1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
|
<html>
<head>
<title>Section H - Introduction</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Section H - Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?</h1>
<p>
The socialist movement has been continually divided, with various
different tendencies and movements. The main tendencies of socialism
are state socialism (Social Democracy, Leninism, Maoism and so on)
and libertarian socialism (anarchism mostly, but also libertarian
Marxists and others). The conflict and disagreement between anarchists
and Marxists is legendary. As Benjamin Tucker noted:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"[I]t is a curious fact that the two extremes of the [socialist
movement] . . . though united . . . by the common claim that labour
should be put in possession of its own, are more diametrically
opposed to each other in their fundamental principles of social
action and their methods of reaching the ends aimed at than
either is to their common enemy, existing society. They are
based on two principles the history of whose conflict is almost
equivalent to the history of the world since man came into it . . .
</p><p>
"The two principles referred to are AUTHORITY and LIBERTY, and
the names of the two schools of Socialistic thought which fully
and unreservedly represent one or the other are, respectively,
State Socialism and Anarchism. Whoso knows that these two
schools want and how they propose to get it understands the
Socialistic movement. For, just as it has been said that there
is no half-way house between Rome and Reason, so it may be said
that there is no half-way house between State Socialism and
Anarchism."</i> [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, pp. 78-9]
</blockquote></p><p>
In addition to this divide between libertarian and authoritarian
forms of socialism, there is another divide between reformist and
revolutionary wings of these two tendencies. <i>"The term 'anarchist,'"</i>
Murray Bookchin wrote, <i>"is a generic word like the term 'socialist,'
and there are probably as many different kinds of anarchists are
there are socialists. In both cases, the spectrum ranges from
individuals whose views derive from an extension of liberalism (the
'individualist anarchists', the social-democrats) to revolutionary
communists (the anarcho-communists, the revolutionary Marxists,
Leninists and Trotskyites)."</i> [<b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, p. 138f]
</p><p>
In this section of the FAQ we concentrate on the conflict between
the revolutionary wings of both movements. Here we discuss why
communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and other revolutionary
anarchists reject Marxist theories, particularly the ideas of Leninists
and Trotskyites. We will concentrate almost entirely on the works of Marx,
Engels, Lenin and Trotsky as well as the Russian Revolution. This is
because many Marxists reject the Chinese, Cuban and other revolutions
as being infected from the start by Stalinism. In contrast, there is a
general agreement in Marxist circles that the Russian Revolution was a
true socialist revolution and the ideas of Lenin (and usually Trotsky)
follow in Marx's footsteps. What we say against Marx and Lenin is also
applicable to their more controversial followers and, therefore, we
ignore them. We also dismiss out of hand any suggestion that the Stalinist
regime was remotely socialist. Unfortunately many serious revolutionaries
consider Lenin's regime to be an example of a valid socialist revolution
so we have to discuss why it was not.
</p><p>
As noted, two main wings of the revolutionary socialist movement,
anarchism and Marxism, have always been in conflict. While, with
the apparent success of the Russian revolution, the anarchist
movement was overshadowed by Leninism in many countries, this
situation has been changing. In recent years anarchism has seen
a revival as more and more people recognise the fundamentally
anti-socialist nature of the Russian "experiment" and the politics that
inspired it. With this re-evaluation of socialism and the Soviet Union,
more and more people are rejecting Marxism and embracing libertarian
socialism. As can be seen from the press coverage from such events as
the anti-Poll Tax riots in the UK at the start of the 1990s, the London
J18 and N30 demonstrations in 1999 as well as those in Prague, Quebec,
Genoa and Gothenburg anarchism has become synonymous with anti-capitalism.
</p><p>
Needless to say, when anarchists re-appear in the media and news bulletins
the self-proclaimed "vanguard(s) of the proletariat" become worried and
hurriedly write patronising articles on "anarchism" (without bothering to
really understand it or its arguments against Marxism). These articles are
usually a mishmash of lies, irrelevant personal attacks, distortions of
the anarchist position and the ridiculous assumption that anarchists are
anarchists because no one has bothered to inform of us of what "Marxism"
is "really" about. We do not aim to repeat such "scientific" analysis in
our FAQ so we shall concentrate on politics and history. By so doing we
will indicate that anarchists are anarchists because we understand Marxism
and reject it as being unable to lead to a socialist society.
</p><p>
It is unfortunately common for many Marxists, particularly Leninist
influenced ones, to concentrate on personalities and not politics
when discussing anarchist ideas. In other words, they attack
<b>anarchists</b> rather than present a critique of <b>anarchism</b>.
