or "voluntary cooperation" or, in the worst case, by the weakest possible Federalism.
The capitalist state is certainly a monster, but this monster did not simply appear out of nowhere. The state appears when society divides into classes with irreconcilable interests and is always the ruling class's state, i.e. the bourgeoisie under capitalism. This division between antagonistic classes is itself the fruit of production's development; this production and the forces that allow it are under the control of one class, that of the capitalists.
Revolutions from the last century taught us that the proletariat cannot hope to reverse the situation unless it becomes the ruling class. By refusing to support the proletariat's state and proletarian democracy (dictatorship of the proletariat) in the transition phase towards communism, simply be denying the need itself for this transition, the anarchist movement was brought to participate, defend and spare the capitalist state. Confronted with the need for coordination and planning encompassing all of the proletarian and peasantry, anarchists were progressively brought to adopt their adversaries' plans, among others those of the liberal bourgeoisie. This was not a tactical withdrawal meant to favor alliances with other forces to beat the bourgeois army (which is admissible and even in this case necessary), it simply is that anarchists had no independent idea about how to accomplish the necessary centralization. [1]
One could oppose to us that communes in Spain had little time to develop. However, for more than a year, anarchists nearly had carte blanche to develop communes in the Aragon and Levante regions and in the Barcelona industrial area and, from the beginning, difficulties linked to planning and centralization were experienced. There are good reasons to believe that the problem would only have gotten worse had the experienced lasted.

Eliminating inequalities

In its manifesto, Alternative Libertaire states that Federalism leads to "stabilized structuration of society". Coordination of production is done by federations and branches. Precisely, during the Spanish Civil War, one of the objectives of the communes, set by anarchists themselves, was to insure equality for all participants; and one of the privileged instruments to reach this objective were federations and branches. Anarchist activists believed that living conditions between communes would rapidly equalize on the basis of "mutual aid". Here again, we must admit that it did not happen. In the countryside, communes were organized in a very different way. In some cases, the commune's merchandise was centralized in a warehouse; in others, it was not the case. Disparities rapidly established from commune to commune, and from factory to factory. Some communes could count on a much superior income than the poorest ones.
But where did "mutual aid" go, which communes had to commit to each other? The answer is simple: communes, afraid of seeing landowners taking back their land, were more prone to send any surplus to the city or the Front rather than to one another. To insure the cities' and the Front's supply, columns of anarchist militia were used (small detail, these militia people charged with supplying the cities and whose members did not come from these communities, were they not like an armed force separated from the population-and is it not true that this separation of the armed forces from the people is the basis of... the state?). But when time came to attack discrepancies between communes-a task too strenuous, sensitive and complex to be accomplished by mobile militia columns-very little was done. It is precisely what happened in Aragon and Levante, the two areas where land collectivization went the furthest, and this even if regional federations took redistribution between communes very seriously (it was even seen as being their main task). Variations between communes probably indicated historical inequalities, but also reflected the minor role played by the redistribution organized by federations.
The same phenomenon occurred in collectivized factories in Barcelona, which was the main center of anarchist industrial communes. Proletarians had control of the factories, but on the basis of the same anarchist principles applied in the countryside, it proved impossible to establish lasting cooperation. [2]
More concretely, the anarchist theory brought proletarians to consider their factory as the possession of those who worked in it rather than property of the whole proletariat. While unemployment was high, proletarians in collectivized shops tended more often than not to proceed to improve their own working conditions (better wages, social programs) than to distribute their advantages with other proletarians. As with agricultural communes, great disparities lasted between working proletarians and unemployed ones, between proletarians from strategic sectors (thus better paid) and those from secondary sectors. [3]
Facing the difficulties of organizing sustainable cooperation between collectivized factories in Barcelona, how did anarchists react? Despite their declarations against money, they used the same tools as capitalism, namely a central labour bank, an economic council, credit, cash purchases, demand, etc. Not only could they not eliminate accounting, money, they also had to organize forms of banking and financial operations.
One of the most striking effects of the increasing polarization between collectivized workplaces was the loss of independence for many of them. The poorest collectivized workplaces not having the necessary funds to pay wages, got these funds by mortgaging their workplace's equipment, as well as their warehoused material with the bourgeois Catalan government. One by one, workplaces passed from proletarian hands to those of the bourgeoisie without the latter playing any role in this, except that of a pawnbroker.

