Anarcho-marxism

[ComradeRed]

What are your opinions on anarcho-marxism? Is any one here an anarcho-marxist?

[redstar2000]

Ah, the problem with labels.

Would you know what someone's ideas were if they told you that they were an "anarcho-Marxist"?

You'd assume that it was some combination of ideas borrowed from anarchism and Marxism...but which ideas?

Both traditions have spawned many ideas and sets of ideas...some of which dramatically conflict with each other and others which mesh rather neatly (Marxism and left-syndicalism fit rather well together, in my opinion).

So I don't have an opinion on "anarcho-Marxism"...until I can get a better idea of what the person actually thinks.

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Solace]

Both traditions have spawned many ideas and sets of ideas...some of which dramatically conflict with each other and others which mesh rather neatly

*points at her "Marxism and Anarchy" thread with bambi eyes*

Can you go a little bit "deeper" in there?

[ComradeRed]

Wouldn't anarcho-marxism merely mean that the aim of a classless society with the means of the people owning the means of production without government?

[redstar2000]

It could...but no one would actually know that's what you meant until you explained it to them.

For example, many people still use the word "Marxism" when what they actually mean is Leninism-Maoism. That doesn't stop them from saying things like "we are also ultimately anarchists...we just think you need a workers' state to get there".

There are many strange and exotic "sub-variants" of anarchism that would find Marxism a decidedly uncomfortable companion--anarcho-occultists for example.

In a sort of a rough sense, I would say that when people use the word Marxist, they ought to be referring to a methodology--historical materialism, class analysis, etc.

Likewise, when they use the word anarchist, they ought to be referring to what you defined: a classless and stateless society without money, commodity production/circulation, private property, etc. (also commonly called communism).

Then you would have a coherent statement: an anarcho-Marxist is one who uses Marxist methodology in the struggle for anarchism.

However, people will be perverse...and insist on scrambling these and many other definitions beyond all recognition. There are "anarchists" who see nothing wrong in collectively-owned property that is used to make a profit...provided the workers get to share in these profits. And there are "Marxists" who imagine "centuries" of centralized state power (despotism) in the hands of a small elite of "advanced workers".

The only practical advice I can honestly offer is: forget the labels & find out what the bastard really thinks in detail.

I know that sounds cynical to some people...but I do have a reputation to maintain. :D

[ComradeRed]

Yeah, I honestly don't know what i am. I just call myself an anarcho-marxist, for lack of better wording.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 11:29 PM

Both traditions have spawned many ideas and sets of ideas...some of which dramatically conflict with each other and others which mesh rather neatly

*points at her "Marxism and Anarchy" thread with bambi eyes*

Can you go a little bit "deeper" in there?
Who can resist "bambi eyes"? Not me! :P

Here was your question...


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

Marxists: see the state as a product of the division of society into different classes, and moreover, as the agency of the ruling class in any given society.

Anarchists (serious): have a more complicated view; see the state as both an organ of class rule and as an independent social agent with its own interests and purposes--indeed, in some circumstances it is capable of creating altogether new classes itself.

Normally, this would be an "academic dispute" if there ever was one; we'd read about it in papers like "Louis XIV & the Rise of the Bourgeoisie in Paris" in The Journal of Transitional Studies.

Normally...except for that brilliant little bugger V.I. Lenin who "developed" some scraps and tatters of Marx and Engels into a full-fledged "theory" of a "workers' state" administered by a "vanguard party" in the name of "the proletariat".

From 1917 until recently, Lenin's version of "Marxism" has been "all there was"...if you accepted Marx's methodology, then you "had" to be a Leninist.

This made Marx about as appealing to anarchists in general as a personal interview with the pope! Most, I suspect, have never even bothered to look at the works of Marx and Engels...why should they? They "know" it's "shit".

Lenin convinced them.

So, there's your "hidden tension"...and it's usually not very hidden. There's been some limited dialog between anti-Leninist Marxists (or "real communists" as I like to call them) and some serious anarchists...and I think there will be more in the years to come.

But the "blame" or "onus" is really on the Marxist side of the dispute...Lenin should never have been allowed to appropriate Marx's name for his bullshit.

It wouldn't surprise me if it takes the rest of this century to clean up the damn mess that made.

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[SonofRage]

The only "established" ideology that I know of that I consider to be very "Anarcho-Marxist" would be Marxist-DeLeonism. If I had to give a quick and dirty summary of it, I'd say that it's Anarcho-Syndicalism with a Marxist analysis and does see some role for a central "co-ordinating" body of some sort. The Socialist Industrial Union model of DeLeonism, if properly realized, would be make the "whithering away" of the state able to begin almost immedietly.

[The Feral Underclass]

Wouldn't anarcho-marxism merely mean that the aim of a classless society with the means of the people owning the means of production without government?

It is called anarcho-communism.

Marxism is a very defined ideology which roots itself in the state. For me Marx's theories came in three stages. An analysis of history and how it changes, analysis on capitalism and then his conclusion. How to change it. The problem with Marx is he didnt really know what came after. He understood very well the problems with society and how they came about, but he was vague about how to change it. The time Marx was alive and, in Bakunin's opinion the fact he was German, made the seperation of state difficult for Marx.

Anarcho-communism has taken Marx's theories and challanged his conclusion. Why do we need a state? and what are the benifits of a state? The answers are No, we do not need a state, and the state can only benifit the ruling class who control it!

For me anarcho-communism is a logical step forward from the conclusion Marx came to over a hundred years ago. This could be described as anarcho-marxism, but I do not think you would find many anarchists who would label themselves as such. The historical rift is far to big.

[Don't Change Your Name]

"Anarcho-Marxism" sounds stupid.

Just call it (Communist) Anarchism and it's the same.

After all there's not a system called "Marxism". Marxism is just the theory Marx had over this thing we call world.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

In the grand scheme of things, the way that society sees things, if you are against the private ownership of proporty, even if you are not 100% by the book, then for all practical purposes, you are a Marxist. If you adhere to the concept of the workers state, you are a Marxist-Leninist, and if not, then you are Anarcho-Marxist. However, free market libertarians also call themselves anarchists, so it is necessary to make that distinction.

[Solace]

So, would it be correct to say that Marxists and Anarchists seek for the same thing in the long run?

If I reject the whole idea of socialism as we know it and support the establishment of communism right after the revolution, what am I? Anarchist or communist? And why more one than the other?

I’m not up too much for labels, but I think in this case, it is somehow important.

[The Feral Underclass]

So, would it be correct to say that Marxists and Anarchists seek for the same thing in the long run?

From what Marx talked about when refering to communism was a stateless society. Exacrly what anarchism wishes. However, since Leninism adapted Marxism there have been many versions of Marxism which have not established such a society, for whatever reason and versions of "Marxism" which probably had no intention of achieving such a society.

It could be argued that classic marxism and anarchism did seek the same things, although now that destinction is not so easily seen.


If I reject the whole idea of socialism as we know it and support the establishment of communism right after the revolution, what am I?

Bakunin refered to himself as a socialist. A stateless socialist. I for one do not call myself a socialist because it represents the transitional period between capitalism and communism [dictatorship of the proletariat].

Establishing communism straight after a revolution is an anarchist trait and one I fundamentally agree with.


And why more one than the other?

I dont understand this queston?