Marxism and Anarchism

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

On the 9th 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.

Marxism and Anarchism

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 19th 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” whilefrom 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 5th 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!

End Notes

[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”

AttachmentSize
AWL_2011.pdf44.6 KB

Comments

And talking of Luxemburg

This is from Jim Higgins' More Years for the Locust, on his time with the leadership of the IST in the early days. This is an interesting account of Tony Cliff, his pamphlet on Rosa Luxemburg and some rewriting of history:

'In 1959, some time after the promised publication date, Cliff’s pamphlet, Rosa Luxemburg, was produced . . . It was a serious attempt to revalidate the spirit of libertarian Marxism . . . At the same time it distinguished the group from the exclusive brethren of orthodox Trotskyism . . . It was refreshing to discover that Cliff had decided that Luxemburg was not invariably wrong in these exchanges and that, in any case, much of the differences reflected different experiences and conditions....

'From this, at least, it is clear that in 1959 Cliff saw no reason to construct a party on “Leninist” lines . . .  This view was entirely consonant with his opinion then, that the SR Group was not a pre-Bolshevik, but a post-Bolshevik formation. . . .

'So matters stood for some time, when Cliff, almost single-handed, reinvented the “Leninist” concept of stick bending . . .

'In line with his rediscovery of democratic centralism, it was felt necessary to rewrite the past, specifically Cliff’s past. In the 1969 reprint of Rosa Luxemburg, of the two paragraphs . . .  disappeared completely . . . [and were] replaced . . .

'That is less stick bending than full frontal attack with a tomahawk. From being a better guide than Lenin she is transformed into a cause of the weakness of 1918-19. In 1959 the Stalinists were calumniating her and, by 1968, the Stalinists were apparently right . . .  Everyone, of course, is entitled to change their mind but there is such a thing as honest accounting. In particular, Marxist groups have a responsibility to acknowledge when and why they have changed their minds. This is especially so when their comrades have to defend them.

'I recall a meeting in Merlin’s Cave at which Nigel Coward, a pleasant young comrade who had earlier acted as full timer but somehow fallen foul of Cliff, said that Cliff had made unacknowledged changes between editions one and two of the Luxemburg book. As someone who already had the first edition and had not, because it was supposed to be the same as the first, read the second, although I had bought one, it was quite beyond my wildest imagining that Cliff would have done this. I assumed, quite unjustly, that Nigel was suffering in his fall from grace with a fit of pique. “Quote chapter and verse,” I challenged him. Fortunately for me, Nigel did not have a copy of the offending texts with him, nor did he recall the detail too clearly, otherwise I would have been extremely embarrassed in front of a fairly large audience. So too would my companion at the meeting, who sat next to me and noisily supported my contribution. It was none other than T Cliff. I do not think I have seen Nigel since then to apologise, an apology he richly deserved. The business was subsequently taken up by Sean Matgamna of the Trotskyist Tendency and the issue was then submerged in the faction fight. When I raised the question with Cliff he merely shrugged. It was not an impressive or an edifying performance."

I will leave it to others to draw conclusions. Suffice to say it is an interesting example of what the IST's founding father thought was acceptable behaviour...

In terms of "stick-bending", this refers to the extremely frequent attempts by Leninists to distance Lenin from the elitism of his own arguments in What is to be Done? I discuss Hal Draper's (failed) attempt to do here: H.5.4 Did Lenin abandon vanguardism?

Makhno, ISR, Socialism with a human face, and a question

Anarcho, have you read this? http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml It's an examination of the Makhnovist movement in the US International Socialist Review, the ISO's journal. I think you'll find it very interesting, as its basic argument is that what anarchists criticise the Bolsheviks for, can be found in the Maknovist movement itself. I think it's a worthwhile contribution to the scholarship. Also, I have a question. I'm not very hung up on whatever I call myself- socialist, anarchist, left libertarian, whatever. I draw from all fields, and in many ways they dissolve into one another anyway, on many issues. My identity is not bound up in trying to defend Marx or Bakunin in a long ago dispute. In Australia, where I live, the anarchist movement is a minority, and an even smaller minority than the libertarian Marxists/revolutionary socialists. The socialist group that most appeals to me is Socialist Alternative, which has essentially International Socialist Tendency politics, which I think have a lot of value. I've read your criticisms of the SWP (which founded the IST) and from others, and while there are plenty of problems, I think they have had some decent historical successes, relatively good analysis of events, and bucketloads of political theory (despite some gross characterisations of anarchism). If I am to have any political impact at all, I should join SA, and as I have seem them heavily involved and really dedicating themselves to progressive struggles, I think they can achieve something. And they have some numbers behind them. Rosa Luxemburg is perhaps my favorite political figure, and they promote her as an important figure worthy of learning about. What is your opinion of this course of action?