Suppressing money

Let's take a look at money. Anarchists believed that taking control of workplaces and villages would suffice to eliminate money. For example, in Binéfor, like in 450 other collectivized towns in Aragon, money was declared abolished. An economy totally based on barter being impracticable, the Committee thus proceeded to emitting notes of 5, 6 and 7 pesetas each. The value of each male person's work was set at 7 pesetas, and that of women at... 5 pesetas. The old currency not being seized, a black market bloomed. So, after announcing that money was suppressed, the autonomous commune's local committee proceeded with emitting local notes which worked for locals like money. Ironically, the fact these notes played the same role as money never struck the anarchists. For them, money was national bank notes, while the local currency, to their eyes, was not. The emission by several communes of differently valued notes had as a consequence to make exchanges between communes more difficult. Many people in the communes were led to think that a national currency was maybe not such a bad thing. The main point here is that anarchists struggled against outside aspects of money-a bank note emitted by capitalist financial institutions-and not against the social and production relationships brought by money.
Once more, we have to pinpoint that the problem is not that anarchists failed to accomplish the impossible-immediate abolition of money. From the Marxist theory's point of view, it is not surprising that money cannot immediately be abolished. The problem is not the practical measures taken (rationing of first necessity goods, various free-of-charge services, etc.) either. The problem lies in the anarchist theory itself. When the objective reality came to crush all of the anarchist dogmas, they found themselves facing a difficult choice: taking control of the economy and carrying out the dictatorship of the proletariat in alliance with the peasantry, or leaving the bourgeoisie to take over control; and it was the second option that won because for them, centralization was a synonym of authority, which was in their eyes equivalent to capitalism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat

Marxism identifies the need for a relatively protracted period of transition between the beginning of the social revolution and the accomplishment of a classless society which has eliminated government, money, etc. During this period, proletarians must learn to lead society, thus surpassing capitalism. Productive forces must also be developed enough to eliminate the risk of shortages from the masses. During this period, society's division into classes must be practically overcome before the proletariat can avoid using a state revolutionary machine. As Lenin taught: "...during every transition from capitalism to socialism, dictatorship is necessary for two main reasons, or along two main channels. Firstly, capitalism cannot be defeated and eradicated without the ruthless suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, who cannot at once be deprived of their wealth, of their advantages of organization and knowledge, and consequently for a fairly long period will inevitably try to overthrow the hated rule of the poor; secondly, every great revolution, and a socialist revolution in particular, even if there is no external war, is inconceivable without internal war, i.e., civil war..."
As it is said in the RCP(OC)'s Programme: "The state that keeps on existing during the socialist phase but that will progressively "wither away" must lead the masses into assuming leadership of society. The conditions to allow them to do this must be set. This will require spare time for the masses (provided by the reduction of the working week); a collective take over of household chores; the furnishing of tools such as ink, paper and places to hold meetings must also be provided so they can express themselves freely, etc.
"They must also work in destroying privileges that are imparted to those who are in positions of leadership. One way to do this is to enable them to vote and to revoke leaders. The reduction of salary disparities between leaders and the proletarian masses and the participation of managers in labour are also tasks that will have to be undertaken.
"In the long run, everyone must assume leadership. Not only that of a firm or of a neighborhood (although this will be a necessary step in the process of learning), but equally that of society as a whole. This means the organization of its activities and the mastery of the direction it will be headed for.
"In order to make this type of participation possible, and to insure it is something authentic and unlike the bogus consultations the capitalists hold on occasion for the people to give them the impression that they are partaking in a democratic process, the State itself must undergo change. It must give birth to new types of leadership, based on the participation of the masses."
Disarmed before the tasks brought by the revolution, without a theory that is not a dogma but rather a guide for action, the anarchist movement resembles Don Quijote, a great reader of chivalry novels who decided to leave for adventure, conquer glory by valorous deeds and save the world. Like many before him, he will pursue his quest to the end, deluded with his dreams, reinventing the world. Like Don Quijote fighting with flocks of sheep he took for enemy armies, windmills become giants, the anarchist movement stayed too long on the surface of things: while it thought abolishing inequalities, they reappeared; when it thought it had abolished money, one sees it reappear; the State was thought to have vanished, however proletarians were forced to mortgage machinery to it. By paying more attention to form rather than foundation, drawing no lessons from the past, anarchism proved its limits, which we absolutely must overcome.

