As someone who has recently broken with anarchism, and as someone who had till then been an anarchist for the better part of a decade (almost since I first became interested in politics), it has been instructive for me to read for the first time what Marxists say about revolutionary struggle after the overthrow of the old, capitalist state has been successful. It is not often talked about by anarchists, who nowadays shun anything that might sound the least bit authoritarian, and when it does come up, the Marxists are abused with lies and strawmen of all kinds. I’ve come to find, in the few weeks since my deconversion from anarchocommunism, that the anarchists and the Marxists have radically different understandings of what revolution is, its purpose, and how it is carried out. Whereas anarchists see revolution as a struggle primarily focused on overthrowing the state, Marxists see revolution as a constant, living process, devoted to the destruction of the old, oppressive ways of life that does not simply end when the first military seizing of power has been achieved. I now recognize that the Marxist approach is the only practical and informed method of achieving a free communist society.
Anarchists (I am ignoring the so-called “anarchist” capitalists, the primitivists, and the pacifists, as they are completely unworthy of the title, even if it doesn’t mean so much to me anymore) typically seem to have a short list of steps required to bring about a post-statist, post-capitalist society, a series of steps that inevitably culminates with the dissolution of the state at the point of a bayonet, and, that having been achieved, the liberation of humanity. No transitional period is necessary, and people will be quick to throw off the chains that bind them to capitalism, patriarchy, cissupremacy, white supremacy, and the like. The radical democratic and communal spaces and movements that were developed before and during the revolution, and the freedom won because of it, will be enough to guarantee, not only that capitalism and statism will not succeed in a counterrevolutionary seizure of power, but that resources will be properly, fairly distributed according to need, and work necessary to the functioning and progress of society will be taken up by all equally based on ability. How this momentous undertaking would actually work in practice is never properly demonstrated or explained, it’s simply waved away by an appeal to human kindness and fraternity. They point to the failings of the Russian and Chinese communist revolutions as examples of why the seizing of state power is doomed to bring about only the rehabilitation of “state capitalism” and the creation of new oppressions. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
After reading (primarily Maoist) Marxist works, I see now that the seizing of state power is justified not in spite of this threat, but because of it, and that Lenin, Mao, and their followers were distinctly aware of the possibility of capitalist roadism. This is why they felt it necessary to take power and to not just defend the revolution, but to continue it. The failings of their revolutions are not failings of methodology, but failings of vigilance. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the continued destruction of the bourgeoisie, is a necessity.
Look at the annihilation of the anarchists during the Spanish Civil War. After significant accomplishments, and a marked improvement in the lives of many who found themselves in the free territories, they were within years overwhelmed by Fascist capitalism. And this was even with the CNT-FAI’s decision to work with the coalition government. When faced with a truly revolutionary situation, they recognized the treat that capitalism and fascism represented, and they realized that some structure was necessary if they were going to have a chance in succeeding over it. That American anarchists now attack the Spanish anarchists as authoritarian for this decision borne out of necessity and revolutionary reality should tell readers just how ahistorical, self-delusional, and ineffective the modern Anarchist movement is, at least on my continent.
But there are threats other than outside forces to take into account. Capitalism and other oppressions do not merely lie down and die on command; they are everywhere, insidiously woven into the fabric of everyday life, cultural mores, and common sense. There is no part of our day to day life that is not informed by oppression, and every interaction with each other is tainted by it. Forcing out the owners and the capitalist state in one revolutionary moment is not enough. As Zhang Chunqiao put it, “Comrades, please think it over: If the matter is not understood in this way, if Marxism is limited, curtailed and distorted in theory and practice, if the dictatorship of the proletariat is turned into an empty phrase, or all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie is crippled by amputation and exercised only in some spheres but not in all, or only at a certain stage (for instance, before the transformation of the system of ownership) but not at all stages, or in other words, if not all of the “fortified villages” of the bourgeoisie are destroyed but some are left, allowing the bourgeoisie to expand again, doesn’t this mean preparing the conditions for bourgeois restoration?”
