Anarchism and Historical Materialism

[Comrade Jandar]

How do anarchists generally view historical materialism? It seems that its somewhat frowned upon by most anarchists. Thank you in advance.

[Tim Cornelis]

I assume every anarchists has a different view on it, some reject it, some accept it, and some only partially accept it (like me):

If we look at the the transition of feudalism to capitalism we can see it was an increase in the productive forces (the industrial revolution) that allowed for this. In this sense, historical materialism is accurate.

The transition from socialism to communism, however, seemingly contradicts the notion that materialist factors (productive forces) are the cause of social transformation. The reason a transitional stage is necessary is because a bourgeois mentality will still be present, and therefore "to each according to his contribution" is necessary, but as bourgeois mentality disappears we can implement "to each according to his needs". Thus, it is not material factors that cause the imagined social transformation from socialism to communism, which contradicts historical materialism.

[Искра]

Anarchists generaly do not accept it.

[Geiseric]

Anarchists in my experiance have the same arguements against Socialism/Leninism (not MLism) as capitalists have, "no, it didn't work." While at the same time denying any sort of political power (authoritarianism i guess) being used from the side of the revolutionary class in an actual revolution. They see the Bolsheviks in the same light as the capitalist liberals and social democrats do, at least from what i've seen. However anarchist is a loose term.

[Art Vandelay]

I am an anarchist and I accept historical materialism. In fact I would say its the basis for my revolutionary beliefs. But then again my view on the difference between anarchism and marxism is different than most.

[Smyg]

I'm an anarcho-communist. I definitely agree with it, for the most part. Marxism is right in a lot of things, except for the right way forward.

[Искра]

Marxism is right in a lot of things, except for the right way forward.
Marxism is right about everything, escepially our left way forward.

[Smyg]

Nice wordplay there.

Everything? Now, I'd call that hubris. :D

[Art Vandelay]

Marxism is right about everything, escepially our left way forward.

Marx was not infallible and as a materialist would want to be seen as a man of his time and nothing more.

[Искра]

Well didn't you wrote that "marxism is right about lots of thing" and that only thing that Marxist don't to right is revolution? It's quite funny considering that in Spain in 1936, which is a mythical event for anarchist, anarchists cooperated with capital, liberals and hold positions in government whos job was to defend capital. It's hardly a "way" I would chose, so if that's "right" I chose "left" ;)

[Agent Equality]

Marxism is right about everything, escepially our left way forward.

You get a red star for this :D :star2:

[Comrade Jandar]

It's refreshing to have some anarchists who don't automatically vilify Marx. The only disagreements I have with classical Marxism is the need for the seizure of the state in the transition to communism and participation in bourgeois elections and parliamentarism.

[Agent Equality]

Well didn't you wrote that "marxism is right about lots of thing" and that only thing that Marxist don't to right is revolution? It's quite funny considering that in Spain in 1936, which is a mythical event for anarchist, anarchists cooperated with capital, liberals and hold positions in government whos job was to defend capital. It's hardly a "way" I would chose, so if that's "right" I chose "left" ;)

Well while there may have been some members of the CNT in the republican government, For the most part it was the "communists" that cooperated with the liberals and gov. (against the anarchists eventually) ;) Although I wouldn't consider them communists since they were pretty much ML's who fapped to Stalin's every word.

[Smyg]

Marxists aren't infallible, neither are anarchists. The CNT made many, many mistakes. And no, I didn't say Marxism was right about everything but the way forward, I said it was one of many things.

No need to be so sectarian, mate. Clinging on to an ideology like that must be harmful to your health. :D

[Comrade Jandar]

Well while there may have been some members of the CNT in the republican government, For the most part it was the "communists" that cooperated with the liberals and gov. (against the anarchists eventually) ;) Although I wouldn't consider them communists since they were pretty much ML's who fapped to Stalin's every word.

It's funny how the P.S.U.C. during the Spanish Civil War accused the P.O.U.M. of being a Trotskyist organization in the pay of fascists when they themselves were practicing class collaboration and doing everything to stop actual revolution.

[Искра]

Well while there may have been some members of the CNT in the republican government, For the most part it was the "communists" that cooperated with the liberals and gov. (against the anarchists eventually) ;) Although I wouldn't consider them communists since they were pretty much ML's who fapped to Stalin's every word.
"May have been some"? They were. Read Abel Paz, official historian of CNT, if you need proffs in your line. The fact that Stalinists were part of same government dosen't deny the fact that anarchists were also. It just makes CNT look even more reactionary.


The CNT made many, many mistakes.
Yup, they betrayed revolution. That's a fact.


Clinging on to an ideology like that must be harmful to your health. :DI'm just here for the lolz.