ISO distortions about the Makhnovists

Anarcho, have you read this?... It's an examination of the Makhnovist movement in the US International Socialist Review, the ISO's journal.

yes, I have and written a critique of it (and linked to it in the footnotes above). It is called:  “On the Bolshevik Myth”

I think you'll find it very interesting, as its basic argument is that what anarchists criticise the Bolsheviks for, can be found in the Maknovist movement itself.

Nope, I did not find it remotely interesting -- the usual distortions and confusions, as I indicate in my reply.

I think it's a worthwhile contribution to the scholarship.

Only if you have not read the scholarship... and followed up some the references they provide.

Also, I have a question. I'm not very hung up on whatever I call myself- socialist, anarchist, left libertarian, whatever. I draw from all fields, and in many ways they dissolve into one another anyway, on many issues.

Most anarchists draw on Marx, when he was right. Much of his critique of capital, for example, is correct and few anarchists would deny its importance. Some, like myself, would note he took many of ideas from Proudhon (and developed them). Many, also like myself, would agree that Marx needs to be complemented by other thinkers.

My identity is not bound up in trying to defend Marx or Bakunin in a long ago dispute.

Personally, I would not be bothered with "defending" Bakunin other than the fact that Marxists write inaccurate articles about him which I feel the need to reply to. As I said in my talk, it is not the 19th century any more...

If I am to have any political impact at all, I should join SA, and as I have seem them heavily involved and really dedicating themselves to progressive struggles, I think they can achieve something.

And if you do do that then no libertarian socialist alternative will develop. But, yes, you need to balance long term and short term possibilities. It can be a hard choice -- particularly if there is no libertarian group near-by.

And they have some numbers behind them. Rosa Luxemburg is perhaps my favorite political figure, and they promote her as an important figure worthy of learning about. What is your opinion of this course of action?

I would not suggest joining them, as you would be expected to repeat the party line to outsiders and leave debate to internal discussion. It would make sense to work with them on specific issues while discussing differences with them openly. Perhaps that way you could win enough over to form a local anarchist group?

When I first became an anarchist I attended SWP meetings as there was no anarchist group around (at the time). However, I was aware that they were simply not reliable on anarchism -- which raises the question of what else they are unreliable about.

Suffice to say, I ended up meeting other anarchists and joined them. I then attended a SWP meeting on anarchism -- I went in feeling comradely disagreement and left thinking what a bunch of liars they were (see On the Picket Line). Nothing they have said about anarchism since (and that is over 20 years!) has made me change my opinion about them.

So if there is no alternative then working with them makes sense. But joining them, well, I would draw the line there.  Hope that helps.

Can they all be lying?

Thanks for your well written and considered response. Surely, though, all analysis that comes out of revolutionary socialist organisations, their newspapers and theorectical journals, and so on, can't all be 'distortions'. Why would so many dedicated activists waste their time writing 'distortions?' When their articles and arguments are purely ideological, ad hominem, fail to appreciate other perspectives, or fail to correspond, as much as possible, with the objective facts of historical and current events, then they should be roundly criticised and discredited for doing so. You've done so yourself. Though I'm sure you've heard plenty of times from Marxists that your criticism of Marxism is 'distorted', while you would reply their criticism of anarchism is 'distorted'. And so it goes on and on and on. When can you clearly see there is a breach of the historical record by either anarchists or socialists, and when it is a difference of ideological perspective, not related to history at all?

On Marxist distortions

Surely, though, all analysis that comes out of revolutionary socialist organisations, their newspapers and theorectical journals, and so on, can't all be 'distortions'.

