Anarchism vs. Marxism on the WWW
Jeffrey S Stein
between "rejecting Marxism entirely" and "rejecting Marxism out of
hand". The point is that I don't disagree with Marx and his successors
on the destructive nature of capitalism and class society. What I
disagree with is the analysis Marx and the marxists make about how to
change it. I base this disagreement not just on what other critics have
said, but on my direct reading of the sacred marxist texts myself. I
have also read Hegel,Gramsci, and the Frankfurters.
I don't have much use for dialectical reasoning. I am one of
those "empiricists" that Lenin warned you about. The dialectical method
is flawed, because in order to make the "categories" come out right, one
usually has to assume what is trying to be proved. Thus Marx assumed
that socialism would follow capitalism, because of capitalism's
"contradictions", although there is no real scientific justification for
this assumption. Capitalism could just as well be followed by something
else, perhaps even worse, say fascism or Stalinism, or environmental
catastrophe. It also does not follow then that capitalism is somehow
laying the groundwork for socialism and is thus, a "historical necessity".
The reason I said Marxist theory can lead to some political opportunism
is that if you assume that capitalism is a necessary stage which society
must go through to develop the means of production to the point where
socialism is viable, then it only follows that a good marxist might
undr certain circumstances take the side of the capitalists against
the workers. By developing the means of production, the capitalists
are supposedly laying the ground for their own destruction. So even
if workers suffer in the short term, in the long term they will
benefit by the earlier arrival of socialism.
This reasoning has prevailed among marxists on numerous occasions in
history. The Mensheviks, for instance thought that Russia had to pass
through a capitalist period before going to socialism, and thus
opposed the further progress of the Russian revolution beyond the
establishment of a bourgeois democracy. In 1921, Lenin enlisted the
aid of the former capitalists managers as a part of his "New Economic
Policy", after crushing the Kronstadt rebellion. In the Spanish
Revolution in 1936, the Spanish Communist Party defended small
business and "anti-fascist" employers from collectivisation. All of
these opportunistic policies were justified on the basis of
"dialectical materialism".
On the other hand, if you are an anarchist or non-marxist socialist
and do not believe in the inevitable socialist hereafter, these
policies look more dubious. What is good for socialism is what
empowers the workers, gives them more direct control over their
lives. If the means of production need to be more developed, we can
do that without the capitalists or the bureaucrats, thank you.
I think it is good that some marxists have made an effort to revise
marxism in the direction that anarchists have called for, fixing the
glaring problems of Marx, Lenin, et.al. The only question I have is,
"why bother?" In the wake of the collapse of marxism as a world
movement, now should be the time for heading in a different direction,
rather than trying to resuurect something that failed.
Jeff Stein
Advanced Transportation Research Lab
Civil Engineering Department
email: j-st...@students.uiuc.edu
ph: 217-333-2215
On 14 Mar 1996, Tanya Tompkins wrote:
> Jeffrey S Stein <j-st...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> > My article "Marxism: The Negation of Communism" appeared in the
> >anarcho-syndicalist journal, "Libertarian Labor Review", No. 18. It is
> >available at most anarchist bookstores, although I am not sure if there
> >is one in LA. Otherwise you can get it by sending $3 to: LLR, Box 2824,
> >Champaign, IL 61825.
>
> Thanks. I'll check out the library at UCLA, they've got a fairly
> extensive collection of academic journals and alternative mags.
>
> > To round out your theoretical background you might want to add
> >the works of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Sam Dolgoff and Noam
> >Chomsky (his essays dealing with anarcho-syndicalism, in particular).
>
> I actually like Chomsky, and I'm acquainted with a few of the others
> you've mentioned though I haven't even heard of Sam Dolgoff <grin>
> ...(btw: were you referring to Lucien Goldmann as opposed to Goldman?)
>
> > I don't know what you mean when you accuse me of rejecting
> >marxism entirely.