Anarchists seem to believe that human beings are quick to throw off the old ways of thinking and to become new people when given the chance. And though human nature is malleable, like clay, it is shaped by the materialist and social relations it finds itself in, and though it can be formed into great things, it is also baked in the furnaces of day to day experience and the learning of roles, and after baking it becomes fixed and hard, more likely to break than to bend. I’ve learned the hard way that, even amongst supposed comrades and allies, the wielding of privilege and reinforcement of oppression is not given up without a fight. The revolution cannot in one instant rewrite a lifetime of learned behavior, itself informed by three hundred years of capitalism and thousands of years of patriarchy. The education of the masses and the stamping out of the remnants of oppression will likely take several generations; without the dictatorship of the proletariat, without the constant process of locating and abolishing bourgeois ways, and without standing guard against bourgeois infiltration, communism will not be achieved.
It’s clear that the dictatorship of the proletariat can itself be taken by capitalist forces who sell themselves as communists. This is what happened in China and in Russia with Deng and Kruschev’s respective rises to power. But again, this does not prove that Marxism itself is at fault, Marxists are well aware of these potential risks. All it proves is that the revolution must continue to be fought for, that not an inch can be given after the taking of power, that we cannot rest once we think we have struck a deadly blow against our opponent. Capitalism does not die so easily, and if we bury it too soon and leave the grave unattended for even one night, it will rise again.
There is a valuable lesson to be learned in the unfortunate failings of the Chinese and Russian revolutions, the two great revolutions. It is this: That the revolution is not over when it achieves military victory. The revolution must maintain momentum and build new ways for a new society while continuously hunting out the vestiges of the old. Any moment of weakness, any second of anarchist idealism and utopian dreaming, any feeling of satisfaction, or that enough has been done, or that we can put aside the gun and the pen, can and will be used to reinstate capitalism.
- irateadri, Angry Marxists
This is so true. Oppositional stances doesn’t lead to a better life automatically. Revolution is a process and after 500 years of colonialism, if you tried to say “Hey people you are free!”, with all the inculcation of a captialist mindset, you would have total mayhem! Just because the Boss is gone doesn’t mean a vast majority of workers don’t dream of being the Boss. From a colonial stand point, just because you are on the receivng end of everything horrible colonialism has to offer doesn’t automatically make you apart of the Vanguard (think Obama and all the Africans who went crazy over his election/selection).
The interim period after the state has crumbled is critical to building a just society. The mistake we can’t make is that we can’t assume just because the state is “gone” the idealogical underpinnings that maintained and produced the state aren’t alive and well in the masses hearts and minds.
Anarchists don’t see revolution as a constant lived process? Since when?
I think you haven’t thought this through enough and are jumping to bold conclusions. Have you read Homage to Catalonia by Orwell? The CNT lost because they were unable to obtain weapons, primarily because the Communists not only refused them arms, but single-handedly disarmed them. That fact that Stalin refused to help the Republic more and turned his back on them in fear of Hitler attacking proves that authoritarian methods are also no guarantee. Durruti wanted to win the revolution and even take on Hitler after Franco! You’re underestimating the potential for anarchists to build a truly revolutionary force that can crush counter-revolutions and take on any capitalist or fascist enemies.
If you haven’t yet, you should read the many great writings on anarchist-communist organization. We do need organization and discipline, but this should be autonomous in formation. The vanguardists only want to USE people and popular movements through their bureaucracy for their own ends. They are not allies of the people.
There seems to be at least one strawman in every paragraph of this article. Consider me thoroughly disappointed.
“Whereas anarchists see revolution as a struggle primarily focused on overthrowing the state, Marxists see revolution as a constant, living process, devoted to the destruction of the old, oppressive ways of life that does not simply end when the first military seizing of power has been achieved.”- I haven’t any idea with whom the author has found themselves discussing the differences between Marxism and Anarchism (presented as a gross generalization), but in my experience this paragraph is grossly incorrect and to dismiss anarchism based on this line of logic, in favor of marxism (which is once again much more diverse than is being presented, as autonomous-marxists are virtually akin to anarchists in theory and understanding of the transformation from various forms of hierarchies, to an egalitarian society (s) ), shows a lack of understanding of the diversity of anarchism as a theory.
This article is pathetic. After accusing anarchists of making strawmen arguments, it goes on to do so almost constantly for the rest of the article. While I could probably write a short book on the flaws in this post, it’s probably not worth my time. I would like to point out the most ridiculous assertion in this article, which is that anarchists see the abolition of the state as the only important goal, while marxists see revolution as a dynamic process that is constantly fought for….
