Anarchy and Marxism

[Solace]

If you take the time to dig it up a little bit, you’ll find many similarities between Marxism and Anarchy.

I think the major difference between both ideologies is the function each gives to the state. Anarchists see the state and the enemy and advocate its abolition while Marxist will use it to overthrow bourgeoisie. Anarchists see the classes as a product of the state while Marxists see it the other way around.

Where is this tension between Anarchist and Marxist coming from? Is there a ”deeper” difference between both ideologies?

Come on, educate me.

[TC]

As simply as possible:

note: police and soldiers are examples of lumpen for the purposes of this peice, they are lumpen recruited by the ruling class to fight for their property rights.

A liberal fears workers power. They call socialist states totalitarian because they despise worker's rule. They are comfortable with capitalist power and rule, they might argue about whether Bush or Kerry is a better agent of the liberal social order, but they basically want the army and the police to be working to protect private property and exclude the proletariat from power as well as the smaller less threatening classes (like the lumpen, and the petty bourgeois) .

Their organizations are therefore said to be bourgeois (even though the majority of liberals are not themselves members of the bourgeois, it is the class they support).


A Communist fears capitalist power, corporate power. They call liberal states fascist because they despise corporate rule. They are comfortable with workers power and rule and while they might argue about whether Trotsky or Stalin is a better agent of the socialist social order, they basically want the army and the police to be working to protect collective proletarian owned property and exclude the Capitalist class from power, as well as the two minor classes.

Their organizations are therefore said to be proletarian even if not all of their members are actually working class.


An Anarchist on the other hand, fears both capitalist power and organized workers power. They call liberal and socialist states authoritarian because they despise corporate and worker rule. They are neither comfortable with capitalist power or workers power, they don't want the police or soldiers to protect any property what so ever, they want to be rid of them. They do not want either the capitalist or working classes to be capable of exluding other classes from power with state level organization.

What does this make Anarchist organizations: Petty Bourgeois. They in effect represent the interests of the minor classes which do not have the ability to assume state power, so they fight the power of the two which have the capacity to exlude others from property.


Communists can therefore align themselves with Anarchists to fight a common class enemy of the Bourgeois when it is in power, and Liberals can align themselves with Anarchists to fight a common class enemy the Proletariat where it holds power. Communists defend their own states and attack Liberal states, Liberals defend their own states and attack Socialist states, and Anarchists will attack both states and have none to defend.

[SonofRage]

I think that the reason "liberals" call "socialist states" totalitarian probably has to do with the fact that these so-called workers states have been exactly that (with the exception of Cuba, which I would just call authoritarian).

[TC]

I think you're missing the point, they do not just call individual socialist states totalitarian, they find the idea of collectivized property to be totalitarian. The particular example doesn't matter so much, you undertand the concept I was suggesting. Whether or not they actually use those terms is beside the point, they fear working class power because it excludes their own class from power.

[The Feral Underclass]

TragicClown

I understand that anarchism can seem quite contradictory at times. From reading you post it is clear you know little to nothing about anarchism or what it sees as a future society. It is not your fault. No different to the fact that the workers see communism as a force of evil, when in fact it wishes to free them from wage-slavery.

Your post is excrutiatingly frustrating to read but I will try and answer your points the best I can.


An Anarchist on the other hand, fears both capitalist power and organized workers power.

This is completly untrue and it would be interesting to know how you formed this opinion. I presume you concluded it from the simple fact that anarchists oppose the state. We oppose the state, even if it is a workers state, and therefore oppose the workers. Leading you to the conclusion that we oppose workers power. This is not the case.

Anarchism does not negate organization. There are some anarchists who believe in a chaos theory but quite frankly I do think it is absurd. Society has to be organized in order for us to enjoy a contemporary standard of living and also to advance our standard of living. In order for everyone to be provided for society has to be organized, even in hyper-organized in certain cases. Organization also holds true within the movement at present and organization is also needed in a revolutionary situation.

When you talk of workers power it is unclear exactly what you mean. I am not principly opposed to workers power, niether are most anarchists. What we are opposed to is workers power as a tool, used by a political party to achieve communism.

