Anarchism Debate

[Lazermazter]

I've been doing a little soul searching recently, and I've been struggling between my previous identity as a democratic socialist and that of a Bakunin-style Anarchist. My question to all you radicals out there is this: what problems inherent in socialism does anarchism solve? What problems in anarchism does socialism solve? Sort of an anarchist's pro/con list if you will.

[Rooiakker]

Well here is my attempt to give a short answer on the few points that first came to mind.

Anarchism requires more social awareness to meet the needs of minorities. It's more prone to single people out through direct action, but makes sure the state won't be oppressing the minorities either.

State Socialism protects minorities through enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, and makes it possible for an individual to have a sense of safety even when they lack social favour. It's easier to keep consistent regulations on things like the environment through state organizations than through anarchist collectives.

[MarxSchmarx]

briefly, I'd say anarchist tries to solve the problem of how to prevent the administrators/rulers of the state from forming the nucleus of capitalist restoration.

Although it's fair to say most anarchists are also socialists, non-anarchist socialists generally try to solve the problem of capitalists using the military and the police to restore capitalism.

Anarchists do think and say stuff about how to resist capitalist militarism without the state, and socialists do think and stay stuff about how to prevent the state apparatus from forming the core of a new ruling class within the state. But at its core, I'd say neither side has really managed to persuade the other of the two fundamental distinctions outlined in my response.

[tuwix]

My question to all you radicals out there is this: what problems inherent in socialism does anarchism solve?

One great problem: state. A state as a mechanism that maintains a property.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've been doing a little soul searching recently, and I've been struggling between my previous identity as a democratic socialist and that of a Bakunin-style Anarchist. My question to all you radicals out there is this: what problems inherent in socialism does anarchism solve? What problems in anarchism does socialism solve? Sort of an anarchist's pro/con list if you will.

It depends on the kind of anarchist politics. Some early anarchist views were just a different conception of how to deal with the problems of capitalism. But syndicalism and platformism, like bolshevism, were attempts to deal with reformism within the larger socialist movement and how revolutionaries should relate to broader groups of workers.

[The Idler]

Marx, Bakunin, and the question of authoritarianism - David ... - Libcom (http://libcom.org/library/marx-bakunin-question-authoritarianism)

Bakunin was authoritarian.
Stateless Marxist socialism is not.

[Broviet Union]

Seems to me rather obvious. Anarchism solves the only major problem along the Socialist spectrum - that of dictatorship. If you want Bolshies, fine I guess, but I am not interested in trying all that again.

The point of the mixture of Anarchism and Socialism is to provide maximum personal autonomy.

[Riveraxis]

briefly, I'd say anarchist tries to solve the problem of how to prevent the administrators/rulers of the state from forming the nucleus of capitalist restoration.

Although it's fair to say most anarchists are also socialists, non-anarchist socialists generally try to solve the problem of capitalists using the military and the police to restore capitalism.

Anarchists do think and say stuff about how to resist capitalist militarism without the state, and socialists do think and stay stuff about how to prevent the state apparatus from forming the core of a new ruling class within the state. But at its core, I'd say neither side has really managed to persuade the other of the two fundamental distinctions outlined in my response.

Agreed. But anarchism is lacking a well-defined political form. The one thing that 10/10 anarchists will agree with is the abolition of the state. When it comes down to more particular problems- you see the same dilemma you'd actually see in an anarchist society. People can't agree on things and haven't developed more healthy forms of conflict resolution.
Many anarchists claim that they have no problem with organization, or even with a government (to an extent, obviously). It's oppression and authority- not efficiency- thats the problem.

Communism on the other hand has no shortage of idealistic political forms. It's easy to pick a tendency if you're inclined to. The plus side of this is that there are well-thought out theories standing to re-work organization at any moment the conditions are right.

