Anarchism and Communism

[CrunchyMilk]

Okay, I know that both Anarchism and Communism share the basic idea of a classless society but what is the major difference? From what I've read so far, the main disagreement is how the revolution would begin rather than how the country would be governed, is this correct? Also, are the two parties generally aligned or do they oppose each other? I'm pretty new to the idea of socialism, so bear with me. Thank you.

[Janus]

This has been discussed numerous times on here but the main difference arise in strategy rather than goals. Anarchists believe in attempting a stateless society immediately after the revolution while Marxists seek more of a transitional state phase.

Past threads:
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66127
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47668
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60669

[Chicano Shamrock]

Well anarchists don't have a party. Capital C Communists want a Communist party but not all communists want that. So are communists and anarchists aligned? Yes. Most Anarchists are communists. Do anarchists oppose Communist parties... yes most would I think. You see anarchists believe that Communist parties just consolidate power into few hands just like any other kind of party or ruling group.

Sorry if I confused you even more.

[Tower of Bebel]

Communist parties are set up to, let's say, "lead the way", because the workers cannot see for themselves (not that they are dumb or something like that, but because marxism is a very, very abstract type of theory for most people to follow. And because people are afraid to ruin the excisting society as they, for most of the time, have no alternative view of society).

How do anarchists "lead the way", or in other words: show people the way? And you might also give me examples (fiction or non-fiction)

[Rawthentic]

There is so much misconception of what the "vanguard" really is.

Its the politically class conscious section of the proletariat, that is to say, the proletarian communists, and sometimes proletarian socialists and petty-bourgeois socialists.

[syndicat]

The "vanguard" isn't those who know Marxist theory or merely those who have a vision of a society beyond capitalism. The vanguard is the layer of activists, organizers, publicists within the working class. This layer has a variety of ideas, and at present many are not necessarily even anti-capitalist. That's because the working class at present in the USA, and in other industrialized countries, isn't revolutionary.

The working class can only come to believe in the possibility of replacing capitalism through collective struggle, because collective struggle develops the power and skills and organization within the working class and encourages people to think in terms of collective struggle as a solution, rather than individual solutions. The development of a conception of working class collective strength, of workers having class interests, is class consciousness. Class struggle is thus necessary for the development of revolutionary consciousness, but there also needs to be people present within the mass organizations and struggles of the class who have anti-capitalist ideas, who are inspired by a vision of, who see the possibilities of, a life beyond capitalism.

In anarchist circles an organization of people on the basis of their agreement with a political perspective is called a "specific" organization. This is distinguished from a mass organization, which doesn't use agreement with a political perspective as its basis for membership, but brings together, say, all the workers in a workplace who are willing to fight the employer. The anarchist "specific" organization is there to bring revolutionaries together to share the work, pool their resources, work to develop a base for their ideas within working class communities, and to win the inevitable debates within the working class on the way forward.

But the anarchist "specific" organization isn't a "party" because a party is an organization for the purpose of capturing control of a state and then implementing its program top-down through a state hierarchy. States are hierarchical control machines, controlled by cadres of professionals and managers, just like a corporation. The working class can't liberate itself through a structure of that kind.

The aim of the anarchist "specific" organization, and its activists and organizers, should not be to gain "leadership" in the sense of contrrolling organizations hierarchically or making people dependent on their "leadership". Rather, the anarchist activists and organizers should aim to encourage, and help develop, learning of skills, self-confidence and capacity for self-management of organizations and struggles among ordinary people. The aim is to help develop in the working class its capacity to run its own organizations as this prefigures, sets the stage for, them running the society.

[BobKKKindle$]

Its the politically class conscious section of the proletariat, that is to say, the proletarian communists, and sometimes proletarian socialists and petty-bourgeois socialists.

