💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-marxism-and-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:18:08. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Marxism and Anarchism
Author: Anarcho
Date: July 14, 2011
Language: en
Topics: Marxism, debate, Libertarian Socialism
Source: Retrieved on 5th February 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=553

Anarcho

Marxism and Anarchism

On the 9^(th) of July 2011, I debated “Marxism and Anarchism” with the

Leninist group Alliance for Workers Liberty at their conference “Ideas

for Freedom.” This article is based on the notes I used and reproduces

the content of my contribution.

Obviously writing my notes up will make them more polished than my

actual talk. While this article is not identical to what I said on the

day, it is close enough – although I am sure better in parts

(particularly the bits I had to skim because of the time being cut by 5

minutes). It does, as I said, produce the content of what I said even if

not the exact words. I have also taken the liberty of end-noting my

claims with links to appropriate references (usually, An Anarchist FAQ

but not always).

I produced a leaflet for the event entitled “The AWL Versus Anarchism”

which contrasted what the AWL said about anarchism and what anarchists

actually advocate.

I had previously debated with them in 2003 under the title Marxism or

Anarchism. My thoughts on the experience of attending the conference can

be found here. Most, but not all, quotes can be found in An Anarchist

FAQ – the others will be in references provided.

---

Thanks for inviting me. It is nice to have a debate – unlike the SWP who

lecture for 40 minutes on what they think anarchism is, here you get an

anarchist explaining it.[1]

However, it is fair to say that regardless of Marx’s contributions to

the socialist project (and there are many, such as his analysis of

capitalism) Marxism has failed. Worse, it has been disaster for

socialism and has done more to put people off it that anything else.

Yet, fair enough, Marxists are keeping Marx’s comment alive: “history

repeats itself, first time as tragedy, second time as farce.”

And the first time was tragedy! As predicted by Bakunin, Social

Democracy became reformist while Bolshevism was dictatorship over the

proletariat.[2]

Sadly, Marxists seem keen to repeat all that. They are simply not

learning from history. Unsurprisingly, the state of the left in Britain

is truly farcical.

What is Anarchism?

First off, I need to state that there are different kinds of Marxism,

some (like the council communists) are closer to anarchism. I also must

note that it is not the 19^(th) century any more, something which seems

to be lost on many Marxists when they write about anarchism. Also, we

are NOT Proudhonists, Bakuninists, whoever-ists. However, I will need to

quote them to prove standard anarchist positions which Marxists seem

unaware of.

So what is anarchism? Well, anarchist from the start has been

Anti-Statist and Anti-Capitalist. Since 1840, with the publication of

What is Property?, anarchists have argued that capital/wage-labour is

inherently oppressive and exploitative. Hence Proudhon’s argument that

“property is theft” (exploitation) and “property is despotism”

(oppressive/authoritarian).[3]

Not that Marxists seem to be aware, with Engels proclaiming (against

Bakunin) that anarchism “does not regard capital ... but the state as

the main enemy.” Strange, given he had read Proudhon’s What is Property?

Moreover, he must have been aware that Bakunin argued repeatedly that

anarchists pursue “simultaneously ... economic and political

revolution”, namely “complete destruction of the State” and “[a]ll

productive capital and instruments of labour ... confiscated” by workers

associations.[4]

Moreover, we are anti-state because we recognise it as an instrument of

the owning class. To quote Bakunin: “The State is authority, domination,

and force, organised by the property-owning ... classes against the

masses.”[5]

To ensure this task, the state has evolved a specific structure –

centralised, top-down, hierarchical – to exclude the masses from

participation in social life. Thus states, to again quote Bakunin, are

“machines governing the masses from above.”[6]

Revolutionary anarchism stands for class struggle, class organisation

and class power.[7]

We reject “political action”, what Marx imposed on the First

International, so splitting it, namely forming political parties and

standing candidates in elections in order to seize “political power.” In

contrast, we are in favour of unions, direct action (strikes,

occupations, etc.), solidarity.[8]

I could quote Bakunin and Kropotkin on unions, class struggle, and so

on, but I won’t (you can find more than enough quotes in my leaflet).

