How would Anarchists and Marxists abolish capitalism?

[Gendenwitha]

I hope to learn how each of these would abolish capitalism, so I can decide which I agree with.

[tuwix]

There are many tendencies in Anarchism.
Anarcho-primitivist would like the civilization to collapse and get back to primitive communism.
Anarcho-individualists would base an economy on voluntary cooperatives.
Anarcho-collectivists would like cooperatives as only possible way of economy.
Anarcho-syndicalists would like unions to take power over means of productions.
Anarcho-communists would like cooperatives governed by its own workers exactly as anarcho-collectivists but they want immediate abolition of money.

And Marxists want to introduce workers' control over means of production in whatever form and then gradually produce more and more to be possible an abolition of money.

[Buzzard]

I hope to learn how each of these would abolish capitalism, so I can decide which I agree with.
to keep it short and simple

Both want to abolish capitalism, but marxism prefers the tactic of a workers state to lead the revolution as opposed to anarchists who want no state

[exeexe]

There are three non-statist strategies and they compliment each other. You can do industrial actions, make an insurrection and run cooperatives.

Cooperatives give nice working conditions to the workers. If there were enough cooperatives they could starve the capitalists from workers, because then the workers would find work at the cooperatives.

Insurrection means to strike the system so it collapses. Then when the system has collapsed you can force the capitalist class to lose control over the means of production

With industrial actions you go on a strike and starve the capitalist into submission. With a general strike you could even starve the state and from here work together with cooperatives and insurrectionists to take control over the means of production.
Industrial actions also include for example the use of sabotage. Its important to mention when anarchist use the word sabotage they mean slow down the production and not the use of explosives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage

Industrial actions, sabotage and Insurrection ect. are a form of action that is direct, so its called direct action. You can learn about other kinds of direct actions here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action

Also this song gives a good explaination:
ZE2jIHw_CN8

[BIXX]

Anarcho-individualists would base an economy on voluntary cooperatives.


Just wanted to say that that is only one type of individualist- most individualists want to abolish the economy itself.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Marxists believe that the working class needs to seize the apparatus of the state and use it to destroy counter-revolution and the columns that prop up capitalism. It is in the interests of the working class to abolish wage labour, private property and the class system itself but no-one can look at history and believe that it could be a process that can happen immediately in one fell swoop and so Marxists understand that the working class must first seize control of their own destinies before the last vestiges of capitalism can be dismantled. Engels called this the 'withering away of the state' but basically it constitutes the organs of the state gradually becoming obsolete as all the reasons the state exist (namely defending private property and instituting and upholding coercive bourgeois law) disappear.

[exeexe]

Marxists believe that the working class needs to seize the apparatus of the state
Wrong. Marxist believe the working class and the peasants should smash the state. Then rebuild the state. Then wait for the state to magically dissapear by itself...

.. zzz ..


Marx's idea is that the working class must break up, smash the "ready-made state machinery", and not confine itself merely to laying hold of it.
http://www.marxist.com/classics-old/lenin/staterev.html

[Thirsty Crow]

Just wanted to say that that is only one type of individualist- most individualists want to abolish the economy itself.
What does this exactly mean? And how does it get done?

[(A)]

Wrong. Marxist believe the working class should smash the state. Then rebuild the state. Then wait for the state to magically dissapear by itself...

.. zzz ..

And of course there are many types of states that could be formed.
The USSR tried a centralized single party system.
I would prefer a more minimal state myself (communalism or municapalism).

[Gendenwitha]

Do Anarchists want to abolish the State, even if it only suppresses Capitalism? If it requires us to have Communism I do not care.

[ralfy]

Capitalism will fall apart because it is not sustainable.