Exactly. A Vanguard does not have to entail a rigid and organised political party or even a cohesive and constant group. I would contend that one has a 'vanguard' role even when one undertakes actions that may seem rather trivial and meaningless if they are not fully examined - for example, answering a friend's questions about communism, or giving a class presentation on one's ideas. This is important for isolated individuals who may not have oppurtunities to get involved in political organisation activism - you too can contribute to the development of political consciousness!

Lenin's conception of how a vanguard should be organised - as a small political party organised according to the principles of democratic centralism - was in many ways simply based on the material conditions and requirements of Russia and should not be taken as appropriate for all political and socio-economic environments.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:53 am
From what I've read so far, the main disagreement is how the revolution would begin rather than how the country would be governed, is this correct? Also, are the two parties generally aligned or do they oppose each other?

well communists support the state saying that it will wither away. *cough*bullshit!*cough*
we often work together, though after the communists are victorious they usually imprision/execute us.

the FAQ has a whole section onthe differences:

Section H - Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secHcon.html

[BobKKKindle$]

we often work together

Indeed, abbielives. But sometimes we are unable to do so because Anarchists assume without justification that the state is an inherently repressive institution that is incompatible with the principles of Socialism, regardless of which class controls the state. They base these judgements on the events of the Russian revolution without an appreciation of other factors that led to the loss of proletarian power, such as the failure of the revolution to spread beyond Russia, and in doing so assume a restricted and vulgar form of analysis. They also fail to take into account of differences within 'communism' as a group of ideologies and instead assert that we all support the dominance of the vanguard party.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 09:06 pm

we often work together

Indeed, abbielives. But sometimes we are unable to do so because Anarchists assume without justification that the state is an inherently repressive institution that is incompatible with the principles of Socialism, regardless of which class controls the state. They base these judgements on the events of the Russian revolution without an appreciation of other factors that led to the loss of proletarian power, such as the failure of the revolution to spread beyond Russia, and in doing so assume a restricted and vulgar form of analysis. They also fail to take into account of differences within 'communism' as a group of ideologies and instead assert that we all support the dominance of the vanguard party.
To say that it is 'without justification' is provocative and down right bullshit.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 09:06 pm

we often work together

Indeed, abbielives. But sometimes we are unable to do so because Anarchists assume without justification that the state is an inherently repressive institution that is incompatible with the principles of Socialism, regardless of which class controls the state. They base these judgements on the events of the Russian revolution without an appreciation of other factors that led to the loss of proletarian power, such as the failure of the revolution to spread beyond Russia, and in doing so assume a restricted and vulgar form of analysis.
Uh... the anarchist critique of the state pre-dates the russian revolution...by decades. Indeed, as far back as 1866 Bakunin argued that the seizure of state power would lead to the rise of a despotic 'red bureaucracy.'

[BobKKKindle$]

Uh... the anarchist critique of the state pre-dates the russian revolution...by decades. Indeed, as far back as 1866 Bakunin argued that the seizure of state power would lead to the rise of a despotic 'red bureaucracy.'

Of course. But Anarchists still refer to the Russian Revolution and the ensuing despotism and repression in order to support their arguments. I don't want this thread to descend into a debate about the state, but I find it unfair that Anarchists do not attatch any importance to the question of which class actually holds State power - although the State certainly supports the interests of a small and privelaged minority under Capitalism through the mediation of class antagonisms, in a revolutionary situation the State is necessary to secure the interests of the majority - the Proletariat - in their struggle against the armed bourgeoisie. The seizure of the means of production does not mean that class antagonisms no longer exist - in fact, class struggle will become active armed conflict and confrontation in such conditions - which necessitates the existence of a state.

[syndicat]

the State is necessary to secure the interests of the majority - the Proletariat - in their struggle against the armed bourgeoisie. The seizure of the means of production does not mean that class antagonisms no longer exist - in fact, class struggle will become active armed conflict and confrontation in such conditions - which necessitates the existence of a state.

well, that is where we disagree, but Leninists often misunderstand or misrepresent the position of the libertarian Left on this question. first, what is needed to defend the revolution is that the old state is dismantled and replaced by a new governance structure based on the participatory democracy of workplace and neighborhood assemblies. Defense of the revolution requires an armed force, but two points about that:

(1) It needs to be directly controlled by the mass organizations of the working class, not a political party, such as unions, or a gongress of delegates from workplaces and neighborhoods.

