Anarchism versus Marxism

Although anarchism and Marxism are both socialist political theories, and they share the view that a communal, participatory, voluntary, de-centralised society is an end goal worth pursuing, they differ in many respects, and should not be confused. Of course they are far from internally homogeneous theories themselves, but I’ll leave that issue to another entry. They tend to differ more when in comes to means, rather than ends. So they both criticise capitalist economy, bourgeois society, and the liberal democratic state, and they have both looked to the working class movement to bring their respective visions into fruition. But there differences are not trivial: for example, one of the most basic distinctions between Marxism and anarchism is that Marxists generally do not have an issue with organising themselves into hierarchies, whilst anarchists cannot countenance hierarchical structure within their organisations, they must always be based on equality and pure democracy.

In this entry I will discuss (in as few words as possible) the anarchist and Marxist views on: capitalism, class, the state, history, parliamentary reform, revolution and culture. I am an anarchist so I will not promise to be impartial or objective, but merely tell it how I see it.

Capitalism

Both anarchists and Marxists criticise capitalism as a cause of alienation and exploitation. This criticism of capitalism is probably where the two theories have most in common. Consumer society, the rise of the corporation, and the military-industrial complex are all considered intensely undesirable by both theories. Capitalism, anarchists and Marxists contend, causes an ugly cheapening of human life where many people are subject to wage slavery at the hands of dictator-like CEOs and management. Wants are created in capitalism by the huge power of the corporate media, which greatly influences today’s culture. Institutions such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund (along with the UN more covertly) hold down developing nations with the hypocritical myth of globalisation and free trade, to maintain the hegemony of the world’s superpowers.

Anarchists and Marxists believe that private property, profit, interest, rent and all other tools of the capitalist class should all be abolished, and the means of production taken over by the workers. The main difference between the two theories’ analysis of capitalism is that Marxists see it as an inevitable stage in the progression towards communism, while anarchists believe that anarchism can – and should – be achieved in any society, in other words, capitalism is not a necessary stage of the development of a society.

Myths of Anarchism

Anarchy = chaos

In common usage, the word ‘anarchy’ can have the meaning ‘chaos’ or ‘disorder’. This is not what anarchists refer to in the slightest. The word anarchy comes from the Ancient Greek root anarchos, which literally means the absence (an) of a ruler or leader (archos). This concept includes the absence of government, and, taking it further, the absence of hierarchical structure: in other words, an equal society. Anarchists believe that unquestioned and unchallenged authority is illegitimate: accepting authority just for the sake of authority, is a silly and dangerous way to organise a society.

‘The Anarchy’, a period of civil war in England in the 12^th century, could have something to do with the negative connotation the word has. There is also a much more recent influence. The anarchist Leon Czolgosz assassinated the American President, William McKinley in 1901 and gave anarchists an even worse reputation than they already had at the time. Obviously, the powers that be do not look kindly on those who espouse anarchy, as it is a direct threat to their authority, and this has also has an influence on the common perception of the word.

 

Anarchists are unrealistic/utopian

Utopians, as I see it, believe the world can be changed to one which is flawless, and in which the ‘lion lies down with the lamb’ and such nonsense. Anarchists don’t believe that a perfect society will ever exist where there is no exploitation of any sort. What they do believe, is that anarchism will form the basis of a society which does not hold as its core principle, essentially, ‘exploit or be exploited’. We believe that exploitation can be reduced to almost negligible levels, where the only crimes committed are personal ones, crimes of passion. There will be no institutionalised crimes. We do not say that there will be no difficulty, no hard work; certainly there will be, but it will be done for the benefit of the society, shared out fairly, not for the benefit of one particular sector of society.

I do not believe anarchism is an unrealistic possibility. Although I can not deal with this in detail here, revolutions have obviously occurred in the past: the world is not static, it can change and it can change in many different directions. For anarchism to come about all it would take is a reasonably large number of people taking back their power in a number of ways (such as occupying factories and workplaces, refraining from voting, and generally dismantling hierarchical structures wherever they exist), and not necessarily all at the same time, as it can certainly be a gradual process. All we have to do is stop thinking that the world as it is, is the world as it will always be. Capitalism can (and should) have its downfall. The main reason I’m writing anything about anarchism is because I hope it will convince people to join the cause and eventually revolt, and the more people the better.

