Do anarchism and Marxism really oppose each other?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I mean, like, since both have different definitions of the state. IE anarchists generally view the state as a centralized political authority over the masses, but Marxists view the state as an organ of class rule regardless of whether the class is of the workers or the bourgeoisie. So, the dictatorship of the proletariat, with the power directly in the hands of the working class, would be a state to Marxists, but not to anarchists. In fact, a few anarchist writers' criticisms of the Bolsheviks is not that they set up a dictatorship of the proletariat, but that they didn't. I am always constantly thinking about this, and so I don't know what I am, in terms of an ideological label because I oppose what anarchists consider a state, but am in favor of the state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) by the Marxist definition.

EDIT: Do not reply if you don't have anything constructive to say. Or if you're going to be mean. Or flame, troll, and whine.

[AnSyn Blackflag]

After the Paris Commune(1871), Bakunin characterised Marx's ideas as authoritarian, and argued that if a Marxist party came to power its leaders would end up as bad as the ruling class they had fought against (notably in hisStatism and Anarchy). In 1872, the conflict in the First International climaxed with a final split between the two groups at the Hague Congress. This clash is often cited as the origin of the long-running conflict between anarchist and Marxists. From then on, the Marxist and anarchist currents of socialism had distinct organizations, at various points including rival "internationals".
This split is sometimes called the "red" and "black" divide, red referring to the Marxists and black referring to the anarchists. Otto von Bismark remarked, upon hearing of the split at the First International, "Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!"
The Hague Congress was notable for the expulsion of Bakunin and Guillaume and for the decision to relocate the General Council to New York City.

From wikipedia

[hatzel]

To be fair, though, some dispute between a couple of old beardy dudes in 1872 doesn't necessarily mean anything to the contemporary reality. I could pick some other random historical example - I don't know, maybe the anarchist Erich Mühsam's heavy involvement in and cooperation with Marxist groups, particularly concerning prisons - and paint a wholly different picture...

[AnSyn Blackflag]

To be fair, though, some dispute between a couple of old beardy dudes in 1872 doesn't necessarily mean anything to the contemporary reality. I could pick some other random historical example - I don't know, maybe the anarchist Erich Mühsam's heavy involvement in and cooperation with Marxist groups, particularly concerning prisons - and paint a wholly different picture...

Fair statement but it's still pretty important to contextualize. Clearly the thought processes have indeed evolved since Marx and Bakunin and we live in a different world.

[d3crypt]

I totally agree. I think marxism and anarchism should unite since they agree on nearly everything. The fighting between the two is stupid.

[The Feral Underclass]

Marxism and anarchism are both from radically different traditions and have developed in historical opposition to each other, for a reason. While there may be cross over, to just say "anarchism" and "Marxism" can unite, fails to understand either of these things.

For a start these two traditions are not homogeneous in and of themselves, let alone for both of them to form a whole. There are various different kinds of anarchism and Marxism, and the variations within both are often in conflict with each other, either at a fundamental ideological level (anarcho-primitivism vs anarchist communism and Maoism and Trotskyism) or at a tactical level (Marxism-Leninism vs autonomous Marxism and anarcho-syndicalism vs insurrectionist anarchism).

Furthermore, the argument over the state, over hierarchy and political organisation are not just small issues, they are substantial disagreements. While there will be some unity in praxis, there is no plausible process in which anarchists and Marxists could unite in a fundamental way -- we probably couldn't even agree on the basic principles of organisation, let alone any thing else.

People really need to get over their moistness for unity. It's unnecessary, impractical, unrealistic and never going to happen. That doesn't equate to anything bad, it simply means that certain revolutionaries operate differently, find unity when they can and do the hard work necessary to push towards radical change in the way they think is successful -- some will be more successful than others, and that is where one makes the decision to choose one group over another.

In any case, unity of organisations or ideology is irrelevant. What is relevant is the unity of the class as a class, and instead of focusing on building organisational or ideological unity, we should be focusing on building class solidarity.

[MarxArchist]

Placing the Marx/Bakunin history aside, and some of Kropotkins comments, today I'm weary of anyone who can't find fault in the Russian Bolshevik path to "socialism" and I'm also weary of anarchists who refuse to admit anarchism, or, advanced communism, simply can't arise in isolation surrounded by capitalism. This fact means any sort of anarchist revolution would be under perpetual attacks not only from 'external' capital but also counterrevolution from within whatever (x)nation/anarchist region. I'm of the opinion in order to abolish capital the state apparatus would be needed to protect worker control of TMOP, to protect any socialistic gains made. It's not like a global revolution will happen all at once. Anarchist theory should be used to make all aware that the state is a dangerous weapon and any attempts to abolish capital and then defend gains made must be as democratic as possible with a focus on worker control. This means a mass movement is necessary. This means somehow proper class consciousness has to develop. Some modern anarchists think this can spontaneously happen. That no sort of guidance or leadership is necessary. Even Bakunin disagreed with that, with his 'vanguard' of people thinking propaganda of the deed would lead the people to communism. These days in lieu of bombs and assassinations it's broken windows/property damage. As an x anarchist I say time is better spent actually connecting with people/the community/work force in scenario's where their material needs are under attack in so exposing the conflict between labor and capital while explaining the system in an accessible manner.

[svenne]

I think my position is a bit the opposite of TAT's one. Anarchism and marxism has a history together, as two different parts of a pretty broad working class movement world wide. While the (often ahistorical) idea of unity is a bit weird and most propably totally useless, the working together of anarchists and marxists has happened several times: both groups have been involved in the same revolutions (at least where anarchism as an organized tendency have existed), and as of today, they often meet and cooperate in struggles. That at least goes with the bigger anarchist and marxist groups, and at least in the western world. And that brings it to another point: the division between the groups was mostly a geographic division - it seems that some countries, because of the different class compositions, took anarchism to the heart (Spain is the most famous example, but there's been big, anarchist or anarchist-influensed, groups in several more countries like the US, Argentine and somewhat surprisingly, Sweden), while others grabbed onto marxism. This is mostly valid until a bit after WWI.

Furthermore, i have a vague feeling TAT's being a bit too historical in his argument. The differences around organization seems more well placed if you use the dominant left-wing, socialist/eurocommunist parties, or the good o'l democratic centralism bullcrap, as the marxist example, while excluding the pretty big activist/autonomist marxist left. While this is a (very) western-centric view of the picture, it's mostly in the western world anarchism is somewhat popular.

While i totally agree with the last two paragraphs of the post, i think you underestimate the role of praxis. The class solidarity, class concsiousness, class whatever, is born out of the struggle of the working class, and i've never seen people put aside all their ideological conflicts as fast as in a picket line (excluding like three people who wanted to sell their worthless party paper, without standing in the picket line). And sure, there are differences about how we look at the state, but that stuff isn't really important when you're in a group with 350 members. When people disagree and refuse to work together because of their differing views of the russian or spanish revolution, it's mostly intellectual masturbation and directly counterproductive. Differences in tactics and strategi on the other side, might warrant... not working together.

Personally, i've got no problem with reading and liking Lenin and doing stuff side by side or in the same organization as anarchists. They party better than the leninists too.

[Skyhilist]

They are different... But not always that different. For example anarchists and council communists (Marxists) don't really have too many differences other than that councilism a would call what they end up with post-revolution to technically be a state, while anarchists would not. And councilism a are also generally opposed to syndicalism. That's about it for very significant differences. In fact, I would argue that some types of anarchy are more similar to libertarian types of Marxism than they are to certain other types of anarchy. They are different though.

[G4b3n]

Being in anarchist, I often see the state in a Marxist context. I see the state as a tool of the ruling class, one that ought to be dismantled in favor of rule by working people, i.e, workers institutions.

I often see historical development through Marxist eyes as well. I would agree that Marxism and Anarchism are very compatible, assuming we are referring to the more orthodox strands of Marxism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Furthermore, i have a vague feeling TAT's being a bit too historical in his argument. The differences around organization seems more well placed if you use the dominant left-wing, socialist/eurocommunist parties, or the good o'l democratic centralism bullcrap, as the marxist example, while excluding the pretty big activist/autonomist marxist left. While this is a (very) western-centric view of the picture, it's mostly in the western world anarchism is somewhat popular.

I don't follow your meaning.


i think you underestimate the role of praxis. The class solidarity, class concsiousness, class whatever, is born out of the struggle of the working class, and i've never seen people put aside all their ideological conflicts as fast as in a picket line

But then, of course, the political issue arises when you consider the individual motivations of the various political organisations. A picket line isn't just a neutral place where revolutionaries come together, they are, when certain Marxists are concerned, a threshold for political control.

[Tim Cornelis]

Marxism and anarchism are not necessarily opposes to one another. In many regards, the difference between Marxism and anarchism can become trivial in practice: both would support workers' councils and other organs of workers' power and participate in them. Both anarchists and Marxists acclaim the Paris Commune, anarchists and Marxists both supported the Bavarian Council Republic and the German revolution, and most Marxists and anarchists are sympathetic to the Zapatistas. These examples indicate that Marxists and anarchists can work together.
Personally, I'm a member of Breakthrough, a political organisation of Marxists and anarchists but ideologically there's hardly a difference. So to that extent, unity between the two is feasible.
Anarchists and Leninists couldn't 'unite' as democratic centralism is contrary to anarchist principles. Marxist-Leninists and Maoists (whom I'd consider bourgeois socialists, not Marxists) and anarchists couldn't unite either for obvious reasons.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Sometimes it seems to me that anarchism is much more an ethics of action and of living than Marxism. To put it in the crudest way possible, anarchists don't believe the means justify the ends. They are more interested in living in a peaceful and communal way wherever that is possible, and criticizing authoritarianism wherever they find it. Whereas Marxism retains a teleology that puts the emphasis on communism in the future, such that they might justify authoritarian practices where they believe "history will absolve me".

Thus Bolsheviks justify the authority of the vanguard party in the absence of a functioning revolutionary soviet, because the party can stand for the establishment of communism, whereas the democratic assembly might contain reactionaries who will jeopardize the struggle. In contrast, anarchists seem to believe in the process of (true, direct) democracy itself above all, and their politics stem from opposition to all those things that would prevent this direct democracy forming (classism, racism, sexism, hierarchy of the party bureaucracy, etc.)

I have sympathy with both ideas. When I think about world communist revolution, I gravitate toward Trotsky; but when I want to know about the ethics of how to interact with my comrades, one-on-one as equals in debate and struggle, then the anarchist critique of the Leninist party seems much more powerful.

So yeh, like username, I'm stuck between the two as well. Or it may be that I'm both anarchist and marxist, and they are compatible beliefs that are really just talking at different 'levels' of analysis: Marxism looks sub specie aeternitatis, at the totality of world history, and anarchism looks at the world from the perspective of the unique individual, his friends, and his community.