>
> I've never said that you reject Marxism entirely. What I've implied is
> that you reject it out of hand. Which is to say that where you've
> offered strong rejections of Marxist positions, your language has left it
> unclear whether you have attempted to first conceptualize the positions
> actually held by marxists, or instead whether your understanding of
> marxism has not been derived primarily from the writings of its critics.
> I don't say that pejoratively, it's just that you tend to offer rather
> extreme interpretations of otherwise rather moderate claims, and that
> those interpretations often read like the following statement: "I was
> struck by a lot of Hegellian double-talk in Marx whcich drowned out the
> voice of Ricardo" Was it Paul Barth who said that?
>
> In any case, what I'm interested in is learning about your interpretation
> of materialist dialectics. What is it? Why is it a "crude tool?" Where
> does it fail?. If you don't respond to anything else that I say in this
> thread, that is one area of conversation that I'd very much like to
> explore. I'll offer my own account, and we can compare notes.
>
> >As I have said in previous posts, it is not entirely
> >wrong. Class society does exist. Capitalism is destructive to society
> >as a whole. These positions, however, were never unique to the >marxists. What I disagree with is the marxist model of how society >changes, because it is simplistic and incomplete. It underestimates the >role of power (as opposed to economic) elites.
>
> Marx focussed on one set of questions, other Marxists have focussed on
> others. The early Frankfurt school (coming as it did on the heels of
> fascism in Europe) was obsessed with the role of power and power agents
> in society - particularly Antonio Gramsci.
>
> > It assumes that increasing
> >economic productivity will cause the downfall of capitalism (which leads
> >to some pretty wierd political alliances between marxists and
> >"progressive" capitalists).
>
> For Marx, capitalism is as much a historical process as it is a social
> phenomenon. Where he has said that Capitalism is laying the material
> groundwork for the transformation of society into a new social form, he
> was in no way alliance building, he was simply pointing out what he
> regarded to be a fact of social development. Nor does Marx predict a
> downfall in the sense that you are implying (meaning a massive crash).
> What he is referring to is essentially a paradigm shift, humans will
> eventually outgrow the relations established in class-based capitalist
> systems
>
> > I belive that the political opportunism
> >shown by marxist parties in the past, is not an aberration, but a direct
> >consequence of marxist theories.
>
> Which theories in particular are you referring to?
>
> I believe that where marxism has been attempted and failed, it has not
> occurred in an idiom that is conducive to its' long-term success. It has
> frequently been used as an ideological cloak to mask the true intentions
> of political actors; it has occurred in societies which lacked the
> necessary material and spiritual conditions to promote its' success; and
> in some instances, it has been sabotaged by powerful external forces.
> In any case, there is certainly a rather strong distinction between
> political theory and political agency.
>
>
>
>
Christian Rakovsky
socialism so in some cases, especially in under-
developed countries, we should support the capitalists
against the workers" only works for those who disagree
with Trotsky's theory of Permenant Revolution, which
holds among other things that capitalism is a WORLD
SYSTEM, that the world economy AS A WHOLE is ripe
for international socialist revolution, that supporting
the capitalists against the workers IN ALL CASES
is reactionary in this period and that supporting the
workers against the capitalists is IN ALL CASES
progressive. The Mensheviks "application" of Marxism
to Russia was formal, mechanistic, ahistorical,
undialectical and ANTI-MARXIST.
The NEP in Russia was not a return to capitalism
but a TACTICAL RETREAT in the face of world imperialism
and petty-bourgeois reaction at home, ONE ASPECT
OF WHICH was the Kronstadt rebellion, which represented
a conflict between the proletarian dictatorship and
the more backward peasants, not a conflict of abstract
principles. The NEP was the "Peasants Brest-Litovsk"
meant to pacify the Kulak counter-revolution which
had manifested itself at Kronstadt by throwing it
sops which did not FUNDEMENTALLY CHANGE THE SYSTEM,
in the same way that the capitalist ruling class
sometimes pacifies the workers through the safety
valve of reformism. It had nothing to do with some
Menshevik concept that "a capitalist stage is
neccessary in backward Russia"--it was a method of
defending the workers revolution. In fact, in
this instance one section of the anarchists was
supporting an uprising that would have led to
a return to capitalism(while, of course, a more
farsighted section saw the counter-revolutionary
nature of the mutiny).
