ancom vs classical marxism

[MasterDebater]

What exactly is the difference between anarcho-communism and marxist communism? To me they seem to be the same (abolition of state and communist society) so what exactly differentiates them from each other? I am not very well read in these subjects but I think I understand the basics. Just not sure which one is a stronger ideology.

[G4b3n]

Marxism implies a specific mode of analysis and historical perspective while anarcho-communism is primarily a political tradition and mode of organization. Both have unique histories, normally as allies, but also enemies in some context.

Historically, Marxists and anarchists have primarily disagreed upon the usage of a state in a "transitional period" from bourgeois society into communist society. Bakunin and other anarchists of the first international era dismissed the transitional period on the basis that the society resulting from this route would essentially resemble bourgeois society and would be characterized by lack of autonomy for the worker. Marx, Engels, and the so called "authoritarians" of the first international dismissed the abolition of the state on the basis that revolutionary suppression of the bourgeoisie and abolition of property necessitates the existence of a state until these things have been completed then the existence of the state becomes "superfluous".

[Blake's Baby]

Not sure what you mean by 'stronger ideology' MasterDebator. So it's difficult to offer an opinion on that. More logical? Has more adherents? Has more tanks?

Political philosophies that claim to be Marxist are stronger on all counts there I think. But the most coherent and logical forms of Marxism are also the once with fewest adherents and no tanks. Conversely, the ones with millions of adherents and lots of tanks are also in my estimation bourgeois garbage.

[Rudolf]

But the most coherent and logical forms of Marxism are also the once with fewest adherents and no tanks. Conversely, the ones with millions of adherents and lots of tanks are also in my estimation bourgeois garbage.


And that's why i think this site's weird as it appears the majority of Marxists on here are nothing like the majority of people who identify as Marxists irl. The latter generally being counter-revolutionary and not worth anyone's breath.

[Broosk]

Are anarcho-communism and upper-stage communism the same thing?

[Blake's Baby]

No and yes.

The major distinction between Anarchists and Marxists is over the necessity of the proletariat to assume control of the state in some form.

The goal is ostensibly the same, its the method we use to collectively arrive there that is different (or might be different - sometimes it's a question of definitions).

[tuwix]

What exactly is the difference between anarcho-communism and marxist communism? To me they seem to be the same (abolition of state and communist society) so what exactly differentiates them from each other? I am not very well read in these subjects but I think I understand the basics. Just not sure which one is a stronger ideology.

Marxist communism is stronger because was better advertised. And that's only reason of that. But there are two major differences. The most known is that anarcho-communism wants dissolve a state firstly. A proletarian state is impossible according this ideology. The second less known difference is that anarcho-communism wants to eliminate money and all their equivalents like labor vouchers immediately as Marxism wants a transitional period for that.

[Blake's Baby]

It's not about 'wants'. I don't know any Marxists who 'want' to keep money or the state or any of the rest of the wreckage of capitalism any longer than we have to.

It's about 'can't'. Anarchism thinks capitalism and the state can be abolished by wishing. Marxists think there is work involved, which will take time. That's what we disagree over.

[Rudolf]

And that's why i think this site's weird as it appears the majority of Marxists on here are nothing like the majority of people who identify as Marxists irl. The latter generally being counter-revolutionary and not worth anyone's breath.

One things the same though, the criticisms of anarchism are equally pathetic.




It's about 'can't'. Anarchism thinks capitalism and the state can be abolished by wishing. Marxists think there is work involved, which will take time. That's what we disagree over.

This is just nonsense and either a result of pure ignorance or willful deception.

[Blake's Baby]

Really? I was an Anarchist for 20 years. Perhaps I was 'ignorant' or 'willfully deceiving' myself then as well.

Maybe you should explain how the state can be 'abolished'.

[Rudolf]

Really? I was an Anarchist for 20 years. Perhaps I was 'ignorant' or 'willfully deceiving' myself then as well.

Maybe you should explain how the state can be 'abolished'.


20 years? You should know the standard position then: the state is abolished through altering the conditions in society. The state neither arose nor will be destroyed by wishing, if you spent 20 years as an anarchist and thought this i'd be surprised if no one tried to explain to you that you were a walking strawman.

Tbh, it makes more sense to say abolish class society than abolish the state. The latter is impossible without the former and the former necessarily implies the latter

[Blake's Baby]

Oh, the thing is, I completely agree that abolishing class society makes more sense than abolishing the state. I don't think the 'abolition of the state' is possible. The abolition of class society, however, makes sense if you mean the abolition of the conditions that cause class society.

