Unifying Marxism-Leninism and anarchism

[el_chavista]

There is a gap in the Marxist-Leninist practice: After the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917 they couldn't organize the working class as the new ruling class.

Isn't precisely anarchism the practice of workers/people seizing power? I am an eyewitness of the workers spontaneously taking their factories -which were abandoned/subutilized by the owners in the Venezuelan "oil coup" (owners strike 2002-2004).

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yes, we both support the ideal of workers seizing power, but we differ in how we feel the workers should use such power. For those of us of Marxism-Leninism, we find it necessary for the working class to form a State under its own interests to oppress any opposing class wanting to seize power themselves again. Gotta realize that, even after the abolition of the Bourgeois State, the mode of production still didn't transition. The revolution was ideally towards the transition from the Bourgeois State to the Proletarian State - a transition on ruling class interests. It wasn't meant, ideally, to right there and then transition the entire economy and mode of production away from private hands to public hands. So there'll still be those under economic power wanting to overthrow the newly formed workers power. And so, the use of a State under the interests of the working class is necessary.

To those of anarchism, they, of course, differ on the ideals of the State. They do not see the necessity of any use of a State, and find it to be an oppressive institution - though I agree, I also, in my own opinion, feel they lack of any understanding what said oppressive institution is used for and under what interests. I'd love to see anarchists and Marxist-Leninists fighting together, but I won't hold my breath.

[syndicat]

Leninism and libertarian socialism are flatly inconsistent. Leninism is an elitist doctrine that emphasizes the alleged "right to rule" of people who happen to ahdere to a particular ideological construct, and whose focus is on control of the state, to use as an instrument of their political aims.

Working class liberation can only be self-liberation and this presupposes movements organized independently of control by some hierarchy of party or state leaders, and which aims to gain direct control not merely of workplaces but of society as a whole. This isn't going to happen thru electing -- or putting in place via guerrilla war -- leaders to run some bureaucratic state apparatus.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Leninism and libertarian socialism are flatly inconsistent. Leninism is an elitist doctrine that emphasizes the alleged "right to rule" of people who happen to ahdere to a particular ideological construct, and whose focus is on control of the state, to use as an instrument of their political aims.

Quite. You can certainly incorporate the insights of Marxism into anarchist thought, but not Lenin since his entire approach runs counter to anarchism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You can certainly incorporate the insights of Marxism into anarchist thought

Yeah, because Marx never stated anything about the need of a Proletarian Dictatorship, right? Sorry, Marxism doesn't correlate with that of Anarchist ideals. Marxism, itself, points out the need of a State against class antagonisms.

“As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished’. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase ‘a free people’s state’, both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists’ demand that the state be abolished overnight.”

~Friedrich Engels

[jake williams]

It depends what the terms mean. A lot of times "anarchism" refers to various weird reactions to industrial civilization and modern society, without a lot of meaningful content.

But there's also a long history of working class, pro-industrial anarchism which for historical reasons has basically become defined in terms of its relationship to Marxism(-Leninism): both are working class movements which want to overthrow capitalism and replace it with worker control, but anarchism is opposed to the use of state power (variously defined) in doing so. In that sense the two aren't really reconcilable, because their mutual difference is what defines them. More to it than that, historically Marxists have taken a number of views about how a revolution would work and what a revolutionary state would be, and anarchists have generally opposed them all by definition. Thus I'm not sure what sort of a reconciliation would be possible.

There are "anarchists" who basically support a workers' state, and "Marxists" who are basically syndicalists (or social democrats, but that's a whole other story). But I'm not sure they represent a "bridge" so much as a mislabling.

[The Vegan Marxist]

It depends what the terms mean. A lot of times "anarchism" refers to various weird reactions to industrial civilization and modern society, without a lot of meaningful content.

But there's also a long history of working class, pro-industrial anarchism which for historical reasons has basically become defined in terms of its relationship to Marxism(-Leninism): both are working class movements which want to overthrow capitalism and replace it with worker control, but anarchism is opposed to the use of state power (variously defined) in doing so. In that sense the two aren't really reconcilable, because their mutual difference is what defines them. More to it than that, historically Marxists have taken a number of views about how a revolution would work and what a revolutionary state would be, and anarchists have generally opposed them all by definition. Thus I'm not sure what sort of a reconciliation would be possible.

