Anarchism

We publish here the fourth part in a series by Alan Woods looking at the theoretical differences between Marxism and anarchism. In this fourth and final part, Alan discusses the question of revolutionary violence and looks at the inspiring example of the Russian Revolution as historical proof of the need for a workers’ state.

We publish here the third part in a series by Alan Woods looking at the theoretical differences between Marxism and anarchism. In this part, Alan discusses the role of the state within class society and examines the historical limitations of anarchism and spontaneity, as shown by the Spanish Revolution and Egyptian Revolution respectively.

We continue here Alan Woods’ series looking at the theoretical differences between Marxism and anarchism. In this second part, Alan examines the role of leadership, the relationship between Marxists and the mass organisations, the origins of bureaucracy, and how political consciousness develops and changes.

In this article, Daniel Morley contrasts the ideas of Marxism and anarchism. Though sharing the same goal of a classless and stateless society, these two competing philosophies have vital differences, which must be understood by revolutionaries.

Standing between the working class and the socialist transformation of society is a colossal state machine. In order to carry out this transformation, we must have a clear understanding of what the state is, and what must replace it. 

Anarchism is a confused political creed. In fact some anarchists
take pride in the fact that it is difficult to pin their ideas down
almost as a point of principle. But their watchword has always been a
struggle against ‘authority.’ Some may find this slogan attractive,
but  Engels’ brilliant essay shows that some class always wields
authority in society – the question is which one.

After the defeat of the Paris Commune
different ultra-left and
opportunist tendencies emerged within the First International, who
intrigued against the General Council and attempted to use the name of
the International for their own ends. This was finally resolved with the
expulsion of these elements with strict powers established for the
General Council and clear rules on how the International was to be run.

After the defeat of the Paris Commune
different ultra-left and
opportunist tendencies emerged within the First International, who
intrigued against the General Council and attempted to use the name of
the International for their own ends. This was finally resolved with the
expulsion of these elements with strict powers established for the
General Council and clear rules on how the International was to be run.

In 1872 in response to the intrigues
of Bakunin and his secret
society, the Hague conference of the First International adopted a
resolution prohibiting any organization with an independent programme to
function within the body of the International and proceeded to expel
Bakunin and his supporters, putting an end to the internal diatribe and
intrigues and establishing the principles upon which the organisation
would function.

In 1872 in response to the intrigues
of Bakunin and his secret
society, the Hague conference of the First International adopted a
resolution prohibiting any organization with an independent programme to
function within the body of the International and proceeded to expel
Bakunin and his supporters, putting an end to the internal diatribe and
intrigues and establishing the principles upon which the organisation
would function.

At the Hague congress of the First
International Bakunin was finally expelled, provoking the wrath of the
anarchists and like-minded people, some of which walked out of the
organisation, like the Blanquists. At the same time, the opportunists
such as the English trade union leaders lined up with the ultra-left in
demanding greater autonomy for the local sections, all of course
complaining about the authoritarianism of Marx and the General Council.

At the Hague congress of the First
International Bakunin was finally expelled, provoking the wrath of the
anarchists and like-minded people, some of which walked out of the
organisation, like the Blanquists. At the same time, the opportunists
such as the English trade union leaders lined up with the ultra-left in
demanding greater autonomy for the local sections, all of course
complaining about the authoritarianism of Marx and the General Council.

The Paris Commune put to the test the different currents inside the
First International. Its subsequent defeat created an atmosphere where
all kinds of demoralised elements thrived. Intrigue was on the order of
the day. This led to a questioning of centralised leadership, of the
very role of the leadership. Marx and Engels answered all this fully.

It is fashionable to portray Marxism
as the source of authoritarianism. This accusation is raised repeatedly
by anarchists, reformists and all kinds of opportunists. Bakunin was
one of the more famous exponents of such accusations. But the truth is
concrete and the historical facts reveal that those same elements who
raise a hue and cry about authoritarianism are themselves the worst
bureaucrats and authoritarians… where they manage to rule the roost.

Real living examples of revolution are the test of any theory. May 1968 was such a historical example. These events reveal that defeat of the working class has not come about by such a thing as the “strong state” but by the ineptitude of the reformist and Stalinist leaders who were not prepared to mobilise the full force of the working class.

For there to be a revolution does there have to be violence? To the sectarian mind the answer is always in the affirmative. Marxists look at the question in a more rounded out manner, looking at the many factors that come into play: the balance of class forces, the nature of the leadership of the working class, the tactics and programme adopted, and so on.

The question of the State in capitalist society is of key importance for Marxists. We do not see it as an impartial arbiter standing above society. The fundamental essence of every state, with its “armed bodies of men”, police, courts and other trappings is that it serves the interests of one class in society; in the case of capitalism, the capitalist class.