What type of socialist am I?

[Црвена]

I thought I was a libertarian Marxist, but I just read Homage to Catalonia and found myself agreeing with the CNT-FAI - an anarchist militia - on a lot of things, which makes me think I could be an anarchist. I believe that:

- Capitalism is awful and needs to (and will) be overthrown by revolution by the unsatisfied masses, not necessarily just the proletarians. This will happen when it happens and should not be done until the masses do want communism. This revolution is unfortunately likely to be violent but I don't advocate violence.

- There will need to be some sort of leadership after the revolution to oversee the transition of a nation to communism, but they must always listen to what the masses want and step down when no longer needed.

- All people are equal and have the same capacity to do good/bad from birth.

- People should be acknowledged as individuals and everyone should have the right and access to the materials to express themselves, but the main emphasis should be on the collective.

- There should be freedom of religion, but no religious institutions. Religion is an individual matter and no particular religion should be encouraged. The solidarity brought by religion will instead be supplied by a highly collective society.

- Private property is theft. Land should be collectively owned.

- Everyone has the right to education, healthcare and basic resources - the same amount as everything else.

- Unskilled labour should be shared and everyone should be educated to have the ability to do a skilled job (unless they are severely disabled) on top of a small amount of unskilled labour.

- I agree with "to each according to his need," but I think most people can be educated to have the same ability. I think all contributions to society that people can make should be equally valuable.

- A nation should be divided into many small communities which collectively decide the laws for themselves through a democratic process. These governments will be composed of real people (not this weird lying species called "politician,") and there will be no leader as such since this creates hierarchy.

- Centralised and one-country socialism are both likely to lead to dictatorship.

- Any kind of dictatorship is wrong and the people should always have the right to rebel if this happens.

What is my tendency?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

- Private property is theft. Land should be collectively owned.

Why do you single out land as such? The question is, do you support the socialisation of all of the means of production (all that is used in the process of production, from land to factories etc.)?


- Everyone has the right to education, healthcare and basic resources - the same amount as everything else.

Alright, so, what resources do you consider basic, and how do you think "non-basic" resources should be distributed?


- Unskilled labour should be shared and everyone should be educated to have the ability to do a skilled job (unless they are severely disabled) on top of a small amount of unskilled labour.

How do you think this should be accomplished, and why do you think it is important that it is accomplished?

[DOOM]

Why do you single out land as such? The question is, do you support the socialisation of all of the means of production (all that is used in the process of production, from land to factories etc.)?



Alright, so, what resources do you consider basic, and how do you think "non-basic" resources should be distributed?



How do you think this should be accomplished, and why do you think it is important that it is accomplished?

I don't believe OP wanted this thread to be a discussion about his political ideas.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't believe OP wanted this thread to be a discussion about his political ideas.

I'm just asking clarifying questions, because as it stands now this could be anything from Georgism (the worst case scenario) to full-blooded anarcho-communism.

[DOOM]

I'm just asking clarifying questions, because as it stands now this could be anything from Georgism (the worst case scenario) to full-blooded anarcho-communism.

Because of the land-owning-thing?
Could be, but I guess OP is "advocating" georgism unintentionally rather than intentionally. And the other arguments OP made are really tending towards anarcho-communism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Because of the land-owning-thing?
Could be, but I guess OP is "advocating" georgism unintentionally rather than intentionally. And the other arguments OP made are really tending towards anarcho-communism.

Nah, I don't think the OP is advocating Georgism, it's just that some of the things they said could be taken in more than one way. Which is why I asked some additional questions. If I wanted to argue I would go on one of my rants against decentralisation. Of course, as someone who is new to politics (I guess), they probably won't "match up to" any single current in the socialist movement, but still.

[ProletariatPower]

If you agree with the CNT on most things and given a lot of your political views you stated I'd say you're probably an Anarcho-Syndicalist, in which case I say good on you comrade :P. Really though I wouldn't worry too much about classifying yourself, personally I often refer to myself simply as a Libertarian Leftist to try to remain broad and not just narrow down what I believe. Without fully understanding every single aspect of an ideology and it's theories it's kinda presumptuous to say you agree completely with that ideology anyway.

[RedWorker]

I thought I was a libertarian Marxist, but I just read Homage to Catalonia and found myself agreeing with the CNT-FAI - an anarchist militia - on a lot of things, which makes me think I could be an anarchist.

Where is the incompatibility between being an anarchist and being a Marxist?

*Awaits for sectarian hordes stuck on 100 year old thinking to jump on me.*

[ProletariatPower]

This statement too may initiate some controversy but...Marxism is Anarchist. Indeed most of the CNT would of certainly considered themselves Marxist, it's certainly not incompatible, many people are Anarchist (or 'Libertarian') Marxists.

[consuming negativity]

I thought I was a libertarian Marxist

Only an anarchist would even use this term. Welcome to the fold.

[erupt]

I'm no expert, but I'd have to say you're an anarcho-syndicalist most likely, but you being an anarcho-communist is also a possibility.

[Red Shaker]

Anarchist tend to believe there is no need for a state to smash the remnants of capitalist class as society transitions from capitalism to communism. That period which Marx referred to as the dictatorship of the proletariat has raised many questions about the nature of the state during this transitional period. Anarchist have never had to deal with these problems since they have never carried out a successful revolution. Communists tried and failed in Russia and China and other countries that followed in their wake. The role of revolutionary communists today is to figure out what went wrong and thus how to correct these errors and get on with building a revolutionary movement which can bring down capitalism and begin building a communist society, a society where the wage system has been abolished, racism, sexism and nationalism no longer exist, and the integration of manual and mental work is underway. In terms of organizations that promote this outlook the only one I know of is the Progressive Labor Party. You can find them at www.plp.org. Read some of their literature, and see if it fits with your views.

[ProletariatPower]

Anarchist have never had to deal with these problems since they have never carried out a successful revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
This was a successful revolution, the reason it ended was because it was in the midst of a war, but it didn't fail.

[Hit The North]

we don't need no stinking badges

[#FF0000]

I thought I was a libertarian Marxist, but I just read Homage to Catalonia and found myself agreeing with the CNT-FAI - an anarchist militia - on a lot of things, which makes me think I could be an anarchist. I believe that...

Well, for the most part, your "tendency" describes the strategies and tactics you think are best, because all communists an anarchists want the general thing. What you're saying sounds pretty broad and could cover a lot of different ideas, aside from a few details.

You might want to look into anarchism (specifically anarcho-syndicalism, considering your interest in the CNT-FAI), or maybe DeLeonism and Council Communism.

[Tim Cornelis]

This statement too may initiate some controversy but...Marxism is Anarchist. Indeed most of the CNT would of [sic!] certainly considered themselves Marxist, it's certainly not incompatible, many people are Anarchist (or 'Libertarian') Marxists.

Marxism's really not anarchist though, and most of the CNT would not have considered themselves Marxist.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
This was a successful revolution, the reason it ended was because it was in the midst of a war, but it didn't fail.

