Anarchists and Marxs' economics

[Dear Leader]

Do Anarchists agree with what Marx had to say about capitalism?

[Deity]

I'm fairly certain that everyone on this forum detests capitalism. I actually think that Is a requirement.

As for agreeing with what he said completely that will vary from person to person

[Sinister Intents]

Do Anarchists agree with what Marx had to say about capitalism?

Yeah they do, I agree at least. I've read the first volume of Capital.

[l'Enfermé]

Generally, yes. Anarchists do not have any decent analysis of political economy so they cheat and borrow ours, without drawing the logical political conclusions from it.

[Tim Cornelis]

Generally, yes. Anarchists do not have any decent analysis of political economy so they cheat and borrow ours, without drawing the logical political conclusions from it.

Marxist economics doesn't have any political implications except for the overthrow of capitalism which anarchists agree on.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

Marxist economics doesn't have any political implications except for the overthrow of capitalism which anarchists agree on.

In addition, I've heard several mutualists argue that Marx stole Proudhon's ideas :laugh:.

And yes, I do agree with Marx's economic ideas. I can not speak of course, for other anarchists but I would imagine that they do the same.

[Narodnik]

OT- Some do, some don't.

The main difference philosophical difference between anachism and marxism on the questions of economics is in the definition of class. Keen in mind that there are anarhists that accept marxist view of classes.

Marxism views classes in their relation to ownership of the means of production, the capitalist owning them, and the proletarian not owning them. Anarchists (and narodniks for that matter) see class in their relation to exploitation. If you exploit, you're a capitalist, if you don't- you're a worker. This difference amounts to marxist talking about the class of "petite" capitalists- people who own means of production, but live of thier work, and not of the work of others. In anachist (and narodnik) thought, artisans and peasants (or industrial workers for that matter) that own their means of production, if they don't exploit anyone, are counted as workers, not any sort of capitalist. Bakunin is famous for calling proletariat not a "class" but "mass" of people.

Another major difference is that anarchist (and narodnik) economics, as opposed to marxism, differentiate between capitalism and commodity production (/markets/ making products for sale), not seeing anything exploitative in commodity production in itself, thus accepting Proudhonism (/mutualism) in the fold of socialism.

Here's an article from an anarchist not so much fond of Marx:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/appendix-proudhon-and-marx.html

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Anarchists are very influenced by Marx's analysis of Capitalism. Bakunin even offered to translate Capital in Russian for Marx (a project he worked intensely on but never finished). I don't see why anarchists wouldn't agree with Marx's objections of capitalism. It's down the road on strategy and tactics that people start to fuse over. However, reading the first volume of Capital should be encouraged for any person with an anti-capitalist mentality. More people need to know their enemy, how it operates, how to deconstruct it, and so forth.

One big difference in analysis is that some anarchists view capitalism as a system with 2 classes, and some with 3. Depends on who you ask.

[Emmeka]

Do Anarchists agree with what Marx had to say about capitalism?

Mostly. Anarchism is a critique of power, unlike Marx's critique of capital they see anyone that "doesn't exploit" as "workers". That ends up including a whole wack of people we wouldn't consider "workers" but potential allies to workers, such as the petit-bourgeoisie (those who own the means of production but do not purchase labour) or the lumpenproletariat (the division of the working class that by some means or another isn't tied to the means of production, such as common criminals).

Another distinguishing feature of that critique is that at various times Anarchists have promoted the idea that not the proletariat but some other class would lead a revolutionary struggle. Bakunin entertained the idea that the lumpenproletariat could lead a revolution.

[TheEmancipator]

Anarchists don't necessarily believe in the notion of "class", labour economics or even in workers' struggle. Anarcho-syndicalists do, but they're in some ways more Marxist than Anarchist.

I know many anarchists who have no issue with liberalism as an economic model provided it is not enforced on an oppressed people. Anarchists tend to believe that an economic system is not to be decided by the centralised state but by how individuals interact with each other. One of the numerous fallacies we've inherited from the Cold War is that you have to be either Capitalist or Communist. Before such times and before Marx pitted the two as different historical blocs the notion was not as strong.

They tend to be anti-capitalist however because they do not believe somebody should have the right to "own" a certain amount of capital or any at all, and certainly not factors of production. Like any sane individual, they realise "free market" is an oxymoron propped up by the ruling classes' hegemony over the factors of production.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It depends. Among anarchists and Marxists, reformist ideas have some pull and adherents of either sometimes actually follow a classical-liberal economic view (where exploitation isn't inherent as in Marxist economics, but is the result of "corrupted power" and capitalists are basically just ripping off workers and that's what exploitation is) but the Marxist ones have to re-interpret Marxism to get things to add up whereas liberal trends among anarchists don't really need to.

