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