Anarchism: Pros and Cons

[Lazermazter]

I've recently been doing a little soul searching into my role in the leftist community. I know I'm an anti-capitalist. That much is for sure; but, I'm not sure exactly where I lie on the spectrum. I've been a democratic socialist for about a year and a half, but in reading up on Bakunin's theories a little bit, and I kind of like them. So, my question for anarchists is: why anarchism? What problems are found in a democratic socialism that aren't present in an anarchy? On the flip side, for all of the socialists, communists, etc: Why not anarchism? What issues does anarchy carry with it that these other government systems fix?

[Blake's Baby]

Anarchism isn't a 'government system'. Neither is Marxism for that matter. Both are schools of socialism/communism. Different sets of theories about how to reaach the same stated end goal - a classless communal and free society.

Both might be ultimately considered more 'democratic' than the 'democratic' society you counterpose to them. Though there is some disdain for 'democracy' both among Anarchists and some Marxists, after the abolition of classes then there will actually be 'democracy', in that everyone will 'rule', instead of rulership being as it is at present the rule of the capitalist class.

I'm aware that that might not help much. But it seems to me that the very premises your questions are based on are themselves deeply flawed.

[Durruti's friend]

Well, social anarchism is basically another name for communism. Marxists and anarchists have the same final goal, but the ways of achieving it are what is in dispute.

Marxists believe that a Communist Party would lead the changes (through elections or a revolution). After the original victory over the bourgoisie, the Party would act as a spokesperson of the proletariat and impose a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which would serve as a transitional period between capitalism and communism - a proletarian state which would impose laws and restrictions on the capitalists and thus lead the way to full scale communism.

In classical marxist thought, both the Party and the DotP would be democratic and thus really represent the wishes of the proletariat.

Anarchists (one of whom I am) believe that, basically, power corrupts. So, a dictatorship of the proletariat could easily turn into a dictatorship over the proletariat if the Party becomes non-democratic (as it happened with the Bolsheviks). The final result of that would be a Stalinist dictatorship (which for various reasons has its proponents).

Anarchists think that it would be better and safer to create non-hierarchical organizations form the beginning, usually in the form of a workers' union. That way, an "underground network" of some sort would appear and it would serve as a parallel structure opposed to the government and the system in general. So almost all of the infrastructure needed to create a communist society would exist even before the revolution takes place. The revolution would only be a way of finally eliminating the bourgeois class and the remnants of the old system.

I understand why marxists believe this is utopian, but I'd rather have an unsuccessful proletarian revolution than a successful Stalinist dictatorship (ML's gonna kill me now).

I hope I was of some help, and if I failed in comprehending some points of marxist thought, I would appreciate a correction, for the OP's and my sake. :)

[Decolonize The Left]

I've recently been doing a little soul searching into my role in the leftist community. I know I'm an anti-capitalist. That much is for sure; but, I'm not sure exactly where I lie on the spectrum. I've been a democratic socialist for about a year and a half, but in reading up on Bakunin's theories a little bit, and I kind of like them. So, my question for anarchists is: why anarchism? What problems are found in a democratic socialism that aren't present in an anarchy? On the flip side, for all of the socialists, communists, etc: Why not anarchism? What issues does anarchy carry with it that these other government systems fix?

Why one or the other? Why feel the need to put yourself in a red or black box? Anarchism and communism are entirely compatible and both theories bring excellent perspectives and tactics to the table. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that a group of communists and anarchists would accomplish more than either one individually without the other.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Marxists believe that a Communist Party would lead the changes (through elections or a revolution). After the original victory over the bourgoisie, the Party would act as a spokesperson of the proletariat and impose a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which would serve as a transitional period between capitalism and communism - a proletarian state which would impose laws and restrictions on the capitalists and thus lead the way to full scale communism...

I'm a Marxist and I don't think these things are true.

As Marx said in the General Rules of the IWA (a text often quoted by Anarchists), "Considering,That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves, that the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule..." then the notion that the Party 'imposes' the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is completely false. The working class imposes the dictatorship of the proletariat, or it's not the dictatorship of the proletariat.


...In classical marxist thought, both the Party and the DotP would be democratic and thus really represent the wishes of the proletariat.... :)

Marx doesn't really discuss the organisation of the working class's political organisation. It's clear though that 'the Party' is seen as the most politically advanced section of the working class.

[Durruti's friend]

I think I didn't make myself clear enough (I was really tired). The Communist Party is proletarian in essence - a party of workers. Which would mean that the proletariat founds its dictatorship by the means of the Party, which is basically only an instrument of the proletariat itself. That is opposed to the Leninist "vanguard party" which 'imposes' the dictatorship over the proletariat.

Now, the Marxist idea is ok on paper, but it tends to turn authoritarian and anti-worker in a lot of (historical) occasions. That's where Anarchists differ from Marxists.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Someone (on this forum) once told me it is not so much the end-goal, but the road towards it.

Anarchists believe in an end of the state immediately, communists believe more in DotP before the end of the state in total.

Ultimately they both want a communist society without inequality and a ruling class.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Anarchists may not accept all or even any of central Marxist ideas, such as historical materialism, dialectics, Marx's economic analysis of capital, etc. The base/superstructure classification may also be watered down considerably, or not held to at all, since anarchists would place more emphasis on the originating role of the state in forming society and class relations, rather than seeing the state as analytically secondary as per Marx's preface to a critique.

Certain strains of anarchism also play down the idea of a final world revolution, instead seeing anarchism as a kind of never-ending form of struggle against the authoritarian tendencies in society that may never go away. It is more about finding spaces to live and work "outside" of the rule of capital and the domination of the state, to the extent that such things are possible. Not all anarchism is class struggle anarchism, either.