This can be seen, for example, when many Leninists attempt to "refute"
the whole of anarchism, its theory and history, by pointing out the
personal failings of specific anarchists. They say that Proudhon was
anti-Jewish and sexist, that Bakunin was racist, that Kropotkin
supported the Allies in the First World War and so anarchism is
flawed. Yet this is irrelevant to a critique of anarchism as it
does not address anarchist ideas but rather points to when anarchists
fail to live up to them. Anarchist ideas are ignored by this approach,
which is understandable as any critique which tried to do this would
not only fail but also expose the authoritarianism of mainstream Marxism
in the process.
</p><p>
Even taken at face value, you would have to be stupid to assume that
Proudhon's misogyny or Bakunin's racism had equal weighting with Lenin's
and the Bolsheviks' behaviour (for example, the creation of a party
dictatorship, the repression of strikes, free speech, independent
working class organisation, the creation of a secret police force,
the attack on Kronstadt, the betrayal of the Makhnovists, the violent
repression of the Russian anarchist movement, etc.) in the league
table of despicable activity. It seems strange that personal bigotry
is of equal, or even more, importance in evaluating a political
theory than its practice during a revolution.
</p><p>
Moreover, such a technique is ultimately dishonest. Looking at Proudhon,
for example, his anti-Semitic outbursts remained unpublished in his note
books until well after his ideas and, as Robert Graham points out, <i>"a
reading of <b>General Idea of the Revolution</b> will show, anti-Semitism
forms no part of Proudhon's revolutionary programme."</i> [<i>"Introduction"</i>,
<b>The General Idea of the Revolution</b>, p. xxxvi] Similarly, Bakunin's
racism is an unfortunate aspect of his life, an aspect which is ultimately
irrelevant to the core principles and ideas he argued for. As for Proudhon's
sexism it should be noted that Bakunin and subsequent anarchists totally
rejected it and argued for complete equality between the sexes. Likewise,
anarchists from Kropotkin onwards have opposed racism in all its forms
(and the large Jewish anarchist movement saw that Bakunin's anti-Semitic
comments were not a defining aspect to his ideas). Why mention these
aspects of their ideas at all?
</p><p>
Nor were Marx and Engels free from racist, sexism or homophobic comments
yet no anarchist would dream these were worthy of mention when critiquing
their ideology (for those interested in such matters, Peter Fryer's essay
<b>"Engels: A Man of his Time"</b> should be consulted. This is because
the anarchist critique of Marxism is robust and confirmed by substantial
empirical evidence (namely, the failures of social democracy and the Russian
Revolution).
</p><p>
If we look at Kropotkin's support for the Allies in the First World
War we discover a strange hypocrisy on the part of Marxists as well
as an attempt to distort history. Why hypocrisy? Simply because Marx
and Engels supported Prussia during the Franco-Prussian war while, in
contrast, Bakunin argued for a popular uprising and social revolution
to stop the war. As Marx wrote to Engels on July 20th, 1870:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"The French need to be overcome. If the Prussians are victorious,
the centralisation of the power of the State will be useful for
the centralisation of the German working class. Moreover, German
ascendancy will transfer the centre of gravity of the European
worker's movement from France to Germany . . . On a world scale,
the ascendancy of the German proletariat the French proletariat
will at the same time constitute the ascendancy of <b>our</b> theory
over Proudhon's."</i> [quoted by Arthur Lehning, <b>Michael Bakunin:
Selected Writings</b>, p. 284]
</blockquote></p><p>
Marx, in part, supported the deaths of working class people in war
in order to see <b>his</b> ideas become more important than Proudhon's!
The hypocrisy of the Marxists is clear - if anarchism is to be condemned
for Kropotkin's actions, then Marxism must be equally condemned for Marx's.
</p><p>
This analysis also rewrites history as the bulk of the Marxist
movement supported their respective states during the conflict.
A handful of the parties of the Second International opposed the
war (and those were the smallest ones as well). The father of
Russian Marxism, George Plekhanov, supported the Allies while the
German Social Democratic Party (the jewel in the crown of the Second
International) supported its nation-state in the war. There was just
one man in the German Reichstag in August 1914 who did not vote for
war credits (and he did not even vote against them, he abstained).
While there was a small minority of the German Social-Democrats did
not support the war, initially many of this anti-war minority went
along with the majority of party in the name of "discipline" and
"democratic" principles.