There are "anarchists" who basically support a workers' state, and "Marxists" who are basically syndicalists (or social democrats, but that's a whole other story). But I'm not sure they represent a "bridge" so much as a mislabling.

Chomsky would be one of those anarchists who support the use of a proletarian state.

[NGNM85]

This is a complete waste of time. Leninism and Anarchism are fundamentally opposed, to the extent Leninists actually subscribe to the ideas and practices of V.I. Lenin, (And the Anarchists subscribe to what has historically been known as Anarchism.) this theoretical collusion is doomed.

[Nolan]

No. Youd have better results mating an elephant and a radish.

[devoration1]

Quite. You can certainly incorporate the insights of Marxism into anarchist thought, but not Lenin since his entire approach runs counter to anarchism.

I don't agree. Marxism-Leninism is alien to the interests of the working-class, and is thus incompatible with 'actual' marxism and internationalist or 'class struggle anarchism'. A number of extremely beneficial insights can be gathered from the life and work of Lenin and a number of other leading Bolsheviks- both on theory and practical problems encountered when the working class attempts to take power in a revolutionary period (and what happens when the international revolution of the proletariat recedes and is defeated). Baby.Bathwater.Throw.Out.

I am an eyewitness of the workers spontaneously taking their factories -which were abandoned/subutilized by the owners in the Venezuelan "oil coup" (owners strike 2002-2004).

You are eyewitness to class struggle, but also the mystifications of the bourgeoisie (in the form of 'Bolivarian Socialism') and the cul-de-sac that swallows up an otherwise militant and active section of the working class that is 'Worker Self-Management'- a scheme that goes back to the 19th century at least that was shown to be bankrupt in Marx and Engels day. Yes, working class militants and revolutionaries want worker self-organization and management in a future communist world- but you cannot have 'socialism in one factory' for the same reason you cannot have 'socialism in one country'- because communism is the abolition of class, capitalism as a mode of production, etc and any 'stronghold' of the workers will be recouped by capital. Worker co-op's still operate as capitalist industries; only now instead of a boss, workers extract value and surplus value from themselves voluntarily. This is also why the 'Hippie Communes' could not presuppose a new world (just as the "Utopian Socialists" of the 18th and 19th centuries, like Fourier) could not create a seperate part ofthe world that has communism, while the rest of the world is still capitalist.

Isn't precisely anarchism the practice of workers/people seizing power?

Anarchism is a historic current of the international workers movement going back over a century. All legitimately revolutionary currents of the workers movement support the workers taking power for themselves (to abolish class society, capitalism, money and markets, for the purpose of utilizing the groundwork of communication-trade-manufacturing-etc of capitalism to fulfill human want and need freely); they just disagree on how to best go about this, why, when, etc.

Marxism-Leninism (Maoism, Stalinism, Hoxhaism, Bolivarianism, etc) are not a part of the workers movement, but are a bourgeois ideology that uses workerist slogans and opportunism to support the capitalist status quo and kill legitimate workers struggles (as social democracy did a century ago).

[el_chavista]

I was not referring to the enterprises which have been nationalized and "declared socialist" by the bolivarian government.
My point is that workers began to seize their factories without any influence of left orgs. If this is only class struggle then, given a revolutionary situation, people alone can seize power.
Lenin led a victorious communist revolution and, indeed, the State was not abolished but it didn't wither away either.
So we are stuck with the contradition that there is no other effective tool than a CP to seize power but after then the party becomes useless as it is an obstacle to the self organization of the working class as the new ruling class.

[chegitz guevara]

If MLs stop using the terms "state" and "democratic centralism," and replace them with, "the self-organization of the working class" and "revolutionary self-discipline" then anarchists and MLs will finally get along.

[Sixiang]

No. Youd have better results mating an elephant and a radish.

Pretty much. I think that Marxists and Anarchists are too different in ideology to get along like that.

