Anarchism: A Marxian Critique

[Sosa]

I have to admit that I haven't read the whole thing, in fact I haven't read much of it yet, but I was hoping to get people's thought on this piece, mainly anarchists or libertarian marxists/socialists. It seems to have been written by a Trotskyist.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76696732/Anarchism-A-Marxist-Criticism



Not sure If I should have posted this in Politics or Theory.

[Zav]

I have to admit that I haven't read the whole thing, in fact I haven't read much of it yet, but I was hoping to get people's thought on this piece, mainly anarchists or libertarian marxists/socialists. It seems to have been written by a Trotskyist.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76696732/Anarchism-A-Marxist-Criticism



Not sure If I should have posted this in Politics or Theory.
It should go in theory, I think.

I'm skimming it as it's a bit long... It seems well written, a plus, but mistaken on certain points. For instance, it assumes that Anarchy means 'No Government', (which it does etymologically speaking) when I have never heard of an Anarchist who opposes all forms of government. We oppose the State, merely one form of government, because it is hierarchical and thus has all sorts of problems. We're pretty much all Federalists, and desire that a new non-hierarchical government be organized for and by the people to be governed. After that the paper claims, essentially, that no one would have any clue what to produce without direction from the State, completely ignoring Anarcho-Syndicalism, which is a bit hypocritical as knowing what to produce without the State is precisely what shall be done (and has been done) in a Communist society. I'm not likely going to read more, as I have concluded that it is shit.

[Threetune]

Thus spoke the bureaucrat. It looks like legitimate political debate to me.

[ckaihatsu]

[T]he paper claims, essentially, that no one would have any clue what to produce without direction from the State,


This contention -- by whoever wields it -- just seems more and more ludicrous as communications technology continues to enable an ever-more many-to-many (non-hierarchical, flat topology) ease of communications.

The mainstreaming / commercialization of the net around 1997 (with AOL) gave it social acceptance and put people in touch with each other like never before. And in recent years the mainstream (corporate) media has increasingly had to *follow* news stories that emerge from the net, and from net-based social and political organizing. Finally, the availability of the net from mobile devices like smartphones has made infinitely flexible communications configurations commonplace, while Facebook and Twitter have now institutionalized the Internet in mainstream society.

On the quoted excerpt above, if we take '[production] [through] direction from the State' to indicate a social strength from collecting ongoing economic *information*, then we are referencing the state in its ability to deal with *information*. Today it's increasingly easy for an individual or small office to have the capabilities and capacities beyond that of a regular-sized institution of past decades. The Information Revolution has brought us overkill -- albeit unequally -- on the question of whether the people of the world are able to exchange information with each other.

But, technology aside, we could look at this question from a historical perspective to see at what point in history the *nature* of communications developed to match and enable contemporary material conditions. Market exchanges have the advantage of abstracting values and of making them interchangeable over long distances, across localities. As revolutionaries we could point to this development to show that the compiling and distribution of *information* about economic activity emerged centuries ago. By the same method the economic information could just as well be standardized *qualitative* data, as in mass demands from below, or market-like valuations *not* based on market valuations, but on a mass politics that uses a quantitative system of abstraction for all of the quantities of materials it encompasses, perhaps from mass survey samplings.

Obviously social directions can be ascertained from any agreed-upon social process that is able to use abstracted, standardized values on mass scales. Once values become socially accepted the *information* about them could even travel by word-of-mouth, conceivably -- not recommended, though, of course.

So if the state is not required for information collection *or* standardization, then, by the process of elimination, we may see that its function is *political* -- enforcing contracts, under current bourgeois rule. The world's proletariat enjoys the realistic potential for *logistically* displacing the state altogether in favor of a mass workers control of everything economic.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Pretty much the very definition of tl;dr

But I did read the first two pages, and the mention of autonomism "being closer to anarchism than Marxism" made my nit-pick alarm go off.

Someone should send it to the author of the Anarchist FAQ, so we can all "enjoy" a 50 page rebuttal.

[ed miliband]

Pretty much the very definition of tl;dr

But I did read the first two pages, and the mention of autonomism "being closer to anarchism than Marxism" made my nit-pick alarm go off.

Someone should send it to the author of the Anarchist FAQ, so we can all "enjoy" a 50 page rebuttal.

One that'll claim Marx stole everything from Proudhon, no doubt.

[Rafiq]

Pretty much the very definition of tl;dr

But I did read the first two pages, and the mention of autonomism "being closer to anarchism than Marxism" made my nit-pick alarm go off.