[Rafiq]

The synthesis of the red and black was synthaized by the Bolsheviks, who combined the prowess of Marxist theory with the direct, total and radical violence of the anarchists. After all, for the April thesis Lenin was called an anarchist by the socialist bourgeoisie. It is perfection, to be an anarchist to reformists and a statist to anarchists. Lenin used raw violence to seize the day. Marxists only became radical after the second international, but it was Lenin who sealed the deal.


Perhaps then, anarcho liberals a la Chomsky combine the strategic impotence of power and action of second International Marxists with the meek and useless theories of anarchism, the Black and Red unified, if you will, but for all the wrong reasons.

[Akshay!]

In theory, their goals are the same; in practice, they're as different as Marxism and Fascism.

[Taters]

In theory, their goals are the same; in practice, they're as different as Marxism and Fascism.

Man, did you just go zero to Godwin in sixty seconds?


In any case, unity of organisations or ideology is irrelevant. What is relevant is the unity of the class as a class, and instead of focusing on building organisational or ideological unity, we should be focusing on building class solidarity

What does this mean? How is this different from the proletariat organizing a party? And how can it be achieved?

[Fourth Internationalist]

In theory, their goals are the same; in practice, they're as different as Marxism and Fascism.

Did you read my first post where I said, "Do not reply if you don't have anything constructive to say. Or if you're going to be mean. Or flame, troll, and whine."? I wrote that originally because I thought of you.

[MarxArchist]

The synthesis of the red and black was synthaized by the Bolsheviks, who combined the prowess of Marxist theory with the direct, total and radical violence of the anarchists. After all, for the April thesis Lenin was called an anarchist by the socialist bourgeoisie. It is perfection, to be an anarchist to reformists and a statist to anarchists. Lenin used raw violence to seize the day. Marxists only became radical after the second international, but it was Lenin who sealed the deal.



Now you're just antagonizing Anarchists. "Lenin was an Anarchist". Hell, that even bothers me.

[Petrol Bomb]

I agree with The Anarchist Tension. It is much more important to agitate and build class solidarity. Our goals are the same, if we are to take different paths to achieve it, then so be it.

[Rafiq]

Now you're just antagonizing Anarchists. "Lenin was an Anarchist". Hell, that even bothers me.

Lenin was not an anarchist. But bourgeois socialists catagorized him as such because the sheer socially cataclysmic power of the Bolsheviks was beyond the constraints of their ideology, thus they were categorized as a radical other outside the paradigrim of bourgeois ideology. This is, I say, was a good sign. What Marxists can learn from anarchists is embedded not in their theoretical strata, but in their spirit, I.e. Their utterly revolutionary drive for emancipation, their violent ambitions. This is partially what made Lenin unique.

[Rafiq]

So only in that sense was bismark correct. The Red (positive power, dictatorship, discipline etc) and Black (Total violence, negative struggle, uncompromising commitment to the revolution) together compels the enemy to tremble. But to suggest political or strategic unification with anarchist and Marxist organizations is laughable. First a black and red have to exist in order for them to unite. Now we have treacherous eurocommunist trash, irrelevant cool kids clubs, and individualist scum.

Nothing triumphs Marxism. To poison it's theoretical strength with libertarian dribble is pointless. But the anarchist spirit is admirable and acceptable. If I was an anarchist I would be more worried about Chomskyan scum than anything else.

[BIXX]

Man, did you just go zero to Godwin in sixty seconds?

Holy shit you broke my sides. Hahahahahah.


What does this mean? How is this different from the proletariat organizing a party? And how can it be achieved?

The difference is that the party is going for state control, solidarity just implies unity, whether or not they are going for state power. Class solidarity is simply referring to the class unity. There are a number of ways this can be achieved, I can't really say there is only one way to do this.

[Lord Hargreaves]

I agree with The Anarchist Tension. It is much more important to agitate and build class solidarity. Our goals are the same, if we are to take different paths to achieve it, then so be it.

Yes but who doesn't think it is important to "agitate and build class solidarity"?

And it doesn't make sense to contrast building an organisation, with building class solidarity (unless we are dealing with a silly cliche of Leninism or something, that's all I think of).

Again, here there seems to be a personal, psychological need to distinguish the two (anarchism/Marxism) on the basis of pretty much nothing at all.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Marxian economics and libertarianism aren't incompatible.

[Sotionov]

These 14 chapters of the H.3. section here explain it fairly well:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/The_Anarchist_FAQ_Editorial_Collective__An_Anarchi st_FAQ__09_17_.html#toc25

[Point Blank]

“The important, fundamental dissension [between anarchists and Marxists] is [that] ... [Marxist] socialists are authoritarians, anarchists are libertarians."

That's no longer an adequate definition, considering the developments of the council communists, situationists, Autonomists, etc.
And many anarchists draw heavily from Marx's methodological approach, theory of history and critique of capitalism ...

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes but who doesn't think it is important to "agitate and build class solidarity"?

There's a difference between wanting it and actualising it.


And it doesn't make sense to contrast building an organisation, with building class solidarity (unless we are dealing with a silly cliche of Leninism or something, that's all I think of).

Except Marxists often prioritise the building of an organisation over the building of class unity and solidarity.


Again, here there seems to be a personal, psychological need to distinguish the two (anarchism/Marxism) on the basis of pretty much nothing at all.

But the issues over the state, hierarchy and political organisation are not personal or psychological issues.

[The Feral Underclass]

What does this mean? How is this different from the proletariat organizing a party? And how can it be achieved?

I just wrote out a response to you, but then accidentally closed the tab. I can't be bothered to write it again right now, but I will eventually answer your questions.

[Sotionov]

That's no longer an adequate definition, considering the developments of the council communists, situationists, Autonomists, etc.
Exactly.

[Lord Hargreaves]

There's a difference between wanting it and actualising it.

Some groups have done well in building support for the working class, others haven't. To turn it into a binary - Marxists never are good at 'actualising' it, but anarchists are - is absolute nonsense.




Except Marxists often prioritise the building of an organisation over the building of class unity and solidarity.

This is a bit of a strawman though. Yes, insisting on democratic centralism and strict organisational discipline within your fringe revolutionary group of 30 people or whatever is absolute nonsense - and yes, admittedly, this is unfortunately how some Leninists often behave. But is this really a characteristic of Marxism per se? Is it really essential to Marxism as a philosophy?




But the issues over the state, hierarchy and political organisation are not personal or psychological issues.

I think differences here are exaggerated. Yes you can drag up old debates from a century ago on these topics, but in reality Marxists and anarchists today share much common ground here

[Sotionov]

but in reality Marxists and anarchists today share much common ground here
Libertarian marxists, maybe. But if Leninists are taken into consideration, they have neither short-term nor long-term goals in common with anarchism, and also the means to achieve those goals differ, so not only that there is no common ground, they are schools that are fundamentally oppossed to each other.

[The Feral Underclass]

Some groups have done well in building support for the working class, others haven't. To turn it into a binary - Marxists never are good at 'actualising' it, but anarchists are - is absolute nonsense.

This isn't a competition and I'm not being territorial. Contemporary anarchist organisation is pathetic.

But the fact is, political organisation is not the same as or a substitute for class organisation, and ultimately most Marxists believe that the two are the same thing -- they are not.


This is a bit of a strawman though.

I don't understand what you think I'm misrepresenting. Are you telling me that most Marxists don't advocate the building of political, membership organisations that are to be mass in character?


Yes, insisting on democratic centralism and strict organisational discipline within your fringe revolutionary group of 30 people or whatever is absolute nonsense - and yes, admittedly, this is unfortunately how some Leninists often behave.

This has nothing to do with democratic centralism.


But is this really a characteristic of Marxism per se? Is it really essential to Marxism as a philosophy?

Is democratic centralism a characteristic of Marxism or essential to Marxist philosophy? Probably not. But that's not what we're talking about.


I think differences here are exaggerated. Yes you can drag up old debates from a century ago on these topics, but in reality Marxists and anarchists today share much common ground here

But the debates exist today.

Do you think that the arguments over the state, hierarchy and political organisation have disappeared? What do you think is different between now and a century ago? What common ground are you even referring to?

[Lord Hargreaves]

This isn't a competition and I'm not being territorial. Contemporary anarchist organisation is pathetic.

But the fact is, political organisation is not the same as or a substitute for class organisation, and ultimately most Marxists believe that the two are the same thing -- they are not.

Most Marxists believe in building a mass party, yes, but to say they simply equate building a party with "class organisation" (I don't really know what this is supposed to mean?) is false.

And it is increasingly not the case today, which is my point, since mass communist parties are dead. Perhaps you perceive this in this or that group or individual, but I don't see how there is anything specifically Marxist about it.




I don't understand what you think I'm misrepresenting. Are you telling me that most Marxists don't advocate the building of political, membership organisations that are to be mass in character?

Are you saying anarchists don't advocate for mass organisations? The difference would be one of how the leadership structure would work (formal or informal), what the rules of membership would be if any, whether it is centralised or federalised, etc. I don't see this as a fundamental, chasm-wide distinction personally


This has nothing to do with democratic centralism.

Is democratic centralism a characteristic of Marxism or essential to Marxist philosophy? Probably not. But that's not what we're talking about.

See above. I think it is relevant.


But the debates exist today.

Do you think that the arguments over the state, hierarchy and political organisation have disappeared? What do you think is different between now and a century ago? What common ground are you even referring to?

Yes, historically, Leninists have argued (in theory at least) for the abolition of the state, with a brief transition period of semi-state rule. Anarchists instead prefer the immediate abolition of the state. During the practicalities of the Russian revolution this meant a split between the two, though it has been greatly exaggerated by both sides ever since. It means nothing for day-to-day struggle in 2013.

Today? What Marxist has really learned nothing at all about the failures of Bolshevism, remains an unreconstructed Stalinist, and still dismisses concerns about authoritarian state structures as liberal moaning and bleating? That thinks racism, sexism, etc are just bourgeois distractions? And what anarchist has really taken nothing on board from the theoretical advances of Marxist-inspired work and philosophy, critical theory, etc? It terms of Theory and intellectual discourse there has been a massive convergence.

Perhaps I am wildly missing the point, but I don't really see where the debate is anymore? There are still differences but they don't really define the movements

[Sotionov]

What Marxist has really learned nothing at all about the failures of BolshevismAll vanguardists, which remain the majority of the marxists.


but I don't really see where the debate is anymore? Different definitions of class, different definitions of state, different views on how the revolution should be conducted, different views on how the revolutionary movement should be organized, different views on how the post-revolutionary society should be organized.

[The Feral Underclass]

Most Marxists believe in building a mass party, yes, but to say they simply equate building a party with "class organisation" (I don't really know what this is supposed to mean?) is false.

How do you know that they don't equate mass party building with class organisation if you don't know what class organisation means?