Bolshevik-Leninist Greetings,
CR
st00...@brown.edu
I just love jumping in in the middle of other people's debates!
Anyway, might I suggest that part of the problem here is with definitions....
not everything that gets called "marxism" is Marxism, any more than everything
that gets called anarchism is anarchism. After all, the "Libertarians" defend
capitalism, but I'm sure socialist "Libertarians" would not want to be judged in
the light of this odd ideology.
I think anarcho-syndicalists are actually really Marxists (I have taken to
calling them (quite uninvited!!) "critical Marxists.") I think they are
quite
correct to be worried about Marx's tendency to think of everything
deterministically, and his over-emphasis, at times, on centralization.
However,
criticizing aspects of Marx's thought, I don' think, should drive one to
identify with Proudhon and Bakhunin. Their ideas on a whole range of
questions are quite disturbing. Bukhunin was an anti-semite and a Russian
chauvanist; he ruled his political circles with an iron hand and organized
them as secret societies; Proudhon thought women were inferior to men,
supported slavery and sided with the South in the US Civil War, and seemed
to have managed to say something nasty about virtually every progressive
thinker of his day.
I would suggest reading the following two works:
John Molyneux, What is the Real Marxist Tradition? (Bookmarks)
David McNally, Socialism from Below (This work contains a short but
excellent critique of anarchism and argues that syndicalism is not really
anarchism)
Both works are from the International Socialist Organization. I am not
now a member of this group (although I was for a while). I don't agree
with everything in them. Nevertheless, they do embody the version of
Marxism that I
adhere to.
In return, I promise to read at least one relatively concise critique of Marxism
from an anarcho-syndicalist point of view. Recommendations?
Looking for truth
Bill.
Jeffrey S Stein
In your recent note, you suggested that one should not abandon
marxism for anarchism because Proudhon and Bakunin's "ideas on a whole
range of issues are quite disturbing. Bakunin was an anti-semite and a
Russian chauvinist; he ruled his political circiles with an iron hand and
progressive thinker of his day."
chauvinist, the rest of what you say simply is not true. Bakunin did not
"rule" anybody with an "iron hand". On the whole he was rather naive and
trusting toward anybody who he thought to be a revolutionary. This got
him in trouble a several occasions, like his dealings with Nechaev and
Marx, both of whom were far more "iron-handed" than he was. As for
Proudhon, he was backward in his attitudes about women, but he never
supported slavery (this is from a sloppy reading of Marx's "Poverty of
Philosophy") and I challenge anyone to show me where Proudhon made such a
remark.
Marx, on the other hand, was also an anti-semite, male
chauvinist, and was a pro-German (anti-French and anti-Russian). He used
to call his German rival, Lasalle, "the little Jew" and a "nigger" (in
spite of the fact that Marx was himself, part Jewish). Marx fathered an
illegitimate child on his housekeeper, the ultimate in sexual harassment,
a fact which Engels helped cover up. Marx favored the Prussians in the
Franco-Prussian war, and only came out for the Paris Commune as an
after-thought.
The victorian attitudes of Marx, Bakunin, and Proudhon, however,
are irrelevant. Each was a product of their times. What is important is
not their character flaws, but the relevance of their theories to our time.
Jeffrey S Stein
depending on what the assumptions are of whoever is using it. There is
no reason to conclude that Trotsky was a better marxist than the
Mensheviks. He was merely using dialectics to get where he wanted to go,
which was to justify his theory of "permanent revolution", just as the
Mensheviks wanted to justify building up a social democratic movement
within a bourgeois democracy.