Christophe Jacobson

1) On September 24, 1936 in a congress of the CNT's Catalonia Regional Federation in which 500 delegates took part, the long debate in the anarchosyndicalist movement between political and apolitical stance was for the first time clearly resolved in favor of the former. For the sake of antifascist war and syndicalist revolution, the congress decided to participate in the Generalitat cabinet. (The Generalitat was the legislative power also known as the Parliament of Catalonia. The 1932 Statute of Autonomy granted Catalonia's Parliament its own justice system [with High Court] and its own police force.) 2) Evidence of difficulties in the union-controlled economy soon came in abundance. The Republican Minister of Industry reported that by January 1937 he had received petition asking for state intervention in no less than 11,000 enterprises (Juan Peiró, De la fábrica de vidrio de Mataro al Ministerio de Industria - Valencia 1937).

Some of the sources used in preparing this article:

Pierre Broué and Émile Témime, The Revolution and the Civil War in Spain, London: Faber & Faver Limited, 1972.
Peter Wyden, The Passionate War: The Narrative History of the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939, Simon and Schuster, 1983.
Antony Beevor, The Spanish Civil War, Penguin Books, 2001 (reissue edition).
Joseph Green, "Anarchism and the marketplace", in Communist Voice, No. 4, Sept. 15, 1996.
Stanley G. Payne, The Spanish Revolution (Revolutions in the Modern World), W.W. Norton, 1970.
Pierre Vilar, La Guerre d'Espagne, 1936-1939, PUF, 2002 (5th edition).

[Tim Finnegan]

Amadeo Bordiga:

Socialism and Anarchy (http://www.quinterna.org/lingue/english/historical_en/socialism_and_anarchy.htm)
Socialists and Anarchists
(http://www.quinterna.org/lingue/english/historical_en/socialists_and_anarchists.htm) Bolshevism defamed by the Anarchists (http://www.quinterna.org/lingue/english/historical_en/bolshevism_defamed.htm)

Anton Pannekoek:

Anarchism not suitable (http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-not-suitable-anton-pannekoek)

Rosa Luxemburg:

Mass Strike Excerpts (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/ch01.htm)
To what extent do these function as critiques of contemporary anarchism, though? And as defences of Marxism in opposition to anarchism for the contemporary workers' movement? The world is not as it was, and of these examples, only Pannekoek's is in a position to offer any insight into the post-'45 anarchist movement - and you'll note that he makes a point of noting the ongoing evolution of anarchism within his own era. I don't doubt the ability of old writings to offer useful insight, but they must be approached with their age in mind, with an even more consciously critical perspective than you would usually adopt

[Susurrus]

Pannekoek's seems more a critique of classical anarchism rather than leftist anarchism.

[Paulappaul]

To what extent do these function as critiques of contemporary anarchism, though? And as defences of Marxism in opposition to anarchism for the contemporary workers' movement? The world is not as it was, and of these examples, only Pannekoek's is in a position to offer any insight into the post-'45 anarchist movement - and you'll note that he makes a point of noting the ongoing evolution of anarchism within his own era. I don't doubt the ability of old writings to offer useful insight, but they must be approached with their age in mind, with an even more consciously critical perspective than you would usually adopt

Well he said "Anarchism" not necessary Contemporary Anarchism, which actually seems to have rejected its Proletarian Roots, outside of Anarcho - Syndicalism which hasn't progressed theoretically since 1936.

[Tim Finnegan]

Well he said "Anarchism" not necessary Contemporary Anarchism, which actually seems to have rejected its Proletarian Roots, outside of Anarcho - Syndicalism which hasn't progressed theoretically since 1936.
I think that it can be assumed that he wants contemporary critiques, though, can't it? "Anarchism" is a movement, after all, not merely a theory or idea, so it can be assumed that references are to its contemporary form. (Similarly, I imagine that you'd raise an eyebrow if somebody offered an unqualified text from the 1920s as a "critique of communism".) As for the rest, well, I would assume that's what the critiques in question would be setting out to prove.