Someone should send it to the author of the Anarchist FAQ, so we can all "enjoy" a 50 page rebuttal.

That is literally what is called " The big other ".

[Lanky Wanker]

Cheers for this, I've been looking for some arguments against different tendencies that actually get to the point (even if (some of) the points are crap). I don't really understand what he's getting at here though:


Consider, for example, the problem of who would own the industries and factories expropriated from the capitalists.

...doesn't this get the same answer to "who would own the means of production in a communist society?"? :confused:


If these businesses were owned not by the new state but by the workers of each separate enterprise, this would not only hamper cooperation and planning but also lead to competition between different workplaces which would divide the working class, just when it had the greatest need for unity.

Competition? It sounds as though he thinks that everyone would be working against each other and the state's role would be to say "fuck you, do as we say" like it was forcing a bunch of angry 5 year olds to share the biscuits.


Nor will it do to say the industries would simply be the property of the whole community.This would be fine at a later stage, when a genuinely united community would exist but inthe midst of revolution the 'community' is divided into opposed and warring classes andfactions - it is therefore absolutely necessary for the revolutionary community, the workingclass, to have institutions which embody its interests.

So I read ahead to see this, but I'm still not convinced. The fact that he just out of nowhere declares it won't work without expanding on his points means I can't take him seriously.

Am I missing something or are his points just crap like others are saying?

[Jimmie Higgins]

It should go in theory, I think.

I'm skimming it as it's a bit long... It seems well written, a plus, but mistaken on certain points. For instance, it assumes that Anarchy means 'No Government', (which it does etymologically speaking) when I have never heard of an Anarchist who opposes all forms of government. We oppose the State, merely one form of government, because it is hierarchical and thus has all sorts of problems.

I think you may be reading this with a few assumptions about the criticisms. I'm only a few pages in, but this, below, is actually what the author argues and is essentially the exact same thing that you described:


Anarchism maintains that the very existence of a state i.e. of special bodies of men (and women) exercising legal and physical power over society as a whole, is oppressive and incompatible with real human freedom. To end oppression and establish freedom the rule of the state must be replaced by that of the self governing community without any overriding central authority.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Cheers for this, I've been looking for some arguments against different tendencies that actually get to the point (even if (some of) the points are crap). I don't really understand what he's getting at here though:

...doesn't this get the same answer to "who would own the means of production in a communist society?"? :confused:

Competition? It sounds as though he thinks that everyone would be working against each other and the state's role would be to say "fuck you, do as we say" like it was forcing a bunch of angry 5 year olds to share the biscuits.

So I read ahead to see this, but I'm still not convinced. The fact that he just out of nowhere declares it won't work without expanding on his points means I can't take him seriously.

Am I missing something or are his points just crap like others are saying?[/QUOTE]

On page 10 now and I think you are missing something. The author is arguing for the necessity of workers organizing their own state to reshape society. The author clearly states that the problem with getting rid of the state is not that, like the capitalists say, there would be chaos or it's impossible because humans are inherently evil and must have someone controlling them. The author is arguing that when the capitalist state is destroyed by the self-initiative of people from below (taking over workplaces and probably destroying police stations and jails) that workers should organize their own "state" to protect their interests in that vacuum. Just because workers stop capitalism, doesn't mean they have achieved socialism let alone communism. For a period of time there would probably still be capitalist strongholds or fence-sitters or petty-bourgeois people that could side with counter-revolution or that bureaucrats with essential positions could use that to their advantage and try and blackmail workers.

I'm not that far into the reading yet, but I don't think the author is arguing that some separate entity or a revolutionary party should become the state, just that workers need to organize special bodies of armed men (a worker's militia) and ways to coordinate the reshaping of society along socialist lines. So the argument is not at all that people can't have local non-state administration of things, it's the question of how do you go from capitalism to that. Anarchism suggests that you don't need an intermediary worker-run state, the author is arguing that to achieve communism/anarchism, you do.

[Lanky Wanker]

On page 10 now and I think you are missing something. The author is arguing for the necessity of workers organizing their own state to reshape society. The author clearly states that the problem with getting rid of the state is not that, like the capitalists say, there would be chaos or it's impossible because humans are inherently evil and must have someone controlling them. The author is arguing that when the capitalist state is destroyed by the self-initiative of people from below (taking over workplaces and probably destroying police stations and jails) that workers should organize their own "state" to protect their interests in that vacuum. Just because workers stop capitalism, doesn't mean they have achieved socialism let alone communism. For a period of time there would probably still be capitalist strongholds or fence-sitters or petty-bourgeois people that could side with counter-revolution or that bureaucrats with essential positions could use that to their advantage and try and blackmail workers.

