Reconciling Anarchism and Marxism

[DudeistMonk]

I've been an anarchist communist for a while now, and the more I learn about marxist philosophy and sociology, the more I like it. I'm not so sure that the two ideas are mutually exclusive. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat doesn't have to be statist or hierarchical in nature in my eye. I'd like to hear any thoughts on the matter.

[Asero]

Became a Marxist man. It's great.

You can even still be an anarchist, sort of. Read Pannekoek and become an ultra-left so you can pretend to be a Marxist while also pretending to be an anarchist. Recounciling.

[RedWorker]

Interestingly, when I started out reading about politics I used to like anarchism without knowing it, merely because it is one of the variants of socialism, but the more I read about it, the more I became distanced from it.

Marxists and anarchists can be united, as can be seen in e.g. the cooperation between POUM and the CNT, and so on. There is no reason not to unite against a common enemy, there is plenty of reason to debate and criticize each other.

The dictatorship of the proletariat would be a state, but not because Marxists like states nor that we stand for one in some way but rather because this would be, according to Marxism, an inevitable element in the abolition of capitalism. As for "statist" and "hierarchical", these terms aren't very specific. What the DOTP would be is democratic, as Marx explicitly stated.

Differences between anarchism and Marxism:

1) Anarchists tend to support violent "direct action" to some degree, Marxists tend not to.

2) Anarchists stand for the immediate destruction of the state; Marxists stand for establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. Not because of certain "invented principles", but rather because Marxists' analysis leads to the conclusion that this is necessary in the abolition of capitalism; see point 3.

2.1) Anarchists tend to argue that Bakunin predicted that individuals such as Stalin would rise up with the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is false. What Bakunin actually said was that the DOTP might end up as bad as the bourgeois state; in other words, we'd see Rajoys and Merkels rise up, not Stalins.

2.2) Anarchists have, in practice, for instance, refused to declare the dictatorship of the proletariat but meanwhile happily joined the management of the bourgeois state. See Spanish revolution. And this is not about picking on what certain political groups do "in practice" and using it to represent the whole, but rather the inevitable fact that the state simply can't be directly abolished in the way anarchists would desire, so even with "the truest anarchists" inevitably we'd see problems come up.

3) Marxist communists' principles are based on the analysis of Marxism, on historical materialism, and so on. Meanwhile, anarchists have "invented" their principles. They would back their theory in an idealist fashion. As Marx/Engels said: "The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes." Thus: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

3.1) Anarchists tend to have a disregard for theory that goes beyond "the current order of society is unjust, we should have a more free society and the best for this is the principles invented by Bakunin..."

4) Marxists tend to organize in political parties. Anarchists tend to organize in trade unions, "direct action groups" and so on.

5) Anarchists tend to refuse certain tactics; e.g. running in bourgeois elections, promoting voting on these, whereas, for Marxists most tactics are valid for discussion.

[BIXX]

I don't think we should even hold on to either of them, let alone reconcile them.

[contracycle]

“Along with [the classes] the state will inevitably fall. Society, which will reorganise production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers, will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into the museum of antiquity, by the side of the spinning-wheel and the bronze axe.”
Engels, Origin of the Family, Private Property, & the State

[The Idler]

One of the best talks I heard on the subject can be heard here
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/marxist-critique-anarchism

[redblackveg]

2.2) Anarchists have, in practice, for instance, refused to declare the dictatorship of the proletariat but meanwhile happily joined the management of the bourgeois state. See Spanish revolution. And this is not about picking on what certain political groups do "in practice" and using it to represent the whole, but rather the inevitable fact that the state simply can't be directly abolished in the way anarchists would desire, so even with "the truest anarchists" inevitably we'd see problems come up.

Could you elaborate on this more, the 'inevitably we'd see problems come up.'?
I guess my assumption, from my beliefs of how life would be in a fully realized anarchist society, is that any problem to the community would be managed by the community, either through volunteer groups or some way of appropriating responsibility to people. That whole, 'personal responsibility' deal.
edit:(though, it seems I may have bit myself on the arse by committing #3, talking about how it 'would be' rather than examining more tangible instances that have already happened).