</p><p>
In contrast, only a <b>very</b> small minority of anarchists supported
any side during the conflict. The bulk of the anarchist movement
(including such leading lights as Malatesta, Rocker, Goldman and
Berkman) opposed the war, arguing that anarchists must <i>"capitalise
upon every stirring of rebellion, every discontent in order to foment
insurrection, to organise the revolution to which we look for the
ending of all of society's iniquities."</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>,
vol. 2., p. 36] As Malatesta noted at the time, the pro-war anarchists
were <i>"not numerous, it is true, but [did have] amongst them comrades
whom we love and respect most."</i> He stressed that the <i>"almost all"</i>
of the anarchists <i>"have remained faithful to their convictions"</i>
namely <i>"to awaken a consciousness of the antagonism of interests
between dominators and dominated, between exploiters and workers, and
to develop the class struggle inside each country, and solidarity among
all workers across the frontiers, as against any prejudice and any passion
of either race or nationality."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and
Ideas</b>, p. 243, p. 248 and p. 244] By pointing to Kropotkin, Marxists
hide the facts that he was very much in a minority within the anarchist
movement and that it was the official Marxist movement which betrayed the
cause of internationalism, not anarchism. Indeed, the betrayal of the
Second International was the natural result of the <i>"ascendancy"</i>
of Marxism over anarchism that Marx had hoped. The rise of Marxism,
in the form of social-democracy, ended as Bakunin predicted, with the
corruption of socialism in the quagmire of electioneering and statism.
As Rudolf Rocker correctly argued, <i>"the Great War of 1914 was the
exposure of the bankruptcy of political socialism."</i> [<b>Marx and
Anarchism</b>]
</p><p>
Here we will analyse Marxism in terms of its theories and how they
worked in practice. Thus we will conduct a scientific analysis of
Marxism, looking at its claims and comparing them to what they
achieved in practice. Few, if any, Marxists present such an analysis
of their own politics, which makes Marxism more a belief system than
analysis. For example, many Marxists point to the success of the
Russian Revolution and argue that while anarchists attack Trotsky
and Lenin for being statists and authoritarians, that statism and
authoritarianism saved the revolution. In reply, anarchists point
out that the revolution did, in fact, <b>fail.</b> The aim of that
revolution was to create a free, democratic, classless society of equals.
It created a one party dictatorship based around a class system of
bureaucrats exploiting and oppressing working class people and a society
lacking equality and freedom. As the stated aims of the Marxist revolution
failed to materialise, anarchists would argue that it failed even though
a "Communist" Party remained in power for over 70 years. And as for statism
and authoritarianism "saving" the revolution, they saved it for Stalin,
not socialism. That is nothing to be proud of.
</p><p>
From an anarchist perspective, this makes perfect sense as <i>"[n]o
revolution can ever succeed as factor of liberation unless the MEANS
used to further it be identical in spirit and tendency with the PURPOSE
to be achieved."</i> [Emma Goldman, <b>My Disillusionment in Russia</b>,
p. 261] In other words, statist and authoritarian means will result in
statist and authoritarian ends. Calling a new state a "workers state"
will not change its nature as a form of minority (and so class) rule.
It has nothing to do with the intentions of those who gain power, it
has to do with the nature of the state and the social relationships
it generates. The state structure is an instrument of minority rule, it
<b>cannot</b> be used by the majority because it is based on hierarchy,
centralisation and the empowerment of the minority at the top at the
expense of everyone else. States have certain properties <b>just because
they are states.</b> They have their own dynamics which place them outside
popular control and are not simply a tool in the hands of the economically
dominant class. Making the minority Socialists within a "workers' state"
just changes the minority in charge, the minority exploiting and oppressing
the majority. As Emma Goldman put it:
<blockquote></p><p>
<i>"It would be an error to assume that the failure of the Revolution was
due entirely to the character of the Bolsheviki. Fundamentally, it was the
result of the principles and methods of Bolshevism. It was the authoritarian
spirit and principles of the State which stifled the libertarian and
liberating aspirations [unleashed by the revolution] . . . Only this
understanding of the underlying forces that crushed the Revolution can
present the true lesson of that world-stirring event."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
p. 250]
</blockquote></p><p>
Similarly, in spite of over 100 years of socialists and radicals
using elections to put forward their ideas and the resulting
corruption of every party which has done so, most Marxists still
call for socialists to take part in elections. For a theory which
calls itself scientific this ignoring of empirical evidence, the
facts of history, is truly amazing. Marxism ranks with economics
as the "science" which most consistently ignores history and
evidence.
</p><p>
As this section of the FAQ will make clear, this name calling and
concentration on the personal failings of individual anarchists by
Marxists is not an accident. If we take the ability of a theory to
predict future events as an indication of its power then it soon
becomes clear that anarchism is a far more useful tool in working
class struggle and self-liberation than Marxism. After all, anarchists
predicted with amazing accuracy the future development of Marxism.