When I talk about building class organisation I mean simply the organisation of the class, rather than the organisation of the party. The class is a political force/entity in and of itself. A political party is therefore redundant in that respect.

The objectives of the class are to communise the products of our labour, seize the means of production, dismantle the state and create a transition into communism. In order to achieve these objectives the class has to organise in unity and act in solidarity -- we don't need to be part of a mass political organisation in order to achieve that. We act by ourselves, in our own interests.

Mass political organisations seek to bring the class under a specific set of ideas and to unify under some prescriptive party programme, usually of some bullshit transitional demands. The party maintains a leadership that seeks to take control of the state, or at the very least, lead the workers through the stages of revolution, always representing them or even substituting them.


And it is increasingly not the case today, which is my point, since mass communist parties are dead. Perhaps you perceive this in this or that group or individual, but I don't see how there is anything specifically Marxist about it.

So your argument is that modern day Marxists aren't really Marxists? I am happy to agree with that position, if indeed it is your position. If you're trying to argue that the idea of "mass organisations" and a "political leadership" are not inherently Marxist ideas, then I will be more than willing to accept that.


Are you saying anarchists don't advocate for mass organisations?

No, I'm not saying that.


The difference would be one of how the leadership structure would work (formal or informal), what the rules of membership would be if any, whether it is centralised or federalised, etc. I don't see this as a fundamental, chasm-wide distinction personally

None of these things are relevant. What difference does it make to the building of class unity and solidarity what the membership arrangements of a political organisation are? Is our objective to make every worker a communist or an anarchist? If so, why?

Political organisations are useful insofar as they provide an arena for militants to organise amongst themselves, formulate strategy and tactics, provide support and resources and be a place to educate each other. As an organ of political expedience, they serve no real purpose to the class, other than being an entity for the propagation of radical ideas and praxis.

Of course militants must intervene in struggle and to provide the basis for understanding the nature of those struggles and the methods to fight them, always with the end view of seeking to escalate. But the political control, the political power comes through the class, organised as a body acting for itself -- and the class can do that by itself. It doesn't need to join an organisation.

Seeking to formulate a political organisation for the benefit of bringing in the class impedes the class to achieve those ends. It obfuscates the reality of the power of the class to act for itself and is ultimately a distraction for militants, who misplace their focus on "membership" and other such nonsense.


Yes, historically, Leninists have argued (in theory at least) for the abolition of the state, with a brief transition period of semi-state rule. Anarchists instead prefer the immediate abolition of the state. During the practicalities of the Russian revolution this meant a split between the two, though it has been greatly exaggerated by both sides ever since. It means nothing for day-to-day struggle in 2013.

I just do not accept this analysis at all. The struggle was not exaggerated. Hundreds of anarchists were imprisoned and murdered by the Cheka for their disagreements and the Ukrainian revolution, as well as the Kronstadt rebellion were both violently put down -- the organisation of the Free Territories was brutally dismantled by the Bolsheviks based on these very disagreements.

It's just blatantly absurd, as well as offensive, to trivialise these historical differences as not really being a big deal -- Try telling that to the countless anarchists who died fighting the Lenin's state


Today? What Marxist has really learned nothing at all about the
failures of Bolshevism, remains an unreconstructed Stalinist, and still dismisses concerns about authoritarian state structures as liberal moaning and bleating? That thinks racism, sexism, etc are just bourgeois distractions? And what anarchist has really taken nothing on board from the theoretical advances of Marxist-inspired work and philosophy, critical theory, etc? It terms of Theory and intellectual discourse there has been a massive convergence.

Any fundamental use of Marx's thought was brought into the fold of anarchism back when Bakunin was alive and was celebrating Marx for his theories. The "convergence" of anarchism and Marxism has already occurred -- that doesn't relieve the very real differences that pervade today.


Perhaps I am wildly missing the point, but I don't really see where the debate is anymore? There are still differences but they don't really define the movements

Unless Marxists want to agree with our definition of the state and authoritarianism, and wish to advocate the immediate dismantling of the bourgeois state and the decentralisation of political power, as well as rejecting hierarchy, parliamentarism, representationism, trade unionism and mass party building, there is no possibility of "unity."

[The Feral Underclass]

In any case, unity of organisations or ideology is irrelevant. What is relevant is the unity of the class as a class, and instead of focusing on building organisational or ideological unity, we should be focusing on building class solidarityWhat does this mean?

I mean that the class is a political entity in and of itself. It is already a "mass." It doesn't require the joining of a political organisation in order to form itself into a political force.

What the class needs to do is unify under its revolutionary objectives and struggle in solidarity with each other. The political organisation comes into use at the point of struggle in order to offer the basis and understanding for those struggles and provide ideas and methods to escalate them.


How is this different from the proletariat organizing a party?

A mass political party seeks to control and lead the proletariat under a specific set of ideas and within a specific, prescriptive party programme, usually of transitional demands.

What I am saying is that the political programme of the working class is their liberation -- the stages of which are the communisation of the products of their labour, the seizure of the means of production, the dismantling of the state and a transition into communism.

Party organisation and class organisation are different in that one is about organising a political organisation outside and above the class and class organisation is simply about the class organising itself as a political force.


And how can it be achieved?

This is the question, isn't it?

At the very least it must be achieved through minority political organisations who seek to organise at the social and political level (http://libcom.org/blog/specifism-explained-social-political-level-organisational-dualism-anarchist-organisation-09), intervene in struggles in order to escalate them, and which holds a political line that does not seek to represent, substitute or compromise the objectives of the class to achieve its liberation.

[Tim Cornelis]

Libertarian marxists, maybe. But if Leninists are taken into consideration, they have neither short-term nor long-term goals in common with anarchism, and also the means to achieve those goals differ, so not only that there is no common ground, they are schools that are fundamentally oppossed to each other.

The difference between Leninists and anarchists is smaller than one might think. "All power to the soviets" is essentially the mantra of both Leninists and anarchists. The problem arises with a diverging mentality regarding problems faced by the social transformation, as we've seen with War Communism.
A problem further would be the Marxist-Leninists whom I'd consider neither Leninist nor Marxist, which is incompatible with anarchism (or Marxism for that matter). Trotskyists, likewise, have a tendency of electoral reformism and semi-populism.
However, the base of Leninism and Marxism: advocacy of a workers' state managed through soviets from below is not by definition incompatible with anarchism.


All vanguardists, which remain the majority of the marxists.

Different definitions of class, different definitions of state, different views on how the revolution should be conducted, different views on how the revolutionary movement should be organized, different views on how the post-revolutionary society should be organized.

In practice anarchists and Marxists will closer approximate one another than is the case today. Both, but particularly anarchists, will adopt a more pragmatic position and will not sacrifice effectiveness, efficiency, and the gains and interests of the revolutions on the altar of political principle. We've seen this in all and every revolution anarchists have partaken in. What it boils down to is the acceptance of the sovereignty of the organs of workers' power. If both Marxists and anarchists accept self-emancipation and understand this to mean the formation of workers' associations to manage production, workers' councils for 'political' decision-making and regional coordination, mandated and recallable delegates to execute decisions made by workers' associations and soviets, then anarchism and Marxism are compatible at crucial moments.

Whether we call these workers' associations and workers' councils a state or not is semantics and is not relevant to praxis. The view of a post-revolutionary society is likewise identical.


Unless Marxists want to agree with our definition of the state and authoritarianism, and wish to advocate the immediate dismantling of the bourgeois state and the decentralisation of political power, as well as rejecting hierarchy, parliamentarism, representationism, trade unionism and mass party building, there is no possibility of "unity."

Decentralisation insofar it regards the ultimate decision-making power resting with the lowest organ of workers' power, centralisation insofar these decisions are executed in coherent coordination with other organs of workers' power (decisions taken at the lowest level -- decentralisation -- executed at the highest relevant level -- centralisation). I don't, however, see why Marxists should not want to build a 'mass party', my conception of a communist party is one that's big enough, but I imagine the goal of anarchists is likewise creating a mass movement.

[Sotionov]

The difference between Leninists and anarchists is smaller than one might think. "All power to the soviets" is essentially the mantra of both Leninists and anarchists.Yes, both call themselves socialist. They are both into politics. Both groups are human. Yes, virtually no difference at all. Except for the totally different views on how to organize the revolutionary movement and the post-revolutionary society.


Both, but particularly anarchists, will adopt a more pragmatic position and will not sacrifice effectiveness, efficiency, and the gains and interests of the revolutions on the altar of political principle. We've seen this in all and every revolution anarchists have partaken in. What it boils down to is the acceptance of the sovereignty of the organs of workers' power. Then they're not anarchists in as much they see anarchism an ineffective and accept hierarchy.


If both Marxists and anarchists accept self-emancipationVanguardism being antithetical to self-emancipation, and vanguardists being the majority of marxists, I don't see that as probable.


and understand this to mean the formation of workers' associations to manage production..and reject the notion of electing someone to manage production, or electing someone in the party so he can point someone to manage production.


workers' councils for 'political' decision-making and regional coordination, mandated and recallable delegates to execute decisions made by workers' associations and soviets
Plebiscites for political decision-making, and imperative mandate delegates (or, being that that's just a fancy word for messengers, we could just use internet instead) for large-scale coordination.


then anarchism and Marxism are compatible at crucial moments."Then" is most likely to be never.

[Hit The North]

At the very least it must be achieved through minority political organisations who seek to organise at the social and political level (http://libcom.org/blog/specifism-explained-social-political-level-organisational-dualism-anarchist-organisation-09), intervene in struggles in order to escalate them, and which holds a political line that does not seek to represent, substitute or compromise the objectives of the class to achieve its liberation.

That sounds like a very Marxist definition of political agitation to me.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes, both call themselves socialist. They are both into politics. Both groups are human. Yes, virtually no difference at all. Except for the totally different views on how to organize the revolutionary and the post-revolutionary society.

Post-revolutionary society of anarchism: stateless, classless, moneyless.
Post-revolutionary society of communism: stateless, classless, moneyless.


Then they're not anarchists in as much they see anarchism an ineffective and accept hierarchy.

Then has there ever been an anarchist alive at all? The Free Territory wasn't anarchistic, the CNT wasn't anarchist, Gustav Landauer wasn't anarchist, who was really? It's not about hierarchy, it's about workers' power. If the organs of workers' power possess the ultimate decision-making power then whatever hierarchy exists is not imposed on them from above, but grows from below and is allowed to exist by virtue of the workers allowing it to exist. If it behaves contrary to their wishes, they can override it. So some hierarchy will inevitably permeate into revolutionary institutions and anarchists will accept this, as they've done in every single crucial period so far.


Vanguardism being antithetical to self-emancipation, and vanguardists being the majority of marxists, I don't see that as probable.