While my post is being moderated, I'll read up on the Spanish revolution. I had the opportunity to live in some small towns around Spain and the anti-capitalist sentiment is still evident in Andalucia, mountains of Castilla, and definitely all over Catalonia.

edit: #2
hmm...
‘To renounce the conquest of power is voluntarily to leave the power with those who wield it, the exploiters. The essence of every revolution consisted and consists in putting a new class in power, thus enabling it to realize its own programme in life. It is impossible to wage war and to reject victory. It is impossible to lead the masses towards insurrection without preparing for the conquest of power... In opposing the conquest of power the anarchists could not in the end fail to oppose the means, the revolution.’
-Trotsky
can't link the source. it was from that marxists org website.

[tuwix]

I've been an anarchist communist for a while now, and the more I learn about marxist philosophy and sociology, the more I like it. I'm not so sure that the two ideas are mutually exclusive. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat doesn't have to be statist or hierarchical in nature in my eye. I'd like to hear any thoughts on the matter.

The greatest problem is state. In the best mode it is described in conflict between Marx and Bakunin. Bakunin wanted cooperatives, but Marx state owned property controlled by workers. It could be in cooperative mode but problem starts when state will try to intervene. If it is property of workers, then it's impossible. If state could intervene, then it would be a state property (state capitalism). And this is greatest unsolved difference between Marxism and anarchism...

[Blake's Baby]

But in practice, the 'conflict' is meaningless. Anarchists are fond of insisting that Marxists 'support' or 'advocate' the use of the state in the period of transition. This is not true. Marxists merely recognise that the continued existence of some form of state is inevitable, because the conditions for the withering away of the state have not yet occurred (ie, the revolution is not yet complete).

States are an emanation of a class society. While the working class exists, we still have a class society. Classes in turn are a result of differential property relations. While property still exists we will have classes, and therefore a state. So the state cannot be 'abolished' until the conditions that create the state (classes, and ultimately property) have been abolished. This means that the revolution, and the revolutionary dictatorship, continue until all property is collectivised - all property, worldwide.

When this has occurred, when the world revolution is ultimately successful, then the 'working class' as a class ceases to exist. A class is a division of something bigger; when the working class generalises its condition and everyone is integrated into the production and distribution process, when everyone is involved in the decision-making process, then we can talk about the end of class society, not before.

In the period of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, the revolution is necessarily not complete. There are still classes, otherwise the '... of the proletariat' means nothing; and the revolution is not complete - there is still property and capitalist relations in places - otherwise the dictatorship would not be 'revolutionary', and it could hardly be a 'dictatorship' unless the working class was actually doing the dictating to some other class. So, there will be a state (of sorts). The question is, will the working class or the bourgeoisie hold state power?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Besides, the proletarian state is not the same as a bourgeois state with a proletarian (or "proletarian") leadership; its entire structure is radically different. Lenin called it a semi-state, and that needs to be kept in mind. Now modern anarchists say that they oppose even that sort of state (unlike many anarchists in Russia in 1917, mind; modern anarchists seem more enamored with the extremely etatist PLSR than actual anarchists from that period). And that's nice, but it doesn't matter what they (or we) support or oppose, the material conditions can't be changed by sheer willpower. So in practice many anarchists in the period from 1917 to 1939 (those that weren't part of bourgeois governments like some FAI members) formed organisations that looked suspiciously like states.

I do think there is a real conflict, though. Many anarchists will insist on things like decentralisation, an opposition to "hierarchy" and so on - many of them seem to be composed of nothing but localism and democracy. This, if put into practice, would result in a revolutionary organisation that can't generalise, can't expand. Some of the more right-wing "anarchists" openly talk about pockets of capitalism coexisting with "anarchism".