[exeexe]

That such a regime would not "wither away" has been proven by history. The state machine does not (indeed, cannot) represent the interests of the working classes due to its centralised, hierarchical and elitist nature - all it can do is represent the interests of the party in power, its own bureaucratic needs and privileges and slowly, but surely, remove itself from popular control. This, as anarchists have constantly stressed, is why the state is based on the delegation of power, on hierarchy and centralisation. The state is organised in this way to facilitate minority rule by excluding the mass of people from taking part in the decision making processes within society. If the masses actually did manage society directly, it would be impossible for a minority class to dominate it. Hence the need for a state. Which shows the central fallacy of the Marxist theory of the state, namely it argues that the rule of the proletariat will be conducted by a structure, the state, which is designed to exclude the popular participation such a concept demands!
...
Building on a historically based (and so evolutionary) understanding of the state, anarchists concluded that it was necessary not to seize political power (which could only be exercised by a minority within any state) but rather to destroy it, to dissipate power into the hands of the working class, the majority. By ending the regime of the powerful by destroying their instrument of rule, the power which was concentrated into their hands automatically falls back into the hands of society. Thus, working class power can only be concrete once "political power" is shattered and replaced by the social power of the working class based on its own class organisations (such as factory committees, workers' councils, unions, neighbourhood assemblies and so on).

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionH3#sech37

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't believe anarchists or Marxists can abolish capitalism. But they can help organize the working class to abolish capitalist rule and institutions.

As a Marxist, I don't don't think workers can abolish capitalism because it is not simply policies or institutions, it's social relationships which are then held in place or protected by things like the capitalist state. No other group in society would have the potential social weight and power or the interest in replacing these relationships with cooperative and egalitarian ways of surviving and thriving.

I think mass strikes and workers taking over and running workplaces and communities themselves is the most plausible way for this to happen. It is plausible not just because it has happened in the past, but because the act of organizing this themselves puts regular people in an active position of running their own lives cooperatively.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wrong. Marxist believe the working class and the peasants should smash the state. Then rebuild the state. Then wait for the state to magically dissapear by itself...
i think viewing the state as an entity in of itself is not accurate or useful. States are organized ways of protecting and projecting the interests of a particular class in society when there are competing or antagonistic elements in society (classes).

To say that THE state is something that exists outside of history and situation is the "magic" formulation here. It's moralistic like when pacifists say that the violence of the police and the violence of people defending against repression or oppression are the same thing.

Early on, workers would need to have some kind of way of collectively deciding things, militias to protect them from any remaining reactionary forces, ways to organize the transformation of infrastructure and so on. A counter-state that becomes more redundant the more successfully workers organize themselves and reorganize society. Many class-oriented anarchists agree with this, they just use different terminology or claim that this process can happen before a confrontation with capitalist rule or leading up to a negation of capitalism.

At any rate, I don't think it's magical to say that this kind of organization would become unessisary as class divisions and relations are eliminated. The capitalist state, the state-capitalist state are organizations dedicated to maintaing class rule and divisions and so they are permanent and tend to increase their repressive or coercive power because of these permanent antagonisms. A revolutionary "counter-state" would be about eliminating these divisions and antagonisms and thus would become less and less necessary.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, viewing the state as the source of repression, rather than a tool means that logically anarchists must also be against workers militias because quite a few militias have been repressive and installed themselves in power over people. It's no more magical to think that a revolutionary state of worker's self rule would wither as class divisions are eliminated than it is to think a worker's militia would disband itself when there is no more direct conflict.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Maoist-Cannibalism seeks to reconcile the dialectical dichotomy of the bourgeoisie versus the proletariat via the cannibalistic process of the people consuming themselves.

[Tim Cornelis]

A workers' state is by definition non-elitist; so you can immediately disregard that Anarchist FAQ's position.