But, then again, I'm a Marxist. I think that the existence of the state is conditioned by other factors. If you don't hold with the 'abolition of the state' then perhaps you could explain what (if anything) is your problem with the Marxist contention that the state continues to exist until the conditions which lead to the existence of the state are done away with? It seems to me that this is the usual bone of contention between Anarchists and Marxists (at least, in terms of analysis).

[Rudolf]

Oh, the thing is, I completely agree that abolishing class society makes more sense than abolishing the state. I don't think the 'abolition of the state' is possible. The abolition of class society, however, makes sense if you mean the abolition of the conditions that cause class society.

No real disagreement here :)




But, then again, I'm a Marxist. I think that the existence of the state is conditioned by other factors. If you don't hold with the 'abolition of the state' then perhaps you could explain what (if anything) is your problem with the Marxist contention that the state continues to exist until the conditions which lead to the existence of the state are done away with? It seems to me that this is the usual bone of contention between Anarchists and Marxists (at least, in terms of analysis).


I don't think there is contention over whether or not the state continues to exist until class society is abolished to be honest with you. Obviously bourgeois states continue to exist until the basis for bourgeois society is destroyed and the state will act to destroy the revolutionary movement. I think instead the contention is over one of two things: either over whether or not the working class can control the bourgeois state at all or whether or not the organs of the working class abolishing class society can be considered a state.

If the contention is over the former i'd consider it incredibly important as the bourgeois state is only capable of counter-revolution. If it's the latter i think it's way less of an issue but i'd reject claims that the organs of the working class abolishing class society can be considered a state of which i have my reasons but they may not conform exactly to other anarchists.

[Blake's Baby]

In which case, I'll withdraw my comment that 'Anarchists believe that the state can be abolished by wishing' - because I don't see any major disagreements beyond definitions.

I'll say some Anarchists seem to believe the state can be abolished by wishing. My problem is with self-proclaimed Anarchists who don't have a class analysis of society and regard the state as some kind of existential threat enacted by 'authoritarianism' as a psychological condition.

[G4b3n]

Really? I was an Anarchist for 20 years. Perhaps I was 'ignorant' or 'willfully deceiving' myself then as well.

Maybe you should explain how the state can be 'abolished'.

I think you know full well that "wishing" is an unfair depiction of the anarchist position. Anarchists have advocated for and created grassroots organizations that are designed to take on the task of managing socialism. If you disagree with this approach, that is all fine and good, but it is not and has never been about "wishing".

[Blake's Baby]

Do you want to explain how (or if) the state is abolished?

[G4b3n]

Do you want to explain how (or if) the state is abolished?

Personally, I am very critical of the idea of abolition. I generally lean toward left Marxism. While I could make the argument, it is irrelevant to your assertion that the difference between the anarchist and Marxist positions is "wishing". That is a slap in the face to many years of tangible practice.

[Blake's Baby]

As no Anarchists have abolished a state, I'm not sure it is.

[Rudolf]

In which case, I'll withdraw my comment that 'Anarchists believe that the state can be abolished by wishing' - because I don't see any major disagreements beyond definitions.

I'll say some Anarchists seem to believe the state can be abolished by wishing. My problem is with self-proclaimed Anarchists who don't have a class analysis of society and regard the state as some kind of existential threat enacted by 'authoritarianism' as a psychological condition.

If the self-proclaimed anarchists lack class analysis and reject class struggle they're not worth any of our time. I've sadly met such people and on closer examination they've tended to be apologists for the petit-bourgeoisie; liberals trying to create a radical chic for themselves.






Personally, I am very critical of the idea of abolition.

You've got to go into more details around that im not sure what you're getting at.

[Collective Reasons]

It's about 'can't'. Anarchism thinks capitalism and the state can be abolished by wishing. Marxists think there is work involved, which will take time. That's what we disagree over.

Can you point to some specific anarchist current that doesn't think "there is work involved"? Obviously, there are disagreements among various marxist and anarchist factions about the nature of the work involved, but I'm having trouble thinking of any faction in either camp that relies on "wishing."

[Blake's Baby]

What is the 'work' for, though? Work to build networks that can at some point take part in ... what?

I'm sure religious groups put a lot of work in too, doesn't mean in the end their answer isn't 'wishing'. But I guess I'm more criticising individuals than groups here.