Platformists also explicitly accept vanguardism, and most anarchists do implicitly. A vanguard party has a leading role. As I imagine the vanguard party: a union of communist revolutionaries that agitate within organs of workers' power to keep it on an emancipatory and revolutionary path and to steer it away from reformism, co-option, and bourgeois tendencies. Surely, anarchists agree with this? They intend to work within the working class and their institutions to win them over to a revolutionary position?


..and reject the notion of electing someone to manage production, or electing someone in the party so he can point someone to manage production. Marxists are just eager to accept that, they're all rushing to say they're anti-leninist to wash themselves of their previous folly.

The most important question is workers' power, do they possess the ultimate decision-making power or not? If Marxists accept this, and there are plenty who do, then this is compatible with anarchism. You can't really argue someone like, say, Gilles Dauvé would advocate what you just described. Quite the contrary, such left-communists/Marxists argue vehemently in favour of a complete and utter overhaul of capitalist relations.

[The Feral Underclass]

That sounds like a very Marxist definition of political agitation to me.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

That's fine with me. You should try telling that to the Marxists.

EDIT: Of course, they're not the same thing though.

[Sotionov]

Post-revolutionary society of communism: stateless, classless
Anarchists and Leninists don't have the same definitions of state and class.


The Free Territory wasn't anarchistic, the CNT wasn't anarchist, Gustav Landauer wasn't anarchist
I'm pretty sure the Free Territory was non-hierarchical, as well as the CNT territories, and AFAIK Landauer was vehemently against any hierarchy.


It's not about hierarchy, it's about workers' power.
If there is hierarchy, then workers don't have the power, that's the very core of hierarchy- those in the upper strata have power over those in the lower strate, if they don't have any power over them, then that's not a hierarchy.


If the organs of workers' power possess the ultimate decision-making power then whatever hierarchy exists is not imposed on them from above, but grows from below and is allowed to exist by virtue of the workers allowing it to exist.
Voluntary hierarchy is still a hierarchy, voluntariness alone is a defence of capitalism, in fact the ideology that "anarcho"-capitalists promote is voluntaryism. Voluntariness is not enough, anarchy (absence of hierarchy) is neccessary, because no one is free if they have a superior- a master over themselves, and it doesn't matter if they elected him or not, voluntary servitude is still servitude.


So some hierarchy will inevitably permeate into revolutionary institutions and anarchists will accept this
And they will thereby stop being anarchist.


Platformists also explicitly accept vanguardism, and most anarchists do implicitly.
If they do, that makes them non-anarchist. But I'm pretty sure they don't.


A vanguard party has a leading role. As I imagine the vanguard party: a union of communist revolutionaries that agitate
That's agitation, not vanguardism, vanguardism means hierarchical relations between the vanguard and the plebs. If a "vanguard" is not to have a hierarchical but an agitational role, then that's anarchism or council communism, and explicitly anti-vanguardist and anti-leninist.


do they possess the ultimate decision-making power or not?
Decision-making power that is ultimate is the one that is direct, implying horizontal organization.

[Lord Hargreaves]

How do you know that they don't equate mass party building with class organisation if you don't know what class organisation means?

I assumed it was a collective term for all forms of organisation, agitation, propaganda, etc - but yes, I also got the feeling you were using it in a specific way that I didn't understand


When I talk about building class organisation I mean simply the organisation of the class, rather than the organisation of the party. The class is a political force/entity in and of itself. A political party is therefore redundant in that respect.

I think this is a kind of metaphysics that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. How can the whole class act as one - millions and millions of people across the world? We are almost talking in terms of a Hegelian supra-historical subject that 'actualizes' itself to complete its teleological role in completing history (a class in and for itself!) It is more Lukacs than Kropotkin. It is not sociology at all. Do you have a way of expressing this idea in any more concrete form? (I suspect not)

If class is a relation to the means of production (Marxism), a relation of one's power to sell in the market (Weber), a sheer determinant of income, a product of culture and national history, a matter of profession, etc. how can it possibly follow that there "Is" just a working class that walks and talks as one?

The point about the vanguard is that even within the working classes (I always use the plural, for the above reasons) there will be revolutionaries, alongside deeply reactionary elements, and all sorts of political currents in-between. Since what it means to be working class is wildly different depending on who you are, this is inevitable. Thus there is the need for communists to group together to advocate for political struggle and revolution.

So, it is not that the working class acts as a preexisting subject to put itself together or actualize itself. It is that "the working class" as political actor is something that has to be built from scratch: it is a hegemonic product of political struggle. It is holding the former that allows you to ignore the practicalities of organisation entirely.

To my mind then, the difference between Marxism and anarchism (as we would traditionally think of it) is that the former thinks of the vanguard as a party structure, and anarchists thinks of the vanguard informally as just "us anarchists" - people they agree with, trust and feel solidarity with, whatever their organisation or none at all. It isn't a crucial distinction to the conceptual understanding of revolution itself.



The objectives of the class are to communise the products of our labour, seize the means of production, dismantle the state and create a transition into communism. In order to achieve these objectives the class has to organise in unity and act in solidarity -- we don't need to be part of a mass political organisation in order to achieve that. We act by ourselves, in our own interests.

No Marxist would disagree with any of the above


Mass political organisations seek to bring the class under a specific set of ideas and to unify under some prescriptive party programme, usually of some bullshit transitional demands. The party maintains a leadership that seeks to take control of the state, or at the very least, lead the workers through the stages of revolution, always representing them or even substituting them.

I'm trying to get at your position by reversing all of the above, but it doesn't make sense. Anarchists don't want to see certain ideas flourish? They don't want a form of organisation to defend the revolution? :confused:

The Leninist point is that the revolution needs a dual structure - the party on the one hand, which is strictly communist - and the soviet on the other, which is the democratic assembly that actually has political power, but contains all sorts of political ideas and interests. So in that sense it is false to say that Marxists think the party maintains a leadership that seeks to take control of the state.

In contrast, the anarchist argument was (traditionally) that this theory would inevitably lead to authoritarianism, despite intentions, or that there were suspect tendencies of thought within Leninism pre-1914 that were never fully expunged and came back into play during the revolution.

But my argument is that most Marxists and anarchists nowadays understand each other much better than they did, are less willing to put up with silly caricatures of each other's position, and realise that they actually share much in common. Marxists-Leninists better understand the problems of their conceptions, and anarchists better respect at least the intentions of Leninists because they struggle with them side-by-side every day.

(Where there might remain an important difference is where Marxists still want to build up the means of production to defend the revolution, and feel that labour discipline is the best way to achieve this in the short term. Anarchists can disagree)



So your argument is that modern day Marxists aren't really Marxists? I am happy to agree with that position, if indeed it is your position. If you're trying to argue that the idea of "mass organisations" and a "political leadership" are not inherently Marxist ideas, then I will be more than willing to accept that.

LOL well you could make that argument. I'm simply saying that your hackneyed caricature of Lenin is not Marxism.



None of these things are relevant. What difference does it make to the building of class unity and solidarity what the membership arrangements of a political organisation are? Is our objective to make every worker a communist or an anarchist? If so, why?

Idiotic. Both Marxists and anarchists are communists.


Political organisations are useful insofar as they provide an arena for militants to organise amongst themselves, formulate strategy and tactics, provide support and resources and be a place to educate each other. As an organ of political expedience, they serve no real purpose to the class, other than being an entity for the propagation of radical ideas and praxis.

Of course militants must intervene in struggle and to provide the basis for understanding the nature of those struggles and the methods to fight them, always with the end view of seeking to escalate. But the political control, the political power comes through the class, organised as a body acting for itself -- and the class can do that by itself. It doesn't need to join an organisation.

Seeking to formulate a political organisation for the benefit of bringing in the class impedes the class to achieve those ends. It obfuscates the reality of the power of the class to act for itself and is ultimately a distraction for militants, who misplace their focus on "membership" and other such nonsense.

I address all this above. Organizing "as a class" without a form is meaningless. Organisation takes this or that form, whether it is rule-following or informal, a hierarchical party structure or a peer group, a newspaper selling group or a mailing list, a system of voting for candidates or a black bloc, etc.

Marxists traditionally look to building a party, and anarchists traditionally look to building a network of activists... but when pressed, Marxists have no problem with you building a network, and anarchists have no problem with the idea of a party per se (as long as it is not hierarchical etc., which is why i keep going on about this). There just isn't that huge difference you claim there to be.




I just do not accept this analysis at all. The struggle was not exaggerated. Hundreds of anarchists were imprisoned and murdered by the Cheka for their disagreements and the Ukrainian revolution, as well as the Kronstadt rebellion were both violently put down -- the organisation of the Free Territories was brutally dismantled by the Bolsheviks based on these very disagreements.

It's just blatantly absurd, as well as offensive, to trivialise these historical differences as not really being a big deal -- Try telling that to the countless anarchists who died fighting the Lenin's state

Just because the USSR killed its opponents doesn't necessarily mean there was a fundamental disagreement between them. In a sense, that arbitrariness is a defining nature of totalitarianism.

And my point would be that if we still debate these things endlessly today, it means that we miss the real convergence that exists today in 2013.




Unless Marxists want to agree with our definition of the state and authoritarianism, and wish to advocate the immediate dismantling of the bourgeois state and the decentralisation of political power, as well as rejecting hierarchy, parliamentarism, representationism, trade unionism and mass party building, there is no possibility of "unity."

They do reject most of this. Marxists may have some time for trade unionism, but then so do anarcho-syndicalists. Marxists may want to build a mass party, but anarchists may have some time for similar organisations themselves (what else is federalism but an acknowledgement of the need for some sort of way of organising small groups together?)

[Lord Hargreaves]

Voluntary hierarchy is still a hierarchy, voluntariness alone is a defence of capitalism, in fact the ideology that "anarcho"-capitalists promote is voluntaryism. Voluntariness is not enough, anarchy (absence of hierarchy) is neccessary, because no one is free if they have a superior- a master over themselves, and it doesn't matter if they elected him or not, voluntary servitude is still servitude.

Forms of hierarchy will always exist. The point is that:

1) the state and capitalism are historically specific forms that can be abolished through struggle (and more intransigent forms of hierarchy, like patriarchy and racism, are also historically specific to a some extent)

2) there is a question of whether to formalize hierarchy in a ruler-ruled system, or whether to insist that it never should be

3) forms of hierarchy are always suspect, and should always be fought against, even if their complete elimination is impossible (ruler>ruled,, parent>child relations, teacher>pupil, expert>layman, charismatic person able to persuade>someone with poor social skills, human>animal, etc. etc)

[The Feral Underclass]

I think this is a kind of metaphysics that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. How can the whole class act as one - millions and millions of people across the world? We are almost talking in terms of a Hegelian supra-historical subject that 'actualizes' itself to complete its teleological role in completing history (a class in and for itself!) It is more Lukacs than Kropotkin. It is not sociology at all. Do you have a way of expressing this idea in any more concrete form? (I suspect not)

I have no idea what you mean by "acting as one"? Also, I didn't say "a class in and of itself" I said a political force/entity, in and of itself...Do you understand what the idiom "in and of itself (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+and+of+itself)" means?


