Is it possible to be anti-statist Marxist?

[Comrade Jandar]

Marxists are often differentiated from other revolutionary socialist tendencies or theories, such as anarchism, by their belief that the proletariat must seize the state prior to the transition to communism. Can one be a Marxist and believe that this transition does not have to necessarily take the form of the state? Was Marx truly the "statist" he was vilified as by Bakunin and future anarchist thinkers? This quote, which is found in The German Ideology, puts this to question.

"Thus they find themselves directly opposed to the form in which, hitherto, the individuals, of which society consists, have given themselves collective expression, that is, the State. In order, therefore, to assert themselves as individuals, they must overthrow the State."

Thoughts?

(Apologies for typo in the title. If an admin could change it to " an anti-statist Marxist," that would be appreciated.)

[Ocean Seal]

No Marx wasn't a statist in sense that most anarchists would call him today. Autonomism and council communism are both fairly close to anarchism in practice, and anarchism has grown closer to Marxism in theory.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Marxism involves a state so if you are a anti-statist you can't be a marxist.
I´ve never heard of anti-statist marxism but I have heard of evolutionary anarchists.

[Rafiq]

Yes, you can.

That doesnt mean Marx agrees with you, though.

[Comrade Jandar]

The difficult thing with Marx is that he never went into great detail about what exactly the transition to communism would look like. I think he simply wanted to make clear that a transition of some kind would be necessary and to think otherwise would be utopian and naive.

[The Idler]

Yes it is possible to be an anti-statist Marxist.

[The Douche]

Marx's definition of the state is compatible with an anti-statist position. I know that doesn't make sense, but its really an issue of semantics.

Marx defined the state as an "organ of class rule". So if we view things through the lens of Marx's language, then any form which we use to exercise the authority of the working class to end exploitation is a "state".

As far as "anti-state" marxism, you can look at autonomist-marxism, and to an extent, left communism.

[Rooster]

The State in Marxist terms, is an organ of class rule. The goal of communists should be the abolition of classes and therefore the state. So, yes, you can be anti-statist and be a Marxist but the differentiation, as far as I can, from anarchism, is that anarchists don't view the capturing of state power to abolish is to be necessary of desirable. In a more accurate sense, marxism is the negation of anti-statism whereas anarchism is the negation of statism.

[Firebrand]

Its practically a requirement. Marx defined communism as a "classless stateless society", while the transition phase that Marx believed was necessary has often been interpreted as involving a state, what he actually said was that the working class would seize control of the means of production (the factories) and would therefore be effectively in control of society. That isn't the same thing as a state. Also Marx never said it would be a long transition. I don't imagine it would take very long for the transition to be complete. A year tops. If it takes any longer than that something's gone wrong and you're headed down the russia route.

[Misanthrope]

Yes, you can.

That doesnt mean Marx agrees with you, though.

Nor does it mean Marx is a demigod

[Rafiq]

Nor does it mean Marx is a demigod

Yes, though it does mean that you can't be a genuine classical marxist and would have to make many revisions.

[The Douche]

Yes, though it does mean that you can't be a genuine classical marxist and would have to make many revisions.

Thats not true.

Like I said, Marx defined a state as the organ of class rule. All anarchists believe in some organ of class rule, whether they call it a state or not, Marx did not give any definition of how the class ought to rule, the only example he gave loosely of a proletarian state was the Paris commune, which was an organ comprised of elected delegates, immediately recallable, whose decisions were subject to ratification, and who were paid no more than the highest paid worker.

Such an organ, possibly with minor changes, is perfectly compatible with anarchism.

[Rafiq]

Still not anti statist.

[The Douche]

Still not anti statist.

Haha, thats my point. It is anti-statist, if you don't use Marx's definition of a state. An issue of semantics, not ideology.

[Blake's Baby]

This it seems to me is another of those 'what is the dictatorship of the proletariat?' threads.

If the dictatorship of the proletariat is as Marx and Engels claimed like the Paris Commune, then both Anarchists and Marxists would support it I think. Marxists would call it a state; Anarchists wouldn't.

Given that it might just be the Paris Commune writ large, the issue is largely semantic.

If however it isn't just the Paris Commune writ large, then some actual differences about the state ('state' by Marxist definition, but also possibly by Anarchist definition as well) in the period of transition might come into play.

[Alf]

Agree with Blake's Baby. I would add that in my opinion an anti-state marxist is the only kind of marxist there is. Marxism began in the early 1840s with a critique of the state as an expression of man's alienation. Marxists are opposed to all existing states and reject the idea that nationalisation, ie state ownership, is a step towards socialism. At the very most marxism 'tolerates' a semi-state during the transition to a stateless society, but this can only be built on the ruins of the existing capitalist state. The implication here is that the majority of people who call themselves marxists (for example people who see North Korea or Cuba as socialist, or call for the state to nationalise industry, banks etc) are actually apologists for the capitalist state.

[Zealot]

Marxists are often differentiated from other revolutionary socialist tendencies or theories, such as anarchism, by their belief that the proletariat must seize the state prior to the transition to communism. Can one be a Marxist and believe that this transition does not have to necessarily take the form of the state?

No, we want to smash the state and replace it with the proletariat organized as the ruling class.


Haha, thats my point. It is anti-statist, if you don't use Marx's definition of a state. An issue of semantics, not ideology.

These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. - Engels, On Authority.

[The Douche]

No, we want to smash the state and replace it with the proletariat organized as the ruling class.



These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. - Engels, On Authority.

What you've got there is a quote from Engels, who I always interpretted as somewhat more authoritarian than Marx, anyways.


But either way, this thread isn't about concinving Leninists that they aren't marxists. All I did, was point out Marx's definition of the state, no matter if you agree or disagree with my politics, you cannot deny what Marx's definition of the state was, and the fact that it leaves room for interpretation.

[CommunityBeliever]

One thing all Marxists recognize is that:

Classlessness → no organ of class power exists
Class → some organ of class power exists

Which means that there will always be some organ of class power (i.e a state) as long as there is classes. Marxism lacks particular details on the transition to communism, nor could it as Marx lived in the 19 century, which is precisely it is necessary to have extensions like Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM).

[StalinFanboy]

Read Dauve and Theorie Communiste (the latter are rather poor at writing and it makes it hard to read).

communization theory argues that a transition period is not possible for a truly communist revolution. that the revolution itself must be communist in nature.