The method for the working class must be to come to a position of power over the rest of society - that is, the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat which is the working class's vehicle for transforming society. Rejecting that, rejecting the idea that the working class should impose its own vision on society, is what I mean by 'wishing'. Instead of organising on the basis of class power, trying to bring 'the whole people' or 'the oppressed' together rejects the once force that can change society for the better.

There are lots of class-struggle Anarchists who would in practice or even in theory support the class power of the proletariat but there are also many who argue against it.

Any group or individual that argues that the failure of the revolution in Russia was result of Bolshevik authoritarianism or Lenin's Machiavellianism is falling into this trap I think; they reduce the failure of the world revolution to a question of the will of a few participants in one place (Lenin didn't make the right wishes).

The 'wishing' goes along with a failure of class analysis, a reliance on 'great man' theory and an unwillingness to consider the 'problem of socialism' in its international dimension.

[G4b3n]

As no Anarchists have abolished a state, I'm not sure it is.

Perhaps you would like to tell me about all of the states that have withered away?

Does that mean Marxists are just "wishing"? I don't think it does. I think there are material explanations as to why bourgeois states have not been abolished and worker's states have not withered away.

[Blake's Baby]

That's my point, G4b3n, there are material explanations.

You said that my use of the word 'wishing' was disrespectful to the work Anarchists had done. I said that as no Anarchists had abolished a state, it wasn't disrespectful. What has the failure of the world revolution to do with that?

In the understanding of Marxists, the state will 'wither away' after the revolution is succesful. The revolution hasn't succeeded. But the work the Anarchists have done hasn't 'succeeded' either. If it had, the Anarchists would still not be able to 'abolish' the state (ie, wish it away). The state will wither when the material conditions that support the state cease to exist. Not when 'the people' decide they don't want it any more.

[Collective Reasons]

So, "wishing" means any work except that aimed at a proletarian dictatorship. And yet the Marxist endgame is at this point still "wishing," too.

Short of begging the question along partisan lines, I wonder if one of the key differences between Marxist and anarchist-communist approaches doesn't have at least a bit to do with just what they understand by "the State." After all, there have been several different understandings of the term even just within the anarchist tradition. I agree that there is probably a sense in which "the State" can't be abolished, but that would be a sense more like we find in, say, Proudhon's mature writings than the sense that we find in collectivist or communist anarchist circles a few decades later.

[G4b3n]

That's my point, G4b3n, there are material explanations.

You said that my use of the word 'wishing' was disrespectful to the work Anarchists had done. I said that as no Anarchists had abolished a state, it wasn't disrespectful. What has the failure of the world revolution to do with that?

In the understanding of Marxists, the state will 'wither away' after the revolution is succesful. The revolution hasn't succeeded. But the work the Anarchists have done hasn't 'succeeded' either. If it had, the Anarchists would still not be able to 'abolish' the state (ie, wish it away). The state will wither when the material conditions that support the state cease to exist. Not when 'the people' decide they don't want it any more.

Just because a state hasn't been successfully abolished doesn't mean portraying the praxis of anarchism as "wishing" is not disrespectful. Aside from the anarchist experiments that have unfolded in the 20th century, which showed promising futures had they not been crushed by coalitions of Stalinists and bourgeois, Anarchists labor unions have won serious and notable victories for the working class.

The world revolution in the Marxist scheme of things amounts to exactly what the anarchist revolutions amount, a failure. This doesn't mean either camp is "wishing" for something to be done when they both have tangible marks of practice. I think it would do the left some good, and ease our suicidal tendencies, if anarchists and Marxists could recognize each others contributions to the labor movement.

[Rudolf]

Just because a state hasn't been successfully abolished doesn't mean portraying the praxis of anarchism as "wishing" is not disrespectful. Aside from the anarchist experiments that have unfolded in the 20th century, which showed promising futures had they not been crushed by coalitions of Stalinists and bourgeois, Anarchists labor unions have won serious and notable victories for the working class.


I'm not too impressed with the failures of the Spanish Revolution as being rationalised as a result of stalinists tbh. Yes they were part of a counter revolutionary force but there'll always be reaction. It just seems like making excuses. We need a much better approach with analysing the events and conditions in Spain at the time than just blaming it on stalinists.

Besides, we can look at the Spanish revolution as being the last battle of the revolutionary wave that started in the 1910s. Even if everything went perfectly in Spain i don't think it could have succeeded as reaction had already triumphed internationally.




Btw, can we move on from this whole 'wishing' debate? It's a distraction from discussing any real differences in theory and praxis.