I still consider myself an anarchist because I think the abolition of the state is important in preserving what it is we'd all be fighting for. Problem I run into with most anarchists I meet is the nihilistic "pillage and destroy!" attitude that only seeks to benefit themselves once society really starts to decay. It's immature. I'm sure many anarchists don't see things that way, but anarchism is an easy "fetish" for disgruntled people...
I once knew a girl who wrote on her backpack the anarchy symbol, and off to the side said;
"Fuck the working class!". Just because she didn't really know what that meant. A year later I noticed she blacked that out.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I am liking this sudden boom of anarchist we have had on revleft that started in the beggining of this year.

Anarchism sees that the state is unnecessary and harmfull. Since the state serves to protect property relations between classes, if classes are abolished, the state can be abolished as well. Then, logicaly, both state and property must be abolished at the same time.
The anarchist refuses the use of state to achieve a stateless society, seeing this as illogical.
The anarchist will fight all forms of authoritarianism, even if it comes from a communist party.
The anarchist is not only conserned with class struggle, he wants to solve other social problems, like gender inequality, homophobia, etc.
The anarchist accepts every human as equal, and as such he stands against all sorts of discrimination.
The anarchist is a libertarian communist. One who believes the correct way to liberty is through communism.

I have defined anarchism and anarchists, but you cannot ask me to define authoritarian socialism, because I would surely claim it is not an ideology you should follow.


Agreed. But anarchism is lacking a well-defined political form. The one thing that 10/10 anarchists will agree with is the abolition of the state. When it comes down to more particular problems- you see the same dilemma you'd actually see in an anarchist society. People can't agree on things and haven't developed more healthy forms of conflict resolution.
Many anarchists claim that they have no problem with organization, or even with a government (to an extent, obviously). It's oppression and authority- not efficiency- thats the problem.

Actualy, most anarchists I have met agree on all points with me. Anarchist theory is lacking clear direction, therefore it is up to the anarchist to conclude what to do. That is one of the reasons why anarchism is more complicated than socialism.
All the anarchist I have met were against all forms of discrimination. The only problem with portuguese anarchists is that most do not know how to organize. I used to hang out with an anarchist guy, I taught him myself, but he had no idea what to do, so he just followed my direction when it came to activism. The only thing we acheived was to make some posters, but we were younger.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Anarchism sees that the state is unnecessary and harmfull. Since the state serves to protect property relations between classes, if classes are abolished, the state can be abolished as well. Then, logicaly, both state and property must be abolished at the same time.


What is the anarchist view of historical materialism?

Do you believe it is the economic base that "throws up" the state superstructure and property relations, as in Marx's famous metaphor? Or is this whole schema unhelpful? Is it the state that is analytically primary for the anarchist, with the relations of property and economic class resulting from the state?

[RebelDog]

What is the anarchist view of historical materialism?

Do you believe it is the economic base that "throws up" the state superstructure and property relations, as in Marx's famous metaphor? Or is this whole schema unhelpful? Is it the state that is analytically primary for the anarchist, with the relations of property and economic class resulting from the state?

The economic base is the key factor. The state is a requirement of class society to enforce the power of the ruling class. Taking it futher, if one imagines there is no state, no coercion, then there would have to be a libertarian/democratic economic base for such a reality. I cannot see how a social anarchist could think otherwise.

[MarxSchmarx]

Agreed. But anarchism is lacking a well-defined political form. The one thing that 10/10 anarchists will agree with is the abolition of the state. When it comes down to more particular problems- you see the same dilemma you'd actually see in an anarchist society. People can't agree on things and haven't developed more healthy forms of conflict resolution.
Many anarchists claim that they have no problem with organization, or even with a government (to an extent, obviously). It's oppression and authority- not efficiency- thats the problem.

Communism on the other hand has no shortage of idealistic political forms. It's easy to pick a tendency if you're inclined to. The plus side of this is that there are well-thought out theories standing to re-work organization at any moment the conditions are right.