[Искра]

It's funny how the P.S.U.C. during the Spanish Civil War accused the P.O.U.M. of being a Trotskyist organization in the pay of fascists when they themselves were practicing class collaboration and doing everything to stop actual revolution.
Both Cataln and Republican Government in Spanish Civil War are an examples of class collaboration.

[Smyg]

Yup, they betrayed revolution. That's a fact.



Unlike others, I don't cling onto organisations as if worshipping them.

[Manic Impressive]

most anarchists are closer to Marxism than some of the supposed Marxists.

[Искра]

Unlike others, I don't cling onto organisations as if worshipping them.
What kind of argument is that? So, you believe that individuals make revolutions? When I give criticism of CNT in 1936 it's criticism of anarchism and their political views sucha as deadly federalism and idea of autonomy of local organisations. And I'm even polite, cause I'm an ex-anarchist.

[Geiseric]

The lessons we learn from Marxism, Leninism, Anarchism, Trotskyism, whatever aren't dogma, they're providers of advice to the best step foward. All the quotes in the world won't bring revolution, which is why I never quote people. Say what you will about the russian workers state, all it proves is that the revolution has to be perminant, and that we shouldn't giVe the bourgeoisie the time of day. Nor the petit bourgeoisie.

[Zukunftsmusik]

The transition from socialism to communism, however, seemingly contradicts the notion that materialist factors (productive forces) are the cause of social transformation. The reason a transitional stage is necessary is because a bourgeois mentality will still be present, and therefore "to each according to his contribution" is necessary, but as bourgeois mentality disappears we can implement "to each according to his needs". Thus, it is not material factors that cause the imagined social transformation from socialism to communism, which contradicts historical materialism.

This doesn't contradict historical materialism, as far as I can see. The idea is that the material conditions changes, and then the human mind changes.

What I see as more interesting, is where the line goes between historical materialism and... whatever the opposite is. Idealism? I mean - when Marx came up with the idea of (marxist/scientific) commmunism, this idea itself changed the world - the worker's movement was created, for example. The working class itself was created because of material conditions, but unionising and creating parties was created out of ideas.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchists have utilized or referenced it to varying degrees throughout history. Even individuals who were only peripherally connected to the anarchist movement...Lysander Spooner, for example, characterized the Civil War in the USA as primarily being about the interests of northern industrial capital expanding southward and clashing against southern agrarian interests. Rudolf Rocker critiques Marxist materialism (or at least his view of what that materialism entails) in "Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice".

I largely agree with materialism. I do think there is such thing as "vulgar materialism", though, i.e. the Holocaust was all about expelling some excess Jews from Germany's productive capacity.

[Tim Cornelis]

What kind of argument is that? So, you believe that individuals make revolutions? When I give criticism of CNT in 1936 it's criticism of anarchism and their political views sucha as deadly federalism and idea of autonomy of local organisations. And I'm even polite, cause I'm an ex-anarchist.

In your previous posts you criticised the CNT (specifically) for participating in government, among other things, and not anarchism as theory.

It would be like me criticising Lighting Path's practical decisions to attack your Left Communist theoretical position because you both happen to be Marxist.

I suspect the majority of anarchists disagree with the CNT's actions but supported, or would have supported, the seizing of factories and socialisation of land. Unless smyg describes his main tendency is "CNT'ist" or avowedly states he fully supports the CNT, it makes no sense to drag the CNT in by its hairs.

[Desperado]

The important part isn't "historical materialism", which is massively open for interpretation, but class analysis and an emphasis on the economic. Anarchists tend to have this to some degree or another, but it runs parallel with just a general anti-hierarchy and nonconforming tradition. Naturally the bits on the state are massively contentious (esp. on post-capitalism), but it's contentious within Marxism besides. Simply compare Gramsci with Plekhanov, or just general conceptions and Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire.

[Art Vandelay]

Well didn't you wrote that "marxism is right about lots of thing" and that only thing that Marxist don't to right is revolution? It's quite funny considering that in Spain in 1936, which is a mythical event for anarchist, anarchists cooperated with capital, liberals and hold positions in government whos job was to defend capital. It's hardly a "way" I would chose, so if that's "right" I chose "left" ;)

No I did not actually say that....

[ZeroNowhere]

I mean - when Marx came up with the idea of (marxist/scientific) commmunism, this idea itself changed the world - the worker's movement was created, for example.
Um, not sure how to tell you this, but...

There is not much correct about that sentence.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Um, not sure how to tell you this, but...

There is not much correct about that sentence.

What, that the worker's movement existed before Marx? But still, the workers movement wasn't created because of the material conditions under capitalism. The worker class, yes, but not the workers movement?