Well... "successful". Juan Andrade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Andrade):


The anarcho-syndicalist workers had made themselves the owners of everything they collectivized; the collectives were treated as private, not social, property. Socialization, as practised by CNT unions, was no more than trade union capitalism. 'Although it wasn't immediately apparent, the economy as run by the CNT was disaster. Had it gone on like that, there would have been enormous problems later, with great disparities of wages and new social classes being formed. We also wanted to collectivize, but quite differently, so that the country's resources were administered socially, not as individual property. The sort of mentality which believes that the revolution is for the immediate benefit of a particular sector of the working class, and not for the proletariat as a whole, always surfaces in a revolution, as I realized in the first days of the war in Madrid.'

Daniel Guérin:


it appeared … that workers' self-management might lead to a kind of egotistical particularlism, each enterprise being concerned solely with its own interests. This was remedied [in Barcelona] by the creation of a cenralized equalization fund … As a result, the excess revenues of the bus company were used to support the street cars, which were less profitable.

A bit of central control remedied some of the flaws with a strictly anarchist model.

Fraser summarising CNT member Luis Santacana's testimony:


But the 'single' wage could not be introduced in his plant because it was not made general throughout the industry. Women in the factory continued to receive wages between 15 per cent and 20 per cent lower than men, and manual workers less than technicians.

In urban areas, capitalism was not challenged, the market dictated as before, but now the actors in it were worker-owned enterprises because there was no central control. Wages, employment, what to produce remained subject to the logic of capital.

In rural areas, capitalism was more challenged, and it was so by anarchists having applied substantial force, pressure, and/or coercion, and really they had a small workers' republic in place in rural areas.

[Црвена]

Why do you single out land as such? The question is, do you support the socialisation of all of the means of production (all that is used in the process of production, from land to factories etc.)?



Alright, so, what resources do you consider basic, and how do you think "non-basic" resources should be distributed?



How do you think this should be accomplished, and why do you think it is important that it is accomplished?


- I do support the socialisation of all means of production.

- I think basic resources are food, water and shelter and all of that sort of thing. I don't think I should have used this term, though. To rephrase what I said: everyone should have access to all basic resources in addition to the freedom and materials to express themselves, through the arts and things like that, and the freedom to gain and distribute information. Needless luxury, which is anything that is unnecessary and does not involve self-expression/art, should be accessible by no one.

- This should be accomplished by an education system where everyone receives the same level of education and is encouraged to find a skilled job that they love doing. I think this is important because unskilled labour is hard and tedious, but absolutely necessary, so everyone should be making a fair contribution and no one having to do more than anyone else. Also, I think people from birth (who have no conditions) all have the same capacity to do skilled labour and can all be capable of doing it with a fair education system. I believe in both equal opportunity and equal outcome.

[RedWorker]

Marxism's really not anarchist though

Why not? How do you define "anarchism"? One of Marxism's end goals is the elimination of the state.


and most of the CNT would not have considered themselves Marxist.

Source?

[Tim Cornelis]

Why not? How do you define "anarchism"? One of Marxism's end goals is the elimination of the state.

If the definition of anarchism, anyone who advocates the elimination of the state at some point then you end up with Stalin, Mao, Marx, Kropotkin, Bookchin, that Venus Project bloke (fresco?), Rothbard, David D. Friedman, Proudhon, and Bordiga being anarchists. What defines anarchism is the ideological framework they have in advocating a stateless society, and it's different from Marxist communism.


Source?

Source? The burden of proof is on you. I've never ever heard anything like this. They were anarcho-syndicalists, so logically they are highly unlikely to consider themselves Marxist.

[ProletariatPower]

Marx himself was an Anarchist - he advocated abolition of the state. The reason why this is disputed is because he also advocated "dictatorship of the proletariat" a term which has an unclear meaning hence the debate between vanguards, anarcho-communists etc. Regardless of this Marxism is essentially anarchist as it predicts that the state will ultimately be abolished and all property become public ownership, what does Anarcho-Syndicalism advicate? That the state will be abolished and all private property become public ownership. The two ideas certainly do not conflict, it's simply that Anarcho-Syndicalists advocate the use of trade unions to create such a society. Therefore there is no reason someone cannot be an Anarcho-Syndicalist and a Marxcist.

Also the CNT consistently spoke of a class struggle against the bourgeoisie, they sought to establish a society which was basically Marx's definition of original Communism, as stated the primary difference is that they stressed the importance of unionism as a way to bring it about. Also the Anarchist Revolution in Catalonia was still under way when it collapsed, obviously things still needed to be improved, but the reason for it's failure was external pressure not the Revolution itself.

There are obviously differences between the methods sought by different Leftist groups, but the end goal of Marxism is a stateless society, an Anarchist one. I see no reason why anyone could not apply the concepts of Marxism to society, and also advocate Anarcho-Socialism (of any form). Have you never heard of Libertarian Marxism before? There are some clashes with more traditional Anarchism, but the point remains Anarchism and Marxism are compatible.

[Remus Bleys]

Time for my favorite Bukharin quote

Thus, the society of the future is a society without a state organization. Despite what many people say, the difference between Marxists and anarchists is not that the Marxists are statists whereas the anarchists are anti-statists. The real difference in views of the future structure is that the socialists see a social economy resulting from the tendencies of concentration and centralization, the inevitable companions of development of the productive forces, whereas the economic utopia of the decentralist-anarchists carries us back to pre-capitalist forms. The socialists expect the economy to become centralized and technologically perfected; the anarchists would make any economic progress whatever impossible. The form of state power is retained only in the transitional moment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a form of class domination in which the ruling class is the proletariat. With the disappearance of the proletarian dictatorship, the final form of the state’s existence disappears as well.

As tim already pointed out if marx was an anarchist (he called for a political state during the transition of capitalism to socialism for crying out loud!) then Lenin was an anarchist (and iirc some anarchists did make that claim during the Russian revolution ironically enough).

[motion denied]

Relevant to the topic at hand: http://www.marxists.org/archive/rubel/1973/marx-anarchism.htm

I don't think, however, that Marx and anarchism could go hand in hand.

[ProletariatPower]

As tim already pointed out if marx was an anarchist (he called for a political state during the transition of capitalism to socialism for crying out loud!) then Lenin was an anarchist (and iirc some anarchists did make that claim during the Russian revolution ironically enough).
The difference there is that Lenin interpreted 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' as signifying a Vanguard Party. Marx never clearly advocated a Vanguard Party, he simply stated that it would be impossible to immediately go from Capitalism to a Stateless Society.
If you look into Social Anarchism (sometimes called Anarcho-Socialism) you will find it is strongly linked to Libertarian Marxism.

"In fact, radical Marxism merges with Anarchist currents" - Noam Chomsky (an Anarcho-Syndicalist himself)

[motion denied]

Marx never advocated a party, but there he was in the Communist League, writing the demands of the Communist Party of Germany (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm), criticizing party programs (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm) and etc (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm)

Though it is arguable that he called for a vanguard (which, honestly, is inevitable), he never discarded a party (not necessarily in the modern sense).

EDIT: Marx considered himself a member of a party (http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1859/letters/59_05_18.html)


This has been a very good lesson for the louts. Scherzer, that old-Weitlingian jackass, imagined that he could nominate party representatives. At my meeting with a deputation of the louts (I have refused to visit any association, but Liebknecht is chairman of one and Laplander of another) I told them straight out that we owed our position as representatives of the proletarian party to nobody but ourselves; this, however, had been endorsed by the exclusive and universal hatred accorded us by every faction and party of the old world. You can imagine how taken aback the oafs were.