I still consider myself an anarchist because I think the abolition of the state is important in preserving what it is we'd all be fighting for. Problem I run into with most anarchists I meet is the nihilistic "pillage and destroy!" attitude that only seeks to benefit themselves once society really starts to decay

The point that the nihilist strand within anarchism is detrimental is quite well taken. I think, however, anarchists as well as socialists outside Bolshevists and "social democrats" (I use scare quotes for historical reasons) will hasten to add that the ossified bureaucracies that formed around supposedly liberatory practice formed very quickly, and, at least in the case of the USSR and capitalist democracies (esp. W. and southern Europe), rapidly became the nucleus of the capitalist restorationists.

Ultimately one has to wonder whether the movement today is capable of transcending either limitation. On this count, I think the anarchist failures have, on the whole, been less catastrophic. Indeed, in places like North and South America (particularly Brazil) we are already saying yesterday's socialist radicals forming the new bourgeoisie. Anarchists are destructive perhaps on an individual level, but on balance compared to leftism based solely on gaining state power they have proven the alternatives to be dead ends.

[Thirsty Crow]

Since the state serves to protect property relations between classes, if classes are abolished, the state can be abolished as well. Then, logicaly, both state and property must be abolished at the same time.
The anarchist refuses the use of state to achieve a stateless society, seeing this as illogical.

You obviously need a basic rundown of what actually constitutes the validity and/or soundness of an argument.

In short, the soundness is the problem here as it rests on the truth or falsehood of the premises and the correct inference on grounds of specific rules of reasoning. An argument can be perfectly valid yet unsound.

The underlying, unvoiced premise here is that Marxists advocate the takeover of the bourgeois state as it is. Why do I say that?

Because in no other way could you argue that it is not possible for the working class to constitute itself as the ruling class, in a way other than that outlined above. That is so because in this case the state would fulfill its function of the preservation of existing relations of production - of capital.

But not all people who consider themselves Marxists advocate any such thing (and the fact that some people seem to think that they don't - and deny it - doesn't necessarily mean that they do not do so effectively).

The fact is that the working class is in a wholly different position than the bourgeoisie was historically - we cannot systematically get a grip on economic power - which means that the way workers can even begin to change property relations is by political means, by constituting themselves as the ruling class politically. And this, the "state" ("semi-state", "not-longer-a-state, whatever term you like), necessarily rests on the entire working class (of a given territory) being an armed body of men. I don't think it is meaningful to talk about statelessness when class repression (do you think that our old bosses and their willful aides will go down quietly and without a fight?) and coercion (the problem of petite bourgeois proprietors and peasant proprietors) remain.


...
...
I cannot see how a social anarchist could think otherwise. So you think that class struggle anarchists definitely should adopt one of the key tenets of the materialist conception of history - or in other words, of Marxism?

Great. This is miles ahead in relation to the naive and almost openly personal (Marx was authoritarian; therefore, Marxism necessarily is) derision that some anarchists exhibit towards Marxism - whatever they think Marxism actually represents.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The point that the nihilist strand within anarchism is detrimental is quite well taken. I think, however, anarchists as well as socialists outside Bolshevists and "social democrats" (I use scare quotes for historical reasons) will hasten to add that the ossified bureaucracies that formed around supposedly liberatory practice formed very quickly, and, at least in the case of the USSR and capitalist democracies (esp. W. and southern Europe), rapidly became the nucleus of the capitalist restorationists.

Ultimately one has to wonder whether the movement today is capable of transcending either limitation. On this count, I think the anarchist failures have, on the whole, been less catastrophic. Indeed, in places like North and South America (particularly Brazil) we are already saying yesterday's socialist radicals forming the new bourgeoisie. Anarchists are destructive perhaps on an individual level, but on balance compared to leftism based solely on gaining state power they have proven the alternatives to be dead ends.I think the CNT in Spain shows that the problems of burocracy and reformism are not unique to Marxism.

Dominant social ideas are dominant - you know? They have as much sway on Marxist radicals as they do on anarchist radicals. The organizational question makes them play out differently however. If you were to group everyone in the US who is an "anarchist" and everyone who is a "socialist" I think you'd probably find that many anarchists are just liberals who are into some lifestyle alternative and many "socialists" are people who just favor more stability and a welfare state.

