Agnapostate

As a socialist, I've become accustomed to incessant repetition of mockeries that refer to the failures of Leninism and its derivative of Stalinism in the Soviet Union and derivative of Maoism in China. No matter how many times I attempt to explain that I'm an anarchist and a libertarian, and that the failures of Leninism in fact strengthen anarchist ideology, politically and economically misinformed rightists are seemingly incapable of distinguishing between the pseudo-socialist state capitalism adopted by Leninists and legitimate socialism, that which necessitates actual public ownership and management of the means of production, not mere declaration of such.

With significant factions within the socialist movement now advocating republican market socialism as the way forward after having witnessed the numerous deficiencies of central planning, we should be aware of the fact that it was anarchists who initially identified the problematic nature of authoritarian inclinations within socialist ideology. It was then the anarchists who were persecuted after the state capitalists gained power, and to add insult to injury, anarchists who are now told that all forms of socialism are impossible to implement because of the failures of an ideology that they attacked as anti-socialist even prior to its complete development, offering prescient and desperately needed criticisms of authoritarian "socialism" throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. Elements of this commentary were indeed prophetic in nature, and it's necessary to examine them to determine the role of anarchism in the socialist movement, and whether anarchism is better equipped than Marxism and republican market socialism to lead that movement forward.

This analysis must start with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first person to declare himself an anarchist (in 1840), and a socialist theorist who ensured that the development of anarchism predated the development of Marxism, attacking what he regarded as the authoritarian nature of the socialism advocated by rival Louis Blanc:

Proudhon's work was published several decades before Marx and Engels were to achieve their ultimate fame, but Proudhon did know Marx and was aware of Marx's criticism of his work, terming it a "tissue of abuse, calumny, falsification and plagiarism," and Marx (or Marxism) "the tapeworm of socialism." Marx's greater libertarian foe, however, was to be the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, who warned that "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself" and "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick" decades before the Bolsheviks were to spark the Russian Revolution. Marx himself cannot be entirely blamed for the state capitalist legacy of the USSR, of course (and likely would have disavowed Leninism), but it's worth noting that anarchists predicted that authoritarian elements would be able to base themselves upon Marxist principles and tenets. Bakunin elaborated on this in his 1871 manuscript Statism and Anarchy:

He complemented this with a criticism of Marxist "Communism." (Note that this was the only variety of "communism" existing during his lifetime, and anarchist communism was not to develop until after his death.)

This statement, again, was issued several decades prior to the Russian Revolution, illustrating a level of prophetic insight on the part of the anarchist theorists that perhaps indicates a similar knowledge of legitimate and positive socialist organization.

__________________
The workmen desire to get as much, the master to give as little as possible...It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. -Adam Smith

Agnapostate

Shortly after the Russian Revolution and establishment of the Soviet Union, the anarchist theorist Peter Kropotkin made his many criticisms of the authoritarian nature of Soviet state capitalism known, writing this to Lenin in 1920:

This insight is utterly prescient and demonstrates substantial abilities of foresight. Kropotkin knew not only that the state capitalism of Lenin and the Bolsheviks was not "socialist"; he knew that it was in fact anti-socialist, and that its ruinous legacy would generate harsh damage to the socialist movement, creating a "guilt by association" of sorts for even those socialists (such as anarchists), who had quickly and vigilantly condemned the authoritarianism of state capitalism. Similarly opposed to this pseudo-socialism was Emma Goldman, deported from the U.S. to Russia for her political convictions and participation in radical activity, and initially optimistic about the Russian Revolution. This optimism turned to dismay after she witnessed the brutal suppression of the democratically motivated Kronstadt Rebellion in 1921 by the Red Army, and led to her 1923 publication of My Disillusionment in Russia, in which she railed against the nature of dictatorship in the USSR:

Goldman had no ability to know that the Soviet Union would eventually be dissolved many decades later and did not declare it anti-socialist only after its imminent destruction was apparent. She, as with other consistent anarchists, declared the Soviet Union and the authoritarian state capitalism that falsely masqueraded as socialism within it to be tyrannically monstrous and unjust even as it gained greater power:

In the mid-to-late 1930's, the world saw the most expansive and important socialist revolution throughout history occur during the Spanish Civil War, as anarchists and libertarian workers organized and collectivized vast areas of land and numerous fixtures throughout Spain, establishing several thousand anarchist collectives among several million inhabitants of Spain, their hub being in the industrialized region of Catalonia and its capital of Barcelona, a city populated by 1.2 million residents. Unfortunately, the exigencies of the situation (a fascist military revolt against the republican government), led union leaders to organize an alliance with authoritarian "socialists" backed by the Soviet Union. These phony socialists considered the social revolution a counterproductive engagement, and moved to sabotage and destroy collectivization efforts through violent force, with Soviet "allies" deliberately depriving anarchist and libertarian Marxist military forces of necessary aid, critically undermining the war effort. The anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker offered this insighftul analysis into the reasons for this treachery:

This anarchist criticism has continued to the present day, and saw a remarkable recent expression in Noam Chomsky's 1986 publication of his articleThe Soviet Union Versus Socialism:

It is thus apparent that anarchists have been at the forefront of criticism of the authoritarian and dictatorial nature of the pseudo-socialism of the Leninist states, and criticized the authoritarian inclinations of Marxism and pre-Marxist socialism long prior to that. With every facet of this analysis in mind, is it reasonable to claim that anarchism and libertarianism (which could include minarchist varieties of socialism, such as forms of libertarian Marxism) represent the future of the socialist movement?