According to Marxism, contradictions within capitalism produce class antagonisms between the working class and capitalist class which will result in a revolutionary situation wherein the working class forms organs of workers' power -- such as workers' councils, workers' associations, committees, communes -- to try and conquer political power. These organs, part of a revolutionary body -- the workers' state -- is organised from below with power in the lowest organs, and mandated, recallable, rotating workers' deputies in higher organs executing decisions, whom are binding on all organs by virtue of the lower organs accepting the decisions of the higher organs. The revolutionary state is a temporary one where councils and the like will wield political power, and workers' associations will assume control of production. Socialised production under private property is transformed into social ownership. The state will use violence, pressure, and coercion where necessary to consolidate power and carry the revolution to victory. This violence is directed at the reaction, those using violence to restore property rights and the bourgeois class to the position of ruling class. As the social revolution progresses the reaction is beaten and defeated, and the process of socialisation is completed, revolutionary violence is obsolete and will necessarily disappear. What remains of the workers' state is the associations of producers and social ownership. As such, the result is the free association of equal producers and consumers administrating commonly owned productive resources: communism.

[helot]

Anarcho-syndicalists would like unions to take power over means of productions.

That's just wrong. The A/S union's role is never to take power. Ever since its founding the IWA-AIT has been committed to 'the establishment of economic communities and administrative organs run by the workers in the field and factories, forming a system of free councils without subordination to any authority'. This is not the anarcho-syndicalist union. The A/S union's role is engaging in day to day struggles and education.

[exeexe]

Anarcho-syndicalists would like unions to take power over means of productions. .
In black flame it says syndicalism wants to

ultimately form the basis for workers' self-management of the means of production.
...
the workers would occupy the factories, mines, farms, offices, and so forth, and place them under self-management. The revolutionary occupation undertaken, the union structure would provide the model through which self-management was exercised, with local assemblies, mandated committees, and coordination between and within industries through the larger union federation.
With the means of production under workers self-management, the working class would now literally rule society; the workers, "when they are powerful enough," would "shut the factories against the present employers and commence production for use. The unions themselves, Rocker stressed, would provide the basis for "taking over the management of all plants by the producers themselves." The "socialist economic order" would thus not "be created by the decrees and statutes of any government" but only "by the unqualified collaboration of the workers, technicians and peasants to carry on production and distribution by their own administration in the interest of the community and on the basis of mutual agreements."
...
The IWAs Latin American umbrella body, ACAT, likewise, staked "all its hopes on organising labour" to "assume possession of the means of production, distribution and transport.
...
it (syndicalism) prepares for complete emancipation, which can be realized only by expropriating the capitalist class; it sanctions the general strike as its means of action and it maintains that the trade union, today an organisation of resistance, will in the future be the organisation of production and distribution, the basis of social reorganisation

[exeexe]

i think viewing the state as an entity in of itself is not accurate or useful. States are organized ways of protecting and projecting the interests of a particular class in society when there are competing or antagonistic elements in society (classes).

To say that THE state is something that exists outside of history and situation is the "magic" formulation here. It's moralistic like when pacifists say that the violence of the police and the violence of people defending against repression or oppression are the same thing.

Engels described the state with three distinguishing features, and he said all states have this. Ill skip the firste one.


The second distinguishing feature is the establishment of a public power which no longer directly coincides with the population organizing itself as an armed force. This special, public power is necessary (if you want to have a state) because a self-acting armed organization of the population has become impossible since the split into classes.... This public power exists in every state; it consists not merely of armed men but also of material adjuncts, prisons, and institutions of coercion of all kinds
So as you can see if we have a state we will have the general population in the one corner and in the other corner we will have a public power or the state


this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state
So again society and the state are two antagonising entities and the distance between them will only grow, which is the opposite of withering away or magically dissapearing.

Therefore the logical conclusion according to Engels must be:


According to Engels, the state must be put "into the museum of antiquities, by the side of the spinning wheel and the bronze axe"; it should not become the centre point of any social organization and certainly not of a socialist society, as advocated by fake socialists. The so-called state socialists have manufactured an imbroglio that has lasted more than 100 years.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Engels described the state with three distinguishing features, and he said all states have this. Ill skip the firste one..