Instead I’ll quote someone you may have read, Marx. Marx wrote that

Bakunin argued workers “must only organise themselves by trades-unions”

and “the International ... will supplant ... all existing states.” Which

summarises Bakunin’s syndicalist ideas well, ideas that Marxists usually

deny Bakunin had.[9]

Bakunin himself argued that strikes “create, organise, and form a

workers’ army” which will “break” the “bourgeoisie and the State, and

lay the ground for a new world.” And this notion of building the new

world in the old is an important one in anarchism.[10]

This position seems common-sense to me. As a union member, I want a

union run on socialist principles, not capitalist ones. I want workers

and strikers assemblies. I want mandated and recallable delegates. I

want my union run from the bottom-up by its members, not top-down by a

few leaders/bureaucrats.[11] I want One Big Union not only because we

have one boss and so need one union to fight them but also because,

after revolution, I want my workplace run by an association of all

workers.[12]

Ultimately, how do people become able to manage society if they do not

directly manage their own organisations and struggles today?

In short, the anarchist position was produced by the class struggle

itself.

Obviously, if spontaneity was enough by itself otherwise we would be

living in a free society. So we also argue for anarchists to organise as

anarchists. These organisations encourage/support movements within but

against capitalism and work within these as equals, providing a

leadership of ideas. We aim to influence the class struggle and organise

to win the battle of ideas.[13]

Social Revolution

We organise in order to transform society and so we see revolutionary

unions or workers councils as the means to both fight and replace

capitalism. As Bakunin argued, “the new social order” will be created by

“the social ... organisation and power of the working masses.” [14]

Kropotkin, for example, argued that unions are “natural organs for the

direct struggle with capitalism and for the composition of the future

social order.” Bakunin, as well as supporting unions, also argued for

workers councils. Thus “the Alliance of all labour associations” will

“constitute the Commune” based on delegates “with binding mandates” and

are “accountable and revocable.”

Which makes a mockery of Lenin’s claim that anarchists “absolutely no

idea of what the proletariat will put in [the state’s] place.” Obviously

another Marxist who has not read any anarchist books![15]

We have always argued for a federation of communes/councils to

co-ordinate struggle and activity during a revolution. Not to mention to

defend it. Hence we find Bakunin arguing for “a communal militia. But no

commune can defend itself in isolation” and so communes must “federate

... for common defence.” Anarchist opposition to the Marxists

“dictatorship of the proletariat” had nothing to do with the issue of

defending a revolution.[16]

This new social structure would not be a state because it is organised

from the bottom-up, decentralised, federal. It based on the mass

participation the state has evolved to exclude. And this fact is dimly

recognised by Marxists, as can be seen by their comments on the

so-called workers’ state being a “semi-state” and “not a state in the

normal sense of the word.” [17]

Socialism from Below or Marxism?

Anarchists sum this up as revolution “from below” or the “bottom up” –

or, these, days, socialism from below.

This can be traced back to Proudhon’s comments in 1846 that utopian

socialism makes “social life descend from above, and socialism maintains

that it springs up and grows from below.” He turned to this theme in

1848 revolution, arguing that from above “signifies power” while “from

below signifies the people” and “the initiative of the masses.” He

argued for a “revolution from below”, one “by the experience of the

workers” and by “means of liberty.”

He argued that the “organisation of popular societies was the fulcrum of

democracy” and urged the creation of proletarian committees in

opposition to bourgeois state: “a new society be founded in the heart of

the old society” The aim was a “vast federation” of “democratically

organised workers’ associations” based on “social ownership” of land and

industry. He rightly called nationalisation “wage-labour” – state

capitalism, in other words. [18]

Revolutionary anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin echoed this. Thus

“popular revolution” Bakunin argued would “create its own organisation

from the bottom upwards and from the circumference inwards ... not from

the top downwards and from the centre outwards, as in the way of

authority.”

Compared this to Marx. In 1850: he argued for “the most determined

centralisation of power in the hands of the state authority ... the

strictest centralisation.” He stressed that “revolutionary activity”

must “proceed with full force from the centre” and that we must “not ...

be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the

municipalities, self-government.” There was no mention of workers

self-management, rather he argued for “the concentration of ...

productive forces ... in the hands of the state.”[19]

In short, the kind of “from above” revolution and state capitalism

Proudhon denounced two years previously.[20]

The Paris Commune

Still, in 1871 and the Paris Commune Marx changed his tune and

apparently came to the conclusion that Proudhon had been right after

all.

And it is important to remember that Marx sounded very libertarian in

The Civil War in France because he was reporting on a libertarian

influenced revolt. The Paris section of the First International and the

minority in Council were mutualists. Indeed, the Commune’s Declaration

to the French People which Marx referenced was written by a follower of

Proudhon.[21]

Unsurprisingly, then, we discover the features of the Commune Marx

praised in 1871 were first expounded by anarchists beforehand. Mandating

and recalling delegates? Proudhon argued for that in 1848; while Bakunin

did so in the 1860s. Creating “working bodies”? Proudhon again in 1848,

Bakunin in the 1860s. A bottom-up federation of Communes? Proudhon,

Bakunin. A federation of workers associations? Proudhon, Bakunin.

