A critique of Anarchism

[reb]

While this is not a hard critique, is it s a critique none the less which can also be applied to a variety of so called marxists as well.

What we are talking about as a common point is the over throw of capitalism and the creation of a just society. For marxists, a just society can only be built upon a just economic foundation hence the transformation of one mode of production to the other corresponding with a transition in the political (or superstructural) form. A more just economic form creates a more just political form, and so on.

Anarchists, to me, have reversed this idea. The anarchists that I encounter are obsessed with the idea of "pre-figuration". They seem to think that they can create a more just society within capitalism and then revolution. Be this from a gender point of view to a racial or sexual point of view.

I would argue that this equality is impossible under capitalism and can only come about post capitalism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I have a different understanding of pre-figurative politics. I've always thought the idea meant: if you want to see what a political group will be like in power, observe their organizational form when they aren't in power. IE rigid, hierarchical sects with tons of infighting probably doesn't bode well for any sort of tolerable society, if they were to take over.

[Thirsty Crow]

I if you want to see what a political group will be like in power
I don't think that any anarchist group openly conceives itself in power as a goal...

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's mainly anarchists looking at other groups. IIRC David Graeber talked about this notion as it related to the Worker's World Party at some point

[reb]

I have a different understanding of pre-figurative politics. I've always thought the idea meant: if you want to see what a political group will be like in power, observe their organizational form when they aren't in power. IE rigid, hierarchical sects with tons of infighting probably doesn't bode well for any sort of tolerable society, if they were to take over.

I think that is part of the problem.

[BIXX]

Anarchists, to me, have reversed this idea. The anarchists that I encounter are obsessed with the idea of "pre-figuration". They seem to think that they can create a more just society within capitalism and then revolution. Be this from a gender point of view to a racial or sexual point of view.

I would argue that this equality is impossible under capitalism and can only come about post capitalism.

While I don't know if this is the way other anarchists feel, I know it is not the way I feel. Also, this isn't a critique of anarchism, but of anarchists.

Also you misunderstand pre-figuration I believe. I think the other idea of what it is is more accurate, but you also say that is a problem. Why?

[argeiphontes]

I'm not sure what you mean by prefiguration or how it differs from Autonomism. What about the idea of trying to create a federation of worker cooperatives within capitalism? Forgetting about market socialism for a second, wouldn't that be an autonomist point of view if taken far enough, yet prefiguring the post-capitalist society?

Maybe these anarchists are just not taking it far enough in their prefigurations. A "more just society society" could be anything, it could be social democracy.

[argeiphontes]

For marxists, a just society can only be built upon a just economic foundation hence the transformation of one mode of production to the other corresponding with a transition in the political (or superstructural) form. A more just economic form creates a more just political form, and so on.

Confusion might result based on what aspects of capitalism a group wanted to overthrow, that was possible in the here and now without a systemic revolution. For example, I see the relations of production (wage labor + private appropriation of surplus) as primary to capitalism, so trying to create market socialism is perfectly fine to me. I think it would create the political base for whatever changes were necessary in the state (democratic control of investment + whatever else that could be determined later on) because I would agree that the state is superstructure (more and more the more I live under it). For example, it's not hard to see the state as the site of intra-capitalist conflict with the division of the working class among false ideologies or whatever.

Overturning things like family structure is a good thing IMO, since there's no reason for a feudal structure to persist and help reproduce the larger capitalist structure. And it's a way of subjugating women and persisting patriarchy. But in some ways the feudalism-capitalism ship has sailed, so that alone wouldn't necessarily make anything revolutionary IMO. For example, a lifestyle commune kind of thing, alone.

I don't know though... just thinking out loud mostly. :)

[Quail]

I don't think I know any anarchists who think that equality (based on gender, ethnicity, etc) can be realised within the capitalist system. I think that we should be trying to create a more just society as we go, but within the confines of capitalist society I know that inequalities can't completely disappear.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't think I know any anarchists who think that equality (based on gender, ethnicity, etc) can be realised within the capitalist system.

If they do, than they aren't anarchists.

[Guerillero]

It seems to be possible that a state which grants rights will develop into an anarchy. Compared to former states and empires the modern state is an anarchy. People can't give away their responsibility for society for a long time, they have to be governor for themselves. But as all the cruel things in the 20th century, discemment takes guilt. As probably economy will take power, it has to be controlled. As the King of France, the congress of the United States has to be executed for the sake of all people. Call it anthropocracy!