Therefore the logical conclusion according to Engels must be:

Friend, you are taking quotes from a book that says explicitly that states DO NOT exist outside of society.

He says states only "appear" to have their own interests.


The state is therefore by no means a power imposed on society from without; just as little is it “the reality of the moral idea,” “the image and the reality of reason,” as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a particular stage of development; it is the admission that this society has involved itself in insoluble self-contradiction and is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to exorcise. But in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, shall not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, a power, apparently standing above society, has become necessary to moderate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of “order”; and this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above it and increasingly alienating itself from it, is the state.


Yes states belong in the dustbin of history, that is not the argument in my view. The question is how and if it's workers organizing their own defense and own collective decision-making to suppress the old rulers, then that's a state (in engel's definition) or counter-state or whatever, but it's filling that role. It would not be permanent (given actual efforts from below to end class divisions) because it would be a tool for workers to dismantle inequality and class divisions. whereas feudal states, market and state capitalist states, etc have no interest in ending the class order (which needs to be maintained for aristocrats or capitalists or beurocrats to keep their place in society -- and continue exploiting) states in those societies are permanent and tend to increase their power as class divisions continue to create antagonisms.


So as you can see if we have a state we will have the general population in the one corner and in the other corner we will have a public power or the state
So again society and the state are two antagonising entities and the distance between them will only grow, which is the opposite of withering away or magically dissapearingthe antagonism is not state and society, the antagonisms are between classes and it's this antagonism, in Engels argument, that gives rise to the state. The problem in class societies is that there is no "general population" but sets of antagonistic relationships. By presenting itself as an objective outside force, the state as we have known it pretends to position itself as outside of these antagonisms, but it is really a tool to keep "order". And what is order in class society: the interests of the ruling class.

[Gendenwitha]

Will an Anarchist please answer my last question? If Anarchists want to abolish the State, even if it only suppresses Capitalism and enforces Communism, then I do not agree with Anarchism.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not an Anarchist, but I was for 20 years so I'm not totally clueless on the question.

Can 'Anarchists' abolish the state? The problem is Anarchists and Marxists have different definitions of the state. Most Anarchists in practice support 'the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat' because they don't in fact see it as 'a state' but as 'the revolutionary self-activity of the working class'.

The 'state' as it exists in the revolutionary period is not a state in the same way as any other existing state in history. The extent to which this 'state' is the bearer of communist relations, rather than the working class as a whole, is a bit of a vexed question. Persoanlly, as a Marxist, I think it is the working class which creates communist society (by abolishing capitalist relations and property genreally), not 'the state'.

[Comrade #138672]

Are anarcho-primitivism and anarcho-individualism really forms of anarchism? I do not think of myself as an anarchist, but I think "real" anarchism is more revolutionary than that.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Are anarcho-primitivism and anarcho-individualism really forms of anarchism? I do not think of myself as an anarchist, but I think "real" anarchism is more revolutionary than that.

What's wrong with primitivism or inidvidualism/egoism?

[Absurd]

I hope to learn how each of these would abolish capitalism, so I can decide which I agree with.

Revolution is the only way. Both kommie Anarchists and Kommies are advocates of revolutionary upheaval as the means to an end.

Simply speaking - terrorism.

Lenin wrote about in What is to b done. The Black Panthers even employed it.

[Zoroaster]

Revolution is the only way. Both kommie Anarchists and Kommies are advocates of revolutionary upheaval as the means to an end.

Simply speaking - terrorism.

Lenin wrote about in What is to b done. The Black Panthers even employed it.

Lenin didn't advocate terrorism. Or any communist for that matter. Maybe a few anarchists like Alexander Berkmann, but most anti-capitalists advocate revolution. And don't spell communism with a "k". It isn't impressing anyone.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Lenin didn't advocate terrorism. Or any communist for that matter. Maybe a few anarchists like Alexander Berkmann, but most anti-capitalists advocate revolution. And don't spell communism with a "k". It isn't impressing anyone.