But if 100 anarchists start community gardens while spouting revolutionary rhetoric and 100 Marxists support Obama-care spouting revolutionary rhetoric, it is just more apparent who the reformists are, though both may equally turn against revolution if shit really hit the fan.

[Skyhilist]

The anarchist is a libertarian communist. One who believes the correct way to liberty is through communism.

This isn't necessarily true. While I think we both agree than "Anarcho"-capitalism isn't real anarchy, there are also plenty of types of anarchy that are not communist in nature.

Mutualism, Anarcho-collectivism, and many strains of individualist anarchism are not communist. You can combine Anarcho-syndicalism with the former two of those, and Anarcho-syndicalism also will not be communist in that context. Anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalism. But it'd be inaccurate to say that anarchists are naturally communists.

[Thirsty Crow]

Anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalism. But it'd be inaccurate to say that anarchists are naturally communists.How is individualist anarchism "anti-capitalist", while anarchist communism is supposedly "anti-capitalist" and communist at the same time (the name gives it away)?

Furthermore, I don't see a point to this broad notion of anti-capitalism. If all strands of anarchism (excluding anarcho-capitalism) are anti-capitalist, that would mean that their very different ideas on what constitutes capitalism do not enter into the picture, and that they all possess the same general validity (or is it the attitude that matters?; in any case, I don't think a successful revolutionary practice can be fostered by relying on ideas which manifestly do not account for certain important facets of the object of investigation; or in other words, one can claim anti-capitalism all she wants but a program for action based on mistaken view simply cannot act as a force which would abolish capitalism - mutualism and traditional socialdemocracy, for instance).

[Skyhilist]

How is individualist anarchism "anti-capitalist", while anarchist communism is supposedly "anti-capitalist" and communist at the same time (the name gives it away)?

Well anti-capitalism and communist aren't synonyms of each other first of all, at least not in anarchist philosophy. Individualist anarchists are merely anarchists who hold rights of the individual to be more important than the struggles of the community as a whole (which I personally think is irrational, but whatever). Some indivualists see themselves as capitalist, but that really just makes them not real anarchists because capitalism implies authority in work places. Anarcho-communism is much different in that it's a form of social anarchy while views society as a whole as more important than one indiviudal's rights. So despite being anti-capitalist their ideas usually differ, although their are rare people who will claim to support individualism and communism and try to blend the two philosophies; but these people are and always will be irrelevant.



Furthermore, I don't see a point to this broad notion of anti-capitalism. If all strands of anarchism (excluding anarcho-capitalism) are anti-capitalist, that would mean that their very different ideas on what constitutes capitalism do not enter into the picture, and that they all possess the same general validity (or is it the attitude that matters?; in any case, I don't think a successful revolutionary practice can be fostered by relying on ideas which manifestly do not account for certain important facets of the object of investigation; or in other words, one can claim anti-capitalism all she wants but a program for action based on mistaken view simply cannot act as a force which would abolish capitalism - mutualism and traditional socialdemocracy, for instance).

Most anarchists have a general agreement on what constitutes capitalism. Really the only gray area is mutualism. Most anarchists don't view them as capitalist because the workers still control the means of prouduction, despite mutualism's markets. There are some who would say that mutualists aren't real anarchists (probably moreso on this site in particular), but from what I've seen, this people usually make up the minority of anarchists. This isn't to say that most anarchists aren't critical of mutualism, because they are. But in terms of what constitutes capitalism, most are in agreement except a minority who would say mutualism is capitalism (which I can see where they're coming from to an extent). Most anarchists aren't mutualists though, so I really don't think this would become a major problem.