REALLY???
For someone who claims to have been an anarchist at some point, you are pathetically ignorant on some of the central tenants of anarchism. Anarchists see the state, patriarchy, capitalism, racism, and all other forms of oppression is inexorably linked, and would never argue that abolition of the state would be the only thing required to achieve positive revolutionary change. You also seem to forget that, WITHOUT FAIL, every single successful marxist revolution was followed by the consolidation of power and complete abandonment of revolutionary ideals and action.
If anybody wants elaboration, I’m completely open to talking a little more about the glaring issues in this post.
I also wanted to talk about this website in general, but there isn’t really a good place to talk about it, so I’ll put it here.
I’m not 100 percent sure, but i think this website originated as “anarchist people of color”. I was really excited by the prospect of a community of anarchists who were non-white and also actively committed to combating the racism within the anarchist movement, which is regrettable majority white.
However, I quickly realized that it was actually a reactionary organization more concerned with excluding whites than creating an active dialogue within the movement about white supremacy and privilege. With the transition to this site, it seems that it has not only dropped all pretenses of anarchism, but has actually adopted a pretty authoritarian attitude. If i didn’t know any better, i would think that it solely existed to funnel people (particularly non-whites) from anarchism to marxism (a la nationalist-anarchism).
David,
As the person who started the Anarchist People of Color email list (from which the tendency flowered), a site editor here and a former anarchist as well, I’m more than happy to address your concerns and speak to the challenges you raise.
This particular site, People of Color Organize, has no relationship with Anarchist People of Color. At all. None of its editors are anarchists. Most of us are in fact critical of the ideology. This site has never had any pretense of being anarchist, and I am not sure where such an idea was posted here. Nothing wrong with APOC or anarchists and such. There are a lot of interesting anarchist websites. People of Color Organize just has never been an anarchist website.
Anarchist circles, by virtue of being overwhelmingly white, do face issues of white supremacy and racism. However, as I said when I was an anarchist, it is not the responsibility of people of color to drag whites to such conversations. White anarchists have to take those discussions seriously, and do so as a matter of institutional memory and priority (as institutional as such scenes can be).
If you came to a site called “people of color organize” and expected it to be about non-white people “creating an active dialogue within the movement” [which is virtually all white people], I can’t formally speak for the editors, but think I can say I am afraid you came to the wrong place. We certainly do strive to create conversations and support organizing by people of color, but I do not think the editors make it a point of our work to create discussions in white anarchist movements. No offense intended. We just found our greater purpose was in supporting work by organizers of color. I welcome you and anyone else to check out the rest of the site; if you learn something, great.
Now as for the anarchist stuff.
Like you, I am attempting to interpret what the author intended, albeit in a less sympathetic way toward anarchism. I will try to hazard some guesses at what is meant, but may well be wrong.
Anarchism at its very essence seeks abolition of the state. THAT is its central tenet. While one can argue anarchism has an intersectionality analysis related to race, gender and state power, any honest appraisal must acknowledge such ideas (most associated with left anarchism or anarcho-communism) contend with very popular contemporary ideas of anarchism, from post-left to free-market anarchism. Though there is certainly a contingent which upholds the ideas you noted, any student of anarchist thinking would also have to admit the centrality of race or gender, for example, and solutions for addressing these in an anarchist manner is hardly evident. However, virtually every strain of anarchism can agree with state abolition as an ideal, even a primary one (and for some, the only goal). After all, isn’t the root of the term itself to be without rulers and thus government (in the “state of governance” sense, rather than the libertarian caricature of “gummit”)?
While it is old hat for anarchists to offer verdicts to any number of Marxist revolutions (to which consolidation of power tends to be part of any seizure of state power — as if either is inherently bad), what should be evident and worthy of discussion is the lack of the same pronouncements on anarchist revolutions. This may be because there haven’t been any actual anarchist revolutions, where one can unequivocally point to the changing of a political structure as a result. Or else there’s just blaming everyone else for strategic and military failures (see the not uncommon comments above related to Spain) Yet even if we’re subjected to another history lesson on the crimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, et al., such a lecture avoids a truism: revolutions are not tidy affairs. Bourgeois forces and those opposed to revolutionary change in society WILL rise up, and have in any successful revolution. In a capitalist frame, these forces will have money, arms, backing from the powerful and alignment with reaction. Che’s solution? Execute them. Mao’s? Reeducate them. The anarchist solution? Call the other solutions bad. Then what?