For example, the SWP (and other Leninist groups) repeatedly proclaim that anarchists do not favour collective working class struggle. They make an exception for anarcho-syndicalists. However, it is easily shown (as I have, see section H.2.2 and section H.2.8 of An Anarchist FAQ) that the likes of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Berkman, etc. explicitly argued for collective class struggle. To make that claim flies in the face of even a basic understanding of the subject matter. It looks like distortion to me.

Why would so many dedicated activists waste their time writing 'distortions?'

Most of them probably don't know the facts. It probably does not cross their minds to actually read an anarchist -- instead they read Marxists on anarchism. However, if you see (say) Pat Stack of the SWP look into a book by Paul Avrich which states the opposite of what they claim about, say, Kropotkin, what conclusion can you draw?

When their articles and arguments are purely ideological, ad hominem, fail to appreciate other perspectives, or fail to correspond, as much as possible, with the objective facts of historical and current events, then they should be roundly criticised and discredited for doing so. You've done so yourself.

If someone does all that then they are, surely, distorting the subject matter? If a party has a LONG track record of producing such material, you start to consider it systematic distortion. Some of it is, I am sure, just ignorance and repeating accepted Marxist dogmas -- but the very  fact they do not do even the most basic research first suggests a policy of distortion (how aware of it they are is a moot point).

Particularly when they quote from a source and ignore the rest of the page which contradicts what they argue (see, as an example, In Defence of the Truth). This suggests that honest analysis is not driving the article.

Though I'm sure you've heard plenty of times from Marxists that your criticism of Marxism is 'distorted', while you would reply their criticism of anarchism is 'distorted'. And so it goes on and on and on.

Well, I'm sure they would. However, I don't go around making easily demonstrably false claims about Marxism (such as Marxism rejects class struggle, against defending a revolution, etc.).

I have seen SO many articles by Marxists making the same (false) claims, time and time again, claims which would NEVER be made if the person knew anything about anarchism. Hell, An Anarchist FAQ has a section on this (and an appendix!) for over a decade -- and the same claims still keep coming...

How to explain that? Some of it is ignorance, Marxists repeating Marxists -- some of it goes back to Marx (and Marx certainly DID distort Proudhon's ideas). Some of it must be deliberate distortion, given the use of references and quotes (see my reply to an ISO attack on Emma Goldman, for example). And I've seen this happening for over two decades --  and documenting some of it.

When can you clearly see there is a breach of the historical record by either anarchists or socialists, and when it is a difference of ideological perspective, not related to history at all?

There are areas of discussion, questions of context and objective circumstances, issues of valid disagreement -- but it is rare to address these as you have to refute the nonsense...

So it would help if Leninists do a modicum of research before writing
articles on anarchism (at the very least, read anarchists rather than marxists on anarchism!). I sometimes think this is deliberate as it very effectively shuts down debate as anarchists have to spend most of their replies correcting  the mistakes. I'm sure that it just a coincidence that it also has the effect of sexing-up Leninism, at least in comparision to the distorted account of anarchism being presented...

In short, if it happened infrequently I would not be that bothered. But it happens time and time again. Some of it is ignorance (but that in itself is bad, how can you write an article and NOT do any research?). Some of it is distortion (selective quoting, ignoring the wider context, and at times just invention).

Either way, I'm sick of it and have been for a long time.

I've also spent quite a bit

I've also spent quite a bit of time researching the Russian revolution and reading the various leninist replies to the anarchist critiques. Those authored by those who say they favour 'socialism from below' tend to be riddled with distortions and all too often what appear to be deliberate lies. Those (like the Sparts) who openly argue for more authoritarian forms of socialism tend to be more accurate in terms of historical fact. This isn't so surprizing because when you want to argue that Lenin or Trotsky favoured 'Socialism from below' you have to ignore both their words and deeds when in power.

With the IST the deliberate tendancy to lie and distort is quite easy to confirm. Read the articles on anarchist or the Russian Revolution in their newspapers. And then read the articles on the same topic in their journal. The paper which is intended for an audience with very little knowledge will carry woefully bad articles full of obvious lies and distortions to anyone who knows about the period. The journal articles won't be so obvious, you will need in fact to chase up the various footnotes when its not unusual to find the facts and quotations are distorted or used out of context. But the point here is that its a very safe assumption to presume that an organisation which considers it OK to lie in its paper will also consider it OK to do so in other party publications - it will just be a lot less crude about it.