__________________
The workmen desire to get as much, the master to give as little as possible...It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. -Adam Smith

NEUROSPORT

so Agna if i understand you correctly the only regime you approve of is that brief period in Spain - right ?

what would you say to Anarcho-Capitalism with a fixed wealth distribution curve ?

for example let's decide from the start that:

top 1% = 5% of wealth
next 9% = 20% of wealth
next 20% = 25% of wealth
next 50% = 40% of wealth
bottom 20% = 10% of wealth

and dynamically adjust taxes to make sure that no matter the degree of consolidation of businesses ( in other words even if wal-mart puts every other store out of business ) the poor get their cut.

you can use negative taxes such as negative 1,000% tax so a person who makes $1 / hour would get an extra $10 / hour tax return.

i think that would be superior to collectivism.

DrunkenAsparagus

Except that it removes almost all incentive to be more productive

Agnapostate

I don't entirely approve of that regime, and there are facets of other political structures that I'd say that I approve of, such as the Makhnovists' Free Territory of Ukraine.

That it's illegitimate pseudo-anarchism.

All forms of capitalism do, "anarcho"-capitalism not least among them. But this thread is not intended for general discussion of anarchism and libertarianism anyway, but merely for discussion of whether those political ideologies should be at the forefront of the socialist movement rather than Marxism or republican market socialism.

__________________
The workmen desire to get as much, the master to give as little as possible...It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. -Adam Smith

NEUROSPORT

does the end justify the means ?

yes capitalism reduces an average person to wage slave - but with a bit of wealth redistribution by means of graduated tax this wage slave could enjoy a much higher standard of living than a free person deserted somewehre on an island.

do you still dispute the fact that capitalism is the most efficient system ? you know yesterday i accidentally opened the communist manifesto ( i was reading it as a bed time story for somebody ) and the first couple pages is all about how Capitalism is TOO EFFICIENT and nothing can compete with it.

apparently the view of Marx, as well as Hitler and Lenin was that Capitialism is the most efficient system but Socialism is efficient ENOUGH. and that other benefits of Socialism outweigh its lower efficiency.

do you have any Criticism of Capitalism aside from its ability to provide for the good of the weak and uncompetitive?

do you dislike Capitalism simply because it is not Anarchism ?

i guess there is no real way under Capitalism to provide for the welfare of the weak without having a strong state. is that the problem you see with it ?

considering that Capitalism is the only system that ever was successful on a large scale and over a significnat period of time - do you not feel it must get at least SOMETHING right ?

Wessexman

What does? Care to explain this?

From my knowledge of social anarchism I don't think a lack of incentive would be a problem.

There are problems with anarchist philosophy certainly, particularly with the rise of the New Left which attacks all kinds of settled authority and culture --- the sooner anarchists remove themselves from the idiocies of post-modernism the better, but the biggest flaw I can see is it is not necessary to go the whole way in my opinion. You could get most of the benefits by simply pursuing a program for quite radical political, social and economic decentralism without having to tie it to the more controversial idea of completely removing the state.

Apart from this my criticisms are simply about things that though they were always a little present in anarchism, even the really insightful figures like Proudhon, Kropotkin and Landeaur have been greatly magnified since the 60s. Namely an opposition to local traditions and customary, historical identities this alienates a lot of the right who would be more sympathetic to you otherwise and helps to harm the identities and loyalties that help to make up individuals and provide them with a base for resistance to tyranny.

And also there is an opposition to "all authority" despite the fact that as the sociologist Robert Nisbet said society is little more than a tissue of almost numberless authorities. To quote Nisbet:

Canadian Conservative Forum - Requested Essay

"The conservative philosophy of liberty proceeds from the conservative philosophy of authority. It is the existence of authority in the social order that staves off encroachments of power from the political sphere. Conservatism, from Burke on, has perceived society as a plurality of authorities. There is the authority of parent over the small child, of the priest over the communicant, the teacher over the pupil, the master over the apprentice, and so on. Society as we actually observe it, is a network or tissue of such authorities; they are really numberless when we think of the kinds of authority which lie within even the smallest of human groups and relationships. Such authority may be loose, gentle, protective, and designed to produce individuality, but it is authority nevertheless. For the conservative, individual freedom lies in the interstices of social and moral authority. Only because of the restraining and guiding efforts of such authority does it become possible for human beings to sustain so liberal a political government as that which the Founding Fathers designed in this country and which flourished in England from the late seventeenth century on. Remove the social bonds, as the more zealous and uncompromising of libertarian individualists have proposed ever since William Godwin, and you emerge with, not a free but a chaotic people, not with creative but impotent individuals. Human nature, Balzac correctly wrote, cannot endure a moral vacuum."

Sure let's try and make as many of them as benign and decentralised as possible and where appropriate democratic and participatory but we should not attack all authority so that we create a society of individual atoms, impotent and helpless. This will bring as much instability to an anarchist society as a statist one.

__________________
The Wessex society.

“I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I despise equality.”
John Randolph of Roanoke.

Wessexman

I think you're going to have to define "capitalism" here. The capitalism of the American style libertarian is as untried as the communism of the anarchist.

__________________
The Wessex society.

“I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I despise equality.”
John Randolph of Roanoke.

NEUROSPORT

point is all nations that are most developed today owe it to their capitalist element even though they are not purely capitalist.

Wessexman

What is this element? Why do they owe it to this? And what do you mean by development?

As far as I can see "capitalism" has always been replete with state intervention and this has had a massive impact on the development of "capitalist" nations even if a lot of this development has left a lot to be desired in the form of broader social and cultural development as opposed to mere additions to the amount of necessities required and consumerist goods produced.

__________________
The Wessex society.

“I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I despise equality.”
John Randolph of Roanoke.