|
Marxism vs. Anarchism
*This
article is a slightly edited version of an article ran by our British
comrades in the newspaper Socialist Resistance.
In
the worldwide movement for social justice, many young people are
attracted by the ideas of anarchism - even if they don’t call themselves
anarchists. Anarchists seem to stand for the same thing we Marxists do -
a classless society, a self-organized and self-managed society - what we
often sum up with the phrase ‘workers’ power’. Like us, many anarchists
say they stand for revolution. No bosses, no police, social equality, no
rich and no nuclear bombs. People not profit.
If we stand for the same goal, the same objectives as them, what’s the
difference? Why the hostility between Marxists and anarchists?
There are two fundamental differences. The first is the party, the second
is the state. Anarchists are against forming a political party; we say
the working class needs a political party to lead the struggle against
capitalism. Why do we insist on the formation of a revolutionary
political party?
Let’s look at what happened in Russia in 1917. The deprivations of
world war had driven millions of workers to hostility against the Russian
state and capitalists. Millions of peasants, held in semi-feudal bondage,
demanded land and freedom. During and after the first revolution (February
1917) the workers set up their own organizations to try to govern - the
soviets.
But a pro-capitalist government continued to exist, the Provisional
Government. Between February and October the most consistent
revolutionary party, the Bolsheviks led by Lenin and Trotsky, grew by
tens of thousands. This party was able to lead the soviets to take power
and overthrow the Provisional Government.
History has shown many examples of the self-organization of the workers,
of workers and peasants councils being established. But many political
trends exist within them. The most consistent revolutionaries need to
organize to give leadership, to fight for a perspective of taking power.
Another example is Spain in 1936-7. When the fascists
attempted to seize power with the army, the workers set up their own
workers councils. In Catalonia, with Barcelona at its center, the workers
collectivized businesses and brought them under their own control.
However, on the anti-fascist side, there were important pro-capitalist
parties, supported by the Stalinist Communist party, who said “first
fight the fascists, leave aside socialism till later”.
In Catalonia, a Popular Front government was set up with
pro-capitalist parties. The CNT anarchists, the biggest anarchist movement
in the world, joined the government!
They showed they were completely confused about the question of power.
Like the Communists, they didn’t understand the best way to defeat the
fascists was to carry through the revolution, undercutting the fascist mass
base in the countryside. No consistent revolutionary force existed to
give alternative leadership.
Isn’t the idea of leadership authoritarian and bureaucratic? This is a
key slogan of the anarchists - “we reject all leadership”. When Marxists
talk about leadership they are not talking about a group of wise
individuals leading the movement, but something more straightforward and
obvious. Whenever we give out a leaflet, propose a resolution in a trade
union, organize a demonstration or produce a newspaper, we are engaged in
giving leadership.
However, we say the revolutionaries, the consistent socialists, need to
organize together to work out collectively and democratically how to
fight against the bosses, the state and the right wing in the labor movement.
This may seem obvious in a trade union or a student group, but Marxists
say that the socialists have to do it at a national level, and if
possible, internationally. If we leave things to happen ‘spontaneously’,
we will organize ourselves at a local level, the
right wing will organize nationally and always beat us.
We need a nationally coordinated organization, a party. It is not true
that political parties are always undemocratic and authoritarian. Often
anarchist movements are much more undemocratic than socialist parties,
because they lack the democratic procedures to make majority decisions.
Instead you get the 'tyranny of structurelessness'
- where the best speakers (or the loudest!), those with the best informal
clique links, are able to manipulate and dominate the movement. When you
have formless movements, you don't have accountability, regular elections
or a collective overview of whether decisions have been implemented.
Elections
Anarchists are opposed to standing in elections, or supporting any
political party. Since parliamentary capitalism is undemocratic, they
refuse to participate. This is called cutting off your nose to spite your
face. Fighting elections, or even getting people elected, is an important
way to get our ideas known and expose the capitalists.
Socialists have no illusions in capitalist parliaments. The example of
the military coup in Chile in 1973 showed - one of many
examples - that if an elected left wing government goes 'too far' the
capitalists will attempt to remove it by force. What counts is not a left
wing parliamentary majority, but the workers taking power through their
own organizations. But if that happens, what happens next?
The State
We want to abolish the state, but it can’t happen on the day after the revolution.
The system we want - a worker's government and worker's power - means the
people deciding themselves at local level how to run their cities, their
transport systems, their communities, and of course their workplaces.
This will require workplaces and community councils, modern forms of
soviets.
However, the slogan ‘think local, act local’ is not enough for workers
power. In addition, the local institutions of democracy need to
co-ordinate themselves at a regional and national level, to take the big
decisions about how to build socialism nationally and internationally.
The anarchists can’t answer one crucial question. On day one of the
revolution, the workers in power will face many enemies, at home and
abroad. Frederick Engels, who together with
Karl Marx founded modern socialism, called the state fundamentally
"a body of armed men" (police, the army etc).
Revolution in the U.S. would require our own bodies
of armed people - workers' militias, nationally coordinated, to fight off
imperialism and defeat attempts at armed counter-revolution. If radicals
say they are anarchists we should ask them this – ‘are you revolutionary
or reformist?’ If they say they are ‘revolutionary’ we should ask them
this – ‘are you serious’? If the answer to both is ‘yes’, there is a
logical conclusion. You need an organization, national and if possible
international, democratically organized, uniting workers, students, home
makers, unemployed, retired people, black people and white people, gay
and straight, young and old around a common goal, able to work together
on a consistent long-term basis for an alternative society - for
revolution: a Marxist, revolutionary, working class party.
|