One of the things that disenchanted me most about anarchism when I was an anarchist was this style of piss-up-the-leg political rhetoric. Rather than show what one’s politics had accomplished, in what lands had anarchists kicked out oppressors or changed their conditions by working as anarchists, there was too much focus on sniping Marxists. For me, it felt petty and tiresome, and the weaknesses in my own position (note the above about various strains of anarchism, some of which do not take seriously the intersectional matters you raise; Communists, be they Trots, Maoists, old-school labor Marxists, Stalinists, et al., do not have the same problem, but differ in degree) were glaring.
Many Communist revolutionaries made mistakes, obviously. But anarchists, by virtue of not reading books (and trust me, I have known lots of anarchists) and never historically being in a position where their political efforts had a real likelihood of succeeding in a globe-shifting way, are clueless sometimes about context and the difficulties of what winning a revolution and upholding it might entail. Many of these same Communist revolutionaries were forced to contend with many different interests in a historical moment some had waited decades for, and might not come again (consider the February Revolution, which set the stage for the Bolsheviks’ ascension later in that year). As in the Long March, sometimes these radicals were dealt crushing military defeats for which they were pushed to regroup. They also were dealing not with the 30-person-deep infoshop, but parties and people’s armies of literally thousands (and in China, hundreds of millions) of supporters, all of whom had different agendas. Marshaling the political capital within a socialist party leading a country is no small task; as in democratic parties, right and left wings are always battling. In such superstructures, there is a level of political sophistication and diplomacy that can’t be captured in simply dismissing people’s hopes as despotism. You can, of course, but the world is, I believe, more complicated.
Anyone can run game on the “issues of the past.” A far more provocative conversation is the political climate of the moment for each revolution. For anarchists, a far gutsier discussion would be how simple it is to pick apart the errors after a revolution has succeeded and its supporters have taken state power, but difficult it is to lead a pristine revolution amid the needs of the people, the fight anti-revolutionaries will bring and what it means to actually win and be forced to maintain it when powerful forces will do all they can to destabilize you (Ghana, Nigeria… hell, most countries in Africa), isolate you from the rest of the world (North Korea), use your neighbors against you (Vietnam), try to assassinate you (Cuba), use rightist elements in your ranks to upend you (China) and ultimately see you fail.
[EDIT: Since I posted this comment, Ikonoklast from our editorial collective reminded me that, though I focus on the imperialist forces looking for advantages against revolutions through internal proxies, an important post-revolutionary threat in North America is most certainly a Christian theocratic movement now afoot. Significant in numbers and ultra-conservative (at moments supporting divinely motivated imperialism) in worldview, Christian theocrats have an agenda worth its own post. Too often when anarchists discuss repression of counterevolutionary tendencies, it's in the lens of themselves, without really understanding the stakes in a post-revolutionary period and other players involved.]
I certainly do not begrudge you your politics. Given your interest in race, gender and such, I expect you will sometime find yourself asking the same questions I once asked myself, because anarchism is incapable of resolving those questions. I merely encourage intellectual honesty about anarchism and honesty about the situations about which it seems simple to judge.
Ernesto, thanks for the response to my initial post, and I apologize if it came off as a bit rude.
I’m still a little confused about the relationship between this site and the APOC site. You yourself have said that you started the APOC, and are now an editor at this site. The original APOC URL links to this site, and on the about us page, you list Lorenzo Kom’boa Ervin, a prominent black anarchist as being on the advisory board. If not intentionally, you are still creating the strong impression that there is some correlation between people of color organize and anarchism.
Maybe I’m not actually an anarchist, but I don’t see abolition of the state as the only tenant (or even central tenant of anarchism). While anarchism does literally mean “without rulers”, only the most facile interpretation would take this to mean exclusively political leaders. White supremacy, patriarchy capitalism, and many other axes of oppression are inherently authoritarian, and one cannot unravel one (ie the state) without simultaneously addressing all the other interrelated issues.