Now if you talk of workers power as being workers collectivly organizing themselves, taking control of the state, smashing it and creating a society based on workers co-operation, direct workers control over their communities without the hindurance and suppression of the state then we support it.

However, Leninism dictates that the workers should be organized and led by a vangaurd, who will seize power and organize centrally, every aspect of society. Using the state to organize and to suppress oposition. Not simply of the bouregoisie but also of the workers.

There is a contradiction in the theory of Leninism which anarchists see and understand. The state as a concept was designed, not without any pre planning but as a gradual development through history as a means to organize society to keep one group of people as rulers and another group of ruled. The state acts as a combined force to subjugate people to its rule. It is the purpose of the state. Leninists wish to use this concept to create communism. But in order for the state to create communism it first has to go through a series of stages. It must centralize power, not in the hands of the workers, but in the hands of the vangaurd. It must suppress opposition, which will inevitably become workers opposition. Freedoms such as the right to free speech, the right to association, the right to effiliation have to be removed. The state then expands, creating armed forces, security forces. The state expands further into economic matters, centralising it into the command of a ruling elite. The state becomes an all consuming force desperatly trying to harmonize society, which it can not do, simply because of the nature of its existence. It attempts to create workers control but at the same time has to centralise power to a group of people in order to exist. They want to achieve workers freedom, yet has to suppress them in order to exist. It wishes the state to wither away, yet has to expand it.

The theory is that eventually the state will just wither away. But this is materially impossible. The state has to go down a certain path in order for it to exist, which, according to leninists, it must in order to achieve liberation. As it travels down this path it moves further and further away from workers liberation. The state becomes so big, so bureacratic that it becomes impossible for it to simply wither away. This now means that workers liberation has been forgotten. The state has expanded so much, which contradicts the actual theory, that the only way to create workers liberation is if the state is smashed again. Leninists build a state ontop of a state and then allowing it to expand and exist, creating the same effects as the previous state. Like treating a boil with a boil. At some point both boils are going to have to be popped. You can not treat herpes with herpes. You can water flowers with flowers. You can not solve a problem by using the same problem. This is what anarchists oppose.


They call liberal and socialist states authoritarian because they despise corporate and worker rule. They are neither comfortable with capitalist power or workers power,

Your interpreation of workers rule can not be logically defined. Workers power is the workers having control over their lives and organizing society. The leninist version of workers power is a group of vangaurd intellectuals organize the workers in their interests. We despise capitalism, but equally despise the the authority of any ruling group with a huge monopoly of power over the workers. Regardless of what they call it.


they don't want the police or soldiers to protect any property what so ever, they want to be rid of them

Yes agreed. We do not want to have soldiers and police defending property rights we want the workers to do it freely and in their own interests.


They do not want either the capitalist or working classes to be capable of exluding other classes from power with state level organization.

This assertions shows that you do not have a basic level of understanding about anarchism. What we want the workers to defend themselves and make decisions for themselves. Not defend themselves under the direction of some intellectual who sits in an office London and calls himself Comrade Chairman.

State level organization can not lead to workers liberation. They only organization which can lead to liberation is through direct, co-operative, democractic organization by the workers and for their interests.


What does this make Anarchist organizations: Petty Bourgeois. They in effect represent the interests of the minor classes which do not have the ability to assume state power, so they fight the power of the two which have the capacity to exlude others from property.

It's a shoddy conclusion at the best of times. Not to mention based on the wrong information. Hopefully I have shown how this conclusion is theorectically incorrect.


Liberals can align themselves with Anarchists to fight a common class enemy the Proletariat where it holds power.

This line angered me the most. I understand that your knowledge of anarchism is piss poor so I will let it slide. Anarchists would never allign themselves with reformists of any ilk for any reason. Anarchism is diametrically opposed to bouregois or petty bouregois politics. As for fighting the proletariat, again you confuse state power with the working class. Anarchism is opposed to state control, be it capitalist or Leninist. The Leninist state is not workers power.


Communists defend their own states

Communism is actually a form of political philosophy which advocates a statless, classless non hierarcical society. To say communist state is the same as jaying Nazi israel.


Anarchists will attack both states and have none to defend.

Again untrue. What we will have to defend is workers liberation. The point of a workers revolution!