[ProletariatPower]

Being active in a political party does not mean advocating it being established as a Vanguard Party. As I previously stated, a 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' is a very disputed term. What is certain is that Marx wanted the Proletariat to be the dominant class, the 'dictatorship' (as opposed to Bourgeoisie Dictatorship). Do you think the Anarchists in Catalonia were not establishing the Proletariat as the dominant power? An Anarchist Revolution can easily coincide with class warfare and in this sense a 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' without a Vanguard Party.

[Tim Cornelis]

Marx himself was an Anarchist - he advocated abolition of the state.

So was Rothbard an anarchist?
Was Stalin an anarchist? Was Mao?

Again, anarchism is more than just advocating a stateless society at some point.


The reason why this is disputed is because he also advocated "dictatorship of the proletariat" a term which has an unclear meaning hence the debate between vanguards, anarcho-communists etc.

The term is not unclear to me or any Marxist I'm familiar with.


Regardless of this Marxism is essentially anarchist as it predicts that the state will ultimately be abolished and all property become public ownership,

That's communism.


what does Anarcho-Syndicalism advicate? That the state will be abolished and all private property become public ownership.

So we've established that both anarchism (or rather anarcho-communism) and Marxism (or rather Marxist communism) advocate communism.


The two ideas certainly do not conflict, it's simply that Anarcho-Syndicalists advocate the use of trade unions to create such a society. Therefore there is no reason someone cannot be an Anarcho-Syndicalist and a Marxcist.

Well there are some reasons: the Marxist opposition to economism and the advocacy of a workers' state.


Also the CNT consistently spoke of a class struggle against the bourgeoisie, they sought to establish a society which was basically Marx's definition of original Communism, as stated the primary difference is that they stressed the importance of unionism as a way to bring it about. Also the Anarchist Revolution in Catalonia was still under way when it collapsed, obviously things still needed to be improved, but the reason for it's [sic!] failure was external pressure not the Revolution itself.

The CNT was in favour of class struggle and communism but that in itself does not make you a Marxist. You have a really really narrow definition of Marxism and a very very broad definition of anarchism leading to absurd conclusions. Advocating class struggle and communism makes you a revolutionary socialist, not a Marxist.

But no, the inability to challenge capitalism in the revolutionary territories in Spain under control by the CNT was not because of external pressure, it was because of the anarchic model advocated and implemented which prioritised autonomy of worker-owned firms and workplaces over the need to socialise at a central level. Due to this, market exchange and capital continued. The remedy would be a workers' state exerting force, pressure, or coercion if necessary to centralise production and generalise the conditions. And that would be tantamount to abandoning anarchism (as they did in rural areas to their credit).


There are obviously differences between the methods sought by different Leftist groups, but the end goal of Marxism is a stateless society, an Anarchist one.

But anarchism is not synonymous with statelessness. Anarchism is a specific ideology that emerged out of capitalism, while stateless societies are roughly 200 to 150,000 years old (or 50,000 if we presume we can speak of societies with behavioural modernity). So advocating a stateless society in and of itself does not make you an anarchist. Otherwise, again, we might add Maoism, Stalinism, and perhaps even Juche, to the list of anarchist ideologies. Only if you advocate a stateless society through the specific ideological framework of anarchism can you be considered an anarchist. For instance, edgy teenagers advocating 'anarchy' thinking it's a stateless society reigned by chaos are not anarchists because they lack the ideological framework of anarchism (which can roughly be defined as a freedom-maximising ethos, advocacy of federalism, opposition to social hierarchy as primary feature, etc.).


I see no reason why anyone could not apply the concepts of Marxism to society, and also advocate Anarcho-Socialism (of any form). Have you never heard of Libertarian Marxism before? There are some clashes with more traditional Anarchism, but the point remains Anarchism and Marxism are compatible.

Yes, libertarian Marxism is a purely anarchist political position, and it translates to 'an anarchist who likes Marxism [but is not a Marxist]'. Most time it's anarchists who sorta agree with historical materialism but diverge from Marxism on the question of the state and their freedom-based ethos. These 'libertarian Marxists' are rare and exist on the internet and likewise claim non-libertarian Marxists as their own. This political position was invented by anarchists mistaking left communists and council communists for libertarians, especially by shitty authors like Wayne Price. Unfortunately, they have fooled wikipedia editors into thinking it's a real concept and now a new generation of anarchists, educated through the internet, believe it to be a real thing (and not original research as it is). There's in fact no libertarian Marxist theoreticians.

Anarchism and Marxism are not destined to bloodshed and in that sense they are compatible, but theoretically they are not.

EDIT:

Devrim quote:


I don't think so. The whole authoritarian/libertarian dichotmy is not really part of the council/left comunist discourse. They themselves would have rejected the label if only to distance themselves from the accusations of anarchism that were throwen against them.

To me the term 'libertarian Marxist' is an anarchist term used, as Juan said, to signify 'Marxists anarchists like'. Apart from Guerin, I can't really think of anybody who has used it to describe themselves, let alone any organisation that has described itself thus.

(...) That is not to say that revolutionaries shouldn't be able to draw on the heritage of different currents, but I think that to relabel something with a label that they wold have rejected theöselves is a best misleading and at worst intellectually dishonest.

Devrim
http://www.libcom.org/forums/theory/libertarian-marxism-anarchism-06032012

[ProletariatPower]

So was Rothbard an anarchist?
Was Stalin an anarchist? Was Mao?

Again, anarchism is more than just advocating a stateless society at some point.
No. None of those people were Anarchists, and Marx was not necessarily an Anarchist I suppose, however he did advocate Anarchism in the long run and therefore I say Marxism is compatible with Anarchism. The reason I would not consider Mao or Stalin Anarchists is their totalitarian interpretation of 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' through a Vanguard Party.


The term is not unclear to me or any Marxist I'm familiar with.
Not unclear? It is one of the most disputable points of all Marxism, it is what has caused much of the factionalism within Marxism. Marxist-Leninists for instance take it to mean that a literal state dictatorship must be set up, however, when Marx was writing it certainly did not necessarily mean that as 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' only means that the Proletariat hold the power, the workers hold the power.


That's communism.
Indeed, the original meaning of it at least, and it is also Anarchism as Anarchism means disestablishment of the state, this only strengthens my argument that they are compatible.


So we've established that both anarchism (or rather anarcho-communism) and Marxism (or rather Marxist communism) advocate communism.
Indeed, again you're supporting my point here because the end goal of most Anarchists is to create Communism, hence the term Anarcho-Communism in the first place and I would argue that this is actually more in-line with what Marx originally advocated.


Well there are some reasons: the Marxist opposition to economism and the advocacy of a workers' state.
A Workers' State can easily lead to Anarchism. Now this is where some Anarchists may divulge from some aspects of Marx I acknowledge that, but not believing in all of Marx's theories does not mean someone may not consider themselves a Marxist.


The CNT was in favour of class struggle and communism but that in itself does not make you a Marxist. You have a really really narrow definition of Marxism and a very very broad definition of anarchism leading to absurd conclusions. Advocating class struggle and communism makes you a revolutionary socialist, not a Marxist.
How is my definition of Marxism narrow here? In fact I'd admit I was probably speaking too broadly, but anyway belief in Revolutionary Socialism and applying Marxist theories to the world is what I would probably define as Marxism. The CNT sought class struggle and for power to go to the workers, they sought abolition of the state, it sounds fairly in-line with Marxist thought to me.