I very seriously object to your classification of post-left and market anarchism as representative of the mainstream of anarchist thought. I would not ever consider “anarcho-capitalism” or any of the other pathetic variants thereof to be genuine anarchism, and post-left anarchism seems a more fitting label for white middle-lass punks who don’t want to go to high school anymore than genuine, committed anarchists. Not that re-imagining the goals and philosophy of the left, and trying to move beyond orthodoxy is bad, it just somehow turned into a new subculture instead of a potent political movement (I sort of see them as the new yippies, albeit – somehow – less politically engaged).
I’m a little confused by your argument in the following paragraph. As far as I can tell, you accuse anarchists of blaming their failures on outside control and influence, then later on do the same for authoritarian leftist tendencies. While it might be a cop-out to blame the failures of the Spanish Revolution on the Fascists and Stalin (although I think you dismiss those arguments too easily), it is certainly a cop-out to blame the brutal repression in socialist countries on western capitalism. Do you think Lenin and Trotsky’s brutal repression of the Kronstadt rebellion, or Che imprisoning and killing LGBT’s during the revolution in Cuba was a result of outside influence? I’m open to the argument that the failures of some marxist revolutions were the result of outside meddling, and have frequently made that argument, especially in the case of Cuba, but sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.
I have some other points I would like to make, but I don’t want to drag on for too long, but I will finish with a couple points. I agree that anarchism frequently errs of the side of offering more criticism and less viable alternatives, which is something that needs to be worked on. However, coming from a Marxist, that condemnation almost sounds like praise to me, consideration all the horror done in the name of authoritarian communism. If the argument is “You anarchists talk a and criticize a lot, but you haven’t done much. We marxists on the other hand have killed millions of people,enforced brutal authoritarian regimes, and forever tainted the ideals of egalitarian economic structures in the eyes of the people” then I’d rather be all talk and no walk any day of the week.
And finally, as for anarchists not reading books… no I’m not going to trust you. For someone who likes to demonize people for being ignorant, you seem to not have a very firm grasp on the lack of value in anecdotal evidence and the intellectual weakness of ad hominem attacks. Despite that, I thank you for your faith in my ability to ask the important questions, but I’m a little dumbfounded that you assume I hadn’t already. Those are the questions that lead me to anarchism, not the ones that will lead me away from it. I see issues of race and gender to be serious manifestations of domination, and anarchism as the only political movement that seriously attempts to tackle ALL forms of domination.
Hi again,
Here’s my estimation on your URL question. As with the article, I’m guessing some of this.
I started illegalvoices.org, the original APOC site. When I left APOC in 2005, I turned over the URL and content to an APOC activist and others working with that individual. To my knowledge, the URL expired and didn’t get renewed, or something to that extent.
Another site, illvox, was started (in 2008 or something) by another collective supporting APOC, as I understand it. At some time, something happened with that collective and that URL started forwarding here. I don’t know how long it has forwarded here, or why.
Lorenzo Ervin and I have been friends and political associates since the mid-1990s. He hasn’t been affiliated with APOC since before I departed in 2005. I particularly have been pretty explicit in my critique of anarchism, APOC, etc. While I agree there’s probably some correlation to some people, it’s not for want of trying to say “hey, this is NOT an anarchist site.” Some just need to read.
I entirely agree many anarchists believe issues such as racism and sexism are related to anarchism, I assume we agree the anarchist movement as whole, however, isn’t agreed that such issues are central to the movement’s discourse. That is my point.
You are of course free to disagree with my take that post-left and free-market anarchism are representations of the mainstream of anarchism. But considering some of the movement’s most prominent websites, publications and people that shape said mainstream — from Anarchy magazine to Fifth Estate to Crimethinc to AnarchistNews to John Zerzan — are most assuredly post-left (even anti-left), I think you’ll have to be a lot more persuasive than that. I appreciate you don’t think such things are ‘genuine’ (politically? historically?) and I might agree with you. Yet those sets of politics, those white middle-class punks, etc. ARE the mainstream of anarchism. Some of them are actually committed anarchists to what they believe. I don’t have to agree with them to acknowledge such.
I don’t blame the repression in socialist countries on Western capitalism, but do think there is an active relationship with imperialism and anti-progressive forces globally. Again, also my point.