So the revolt had significant libertarian elements. However, Anarchist

analysis argued it did not go far enough. The Commune showed the

pressing need for federalism outwith AND within the commune.

Obviously the Commune was isolated in France and needed others to revolt

and federate with. However, the Commune’s Council also became isolated

from masses. According to one Marxist it was “overwhelmed” by

suggestions, the “sheer volume” of which “created difficulties” and it

“found it hard to cope with the stream of people who crammed into the

offices.” From this, anarchists concluded that a revolution needed mass

participation/initiative – not waiting for a few leaders – to succeed.

Hence the need for federalism within the Commune. Moreover, there had

been no real attempt at economic transformation, specifically the

expropriation of property.[22]

And I must note, if Marx did conclude state had to be smashed this was

quickly forgotten. Within a few months he was arguing that a democratic

state could be seized and reformed by voting. Indeed, for Engels the

“democratic republic” was “the specific form for the dictatorship of the

proletariat.”<[23]

So unlike Bakunin, there is no call for workers organisations (whether

unions or councils) to be the framework of a socialist society in Marx

and Engels. We would need to wait 5 decades for Marxists to draw that

conclusion.

The Russian Revolution

It was Lenin’s State and Revolution which proclaimed the importance of

workers councils. Suffice to say, that work distorts anarchism (and

Marxism, but that is another story!) Indeed most of what it argues is

“Marxism” was expounded first by Bakunin!

But that is the election manifesto, anarchists are interested in

Bolshevism in power.[24]

It is fair to state that the overarching aim of the Bolsheviks was party

power and that the soviets seen as the means to that end. Thus we find

Lenin arguing in 1917 that the Bolsheviks must “take over full state

power alone.”[25]

Which is precisely what they did do. Immediately after the seizure of

power, the Bolshevik Central Committee publicly argued that “a purely

Bolshevik government” was “impossible to refuse” since “a majority at

the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets” had “handed power over to

this government.” In short, an executive power above the soviets. So

much for State and Revolution – it did not last the night![26]

Still, after 4 days the government simply decreed itself legislative

power – the Bolshevik regime was like the anti-Commune. This, however,

fitted in with Lenin’s 1905 statement that “the organisational principle

of revolutionary Social-Democracy” was “to proceed from the top

downward.”[27]

This top-down perspective can also be seen when Trotsky, in April 1918,

argued that the government can appoint people from above as it “better

able to judge in the matter than you” (i.e., the masses). He asked the

question of whether government act “against the interests of the ...

masses?” His answer was incredulous: “there can be no antagonism between

the government and .... the workers, just as there is no antagonism

between the administration of the union and ... its members.”

As a union member, I have to wonder what he was smoking when he

proclaimed that gem! Suffice to say, look at your own papers for

evidence to refute that claim!

All in all, the Bolshevik regime proved Bakunin right: “By popular

government [Marxists] mean government of the people by a small number of

representatives elected by the people.”

Economically, Lenin publicly called for “state capitalism.” He ignored

the factory committees’ suggestions and instead utilised Tsarist

structures as the framework for socialism. In workplace the he urged and

imposed “dictatorial” one-man management.[28]

Trotsky proclaimed in the spring of 1918 elections “politically

purposeless and technically inexpedient” and “abolished by decree” in

the army.

Unsurprisingly, these politics, policies and structures made a bad

situation much, much worse.[29]

The Bolsheviks became isolated from the masses (as they themselves

admitted) while soviet executives accrued more power. The economy

collapsed as bureaucracy mismanaged it. As anarchist predicted, the

economy had been disrupted by revolution. As we also predicted, to quote

Kropotkin, a “strongly centralised Government” running the economy WAS

“undesirable” and “wildly Utopian.” For example, the central economic

body did not even know how many workplaces it was managing![30]

In short, the regime experienced the problems of the Commune but on a

far bigger scale.

Unsurprisingly, the Bolsheviks started to lose public support. In April

1918, Trotsky had proclaimed that workers can “dismiss that government

and appoint another.” Yet when they tried the Bolsheviks gerrymandered

soviets and disbanded any elected with non-Bolshevik majorities. They

even gerrymandered the 5^(th) All-Russian Congress of soviets, denying

the Left-SRs their rightful majority (so a lesson for all Leninists

there, make sure you control the credentials committee!). Needless to

say, they repressed the strikes and protests which broke out in response

to these and other actions.[31]

So within a year of seizing power there was a de facto dictatorship of

one party and the soviets were fig-leaf for party power. This,

incidentally, reflected Lenin’s 1907 comment that the Bolsheviks should

“utilise” the soviets “for the purpose of developing” the party and once

successful then the soviets “may actually become superfluous.”