Checking the footnotes

The journal articles won't be so obvious, you will need in fact to chase up the various footnotes when its not unusual to find the facts and quotations are distorted or used out of context.

I would just like to stress how important that is, particularly with the IST. The number of times I've traced a claim to discover that it does not quite support the claim being made is large...

Oh, btw, I remember reading a Marxist book (not by the IST, I think it was the ICC) and I remembered how strange it was they had referenced the claim that anarchists think that the state, not capital, was the main enemy (as I indicate in section H.2.4, this is false -- we oppose both equally). Wow, I thought, now I will discover which anarchist which made this claim. And guess who they quoted to support this claim on anarchism? It was Engels...

Still...

Still though, I think the IST is better than the orthodox Trotskyists, like the International Marxist Tendency. While Alan Woods, a leading cadre of the IMT is intelligent and no fool, him and the IMT always have an excuse ready for Lenin and Trotsky. Whereas with the IST, I've seen plenty of criticism of Lenin and Trotsky, even expressions of digust when reading about some of the things they did. They just don't reject their theorectical ideas entirely, just the most obviously bad ones, which seems reasonable enough to me. And I think most would even feel uncomfortable to identify as 'Leninists', and prefer to consider themselves revolutionary and libertarian socialists. They've also had open debates over anarchism in International Socialism, the SWP's journal. Can they really be as bad as you are making out?

A nice exception to the rule

They've also had open debates over anarchism in International Socialism, the SWP's journal. Can they really be as bad as you are making out?

Yes, they did allow an anarchist to reply to a couple of their articles on anarchism. I was very surprised by that. So that is ONE article in 20 years....

And what did that article need to do? Well, explain basic anarchist ideas on defence of the revolution, class struggle, syndicalism and so on....

And since then? Well, we have Pat Stack repeating the same (false and disproven) claims on anarchism in Socialist Worker.  After having the same 40 minute lecture (sorry, debate) at Marxism 2011 as I was subjected to in 2001 (as my account indicates, I had 3 minutes to reply -- some debate!).

So the printing of that one article in ISJ is a good sign -- but hardly enough to instantly overturn decades of nonsense...

So the printing of that one article in ISJ is a good sign

why not engage with the more substantial arguments put forward in the essays in the ISJ?

As opposed to the silly ones in Socialist Worker?

why not engage with the more substantial arguments put forward in the essays in the ISJ?

Sure, if I had the time and energy... but then the SWP print Pat Stack's usual distortions (as refuted 10 years back!) in Socialist Worker. Oh, hum, no change there...

But the point being, the SWP should be producing accurate articles to begin with. They should not be printing refuted rubbish like Stack's. And let us not forget that Socialist Review refused to print my second letter in response to Stack's nonsense 10 years ago.

And I'm sure that our comrade who wrote in reply to the original ISJ articles will do so again.

Also...

Also, their constant stressing of 'socialism from below' sounds and even reads as if it is very close to anarchism. I think it's a step forward from the other organisations.

Socialism From Below...

Also, their constant stressing of 'socialism from below' sounds and even reads as if it is very close to anarchism.

Quite. And guess what? They proclaim anarchism is "socialism from above":

Reply to errors and distortions in David McNally's pamphlet "Socialism from Below"

Not to mention then completely ignoring Lenin's comments on the necessity of "from above":

H.3.3 Is Leninism "socialism from below"?

I think it's a step forward from the other organisations.

Yes, it is -- shame that they have to compulsively distort anarchist ideas. And, yes, it does allow a discussion to develop -- particularly when we discuss the elements of Leninism which are incompatible with "socialism from below." Elements the typical IST member knows little about.

I'm all in favour of discussing ideas with them -- it is a shame we need to spend the first half of it explaining basic anarchist ideas on class struggle, syndicalism, defence of the revolution, size of production, and so on...

Indeed.