I'm not that far into the reading yet, but I don't think the author is arguing that some separate entity or a revolutionary party should become the state, just that workers need to organize special bodies of armed men (a worker's militia) and ways to coordinate the reshaping of society along socialist lines. So the argument is not at all that people can't have local non-state administration of things, it's the question of how do you go from capitalism to that. Anarchism suggests that you don't need an intermediary worker-run state, the author is arguing that to achieve communism/anarchism, you do.

Ah right, cheers for the update. I got up to page 13 without understanding him fully, but I agree now (if he is actually saying what you think he is).

[eyeheartlenin]

I have to admit that I haven't read the whole thing, in fact I haven't read much of it yet, but I was hoping to get people's thought on this piece, mainly anarchists or libertarian marxists/socialists. It seems to have been written by a Trotskyist.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76696732/Anarchism-A-Marxist-Criticism

Not sure If I should have posted this in Politics or Theory.

"Alex Callinicos" is mentioned in the Acknowledgements, so that it is very likely the critique comes from the International Socialist tendency, that is, the ISO in the US and the SWP in Britain.

Where I live, the best radicals are anarchists, and the ISO spends its time building coalitions with Democrats, with whom the ISO'ers appear to be in synch. It was the ISO that organized transportation from our town to the "One Nation" election campaign rally in Washington, DC, in support of Democratic Party politicians some time back. The ISO was also a part of "Socialist Contingent" that participated in the Democrats' campaign rally. See http://socialistworker.org/2010/09/28/join-the-socialist-contingent for the declaration of the "Socialist Contingent."

[Jimmie Higgins]

Where I live, the best radicals are anarchists, and the ISO spends its time building coalitions with Democrats, with whom the ISO'ers appear to be in synch. It was the ISO that organized transportation from our town to the "One Nation" election campaign rally in Washington, DC, in support of Democratic Party politicians some time back. The ISO was also a part of "Socialist Contingent" that participated in the Democrats' campaign rally. See http://socialistworker.org/2010/09/28/join-the-socialist-contingent for the declaration of the "Socialist Contingent."

^You mean this article that says this in the introduction:

We do not, however, share the goals of the AFL-CIO, the NAACP and other organizations which hope to achieve jobs and justice by supporting Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in the national elections on November 2.

Is this also why we published a book in 2008 for the election about how the Democrats destroy movements?

Is this why not supporting the Democratic party is one of the organization's points of agreement for people who want to join?

And what does your lazy straw-man of the ISO have to do with the arguments of this article anyway?

[Os Cangaceiros]

"Alex Callinicos" is mentioned in the Acknowledgements, so that it is very likely the critique comes from the International Socialist tendency, that is, the ISO in the US and the SWP in Britain."

The article is tagged "IST", so thats a pretty safe assumption.

[eyeheartlenin]

^You mean this article that says this in the introduction:
Is this also why we published a book in 2008 for the election about how the Democrats destroy movements?
Is this why not supporting the Democratic party is one of the organization's points of agreement for people who want to join?
And what does your lazy straw-man of the ISO have to do with the arguments of this article anyway?

The answer is that actions are more significant than words. On paper, true, the ISO does not support the Democrats, but the fact remains that the ISO did organize transportation to the Democrats' pre-election campaign rally in DC, which sure looks like support to me.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The answer is that actions are more significant than words. On paper, true, the ISO does not support the Democrats, but the fact remains that the ISO did organize transportation to the Democrats' pre-election campaign rally in DC, which sure looks like support to me.

So then the reasons argued for in the article you quote are lies according to you. That's a serious charge and you'd better back that up with more than what you've put forward so far.

First of all, you cite one event as if it is two events. The "one nation" rally and then a "campaign rally" - the ISO has NEVER participated in an election rally FOR Democrats, in fact I was introduced to the ISO while PROTESTING the DNC when my friends were arrested along with some ISO members. Or is protesting at all the DNCs where we had members within 100 miles all part of an elaborate scheme? What about supporting candidates AGAINST Democrats as a protest vote? Many on the left disagree with this strategy, but according to you is that a ruse too? What about supporting the left-wing of the Greens like Peter Camejo in trying to win that party to being in active and conscious opposition to the Democratic Party. Surely all the shit we got from sectarians over those years was not some ploy to secretly help the Democrats. What about protesting Obama on the campaign trail in 2008, what about arguing and trying to organize against attempts by the Democrats to co-opt occupy?

