             Section H - Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?

   The socialist movement has been continually divided, with various
   different tendencies and movements. The main tendencies of socialism
   are state socialism (Social Democracy, Leninism, Maoism and so on) and
   libertarian socialism (anarchism mostly, but also libertarian Marxists
   and others). The conflict and disagreement between anarchists and
   Marxists is legendary. As Benjamin Tucker noted:

     "[I]t is a curious fact that the two extremes of the [socialist
     movement] . . . though united . . . by the common claim that labour
     should be put in possession of its own, are more diametrically
     opposed to each other in their fundamental principles of social
     action and their methods of reaching the ends aimed at than either
     is to their common enemy, existing society. They are based on two
     principles the history of whose conflict is almost equivalent to the
     history of the world since man came into it . . .

     "The two principles referred to are AUTHORITY and LIBERTY, and the
     names of the two schools of Socialistic thought which fully and
     unreservedly represent one or the other are, respectively, State
     Socialism and Anarchism. Whoso knows that these two schools want and
     how they propose to get it understands the Socialistic movement.
     For, just as it has been said that there is no half-way house
     between Rome and Reason, so it may be said that there is no half-way
     house between State Socialism and Anarchism."
     [The Individualist Anarchists, pp. 78-9]

   In addition to this divide between libertarian and authoritarian forms
   of socialism, there is another divide between reformist and
   revolutionary wings of these two tendencies. "The term 'anarchist,'"
   Murray Bookchin wrote, "is a generic word like the term 'socialist,'
   and there are probably as many different kinds of anarchists are there
   are socialists. In both cases, the spectrum ranges from individuals
   whose views derive from an extension of liberalism (the 'individualist
   anarchists', the social-democrats) to revolutionary communists (the
   anarcho-communists, the revolutionary Marxists, Leninists and
   Trotskyites)." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 138f]

   In this section of the FAQ we concentrate on the conflict between the
   revolutionary wings of both movements. Here we discuss why
   communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and other revolutionary
   anarchists reject Marxist theories, particularly the ideas of Leninists
   and Trotskyites. We will concentrate almost entirely on the works of
   Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky as well as the Russian Revolution. This
   is because many Marxists reject the Chinese, Cuban and other
   revolutions as being infected from the start by Stalinism. In contrast,
   there is a general agreement in Marxist circles that the Russian
   Revolution was a true socialist revolution and the ideas of Lenin (and
   usually Trotsky) follow in Marx's footsteps. What we say against Marx
   and Lenin is also applicable to their more controversial followers and,
   therefore, we ignore them. We also dismiss out of hand any suggestion
   that the Stalinist regime was remotely socialist. Unfortunately many
   serious revolutionaries consider Lenin's regime to be an example of a
   valid socialist revolution so we have to discuss why it was not.

   As noted, two main wings of the revolutionary socialist movement,
   anarchism and Marxism, have always been in conflict. While, with the
   apparent success of the Russian revolution, the anarchist movement was
   overshadowed by Leninism in many countries, this situation has been
   changing. In recent years anarchism has seen a revival as more and more
   people recognise the fundamentally anti-socialist nature of the Russian
   "experiment" and the politics that inspired it. With this re-evaluation
   of socialism and the Soviet Union, more and more people are rejecting
   Marxism and embracing libertarian socialism. As can be seen from the
   press coverage from such events as the anti-Poll Tax riots in the UK at
   the start of the 1990s, the London J18 and N30 demonstrations in 1999
   as well as those in Prague, Quebec, Genoa and Gothenburg anarchism has
   become synonymous with anti-capitalism.

   Needless to say, when anarchists re-appear in the media and news
   bulletins the self-proclaimed "vanguard(s) of the proletariat" become
   worried and hurriedly write patronising articles on "anarchism"
   (without bothering to really understand it or its arguments against
   Marxism). These articles are usually a mishmash of lies, irrelevant
   personal attacks, distortions of the anarchist position and the
   ridiculous assumption that anarchists are anarchists because no one has
   bothered to inform of us of what "Marxism" is "really" about. We do not
   aim to repeat such "scientific" analysis in our FAQ so we shall
   concentrate on politics and history. By so doing we will indicate that
   anarchists are anarchists because we understand Marxism and reject it
   as being unable to lead to a socialist society.