If class is a relation to the means of production (Marxism), a relation of one's power to sell in the market (Weber), a sheer determinant of income, a product of culture and national history, a matter of profession, etc. how can it possibly follow that there "Is" just a working class that walks and talks as one?

This relates in no way to what I have said.


The point about the vanguard is that even within the working classes (I always use the plural, for the above reasons) there will be revolutionaries, alongside deeply reactionary elements, and all sorts of political currents in-between. Since what it means to be working class is wildly different depending on who you are, this is inevitable. Thus there is the need for communists to group together to advocate for political struggle and revolution.

The class is a political force in and of itself, and the only force that can establish a communist society. The fact that elements of the class will be "deeply reactionary" doesn't alter that fact.

Yes, there is a need for communists to group together and advocate political struggle and revolution, I have never denied that.


So, it is not that the working class acts as a preexisting subject to put itself together or actualize itself. It is that "the working class" as political actor is something that has to be built from scratch: it is a hegemonic product of political struggle. It is holding the former that allows you to ignore the practicalities of organisation entirely.

Struggle and unrest occurs irrespective of communists. The proletariat fight for their interests against the bourgeoisie on a daily basis, irrespective of political organisation.

If by "build from scratch," you mean "give form and meaning to struggle", then we are in agreement. If you mean something else then we are not.


To my mind then, the difference between Marxism and anarchism (as we would traditionally think of it) is that the former thinks of the vanguard as a party structure, and anarchists thinks of the vanguard informally as just "us anarchists" - people they agree with, trust and feel solidarity with, whatever their organisation or none at all. It isn't a crucial distinction to the conceptual understanding of revolution itself.

The differences between Marxism and anarchism don't simply relate to the vanguard.


No Marxist would disagree with any of the above

Then we agree that mass political organisations are irrelevant.


I'm trying to get at your position by reversing all of the above, but it doesn't make sense. Anarchists don't want to see certain ideas flourish? They don't want a form of organisation to defend the revolution? :confused:

The only ideas and form of organisation I want to see flourish is the idea that the proletariat can act in its own interests and organise themselves autonomously (i.e. free from political control), to communise the products of their labour, seize the means of production, dismantle the state and create a transition to communism.


The Leninist point is that the revolution needs a dual structure - the party on the one hand, which is strictly communist - and the soviet on the other, which is the democratic assembly that actually has political power, but contains all sorts of political ideas and interests. So in that sense it is false to say that Marxists think the party maintains a leadership that seeks to take control of the state.

And the actualisation of the political party and the Soviet was political domination over the class.


In contrast, the anarchist argument was (traditionally) that this theory would inevitably lead to authoritarianism, despite intentions, or that there were suspect tendencies of thought within Leninism pre-1914 that were never fully expunged and came back into play during the revolution.

That is more or less still the anarchist position.


But my argument is that most Marxists and anarchists nowadays understand each other much better than they did, are less willing to put up with silly caricatures of each other's position, and realise that they actually share much in common. Marxists-Leninists better understand the problems of their conceptions, and anarchists better respect at least the intentions of Leninists because they struggle with them side-by-side every day.

I have no idea what planet you are living on, but I am living on planet Earth, specifically in the UK, where most Marxist continue to seek political control over working class struggle and most anarchists oppose them.


LOL well you could make that argument. I'm simply saying that your hackneyed caricature of Lenin is not Marxism.

I was asking you a question. I have made no caricature of Lenin, I have simply objected to the idea of mass political organisation and explained why most Marxists and anarchists cannot find any unity.

You are the one that introduced democratic centralism and the vanguard into this discussion.


Idiotic. Both Marxists and anarchists are communists.

I can't tell if you're joking...Erm, that's neither here nor there, really.

I will post again what I said, with the word anarchist removed, just so you don't get confused:


None of these things are relevant. What difference does it make to the building of class unity and solidarity what the membership arrangements of a political organisation are? Is our objective to make every worker a communist? If so, why?

^Feel free to respond to my actual point.


Organizing "as a class" without a form is meaningless.

I agree.


Organisation takes this or that form, whether it is rule-following or informal, a hierarchical party structure or a peer group, a newspaper selling group or a mailing list, a system of voting for candidates or a black bloc, etc.

I haven't denied that.


Marxists traditionally look to building a party, and anarchists traditionally look to building a network of activists...

That's not what anarchists traditionally do in the slightest. Anarchist communists have traditionally sought to build minority/mass political organisations and anarcho-syndicalists have aimed to build mass unions.

Insurrectionist anarchists and anti-organisationalist anarchists have operated in this manner...


but when pressed, Marxists have no problem with you building a network, and anarchists have no problem with the idea of a party per se (as long as it is not hierarchical etc., which is why i keep going on about this). There just isn't that huge difference you claim there to be.

Yet here I am, an anarchist, telling you that I disagree. I can wager that my comrades would disagree also. I have a very big problem with Marxists "building the party," just as I have objections with anarchists who want to build mass organisation.


Just because the USSR killed its opponents doesn't necessarily mean there was a fundamental disagreement between them.

There are literally no words that I could find adequate enough to articulate my confusion and contempt for this sentence (http://www.louiekeen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Are-You-Stupid1.jpg).


And my point would be that if we still debate these things endlessly today, it means that we miss the real convergence that exists today in 2013.

There is no convergence between anarchists and most people calling themselves Marxists. Feel free to approach anarchist organisations and see what response you get.


They do reject most of this. Marxists may have some time for trade unionism, but then so do anarcho-syndicalists. Marxists may want to build a mass party, but anarchists may have some time for similar organisations themselves (what else is federalism but an acknowledgement of the need for some sort of way of organising small groups together?)

Well, good to luck to you.

[Sotionov]

Forms of hierarchy will always exist.
Hierarchical relations among people are far from neccessary, a lot of today's everyday relations we have is horizontalist, e.g. among family, friends, lovers, coop colleagues.


2) there is a question of whether to formalize hierarchy in a ruler-ruled system, or whether to insist that it never should be
If hierarchy is not a problem, then I don't see the point in fighting against capitalism, it can be just reshaped to allow some level of welfare. Oh wait, that's what vanguardists want :D


even if their complete elimination is impossible (ruler>ruled,, parent>child relations,
Parent child relation is a relation between someone with and someone without natural, and thus legal capacity, likewise, a mild form of hierarchy is legimitimate, likewise for the mentally impaired and animals. Hierarchy between people with capacity is the one that is illegitimate, and those with capacity and those without it cannot be equated.


teacher>pupil,
Escuela moderna.


expert>layman, charismatic person able to persuade>someone with poor social skills
They can be non-hierarchical leaders, and everything can function just fine without establishment of hierarchical relations.

[Tim Cornelis]

Anarchists and Leninists don't have the same definitions of state and class.

What Leninists consider a state, anarchists might not. However, both agree with the same definition of statelessness: a society based upon the free association of individuals and producers. The aim is identical.


I'm pretty sure the Free Territory was non-hierarchical, as well as the CNT territories, and AFAIK Landauer was vehemently against any hierarchy.

All wrong. The Free Territory's Black Army functioned on paper based on democratic centralism: top-down but democratic. Soviets had chairmen, and communes were initiated from above (which is dubious, if not hierarchical). Makhno himself was chairman of the Peasant Union, various local soviets, and workers' unions.
The CNT in some factories imposed harsh discipline contrary to workers' self-management, not to mention executions of unarmed people.*
Landauer adopted a hierarchical position in the Bavarian Council Republic.

*Citing wikipedia:


Michael Seidman has suggested there were other contradictions with workers' self-management during the Spanish Revolution. He points out that the CNT decided both that workers could be sacked for 'laziness or immorality' and also that all workers should 'have a file where the details of their professional and social personalities will be registered.'[15] He also notes that the CNT Justice Minister, García Oliver, initiated the setting up of 'labour camps'[16] and that even the most principled anarchists, the Friends of Durutti, advocated 'forced labour'.[17]

Such policies obviously contradict the basic principles of anarchism. Yet, anarchist authors have sometimes understated the problems of workers' self-management in the Spanish Revolution. For example, while Gaston Leval does admit that the collectives imposed a 'work discipline' that was 'more strict' than that of the former capitalist owners, he then restricts this comment to a mere footnote.[18] Other radical commentators, however, have incorporated the limitations of the Spanish Revolution into their theories of anti-capitalist revolution. Gilles Dauvé, for example, uses the Spanish experience to argue that to transcend capitalism, workers must completely abolish both wage labour and capital rather than just self-manage them


If there is hierarchy, then workers don't have the power, that's the very core of hierarchy- those in the upper strata have power over those in the lower strate, if they don't have any power over them, then that's not a hierarchy.

If the workers have the power to make all decisions, but in some regards do not utilise that power and choose to mandate this to a secretary of sorts, ultimate decision-making power rests with the workers but they do not make use of it for whatever reason. In such a scenario I'd say it's fair to speak of hierarchy, but it's not something I'd necessarily oppose.


Voluntary hierarchy is still a hierarchy, voluntariness alone is a defence of capitalism, in fact the ideology that "anarcho"-capitalists promote is voluntaryism. Voluntariness is not enough, anarchy (absence of hierarchy) is neccessary, because no one is free if they have a superior- a master over themselves, and it doesn't matter if they elected him or not, voluntary servitude is still servitude.

"Anarcho"-capitalists fail to recognise the inequality of bargaining power, voluntary hierarchy is only nominally voluntary.


And they will thereby stop being anarchist.

If they do, that makes them non-anarchist. But I'm pretty sure they don't.

http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/mlc4.html


Relations Between the Masses and the Revolutionary Vanguard


We have seen, with regard to the problem of the programme, what our general idea is of the relation between the oppressed class and the revolutionary Organisation defined by a programme (that is, the party in the true sense of the word). But we can't just say 'class before party' and leave it at that. We must expand on this, explain how the active minority, the revolutionary vanguard, is necessary without it becoming a military-type leadership, a dictatorship over the masses. In other words, we must show that the anarchist idea of the active minority is in no way elitist, oligarchical or hierarchical.

(1) The Need for a Vanguard

There is an idea which says that the spontaneous initiative of the masses is enough for every revolutionary possibility.

It's true that history shows us some events that we can regard as spontaneous mass advances, and these events are precious because they show the abilities and resources of the masses. But that doesn't lead at all to a general concept of spontaneity - this would be fatalistic. Such a myth leads to populist demagogy and justification of unprincipled rebellism; it can be reactionary and end in a wait-and-see policy and compromise.

