Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:31:25 +0100
From: Andrew Flood <andrewflood-AT-eircom.net>
Subject: Re: AUT: petty anarchist marxist squabbling


I've replied to both threads at once below as the heading seems
more suitable

>what's really sad about getting dragged back into another pointless marxism
>vs. anarchism debate is that its fruitless. in my opinion, marx and bakunin
>both fucked up a lot. but they also both said and did a lot of really
>awesome stuff. and i don't think anyone is going to get anywhere until we
>all grow up a bit and try to deal with these two figures honestly.

I'm not sure the debate is completely pointless although it is
on the fringes.  It does have a modern day relevance however
as the sensible people in the broad movement are still trying
to deal with the efficiency V ends and means argument.

I'd also say that dealing with 'these two figures honestly' includes
accepting that if we are going to claim that either of them put
forward a particular idea it is not unreasonable for people to
ask for proof of this.  The bitter nature of the Marxism/anarchism
debate has meant that both sides often simply assume that they
know what was said and what it meant.  In my experience, here as
elsewhere, this is often not the case.

>so, ya know andrew, i'm a marxist, you're an anarchist, but i agree with the
>bulk of the politics in the wsm platform (aside from the trade union stuff,
>and a few other semantical issues), and am inspired by the work you've done
>on the zapatistas. so why the fuck are we constantly getting into these
>arguments.
>i can't help but feel you have some weird hatred of "marxism" that you want
>to take out of someone, since you constantly bring it up. and, tho i know
>you know better, you seem obsessed with trying to equate marxism with
>leninism.

Actually until quite recently (maybe a year back) I would have
considered myself a marxist, at least in terms of his economic
ideas.  For various reasons this is no longer the case but
I'd still acknowledge that Marx made some very useful contributions
to the development of socialism.

In this particular case it's worth pointing out that I didn't
come into this debate to attack Marx but rather to defend
Bakunin from what still looks to me like 'weird hatred'. But
in general this is a marxist list, I'm an anarchist so its
not terribly surprizing that when I contribute it tends
to be on the relationship between the two.  That said I've
also discussed other topics on this list.

>oh, by the way, marx never called it "scientific socialism",
... the "scientific socialism" crap came
>latter, after marx's death, i belive thru engels... who marx always
>criticized for his determinism and scientism (and latent
>authoritarianism, etc.).

I think your probably right here although I suspect Engels was
using the term before Marx died.  Actually in so far as it
has a meaning I think Engels is the real source of leninism,
Marx (most of the time) was more of a social democrat.  But
the two were in a pretty close partnership for a long period
of time and so do share some responsibility for each others
work.  BTW I'm unaware of Marx critizing Engels in the
ways you mention, can you point me at any online texts
where he does this as this is quite relevant to why
I no longer call myself a marxist, even with a small m.

>>i don't think bakunin
>wanted his invisible dictatorship to take state power, or have
>institutionalized authority, but 1) that i think its all the more dangerous
>and authoritarian because of its invisibility, because 2) i think its
>incredibly naive of bakunin to think that any such clique would not take
>control.

But he defined his conception of a secret organisation as having
no power beyond its influence.  I think this is core to the
whole discussion, if you see influence as authoratarian in a
bad sense then we might as well give up and go home.  BTW
if you read Bakunin 'On authority' he gives quite a good
discussion of the two forms of authority that exist and
why one of them is in fact not only necessary but inevitable.

>tho, in the russian rev many anarchists
>supported the bolsheviks, initially, and some were won over permanently,
>because of the similarily between bakunin's ideas and hwo the bolsheviks
>were functioning.)

Actually I'm unaware of any anarchist who joined the bolsheviks citing
Bakunin as a reason.  In general this happened for two reasons
1. Taking 'State and Revolution' at its face value without seeing
the problems of some of the formulations (or realising it was
mostly just propaganda to win people to the party).
2. The brutal conditions of the Civil War convincing ex anarchists
like Serge that almost anything was justifed if it helped win.

>(tho, it is important to point out that some marxists realizing the
>importantce of anti-statism and non-hierarchical organization did occur
>before the russian revolution, as the history of left-communism in the
>second international, prior to the russian revolution, shows.)

Some, but it was pretty insignificant even then, pre-1917 the
dominant strain in Marxism was social democracy rather then
any form of liberarian marxism.  I can see why people who
have put a lot of time in want to rescue/rehabilitate
marxism from its history but I'm not at all convinced there
is much purpose to this.  This is beyond the question of
wheher or not this would be a more accurate interpretation
of what Marx meant then Lenin or even Blair.  That argument
just looks like theology to me.

>as for marx's racism against slaves, it seems to me this is taken out of
>context. but maybe not. however, it must also be kept in mind that he spent
>the last several years of his life studying the russian peseant communities,
>discussiing the possibility that they could just straight from where they
>were to communism, if there was also a sucessful simultaneous rev in the
>west, etc. he even taught himself russian in this task. not exactly the
>actions of an anti-slav racist.

It wasn't just in relation to the Slavs though.  In another thread Louis
has referred to Marx's support of British imperialism in India and either
he or Engels welcomed the European occupation of North Africa because
they considered the people living there "a nation of thieves" in need
of civilisation.  All of these came from a common deterministic thread
which in the case of the Zapatistas would put you on the side of
Fox rather then Marcos.  Again this relates to why I'm not a
marxist.

Andrew

      ***************************
      International anarchism
     http://struggle.ws/inter.html

Issues-> http://struggle.ws/revolt.html
Me + PGP->  http://struggle.ws/andrew.html


Fax: 001 503 218 9764   (US number as it uses Efax)






     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---