   It is unfortunately common for many Marxists, particularly Leninist
   influenced ones, to concentrate on personalities and not politics when
   discussing anarchist ideas. In other words, they attack anarchists
   rather than present a critique of anarchism. This can be seen, for
   example, when many Leninists attempt to "refute" the whole of
   anarchism, its theory and history, by pointing out the personal
   failings of specific anarchists. They say that Proudhon was anti-Jewish
   and sexist, that Bakunin was racist, that Kropotkin supported the
   Allies in the First World War and so anarchism is flawed. Yet this is
   irrelevant to a critique of anarchism as it does not address anarchist
   ideas but rather points to when anarchists fail to live up to them.
   Anarchist ideas are ignored by this approach, which is understandable
   as any critique which tried to do this would not only fail but also
   expose the authoritarianism of mainstream Marxism in the process.

   Even taken at face value, you would have to be stupid to assume that
   Proudhon's misogyny or Bakunin's racism had equal weighting with
   Lenin's and the Bolsheviks' behaviour (for example, the creation of a
   party dictatorship, the repression of strikes, free speech, independent
   working class organisation, the creation of a secret police force, the
   attack on Kronstadt, the betrayal of the Makhnovists, the violent
   repression of the Russian anarchist movement, etc.) in the league table
   of despicable activity. It seems strange that personal bigotry is of
   equal, or even more, importance in evaluating a political theory than
   its practice during a revolution.

   Moreover, such a technique is ultimately dishonest. Looking at
   Proudhon, for example, his anti-Semitic outbursts remained unpublished
   in his note books until well after his ideas and, as Robert Graham
   points out, "a reading of General Idea of the Revolution will show,
   anti-Semitism forms no part of Proudhon's revolutionary programme."
   ["Introduction", The General Idea of the Revolution, p. xxxvi]
   Similarly, Bakunin's racism is an unfortunate aspect of his life, an
   aspect which is ultimately irrelevant to the core principles and ideas
   he argued for. As for Proudhon's sexism it should be noted that Bakunin
   and subsequent anarchists totally rejected it and argued for complete
   equality between the sexes. Likewise, anarchists from Kropotkin onwards
   have opposed racism in all its forms (and the large Jewish anarchist
   movement saw that Bakunin's anti-Semitic comments were not a defining
   aspect to his ideas). Why mention these aspects of their ideas at all?

   Nor were Marx and Engels free from racist, sexism or homophobic
   comments yet no anarchist would dream these were worthy of mention when
   critiquing their ideology (for those interested in such matters, Peter
   Fryer's essay "Engels: A Man of his Time" should be consulted. This is
   because the anarchist critique of Marxism is robust and confirmed by
   substantial empirical evidence (namely, the failures of social
   democracy and the Russian Revolution).

   If we look at Kropotkin's support for the Allies in the First World War
   we discover a strange hypocrisy on the part of Marxists as well as an
   attempt to distort history. Why hypocrisy? Simply because Marx and
   Engels supported Prussia during the Franco-Prussian war while, in
   contrast, Bakunin argued for a popular uprising and social revolution
   to stop the war. As Marx wrote to Engels on July 20th, 1870:

     "The French need to be overcome. If the Prussians are victorious,
     the centralisation of the power of the State will be useful for the
     centralisation of the German working class. Moreover, German
     ascendancy will transfer the centre of gravity of the European
     worker's movement from France to Germany . . . On a world scale, the
     ascendancy of the German proletariat the French proletariat will at
     the same time constitute the ascendancy of our theory over
     Proudhon's." [quoted by Arthur Lehning, Michael Bakunin: Selected
     Writings, p. 284]

   Marx, in part, supported the deaths of working class people in war in
   order to see his ideas become more important than Proudhon's! The
   hypocrisy of the Marxists is clear - if anarchism is to be condemned
   for Kropotkin's actions, then Marxism must be equally condemned for
   Marx's.

   This analysis also rewrites history as the bulk of the Marxist movement
   supported their respective states during the conflict. A handful of the
   parties of the Second International opposed the war (and those were the
   smallest ones as well). The father of Russian Marxism, George
   Plekhanov, supported the Allies while the German Social Democratic
   Party (the jewel in the crown of the Second International) supported
   its nation-state in the war. There was just one man in the German
   Reichstag in August 1914 who did not vote for war credits (and he did
   not even vote against them, he abstained). While there was a small
   minority of the German Social-Democrats did not support the war,
   initially many of this anti-war minority went along with the majority
   of party in the name of "discipline" and "democratic" principles.

