I have to ask, as someone who has only a basic understanding of the philosophies, how are the end goals of Anarchists and Marxists different? I understood them as only having different methods of arriving to the same state of society without class, states and money - communism.
By my understanding, Anarchists go bottom up by propping up a parallel system based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid, to the point where the state is no longer needed for anything, and Marxists (or rather Marxist-Leninists) go top down by seizing control of the state in the name of the workers, and then gradually give the workers more and more direct control until the state is no longer needed (“The withering of the state”).
Assuming what I just wrote is wrong, what faults would Anarchists and Marxists find in each other’s end goals, assuming they succeed in establishing their ideal societies?
Up front, I am a Marxist-Leninist, but used to be an Anarchist (more specifically a Syndicalist). As such, those are my biases. This is going to be extremely oversimplified, and if you want sources from Marx, Engels, etc I can give recommended readings (or I have an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list linked on my profile you can check out).
The key distinction is that Anarchist Communism and Marxist (not only ML, Marxist in general) Communism are different, because Marxists and Anarchists have different views on class and the state.
For Anarchists, their chief concern is hierarchy, and the state is an entrenched monopoly on violence that upholds that. They seek, therefore, decentralized networks of Communes, and can have differing forms of this within each commune, some may have currency, some may have labor vouchers, some may have gift economies, they all vary.
For Marxists, their chief concern is class, most simply stated as a social relation of ownership and control of the Means of Production. As such, they seek a fully publicly owned and planned economy, with democratic structures and delegates. The “State” is an instrument of class oppression, but not all government deals with that. When the entire world is publicly owned and planned, and democratically controlled, there ceases to be any purpose to armies, or police, or private property rights, hence the “whithering of the state” and what remains being the “Administration of Things,” as Engels puts it. The State whithering isn’t a policy that can be put in place, but a consequence of gradually folding private property into public control.
A bit on Vanguardism, the idea isn’t that the Vanguard “gives up” control and has all control in the beginning, but that the Vanguard is the formalized entity of the most politically advanced of the working class. A vanguard will always exist whether you formalize it or not, MLs seek to formalize it so it can be democratized and connected to the ruling class, rather than emerge naturally and unaccountably. The existence of a vanguard does not mean they control everything and the workers don’t.
An Anarchist critique of Marxism is that Marxists retain hierarchy even into Communism (managers and administrators that share the same ownership as any other form of labor are not distinct classes), and that Anarchists believe power corrupts, so this process is doomed if you don’t combat hierarchy from the beginning.
A Marxist critique of Anarchism is that communes that only control and own what’s within the commune doesn’t actually get rid of class, as there is unequal ownership across communes and therefore a potential for trade imbalances and a resurrection of Capitalism. Moreover, disconnected but trading communes severely restricts the emergence of large-scale industry, which is a necessity for improving production to better provide for all.
Like I said, this was an extreme oversimplification. I can elaborate more or offer reading (at least with Marxist or Marxist-Leninist texts and concepts)! I’ll let Anarchists respond for the theory bit.
I have to ask, as someone who has only a basic understanding of the philosophies, how are the end goals of Anarchists and Marxists different? I understood them as only having different methods of arriving to the same state of society without class, states and money - communism.
By my understanding, Anarchists go bottom up by propping up a parallel system based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid, to the point where the state is no longer needed for anything, and Marxists (or rather Marxist-Leninists) go top down by seizing control of the state in the name of the workers, and then gradually give the workers more and more direct control until the state is no longer needed (“The withering of the state”).
Assuming what I just wrote is wrong, what faults would Anarchists and Marxists find in each other’s end goals, assuming they succeed in establishing their ideal societies?
Up front, I am a Marxist-Leninist, but used to be an Anarchist (more specifically a Syndicalist). As such, those are my biases. This is going to be extremely oversimplified, and if you want sources from Marx, Engels, etc I can give recommended readings (or I have an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list linked on my profile you can check out).
The key distinction is that Anarchist Communism and Marxist (not only ML, Marxist in general) Communism are different, because Marxists and Anarchists have different views on class and the state.
For Anarchists, their chief concern is hierarchy, and the state is an entrenched monopoly on violence that upholds that. They seek, therefore, decentralized networks of Communes, and can have differing forms of this within each commune, some may have currency, some may have labor vouchers, some may have gift economies, they all vary.
For Marxists, their chief concern is class, most simply stated as a social relation of ownership and control of the Means of Production. As such, they seek a fully publicly owned and planned economy, with democratic structures and delegates. The “State” is an instrument of class oppression, but not all government deals with that. When the entire world is publicly owned and planned, and democratically controlled, there ceases to be any purpose to armies, or police, or private property rights, hence the “whithering of the state” and what remains being the “Administration of Things,” as Engels puts it. The State whithering isn’t a policy that can be put in place, but a consequence of gradually folding private property into public control.
A bit on Vanguardism, the idea isn’t that the Vanguard “gives up” control and has all control in the beginning, but that the Vanguard is the formalized entity of the most politically advanced of the working class. A vanguard will always exist whether you formalize it or not, MLs seek to formalize it so it can be democratized and connected to the ruling class, rather than emerge naturally and unaccountably. The existence of a vanguard does not mean they control everything and the workers don’t.
An Anarchist critique of Marxism is that Marxists retain hierarchy even into Communism (managers and administrators that share the same ownership as any other form of labor are not distinct classes), and that Anarchists believe power corrupts, so this process is doomed if you don’t combat hierarchy from the beginning.
A Marxist critique of Anarchism is that communes that only control and own what’s within the commune doesn’t actually get rid of class, as there is unequal ownership across communes and therefore a potential for trade imbalances and a resurrection of Capitalism. Moreover, disconnected but trading communes severely restricts the emergence of large-scale industry, which is a necessity for improving production to better provide for all.
Like I said, this was an extreme oversimplification. I can elaborate more or offer reading (at least with Marxist or Marxist-Leninist texts and concepts)! I’ll let Anarchists respond for the theory bit.