[Riveraxis]

Actually, most anarchists I have met agree on all points with me. Anarchist theory is lacking clear direction, therefore it is up to the anarchist to conclude what to do. That is one of the reasons why anarchism is more complicated than socialism.
All the anarchist I have met were against all forms of discrimination. The only problem with portuguese anarchists is that most do not know how to organize. I used to hang out with an anarchist guy, I taught him myself, but he had no idea what to do, so he just followed my direction when it came to activism. The only thing we acheived was to make some posters, but we were younger.


Sounds like you've had better experiences with anarchists than I have. I agree with anarchism as a philosophy. I especially like Kropotkin's analysis of nihilism as counter productive and misinformed. Unfortunately I've never actually met another anarchist who's read Kropotkin, or really anything else for that matter. They're just attracted to disorder and chaos for some reason. Furthermore many anarchists I've met seem to agree with it simply because they've got the shitty hand in capitalism. Not necessarily because they disagree with the system. Which is reflected in their completely selfish "pillage and destroy" attitude.

Not to say that anarchism is lacking potential. It's sure got potential. I mean, y'know, I self-identify as an anarchist. I guess I just need to find a better scene or something. :rolleyes:

[Thirsty Crow]

Well anti-capitalism and communist aren't synonyms of each other first of all, at least not in anarchist philosophy. Whereas I'd say that in reality anti-capitalism necessitates communism.

So the problem is how does anarchist philosophy account for the reality of capitalism.


Individualist anarchists are merely anarchists who hold rights of the individual to be more important than the struggles of the community as a whole (which I personally think is irrational, but whatever). Some indivualists see themselves as capitalist, but that really just makes them not real anarchists because capitalism implies authority in work places.

I don't think that your assessment of individualist anarchism hits its target, because of the fact that IA advocates the maintenance of private property.

Secondly, although you might claim that the source of this argument is "irrational" (biological and/or psychological, for instance), the argument itself certainly isn't.

The bigger problem is that you seem to be identifying an abstract opposition to capitalism as the criterion. Abstract, because it doesn't distinguish between the relationship of different understandings of capitalism to social, economic, and political reality. As you stated yourself, anarchist philosophy distinguishes between anti-capitalism and communism, but it seems that it doesn't distinguish between different conceptualizations of capitalism insofar as they have the common thread which is provided by the notion of authority. I claim that this is insufficient in understanding what capitalism is. For instance, a consistent mutualism would thus be seen as a force constituting a post-capitalist society. Which fails to take into account the way capitalism operates - by production of value by means of value (this is compatible, though for historical reasons improbable to actually develop, with a significant elimination of "authority" in the workplace).


Most anarchists have a general agreement on what constitutes capitalism. Really the only gray area is mutualism. Most anarchists don't view them as capitalist because the workers still control the means of prouduction, despite mutualism's markets.Then it is clear that this general agreement is at fault.

The basic approach here is to look for the group that controls the means of production, while completely leaving out the question of how this control manifests itself in social organization of production


There are some who would say that mutualists aren't real anarchists (probably moreso on this site in particular), but from what I've seen, this people usually make up the minority of anarchists.
That's rather unfortunate.


Most anarchists aren't mutualists though, so I really don't think this would become a major problem.
But if their understanding of capitalism leaves the option that capitalism can be transcended even by means of mutualism, it is clear that there is no prospect for independent development of anarchist criticism if this trend of thought becomes dominant in a given region.

[Skyhilist]

Whereas I'd say that in reality anti-capitalism necessitates communism.

So the problem is how does anarchist philosophy account for the reality of capitalism.

I don't think that your assessment of individualist anarchism hits its target, because of the fact that IA advocates the maintenance of private property.

Secondly, although you might claim that the source of this argument is "irrational" (biological and/or psychological, for instance), the argument itself certainly isn't.

The bigger problem is that you seem to be identifying an abstract opposition to capitalism as the criterion. Abstract, because it doesn't distinguish between the relationship of different understandings of capitalism to social, economic, and political reality. As you stated yourself, anarchist philosophy distinguishes between anti-capitalism and communism, but it seems that it doesn't distinguish between different conceptualizations of capitalism insofar as they have the common thread which is provided by the notion of authority. I claim that this is insufficient in understanding what capitalism is. For instance, a consistent mutualism would thus be seen as a force constituting a post-capitalist society. Which fails to take into account the way capitalism operates - by production of value by means of value (this is compatible, though for historical reasons improbable to actually develop, with a significant elimination of "authority" in the workplace).