Both socialism generally and anarchism have their roots in a classical liberal economic critique predating the full emergence of capitalism and widespread working class struggle. So Proudhonism and Utopian socialism emerged out of similar ideological concerns and saw the problems of capitalism to be more organizational or technical rather than the result of internal and inherent contradictions.

[Forli]

I have always thought the difference between Anarchism and Marxism as mainly procedural. Both trying to reach the same end but in different ways.

Anarchists believe that after revolution, the creation of DOTP or any form of revolutionary transitional state will inevitably create class (i.e. rulers - the ruled) and will never be fully abolished due to those in the state not wanting to give up power.

Marxists/Communists believe that without some form of DOTP or revolutionary government, no matter the material conditions, if all form of state is immediately removed, capitalism will return. A DOTP is needed to ensure the defeat of capitalism, which should be the greatest priority.

Maybe I have read wrong though. I am pretty new to all this.

[l'Enfermé]

Marxist economics doesn't have any political implications except for the overthrow of capitalism which anarchists agree on.
Marx's and Engels' critique of political economy, then, exists in a vacuum? There is, say, no dialectical relationship between it and the political and philosophical ideas they propagated? Mkay...:(

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I'm fairly certain that everyone on this forum detests capitalism. I actually think that Is a requirement.

As for agreeing with what he said completely that will vary from person to person

If you reduce what Marx had to say to "detesting" it you are completely missing the point.

Marx was about analyzing capitalism and based there upon the conclusions were drawn for why capitalism would eventually fall. It has very little, if anything, to do with some moral objections.

[homegrown terror]

I have always thought the difference between Anarchism and Marxism as mainly procedural. Both trying to reach the same end but in different ways.

Anarchists believe that after revolution, the creation of DOTP or any form of revolutionary transitional state will inevitably create class (i.e. rulers - the ruled) and will never be fully abolished due to those in the state not wanting to give up power.

Marxists/Communists believe that without some form of DOTP or revolutionary government, no matter the material conditions, if all form of state is immediately removed, capitalism will return. A DOTP is needed to ensure the defeat of capitalism, which should be the greatest priority.

Maybe I have read wrong though. I am pretty new to all this.

that's pretty much it in a nutshell. anarchists in general see the dissolution of statism as a higher priority than the dissolution of capitalism. the degree may vary, with some anarchists (such as myself and most A-S's) seeing them as roughly equal in priority, while others believe that capitalism will be unable to survive without the state to provide muscle in the form of police and armies. still others (anarcho-capitalists) oppose government but believe fervently in the capitalist system, though most of us don't consider them true anarchists. almost all anarchists oppose capitalism, but many of them don't do much to stop it.

[MarxArchist]

Some are idealists, some are materialists. Bakunin was a materialist and agreed with Marx's historical and systemic critique of capitalism, most anarchists do. The split, as you know, surrounds the means to ending capitalism. I wouldn't really consider people who advocate Proudhon's ideas or the American 'individualists' ideas to be materialist anarchists or even anarchists at all.

[Forli]

If you reduce what Marx had to say to "detesting" it you are completely missing the point.

Marx was about analyzing capitalism and based there upon the conclusions were drawn for why capitalism would eventually fall. It has very little, if anything, to do with some moral objections.

If anything I think Marx admired Capitalism for its achievements, especially in it being the driving force for globalisation.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Mostly. Anarchism is a critique of power, unlike Marx's critique of capital they see anyone that "doesn't exploit" as "workers". That ends up including a whole wack of people we wouldn't consider "workers" but potential allies to workers, such as the petit-bourgeoisie
I don't know any class struggle anarchists who see the petit-bourgeois as workers.


Another distinguishing feature of that critique is that at various times Anarchists have promoted the idea that not the proletariat but some other class would lead a revolutionary struggle.
Considering how many supposed Marxists uphold a vanguard party concept, I'm not sure that's a distinguishing feature.

[MarxSchmarx]

One big difference in analysis is that some anarchists view capitalism as a system with 2 classes, and some with 3. Depends on who you ask.