But no, the inability to challenge capitalism in the revolutionary territories in Spain under control by the CNT was not because of external pressure, it was because of the anarchic model advocated and implemented which prioritised autonomy of worker-owned firms and workplaces over the need to socialise at a central level. Due to this, market exchange and capital continued. The remedy would be a workers' state exerting force, pressure, or coercion if necessary to centralise production and generalise the conditions. And that would be tantamount to abandoning anarchism (as they did in rural areas to their credit).
I'd disagree with this, you cannot accurately predict what would have happened if Anarchist Catalonia had continued, it was destroyed by the external forces as well as the forces of the competing Communist Parties as well as growing Soviet influence, and finally ended by the Civil War itself of course. I do not intend to say Anarchist Catalonia was a brilliant model, but it went a lot further in my view to being a successful revolution than many of the other Communist Revolutions. Also as Anarcho-Syndicalists they believed Unions should hold paramount power, which they did, for instance regulations were enforced by workers' patrols to prevent chaos. This is not abandoning Anarchism, in fact it is in-line completely with Anarcho-Syndicalism, and neither is conflicting with Marxism.


But anarchism is not synonymous with statelessness. Anarchism is a specific ideology that emerged out of capitalism, while stateless societies are roughly 200 to 150,000 years old (or 50,000 if we presume we can speak of societies with behavioural modernity). So advocating a stateless society in and of itself does not make you an anarchist. Otherwise, again, we might add Maoism, Stalinism, and perhaps even Juche, to the list of anarchist ideologies. Only if you advocate a stateless society through the specific ideological framework of anarchism can you be considered an anarchist. For instance, edgy teenagers advocating 'anarchy' thinking it's a stateless society reigned by chaos are not anarchists because they lack the ideological framework of anarchism (which can roughly be defined as a freedom-maximising ethos, advocacy of federalism, opposition to social hierarchy as primary feature, etc.).
I agree with you that Anarchism does not mean just broad ideas of stateless society or the such. However, Anarchism could be argued to be a direct effort to disestablish the state (I recognise that it has many different divulging theories of course). I fail to see how this conflicts with Marxism. I realise Marx argued that a Workers' State should form, however as I previously stated not advocating every aspect of Marx's writings does not necessarily mean someone is not a Marxist. Furthermore, it could be argued that if someone proposes the dictatorship of the proletariat and following this the formation of an Anarchist society, in other words both class warfare followed by abolition of the state, then they could still be considered a Marxist. What stops the obviously not-Anarchist ideologies you stated from being Marxist is that they advocated all power going directly to the Workers' State (and hence the ruling Vanguard Party), and quite clearly lack any effort to actually establish a stateless society.


Yes, libertarian Marxism is a purely anarchist political position, and it translates to 'an anarchist who likes Marxism [but is not a Marxist]'. Most time it's anarchists who sorta agree with historical materialism but diverge from Marxism on the question of the state and their freedom-based ethos. This political position was invented by Marxists mistaking left communists and council communists for libertarians, especially by shitty authors like Wayne Price. Unfortunately, they have fooled wikipedia editors into thinking it's a real concept and now a new generation of anarchists, educated through the internet, believe it to be a real thing (and not original research as it is). There's in fact no libertarian Marxist theoreticians.
Quite simply put, a lack of writers advocating a position does not mean that it does not exist. I will admit I am not particularly well-read in this area, and it would be useful if someone could back me up with sources here. However, there are theoreticians who advocate a 'Libertarian' (although I sort of dislike the term) perspective of Marxism, as previously cited Noam Chomsky has described himself as a Libertarian Socialist and supported Marxism. While I realise this does not mean that Libertarian Socialism (or Anarcho-Socialism) is an offshoot of Marxism, or that such writers necessarily are Marxists, it does I believe demonstrate that the ideas are certainly not incompatible. I maintain that being a Marxist does not mean believing in all of Marx's writings, and I would also like to point out that many of Marx's writings can cause differences in interpretation of the terminology, what would prevent a Workers State from being Anarchistic in nature? I would argue.

[RedWorker]

Obviously Stalin was not an anarchist, this is because everything he did was to make the state more powerful and more authoritarian instead of opposite. It does not matter how many red flags he flew or how much he claimed to agree with Marxism. With that logic, we could call Gorbachev a Marxist-Leninist, since, you know, he claimed to be one and also served that red flag. DEEDS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. This is why I always say that Stalin is not a communist but an anti-communist and in fact very close in many ways to fascism, and not only in the meaning of "evil people leading the government".

Tim Cornelis is using this example specifically because he knows Stalin was an authoritarian and a statist, yet meanwhile is arguing that he could somehow qualify as an "anarchist" from our definition because he may have made some reference to stateless society like one time in his life.

Fallacy #1: "Most anarchists in history were following this kind of thought, therefore THIS is the meaning of anarchism."
Fallacy #2: "Because someone has never written about it, it must not exist."

Ultimately, with the logic of Tim Cornelis, someone could claim that communism is Marxism-Leninism.

Also, you argued that somehow an anarchist could like Marx but not be a Marxist, yet what is the definition of a Marxist if not one who likes Marx?

I'm a socialist because I like socialism. Or do I have to live like a poor person and have a painting of Marx in my room to be a socialist? Do I need to fully agree with everything which the "Determinist machine of Marxism" produces? :D

It is silly people need to assign labels to themselves, and quite a sad reflection that someone can fully define himself in one word, which excludes him from any non-dogmatic thought. "Marxist", "anarchist", ...

What about the POUM, who were Marxists and libertarians and allied with the CNT anarcho-syndicalists?

This reminds me: When people talk about the Spanish Anarchist Revolution, they talk of two sides: "Communists" vs. "Anarchists". But for some reason, the POUM communists are in the "anarchist" side, and the reactionary so-called "Communist Party" is in the "communist" side. In fact, the people who were working towards communism are in the "anarchist" side, and the people who were working for counter-revolution and taking backwards steps, getting away from communism, are in the "communist" side. :laugh:

For some reason, some people still think this makes sense. I guess these people are the same ones that insist that Stalin is a good example of a communist and that communism is Marxism-Leninism. :D

[#FF0000]

The use of "libertarian" in this discussion is pretty dumb, imo. POUM was not "libertarian". They just weren't Stalinists.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Not even that, really, the POUM was dominated by the Spanish section of the right-wing Communist Opposition, the former Bloc of Workers' and Peasants, the lovely people who supported everything the Soviet Union did up to the point where Bukharin and other members of the Right Opposition ended up shot.

And then people idealise them as anti-Stalinists and "anarchists".

[RedWorker]

And then people idealise them as anti-Stalinists and "anarchists".

If you're referring to me, I wasn't qualifying them as "anarchist". I was spotting the irony that pro-revolution parties in the Spanish anarchist revolution are popularly qualified as "on the anarchist side", while counter-revolutionary parties are qualified as "on the communist side", even though the former ones may be closer to communism and the latter ones may be more far away from communism.