[Kadir Ateş]

There are good critics, but I think Tim is right: most of these authors addressed classical anarchism and not so much its various off-shoots and tendencies. I know plenty of anarchists, for example, who are well-read in Capital and other assorted works of Marx and Engels, but then may not agree with some of his works regarding worker participation in parliaments or the formation of political parties. This separation, or what I would call disjuncture, between his analysis and critique versus more positive assertions of party formation, is unfortunate, but how many think.

Furthermore, there are also Situationist-influenced anarchists (even though Debord himself rejects anarchism) and some who have incorporated other theorists from the postwar period. To consider a critique of anarchism one can no longer start from J-P Proudhon or Mikhail Bakunin, but with Andrej Grubacic and David Graeber. And by anarchists, I'm talking about social anarchists, but again, just like with Marxism there are various tendencies which are not necessarily in complete agreement with one another. Ask a social anarchist what she thinks of Murray Rothbard or Robert Nozick, and I'm sure you're in for an earful.

[Paulappaul]

I think that it can be assumed that he wants contemporary critiques, though, can't it? "

Most the Anarchists I know are typically not Contemporary. Just because it is new doesn't mean its picked up ground. The only "Contemporary" Anarchist theory that has developed a respectable milieu is the Black Bloc conception and "insurrectionism"- which isn't a movement and doesn't recognize the working class as a revolutionary force.


To consider a critique of anarchism one can no longer start from J-P Proudhon or Mikhail Bakunin, but with Andrej Grubacic and David Graeber. And by anarchists, I'm talking about social anarchists, but again, just like with Marxism there are various tendencies which are not necessarily in complete agreement with one another. Ask a social anarchist what she thinks of Murray Rothbard or Robert Nozick, and I'm sure you're in for an earful.

I actually totally disagree with this. I just asked some Anarchist comrades what they thought of David Graeber, Murray Rothbard or Robert Nozick, they asked me "who the fuck is that?", lucky I remembered David wrote Fragments of Anarchist Anthropology, and then they snapped, but really the only person they remembered was Grubacic, and was because when he came to town he was calling all the anarchists Privileged White Kids.

People getting into Anarchism typically start with Bakunin, Proudhon or Kroptkin, depending on what appeals to them most will define what adjective they choose for Anarchy - i.e. Bakunin typically leads to the Social Revolution/Insurrectionist type, Proudhon into Free Market Anarchism, Cooperative Capitalism and Mutualism which relies on peaceful business tactics and then Kropotkin who moves so close to Marxism he calls himself a Communist. Looking at Contemporary Anarchism, in critiquing it, you find that because its authors ardor these classical writers they typically fall into the same theoretical traps and mishaps as the forefathers of anarchy.

The same can be said for Marxism really. Even the people who skip reading traditional Marx and jump right into Lenin, or even more contemporary writers like Debord, Clever, Draper, etc. who can claim to have succeeded Marx and Engels haven't really and the reader is just as tied to the same basic faults.

Whether its Traditional Anarchism or Contemporary Anarchism, its still Anarchism and there are some fundamental problems to the whole schema.

[Tim Cornelis]

Anton Pannekoek's critique is archaic--or has always been wrong--, as anarchists fully recognise the need for workers' councils.

Rosa Luxemburg's critique solely relies on the use of the general strike as tactic, which attacks syndicalism, but not anarchism in itself.

And Bordiga merely repeats the same old criticism.

[Tim Finnegan]

Most the Anarchists I know are typically not Contemporary. Just because it is new doesn't mean its picked up ground. The only "Contemporary" Anarchist theory that has developed a respectable milieu is the Black Bloc conception and "insurrectionism"- which isn't a movement and doesn't recognize the working class as a revolutionary force.
Hm, well, perhaps this is a regional thing. In the UK, a lot of contemporary anarchism is quite class struggle-orientated, with a lot of councilist, Situationist and Autonomist influences floating around, albeit not to quite the same extent that you might see on the Continent. It simply wouldn't be possible to transfer a critique drawn up in the '20s onto it, or at least not without a bit of editing and qualification of what is there, and a concession to the considerable absences.