I believe some repression to be an appropriate response to maintenance of a revolutionary country. It’s fanciful to think a new revolution won’t be dashed by the efforts of the powerful, and many socialist countries correctly put such things down by force. I take no issue with that in the least. Anarchism hasn’t won a struggle and thus can’t imagine being in a position where a new world one’s people have fought and died for faces stiff repression from internal forces in the country. Those are real crises and aren’t always addressed in the prettiest ways.
The Kronstadt and LGBT examples, knowing the anarchist approach on this, are incredibly politically selective — somewhat akin to the conservative approach on criticizing Mao by focusing on 100 reeducation camps and not changes in the country that meant tens of millions of peasants had access to power as never before. I don’t know if I’d call Kronstadt a mistake, but Cuba has long struggled with reconciliation over LGBT issues.
As I wrote last comment, Communist countries have had failures. I’m just unwilling to condemn a correct revolution because there were moments it failed. I sense by your comments that you’d rather not have a revolution that could be repressive. I’d rather have a revolution during which I know failures will happen than keep the same social order in place.
I think your take on how to respond to Marxists who point out anarchism’s abject inability to lead a revolution or make even the most rudimentary political change for anyone speaks to a number of things. You look at it from the ‘Marxists killed a lot of people’ standpoint. Others look at it from the ‘anarchists stood by and did nothing or were simply naive and inept amid the onslaught of capitalists AND Marxists. Their greatest sin was to fail or else do nothing in the face of crime,.. whoever you think is worse… and to defend that inaction with arrogance.’ This view is not isolated, I know, but such is probably a good indicator why anarchism doesn’t hold onto particularly good organizers for very long. Working with people who aren’t in one’s circle reminds you how hungry people are for change.
As evidenced in India, Nepal and new outgrowths of Communist revolution, that urge remains strong. I don’t think anyone has lost hope in this regard. The anarchist approach, in my experience, was just particularly cynical about people’s aspirations.
Oh! And the ‘trust me’ comment was a turn of phrase (and a sardonic retort for anarchists who have sat through ‘debates’ I have and know exactly what I’m talking about). I was kidding…
I do hope anarchism answers whatever questions you have, though. Best of luck and thanks for the discussion.
Ernesto,
I don’t want to drag this debate on for too long, especially considering that I do believe that we are on the same side. In fact, unless Marxism has changed significantly since I last spent time studying it, the end-result that is sought is anarchy (whether or not you want to call it that). So at the end of the day, we’re only arguing about tactics. I also agree with your sentiment that any positive change is better than no change at all, but I would be cautious about celebrating change in name only. It’s (relatively) easy to overthrow a government, depose the capitalists, and announce the new communist order, but if a small cabal of powerful elites are still calling the shots, it’s harder convince people (or anarchists at least) that anything significant is different.
and forgive me for not noticing the sarcasm in your ‘trust me’ comment; it’s a bit harder to communicate that sentiment via the written word. that said, it does not change my response to your questionable assertion that anarchists don’t like to read.
All that said, there is really nothing you can say to convince me of the superiority of authoritarian communism to anarchist communism, and I’m relatively convinced that the opposite is also true for you, but I do hope that people like me can successfully work with people like you to create a better world, although petty hit-jobs like this article (and, admittedly, similar pieces from anarchists about marxists) do nothing but harm the movement and encourage petty in-fighting.
Hi one more time! I don’t mind the dragging of the conversation. It’s very interesting. I’m sure we agree on a number of things.
In my experience, anarchists tended not to read much history, depended on dominant culture narratives of revolutionary moments and such. My experience may seem invalid or questionable to you, but it doesn’t change my experience. Hoping all is well!
@ernesto – Right on, right on.
Though to be fair, to anarchists and all of us: the tendency to treat received wisdom as fact cripples every revolutionary movement. Lots of reds run around trying to “recreate” the glory years, as if those halcyon days didn’t leave us where we are. What is unique about anarchism, perhaps its greatest attraction, is that is substitutes a moral posture for a political plan.
Communists come in all stripes, just like anarchists. Some are backward and chauvinist — others doing the best they can. But politics is not an identity. This is where the issue comes to a point. Choosing politics based on an identity, a purism — relieves you of any responsibility. You decide what is the good, the true and the beautiful — and assert it against anything else. Which explains why so many anarchists are anti-communist. They see the idea that we can change the world as “authoritarian”, and are thereby relieved of any expectations of themselves, or towards leading other people. The ethical (anarchist) life is reduced to affinity, and self-selecting communities.