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, I was rather thinking of the more sensible end of the Anarchist spectrum, or soup, or whatever it is - the Anarchist Federation in the UK, and such-like organisations, that have a class-struggle perspective. I think the conflict is about means rather than ends, and I think Anarchist fears about the 'inevitability of totalitarian dictatorship' come from a profound misunderstanding of history. All that having been said, I think class-struggle Anarchists will be forced to clarify their politics in the revolutionary crucible (as they were in 1917) and I'm confident many will pass the test of history. Not so sure about a lot of professed 'Marxists'.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Pretty much.

I sometimes say mean things about anarchists but I'd trust an anarchist more than most self-proclaimed Marxists. In fact most of them have already failed the test, and they don't even recognise it.

[ckaihatsu]

[A]ny problem to the [anarchist] community would be managed by the community, either through volunteer groups or some way of appropriating responsibility to people. That whole, 'personal responsibility' deal.


I find this part to be characteristic of the *entire* anarchist mindset and/or paradigm -- it's the intersection of the 'political' (as in 'political' vs. 'economic'), with the 'private sector' (as in the 'private sector' vs. the 'public sector').

In other words the mindset is fully conceived from within -- and shaped by -- the constraints of exploitation and atomization as experienced under capitalism today. The tepid aspirations are stated to be 'management' -- of the community -- and 'voluntarism' -- on the labor question -- for the *ends* that are at-stake, 'appropriating responsibility to people', or 'personal responsibility'.

So, to rephrase, the overriding social concern here is with forming some kind of community-level authority for the purpose of micromanaging people's individual responsibilities.

This just doesn't sound like a socially enlightened political economy *at all*, and it even overlaps with conservative libertarianism that, on a principled basis, consistently uses the dodge of 'personal responsibility'.

[blake 3:17]

I like it when the two aren't reconciled. I think there are permanent tensions within each.

I started off an anarchist and got convinced it was OK to be a Marxist by Andre Breton's What is Surrealism?.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Marxism and anarchism are siblings. It was a great tragedy when they became estranged.

[Bala Perdida]

Marxism and anarchism are siblings. It was a great tragedy when they became estranged.

Fuck the family

[Aslan]

to me Marxism and anarchism are two sides of the same coin. In theory both are very similar, since both want a society with no hierarchy (i.e class). the main difference is the way to obtain it. I personally think anarchists should be allies to marxists (with the exception of tankies). And settle our differences once our nemesis is smashed.

[Rafiq]

Marxism and anarchism cannot be reconciled. Their very distinction has been built upon irrevocable differences.

Does this distinction even exist on a practical level today? If so, how can it be measured practically? There is virtually nothing different, from a practical perspective, between the actions of those who identify as anarchists and those who identify as Marxists today. Today, currents of the Left are like one's favorite color, an idiosyncratic preference which is meaningless.

One should rather recognize the radical Left as a tradition - not a conglomeration of different tendencies or sects that are similar, but a tradition to which the various subsets are derived. The question today is not whether we "cater" to anarchists because we respect ideas, but to concretely evaluate the implications of such "preferences" with regards to practical prerogatives and struggles today. We should oppose, in principle, those nihilists who speak against political struggle. But as far as the political struggles of today go, there is not much of a difference between radicals who identify as Marxists or anarchists (on a practical level, not a theoretical one). Take the antifa in Europe for example - what kind of idiot would seek to divide this on such lines?

The task of the Left is to rebuild itself. The task of the Left is its rebirth. Let us focus on this - if we mercilessly condemn anarchists for this or that understanding of the world, it is not because they are anarchists - it is because, like the various sects of the transitional program, or the western petty bourgeois maoists, they are expressive of a problem that permeates the entirety of the left.

[Aslan]

like I said, unlike tankies anarchists should be treated as a branch of leftism. As the old expression goes ''keep your eyes on the prize''. Yes of course there are quite a few bumps in their theories, but those cracks don't necessarily mean the foundations are weak.

[The Idler]

not so long ago, a work on this subject was shared here
https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-anarchists-paul-thomas