Results 1 to 20 of 43
Anarchists and Marxists? So many ists....
So, as a newcomer to this sight, I am rather overwhelmed by all the "isms" that are thrown around. I think that it is at best confusing and at worst damaging to have so much division in the left but I decided that I might try and refine my own ideals and see if I fit into anything (or just a merging of various ideologies - slotting people into groups is detrimental and pointless as everyone will have different ideas one way or another). I'm currently in the process of deciding whether I am a Marxist or an Anarchist (or neither or both) - I'm pretty certain that I'm not a Leninist because I think that the establishment of a vanguard "party" creates a despotic class of ruling elite.
- I think that primary goal of any state that calls itself Socialist is the gradual removal of the need for a state.
- I think that a state is needed to act as an umbrella and shield that aids Socialist revolutions around the world. When global revolution is complete, the state must wither.
- I think that money capital should be abolished and replaced - this being the last major reform of the state while it is in existence.
- I think that revolution is absolutely necessary - violent or non-violent, people need to stand up and seize power from the elite.
- I think that Socialism requires democratic discussion to avoid class divides.
Apologies if this question makes little sense or if those ideals are in some way contradictory or something - like I said, I'm new and overwhelmed. Also, sorry if you get a lot of posts like this, I just want to know where I stand in relation to others on this forum.
But what's your question actually is? Because as far, it's only your statement.
"Property is theft."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"the system of wage labor is a system of slavery"
Karl Heinrich Marx
I am asking which of the "tendencies" (if that is the correct term) I belong to, because I can't decide myself...
You would be closer to a Marxist. Anarcho-communists don't believe in the Socialism stage (they believe in direct revolution), so the fact you have that puts you closer to Marx
Here in dreamland we will not obey the masters
We have nothing to lose, but our chains
Maybe look at De Leonism and Impossibilism (SPGB).
pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will
previously known as impossible
My suggestion would be to read and do research. There's not much sense in basing your political beliefs on a version of reality that doesn't exist. Once you do, you'll find that the tendencies make sense but at the same time are often superfluous or useless and more of a way for people to show the rest of us that they read a book about something.
Sounds sort of similar to WSM/SPGB.
I looked at Impossibilism. I've only scratched the surface but I think that it is the type of Socialism that I agree with (though its name doesn't do it any favours). Does anyone know of a good source of detailed information on that area?
OP: I imagine that most people saying you're closer to this or that are doing so for their own personal reasons (i.e. they want a convert to their particular 'ism').
I agree with you so much about the damage of the 'isms'. You will find that the left (be it the Marxist left or the Anarchist left) is fractured beyond belief into largely irrelevant sects that 'despise' each other based on some tiny programmatic difference, or some disagreement over some historical event.
If I were you, I would ABANDON any study of what 'ism' you belong to. The problem with belonging to an 'ism' is that, as I said above, they are generally marked from each other by tiny programmatic differences and, as a result, you tend to support positions or attitudes that are anathema to what your own particular, unique ideas and analyses are.
I don't think anybody needs to belong to an 'ism', but there seems to be this desire to pigeon hole others and, as an extension, to pigeon hole one self for whatever reason of community and belonging.
My advice, OP, having travelled the long worn road of converting several 'isms' (I used to consider myself a Democratic Socialist, then a Luxemburgist, then a Left Communist, then a Marxist, then....I don't know) is that it is the quickest way to burn yourself out. I advise that you ignore what 'ism' you apparently are, and focus on just studying, analysing and evaluating the issues that you want to learn about, and ignore people's desires to pigeon hole.
That's a nice sentiment - unless you want to do political work. Then "finding an -ism" - or rather finding a group you are in programmatic and theoretical agreement with - is extremely important. The fact that various socialist groups ostensibly have the same long-term goal doesn't help when one group is trying to organise an election campaign, one goes around smashing windows etc.
As for the OP, to be honest I think the desire to "avoid class divides" would be a problem with any actual socialist group. Socialists want victory in the class war, not class peace.
Many of the points implicitly suggests a voluntaristic notion: the idea that it is a matter of conscious choice, for instance, whether the state withers away; a reform that can be enacted, or not. Maybe I'm reading into that though. Anyway, if true, that idealist paradigm is alien to Marxism.
pew pew pew
But surely the fracturing of the left in this way is only detrimental to any Communist ideology. Communists have always had the most success when allying themselves to the struggle of workers as a whole or a unionist movement etc. so Communists probably ought to avoid creating divisions and try to be as united as possible.
The main points of conflict that I can see are whether a revolution is necessary and whether a vanguard party is advisable. As for the necessity of revolution - perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Just because one may believe that it is possible for Socialism to emerge from Capitalism without revolution does not mean that one must believe that Socialist revolution is impossible (and vice versa). If the majority of Socialists believe in revolution, there will be one if they have support, and there won't be if they are a minority. Democratic discussion is needed for Socialism to be maintained, but the fact remains the whether there is a revolution will depend on which side of the debate has the most support.
Whether we need a vanguard party would come down to discussion and circumstances as well after Socialism is in place. I'm not saying that having slightly different opinions and voicing them is damaging, I'm saying that categorizing ourselves in this way only creates a sense of argument between severed groups that seem to forget that they share 90% of their ideology with them.
In fact the greatest success of the socialist movement - the October Revolution - was coordinated by a group, the Bolsheviks, who understood the necessity of breaking with opportunists and adventurists, and who refused any sort of "left unity" in the absence of a firm programmatic agreement, even with groups, such as the United Internationalists, who differed from them on one or two questions that must have seemed minor at that point. But minor disagreements often mean fundamental incompatibility. The United Internationalists split, with most of the party joining the Bolsheviks and the conservative party leadership doing nothing notable during the Civil War, although to their credit they did not go over to the Whites and the Entente.
And why should the historical tasks of the proletariat be decided by vote? Why should the backward strata drag the revolutionary strata down?
Can you suggest an alternative which does not result in despotic dictatorship? And regardless, in the case of revolution, Socialism requires the support of the masses or the disregard and oppression of them. The latter of which is not really Socialism.
Anarchism makes perfect sense. No government or state. It's quite simple.
Is this not the same thing that Marxists advocate? Only Marxist believe that Socialism is necessary for the transition and Anarchists do not.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/ - there are nice, clear explanations here. And they use a better name
Libertarian marxist tend to agree with anarchists on the question of the abolishing the present state. Other marxist do think that we should go through "socialism" to get to a classless, stateless, moneyless society, but neither anarchists not libertarian marxists consider that "transitory phase" to be socialism, but rather see it as state-capitalism, a system where the state becomes the only capitalist, and the nomenklatura become the new oppressors and exploiters.
pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will
previously known as impossible
Anarchists and Communists both want the end goal of "No government or state".
The difference lies in the question of "How?"
Your ideas and conceptions of the state means you are not an anarchist nor even close to being one. Anarchism opposes the state in all its forms and rely on worker selfmanagement and organisation. They either advocate a non transition from capitalism to communism (so no DotP) or redefine the DotP as the revolution itself and an immediate destruction of the state instead of a gradual one as a direct goal of the revolution.
I would suggest a different avatar.
Have you read Bob Avakian? What about Mao?
Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play, here in my garden of magic.
"I'm tired of this "isn't humanity neat," bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."-Bill Hicks.
I feel the Bern and I need penicillin