All anarchists are violent or espouse violence

I’m not sure if anyone actually believes this myth, but it certainly is one. Personally, I don’t believe that any anarchist that believes in physically hurting others is consistent. We can certainly take back what’s ours (our liberty) but we can’t take what’s not ours, which is another person’s right not to be violated in any way. We should be past thinking in ‘eye for an eye’ terms.

There is, however, the issue of property damage. Most anarchists, myself included, believe that this is legitimate if it is done carefully and furthers the cause of the reduction of exploitation and positive revolution. I don’t see how destroying property could be considered violence, except perhaps psychologically. (I am not talking about wanton destruction of people’s possessions, or smashing windows because it feels good: this is unnecessary and wasteful.) Obviously if the property can be put to the use of those who were exploited, all the better. And expropriating the expropriators (sorry if this sounds too Marxist) is perfectly justifiable. To hurt, economically, the perpetrators of injustice, as long as they know why, can be a good way to stop them from committing these injustices.

 

Anarchists don’t believe in progress/ are luddites

Some anarcho-primitivists don’t believe in technological progress, and desire to ‘turn back the clock’ to a hunter-gatherer society in a sustainable manner. Most anarchists, however, think technology is an incredibly useful tool, in the right hands. It can be used as a tool to cut the costs of labour, improve communication and generally enhance people’s lives, or it can be used by capitalists to extract more and more out of the environment and manipulate consumers for their own benefit.

Progress and change are precisely what anarchists want. It is probably the most progressive political ideology there is, in terms of what is envisioned and what must occur for it to be brought about.

Anarchists don’t believe in having possessions

In an anarchist society it is true that all production will be collectivised and therefore all property will be collective property. But this mainly refers to what would be considered ‘capital’ today, such as land, machinery, equipment etc. It is imagined that there would be no reason to restrict possessions – different people want and use different things, and as long as they were not wasting collective and scarce resources, there’s no reason why they couldn’t have these things, and others wouldn’t just be able to take them away. Once people have enough of the necessities of life (and then some) thievery would not occur, except in negligible and resolvable ways.

Anarchists are communists

Anarchism is a different political ideology and has a different historical tradition to that of communism. But nevertheless, they have many similarities. The truth is, there are many different types of anarchists. I am an anarcho-communist, so I believe that something like communism is the end goal. However, I disagree with communists in that I do not believe a communal society can be achieved through the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ (where the working class takes control of all means of production through revolution). I believe that this would simply lead to domination by the workers over the rest of society, or, more accurately, the workers would stop being workers and start being rulers. I also disagree with communists who believe that large-scale violence is the only way to revolution (such as Lenin). Anarchism also focuses more on personal liberty and freedom from all forms of coercion, while communism (especially Marxism) focuses on the activities of a particular class against another and does not have such a problem with coercion as long as its for the right reasons (i.e. they are more likely to accept states as legitimate whereas anarchists are fundamentally opposed to all states).

There are many other minor differences as well, but I will discuss these at a later time.

If anyone has any more suggestions for myths to (attempt to) debunk, please suggest them! Obviously this is not a complete list.

Please visit my site http://anarchism.tk/blog/ for more information.

A new direction for the FLBU

There hasn’t been a post to this blog since last year’s atrocious war on Lebanon in July and so, by a new direction for the FLBU, I actually mean an actual direction as opposed to nothing. This blog was initially designed for bloggers who called themselves part of the ‘Far-Left’ to unite in one place and to express our views. The fact that there’s been a total of three bloggers posting here means that this is really not a blog of the Far-Left and it is something that needs to be turned around.

I think the main problem is in the fact that most Far-Left Bloggers have no idea that this thing exists let alone are convinced to become part of this. And for those bloggers who are waiting for a revival of the FLBU, it’s encouraged to get in contact with me and also to spread the word about the Far-Left Bloggers Union.

Also, I think what we want to do is to use this blog to look at blogging itself from a Far-Left perspective and how it impacts or is impacted by the real world. We need to use this connection to emphasize the need for political activity in real life and not just as isolated bloggers exchanging ideas through cyberspace. And this means getting involved in the other political blogs and online activities such as the Carnival of Socialism and to attend political rallies, meetings and even join a political organization that is committed to building demonstrations and movements.