Opposed to this we find a purely voluntarist idea which gives the revolutionary initiative only to the vanguard Organisation. Such an idea leads to a pessimistic evaluation of the role of the masses, to an aristocratic contempt for their political ability to concealed direction of revolutionary activity and so to defeat. This idea in fact contains the germ of bureaucratic and Statist counter-revolution.

Close to the spontaneist idea we can see a theory according to which mass organisations, unions for example, are not only sufficient for themselves but suffice for everything. This idea, which calls itself totally antipolitical, is in fact an economistic concept which is often expressed as 'pure syndicalism'. But we would point out that if the theory wants to hold good then its supporters must refrain from formulating any programme, any final statement. Otherwise they will be constituting an ideological Organisation, in however small a way, or forming a leadership sanctioning a given orientation. So this theory is only coherent if it limits itself to a socially neutral understanding of social problems, to empiricism.

Equally removed from spontaneism, empiricism and voluntarism we stress the need for a specific revolutionary anarchist Organisation, understood as the conscious and active vanguard of the people.

The Nature of the Role of the Revolutionary Vanguard

The revolutionary vanguard certainly exercises a guiding and leading role in relations to the movement of the masses. Arguments about this seem pointless to us as what other use could a revolutionary Organisation have? Its very existence attests to its leading, guiding character. The real questions is to know how this role is to be understood, what meaning we give to the word 'leading'.

The revolutionary Organisation tends to be created from the fact that the most conscious workers feel its necessity when confronted by the unequal progress and inadequate cohesion of the masses. What must be made clear is that the revolutionary Organisation should not constitute a power over the masses. its role as guide should be thought of as being to formulate and express an ideological orientation, both organisational and tactical - an orientation specified, elaborated and adapted on the basis of the experiences and desires of the masses. In this way the organisation's directives are not orders from outside but rather the mirrored expression of the general aspirations of the people. Since the directing function of the revolutionary Organisation cannot possibly be coercive it can only be revealed by its trying to get its ideas across successfully, by its giving the mass of the people a thorough knowledge of its theoretical principles and the main lines of its tactics. It is a struggle through ideas and through example. And if it's not forgotten that the programme of the revolutionary Organisation, the path and the means that it shows, reflect the experiences and desires of the masses - that the organised vanguard is basically the mirror of the exploited class - then it's clear that leading is not dictating but coordinated orientation, that on the contrary it opposes any bureaucratic manipulation of the masses, military style discipline or unthinking obedience.

The vanguard must set itself the task of developing the direct political responsibility of the masses, it must aim to increase the masses ability to organise themselves. So this concept of leadership is both natural and raises awareness. In the same way the better prepared, more mature militants inside the Organisation have the role of guide and educator to other members, so that all may become well informed and alert in both the theoretical and the practical field, so that all may become animators in their turn.

The organised minority is the vanguard of a larger army and takes its reason for being from that army - the masses. If the active minority, the vanguard, breaks away from the mass then it can no longer carry out its proper function and it becomes a clique or a tribe.

In the final analysis the revolutionary minority can only be the servant of the oppressed. It has enormous responsibilities but no privileges.

Another feature of the revolutionary organisation's character is its permanence: there are times when it embodies and expresses a majority, which in turn tends to recognise itself in the active minority, but there are also periods of retreat when the revolutionary minority is no more than a ship in a storm. Then it must hold out so that it can quickly regain its audience - the masses - as soon as circumstances become favourable again. Even when isolated and cut off from its popular bases it acts according to the constants of the peoples desires, holding onto its programme despite all difficulties. It may even be led to certain isolated acts intended to awaken the masses (acts of violence against specific targets, insurrections). The difficulty then is to avoid cutting yourself off from reality and becoming a sect or an authoritarian, military-type leadership - to avoid wasting away while living on dreams or trying to act without being understood, driven on or followed by the mass of the people.

To prevent such degeneration the minority must maintain contact with events and with the milieu of the exploited - it must look out for the smallest reactions, the smallest revolts or achievements, study contemporary society in minute detail for its contradictions, weaknesses and possibilities for change. In his way, since the minority takes part in all forms of resistance and action which can range with events from demands to sabotage, from secret resistance o open revolt) it keeps the chance of guiding and developing even the smallest disturbances.

By striving to maintain, or acquire, a wide general vision of social events and their development, by adapting its tactics to the conditions of the day, by being on its guard - in this way the minority stays true to its mission and voids the risk of trailing after events, of becoming a mere spectacle outside of and stranger to the proletariat, of being bypassed by it. It (the minority) avoids confusing abstract reckonings and schemes for the true desires of the proletariat. It sticks to its programme but adapts it and corrects its errors in the light of events.

Whatever the circumstances the minority must never forget that its final aim is to disappear in becoming identical with the masses when they reach their highest level of consciousness in achieving the revolution.

(III) In What Forms Can The Revolutionary Vanguard Play Its Role

In practise there are two ways in which the revolutionary Organisation can influence the masses: there is work in established mass organisations and there is the work of direct propaganda. This second sort of activity takes place through papers and magazines, campaigns of demands and agitation, cultural debates, solidarity actions, demonstrations, conferences and public meetings. This direct work, which can sometimes be done through activities organised by others, is essential for gaining strength and for reaching certain sections of public opinion which are otherwise inaccessible. It's of the utmost importance in both workplace and community. But this sort of work doesn't pose the problem of knowing how 'direction' can avoid becoming 'dictatorship'.

It is different for activity inside established mass organisations. But first, what are these organisations?

They are generally of an economic character and based on the social solidarity of their members but can have multiple functions - defence (resistance, mutual aid), education (training for self-government) offence (demands on the tactical level, expropriation on the strategic) and administration. These organisations - unions, workers' fight committees and so on - even when taking on only one of these possible functions offer a direct opportunity for work with the masses.

And as well as the economic structures there exist many popular groupings through which the specific Organisation can make connections with the masses.

These are, for example, cultural leisure and welfare associations in which the specific Organisation may find energy, advice and experience. Here it may spread its influence by putting across its orientation and by fighting against the attempts of state and politicians to gain hegemony and control: fighting for the defence of these organisations so they can keep their own character and become centres of self government and revolutionary mobilisation, seeds of the new society (for elements of tomorrow's society already exist in today's).

Inside all these social and economic mass organisations influence must be exercised and strengthened not through a system of external decisions but through the active and coordinated presence of revolutionary anarchist militants within them - and in the posts of responsibility to which they're called according to their abilities and their attitude. It should be stressed though that militants should not let themselves get stuck in absorbing but purely administrative duties which leave them neither time nor opportunity to exercise a real influence. Political opponents often try to make prisoners of militant revolutionaries in this way.

This work of 'infiltration' as certain people call it should tend to transform the specific Organisation from a minority to a majority one - at least from the point of view of influence.

It also ought to avoid any monopolisation, which would end up having all tasks - even those of the specific Organisation - taken over by the mass organisation, or contrariwise would assign leadership of the mass associations only to members of the specific Organisation, brushing aside all other opinions. Here it must be made clear that the specific Organisation [email protected] promote and defend not just a democratic and federalist structure and way of working in mass organisations but also an open structure - that is, one that makes entry easy for all element& that are not yet organised, so that the mass organisations can win over new social forces, become more representative and more able to give to the specific Organisation the closest possible contact with the people.



That's agitation, not vanguardism, vanguardism means hierarchical relations between the vanguard and the plebs. If a "vanguard" is not to have a hierarchical but an agitational role, then that's anarchism or council communism, and explicitly anti-vanguardist and anti-leninist.

No a vanguard party is literally that, a vanguard party. A party that is advanced, has advanced theoretical knowledge, and in the case of socialists seeks to lead the workers.

[The Feral Underclass]

What Leninists consider a state, anarchists might not. However, both agree with the same definition of statelessness: a society based upon the free association of individuals and producers. The aim is identical.

But the Leninist method of attempting to achieve that won't work.

[Lord Hargreaves]

I have no idea what you mean by "acting as one"? Also, I didn't say "a class in and of itself" I said a political force/entity, in and of itself...Do you understand what the idiom "in and of itself (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+and+of+itself)" means?

No, you said the class is a political force "in and of itself". This is absolute nonsense, for the reasons I went into.



The class is a political force in and of itself, and the only force that can establish a communist society. The fact that elements of the class will be "deeply reactionary" doesn't alter that fact.

What you are saying just doesn't mean anything. Class cannot be a political force, or an actor, it is an objective sociological concept. You are committing a category philosophical error


Yes, there is a need for communists to group together and advocate political struggle and revolution, I have never denied that.

Then this is just semantics. The above is what I'd call a vanguard, and I'd make the distinction between a vanguard and a vanguard party which claims to be the embodiment of the vanguard.



Struggle and unrest occurs irrespective of communists. The proletariat fight for their interests against the bourgeoisie on a daily basis, irrespective of political organisation.

But this usually results in reformism, not revolutionary politics. Ideas are also important.



If by "build from scratch," you mean "give form and meaning to struggle", then we are in agreement. If you mean something else then we are not.

Yes, I do mean that too.


The differences between Marxism and anarchism don't simply relate to the vanguard.

What are you referring to specifically? What is the number one point of contention between the two, would you say?




Then we agree that mass political organisations are irrelevant.

Only if you draw a binary between mass political parties, on the one hand, and mass political movements, on the other. You seem to think that a mass party is by definition anti-communist, utterly irrespective of the form it takes, and that is something I cannot understand [see my last question in this post too]


The only ideas and form of organisation I want to see flourish is the idea that the proletariat can act in its own interests and organise themselves autonomously (i.e. free from political control), to communise the products of their labour, seize the means of production, dismantle the state and create a transition to communism.

But we all agree on the above! Why do you refuse to concede that Marxists also think this?


And the actualisation of the political party and the Soviet was political domination over the class.

The soviet was suspended, not "actualised". The party suffered a swift degeneration, and was not "actualised".

You basically seem unwilling to engage with Leninism on a serious level, preferring your own crass, tedious generalizations


I have no idea what planet you are living on, but I am living on planet Earth, specifically in the UK, where most Marxist continue to seek political control over working class struggle and most anarchists oppose them.

I conceded your point here (I think). Yes, some idiots in tiny factional organisations are running around proclaiming themselves the vanguard of the proletariat (some of them are on revleft).

But actually, I would claim that most Marxists don't really think this way (even those rank-and-file members within these groups!) And furthermore, I don't see this as an essential feature of Marxism



I was asking you a question. I have made no caricature of Lenin, I have simply objected to the idea of mass political organisation and explained why most Marxists and anarchists cannot find any unity.

You are the one that introduced democratic centralism and the vanguard into this discussion.

It may be an anarchist position, but it is also Marxist. It is something we both share.



I can't tell if you're joking...Erm, that's neither here nor there, really.

I will post again what I said, with the word anarchist removed, just so you don't get confused:

^Feel free to respond to my actual point.