On the other hand, Trotsky was just as capable of turning
dialectics against the workers when it suited his political purposes,
that of defending the bolshevik dictatorship against the demands of the
Kronstadt sailors for free soviets. The Krostadt revolt was started in
support of striking workers in nearby Petrograd. Their demands would
have liberated workers from Bolshevik control. Trotsky had to justify
its suppression with the bullshit about it being a peasant (ie. kulak)
conspiracy. All very "objective", "dialectical", and self-serving.
The idea that the NEP was an "economic Brest-Litovsk" treaty
falls flat when one considers that it made concessions to capitalists
while doing nothing in the way of giving workers' control back to the
workers. Marxists have always been ready to grant concessions to the
capitalists, rather than give up political power over the workers.
Jeff Stein
Advanced Transportation Research Lab
Civil Engineering Department
email: j-st...@students.uiuc.edu
ph: 217-333-2215
Christian Rakovsky
Bakunin dictatorially ran his disciplined secret
societies with an iron fist, in sharp contrast
to the broad and democratic style of organization
favored by Marx and Engels. See "Mikhail Bakunin:
A Study in the Psychology and Politics of
Utopianism by Aileen Kelley.
2.The idea that Marx only supported the Commune
as an "after-thought" is a malicious, disgusting
lie. Please name your source(if you have one).
Bolshevik-Leninist Greetings,
CR
Christian Rakovsky
>dialectics against the workers when it suited his political purposes,
>that of defending the bolshevik dictatorship against the demands of the
>Kronstadt sailors for free soviets. The Krostadt revolt was started in
>support of striking workers in nearby Petrograd.
>Their demands would
>have liberated workers from Bolshevik control.
1.The rebels were peasants, not workers. See my other
posts on the class dynamics of the fortress. The
rebellion was just another battle in the growing
Kulak Vendee which was finally pacified to some
extent by the NEP.
2."Liberation from Bolshevik control" and "free
Soviets" are apperantly a polite way of saying
"smash the Bolshevik Party" a la Nestor Makhno's
proto-fascist police state in the Ukraine, a
step towards the total elimination of the Soviets.
3.The idea that the rebellion was started in favor
of the "striking" workers in Petrograd in a myth.
The "provisional defense committee" was put together
after an S-R agitator lied to the meeting to the
effect that the Red Army was marching to disband it.
See "The Truth About Kronstadt" by John G. Wright.
The fact is that the Petrograd workers ended their
purely economic struggle because they WERE REPELLED
BY AND DID NOT WISH TO ASSOCIATE WITH the rebels.
4.I don't think the action in Petrograd was a "strike."
I think it would be more accurately described as
"scabbing." When there are "strikes" by the most
demoralized and backward sections of the class
in factories emptied out of advanced and revolutionary
workers(the workers who always led REAL strikes)
against the sacrifices imposed on them by the class
struggle against the bosses, I think the accurate
word for this is "scabbing" not "strike." It was
a conflict within the class between the advanced
workers and backward, dissolusioned workers who
wished to discontinue the struggle--in other words,
scabs.(A slogan of the strikers was, I believe,
"Down with Lenin and his Horse-meat, Up with the
Tsar and his Pork!" To the extent that there
was any political content, the politics were
Menshevik and that group played a leading
role). Was the section of the workers
that wanted to continue the struggle, and the
armed portion of that group, harsh towards the
section that wanted to stop fighting? Maybe. In
any winning strike, the advanced workers physically
prevent the backward workers from crossing picket
lines and sometimes throw rocks at them or threaten
them. As socialists it would be insane for us
to condemn them.
>Trotsky had to justify
>its suppression with the bullshit about it being a peasant (ie. kulak)
>conspiracy. All very "objective", "dialectical", and self-serving.
In other wors, you reject any analysis of the armed
struggle to defend the revolution that is based
on facts and logic rather than raw anarchist emotion?
> The idea that the NEP was an "economic Brest-Litovsk" treaty
>falls flat when one considers that it made concessions to capitalists
>while doing nothing in the way of giving workers' control back to the
>workers.