Bakunin argued that electioneering would corrupt the socialist movement,
making it reformist and just another bourgeois party (see
<a href="secJ2.html">section J.2</a>). This
is what in fact happened to the Social-Democratic movement across
the world by the turn of the twentieth century (the rhetoric remained
radical for a few more years, of course).
</p><p>
If we look at the "workers' states" created by Marxists, we
discover, yet again, anarchist predictions proved right. Bakunin
argued that <i>"[b]y popular government they [the Marxists] mean
government of the people by a small under of representatives
elected by the people. . . [That is,] government of the vast
majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this
minority, the Marxists say, will consist of workers. Yes,
perhaps, of <b>former</b> workers, who, as soon as they become
rulers or representatives of the people will cease to be
workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers' world
from the heights of the state. They will no longer represent
the people but themselves and their own pretensions to govern
the people."</i> [<b>Statism and Anarchy</b>, p. 178] The history
of every Marxist revolution proves his critique was correct.
</p><p>
Due to these "workers' states" socialism has become associated with
repressive regimes, with totalitarian state capitalist systems the
total opposite of what socialism is actually about. Nor does it help
when self-proclaimed socialists (such as Trotskyites) obscenely
describe regimes that exploit, imprison and murder wage labourers in
Cuba, North Korea, and China as 'workers' states'. While some
neo-Trotskyists (like the British SWP) refuse to defend, in any way,
Stalinist states (as they argue - correctly, even if their analysis is
flawed - that they are state capitalist) most Trotskyists do not.
Little wonder many anarchists do not use the terms "socialist" or
"communist" and just call themselves "anarchists." This is because
such terms are associated with regimes and parties which have nothing
in common with our ideas, or, indeed, the ideals of socialism as such.
</p><p>
This does not mean that anarchists reject everything Marx wrote.
Far from it. Much of his analysis of capitalism is acceptable to
anarchists, for example (both Bakunin and Tucker considered Marx's
economic analysis as important). Indeed, there are some schools
of Marxism which are very libertarian and are close cousins to
anarchism (for example, council communism and Autonomist Marxism
are close to revolutionary anarchism). Unfortunately, these forms
of Libertarian Marxism are a minority current within that movement.
So, Marxism is not all bad - unfortunately the vast bulk of it is
and those elements which are not are found in anarchism anyway. For
most, Marxism is the school of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, not
Marx, Pannekoek, Gorter, Ruhle and Mattick.
</p><p>
The minority libertarian trend of Marxism is based, like anarchism,
on a rejection of party rule, electioneering and creating a "workers'
state." Its supporters also, like anarchists, advocate direct action,
self-managed class struggle, working class autonomy and a self-managed
socialist society. These Marxists oppose the dictatorship of the party
over the proletariat and, in effect, agree with Bakunin on many key
issues (such as anti-parliamentarianism, direct action, workers'
councils, etc.).
</p><p>
These libertarian forms of Marxism should be encouraged and not tarred
with the same brush as Leninism and social democracy (indeed Lenin
commented upon <i>"the anarchist deviation of the German Communist
Workers' Party"</i> and the <i>"semi-anarchist elements"</i> of the
very groups we are referring to here under the term libertarian
Marxism. [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 32, p. 252 and p. 514]). Over
time, hopefully, such comrades will see that the libertarian element
of their thought outweighs the Marxist legacy. So our comments in
this section of the FAQ are mostly directed to the majority form
of Marxism, not to its libertarian wing.
</p><p>
One last point. We must note that in the past many leading Marxists have
slandered anarchists. Engels, for example, wrote that the anarchist movement
survived because <i>"the governments in Europe and America are much too
interested in its continued existence, and spend too much money on supporting
it."</i> [<b>Collected Works</b>, vol. 27, p. 414] So there is often no
love lost between the two schools of socialism. Indeed, Marxists have argued
that anarchism and socialism were miles apart and some even asserted
that anarchism was not even a form of socialism. Lenin (at times) and
leading American Marxist Daniel De Leon took this line, along with many
others. This is true, in a sense, as anarchists are not <b>state</b>
socialists - we reject such "socialism" as deeply authoritarian. However,
all anarchists <b>are</b> members of the socialist movement and we reject
attempts by Marxists to monopolise the term. Be that as it may, sometimes
in this section we may find it useful to use the term socialist/communist
to describe "state socialist" and anarchist to describe "libertarian
socialist/communist." This in no way implies that anarchists are not
socialists. It is purely a tool to make our arguments easier to read.
</p><p>
</body>
</html>
|