   In contrast, only a very small minority of anarchists supported any
   side during the conflict. The bulk of the anarchist movement (including
   such leading lights as Malatesta, Rocker, Goldman and Berkman) opposed
   the war, arguing that anarchists must "capitalise upon every stirring
   of rebellion, every discontent in order to foment insurrection, to
   organise the revolution to which we look for the ending of all of
   society's iniquities." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2., p. 36] As
   Malatesta noted at the time, the pro-war anarchists were "not numerous,
   it is true, but [did have] amongst them comrades whom we love and
   respect most." He stressed that the "almost all" of the anarchists
   "have remained faithful to their convictions" namely "to awaken a
   consciousness of the antagonism of interests between dominators and
   dominated, between exploiters and workers, and to develop the class
   struggle inside each country, and solidarity among all workers across
   the frontiers, as against any prejudice and any passion of either race
   or nationality." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 243, p. 248
   and p. 244] By pointing to Kropotkin, Marxists hide the facts that he
   was very much in a minority within the anarchist movement and that it
   was the official Marxist movement which betrayed the cause of
   internationalism, not anarchism. Indeed, the betrayal of the Second
   International was the natural result of the "ascendancy" of Marxism
   over anarchism that Marx had hoped. The rise of Marxism, in the form of
   social-democracy, ended as Bakunin predicted, with the corruption of
   socialism in the quagmire of electioneering and statism. As Rudolf
   Rocker correctly argued, "the Great War of 1914 was the exposure of the
   bankruptcy of political socialism." [Marx and Anarchism]

   Here we will analyse Marxism in terms of its theories and how they
   worked in practice. Thus we will conduct a scientific analysis of
   Marxism, looking at its claims and comparing them to what they achieved
   in practice. Few, if any, Marxists present such an analysis of their
   own politics, which makes Marxism more a belief system than analysis.
   For example, many Marxists point to the success of the Russian
   Revolution and argue that while anarchists attack Trotsky and Lenin for
   being statists and authoritarians, that statism and authoritarianism
   saved the revolution. In reply, anarchists point out that the
   revolution did, in fact, fail. The aim of that revolution was to create
   a free, democratic, classless society of equals. It created a one party
   dictatorship based around a class system of bureaucrats exploiting and
   oppressing working class people and a society lacking equality and
   freedom. As the stated aims of the Marxist revolution failed to
   materialise, anarchists would argue that it failed even though a
   "Communist" Party remained in power for over 70 years. And as for
   statism and authoritarianism "saving" the revolution, they saved it for
   Stalin, not socialism. That is nothing to be proud of.

   From an anarchist perspective, this makes perfect sense as "[n]o
   revolution can ever succeed as factor of liberation unless the MEANS
   used to further it be identical in spirit and tendency with the PURPOSE
   to be achieved." [Emma Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia, p. 261]
   In other words, statist and authoritarian means will result in statist
   and authoritarian ends. Calling a new state a "workers state" will not
   change its nature as a form of minority (and so class) rule. It has
   nothing to do with the intentions of those who gain power, it has to do
   with the nature of the state and the social relationships it generates.
   The state structure is an instrument of minority rule, it cannot be
   used by the majority because it is based on hierarchy, centralisation
   and the empowerment of the minority at the top at the expense of
   everyone else. States have certain properties just because they are
   states. They have their own dynamics which place them outside popular
   control and are not simply a tool in the hands of the economically
   dominant class. Making the minority Socialists within a "workers'
   state" just changes the minority in charge, the minority exploiting and
   oppressing the majority. As Emma Goldman put it:

     "It would be an error to assume that the failure of the Revolution
     was due entirely to the character of the Bolsheviki. Fundamentally,
     it was the result of the principles and methods of Bolshevism. It
     was the authoritarian spirit and principles of the State which
     stifled the libertarian and liberating aspirations [unleashed by the
     revolution] . . . Only this understanding of the underlying forces
     that crushed the Revolution can present the true lesson of that
     world-stirring event." [Op. Cit., p. 250]

   Similarly, in spite of over 100 years of socialists and radicals using
   elections to put forward their ideas and the resulting corruption of
   every party which has done so, most Marxists still call for socialists
   to take part in elections. For a theory which calls itself scientific
   this ignoring of empirical evidence, the facts of history, is truly
   amazing. Marxism ranks with economics as the "science" which most
   consistently ignores history and evidence.

   As this section of the FAQ will make clear, this name calling and
   concentration on the personal failings of individual anarchists by
   Marxists is not an accident. If we take the ability of a theory to
   predict future events as an indication of its power then it soon
   becomes clear that anarchism is a far more useful tool in working class
   struggle and self-liberation than Marxism. After all, anarchists
   predicted with amazing accuracy the future development of Marxism.
   Bakunin argued that electioneering would corrupt the socialist
   movement, making it reformist and just another bourgeois party (see
   [1]section J.2). This is what in fact happened to the Social-Democratic
   movement across the world by the turn of the twentieth century (the
   rhetoric remained radical for a few more years, of course).