There's nothing wrong with terrorism and Lenin totally advocated revolutionary terror.

"Comrades! The kulak uprising in your five districts must be crushed without pity ... You must make example of these people. (1) Hang (I mean hang publicly, so that people see it) at least 100 kulaks, rich bastards, and known bloodsuckers. (2) Publish their names. (3) Seize all their grain. (4) Single out the hostages per my instructions in yesterday's telegram. Do all this so that for miles around people see it all, understand it, tremble, and tell themselves that we are killing the bloodthirsty kulaks and that we will continue to do so ... Yours, Lenin. P.S. Find tougher people."-Lenin

[Zoroaster]

There's nothing wrong with terrorism and Lenin totally advocated revolutionary terror.

"Comrades! The kulak uprising in your five districts must be crushed without pity ... You must make example of these people. (1) Hang (I mean hang publicly, so that people see it) at least 100 kulaks, rich bastards, and known bloodsuckers. (2) Publish their names. (3) Seize all their grain. (4) Single out the hostages per my instructions in yesterday's telegram. Do all this so that for miles around people see it all, understand it, tremble, and tell themselves that we are killing the bloodthirsty kulaks and that we will continue to do so ... Yours, Lenin. P.S. Find tougher people."-Lenin

But that's not terrorism. You just said it yourself, that's revolutionary terror, which are two different concepts. Revolutionary terror refers to the terror caused by a revolution and it's acts, terrorism is an act cause for the sole purpose of creating fear among the general population.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

But that's not terrorism. You just said it yourself, that's revolutionary terror, which are two different concepts. Revolutionary terror refers to the terror caused by a revolution and it's acts, terrorism is an act cause for the sole purpose of creating fear among the general population.

You can spell tomatoe as many ways as you want babe but it's still a tomatoe.

[Zoroaster]

You can spell tomatoe as many ways as you want babe but it's still a tomatoe.

Aww, I can't get mad with that analogy.:lol:

[Ritzy Cat]

Anarchists want to destroy the state!

Marxists want to take control of the state, and due to lack of bourgeois political power the state will become no longer necessary over time and thus "wither away"!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Anarchists want to destroy the state!

Marxists want to take control of the state, and due to lack of bourgeois political power the state will become no longer necessary over time and thus "wither away"!

I don't think it is a lack of bourgeois rule that would cause the withering of the state. In my view, Russia had a lack of bourgeois rule, (hell, parts of revolutionary Spain had a practical absence of bourgeois rule for some months) but a beurocracy still acted on behalf of capital. It's the elimination of class divisions and exploitation (brought about through workers rule) that renders the state more and more redundant.

[Ritzy Cat]

I don't think it is a lack of bourgeois rule that would cause the withering of the state. In my view, Russia had a lack of bourgeois rule, (hell, parts of revolutionary Spain had a practical absence of bourgeois rule for some months) but a beurocracy still acted on behalf of capital. It's the elimination of class divisions and exploitation (brought about through workers rule) that renders the state more and more redundant.

Yes, quite.

[Црвена]

Do Anarchists want to abolish the State, even if it only suppresses Capitalism? If it requires us to have Communism I do not care.

Yes, anarchists want to abolish the state because not only is it an instrument of oppression, it's an unnecessary one. Decentralised, freely associated and horizontal workers' militias are fully capable of suppressing counter-revolutions, and if the proletariat fights hard and overthrows the bourgeoisie, it won't just sit back and let it take over again once the revolution has happened. It was under the façade of "suppressing counter-revolutions," that the Bolsheviks killed thousands of rebelling workers in the 1920s.

Also, it's a complete fallacy that anarchists want to create a totally new world. We understand that a revolution can't make some kind of utopia. That's why we propose (or at least, the organisational anarchists do) that syndicates, catalyst groups and trade unions organise using anarchist methods within capitalist society. A small-scale anarchy would be built in a workplace or a revolutionary organisation, and all the revolution would do is spread it. Organised action isn't against anarchist principles - it's only these organisers taking state power and using it to oppress people while claiming to be "leading them to freedom," that we reject.