With the word "libertarian", which is the opposite of "authoritarian", I meant that they opposed authoritarian ideologies like Stalinism. They were anti-Stalinists.

By the way, what about the SPGB, who are Marxists, oppose all authoritarianism and support an anti-authoritarian and peaceful transition to a libertarian and socialist stateless society? Of course, they must be not anarchists either. With this thinking the "anarchists" would probably even qualify a group which is necessarily more authoritarian than the SPGB, because many of them are in favor of violent revolution by a minority. :D

At some stage you have to realize that this 100 year old kind of thinking simply does not make sense.

[#FF0000]

With the word "libertarian", which is the opposite of "authoritarian", I meant that they opposed authoritarian ideologies like Stalinism. They were anti-Stalinists.

Even that doesn't make one "libertarian" though. Are trotskyists "Libertarian"? When one's talking about "libertarian" or "authoritarian", all one's saying is "I like this group" or "I don't like this group" the way it's being used in this thread.

[Tim Cornelis]

No. None of those people were Anarchists, and Marx was not necessarily an Anarchist I suppose, however he did advocate Anarchism in the long run and therefore I say Marxism is compatible with Anarchism. The reason I would not consider Mao or Stalin Anarchists is their totalitarian interpretation of 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' through a Vanguard Party.

Then Stalinism and anarchism are compatible because "in the long run" Stalin and Mao advocates 'anarchism' (a stateless society).


Not unclear? It is one of the most disputable points of all Marxism, it is what has caused much of the factionalism within Marxism. Marxist-Leninists for instance take it to mean that a literal state dictatorship must be set up, however, when Marx was writing it certainly did not necessarily mean that as 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' only means that the Proletariat hold the power, the workers hold the power.

No, Marxist-Leninists/Stalinists do not take it to mean a literal dictatorship, that is something you inferred. Stalinists have fooled themselves into believing Stalinist propaganda about the existence of a lively soviet democracy by workers in the USSR and elsewhere. Not sure what you mean with that last sentence/part.


Indeed, the original meaning of it at least, and it is also Anarchism as Anarchism means disestablishment of the state, this only strengthens my argument that they are compatible.

The only accurate definition. Anarchism does not mean simply abolishing the state at one point, as I've explained.


Indeed, again you're supporting my point here because the end goal of most Anarchists is to create Communism, hence the term Anarcho-Communism in the first place and I would argue that this is actually more in-line with what Marx originally advocated.

Then that means anarcho-communists and Marxists both want communism, not that they both are anarchistic ideologues.


A Workers' State can easily lead to Anarchism. Now this is where some Anarchists may divulge from some aspects of Marx I acknowledge that, but not believing in all of Marx's theories does not mean someone may not consider themselves a Marxist.

Nooo. Because a stateless society is NOT anarchism, as I've explained.


How is my definition of Marxism narrow here? In fact I'd admit I was probably speaking too broadly, but anyway belief in Revolutionary Socialism and applying Marxist theories to the world is what I would probably define as Marxism. The CNT sought class struggle and for power to go to the workers, they sought abolition of the state, it sounds fairly in-line with Marxist thought to me.

Nooo. Those are features of revolutionary socialism. Marxism is more than that. As revolutionary strategy specifically it involves a workers' state.


I'd disagree with this, you cannot accurately predict what would have happened if Anarchist Catalonia had continued, it was destroyed by the external forces as well as the forces of the competing Communist Parties as well as growing Soviet influence, and finally ended by the Civil War itself of course. I do not intend to say Anarchist Catalonia was a brilliant model, but it went a lot further in my view to being a successful revolution than many of the other Communist Revolutions. Also as Anarcho-Syndicalists they believed Unions should hold paramount power, which they did, for instance regulations were enforced by workers' patrols to prevent chaos. This is not abandoning Anarchism, in fact it is in-line completely with Anarcho-Syndicalism, and neither is conflicting with Marxism.

Again, worked-owned firms continued to operate on a competitive market. They continued to try and win profits. This was a direct consequence of anarchic confederalism and the remedy is voluntary centralism, or a workers' state. So yes it's quite easy to predict what would have happened. Simply extrapolate what exist in practiced and what was already predicted would happen years in advance: self-managed capitalism.

Coercion, taxation, force, are all contrary to anarchist principles, and applying them is diverging from anarchist principles.


I agree with you that Anarchism does not mean just broad ideas of stateless society or the such. However, Anarchism could be argued to be a direct effort to disestablish the state (I recognise that it has many different divulging theories of course). I fail to see how this conflicts with Marxism. I realise Marx argued that a Workers' State should form, however as I previously stated not advocating every aspect of Marx's writings does not necessarily mean someone is not a Marxist.

It's not about not following Marx' writings, it's about not following the Marxist method.


Furthermore, it could be argued that if someone proposes the dictatorship of the proletariat and following this the formation of an Anarchist society,

My. Again, "an anarchist society" is a meaningless term.


in other words both class warfare followed by abolition of the state, then they could still be considered a Marxist. What stops the obviously not-Anarchist ideologies you stated from being Marxist is that they advocated all power going directly to the Workers' State (and hence the ruling Vanguard Party), and quite clearly lack any effort to actually establish a stateless society.

All Marxists advocate all power, as much power as possible, going to a workers' state.


Quite simply put, a lack of writers advocating a position does not mean that it does not exist. I will admit I am not particularly well-read in this area, and it would be useful if someone could back me up with sources here. However, there are theoreticians who advocate a 'Libertarian' (although I sort of dislike the term) perspective of Marxism, as previously cited Noam Chomsky has described himself as a Libertarian Socialist and supported Marxism.

Chomsky is an anarchist with no clue about Marxism. He likes Luxemburg and Mattick and Pannekoek, but that doesn't make him a Marxist.


While I realise this does not mean that Libertarian Socialism (or Anarcho-Socialism) is an offshoot of Marxism, or that such writers necessarily are Marxists, it does I believe demonstrate that the ideas are certainly not incompatible. I maintain that being a Marxist does not mean believing in all of Marx's writings, and I would also like to point out that many of Marx's writings can cause differences in interpretation of the terminology, what would prevent a Workers State from being Anarchistic in nature? I would argue.

Centralisation, coercion, force.

Yes you can like both ideologies but Marxism is not anarchistic.


Obviously Stalin was not an anarchist, this is because everything he did was to make the state more powerful and more authoritarian instead of opposite. It does not matter how many red flags he flew or how much he claimed to agree with Marxism. With that logic, we could call Gorbachev a Marxist-Leninist, since, you know, he claimed to be one and also served that red flag. DEEDS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. This is why I always say that Stalin is not a communist but an anti-communist and in fact very close in many ways to fascism, and not only in the meaning of "evil people leading the government".

Tim Cornelis is using this example specifically because he knows Stalin was an authoritarian and a statist, yet meanwhile is arguing that he could somehow qualify as an "anarchist" from our definition because he may have made some reference to stateless society like one time in his life.

Fallacy #1: "Most anarchists in history were following this kind of thought, therefore THIS is the meaning of anarchism."
Fallacy #2: "Because someone has never written about it, it must not exist."

Ultimately, with the logic of Tim Cornelis, someone could claim that communism is Marxism-Leninism.

Also, you argued that somehow an anarchist could like Marx but not be a Marxist, yet what is the definition of a Marxist if not one who likes Marx?