[Искра]

Wow, I really like the fact that it looks like this could remain good/decent discussion on anarchism. So, I’ll like to say few things. I started this topic because I’m writing criticism of contemporary anarchism, as I’m ex-anarcho-syndicalist. I want to write analysis and use it as a basis for good discussion between me and my ex-comrades.

When I say contemporary anarchism I mean of 5 different groups of anarchists. First group are post-anarchists/subculture anarchists (followers of different post-modern trends of anarchist thought, from Zerzan, Black, Perlman to Hakim Bey etc.). To describe them I’m using two books and one is Uri Gordon’s Anarchy Alive! Second group of anarchists are insurrectionists (from Propaganda by Deed to Bonanno) and they can sometimes be connected with first group. Third group are anarcho-syndicalists around IWA. Forth group are anarcho-communists around IAF. Fifth group are platformists around anarkismo.net. Of course, there are anarchists and groups which do not belong to these groups, but most of the movement could put into these categories.

I think that in 21st century is really stupid that Marxists criticize anarchists’ trough Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Makhno or CNT. I have read a lot of Marxist critics while I was still an anarchist, so I was always angry on Marxists why don’t they criticize anarchists “from their time”. For example, there’s some silly Lenin’s text about anarchism and Proudhon from 1912 (or something like that) and how Proudhon rejected class struggle, so anarchists reject it also, but that’s just bollocks, because, for example CNT was formed in 1910. So, I’m trying to give criticism of contemporary anarchism whenever it is “lifestyle” or class struggle (its true that trends in anarchism depend on country/local context and trends, but still we can’t dismiss “lifestyle” or class struggle anarchists, because these both tendencies exist). I think that there are some really big issues with anarchism and, unfortunately, from my experience anarchists are as dogmatic as Stalinists and they do not want to accept critics. I hope that my article will have positive reflect among my ex-comrades.

I’m focusing my criticism around some key issues such as: (a) anarchist concept of “libertarian” and “authoritarian” socialism (Bakunin-Marx myths, question of proletarian dictatorship, vanguard etc.), (b) question of federalism, (c) question of political struggle (anarchist historical revisionism regarding parliamentary struggle), (d) questions regarding strategy (anarchists usage of frontism, entrism, reformism, national liberation struggle etc.), (e) “self-management” and (f) question of individual (charismatic) authority within anarchists organizations.

So, basically I’m in a need of good theoretical texts and analysis so that I can back up my conclusions, but also I’ll appreciate good discussion in here.

[Kadir Ateş]

Most the Anarchists I know are typically not Contemporary. Just because it is new doesn't mean its picked up ground. The only "Contemporary" Anarchist theory that has developed a respectable milieu is the Black Bloc conception and "insurrectionism"- which isn't a movement and doesn't recognize the working class as a revolutionary force.Would be great if you actually read what I wrote, which was answering something to the effect of contemporary critiques of anarchism, that is, ones which address certain tendencies which taken note of (any) theoretical developments in the anarchist movement.


I actually totally disagree with this. I just asked some Anarchist comrades what they thought of David Graeber, Murray Rothbard or Robert Nozick, they asked me "who the fuck is that?",Anecdotal evidence is the best.


lucky I remembered David wrote Fragments of Anarchist Anthropology, and then they snapped, but really the only person they remembered was Grubacic, and was because when he came to town he was calling all the anarchists Privileged White Kids.Awesome, I pretty much think most are anyway.


People getting into Anarchism typically start with Bakunin, Proudhon or Kroptkin, depending on what appeals to them most will define what adjective they choose for Anarchy - i.e. Bakunin typically leads to the Social Revolution/Insurrectionist type, Proudhon into Free Market Anarchism, Cooperative Capitalism and Mutualism which relies on peaceful business tactics and then Kropotkin who moves so close to Marxism he calls himself a Communist. Looking at Contemporary Anarchism, in critiquing it, you find that because its authors ardor these classical writers they typically fall into the same theoretical traps and mishaps as the forefathers of anarchy.