Second, the "One Nation" rally was organized by pro-democrat progressives and the ISO was part of a "socialist contingent" but in opposition to the Democrats as the article makes a case for:


The two major parties have failed us. During the past two years, the Democrats and Republicans have failed to represent us, but they have done a fine job of representing the banks, insurance companies and corporations. They saved the banks for the bankers--not those whose homes are still threatened with foreclosure or collapsing value. They saved the auto industry for the auto CEOs--not for the workers whose plants have been closed, whose health insurance contributions have been raised and whose wages have been lowered. They have saved the health insurance companies by forcing millions of Americans to buy their policies, while denying us a single-payer plan and leaving prices remain uncontrolled. They have saved them, but they have not saved us.


We join the movement for this march, excited and enthused to see the labor unions, the African American and Latino populations, the women's, gay and lesbian and environmental movements taking to the streets. But we know that change can only be brought about as it has been in every period of American history by independent social movements. And such independent movements must find political expression first in independent candidates and then in a party of working people and all in our society who suffer exploitation, discrimination and oppression.


The organizers of this march have called it "One Nation." The truth is we are two nations. One nation of corporate CEOs and Bankers and their legions of high level executives, the very wealthy of our country, and another nation of working people, many of them now jobless. We are two nations: the corporations who run this country and the working people who make this country run. We will be marching with the working class to end a system dominated by corporations. We march because we believe that those working people who make the country run should run the country.


We marched with the socialist contingent because this rally came at a time when most liberals were arguing for "Moderation" and many people were demoralized by the supposed invincibility of the Tea-Party/Glenn Beck and resurgent right-wing. We saw people attending this rally as potentially people who were fed up with "moderation" and wanting to take to the streets, so people who might be open to more militant ideas. Maybe it was a flawed attempt maybe not the right strategy, but it's not a lie as you accuse.

Third, AGAIN, what does this have to do with the arguments in the article? Even if your attacks on the ISO were correct, does that invalidate an article written by someone in another group that once had ties with the ISO and share some history when your accusations have nothing to do with the specific political questions or arguments raised in the article?

[Lucretia]

We marched with the socialist contingent because this rally came at a time when most liberals were arguing for "Moderation" and many people were demoralized by the supposed invincibility of the Tea-Party/Glenn Beck and resurgent right-wing. We saw people attending this rally as potentially people who were fed up with "moderation" and wanting to take to the streets, so people who might be open to more militant ideas. Maybe it was a flawed attempt maybe not the right strategy, but it's not a lie as you accuse.

Actually I would like to have a fair-minded and civil discussion with you about this particular strategy, if you wouldn't mind having it in a different thread (since this one is about a particular pamphlet).

[Kadir Ateş]

I've always liked this critique of anarchism by Guy Debord in Society of the Spectacle (1967):


The strength and the weakness of the real anarchist struggle resides in its viewing the goal of proletarian revolution as immediately present (the pretensions of anarchism in its individualist variants have always been laughable). From the historical thought of modern class struggles collectivist anarchism retains only the conclusion, and its exclusive insistence on this conclusion is accompanied by deliberate contempt for method. Thus its critique of the political struggle has remained abstract, while its choice of economic struggle is affirmed only as a function of the illusion of a definitive solution brought about by one single blow on this terrain–on the day of the general strike or the insurrection. The anarchists have an ideal to realize. Anarchism remains a merely ideological negation of the State and of classes, namely of the social conditions of separate ideology. It is the ideology of pure liberty which equalizes everything and dismisses the very idea of historical evil. This viewpoint which fuses all partial desires has given anarchism the merit of representing the rejection of existing conditions in favor of the whole of life, and not of a privileged critical specialization; but this fusion is considered in the absolute, according to individual caprice, before its actual realization, thus condemning anarchism to an incoherence too easily seen through. Anarchism has merely to repeat and to replay the same simple, total conclusion in every single struggle, because this first conclusion was from the beginning identified with the entire outcome of the movement. Thus Bakunin could write in 1873, when he left the Federation Jurassiene: “During the past nine years, more ideas have been developed within the International than would be needed to save the world, if ideas alone could save it, and I challenge anyone to invent a new one. It is no longer the time for ideas, but for facts and acts.” There is no doubt that this conception retains an element of the historical thought of the proletariat, the certainty that ideas must become practice, but it leaves the historical terrain by assuming that the adequate forms for this passage to practice have already been found and will never change.