[syndicat]

If MLs stop using the terms "state" and "democratic centralism," and replace them with, "the self-organization of the working class" and "revolutionary self-discipline" then anarchists and MLs will finally get along.

it's not just the words that are different. there is a difference in practice, even if we take those anarchists who favor collective self-discipline and are pro-organizational. the libertarian left emphasis is on rank and file control of movements, not focusing power into hierarchies. self-management and direct democracy are seen as both an aspect of practice as well as the way to reorganize society.

that said, certainly there are useful insights in Marx and the writings of other Marxists. but critical thinking is needed to work out what is acceptable and reject what is not (such as Marxism's partyism).

[scarletghoul]

I wouldn't say 'unite' but we should certainly be working together. In the UK especially, we are at the stage where the most urgent thing for the left is to raise class consciousness. This is something both Anarchists and Marxists want to do; why not work together on this at least ? Anarchists and Marxists have so much common ground, its ridiculous that we don't work together. There were Anarchists in the October Revolution and Marxists fighting for Catalonia. Anarchists and Marxists fought alongside each other much more than against each other throughout history. That's because the most important thing usually is to struggle against the bourgoeisie; we can work on the specific forms of workers power when we come to it..

[devoration1]

that said, certainly there are useful insights in Marx and the writings of other Marxists. but critical thinking is needed to work out what is acceptable and reject what is not (such as Marxism's partyism).

However in practice the organizations promoted by anarchists and syndicalists often act in a manner that Marxists (not M-L's) support for their vision of the international class party- Nabat acted in a way similar to the Bolshevik Party in the soviets in 1917- as a pressure group promoting working-class revolutionary theory and giving practical and political influence to move the struggle forward (later on the Bolsheviks instituted the one-party-state, etc etc etc but that is not what I'm talking about). Modern day Anarchist Federations act in a manner consistent with the Marxist revolutionary organizations- neither claiming to be the international representative of the working class, only the regroupment of militants and revolutionaries in a non-revolutionary period in a given area.

There is not an uncrossable barrier between anarchism and Marxism- there is such a barrier between Marxism-Leninism and leftism in general and the revolutionary sections of the workers movement- anarchism and marxism. The disagreements between marxists and anarchists are not as serious as is claimed- but conflating M-L's and other leftists with Marxism and the insurrectionists and primitivists with anarchism confuses the matter unnecessarily.

[mikelepore]

Disclaimer -- this is my OPINION. Not literally "the answer" to a beginner's question.

Marxism and anarchism both want to get rid of the state. The difference is that Marxism proposes a plan for getting rid of it, whereas anarchism either has no plan or never clearly expresses one.

Marxism proposes that a political party responsible to the workers shall use whatever political process is available to take control of the state. Then there shall have to be a period of discovery and sorting out. Whatever functions of the state are found to be useful can be reorganized, say, converting the state-operated railroad over to control by the association of transportation workers, etc., while the purely useless and harmful departments of the state, such as imperialism, are just discontinued. Since the state today is an amalgamation of useful and useless functions, it may not be immediately clear in every case where to draw the line. In the language of Engels, this is called getting rid of the state, not by abolishing it, but by causing it to die out or wither away.

Most importantly, in the Marxist plan, the political process will give formal recognition to the fact that the workers' organization is the rightful owner of the means of production. If the loyalists of the deposed ruling class are found to riot and cause subversion, the forces of the state will be available to enforce the new law, the socialist law, by handling the rioting ruling class as outlaws.

Realistic or unrealistic, at least Marxism expresses a plan. The plan may not be complete, but there is a rudimentary plan.

But anarchism has no plan at all. According to anarchism, when the workers take control of the means of production, it shall be illegal for them to do so -- illegal by default, and intentionally, since there hasn't been even an attempt to have workers' representatives take control of the state. Oddly, since the workers never take over the state, the workers' actions shall remain illegal indefinitley, as though the workers could go on controlling the means of production, and also have it be illegal for them to be doing it, simultaneously, for the next thousand years, without any point of formal resolution of the question. Supposedly, in the anarchist view, either the police will just daydream forever, and will never decide one day to do their jobs and attack the workers, or else the anarchists will sneak up and assassinate all of the police officers -- the anarchists never come right out and say which of these (equally impossible) eventualities they are anticipating.