And again, without picking on anarchists — this is so very american. How many new religions have been created? How many have run off to “start anew” on personal grounds, or with new styles and uniforms, new gods and idols — so unlike the “corrupt” or “authoritarian.”
But this won’t help us. It won’t get clean water in the sink. It won’t stop the prostituting of young girls, or the endless war. It won’t change the basic power structure of the society, but conflates “the revolution” with a life on the margins, more or less disgruntled, more or less combative in “resistance.”
Anarchism has done many great things. Certainly many anarchists have. But what it hasn’t ever done, ever for a day, is displace any ruling class, defeat any army or set up any new social order beyond the proverbial “30-person infoshop.”
It took the capitalists quite a few rebellions and revolts before the liberal order replaced the lords of old. There are no straight lines, no “after the revolution.” And thank you Ernesto for pointing this out. Why should we throw up our hands because there are no messiahs? No final judgments and end of history? Doesn’t this mean we have responsibilities and duties?! Is it not a challenge to meet, instead of an order to surrender to (if only by retreating into private life among the like-minded)?
Thanks again for an interesting commentary.
I was gonna leave this page alone, because I felt Ernesto and my discussion was unproductive; he had self-identified as anarchist in the past (though based on his current beliefs, I’m not quite sure where the appeal was to him), and thus probably understood all the arguments I could bring to the table, and while I have never considered myself a marxist, I knew that I could never be dragged to his side of the debate (mostly because illegitimate authority is anathema to me, and as Ernesto so helpfully demonstrated, marxists will defend illegitimate authority in the name of a beautiful ideal).
but “friend of a friend” has so hopelessly missed the point that i thought i’d come back for another round.
To be clear, ANARCHISTS DO NOT SEE THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN CHANGE THE WORLD TO BE AUTHORITARIAN. It’s kind of pathetic that you would even make that argument. I am loathe to speak for all anarchists, but I personally see the idea that you can change the world to be one of the more powerful aspects of human existence, and almost necessarily ANTI-authoritarian. I do see the idea that a small group, or vanguard, is much smarter and more capable than the rest of us, and should take absolute power so that they can change the world for the rest of us to be A LITTLE authoritarian.
In the next paragraph, you decide to lump in anarchists with americans, which is just so very classy. Despite the pathetic logical fallacy you’re trying to rely on, I’m also interested in the fact that the most vibrant anarchist communities have been outside the US, including anarchist-ish groups like the zapatistas, which I admit don’t self-identify as anarchist. I admit that I don’t know where you’re going with the rest of that paragraph, but I suspect you’re straying dangerously close to the argument that coming up with new ideas is bad.
You then go on to make a pretty good argument against lifestyle anarchism, which must be very disheartening to the idiots who still think crimethinc is a good source of information, but applies to anarchism about as well as a critique of stalinism applies to marxism, although at least the idiots who subscribe to dropping out of society and hopping trains for the rest of their lives don’t commit mass murder.
Spanish revolution aside, you’re probably right that anarchists have never done the things you suggest (although that’s a pretty big event to leave out). But neither have communists. Was the Soviet Union a classless society? I’m pretty sure there was a ruling class (here’s a hint: it was called the party). BUT HEY, at least they called themselves communists! THAT’S IMPROVEMENT!
I’d also like to point out that not winning wars isn’t an argument against anarchism. I’m not even saying that because I’m a pacifist. I’m saying that because one of the major determinants of military success (among other things) is popularity. Lots of things have been popular. I’m not going to apologize for anarchism not being as popular as it could be. Fascism was popular for a time, so was slavery, and women being second-class-citizens, and a number of other truly horrific status quos. Don’t use that as an argument, even indirectly, or you might sound like an idiot.
Sorry if my post was a bit irreverent or even rude; I’m sick of people who happen to have been on the right side of power struggles as claiming that winning means you’re right. When communists have created a society that transitions into the place that they’ve always been claiming they’re fighting for, I’ll start to pay attention. When communists create a society that IN NAME ONLY represents a non-hierarchical, egalitarian, oppression-free, non-patriarchal society, I’ll just laugh and pat myself on the back for not being deceived by power-mongers who decided to abandon the revolution as soon as they realized there was power or wealth to be had.