I'm a socialist because I like socialism. Or do I have to live like a poor person and have a painting of Marx in my room to be a socialist? Do I need to fully agree with everything which the "Determinist machine of Marxism" produces? :D

It is silly people need to assign labels to themselves, and quite a sad reflection that someone can fully define himself in one word, which excludes him from any non-dogmatic thought. "Marxist", "anarchist", ...

What about the POUM, who were Marxists and libertarians and allied with the CNT anarcho-syndicalists?

This reminds me: When people talk about the Spanish Anarchist Revolution, they talk of two sides: "Communists" vs. "Anarchists". But for some reason, the POUM communists are in the "anarchist" side, and the reactionary so-called "Communist Party" is in the "communist" side. In fact, the people who were working towards communism are in the "anarchist" side, and the people who were working for counter-revolution and taking backwards steps, getting away from communism, are in the "communist" side. :laugh:

For some reason, some people still think this makes sense. I guess these people are the same ones that insist that Stalin is a good example of a communist and that communism is Marxism-Leninism. :D

This is so ridiculous. Imma respond tomorra.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Yes, libertarian Marxism is a purely anarchist political position, and it translates to 'an anarchist who likes Marxism [but is not a Marxist]'.
Or those of us who see important value in both Marxism and anarchism.


These 'libertarian Marxists' are rare and exist on the internet
Rare, yes, but some of us have decades of being politically active (and, fwiw, the internet is an extension of offline life, anything that exists on the internet must first exist offline).

[Tim Cornelis]

Or those of us who see important value in both Marxism and anarchism.

Yeah but still it's an anarchist political position, anarchists who value Marxism to some or a considerable extend. When writing that I actually thought of you as the only self-proclaimed libertarian Marxist who has mature politics.


Rare, yes, but some of us have decades of being politically active (and, fwiw, the internet is an extension of offline life, anything that exists on the internet must first exist offline).

Sure, what I had in mind was that there are no libertarian Marxist organisations. Libertarian Marxism has no theory, no theoreticians.

[Tim Cornelis]

Obviously Stalin was not an anarchist, this is because everything he did was to make the state more powerful and more authoritarian instead of opposite.

Right... But it was claimed that Marx was an anarchist on the basis that he advocated a stateless society, Stalin advocated a stateless society. So:


The last stage in the existence of the state will be the period of the socialist revolution, when the proletariat will capture political power and set up its own government (dictatorship) for the final abolition of the bourgeoisie. But when the bourgeoisie is abolished, when classes are abolished, when socialism becomes firmly established, there will be no need for any political power—and the so-called state will retire into the sphere of history.

So was Stalin an anarchist?

Marx too advocated a powerful centralised workers' state, albeit one that is democratically organised on the basis of workers' power (as opposed to Stalin's dictatorial centralised bourgeois state).



It does not matter how many red flags he flew or how much he claimed to agree with Marxism. With that logic, we could call Gorbachev a Marxist-Leninist, since, you know, he claimed to be one and also served that red flag. DEEDS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. This is why I always say that Stalin is not a communist but an anti-communist and in fact very close in many ways to fascism, and not only in the meaning of "evil people leading the government".

Stalin was a bourgeois socialist, but a bourgeois socialist who believe a stateless society would follow eventually. And thus an anarchist by your and ProletarianPower's definition.


Tim Cornelis is using this example specifically because he knows Stalin was an authoritarian and a statist, yet meanwhile is arguing that he could somehow qualify as an "anarchist" from our definition because he may have made some reference to stateless society like one time in his life.

Yes, by your definition of anarchist: someone advocating a stateless society at some point.


Fallacy #1: "Most anarchists in history were following this kind of thought, therefore THIS is the meaning of anarchism."

Wha'? How is that related to what I said? Or, where did I say this?


Fallacy #2: "Because someone has never written about it, it must not exist."

If something has no political theory, no authors, no theoreticians, no organisations, no movement, no history, then it does not exist in any meaningful way.


Ultimately, with the logic of Tim Cornelis, someone could claim that communism is Marxism-Leninism.

Uh what? How?


Also, you argued that somehow an anarchist could like Marx but not be a Marxist, yet what is the definition of a Marxist if not one who likes Marx?

Haha what? A Marxist is someone who upholds, advocates, and applies Marxism, not someone who "likes" Marx. Don't be ridiculous.


I'm a socialist because I like socialism.

That makes you sympathetic to socialism at best. What makes you a socialist is advocating socialism.


Or do I have to live like a poor person and have a painting of Marx in my room to be a socialist? Do I need to fully agree with everything which the "Determinist machine of Marxism" produces? :D

That's not even clever.


It is silly people need to assign labels to themselves, and quite a sad reflection that someone can fully define himself in one word, which excludes him from any non-dogmatic thought. "Marxist", "anarchist", ...

Uh no. Using an appropriate label to describe your politics does not mean you are 'dogmatic' about it.


What about the POUM, who were Marxists and libertarians and allied with the CNT anarcho-syndicalists?

Really, POUM libertarian? Is Trotsky libertarian, Bukharin libertarian, the Chinese Stalinists (and Maoists) were inspired by anarchistic beliefs, were they libertarian?

[ProletariatPower]

I am not going to get back into this whole Stalin, Mao = Anarchist? debate thing again because I think it's starting to loose the point and getting kind of ridiculous.
But as for Libertarian Marxism...
Sorry, but the one thing I don't understand is that you seem to think that Marxism can be upheld by political Anarchists without it being a combined perspective? You just admitted Libertarian Marxism does exist, and I'm glad you acknowledged that there are individuals with "mature politics". I recognise it is lacking as a movement, also I was not claiming Chomsky was a Marxist but he does clearly mention Marxism in his work and hold it in high esteem. I think you need to recognise that Marxism has different branches and not all Marxists subscribe to all of what Marx stated or interpret it in the same way, Libertarian Marxism may not be a particularly well developed ideology, but that does not prevent it from existing. I acknowledge that I am not a theorist myself and am still reading into Marxism as well as Anarchism, but from what I have learned and as people here have pointed out here I still see no reason why someone could not hold Anarchistic political views and also advocate a use of Marxist theory to apply to analysing situations in the world, and in my view that is a form of Marxism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Alright, so some of the posters here seem to fundamentally misunderstand both Marxism and anarchism. And hey, who better to clear up misunderstandings than me? A lot of people. But you haven't got those, you've got me.


The difference there is that Lenin interpreted 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' as signifying a Vanguard Party.

No, that doesn't make any sense. A vanguard party (why the capitals?) is a party, a political organisation, of the most advanced elements of the proletariat. It was Lenin's insight that in the era of imperialism the proletariat is divided more than it ever was, and that parties that claim to represent the entire proletariat are unable to act in a revolutionary manner, due to the influence of strata such as the labour aristocracy and bureaucracy.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is simply a transitional state or semi-state, presiding over the destruction of class society. To most anarchists, this is anathema.


If you look into Social Anarchism (sometimes called Anarcho-Socialism) you will find it is strongly linked to Libertarian Marxism.

"Anarcho-socialism" is another term that exists only on Wikipedia; it is an invention of various pro-capitalist groups that want to be anarchists. All anarchism is socialist; anarchism is part of the socialist movement, and always has been. How it's supposed to work is that "anarcho-socialism" encompasses anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism etc., but it's obvious these do not generally rely on a Marxist analysis of society.