(2) It needs to be organized in an egalitarian way, not based on a top-down chain of command presided over by a priveleged stratum, and only accountable to political party leaders at the top.

The working class cannot liberate themselves through the power of a party. The working class can only liberate itself if the mass of people affected by decisions control those decisions. That is what self-management is, and it applies to public affairs and community governance as well as management of industry. A party is by definition only a fraction of the population, and parties tend to focus power in their leaders precisely because of their statist aims.

A state is a top-down apparatus that is effectively separated from the control of the mass of the people, the immediate producers (as Engels noted in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State"). If the working class builds a governance structure directly controlled by it thru assemblies and congresses of delegates from the assemblies, and an egalitarian militia force controlled by the mass democratic organizations of the working class (not a party), then this is not a state as we understand that term, but it is still quite capable of defending the revolution. The assemblies in the neighborhoods and the congresses of delegates over whole regions and nations would have legislative authority, the authority to make the basic rules. There would also need to be a system of people's courts to adjudicate disputes (over interpretations of the rules) and to adjudicate accusations of criminal conduct.

This was the program of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists in the revolution in Spain 1936. Against the Communist proposal for the reconstruction of a conventional top-down army, the anarcho-syndicalist union proposed a unified people's militia controlled from the worker assemblies at the base through a system of regional and national worker congresses and defense councils controlled by the congresses.

The Russian revolution did not generate a new class system solely because of material circumstances outside the control of the Bolshevik party. An essential part of the explanation is the program and strategy pursued by the Bolshevik party when in power: Setting up a centralized planning body, Vesenkha, in November, 1917 appointed from above, blocking the Nov 1917 initiative for regional and national congresses of factory committees to control planning from below, hiring 30,000 czarist officers to create a top-down army in the spring of 1918, setting up one-managers to boss workers beginning in 1918, structuring the local soviets in a top-down way with power concentrated into the hands of the executive rather than the plenary sessions of delegates, setting up a party-controlled political police (Cheka) in Dec 1917.

This direction would inevitably consolidate a new dominating elite of professional experts, managers, and party apparatchiks.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:50 am

The seizure of the means of production does not mean that class antagonisms no longer exist - in fact, class struggle will become active armed conflict and confrontation in such conditions - which necessitates the existence of a state.

of course we use the Russian revolution, after all a new elite class emerged
i dont see why we need the state to defend ourselves didnt we overthrow the the original system without it?

[Rawthentic]

i dont see why we need the state to defend ourselves didnt we overthrow the the original system without it?

This makes no sense. The workers smash the bourgeois state and create a radically new kind of state. Marx and Engels hardly used the word "state". They understood that the state ceased to be one in its conventional form, aside from being an organ of class rule.

[syndicat]

The workers smash the bourgeois state and create a radically new kind of state. Marx and Engels hardly used the word "state". They understood that the state ceased to be one in its conventional form, aside from being an organ of class rule.

why use this ancient rhetorical formula? Why not just describe concretely what it is you have in mind? The working class creates an egalitarian workers' militia, controlled by mass democratic organizations of the working class, such as unions or a congress of delegates from the base organizations (assemblies, unions), so that the working class as a whole controls it. The working class replaces the elected governments of professional politicians who answer to the bosses with a congress of delegates from their mass organizations (unions, assemblies), open to all working people being represented. You don't have to use the term " workers state" or "dictatorship of the proletariat" or any other piece of vague rhetoric.

[Rawthentic]

Thats true; I definitely agree.

In the League we call it a "working people's republic."