The same can be said for Marxism really. Even the people who skip reading traditional Marx and jump right into Lenin, or even more contemporary writers like Debord, Clever, Draper, etc. who can claim to have succeeded Marx and Engels haven't really and the reader is just as tied to the same basic faults.

Whether its Traditional Anarchism or Contemporary Anarchism, its still Anarchism and there are some fundamental problems to the whole schema.

I agree.

[Parvati]

Damn, youre criticism sounds pretty interesting!

[ZeroNowhere]

You may be interested in this piece (http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/fundamentals-revolutionary-communism-part-2-amadeo-bordiga-1957) by Bordiga, which criticizes anarchism, and then goes on to focus more specifically on anarcho-syndicalist views of revolution, followed by a critique of mutualism and similar views. It's worth reading, I think. The next part of the work goes into models of anarchism based on local 'communes', the relationship of anarchists to the theory of surplus-value (still relevant to most modern anarchists, and probably most modern 'Marxists' as well) and so on, so it's also relevant.

[Искра]

Thank you ZeroNowhere. This one looks really interesting! I'm printing it :)

[The Douche]

The only "Contemporary" Anarchist theory that has developed a respectable milieu is the Black Bloc conception and "insurrectionism"- which isn't a movement and doesn't recognize the working class as a revolutionary force.

This is a blatant lie. I am an insurrectionary anarchist, there are other insurrectos (or people fond of/influenced by insurrectionary anarchism) on here, and we all believe the working class is the revolutionary force. And furthermore, I know plenty of insurrectos from portland who are class struggle oriented.

[Искра]

This is a blatant lie. I am an insurrectionary anarchist, there are other insurrectos (or people fond of/influenced by insurrectionary anarchism) on here, and we all believe the working class is the revolutionary force. And furthermore, I know plenty of insurrectos from portland who are class struggle oriented.
Insurrectionary anarchists can be class struggle, but they can also be subcultural post-anarchists. In the past most of them were anarcho-communists, but today I think that most of them are post-anarchists or just "left-liberals". It's just a for of tactics - after all.

[The Douche]

Insurrectionary anarchists can be class struggle, but they can also be subcultural post-anarchists. In the past most of them were anarcho-communists, but today I think that most of them are post-anarchists or just "left-liberals". It's just a for of tactics - after all.

There is more to insurrectionary anarchism than a set of tactics. It is also a critique of the left and of activism, of mass society, unions, and various other institutions.

The whole "anarcho subculture" thing is dead in a big way in a lot of places. 5 or 6 years ago most people who identified as anarchists (especially of the insurrectionary variety) were likely to be punks and shit like that. Now I don't see that very much at all. But even back then, most of the insurrectos were class struggle types, they worked closely with the IWW and NEFAC, and the more traditional anarchists (the syndicalists and platformists) still marched in black blocs and were down with shit like property destruction and other actions/tactics often associated with the insurrectos.

[Paulappaul]

This is a blatant lie. I am an insurrectionary anarchist, there are other insurrectos (or people fond of/influenced by insurrectionary anarchism) on here, and we all believe the working class is the revolutionary force. And furthermore, I know plenty of insurrectos from portland who are class struggle oriented.

Its hard to get a headcount on Anarchists, specifically Insurrectionists cause they are so secret, every time I have ever been in a confrontation with them they have *****ed about how we can't trust the working class cause historically their tactics have always failed.

When the working class elements at the front called for the "occupation of the bridge" they just about had a shitstorm:

http://greycoast.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/we-are-the-1/

[Tim Finnegan]

They're not ones for constructive criticism, are they? :bored:

[Искра]

They are 1% - lol :D

[The Douche]

Its hard to get a headcount on Anarchists, specifically Insurrectionists cause they are so secret, every time I have ever been in a confrontation with them they have *****ed about how we can't trust the working class cause historically their tactics have always failed.

When the working class elements at the front called for the "occupation of the bridge" they just about had a shitstorm:

http://greycoast.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/we-are-the-1/

Uh sorry boss, but my quick glance through that article leads me to some degree of agreement with it.