"In fact, radical Marxism merges with Anarchist currents" - Noam Chomsky (an Anarcho-Syndicalist himself)

Nah, Chomsky's a liberal who thinks workers taking over factories in order to form cooperatives and produce efficiently for the market is the next best things since sliced bread.

[ProletariatPower]

No, that doesn't make any sense. A vanguard party (why the capitals?) is a party, a political organisation, of the most advanced elements of the proletariat. It was Lenin's insight that in the era of imperialism the proletariat is divided more than it ever was, and that parties that claim to represent the entire proletariat are unable to act in a revolutionary manner, due to the influence of strata such as the labour aristocracy and bureaucracy.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is simply a transitional state or semi-state, presiding over the destruction of class society. To most anarchists, this is anathema.
Let's not turn this into a debate about the 'insight', or lack of, of Leninism, however Leninists believe a vanguard party (I have a strange tendency to use capitals for terms, even when it's sometimes not necessary to answer your question) is necessary to secure this workers' state, or the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. I do not see why a Marxist could not advocate a more 'Anarchistic' approach to this, in which both the state and the class system begin to be disestablished in order to prevent a centralised state forming a new establishment and class system.

"Anarcho-socialism" is another term that exists only on Wikipedia; it is an invention of various pro-capitalist groups that want to be anarchists. All anarchism is socialist; anarchism is part of the socialist movement, and always has been. How it's supposed to work is that "anarcho-socialism" encompasses anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism etc., but it's obvious these do not generally rely on a Marxist analysis of society.
I have met people who prefer the term Anarcho-Socialism to explain their views to people and I myself sometimes use the term, simply because of the widespread misunderstandings of Anarchism itself. Although I realise it probably is a term that should be avoided. Also these are political ideologies, there's nothing preventing proponents of Anarchism also applying Marxist theory.

Nah, Chomsky's a liberal who thinks workers taking over factories in order to form cooperatives and produce efficiently for the market is the next best things since sliced bread.
We've had this debate divulge enough already and I don't want it to turn into a debate about Noam Chomsky either, but the point remains there have been Anarchist writers who have been supportive of Marxism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Actually, 'anarcho-socialism' is a term I only see used by new anarchists and ignorant right-libertarians (who just replace the capitalism in anarcho-capitalism with socialism), and I just deleted the wikipedia reference to anarcho-socialism because it has no source and it's essentially original research (it was only mentioned once anyway).



I am not going to get back into this whole Stalin, Mao = Anarchist? debate thing again because I think it's starting to loose the point and getting kind of ridiculous.

It's supposed to be ridiculous.


But as for Libertarian Marxism...
Sorry, but the one thing I don't understand is that you seem to think that Marxism can be upheld by political Anarchists without it being a combined perspective? You just admitted Libertarian Marxism does exist, and I'm glad you acknowledged that there are individuals with "mature politics".

Libertarian Marxism notwithstanding its name, is an anarchist political position.


I recognise it is lacking as a movement, also I was not claiming Chomsky was a Marxist but he does clearly mention Marxism in his work and hold it in high esteem. I think you need to recognise that Marxism has different branches and not all Marxists subscribe to all of what Marx stated or interpret it in the same way, Libertarian Marxism may not be a particularly well developed ideology, but that does not prevent it from existing. I acknowledge that I am not a theorist myself and am still reading into Marxism as well as Anarchism, but from what I have learned and as people here have pointed out here I still see no reason why someone could not hold Anarchistic political views and also advocate a use of Marxist theory to apply to analysing situations in the world, and in my view that is a form of Marxism.

OF course you can take inspiration from two different political currents, if they're related. However, the initial point was that Marx was an anarchist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I thought I was a libertarian Marxist, but I just read Homage to Catalonia and found myself agreeing with the CNT-FAI - an anarchist militia - on a lot of things, which makes me think I could be an anarchist.be anything, just don't fetishize labels. A tendency shouldn't be an identity that you put on, it should be a description of a general school of thought which develops. Just call yourself an anarchist or just say you are a communist who agrees with a lot of anarchist ideas but also many marxist ideas. If you are trying to identify what trends you more agree with so you can learn more, again worry less about the label and just learn based on what makes sense to you. Politics are fluid, individuals views are fluid too because everything changes all the time. Be the principled yet open and adaptable kind of revolutionary.

[RedWorker]

Right... But it was claimed that Marx was an anarchist on the basis that he advocated a stateless society, Stalin advocated a stateless society. So:

So was Stalin an anarchist?

No, in the same way that Gorbachev was not a Marxist-Leninist (even though he claimed to be one in his earlier days) because deeds speak louder than words. You are silly.


Marx too advocated a powerful centralised workers' state

Elaborate. And what do you define as "powerful"?


Stalin was a bourgeois socialist, but a bourgeois socialist who believe a stateless society would follow eventually. And thus an anarchist by your and ProletarianPower's definition.

Schopenhauer - The art of being right. Principle #23: Exaggerate your opponent's argument.


Yes, by your definition of anarchist: someone advocating a stateless society at some point.

Stalin did not act in favor of reaching a stateless society. He acted in favor of the opposite, even if he claimed to favor a stateless society.


Wha'? How is that related to what I said? Or, where did I say this?

You define anarchism to be one thing. Still I did not hear a definition of anarchism from you. Obviously anarchism is a movement which wants a stateless society and to dismantle all forms of authoritarianism - which is what Marxism directly or indirectly advocates, as this will happen once communism is reached.


If something has no political theory, no authors, no theoreticians, no organisations, no movement, no history, then it does not exist in any meaningful way.

What are you even saying here? That non-authoritarian communism does not exist?


Uh what? How?

Saying that all anarchism is this brand of anarchism, which is what your argument basically boils down to, is analogous to saying communism is Marxism-Leninism, based on the thought that 1) the whole "communist" movement was based on Marxism-Leninism and 2) there is no "theory of another sort" (according to you).


Haha what? A Marxist is someone who upholds, advocates, and applies Marxism, not someone who "likes" Marx. Don't be ridiculous.

That's my very point. So how can an anarchist not advocate and apply Marxism?


Uh no. Using an appropriate label to describe your politics does not mean you are 'dogmatic' about it.

You are advocating a dogmatic manner of thinking.


Really, POUM libertarian? Is Trotsky libertarian, Bukharin libertarian, the Chinese Stalinists (and Maoists) were inspired by anarchistic beliefs, were they libertarian?

They rejected authoritarian forms like Stalinism and allied with the anarchists, helping their revolution.

[ProletariatPower]

It's supposed to be ridiculous.
I get that, I realise your point was to demonstrate what you meant I just mean that that whole debate is getting extremely sidetracked and I think we can all say with certainty that they were not Anarchists.


Libertarian Marxism notwithstanding its name, is an anarchist political position.
Yes, it is an Anarchist political position, but suggests that those who follow it apply Marxist analytical methods to history and current issues, which I think is reasonable and is not some kind of incompatible impossibility.