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 27, 2007 10:12 pm

This makes no sense. The workers smash the bourgeois state and create a radically new kind of state.

there is only one kind of state, look the state exists to preserve the status quo.
it is not a revolutionary construct, it is a conservative force becase it exists to keep thing the way they are.

[Tower of Bebel]

Is it correct to assume that communists (leninists) say that the revolution(s) in Germany failed because of the lack of a good vanguard party (I know there were communist parties in Germany at that time, but they made mistakes and so did the 3rd Internationale); and that anarchists say that the workers looked for (wrong) leadership (SPD, KPD) and therefore they failed to succeed in their revolt?

[BobKKKindle$]

The Russian revolution did not generate a new class system solely because of material circumstances outside the control of the Bolshevik party. An essential part of the explanation is the program and strategy pursued by the Bolshevik party when in power

Syndicat, I agree that the Bolsheviks did in some respect take a position that could be considered in opposition to worker's power but it is of course necessary to consider the difficulties and obstacles that the Bolsheviks faced and not simply take a position based on principle. I would contend that many of the decisions you mentioned were justifed as they signified emergency measures that were necessary to ensure to ensure that the Bolsheviks could emerge victorious in the civil war. I do in fact feel that the Bolsehviks should be lauded for maintaining democratic institutions during the course of the civil war - to take one example, The Cheka was not solely a creation of the Bolshevik party apparatus but rather was established by a range of different institutions including the Military Revolutionary Committee of Sovnarkom and, in addition, was originally highly democratic and open in many respects - incarceration and all prosecution was recorded and exhibited in the Vecheka Weekly Bulletin and its actions were subject to public discussion. (G Leggett - The Cheka: Lenin's political office) However, this is of course a much larger issue.


first, what is needed to defend the revolution is that the old state is dismantled and replaced by a new governance structure based on the participatory democracy of workplace and neighborhood assemblies

As has already been noted by Hasta, a state is not synonymous with repression or even centralisation - I agree that the state must be structured democratically and linked with organic bodies of workers' organisation including soviets in order to ensure that a new elite does not emerge. The state is above all else an organ of class rule and so in some respects your ideas about a federation of militias and councils bear some similarities with the Marxist conception of a state, would you not agree, given your conceptions of post-revolutionary organisation also aim to preserve working-class power. I would however dispute the idea that in the period of crisis and uncertainity which will follow a revolution a decentralised apparatus will be possible - a degree of centralisation will be required, in accordance with the principles of democratic centralisation which will allow elected officials to operate fully without unnecessary impediments - in such conditions making decisions rapidly will be of the utmost importance.


there is only one kind of state, look the state exists to preserve the status quo.

It could be said that 'preserving the status quo' is what we will want given that workers have taken control of the means of production and have destroyed the Bourgeoisie's control of the state apparatus. Once class antagonisms no longer exist the state will no longer be required given that the conditions that give rise to the state will have dissappeared and thus the state will 'wither away' or assume a solely economic function.


i dont see why we need the state to defend ourselves didnt we overthrow the the original system without it?

This is an interesting question. But I think the necessity of the state will still exist because class antagonisms will intensify after a revolution - the Bourgeoisie will be willing to use all methods in attempts to regain power and consequently an organisation of class repression and strength - the state - will be required.

[syndicat]

B.K.:

Syndicat, I agree that the Bolsheviks did in some respect take a position that could be considered in opposition to worker's power but it is of course necessary to consider the difficulties and obstacles that the Bolsheviks faced and not simply take a position based on principle. I would contend that many of the decisions you mentioned were justifed as they signified emergency measures that were necessary to ensure to ensure that the Bolsheviks could emerge victorious in the civil war. I do in fact feel that the Bolsehviks should be lauded for maintaining democratic institutions during the course of the civil war - to take one example, The Cheka was not solely a creation of the Bolshevik party apparatus but rather was established by a range of different institutions including the Military Revolutionary Committee of Sovnarkom and, in addition, was originally highly democratic and open in many respects - incarceration and all prosecution was recorded and exhibited in the Vecheka Weekly Bulletin and its actions were subject to public discussion.