Yes, I agree that you shouldn't have to keep correcting distortions about anarchists from rev socialists, i.e. about class struggle, which concept originated with who, how to defend the revolution, etc. And there is undoubtedly elements of Leninism that are not conducive to any idea of socialism from below, and can be identified both in theory and practice. The idea of anarchism being 'socialism from above' is from Hal Draper right? Btw, you should check out this book 'Anti-Capitalism' by Ezequiel Adamovsky, it's like a written and illustrated guide to capitalism, historical resistance struggles, new anti-capitalist movements, ideas for the future, and so on. It really is the best introduction to anti-capitalist ideas I've read, in such an easy and digestible way. I think it offers a little for experts of the subject as well. It needs a mass audience! http://www.sevenstories.com/book/?GCOI=58322100857110 Also, Check out this article I wrote when the Egyptian Revolution broke out http://www.politicalaffairs.net/in-egypt-the-struggle-carries-on/
I just started a blog, http://theredstartwinklesmischievously.wordpress.com/ where I will explore a vareity of subjects, including politics. Do you have any tips for bloggers out there getting their stuff noticed? And thanks for responding to all my questions. I appreciate it.

By the way...

Have you read of the recent re-assesments and analysis on Lenin's ideas and life? I'm talking specifically about Lars T. Lih, who has written a biography of Lenin and a book called 'Lenin Rediscovered: What is to be Done? In Context' here's a summary: What Is to Be Done? has long been interpreted as evidence of Lenin’s “elitist” attitude toward workers. Lih uses a wide range of previously unavailable contextual sources to fundamentally overturn this reading of history’s most misunderstood revolutionary text. He argues that Lenin’s polemic must be seen within the context of a rising worker’s movement in Russia, and shows that Lenin’s perspective fit squarely within the mainstream of the socialist movement of his time.

Rather than the manifesto of an authoritarian leader, Lih reveals a guide to action to help cohere and strengthen a promising movement, which still maintains remarkable relevance to today’s world.

“Clearly written, well-reasoned, and effectively documented, it is a work that no scholar seriously examining the life and thought of Lenin will be able to ignore.”
—Paul Le Blanc, author of Marx, Lenin, and the Revolutionary Experience: Studies of Communism and Radicalism in the Age of Globalization

“If we are honestly to assess the lessons of the Russian Revolution, then it is essential that we unpick the real Lenin from this shared Stalinist and liberal myth of ‘Leninism’. It would be difficult to praise too highly Lars Lih’s contribution to such an honest reassessment of Lenin’s thought. At its heart, Lih’s book aims to overthrow, and succeeds in overthrowing, what he calls the ‘textbook interpretation’ of Lenin’s What is to be done? Lih thus adds to and deepens the arguments of those who have sought to recover the real Lenin from the Cold War mythology.”
—Paul Blackledge, author, Historical Materialism and Social Evolution

About the Author
Lars T. Lih is the editor of Stalin's Letters to Molotov, the author of Bread and Authority in Russia 1914-1921. He has taught political science at Wellesley College and currently teaches at the McGill School of Music in Montréal.

I can't wait to hear your opinion of this. But he doesn't sound as if he's some blinkered Leninist chump to me. Unless I'm missing something.

Interesting and useful post.

The problem with Marxists is few understand why Marx ever disagreed with Anarchism in the first place. So, they are hardly in a position to defend him against your well argued points. It is clear the Anarchists do not grasp what Marx's differences with them were, but for Marxists not to grasp it is altogether odd. Despite that, it is no longer the 19th Century and many -- if not most -- of the bases of those disagreements have given way to new conditions.

AddThis

  


Like what you are reading?  Get a notification whenever we post a new article to

Anarchist Writers via Facebook or Twitter

where you can also like and comment on our articles


 

Posting comments

 Like most sites we have a major problem with bots trying to post spam into the comments section.  While looking for a better solution we are reduced to only on turning on the ability to anonymously comment for brief periods around the posting of new articles.  But if you are a regular visitor you can comment at any time by creating an account on the site and logging in before posting. But the Spammers also set up accounts so to reduce the workload of deleting those we only turn on the ability to create accounts for brief periods which we announce on our Twitter & Facebook accounts so follow those to hear when we have that turned on.  We do want you to be able to engage with us via the comments and we are very sorry for the fact that we can't find a better way of dealing with spam.