OF course you can take inspiration from two different political currents, if they're related. However, the initial point was that Marx was an anarchist.
Fair enough, I retract that and acknowledge Marx was not an Anarchist in the strictly ideological sense of the word, that is his viewpoints did not fit with those of theoreticians who are 'Anarchists'. Although the end goal and much of the theory is not that dissimilar which is why I believe the theories of both (with of course some cases of conflict) can be compatible.


be anything, just don't fetishize labels. A tendency shouldn't be an identity that you put on, it should be a description of a general school of thought which develops
This is a really good point, these terms really should be more descriptions than identities. Hence why I'd argue they do not have to be so strictly categorized, which is why I believe someone can consider themselves a Marxist and an Anarchist.

[#FF0000]

They rejected authoritarian forms like Stalinism and allied with the anarchists, helping their revolution.

Trotskyism isn't authoritarian? Bukharin's Right Opposition isn't authoritarian? They might've fought for the right side but saying they were "libertarian" is silly (tho I think judging parties for being "authoritarian" vs "libertarian" is silly as well)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Trotskyism isn't authoritarian? Bukharin's Right Opposition isn't authoritarian? They might've fought for the right side but saying they were "libertarian" is silly (tho I think judging parties for being "authoritarian" vs "libertarian" is silly as well)

Calling Trotskyism "libertarian" is really... well it shows a lack of understanding. I imagine it would have the old man reaching for an ice axe to kill himself. Also, heh, the POUM didn't "reject ... forms like Stalinism", the secretary of their pseudo-international, the London Bureau, supported the Moscow Trials until the trial of Bukharin.

[ComradeOm]

That's my very point. So how can an anarchist not advocate and apply Marxism?Because sooner or later our example anarchist is going to have to deal with the conflict between Marxist and anarchist views on the state. That is, is the state merely an organ of class rule or does is it inherently (ie by the very act of being a hierarchical structure) oppressive/corrupting? If you accept the former then why call yourself an anarchist in the first place? If you disagree then you're not working towards a Marxist solution.

(Which is of course to ignore the whole anarchist tradition that does not view society through the prism of Marxist class analysis.)

[The Idler]

By the way, what about the SPGB, who are Marxists, oppose all authoritarianism and support an anti-authoritarian and peaceful transition to a libertarian and socialist stateless society? Of course, they must be not anarchists either. With this thinking the "anarchists" would probably even qualify a group which is necessarily more authoritarian than the SPGB, because many of them are in favor of violent revolution by a minority. :D

At some stage you have to realize that this 100 year old kind of thinking simply does not make sense.
A minor point, but the SPGB are not pacifist.

[Tim Cornelis]

No, in the same way that Gorbachev was not a Marxist-Leninist (even though he claimed to be one in his earlier days) because deeds speak louder than words. You are silly.

Yeah but you're missing the point. The definition of anarchism was: advocating a stateless society at some point. Stalin's actions did not contradict it, because he thought a stateless society would not be immediately established, but some time in the future. It seems you're just playing dumb to not have to face that it's a stupid definition of anarchism.


Elaborate. And what do you define as "powerful"?

Powerful in that it has the capability to repress and oppress the reaction, powerful in the sense that it can be hegemonic and impose its will on the reaction, powerful in that a workers' state seeks to usurp as much power as possible, away from the reaction.


Schopenhauer - The art of being right. Principle #23: Exaggerate your opponent's argument.

mmk?


Stalin did not act in favor of reaching a stateless society. He acted in favor of the opposite, even if he claimed to favor a stateless society.

He may not have acted in that way, but he did advocate it.


You define anarchism to be one thing. Still I did not hear a definition of anarchism from you. Obviously anarchism is a movement which wants a stateless society and to dismantle all forms of authoritarianism - which is what Marxism directly or indirectly advocates, as this will happen once communism is reached.

Anarchism is an ideological framework based instruments of federalism, class struggle, and emphasising individual freedom to implement a socialist society. Anarchism is a means toward an end (socialism).


What are you even saying here? That non-authoritarian communism does not exist?

I don't believe in a libertarian-authoritarian dichotomy. Even as an anarchist I did not. I regarded it as a scale. Being non-authoritarian does not make you libertarian, I regarded libertarian on the one side, authoritarian on the other, and democratic somewhere in the middle. Having this dichotomy, a false one in fact, is really a caricature of the communist movement.


Saying that all anarchism is this brand of anarchism, which is what your argument basically boils down to, is analogous to saying communism is Marxism-Leninism, based on the thought that 1) the whole "communist" movement was based on Marxism-Leninism and 2) there is no "theory of another sort" (according to you).

Which brand? What are you talking about? I really don't understand what you mean, maybe you can quote me and then link that to what you wrote here.


That's my very point. So how can an anarchist not advocate and apply Marxism?

Explained by another poster.


You are advocating a dogmatic manner of thinking.

:rolleyes: Why? Because I have a different paradigm than you?


They rejected authoritarian forms like Stalinism and allied with the anarchists, helping their revolution.

So? Are social-democrats and left-liberals libertarian socialists on account of being opposed to Stalinism?

[Dictator]

OP sounds like Anarcho-Syndicalist to me

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Yeah but still it's an anarchist political position, anarchists who value Marxism to some or a considerable extend. When writing that I actually thought of you as the only self-proclaimed libertarian Marxist who has mature politics.
My first exposure to Marxism was through De Leonism. I often wonder if I would have developed to where I am now if my first exposure to Marxism had come through Stalinism, Trotskyism, or Maoism.


Sure, what I had in mind was that there are no libertarian Marxist organisations. Libertarian Marxism has no theory, no theoreticians.
Fair enough, but if we're anarchists who value Marxism, then we have plenty of theoreticians to draw on from both traditions.

[Remus Bleys]

"Those who directly attack Marxism as a theory of history are preferable to its “revisers” and “enrichers”, who are all the more harmful insofar as they avail themselves not of a collaborationist, but of an extremist phraseology. According to the latter, critical emendations and additions are necessary in order to correct what they call the failures and shortcomings of Marxism. We are now in a period of evident social and political counterrevolution; but at the same time, it is a period of full confirmation and victory of our critique.
...
A detestable example of this is the charlatanry concerning a third force or a third class—the “bureaucracy”, the “technocrats”—to which we must respond that Marxism must be accepted or rejected as a whole: it does not need our amendments or repairs, which comprise the worst of the deformations of the revolutionary theory."
http://libcom.org/library/lessons-counterrevolutions-amadeo-bordiga

"Three historical forms: industrialism in autonomous enterprises, industrialism in increasingly concentrated enterprises and then commonly managed enterprsies, socialism; all three were foreseen and described by Marx “from the very start”. Nothing has occurred which was unforeseen and which lies beyond the bounds of the analysis which outlined this once and for all. Damn those who talk about dogmas. There has yet to be a renegade who did not use this word. Mao Tse Tung compared it with “cow shit”. Well, bon apetit!"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1953/horsepower.htm

edit: and of course everything in here http://international-communist-party.org/BasicTexts/English/52HistIn.htm

[The Idler]

Yeah but still it's an anarchist political position, anarchists who value Marxism to some or a considerable extend. When writing that I actually thought of you as the only self-proclaimed libertarian Marxist who has mature politics.



Sure, what I had in mind was that there are no libertarian Marxist organisations. Libertarian Marxism has no theory, no theoreticians.
The SPGB/WSM? Daniel Guerin? Aufheben?