Then it is clear that this general agreement is at fault.

The basic approach here is to look for the group that controls the means of production, while completely leaving out the question of how this control manifests itself in social organization of production


That's rather unfortunate.


But if their understanding of capitalism leaves the option that capitalism can be transcended even by means of mutualism, it is clear that there is no prospect for independent development of anarchist criticism if this trend of thought becomes dominant in a given region.

I've never seen this as a problem because the anarchists closest to capitalism aren't really a majority. If they wanted to develop their own mutualist society or whatever, let them. I don't think it would fare well but whatever. In revolutionary Spain, 30% even chose not to collectivize their wealth, which was allowed. It didn't really affect those who did choose to collectivize their wealth in any large way, and wasn't much of a problem for socialists. I don't see it as being much different with groups like mutualists.

Also, regarding individualists, many believe that socialism will lead to individualism, so I don't consider them to be automatically capitalist. I've actually never heard the claim that all AIs support private property. Are you sure that this holds true for all of them?

[MarxSchmarx]

I think the CNT in Spain shows that the problems of burocracy and reformism are not unique to Marxism.

Dominant social ideas are dominant - you know? They have as much sway on Marxist radicals as they do on anarchist radicals. The organizational question makes them play out differently however. If you were to group everyone in the US who is an "anarchist" and everyone who is a "socialist" I think you'd probably find that many anarchists are just liberals who are into some lifestyle alternative and many "socialists" are people who just favor more stability and a welfare state.

But if 100 anarchists start community gardens while spouting revolutionary rhetoric and 100 Marxists support Obama-care spouting revolutionary rhetoric, it is just more apparent who the reformists are, though both may equally turn against revolution if shit really hit the fan.

Personally I think that reflects a failure of existing organizations to be relevant, train and cement their ideas in the practice of such people, rather than the fault of wilting liberals. Not that you were necessarily implying that, but I just want to clarify this point for other posters.

Spain is indeed a compelling case-study. I agree that bureaucracy and reformism were not alien to the CNT, but at the same time these were the result of historically contingent decisions made by the "leadership" rather than an outcome of theoretical principles. To some extent I think anarchists have internalized the lesson here and have gone to considerable extent to internalize their critique of their original approach, perhaps to some degree Trots for instance have done something similar.

I didn't mean to create the impression that bureaucracy is unique to Marxism (or, to be more precise, Bolshevism and social democracy), so much as to claim that it is perhaps inescapable in the more authoritarian socialist approaches. Anarchism can certainly be reformist and bureaucratic and has often been so, but there is also a built-in disdain and healthy distaste for such outcomes in a way that I think is largely lacking from Leninism and social democracy.

As you note even on an individual level this hardly means anarchism is immune to either reformism or bureaucracy, but I think the struggle against such tendencies is a core part of what makes people anarchists in a way that is not so apparent in the more authoritarian approaches to socialism.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I am liking this sudden boom of anarchist we have had on revleft that started in the beggining of this year.


I exited 2012 as more of a communist (still was at 8 pm. 31st of december, when i last checked revleft), was confused for a couple of hours, entered 2013 as an anarchist (as from 10am 1st of january).

This must be my coming out! I am a non-marxist!


NEWBIE TIP!

If you are as confused about all those types of anarchism as i was, here is a great wiki-article about Contemporary anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_anarchism).
The article explains Anarcha-Feminism, Green Anarchism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Pacifism, Platformism, Synthesis Anarchism, Post-left Anarchism, Insurrectionairy Anarchism, Post-Anarchism and New Anarchism.

More teachings about Anarchist schools of thought can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought).

Godspeed, fellow anarchist!