On North Korea and the Bomb

Over at Harry’s Place, the pro-war left who claim that regime change from outside is humane and good (who are nicknamed the “Decent Left” by their adversaries because their viewpoint wouldn’t be out of place in polite society or colonial India) are once again hounding the anti-war left (“Stoppers” to their critics)

The “decents” here are claiming the moral high ground on three counts:

1) That the Communist Party of Britain support North Korea (and have supported all manner of nasty Stalinist regimes) and the Stop the War Coalition, and therefore all people who are against the war are tarnished by association.
2) That the Ku Klux Klan have organised an anti-Iraq War/pro-”white unity” demonstration and therefore all people who are against the war are tarnished by association.
3) That some of the Stop the War Coalition support the Iraqi resistance – therefore they are decisively “non-pacifistic” and all people who are against the war are tarnished by association.

First of all – why do Fascists and racists want to stop the war? For extreme racists like the KKK it can be simple: they don’t like white people getting killed in battle. Fascist organisations like the BNP are also against the war, but for another reason as well.

“[P]rivate enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation” – Mussolini
Fascism is basically an agreement between leaders of big business and government to exploit everyone else in a nation whilst keeping power by using powerful fears of alien groups and respect for symbols of authority, sentiment and patriarchy. In this sense, it might be considered an extremely efficient form of government from the point of view of those at the top. However, because this unchecked merger between state and corporate power is secured through means of racism: even though grabbing oil might enrich a nation and the corporations and leaders within it, the idea of having to share sovereignty over it with other races is a deterrent, at least to today’s hard core of Fascists. Mussolini’s colonial ambitions stretched to trying to take over Ethiopia, so we must conclude that once Fascists are in power, they are much more willing to compromise for the sake of their corporations.

Secondly, the few of the “Stoppers” who support the resistance are doing it because they have a belief that all people should be able to live in their own way unburdened by oppression from outside: the fact that those “Decents” at Harry’s Place unanimously support Israel’s use of force to oppress inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip makes their claim that Iraq should have been “liberated” from Saddam a rather hypocritical idea.

But in the comments section, we see a further argument:

4) North Korea can’t have nuclear weapons because they aren’t trustworthy.

Let’s look at the facts:

North Korea and Iran are both “extremist” – in that they’re not submitting to the West’s power.

North Korea is a state in which its leaders (we are told) have no cares about anything but their own lives and power. In North Korea, they are told that Western leaders do not care about anything but their own lives and power.

Both North Korea and the West claim that their leaders are honourable and can be trusted with nuclear weapons.

The West claims that North Korea and Iran will use nuclear weapons against it.
North Korea and Iran claim that The West will use nuclear weapons against them.

Neither Iran nor North Korea has ever attacked the West or its neighbours.
When the West attacked North Korea, 11.1% of the total population perished.
After the West overthrew Iran’s first democratically elected leader (for oil company BP), they were able to do it at the expense of only 300 Iranian lives and democracy in Iran – they instituted the brutal Shah as the dictator.
The West recently overthrew the Afghan and Iraqi governments and the death toll from this is still rising.

So why are North Korea and Iran seen as the biggest threats? Why is violence the only answer? And why is the West the only source of morality and political leadership that is acceptable?

Kim Jong-Il, anti-American dictator of North Korea. Unacceptable.

Saparmurat Niyazov, pro-American dictator of Turkmenistan. Acceptable.

Co-operation: I step into the breach.

“Now tell me how changing the world to make it more to your liking will solve the problem of human greed.” – Brackers

It won’t and it can’t solve the problem of human greed, just as social policy of any type cannot solve the problem of murder altogether. However, the attribute in itself and the trouble it causes can be minimised.

Here are a couple of ideas that aren’t necessarily original, but might help to reduce human greed and its effects:

1) Sharing out power more equally. You might think you live in a democracy, but you don’t (wherever in the West you live). Democracy implies public participation, public decision making and where there are votes, votes along fair lines. At the moment we have most media owned by rich people by definition, and representing more or less the opinions of rich people. In Britain, at least, all of the political parties would be inviable without the support of large corporations’ donations – so they get a large slice of the power over our elected representatives.

In many Third World countries, the IMF or World Bank has power over the elected government and can effectively make them strip the assets of a country and sell them to the rich world at knockdown prices. This is enough to destroy even the successful businesses of the poor world: and the reason is greed and power inequality between the rich and poor worlds. Military dictatorships are yet another example: the more polarised the power, the more room for greed.

Democracy can be extended until it becomes the way in which local communities agree upon the distribution, production roles, ethics and responsibilities that they have. Democratic dialogue by democratically chosen representatives of each locality to each region, from each region to each state and from each state to an international assembly can allow for the advances in each place to be repeatable elsewhere, for common goals to be achieved – say for example the worldwide abolition of slavery – and environmentally appropriate production to be planned.