Refusal to negotiate with the state, wanting to not be involved with "socialist alternatives", wanting the deathly hands of the union movement and the left party off this movement, rejection of liberals. It all meshes with my ideology, and my critique of the occupy movement.

What exactly is your problem with it?

[Lucretia]

Paul Blackledge published a really good article in Contemporary Politics (v. 11, n. 2-3) called "Anti-Leninist Anti-Capitalism: A Critique."

You might also want to consult the book Karl Marx and the Anarchists by Paul Thomas, which I found quite good.

[Paulappaul]

The march on wednesday was an action planned in response to police brutality; sparked, in part, by the sympathetic media coverage of Scott Olsen’s wounded head, but also aimed at the much longer history of violence and murder perpetrated by police forces- in Oakland, Portland, and elsewhere (frequently against those who do not make as attractive symbols as a bloodied white veterans). It was planned by a few dozen folks who had widely differing political views and aims, in and beyond the ‘left’, yet agreed to organize a solidarity response and, in doing so, consensed to a *diversity of tactics* within the demonstration.The march wasn't solely against Police Brutality, actually it was a march in Solidarity with the Oakland General Strike, the connotation of it being a march against Police Brutality came later. I think this kinda illustrates the narrow perspective of this brand of anarchists who can't see beyond things like Police Brutality and Anti Fascist Action and therein themselves fall into the same narrow mentality that pervades Social Democrats. Diversity of Tactics meant solely Property Destruction. It is a nice way of saying this march should fuck should up and riot, something which does nothing to unite the working class, but does alot to cure our egos.


Arms were linked under banners advocating for electoral reform, socialist alternatives, and the adoption of bitcoins; chants informed onlookers that, this, in fact, was what “democracy looked like.” All major targets of economic, political, and law enforcement were intentionally avoided, despite initial plans to march to these places of significance.http://www.revleft.com/vb/%3Ca%20href=%22http://tinypic.com?ref=29n9n37%22%20target=%22_blank%22%3 E%3Cimg%20src=%22http://i44.tinypic.com/29n9n37.jpg%22%20border=%220%22%20alt=%22Image%20a nd%20video%20hosting%20by%20TinyPic%22%3E%3C/a%3E

http://i44.tinypic.com/29n9n37.jpg

Hmm.. I see a Banner in the Front that I made, It reads "Solidarity Forever, End all Oppression, Police are Agents of the 1%" and it has an Anarchist Symbol in the middle. I see Veterans caring Black Flags side by side with their Veteran for Peace Flags. I see a Veteran holding a sign that says "Dead Politicians, not Dead Soldiers" - the front of this march was preaching no "Socialist Alternatives".

[The Douche]

I'm sorry, I don't see what you're getting at?

Insurrectos are social-democrats/anarcho-liberals because they like to smash things? That doesn't seem a bit backwards to you?


Also, most of the insurrectos I know despise "anti-fascist action".

[bricolage]

this brand of anarchists who can't see beyond things like Police Brutality and Anti Fascist Action...
I don't think this is true. Insurrectionists (once you get beyond the poetry) have incredibly detailed analyses of capitalism, communism, the party etc etc. If you want to argue the tactics don't reflect the theory then that's an argument that could be had, but it's quite clear they do see past 'Police Brutality and Anti Fascist Action'.

[Magón]

They're not ones for constructive criticism, are they? :bored:

So even when it's constructive, we're not allowed to see problems with it and defend our views? I thought the whole idea was to debate, giving both sides a chance to give their opinion/view. As long as it's reasonable and people aren't shouting at each other, trying to make their e-Penis bigger, then I don't see why your post was necessary?

As for the topic of Insurrectionary Anarchism, I think some people just aren't getting that most Insurrectionaries are Insurrectionary because they have no want or will to work with forces that have been known throughout history, to bend over backwards and take steps backwards when it comes to the opposition (ie Liberals, some Socialists, etc.) Insurrectionary Anarchists hold steadfast on where they stand, even if it makes them out to be like the "bad guy" on the scene or whatever, they hold to their values and what they think is right.

I doubt you'll ever hear of Insurrectionary Anarchists settling with the opposition group(s), and coming to a conclusion of where they stand, drawing a line that most of the time is a few feet back from where they are. Insurrectionaries draw the line and keep it there no matter what.