If they were regarded as "emergency measures" why did the Bolshevik leaders never express any regret? Also, central planning and nationalization of the economy were not regarded as "emergency measures" but as central to their strategy for socialism. They had inherited these ideas from pre-World War I Marxian social-democracy. Central planning and nationalization -- state ownership and management -- will inevitably tend to generate a professional/managerial or coordinatorist dominating class. That's because central planning is a denial of self-management, both of consumption and production. But self-management -- people directly controlling the decisions that affect them -- is a necessary condition of overcoming alienation and alienated labor. The working class remains a subordinated and thus exploited class under centrally planned state "socialism."

Sovnarkom was the Council of People's Comissars. That is was the official national government executive authority. But you are mistaken when you suggest that the cheka was answerable to Sovnarkom. That is only nominally true, not true in practice. When Steinberg, a Left SR, was Commissar of Justice on Sovnarkom he was nominally in charge of police and courts, but despite great effort on his part, he could never get control of the cheka, because it answered to the Bolshevik Party central committee. This is discussed by Sheila Fitzpatrick in "The Russian Revolution". This makes cheka a violation of the soviet principle. Also, Fitzpatrick discusses the problems of widespread arbitrary arrests, people held in detention without trial, arbitrary executions, which became endemic after the beginning of the civil war in June 1918. The syndicalists, maximalists, anarchists, and Left Mensheviks were all suppressed during that period.

You are totally mistaken to suggest that the Bolsheviks "maintained democratic institutions" during the civil war. They did just the opposite. All left political tendencies in the working class were effectively suppressed. The destruction of democratic institutions began before the civil war. in the spring of 1918 the Bolsheviks lost the soviet elections in 19 of 30 provincial cities in European Russia, and they simply disbanded the soviets or refused to leave office in these cases.


I would however dispute the idea that in the period of crisis and uncertainity which will follow a revolution a decentralised apparatus will be possible - a degree of centralisation will be required, in accordance with the principles of democratic centralisation which will allow elected officials to operate fully without unnecessary impediments - in such conditions making decisions rapidly will be of the utmost importance.

These terms "centralization" and "decentralization" are vague terms that have little clear meaning unless explained. "Democratic centralism" always devolved into bureaucratic centralization in practice. And why should a principle that was suggested by Lenin for a political organization to deal with organizing under a police state become a principle of worker power in society? In fact it is inconsistent with worker self-management, and thus implies the continued existence of a professional/managerial apparatus to which workers would be subject.

To suppose that a separate layer having this power would be "temporary" because of its commitment to "socialist ideas" is an idealist error. In fact they will simply adjust their ideas to justify continuing to have, and expand, this power, the power of an emergent dominating class.


This is an interesting question. But I think the necessity of the state will still exist because class antagonisms will intensify after a revolution - the Bourgeoisie will be willing to use all methods in attempts to regain power and consequently an organisation of class repression and strength - the state - will be required.

This assumes that the working class, and its institutions of collective social self-management, are incapable of self-defense. What reason is there to believe that?

[Tower of Bebel]

Highjacking the thread again.

Could some people give me some good critics on the fact that marxists only see the workers as the real revolutionary force? I thought Maletesta was against the fact that marxists only looked for the workers and not the farmers (togheter with the workers).

[Enragé]

because certain types of farmers, i.e landless peasants (the sort pre-dominant in both revolutionary russia as well as revolutionary spain), have the same class-interest as workers, the same interest to see communism put into practice.

That also deflates the whole argument that the russian revolution failed because there were too many peasants (the russian revolution failed because of other reasons, i.e failure of the german revolution, destructive civil war, bureaucratic tendencies which under those circumstances spiralled out of control etc)

thats my opinion at least.