Excellent point. I think a lot of Marxism is based on the ownership, non-ownership axis, whereas many anarchsits are also concerned about teh control-non-control axis. For instance, to a lot of Marxists the key difference is between bourgeiosie and proletariat and all that that entails. But to anarchists, something like the following scheme is frequently used:

Ownership + control
Bourgeoisie

Ownership but no control
Petty bourgeoisie with heavy loans, independent contractors, etc...

No ownership + control
CEOs/management, government authorities, possibly some professions (e.g., clinicians heading teams, lead engineers)

No ownership + no control
the rest of us

This provides a bit more nuance of the analysis that is centered not just on material realities but also on the place of an individual agent within the power hierarchy.

[Sea]

Marxist economics doesn't have any political implications except for the overthrow of capitalism which anarchists agree on.
Historical materialism has some pretty big implications when it comes to things like authority.

Anarchists, of course, don't really care about these things. Nor do they have much in the way of theory in general. One of Micky Bakunin's most lucid lines of argument, in fact, revolved around Marx being some sort of Jewish hobgoblin who had a crush on the Rothschilds.

[tuwix]

In addition, I've heard several mutualists argue that Marx stole Proudhon's ideas

There is a little bit of truth in that. IMHO undoubtely Proudhon's works were inspiring Marx. But Marx developed it very much.

[Emmeka]

I don't know any class struggle anarchists who see the petit-bourgeois as workers.

"That wealth is quite exclusive, and the tendency is for it to become more so each day, as it becomes concentrated into an ever shrinking number of hands, shunning the lower echelons of the middle class and the petite bourgeoisie, depressing them into the proletariat, so that the growth of this wealth is the direct cause behind the growing misery of the labouring masses. Thus the outcome is that the gulf which yawns between the privileged, contented minority and millions of workers who earn their keep by the strength of their arm yawns ever wider and that the happier the contented - who -exploit the people's labour become the more unhappy the workers become." - Bakunin, On Education, 1869

I think it's pretty clear that Bakunin here is referring to the petite bourgeoisie as included in the "labouring masses".

Going on a less theoretical and more historical note, Anarchism has quite a history organizing among artisans (who are petit-bourgeois). Take Anarchism's roots in northern Italy in the 1870s, which Italian-American Anarchist Nunzio Pernicone wrote that the "real stronghold of Italian anarchism was north-central Italy... where independent artisans predominated" (Italian Anarchism: 1864–1892, 1993).


Considering how many supposed Marxists uphold a vanguard party concept, I'm not sure that's a distinguishing feature.

Did I say anything about a vangaurd party? I was talking about which class Anarchists interpret to lead a revolution, which has absolutely nothing to do with vangaurd parties or organizations to lead that class.

[subcp]

Here's a book that's supposed to contain anarchist economics:

http://store.iww.org/accumulation-of-freedom.html

I haven't read it but it seems to be on the topic. Most of the class struggle anarchists I've communicated with or read accept Marxist economics.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Do Anarchists agree with what Marx had to say about capitalism?

Anarchists are anti-capitalists, so I would say yes.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Generally, yes. Anarchists do not have any decent analysis of political economy so they cheat and borrow ours, without drawing the logical political conclusions from it.

This is not true. Anarchists come to the conclusion that capitalism must be abolished because it creates injustice and inequality. Then the anarchist turns to communism as an alternative economic system, because it is the most libertarian and egalitarian.
It is all based on liberty and equality.

[homegrown terror]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/soc-anar.htm

[Colfax]

Anarchists in general are more or less entirely in agreement with Marx's critique of capital, at least as it described capitalism in the 19th Century and elucidated some essential structural features that we could expect to find in other forms of capitalism. Bakunin, who clashed constantly with Marx, went so far as to personally translate Capital into Russian.

There were anarchists around before Marx published his major critiques of political economy. Proudhon published What is Property? well before the Communist Manifesto. So I do think you could probably draw out a strand of anarchist critique that is independent of the Marxist one. But the question is why would one bother. It generally gets back to Proudhon or to Stirner or to Godwin, all of whom are working from ideas of the absolutely free individual that exists outside of space and time at least in a normative sense. My point being that the anarchist tradition that we could find outside of Marxism tends to lead back into ideas of individual sovereignty that are fundamentally liberal. A consequence of this is that many of those who currently try to set anarchism as completely apart from Marxism end up veering into the orbit of libertarianism.

The modern revival of anarchism seems to me to be rooted in a Marxist idea of the state as the engine for the reproduction of class power. They agree with Marx that to abolish the class system will entail the abolition of the state, but conclude that the state is too caught up with class to be used as a tool in this abolition.