[Thrasymachus]

Most self-avowed anarchists and Marxists are probably just posturers and say they are against capitalism, but have little interest in abolishing capitalism, because they are a part of capitalism. Conversely capitalism is a part of them and they cannot do away with it.

For example how you can say on the one hand you are Marxist or anarchist but have kids and condemn them knowingly to live under the very capitalist and state system you pretend to be against? This is the way I see it. Speaking for myself, I can barely function under capitalism. I think about suicide all the time, my life is a constant existential crisis, I cannot just simply live, everything is a big issue: when I am off work I am like a paralyzed deer in headlights and just procrastinate or have an anxiety attack -- when I am at work, I am like a zombie. If I hold a job for too long, I start getting caged animal syndrome and feel especially suicidal and morose till I hit a crisis and quit the job. I finally made enough money to support myself in my own apartment at age 32(I am talking without a room-mate here). I can barely bring myself to wash clothes, shower more than once a week, I don't care to meet other people(literally: if I don't write down people's names whom I meet, I will forget their names again and agan), I am severely underweight due to unhappiness preventing me from working out consisently or eating enough, etc.

Literally I cannot function in this society. Personally I don't call myself an anarchist, because I think it is an immature utopian movement. But say someone else did say they were an anarchist, but they could jump through the hoops required of them, and do all the right things according to the dominate narrative. They went to college, they got a high paying professional job, they convinced themself that they feel in love, then they bought a house, and finally they raised a kid. Isn't such person just a poser? They are pretending they are against capitalism and the state, but they are actually living and functioning just fine under capitalism and the state. I mean I cannot function properly under capitalism and even take care of myself. If someone can function under capitalism so fine that they can support another person in the conventional manner, how are they actually against capitalism? What people self report is very faulty. Probably they are functioning just fine if they made such a choice.

[Zoroaster]

Yes, anarchists want to abolish the state because not only is it an instrument of oppression, it's an unnecessary one. Decentralised, freely associated and horizontal workers' militias are fully capable of suppressing counter-revolutions, and if the proletariat fights hard and overthrows the bourgeoisie, it won't just sit back and let it take over again once the revolution has happened. It was under the façade of "suppressing counter-revolutions," that the Bolsheviks killed thousands of rebelling workers in the 1920s.

Also, it's a complete fallacy that anarchists want to create a totally new world. We understand that a revolution can't make some kind of utopia. That's why we propose (or at least, the organisational anarchists do) that syndicates, catalyst groups and trade unions organise using anarchist methods within capitalist society. A small-scale anarchy would be built in a workplace or a revolutionary organisation, and all the revolution would do is spread it. Organised action isn't against anarchist principles - it's only these organisers taking state power and using it to oppress people while claiming to be "leading them to freedom," that we reject.

First off, why is it that when the Bolsheviks suppress the White Army and it's reactionary generals, it's bloody goddamn murder, but when the anarchists do the same, it's fine! Not to mention that armies with out organization, as you propose, is ineffective. Certainly, these armies must be democratic, but disorganization is not a good battle plan.

So just because a few mustachioed dictators screwed up in power, all forms of Marxian government is illegitimate. Ladies and gentlemen, logic.

Besides, look to Revolutionary Catalonia, that was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat! Goods were rationed through labour vouches, workers elected delegates to represent them while they work and fight, certain industries were forcibly collectivized and put under a form of centralized control, all aspects of Proletarian Government. So please don't say that you anarchists are looking for a different way of acheiving socialism.

[Zoroaster]

Will an Anarchist please answer my last question? If Anarchists want to abolish the State, even if it only suppresses Capitalism and enforces Communism, then I do not agree with Anarchism.

I used to be an anarchist so I'll answer quickly. Yes, they don't justify government under any terms.