[G4b3n]

I'm not too impressed with the failures of the Spanish Revolution as being rationalised as a result of stalinists tbh. Yes they were part of a counter revolutionary force but there'll always be reaction. It just seems like making excuses. We need a much better approach with analysing the events and conditions in Spain at the time than just blaming it on stalinists.

Besides, we can look at the Spanish revolution as being the last battle of the revolutionary wave that started in the 1910s. Even if everything went perfectly in Spain i don't think it could have succeeded as reaction had already triumphed internationally.




Btw, can we move on from this whole 'wishing' debate? It's a distraction from discussing any real differences in theory and praxis.


Then perhaps you could list the other factors that contributed to its failure? Spain was one the few brief moments in history where worker's genuinely had control over production and a say in distribution. I don't think material realities are required to impress you. While the workers were organized for self defense, how could they possibly be expected to defend themselves against the Stalinists, liberals, and francoists? These are the realities that resulted in the failure of the revolution. If you have a different analysis with well documented evidence that contradicts this narrative, then I would love to look into it.

There is no such thing is a perfect revolution, as revolution is inherently jumbled, chaotic, and prone to some degree of error. But internally, the foundations of the revolution were sustainable and certainly represented the collective interests of the workers, but exactly, the forces of reaction are what resulted in the revolution's failure.

[Rudolf]

Then perhaps you could list the other factors that contributed to its failure? Spain was one the few brief moments in history where worker's genuinely had control over production and a say in distribution. I don't think material realities are required to impress you. While the workers were organized for self defense, how could they possibly be expected to defend themselves against the Stalinists, liberals, and francoists? These are the realities that resulted in the failure of the revolution. If you have a different analysis with well documented evidence that contradicts this narrative, then I would love to look into it.

I'm not looking to be impressed, i'm looking to develop a thorough analysis. I don't think the failures in Spain are a refutation of anarcho-syndicalism even if i think there's way more to it than military defeat.


The revolution's isolation is a pretty obvious factor that contributed to its failure but i feel we need to take a much more detailed look than just about battles with reaction, resources and events outside Spain. We need to analyse the organs that developed and we need to analyse the CNT as after all there was class collaborationist tendencies within the CNT (Stuart Christie's We, the Anarchists! goes into some detail about that) which wasn't even the sole source of the collaboration with the republican government.




There is no such thing is a perfect revolution, as revolution is inherently jumbled, chaotic, and prone to some degree of error. But internally, the foundations of the revolution were sustainable and certainly represented the collective interests of the workers, but exactly, the forces of reaction are what resulted in the revolution's failure.

I know there's no such thing as a perfect revolution, 'even if it went perfectly' was a turn of phrase not any sort of statement in its self. The statement was its isolation.



Btw, have you read SolFed's Fighting for ourselves: anarcho-syndicalism and the class struggle? It's a good read and what i think is a good start to analysing Spain.

[G4b3n]

I'm not looking to be impressed, i'm looking to develop a thorough analysis. I don't think the failures in Spain are a refutation of anarcho-syndicalism even if i think there's way more to it than military defeat.


The revolution's isolation is a pretty obvious factor that contributed to its failure but i feel we need to take a much more detailed look than just about battles with reaction, resources and events outside Spain. We need to analyse the organs that developed and we need to analyse the CNT as after all there was class collaborationist tendencies within the CNT (Stuart Christie's We, the Anarchists! goes into some detail about that) which wasn't even the sole source of the collaboration with the republican government.




I know there's no such thing as a perfect revolution, 'even if it went perfectly' was a turn of phrase not any sort of statement in its self. The statement was its isolation.



Btw, have you read SolFed's Fighting for ourselves: anarcho-syndicalism and the class struggle? It's a good read and what i think is a good start to analysing Spain.

Well, if you would like to present this analysis to me, I would be happy to look into. I don't really care if I find evidence that the revolution was a failure internally as I am not ideologically motivated to solidify an opinion one way or the other, but to my current understanding, it was not. And the fundamental nature of production and organization was not collaborationist. I think you would be hard pressed to find an organization that does not contain some degree of arguably collaborationist elements.

My understanding comes from peer reviewed articles which I am fortunate enough to have access to through my university's database.

[Rudolf]

Well, if you would like to present this analysis to me, I would be happy to look into. I don't really care if I find evidence that the revolution was a failure internally as I am not ideologically motivated to solidify an opinion one way or the other, but to my current understanding, it was not. And the fundamental nature of production and organization was not collaborationist. I think you would be hard pressed to find an organization that does not contain some degree of arguably collaborationist elements.