There's your contrast. Marxism: a plan, probably an imperfect plan, a starting point for developing a more complete plan. Anarchism: a lack of any semblance of a plan, which would get millions of workers killed in avoidable violence.

[syndicat]

However in practice the organizations promoted by anarchists and syndicalists often act in a manner that Marxists (not M-L's) support for their vision of the international class party- Nabat acted in a way similar to the Bolshevik Party in the soviets in 1917- as a pressure group promoting working-class revolutionary theory and giving practical and political influence to move the struggle forward (later on the Bolsheviks instituted the one-party-state, etc etc etc but that is not what I'm talking about). Modern day Anarchist Federations act in a manner consistent with the Marxist revolutionary organizations- neither claiming to be the international representative of the working class, only the regroupment of militants and revolutionaries in a non-revolutionary period in a given area.

it is a gross mis-statement to suggest the Bolsheviks were merely a pressure group in the soviets. Their aim was to wield a hierarchical state.

In "Before Stalinism" the Marxist sociologist Sam Farber points out that neither the Menshevik or Bolshevik parties...the two parties of Russian marxism...ever emphasized the direct participation of ordinary working people in making the decisions in their everyday lives, where they work or where they live. instead, the focus of the Bolsheviks was on control of the central state.

Thus the soviets in the cities, formed mostly by the Mensheviks initially, were highly top down affairs, with power concentrated in the executive committee and then in the Presidium, dominated by party intelligentsia. to get elected as a soviet deputy you didn't have to work some place. both Martov and Lenin ran as candidates to represent factories.

[syndicat]

But anarchism has no plan at all. According to anarchism, when the workers take control of the means of production, it shall be illegal for them to do so -- illegal by default, and intentionally, since there hasn't been even an attempt to have workers' representatives take control of the state. Oddly, since the workers never take over the state, the workers' actions shall remain illegal indefinitley

this is a rather silly statement. if the construction of socialism from below depends on the defiance of the authority of the dominant class and authorities, in seizing the means of production, this also includes a break on the part of employees of the state, including the rank and file in the military. Syndicalism has historically also proposed...and in fact on occasion created...worker militias. In both the Russian and Spanish revolutions the old state collapsed as various groups in the armed bodies at the core of the state revolted. and in both revolutions workers initially built militias.

the plan is to replace the state with a new governance system, based on assemblies in neighborhoods and workplaces, and delegate democracy, rooted in the working class, for the self-governance of regions.

[devoration1]

it is a gross mis-statement to suggest the Bolsheviks were merely a pressure group in the soviets. Their aim was to wield a hierarchical state.

Notice the rest of the statement:

Nabat acted in a way similar to the Bolshevik Party in the soviets in 1917- as a pressure group promoting working-class revolutionary theory and giving practical and political influence to move the struggle forward (later on the Bolsheviks instituted the one-party-state, etc etc etc but that is not what I'm talking about).

Regardless, I'm not of the opinion the results of Bolshevism were the intended result, not even close. It ignores decades of work and published debates within and without the RSDLP to the wider working class movement. It also ignores the largely gradual movement away from the creative action of the workers themselves to one-partyism, Taylorism, the choking off of soviet and factory committee power and influence, etc from February 1917 to the Kronstadt massacre in 1921.

instead, the focus of the Bolsheviks was on control of the central state.

A process that took place gradually. It's a gross overstatement to suggest the Bolsheviks were materially capable of 'taking over' the reigns of a Russian state from day one (or that there was such a state to take over following the collapse of Tsarism, the abortion of the Constituent Assembly, the tiny numbers of the Bolsheviks compared to the number of workers in struggle directly administering their own affairs at work and in their communities/cities, the lack of Bolshevik majorities in the soviets until well after the February 1917 revolution, etc).

Thus the soviets in the cities, formed mostly by the Mensheviks initially, were highly top down affairs, with power concentrated in the executive committee and then in the Presidium, dominated by party intelligentsia. to get elected as a soviet deputy you didn't have to work some place.

Really? I think the reports of witnesses to soviet power in action in the early days of the Russian Revolution of October (as well as the soviets in action in 1905 and Feb. 1917) would disagree.