2) “Property is theft” – by making everything public property and replacing the concept of “ownership” with that of “community”, you can also reduce human greed. The money system encourages black markets and mob violence to thrive by effectively paying for it. Disconnecting the consumer and producer relationship by two separate systems: a “consumer” system of credits which are only for completed products from community-run distribution centres and a “producer” system based upon a computer link-up of production and consumption figures all over the world to produce the economist’s Holy Grail, a “perfect market”.

Property being abolished, images, information and inventions would now be able to be distributed freely. Artists of all types could still live solely upon their craft if they could sufficiently convince any community of the advantages of subsidising them. The complete musical, artistic and literary catalogue would be freed for anyone to enjoy or learn from on the internet. Patents would be the owned by the human race, and all drugs would be generic – the subsidies to those on the research and development side of medicine would come from the international assembly.

No one need starve because someone else “needs” a Rolls Royce to show off. By providing initially for everyone’s needs but still allowing a credit system to function – subject to a possible penalty as one’s marginal value nears zero (for example, a man working a 23-hour day might not produce much more than another man working an 8-hour day, and certainly wouldn’t produce nearly 3 times as much) – people can if they want work more or less for more or less material “wealth”, but within reasonable limits, for the sake of both their community and the environment, which takes a hit every time someone within capitalism designs a new way to exploit it.

3) The treadmill of capital leads people to rank themselves by income and conspicuous expenditure. There are many better ways for people to discover their true worth, and these must be catered for within each community. Sporting events, intellectual events, exhibitions of creativity, efforts on behalf of the community and efforts to look after one’s own family: every way of advancing the individual, the community or the human race would be portrayed as valuable, instead of the present concept of the self-seeking man, valuable because of his misuse of power. Community news media will be returned to the community. National and international news media will be selected by the editors of each community news outlet, collected by anybody and collated through the means of the internet.

—————

Just a few ideas I’m throwing out for comments and meaningful criticism. All of you who call yourselves socialists but who reject the travesties we have seen in Burma, North Korea, Stalin’s Soviet Union etc., please write an article on your own blogs with a few more suggestions, and comment here so that I can link them all together.

(X-posted from http://jangliss.livejournal.com)

Just a note – Carnival of Socialism 5 is out now: check http://carnivalofsocialism.blogspot.com for more details)

The ills of nationalism

Nationalism has traditionally been a tool used to justify the Right’s fucked up ideas, but the Left also has a history of vile nationalism, where groups have been sucked into the ideology and inevitably weakened themselves and the movements in which they’re involved in. Recently we’ve seen the hilarious reaction from Americans over the Spanish version of their beloved ‘star spangled banner.’ A song and a piece of fabric seem more important than the lives of the immigrants that are subject to exploitation and racism.

Also in Australia, we’ve seen a large number of those on both sides of politics support Australia’s military intervention in the Solomons, just like they did with East Timor and the results, I’m afraid, will be much the same.

Nationalism implies that there is something common about the values of all those of a particular nation. It implies that the CEOs of Halliburton and McDonalds have something in common with a working class American. And the leaders of Australia are in touch with the common Australian. Kerry Packer was said to have been in touch with the common man and when that was repeated time and time again after his joyous passing, I couldn’t help but to scream out loud with horror.

It’s so far from the truth. In fact, working class Australians and Americans have more in common with each other than they do with their government and business moguls. And they have more in common with workers from all around the world. This is because their lives, in relation to the means of production, are the same. We all survive under capitalism by working for a boss. We make products that make the bosses rich for a minute portion in wages. This is a reality that we all face, no matter what country we come from.

Similarly, bosses in all countries leech off the labour of their working classes. This is the real divide in society, class and not artificial borders. Nationalism is used by the ruling class to subdue this class conflict and keep their interests secure. Hitler used nationalism to get his way in Germany, among other reasons. More recently, the US has contributed to nationalism in the Middle East by attacking the Middle East and providing their rulers with the tools to neutralize opposition and side with them. This happened with Hussein, it happened with Milosevic and it is going to happen with the current Iranian government. Nothing makes you side with your leader, no matter how vile, than having a nuclear bomb shoved in your face.

So, the way forward is not to squabble over national emblems but to fly the red flag; the symbol of the working class and unite as workers internationally. Later, I’ll talk about instances where nationalism can be progressive.