The NEP was the "peasants Brest-Litovsk"--it was a matter
of the organized and armed working class(in other words,
the Soviet dictatorship) giving economic conccessions
to the PEASANTRY, the class that had staged the
insurrection at Kronstadt. The workers couldn't give
control "back" to themselves, because they already
had it and had not lost it.
>Marxists have always been ready to grant concessions to the
>capitalists, rather than give up political power over the workers.
The Marxists of the Bolshevik party LED THE WORKERS
TO POLITICAL POWER in the form of their leadership
of the Soviets in the October Revolution and played
a leading role in the defense of that revolution
(including pacifying armed petty-bourgeois reaction
by means such as the NEP, in the same way that the
bourgeoise defends its political power by throwing
minor reforms to the workers). The Bolsheviks were
simply the organizational form of the most advanced
layer of the working class, which led the other
layers in struggle.
Bolshevik-Leninist Greetings,
CR
Jeffrey S Stein
took no side in the Franco-Prussian War, privately he was pro-German. In
a letter to Engels written at the start of the war, Marx said, "The
French need a drubbing. If the Prussians are victorious then the
centralization of the State power will be favorable to the centralization
of the working class. German preponderance will shift the center of the
working-class movement in Western Europe from France to Germany, and one
has only to compare the movement in 1866 in both countries to see that
the German working class is theoretically and organizationally superior
to the French. The superiority of the Germans over the French in the
world arena would mean at the same time the superiority of our theory
over Proudhon." (quoted in Franz Mehring, KARL MARX: THE STORY OF HIS
LIFE, p.463)
When Napolean III was overthrown, Marx publicly warned the Franch
workers NOT to overthrow the Republic, but support it instead. "The
French working class moves, therefore, under circumstances of extreme
difficulty. Any attempt at upsetting the new government in the
present crisis, when the enemy is almost knocking at the doors of
Paris, would be desperate folly." ( Karl Marx, SECOND MANIFESTO OF
THE GENERAL COUNCIL ON THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR, Kerr edition , page
47)
Marx only came out in favor of the Paris Commune after it was
suppressed. Basically his posthumous support was in order to claim
the legacy of the Commune for his theories.
The former comment on the "broad, democratic Marx versus the
iron-fisted Bakunin is pure poppycock. Kelley's book is just another
example of Marxist character assassination of their political rivals.
The LaHague purge of Bakunin and Guilluame from the IWA were a fine
example of Marx at his most broad-minded and democratic.
Jeff Stein
Advanced Transportation Research Lab
Civil Engineering Department
email: j-st...@students.uiuc.edu
ph: 217-333-2215
iddd
: Bill,
: In your recent note, you suggested that one should not abandon
: range of issues are quite disturbing. Bakunin was an anti-semite and a
: Russian chauvinist; he ruled his political circiles with an iron hand and
: progressive thinker of his day."
: "rule" anybody with an "iron hand". On the whole he was rather naive and
: trusting toward anybody who he thought to be a revolutionary. This got
: him in trouble a several occasions, like his dealings with Nechaev and
: Marx, both of whom were far more "iron-handed" than he was. As for
: Proudhon, he was backward in his attitudes about women, but he never
: supported slavery (this is from a sloppy reading of Marx's "Poverty of
: Philosophy") and I challenge anyone to show me where Proudhon made such a
: remark.
: Marx, on the other hand, was also an anti-semite, male
: chauvinist, and was a pro-German (anti-French and anti-Russian). He used
: to call his German rival, Lasalle, "the little Jew" and a "nigger" (in
: spite of the fact that Marx was himself, part Jewish). Marx fathered an
: illegitimate child on his housekeeper, the ultimate in sexual harassment,
: a fact which Engels helped cover up. Marx favored the Prussians in the
: Franco-Prussian war, and only came out for the Paris Commune as an
: after-thought.
: The victorian attitudes of Marx, Bakunin, and Proudhon, however,
: are irrelevant. Each was a product of their times. What is important is
: not their character flaws, but the relevance of their theories to our time.
: Jeff Stein