Disappearing contradictions between Marxism and Anarchism

[Comrade #138672]

We're all aware of the contradictions between Marxism and Anarchism, although we generally disagree on what the exact contradictions are. Most of the time, these contradictions seem to be more ideological / theoretical than anything else.

What about the material contradictions? The core class of Marxism has always been the proletariat, while the core class of Anarchism has been the peasantry (as part of the larger working class). Marxists have been criticized for dismissing the peasantry as a reactionary class and being "undemocratic" towards them.

Whether this is true or not, something has changed globally. The peasantry is no longer the (numerically) dominant class, as it was a few centuries ago. The (numerically) dominant class is now by far the proletariat. This means that the peasant question is no longer an issue, at least not in terms of "democracy". This should either make Anarchism less attractive (which doesn't seem to be the case) or reduce the contradictions between Marxism and Anarchism.

And what about the proletariat seizing power? Will this be the Russian Revolution all over again or something entirely different? I suspect the latter to be the case. Will it allow for more authentic "democratic" control for the proletariat, in such a way that Marxists and Anarchists will both get what they want?

I don't know. I've been thinking about this for some time. Even though I still see many (mostly ideological / theoretical) conflicts between the Marxists and Anarchists, I also see more people recognizing the need to combine the two (to the extent that this is possible). And even though I frequently disagree with Anarchists on Lenin and Trotsky, we do seem to agree on, to some extent, what is necessary in the here and now.

What do you think? Is there something to this?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I disagree that the "core class" of anarchism was the peasantry. I don't know if you've read "Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism", but that concept is debunked pretty well in that book (with a few exceptions, such as the historical anarchist movement in Greece).

I'd argue that anarchism's core class in it's earliest era was the skilled artisan (such as the Jura clockmakers), who were economically liquidated (skilled labor rebellions taking place in places like Paris, Barcelona & St. Louis during the 1870's) and brought their former beliefs with them into the classical proletarian workforce, giving birth to revolutionary syndicalism.

[Comrade #138672]

I disagree that the "core class" of anarchism was the peasantry. I don't know if you've read "Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism", but that concept is debunked pretty well in that book (with a few exceptions, such as the historical anarchist movement in Greece).No. I have not read it, but I will read it if I am able to find it. Thanks for the suggestion.


I'd argue that anarchism's core class in it's earliest era was the skilled artisan (such as the Jura clockmakers), who were economically liquidated (skilled labor rebellions taking place in places like Paris, Barcelona & St. Louis during the 1870's) and brought their former beliefs with them into the classical proletarian workforce, giving birth to revolutionary syndicalism.So where do they stand now, according to you? Does this change something about the old contradictions or are they still more or less the same?

[Os Cangaceiros]

No. I have not read it, but I will read it if I am able to find it. Thanks for the suggestion.

Yeah, you should read it. It's a very good book. Has some issues, but overall it's one of the better books on anarchism, I think.


So where do they stand now, according to you? Does this change something about the old contradictions or are they still more or less the same?

Well I think anarchism goes through periods of irrelevance and relevance...it was at one point very relevant through it's influence in the syndicalist movement, so much so that even the anarcho-individualists were largely pulled into the orbit of the worker's movement/class struggle & revolutionary syndicalism eclipsed other forms of revolutionary organization, around the turn of the century. But the double blow of the Russian Revolution (which cemented the Marxist party strategy of revolution over the revolutionary union/syndicate strategy as the dominant mode of revolutionary organization), and the victory of the Nationalists in Spain & WW2 (which defeated the most significant anarchist movement in Europe at that time, and WW2 pretty much extinguished syndicalism in Europe), those things hurt pretty bad.

Anarchism would later graft it's influence to some other movements...the New Left during the 1960's/1970's, the alter-globalization movement of the 1990's/early 2000's, the radical environmentalist movement in the form of John Zerzan, the Earth Liberation Front etc. etc. In recent history I think that there's been a re-discovery of anarchism's history as a working class movement primarily concerned with issues associated with political economy, capitalism, etc. I think a lot of that probably has to do with the economic recession since 2008 and some of what's happened as a result of it.

As far as the contradictions of anarchism, or where Marxists and anarchists disagree (authority vs. liberty, centralism vs. federalism, etc)...some of those are based on real fundamental differences, others are based on not much more than rhetoric, the whole authority vs. liberty being an example of the latter, I think. The problem with relegating anarchism to purely material conditions, at least from an anarchist perspective, is that a lot of the old anarchist theorists explained anarchist philosophy as basically being a transhistorical resistance movement against authoritarianism in all it's forms*, the rule of capital being only the most recent example...for example, Rudolf Rocker citing Lao-Tse and the Greek Cynics as being some of the first proginators of anarchist thought.

*although it's worth noting that some other anarchists like the authors of "Black Flame" reject this interpretation of anarchism

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

It's interesting that this thread focuses on anarchism, rather than focusing on moves from within the broadly "Marxist" tradition toward a sort of "anarchist" politics in currents emerging from autonomist feminism, the post-SI French ultraleft, the influence of "Zapatismo" and antistate indigenous "nationalism(s)" in North America, critiques of the relationship between classical Marxism and the euro/phallocentric enlightenment project, etc.
I would even go so far as to say that these (diverse) points are more relevant to contemporary anarchist politics, in many instances, than the "classical anarchist" concern with "liberty" - which indeed is subject to the same criticism as the Marxisms from which these currents emerged.
In this sense, it's not so much that contradictions have "disappeared" along with the peasantry and other "pre-capitalist" (problematic, insofar as it implies a particular linear progression whereas things, historically speaking, are obvs. messier than that) social formations, nearly so much as they have been brought to a head. I think the (relative) realization of capitalism as a global system, based on global division of labour, along with the emergence of womens-struggles-as-class-struggles (illuminating the relationship between heteropatriarchy, the reproduction of the proletariat, and capital), among other new "fronts" has fundamentally exploded many of the theoretical assumptions underpinning both Marxism and anarchism, pushing both (where there is a dialectic of theory and practice) beyond themselves. Of course, as always, consciousness lags behind (I'm not excluding myself from this observation), with proletarian struggle increasingly becoming incomprehensible within old paradigms.