David,
One of the editors accused me of being a little polite in these debates. Permit me to be direct.
Several remarks in this latest post violate our comments policy. I’ve just deleted one trolling comment. Keep future comments within our comments policy henceforth.
If you don’t wish to engage in discussions you don’t feel productive, then don’t post. These discussions, however, do not become productive through contributions that are unproductive and violate our comments policy.
Thank you.
@david –
Hi David,
First, let me please ask that you refrain from personal insults about people who’s back stories and political histories you know nothing about. The author of this piece most definitely understands Anarchist theory, and more to the point they understand contemporary Anarchist practice, having been involved in the Anarchist movement in North America for many years. This article is a direct result of that experience and their struggle with the realities of the Anarchist movement and with the conclusions Anarchist theory reaches. It’s a serious and heartfelt statement from a serious and committed radical.
Second, Friend of a Friend’s wrote
“Anarchism has done many great things. Certainly many anarchists have. But what it hasn’t ever done, ever for a day, is displace any ruling class, defeat any army or set up any new social order beyond the proverbial “30-person infoshop.”
This stands up pretty well under scrutiny, I think. As you say, one counter example is Spain. The Spanish Anarchists did a bang up job organizing the Catalonian proletariat and the Andalusian peasantry. They had penetration at all levels of working class society in those areas. So the important question is, since they had such broad based membership in CNT/FAI, and since even outside of the formal organization there were solid social and familial and ties to the Anarchists, why then did they lose to the fascists? The Anarchist Dolchstoss legend about POUM and Stalin has some small basis in reality, but that on the ground contradiction between Marxist and Anarchist (let alone between Communist and Socialist) would not had troubled the Anarchists very much if the structural problems of Anarchist practice hadn’t already guaranteed their defeat. The Anarchists had every chance to reach out and sieze power, to organize effective war time socialism, to cut deals with the French and the Soviets and even the British. They didn’t take them. They preferred the purity of ideology to winning. The result was fascist dictatorship for decades. Now, honestly, how is this not a betrayal of the Spanish working class? How is that fundamentally different from the Stalin CCCP’s (always exaggerated) failures over collectivization and his paranoia, or Mao’s CCP’s (always exaggerated) poor management during the Great Leap Forward? To be honest, I think the fundamental difference is that the latter two projects were open eyed attempts to build socialism, where the first was marred by the failure of Anarchists to fully understand the living, organic nature of revolution, and that is the child of what Anarchist theory lacks.
Third, you misunderstand my comrade’s point about the function of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Ann Robertson writes:
“In criticizing Marx’s program of the dictatorship of the proletariat, Bakunin raises this challenge: “If the proletariat is to be the ruling class, one may ask whom will it govern? There must be yet another proletariat that will be subjected to this new domination, this new state.” Here Bakunin’s reaction stems from his belief that the State itself is the creator of classes so that whoever controls the state is identified with the ruling, capitalist class while those being victimized by it are the equivalent of the proletariat. But for Marx, as we just saw, the proletarian dictatorship is not aimed at any section of the working class but at the former bourgeoisie, which simply does not disappear overnight.”
This is what I think the author is talking about. The central problem that revolutionaries seeking to smash capitalism and colonialism face is not “unjust authority” without connection to the mode of production that those revolutionaries are trying to smash. Nobody is claiming that the USSR was a classless society. Of course it wasn’t. That isn’t even the question under discussion, and the fact that you think it is strengthens my comrades critique. It is also in very poor taste for an anti-capitalist to dismiss the Soviet and Chinese revolutions as nothing more than Potemkin Revolutions orchestrated by party elites. Not only does this betray a shockingly bourgeois outlook and a real lack of historical understanding about these events, it cheapens the very real struggles of millions of human beings who fought to build socialism in these periods. Like many Anarchists who debate on this point, you sound a bit like you have never critically encountered Lenin, or Mao, or Soviet or Chinese history. As Mao had it “No investigation, no right to speak!” I do not doubt your earnest desire to change society, but please do investigate these things thoroughly before accusing your opponents of “authoritarianism” under the auspices of liberal values.