It was a centralised, top-down, bureaucratic state capitalist regime

with a non-democratic military and a political police, the Cheka. The

only things the system seemed able to produce were bureaucrats (5

million plus by 1920, which was 5 times more than industrial workers)

and imprisoned workers, peasants, anarchists and other socialists.

Worse, by start of 1919 party dictatorship was a publicly stated

ideological truism. This was help by Trotsky to his death. In 1937, for

example, he proclaimed that the “dictatorship of a party” is an

“objective necessity.” The “revolutionary party (vanguard) which

renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the

counter-revolution.”[32]

Who rules in the workers state?

Which raises the question, was the working class the ruling class in the

workers’ state? Obviously not!

Ironically, in 1933, Trotsky proclaimed in all seriousness that in

Stalinist Russia “[s]o long as the forms of property that have been

created by the October Revolution are not overthrown, the proletariat

remains the ruling class.” This is understandable, as the workers’

social position was same as in 1918 when he was in charge.

As Bakunin argued, the state is top-down rule by a minority. This was

confirmed by Lenin in 1905 when he argued for “pressure from above,”

which was “pressure by the revolutionary government on the citizens.”

Fifteen years later he repeated this to the Cheka, stating that

“revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed towards the wavering and

unstable elements among the masses themselves.” The same year saw him

proclaim that “the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised

by a mass proletarian organisation.” It could be exercised “only by a

vanguard.” Trotsky, in the late 1930s, argued that the vanguard holds

state power and has to use it against “backward layers of the

proletariat.”

This is not in State and Revolution and the key problem is that it is

vanguard gets to determines what is “wavering” – and “wavering” seems to

be defined as disagreeing with the vanguard. Worse, by definition,

everyone is “backward” compared to vanguard and this gives party the

right, nay the duty, to destroy workers liberty.

This, by necessity, requires a state in the normal sense of the word. To

quote Bakunin: “a machine ruling the masses from above, through a

privileged minority of conceited intellectuals who imagine that they

know what the people need and want better than do the people

themselves.”[33]

But they had to do it…

I’m sure many Marxists will be thinking “ah, typical anarchist, not

mentioning the civil war.” True, I have not mentioned the civil war and

for a good reason – the authoritarian policies of the Bolsheviks

(disbanding soviets, one-man management, and so on) began before the

civil war started in late May 1918. Moreover, Lenin and Trotsky both

stressed policies not driven by it.[34]

Then there is the typical Leninist argument that the working class had

become “declassed”, atomised and had disappeared so necessitating

Bolshevik rule on the workers behalf. This was first postulated by Lenin

in response to upsurge workers protest and collective action, not its

absence. And while the working class was smaller post-1917 there were

still strikes, strike waves, general strikes in 1918, 1919, 1920 and

1921. Simply put, a “disappeared” class does not need martial law to

break its revolt.[35]

In response, Marxists tend to push start of civil war back to the

seizure of power in 1917. Fine, do so, but please rip up State and

Revolution… You cannot have it both ways.

Ideas and social relationships matter

This analysis is NOT based on the Bolsheviks being nasty people. Rather

ideology and social relationships matter.

Ideology played its role, particularly when we are discussing the ideas

of the ruling party.

Vanguardism privileges party. The arguments of Lenin’s What Is To Be

Done? logically imply party power.[36]

The Bolshevik notion that party power equals workers power, that if the

Bolsheviks held power then the workers did, helped undermine real

workers power and produce nonsense like Trotsky’s claim that “there is

no substitution” when party dictatorship replaces soviet democracy.

The Marxist notion that the state as only an instrument of economic

class meant that party rule was considered unproblematic and blinded the

Bolsheviks to the dangers of a new ruling class developing, the state

bureaucracy.[37]

An ideology prejudice for centralisation and top-down structures simply

disempowered the masses and produced bureaucracy.

The vision of socialism as centralised planning and nationalisation

helped undermine workers’ self-management of production and helped

produce economic disruption and mismanagement on an epic scale.