   If we look at the "workers' states" created by Marxists, we discover,
   yet again, anarchist predictions proved right. Bakunin argued that
   "[b]y popular government they [the Marxists] mean government of the
   people by a small under of representatives elected by the people. . .
   [That is,] government of the vast majority of the people by a
   privileged minority. But this minority, the Marxists say, will consist
   of workers. Yes, perhaps, of former workers, who, as soon as they
   become rulers or representatives of the people will cease to be workers
   and will begin to look upon the whole workers' world from the heights
   of the state. They will no longer represent the people but themselves
   and their own pretensions to govern the people." [Statism and Anarchy,
   p. 178] The history of every Marxist revolution proves his critique was
   correct.

   Due to these "workers' states" socialism has become associated with
   repressive regimes, with totalitarian state capitalist systems the
   total opposite of what socialism is actually about. Nor does it help
   when self-proclaimed socialists (such as Trotskyites) obscenely
   describe regimes that exploit, imprison and murder wage labourers in
   Cuba, North Korea, and China as 'workers' states'. While some
   neo-Trotskyists (like the British SWP) refuse to defend, in any way,
   Stalinist states (as they argue - correctly, even if their analysis is
   flawed - that they are state capitalist) most Trotskyists do not.
   Little wonder many anarchists do not use the terms "socialist" or
   "communist" and just call themselves "anarchists." This is because such
   terms are associated with regimes and parties which have nothing in
   common with our ideas, or, indeed, the ideals of socialism as such.

   This does not mean that anarchists reject everything Marx wrote. Far
   from it. Much of his analysis of capitalism is acceptable to
   anarchists, for example (both Bakunin and Tucker considered Marx's
   economic analysis as important). Indeed, there are some schools of
   Marxism which are very libertarian and are close cousins to anarchism
   (for example, council communism and Autonomist Marxism are close to
   revolutionary anarchism). Unfortunately, these forms of Libertarian
   Marxism are a minority current within that movement. So, Marxism is not
   all bad - unfortunately the vast bulk of it is and those elements which
   are not are found in anarchism anyway. For most, Marxism is the school
   of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, not Marx, Pannekoek, Gorter, Ruhle
   and Mattick.

   The minority libertarian trend of Marxism is based, like anarchism, on
   a rejection of party rule, electioneering and creating a "workers'
   state." Its supporters also, like anarchists, advocate direct action,
   self-managed class struggle, working class autonomy and a self-managed
   socialist society. These Marxists oppose the dictatorship of the party
   over the proletariat and, in effect, agree with Bakunin on many key
   issues (such as anti-parliamentarianism, direct action, workers'
   councils, etc.).

   These libertarian forms of Marxism should be encouraged and not tarred
   with the same brush as Leninism and social democracy (indeed Lenin
   commented upon "the anarchist deviation of the German Communist
   Workers' Party" and the "semi-anarchist elements" of the very groups we
   are referring to here under the term libertarian Marxism. [Collected
   Works, vol. 32, p. 252 and p. 514]). Over time, hopefully, such
   comrades will see that the libertarian element of their thought
   outweighs the Marxist legacy. So our comments in this section of the
   FAQ are mostly directed to the majority form of Marxism, not to its
   libertarian wing.

   One last point. We must note that in the past many leading Marxists
   have slandered anarchists. Engels, for example, wrote that the
   anarchist movement survived because "the governments in Europe and
   America are much too interested in its continued existence, and spend
   too much money on supporting it." [Collected Works, vol. 27, p. 414] So
   there is often no love lost between the two schools of socialism.
   Indeed, Marxists have argued that anarchism and socialism were miles
   apart and some even asserted that anarchism was not even a form of
   socialism. Lenin (at times) and leading American Marxist Daniel De Leon
   took this line, along with many others. This is true, in a sense, as
   anarchists are not state socialists - we reject such "socialism" as
   deeply authoritarian. However, all anarchists are members of the
   socialist movement and we reject attempts by Marxists to monopolise the
   term. Be that as it may, sometimes in this section we may find it
   useful to use the term socialist/communist to describe "state
   socialist" and anarchist to describe "libertarian socialist/communist."
   This in no way implies that anarchists are not socialists. It is purely
   a tool to make our arguments easier to read.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html