I'm not a mind-reader, I can only go on what you actually say, and you said communist or anarchist.

On the questions you put: no, it doesn't reall make a difference what the organisation is, a least not necessarily. And yes, we are aiming to persuade enough workers that we need a revolution to overthrow capitalism, to become communists.



That's not what anarchists traditionally do in the slightest. Anarchist communists have traditionally sought to build minority/mass political organisations and anarcho-syndicalists have aimed to build mass unions.

Insurrectionist anarchists and anti-organisationalist anarchists have operated in this manner...

So Marxists and anarchists have even more in common!




Yet here I am, an anarchist, telling you that I disagree. I can wager that my comrades would disagree also. I have a very big problem with Marxists "building the party," just as I have objections with anarchists who want to build mass organisation.

OK. So what are your objections? (you can give me anarchism 101 to make sure I definitely understand lol)

[The Feral Underclass]

No, you said the class is a political force "in and of itself". This is absolute nonsense, for the reasons I went into.

Yes, that is what I said and I am right. The working class is a political force. It is the only political force capable of creating communism.

The views you expressed in countenance to my statement didn't relate to the statement I made. The "reasons" you gave were for a different statement that I did not make.


What you are saying just doesn't mean anything. Class cannot be a political force, or an actor, it is an objective sociological concept. You are committing a category philosophical error

A concept that relates to a section of society and a concept that informs understanding of the power those people have in society. There is nothing erroneous about understanding what the working class is and how it can change society -- this is pretty basic stuff.


Then this is just semantics. The above is what I'd call a vanguard, and I'd make the distinction between a vanguard and a vanguard party which claims to be the embodiment of the vanguard.

It may very well be semantics to you, but the conception of the vanguard by most Marxists is at odds with the anarchist conception of what you describe as a vanguard.


But this usually results in reformism, not revolutionary politics. Ideas are also important.

You are not paying attention to my posts. In previous posts that you responded to I talk about ideas and praxis. Yes, ideas are also important, that is why political organisation has to exist.


What are you referring to specifically? What is the number one point of contention between the two, would you say?

The incomplete definition of the state, the nature of political organisation and hierarchy.


Only if you draw a binary between mass political parties, on the one hand, and mass political movements, on the other. You seem to think that a mass party is by definition anti-communist, utterly irrespective of the form it takes, and that is something I cannot understand [see my last question in this post too]

To repeat myself, the mass party is unnecessary and impedes the autonomy of the class to act in its own interests. It is also, usually, a substitute for class power in the transition to communism and seeks to lead the working class irrespective of their autonomy.


But we all agree on the above! Why do you refuse to concede that Marxists also think this?

I don't care about what Marxists think, I care about what they do.


The soviet was suspended, not "actualised". The party suffered a swift degeneration, and was not "actualised".

And the result was the political domination of the class.


You basically seem unwilling to engage with Leninism on a serious level, preferring your own crass, tedious generalizations

I have had my fill of Leninism.


I conceded your point here (I think). Yes, some idiots in tiny factional organisations are running around proclaiming themselves the vanguard of the proletariat (some of them are on revleft).

As well as every single Marxist organisation in the UK.


But actually, I would claim that most Marxists don't really think this way (even those rank-and-file members within these groups!) And furthermore, I don't see this as an essential feature of Marxism

Who are you speaking on behalf of? The Socialist Party? The Socialist Workers Party? The Communist Party of Great Britain? The Communist Party of Britain The Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)? Alliance for Workers Liberty? Workers Power? etc etc etc

It is irrelevant what you think and what you believe and what you think you believe, it is actually about what you do in practice that matters, and what you do seeks to control workers struggles.

I have seen Marxist political organisations in action. The basic MO is pretty clear to me.


It may be an anarchist position, but it is also Marxist. It is something we both share.

What?...


I'm not a mind-reader, I can only go on what you actually say, and you said communist or anarchist.

But the erroneous word was completely beside the point!


On the questions you put: no, it doesn't reall make a difference what the organisation is, a least not necessarily. And yes, we are aiming to persuade enough workers that we need a revolution to overthrow capitalism, to become communists.

Why? Why does every worker need to be a communist?


So Marxists and anarchists have even more in common!

If that is your assessment then so be it.


OK. So what are your objections? (you can give me anarchism 101 to make sure I definitely understand lol)

Sigh.

Again, my objection to building mass political parties is that they are unnecessary, substitutionist and impede the autonomy of the class to act in its own interests.

[MarxArchist]

Nothing triumphs Marxism.

Someone should have told Lenin not to throw Marx/Engels workers out of the window after it became obvious Russia wasn't the spark for a global revolution. Give that memo to Stalin, Trotsky, Mao and all the other offshoots that resulted from the Russian attempt. The result has been pushing "socialism" on backwards populations/economies which takes complete authoritarianism and is doomed to fail in it's goal of communism.








To poison it's theoretical strength with libertarian dribble is pointless.


Most Anarchists focus on democracy and worker control- this is great for a post revolution economy. I agree there are many anarchists who are, lets say, a tad too libertarian with their ideas surrounding direct action and organizing. Propaganda of the deed is useless unless you already have a powder keg that's about to explode, as we saw with the bourgeois class when they took part in propaganda of the deed (Boston Tea Party).


Most people today in advanced western capitalist nations don't see their own chains or refuse to recognize them. Those who are open to communist ideals aren't exposed to them because everything has been so fragmented, the work place/economy- the shift in production in America happened around the 1950's. It was at one point somewhat centralized. Not only has the economy/production been fragmented but after this shift the new left fragmented the actual struggle itself into 100 different pieces and the end result of both is an almost impossible uphill battle to get any sort of large group together hell bent on ending capitalism. You can mostly thank Marxists for the shitty change in strategy after production in America was extremely decentralized. It's gotten even worse since the 1970's where much actual production has been outsourced.

Anarchists and Marxists both have latched onto this idea that the struggle should be an "autonomous fractionalized blob" of a million different gripes and complaints. So called "democracy" in organizing is what we had at Occupy Wall St. A joke of a blob of identity issues being the focus. That and reformist nonsense with Anarchists smashing everything. The "Occupy" situation in Oakland should've been enough to bury the new left.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Yes, that is what I said and I am right. The working class is a political force. It is the only political force capable of creating communism.

The views you expressed in countenance to my statement didn't relate to the statement I made. The "reasons" you gave were for a different statement that I did not make.

A concept that relates to a section of society and a concept that informs understanding of the power those people have in society. There is nothing erroneous about understanding what the working class is and how it can change society -- this is pretty basic stuff.

Yes, the working class emancipates itself. But I'm inviting you to explain what this means in reality (building a mass party, unionism, local organisation, federalism, networks of activists, etc. - I have mentioned them all at least once) and you won't go into it




It may very well be semantics to you, but the conception of the vanguard by most Marxists is at odds with the anarchist conception of what you describe as a vanguard.

No, this is false. We have the same conception of a vanguard (as far as I can see). It is that Marxists have traditionally believed in a vanguard party too and anarchists don't.



The incomplete definition of the state, the nature of political organisation and hierarchy.

This just isn't true, and especially isn't true any more.




To repeat myself, the mass party is unnecessary and impedes the autonomy of the class to act in its own interests. It is also, usually, a substitute for class power in the transition to communism and seeks to lead the working class irrespective of their autonomy.

So basically, the party is guilty of a kind of original sin, and will always necessarily prevent working classes from being politically organised. If this is your position, fine, but it seems needlessly dogmatic

In terms of the convergence thesis, I would say that Marxists are increasingly aware of how a party can lead to all the things you are suggesting, although they wouldn't think it necessarily leads that way.



I don't care about what Marxists think, I care about what they do.

Cute



Who are you speaking on behalf of? The Socialist Party? The Socialist Workers Party? The Communist Party of Great Britain? The Communist Party of Britain The Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)? Alliance for Workers Liberty? Workers Power? etc etc etc

Who gives a toss about these people? I wouldn't say they are manifestations of Marxist theory in a time of revolution


It is irrelevant what you think and what you believe and what you think you believe, it is actually about what you do in practice that matters, and what you do seeks to control workers struggles.

I have seen Marxist political organisations in action. The basic MO is pretty clear to me.

As I've already explained, I don't believe the day-to-day idiocy of the SWP, or some communist group of 12 members operating out of a garage or whatever, disproves Marxism.




Why? Why does every worker need to be a communist?

Because if a majority of workers don't want to overthrow capitalism, and don't want direct worker's democracy (this is what I mean by communism here), then a revolution to enact these things won't have a popular mandate... which is 1) morally wrong, and 2) means the revolution is unlikely to succeed

[MarxArchist]

But the Leninist method of attempting to achieve that won't work.

The problem is two fold. 1. The Leninist policies in Russia were necessary because the economic system and peoples were "backwards". There was no advanced majority working class or advanced capitalist economy and certainly no bourgeois revolution which pushed enlightenment values and bourgeois democracy. Kautsky's late in life critique of the Russian attempt, in my opinion, is correct. Russia didn't then achieve communism because 2.A there wasn't a global revolution and 2.B Russia was left with the need to advance the economy which has never been the job of socialism. They had to put a sort of managed capitalism in place.

If Lenin was never born and no Bolsheviks ever stepped onto Russian soil there would have been no way shape or form Anarchists could have 'created' communism isolated in Russia. It was an impossible task. Attempting it with bottom up democratic principles would have ended the failed experiment much earlier and as a result I'm of the opinion no "communist" revolutions should even be attempted in backwards non advanced nations as an advanced working class who has experienced a certain amount of democracy and enlightenment values is necessary for any amount of democracy in a nation that just had a socialist revolution. An advanced economy is also necessary, as is an advanced military in order to defend any socialistic gains made while waiting for other advanced nations to follow.

Anyway, Anarchists, in any situation, can't just expect to "abolish the state" and then have communism in whatever nation they're in (without a global revolution).

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, the working class emancipates itself. But I'm inviting you to explain what this means in reality (building a mass party, unionism, local organisation, federalism, networks of activists, etc. - I have mentioned them all at least once) and you won't go into it

It takes the form of housing struggles, wage struggles, anti-fascist struggles, riots, rent strikes, occupations and so on and so forth -- the struggle is the form it takes. How do we organise those struggles? In a way that is most effective in building direct democracy, autonomy and unity and solidarity with other struggles, as well as challenging the logic of capitalism and the state. Ultimately we seek to organise our struggles in ways that will escalate them.


No, this is false. We have the same conception of a vanguard (as far as I can see). It is that Marxists have traditionally believed in a vanguard party too and anarchists don't.

Does your conception of the vanguard have hierarchy and seek control of the state? Does it aim to organise and lead the working class?


This just isn't true, and especially isn't true any more.

Not in my experience as a militant for the last sixteen years. Perhaps you have a different experience.