[Paulappaul]

No I was commenting on the fact that Insurrectos are similar to Social Democrats with respect to the fact that they are fighting things like Police Brutality, Anti - Fascism and other small nuisances, getting mixed up in their own milieu and egos and lose sight of the bigger picture of what we are trying to do.

i.e.:


The march wasn't solely against Police Brutality, actually it was a march in Solidarity with the Oakland General Strike, the connotation of it being a march against Police Brutality came later. I think this kinda illustrates the narrow perspective of this brand of anarchists who can't see beyond things like Police Brutality and Anti Fascist Action and therein themselves fall into the same narrow mentality that pervades Social Democrats.

In these Solidarity Campaigns everything is tied back to ACAB. At every Anarchist General Assembly there are campaigns for more Cop Watches and more Anti Police Demos. Diversity of Tactics doesn't really mean Diversity of Tactics, it meant Property Destruction. When the Union and Veteran elements pushed the Occupation of the Bridge, a key part of the Portland Economy, a new "Tactic", they had a shitstorm cause the Windows at a small business were still there.

Insurrection is great, I love fucking shit up as much as the next person, trying to end Police Brutality is great, but they are all attempts to chip away at the existing system with our own milieu. Fact of the matter is the Working Class in large part doesn't stand by these actions in Solidarity yet, attempts to escalate tactics in this fashion have failed in modern conditions. They have done nothing to unite the working class. They are tactics that are just as flawed as that of the working classes currently.

[Magón]

Fact of the matter is the Working Class in large part doesn't stand by these actions in Solidarity yet, attempts to escalate tactics in this fashion have failed in modern conditions. They have done nothing to unite the working class. They are tactics that are just as flawed as that of the working classes currently.

So much of that can be said for Marxism as well. Marxist attempts at trying to bring the Working Class together, have failed time and time again, just as much as Anarchist ones. The current tactics of many Marxist groups have failed to get much either, mainly because most Marxist groups haven't brought anything new to the table since forever.

It's a never ending circle of worthless debate, that neither Anarchists or Marxists have successfully found a way to bring the Working Class to power/make them realize they can do so.

[Paulappaul]

So much of that can be said for Marxism as well. Marxist attempts at trying to bring the Working Class together, have failed time and time again, just as much as Anarchist ones. The current tactics of many Marxist groups have failed to get much either, mainly because most Marxist groups haven't brought anything new to the table since forever.

It's a never ending circle of worthless debate, that neither Anarchists or Marxists have successfully found a way to bring the Working Class to power/make them realize they can do so.

I agree completely. I think the answer lies in the fact that the Working Class isn't a moldable group of people. They aren't objects in history, they are subjects in history.

[Ele'ill]

And furthermore, I know plenty of insurrectos from portland who are class struggle oriented.

Regarding insurrectionary anarchism- In my relatively short time here in Portland I have only seen one group which doesn't seem very visible until there's a chance for serious confrontation with the police (at least that's what it seems like) then they come out. This group also hasn't to my knowledge released any communiques/critiques involving class struggle at all. I however put a bit of trust in what you say about them and would ask that they start becoming more 'active' out here. It seems like the anarchist movement here at times goes to sleep at really inopportune times and we need as many anarchists as we can on the same page.


Also, Paulappaul is pretty dead-on regarding (what I think is) the same group of anarchists here that I mention above. I'm also glad that my flag gets yet more attention just to interject my vanity into this conversation for a moment.

[Tim Finnegan]

So even when it's constructive, we're not allowed to see problems with it and defend our views? I thought the whole idea was to debate, giving both sides a chance to give their opinion/view. As long as it's reasonable and people aren't shouting at each other, trying to make their e-Penis bigger, then I don't see why your post was necessary?
My comment was that it wasn't constructive criticism. :confused: The writers appear to see nothing of any value in a popular movement that does not spontaneously adopt their principles, and so end up rejecting it entirely, completely removing them from the class struggle in any meaningful sense. If there was such a thing as Anarchist Third Periodism, that would be it.

[Paulappaul]

I'm also glad that my flag gets yet more attention just to interject my vanity into this conversation for a moment.

Your flag is famous I think.