My understanding comes from peer reviewed articles which I am fortunate enough to have access to through my university's database.

I never said i have a thorough analysis instead i said we need one, that developing one is my aim and that i don't think everything going fine except military confrontations and stalinists is enough.

You've got an understanding backed by peer review articles please shed some light.

[G4b3n]

I never said i have a thorough analysis instead i said we need one, that developing one is my aim and that i don't think everything going fine except military confrontations and stalinists is enough.

You've got an understanding backed by peer review articles please shed some light.

Yes, and I agree that we need one. One that incorporates a variety of resources. All of my energy is currently invested in the study of French Nationalism. I do not have the time nor the energy to compose a detailed analysis on Spain. But it doesn't seem that our narratives differ all too much. And besides that, I do not have anything new to contribute to the discussion that cannot be found in numerous depictions of the events.

However, if you want to the make the argument that the revolution was fundamentally collaborationist in terms of production and organization, then I will be willing to critique it with the information that I have, as I am very confident that it was not. Of course, I would need to see the argument first.

[Blake's Baby]

Just because a state hasn't been successfully abolished doesn't mean portraying the praxis of anarchism as "wishing" is not disrespectful. Aside from the anarchist experiments that have unfolded in the 20th century, which showed promising futures had they not been crushed by coalitions of Stalinists and bourgeois, Anarchists labor unions have won serious and notable victories for the working class.

The world revolution in the Marxist scheme of things amounts to exactly what the anarchist revolutions amount, a failure. This doesn't mean either camp is "wishing" for something to be done when they both have tangible marks of practice. I think it would do the left some good, and ease our suicidal tendencies, if anarchists and Marxists could recognize each others contributions to the labor movement.

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well here Gab3n, or perhaps you're not bothering to engage with what I'm saying.

Can you point to where I've said that Anarchism needs to be judged on 'success' but Marxism doesn't, or that all Anarchists do is wish?

My point is that 'abolition of the state' is not possible; what is possible is the transformation of society through the exercise of workers' power. 'Wishing' - declaring the abolition of the state, even if the situation is revolutionary - will not work; what is necessary is a long (or, hopefully, but not likely, not so long) business of the working class taking measures - some of them highly 'authoritarian' I would suspect - to re-organise society. This is the opposition I'm referring to: the Anarchist belief that the state can be 'abolished' is a form of wishing; the state can be wished away because it only exists in the mind; Marxists believe that the state is a result of material conditions, and that these material conditions need to be directly combatted before the state ceases to exist.

[Collective Reasons]

...the state can be wished away because it only exists in the mind...

Again, I guess I would like to see some specific example of an anarchist who actually believes this.

[newdayrising]

From personal experience I would say many anarchists have more of a problem with the word than with the actual definition of the state used by (the good) marxists. I have seen anarchists using the "commune" and other similar words meaning pretty much what I would call a state, or a dictatorship of the proletariat. The same goes for the party, which can br ok as long as it's called an organisation instead.

[spottydotty]

In my opinion the transition period is crucial unfortunately its never surpassed that point mostly from a mixture of inadequate support from the populace or the corruption of those intrusted with the power to ease us through it. In solidarity.

[G4b3n]

the state can be wished away because it only exists in the mind;

If you actually believed this as an anarchist, then were mislead. Even the most idealist of anarchists doesn't believe that. And the vast majority that I know of regard historical materialism as a valid mode of analysis.

[Blake's Baby]

In my opinion the transition period is crucial unfortunately its never surpassed that point mostly from a mixture of inadequate support from the populace or the corruption of those intrusted with the power to ease us through it. In solidarity.

This, I think represents the problem.

The 'transitional period' has never been 'surpassed' not because of any inherent weakness of the people 'in charge' (either because they've got the wrong ideas or, you know, because power corrupts) nor from any fault with 'the populace' (not being enthusiastic enough) but from the fact that socialism in one country is impossible. No country on earth can go past 'the transitional period', it is literally impossible, no matter what the actors in it are doing.

It is only on a world scale that capitalism can be defeated and therefore it is only on a world scale that the working class can begin to create communist society. Until capitalism is defeated, how can the 'transitional period' be 'surpassed'? That's not the fault of Lenin or the Russian working class. It's very little to do with Lenin or the Russian working class. The revolution was ddefeated in Germany and elsewhere, not in Russia.