So basically, the party is guilty of a kind of original sin, and will always necessarily prevent working classes from being politically organised. If this is your position, fine, but it seems needlessly dogmatic

I am confident that some Marxists can organise themselves based upon anarchist principles, in fact there are autonomous Marxists doing so right now in the UK. I feel perfectly able to unite with these people -- not because they are Marxists, but because they are autonomists.


In terms of the convergence thesis, I would say that Marxists are increasingly aware of how a party can lead to all the things you are suggesting, although they wouldn't think it necessarily leads that way.

I am not familar with the ongoing regroupment process within the Marxist left. This may very well be the case, but it is certainly not the case in my experience, both as a Leninist and then as an anarchist.


Who gives a toss about these people? I wouldn't say they are manifestations of Marxist theory in a time of revolution

Well I do as a matter of fact, because they represent a specific enemy to class autonomy.


As I've already explained, I don't believe the day-to-day idiocy of the SWP, or some communist group of 12 members operating out of a garage or whatever, disproves Marxism.

I'm not saying it disproves Marxism, I'm saying it precludes us from uniting as Marxists and anarchists.


Because if a majority of workers don't want to overthrow capitalism, and don't want direct worker's democracy (this is what I mean by communism here), then a revolution to enact these things won't have a popular mandate... which is 1) morally wrong, and 2) means the revolution is unlikely to succeed

What does being a communist mean to you? You can't possibly think every worker has to identify as a communist in order for a revolution to be successful?

[Lord Hargreaves]

It takes the form of housing struggles, wage struggles, anti-fascist struggles, riots, rent strikes, occupations and so on and so forth -- the struggle is the form it takes. How do we organise those struggles? In a way that is most effective in building direct democracy, autonomy and unity and solidarity with other struggles, as well as challenging the logic of capitalism and the state. Ultimately we seek to organise our struggles in ways that will escalate them.

I can't see anything to disagree with here. Can you find Marxists that are out-and-out opposed to these things?



Does your conception of the vanguard have hierarchy and seek control of the state? Does it aim to organise and lead the working class?

It aims to persuade people of advanced revolutionary communist ideas, and to persuade people who agree with those ideas to become active. It also may propose forms of organisation that others may freely choose to join (or not). It is a kind of "moral" leadership of understanding and dedication. It doesn't necessarily mean a party structure at all, or any kind of hierarchy or control.

Your first question is too loaded, you must be able to see that. No vanguardist sees themselves as being in favour of hierarchy and of controlling the state.



What does being a communist mean to you? You can't possibly think every worker has to identify as a communist in order for a revolution to be successful?

For the purposes of the argument, it is a belief in the need to smash the state, overthrow capitalism, and set up workers' democracy, etc. There would need to be a large number of people who thought like this for there to be a revolution. Otherwise I don't see what we would all be talking about.

Perhaps to you it is simply a matter of setting out a process of democratic decision making, enacting it, and then everything else kind of sorts itself out? Then workers could have all kinds of wacky views and it wouldn't matter, because there is already a workers' democracy. A few workers might be in favour of fascism, or of abolishing society to go live in a cave, but since they would be unable to get it through the consensus-based decision making process of the soviet, there is no problem. Most workers are sane enough not to vote for moronic, suicidal proposals, and this is adequate.

But the vanguardist point is that no meaningful political change is going to happen at all unless working class people understand that capitalism itself is the problem, that the state itself is the problem, etc., and that there needs to be a revolutionary overthrow of existing society. So people have to be persuaded of this through ideas, and through struggle and activism. Otherwise direct workers democracy is just an abstraction out of nowhere: it is an answer to a question that wasn't asked.

[The Feral Underclass]

I can't see anything to disagree with here. Can you find Marxists that are out-and-out opposed to these things?

Talking to you is like being on a merry-go-round.

If it is true that Marxists agree with these things, it is not true that Marxists organise themselves in this way, and that's what really matters here. Not what Marxists agree with or believe, but what they do.

The Marxists in the UK (apart from Plac C -- if they call themselves Marxists) are by and large the kind of Marxists that do not seek to build direct democracy and autonomy etc etc. Now, you can tell me that these people aren't really Marxists, but that is an issue you must take up with them, not me.


It aims to persuade people of advanced revolutionary communist ideas, and to persuade people who agree with those ideas to become active. It also may propose forms of organisation that others may freely choose to join (or not). It is a kind of "moral" leadership of understanding and dedication. It doesn't necessarily mean a party structure at all, or any kind of hierarchy or control.

It doesn't "necessarily" mean? Well, it either does or it doesn't.


Your first question is too loaded, you must be able to see that. No vanguardist sees themselves as being in favour of hierarchy and of controlling the state.

That is not the case for the dozens of Marxist-Leninist organisations that exist in the UK. If you want to claim these people aren't really Marxists, then that's fine with me.


For the purposes of the argument, it is a belief in the need to smash the state, overthrow capitalism, and set up workers' democracy, etc. There would need to be a large number of people who thought like this for there to be a revolution. Otherwise I don't see what we would all be talking about.

There is a difference between thinking communistic things and being a communist though, right?


Perhaps to you it is simply a matter of setting out a process of democratic decision making, enacting it, and then everything else kind of sorts itself out? Then workers could have all kinds of wacky views and it wouldn't matter, because there is already a workers' democracy. A few workers might be in favour of fascism, or of abolishing society to go live in a cave, but since they would be unable to get it through the consensus-based decision making process of the soviet, there is no problem. Most workers are sane enough not to vote for moronic, suicidal proposals, and this is adequate.

I'm not really sure that's my view. I'm certainly not advocating consensus decision making.


But the vanguardist point is that no meaningful political change is going to happen at all unless working class people understand that capitalism itself is the problem, that the state itself is the problem, etc., and that there needs to be a revolutionary overthrow of existing society. So people have to be persuaded of this through ideas, and through struggle and activism. Otherwise direct workers democracy is just an abstraction out of nowhere: it is an answer to a question that wasn't asked.

I agree. It doesn't mean, however, that everyone has to be a communist. Succeeding in the fight for people to understand capitalism and that organised they are political force does not require everyone identifying as a communist, nor should be an objective to achieve.

[Sotionov]

What Leninists consider a state, anarchists might not. However, both agree with the same definition of statelessness: a society based upon the free association of individuals and producers. The aim is identical.
I'm not so sure. Being that Marxists define state as a tool of class oppression, and they define class in terms of ownership of the means of production, it is not far fetched for a Marxist to consider a party-ruled nationalized-economy society as classless, and thereby as stateless, something which no anarchist (or imo a sane person) would accept.


All wrong. The Free Territory's Black Army functioned on paper based on democratic centralism: top-down but democratic.Top-down and democratic are contraditory forms of organization. Even "bottom-to-the-top" is contradictory to the democratic organization, being that democracy implies there being no "top". That being said, I still consider Ukranian revolutionaries anarchists being that both Arshinov and Palij write how that in the Free Territory no elected body had a hierarical role, but only administrative, the power resting at all time in the plebiscite, and all decisions being made on congresses.


If the workers have the power to make all decisions, but in some regards do not utilise that power and choose to mandate this to a secretary of sorts, ultimate decision-making power rests with the workers but they do not make use of it for whatever reason. In such a scenario I'd say it's fair to speak of hierarchy, but it's not something I'd necessarily oppose.Being a horizontalist, I certainly would.


"Anarcho"-capitalists fail to recognise the inequality of bargaining power, voluntary hierarchy is only nominally voluntary.So, capitalism regulated to make the bargaining power more equal, and established by will of the workers (they have "the ultimate decision-making power" but they decide not to use it, but instead choose to mandate it to capitalists) is ok? I don't think so.


http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/mlc4.htmlI don't see how printing magazines and participating in people's organizations of self-managment with a purpose of fighting for them staying self-managed amounts to hierarchical authority.

[Lucretia]

I'm not so sure. Being that Marxists define state as a tool of class oppression, and they define class in terms of ownership of the means of production, it is not far fetched for a Marxist to consider a party-ruled nationalized-economy society as classless, and thereby as stateless, something which no anarchist (or imo a sane person) would accept.

The only people who would embrace this idea as constituting a classless society are Marxist-Leninists. It is certainly not a position that represents what most "Leninists" think, much less most "Marxists." Since a state is a tool of class oppression, it would not be necessary in a society free from class processes. A society in which a party - or any form of political organization - is controlling the means of production against the wishes of the majority of the producers themselves is one where there are class processes, and the ruling clique potentially a ruling class. It is certainly not communism.

[Sotionov]

If you're a libertarian marxist, you're an anti-leninist, which is ok. If you think that any kind of Leninism is a part of libertarian marxism, sorry, but you're deluding youself.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Talking to you is like being on a merry-go-round.

If it is true that Marxists agree with these things, it is not true that Marxists organise themselves in this way, and that's what really matters here. Not what Marxists agree with or believe, but what they do.

The Marxists in the UK (apart from Plac C -- if they call themselves Marxists) are by and large the kind of Marxists that do not seek to build direct democracy and autonomy etc etc. Now, you can tell me that these people aren't really Marxists, but that is an issue you must take up with them, not me.

I expressed it in a double negative deliberately - they are not against these things. At least. Sure, Marxist's don't always organize in this way, but there is nothing within Marxism that says they shouldn't. Indeed I expect you'll find Marxsts in various direct action groups, even if they are not SWP members.




It doesn't "necessarily" mean? Well, it either does or it doesn't.

Traditionally many have felt that a vanguard should organize as a vanguard party. But no, a vanguard doesn't have to be organized in a vanguard party. It's that simple.



That is not the case for the dozens of Marxist-Leninist organisations that exist in the UK. If you want to claim these people aren't really Marxists, then that's fine with me.

Well, that is your judgement, based on your experiences. But no, these groups wouldn't see themselves in this manner. It has nothing to do with the theory




There is a difference between thinking communistic things and being a communist though, right?

There is thinking like a communist, and there is being a communist. And then there is being a Communist, a member of a political party. A vanguard doesn't have to be a Communist in the latter sense.




I agree. It doesn't mean, however, that everyone has to be a communist. Succeeding in the fight for people to understand capitalism and that organised they are political force does not require everyone identifying as a communist, nor should be an objective to achieve.

I only meant "communist" in that limited sense, of wanting to overthrow capitalism and the state, etc. For a revolution that wants to achieve these things as a baseline, then yes it is important that people think and act in that way. They wouldn't have to agree on anything else besides that.

Perhaps you feel I am not really a Marxist because you feel I am conceding too much to you or to anarchism, or whatever it is you think, but I'm claiming that I'm not as uncommon as you would think. From my own experiences at least, it is today more about soft, reconstructed Leninism, libertarian Marxism, autonomism, anarchist inspired left thinking from the unversities, etc. The gap isn't as wide as it could be.