Moreover, social relationships played their role. Hierarchical power

corrupts those who exercise it while centralisation simply empowers the

few, not the many. Both produce isolation from masses. Ultimately, can

we expect the Bolsheviks to act other than their actual social position

implies? To do so implies philosophical idealism at its worse.

In short, bad ideology mad a bad situation worse – and destroyed the

socialistic tendencies within the revolution.

That this is the case can be seen from the Makhnovist movement in the

Ukraine. Operating in the same objective circumstances as the

Bolsheviks, they showed what was possible. They called soviet

congresses, defended freedom of speech, assembly, election and so on

while the Bolsheviks destroyed them. They urged workers to organise

themselves to solve their own problems while Trotsky proclaimed and

started to implement the militarisation of labour. [38]

This shows that theory matters.

To conclude

It is hard not to conclude that Marxism in practice has simply proven

the anarchist critique right. As Bakunin argued, Marxists are “champions

of the social order built from the top down, always in the name of

universal suffrage and the sovereignty of the masses upon whom they

bestow the honour of obeying their leaders.”

It also showed how right Kropotkin was to stress that “new social forms

can only be the collective work of the masses.” A socialism built from

above, by the state, will only be state capitalism – as the Bolshevik

regime proved.

Ultimately, Marxism is just a form of the utopian socialism Proudhon

critiqued in 1846. It has the same support for hierarchy and

centralisation as the utopians did. Sure, it does not have the detailed

plans of the utopians. Rather it is based on Marx’s few scattered

comments on communism but in Russia these helped replace self-management

with bureaucracy.

So the key questions for revolutionary socialists are will we change

society or just our masters? Will we make history or just repeat it?

Our choice is simple. Anarchism – genuine socialism – not Marxism!

[1] See “Through the Looking Glass: Anarchist Adventures at Marxism

2001”; also see “The Dead Dogma Sketch” and “The SWP Versus Anarchism”

[2] See section H.1.1 of An Anarchist FAQ

[3] As discussed in the introduction of Property is Theft! A

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology (AK Press, 2011); also see “I am an

Anarchist: 170 Years of Anarchism”

[4] See section H.2.4 of An Anarchist FAQ

[5] See section B.2 of An Anarchist FAQ

[6] See section H.3.7 of An Anarchist FAQ

[7] See section H.2.2 of An Anarchist FAQ

[8] See section J.2 of An Anarchist FAQ

[9] See section H.2.8 of An Anarchist FAQ; also see “Syndicalism,

Anarchism and Marxism”

[10] See section H.1.6 of An Anarchist FAQ; also see section I.2.3

[11] See section J.5.2 of An Anarchist FAQ

[12] See section I.3 of An Anarchist FAQ

[13] See section J.3 of An Anarchist FAQ

[14] See section I.2.3 of An Anarchist FAQ

[15] See section H.1.4 of An Anarchist FAQ

[16] See section H.2.1 of An Anarchist FAQ; Also see section I.5.5

[17] See section H.3.7 of An Anarchist FAQ

[18] As discussed in the introduction of Property is Theft!; also see

section B.3.5 and section I.3.3 of An Anarchist FAQ

[19] See section H.1.1 of An Anarchist FAQ

[20] See section H.3.2 of An Anarchist FAQ

[21] See section A.5.1 of An Anarchist FAQ; see also the introduction of

Property is Theft!

[22] As discussed in “The Paris Commune, Marxism and Anarchism”

[23] See section H.3.10 of An Anarchist FAQ

[24] See section A.5.4 of An Anarchist FAQ; also see the appendix “The

Russian Revolution”

[25] See section H.3.11 of An Anarchist FAQ

[26] See section H.1.7 of An Anarchist FAQ

[27] See section H.3.3 of An Anarchist FAQ

[28] See section H.3.13 of An Anarchist FAQ; also see “Anti-Capitalism

or State-Capitalism?”

[29] See section H.6 of An Anarchist FAQ

[30] See section H.6.2 of An Anarchist FAQ; also see section I.1.2

[31] See section H.6.1 of An Anarchist FAQ; also see section H.6.3

[32] See section H.1.2 of An Anarchist FAQ; also see “Did Trotsky keep

alive Leninism’s ‘democratic essence’?”

[33] See section H.3.8 of An Anarchist FAQ

[34] See section H.6.1 of An Anarchist FAQ

[35] See section H.6.3 of An Anarchist FAQ

[36] See section H.5 of An Anarchist FAQ

[37] See section H.3.7 of An Anarchist FAQ

[38] See the appendix “Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an

alternative to Bolshevism?” of An Anarchist FAQ; also see “On the

Bolshevik Myth”