chimx
16th August 2006, 07:16
i browsing the learning thread and came across something Tragic Clown said:
Anarchists oppose any state regardless of the ruling class, they think that states are inherently oppressive. As a result they only support revolutions which lead to a stateless society (sometimes termed 'communism' with a small 'c' by both marxists and anarchists). They may or may not accept marxian historical analysis of class struggle as the basis of social change through history, those that do are called Anarcho-communists or sometimes syndicalists. They may or may not view industrialization as inherently oppressive, those that do are called Anarcho-primitivists. They object to any type of formal hierarchical organizational structure even if their organizations are in practice hierarchical. Anarchists have never had any lasting success.
Communists, unlike anarchists, view the state as merely a tool of the ruling class, which is oppressive to the majority when the capitalists are that ruling class but empowering to the majority when the workers are the ruling class. Therefore they oppose capitalist state power rather than state power in general. They believe that its utopian and unrealstic to think that society would survive outside pressure by capitalism after a revolution without a workers state. They always use marxian historical analysis and they never view industrialization as inherently oppressive. They will useually accept that some hierarchical structures are acceptable and nessessary for large scale organization so long as they're democratic and accountable to the whole.
The bolded section in particular bothers me, as many on this forum seem to quickly dismiss "libertarian" interpretations of marx by succumbing to essentially deterministic vulgar marxism. ie economism--the reduction of society and all our social relations to economic determinants.
So many seem quick to attack anarchists that are critical of socialist governments by brashly annoncing that it is the recallable worker's party which is in power and one should therefore support this withering state. But this too often operates under the vulgar assumption that the state operates under the control of the ruling class, be it workers or capitalists. This assumption tramples on the base/superstructure analysis of Marx himself and is pure economic reductionism. In particular, one should remember what Engels himself said on the topic:
"According to the materialistic conception of history, the *ultimately* determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life.
More than this neither Marx nor I has ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the *only* determining one he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure . . . also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases proponderate in determing their *form*."
under Marxism, the superstructure--that is legal and political institutions--has a varying degree of autonomy from the economic foundations of society. Historian Peter Tosh makes an excellent point when he says that, "it is probably closer to the spirit of Marx's thought to see the economic structure as setting limiting conditions rather than determining the elements of the superstructure in all their particularity."
Marxists like nicos poulantzas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poulantzas) (who i'm honestly not too familary with yet) seem to dedicate much of their writing to attacking these vulgarities, asserting an inherent contradiction to statecraft, that it is both founded on the needs of capitalism, but also a site for class struggle in itself due to its relative degree of autonomy from any one class.
if we abandon the the vulgarity of reductionist marxism, it is quite easy to be critical of leninist derivations and their rigid adherence to the seizure of state power, because the state under the hands of a workers party still acts as a relatively autonomous agent, just as it does under a capitalist party. by adhereing to economism, we ignore the nature of power in marx's superstructure, and that the state as an autonomous entity can in fact act for its own ends, regardless of the economic foundations of society. the consequences of course being that the state/superstructure, as a free agent, can work against the needs of the dominant economic class. if one chooses to look at a history book, we can see that this has shown to be true.
no state withers, at most they writhe.
comments?
Anarchists oppose any state regardless of the ruling class, they think that states are inherently oppressive. As a result they only support revolutions which lead to a stateless society (sometimes termed 'communism' with a small 'c' by both marxists and anarchists). They may or may not accept marxian historical analysis of class struggle as the basis of social change through history, those that do are called Anarcho-communists or sometimes syndicalists. They may or may not view industrialization as inherently oppressive, those that do are called Anarcho-primitivists. They object to any type of formal hierarchical organizational structure even if their organizations are in practice hierarchical. Anarchists have never had any lasting success.
Communists, unlike anarchists, view the state as merely a tool of the ruling class, which is oppressive to the majority when the capitalists are that ruling class but empowering to the majority when the workers are the ruling class. Therefore they oppose capitalist state power rather than state power in general. They believe that its utopian and unrealstic to think that society would survive outside pressure by capitalism after a revolution without a workers state. They always use marxian historical analysis and they never view industrialization as inherently oppressive. They will useually accept that some hierarchical structures are acceptable and nessessary for large scale organization so long as they're democratic and accountable to the whole.
The bolded section in particular bothers me, as many on this forum seem to quickly dismiss "libertarian" interpretations of marx by succumbing to essentially deterministic vulgar marxism. ie economism--the reduction of society and all our social relations to economic determinants.
So many seem quick to attack anarchists that are critical of socialist governments by brashly annoncing that it is the recallable worker's party which is in power and one should therefore support this withering state. But this too often operates under the vulgar assumption that the state operates under the control of the ruling class, be it workers or capitalists. This assumption tramples on the base/superstructure analysis of Marx himself and is pure economic reductionism. In particular, one should remember what Engels himself said on the topic:
"According to the materialistic conception of history, the *ultimately* determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life.
More than this neither Marx nor I has ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the *only* determining one he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure . . . also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases proponderate in determing their *form*."
under Marxism, the superstructure--that is legal and political institutions--has a varying degree of autonomy from the economic foundations of society. Historian Peter Tosh makes an excellent point when he says that, "it is probably closer to the spirit of Marx's thought to see the economic structure as setting limiting conditions rather than determining the elements of the superstructure in all their particularity."
Marxists like nicos poulantzas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poulantzas) (who i'm honestly not too familary with yet) seem to dedicate much of their writing to attacking these vulgarities, asserting an inherent contradiction to statecraft, that it is both founded on the needs of capitalism, but also a site for class struggle in itself due to its relative degree of autonomy from any one class.
if we abandon the the vulgarity of reductionist marxism, it is quite easy to be critical of leninist derivations and their rigid adherence to the seizure of state power, because the state under the hands of a workers party still acts as a relatively autonomous agent, just as it does under a capitalist party. by adhereing to economism, we ignore the nature of power in marx's superstructure, and that the state as an autonomous entity can in fact act for its own ends, regardless of the economic foundations of society. the consequences of course being that the state/superstructure, as a free agent, can work against the needs of the dominant economic class. if one chooses to look at a history book, we can see that this has shown to be true.
no state withers, at most they writhe.
comments?