I've done my reading and whatch a shit load of youtube videos but still the two can be hard to distinguish. What are the basic differences, in your opinion, of marxism.vs. anarchism.
Its very difficult to define, because anarchism (Libertarian socialism) is inherently pluralistic. So imagine that everything I'm about to say about Anarchist beliefs is prefaced with a phrase like 'usually'. They believe many of the same things, but differ over methodology and timeline. Both Libertarian socialists and Marxists believe that a desirable future system would be based around free socialism, with no state government. Marxists believe that this is scientifically inevitable (based on a Hegelian interpretation of history) and that they must prepare for it, Libertarian socialists are more torn on whether it is inevitable or not, but are convinced that either way, only direct action can bring it about. The main difference is that Marxists believe in a post-revolution transitional state apparatus to oversee the transference of power to the worker. libertarian Socialists believe that any such transitional government will only ever turn towards tyranny over the people by those in power (and cite the soviet Union as an example). Marxists believe that our current system should be replaced with a transitional worker's state or dictatorship of the proletariat. Marxists claim that this system will gradually wither away or give up its power over time, and hand power directly to self-organised workers associations. They tend not to be clear about how this will happen or how long it will take. This is the principle difference between Libertarian socialists and Marxists- Marxists believe that a benevolent temporary state is possible, as long as it is not presiding over a capitalist system. Libertarian socialists believe that any kind of state is tyrannical and oppressive, or will necessarily become so. Libertarian socialists believe that the overthrow of the system must be immediate, and it must not be replaced by any top-down organisational structure, even to oversee administration or defence. They accuse Marxists of downplaying the importance of the free socialist end state, or dismissing it entirely. Marxists, on the other hand, claim that there must be something in place if only to defend the revolution. both sides of the argument, in my opinion, make valid points. It is because of these differences in ideology that Marxists and Libertarian socialists, despite supposedly having the same end goal in mind, organise differently. Marxists tend to favour a revolutionary vanguard approach, a top-down centralised party structure. Libertarian socialists form autonomous decentralised workers groups. Marxists accuse Libertarian Socialists of effectively neutering themselves by acting as if the utopian end-state of socialism is already here, failing to effectively organise in order to bring about revolution. Libertarian socialists accuse Marxists of scuppering any future possibility of revolution by behaving in the very authoritarian ways that they wish to overthrow.
This is the key difference, but there are a few other pertinent bones of contention between them too. For example, the revolution itself. Both groups agree that it is necessary, but disagree over its nature. For Marxists, the revolution must be managed and overseen. For many of them, it must be overseen by middle class intellectuals (anarchists, predictably, not fans of this idea) Libertarian socialists believe that the revolution will happen spontaneously and without oversight, and that people will rise up in solidarity without the need for college students to lecture them about Hegelian dialectics. The two groups are also split on the legitimacy of trade unions as a tool of revolution. Marxists believe that certain conditions must be met within a capitalist society before it is ready for revolution (this gets complicated, Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyites all have their own opinions on this). Libertarian socialists tend to be of the opinion that revolution is its own entity, possible under any conditions. Pretty much everything I've written is contentious and up for debate. If this were a political forum, 20 people of every denomination would right now be screaming at me about how I've muddled up a leninist-trotskyite interpretation of mutualism with an anarcho-collectivist take on situationist syndicalism. Marxist and Libertarian socialist thought have evolved by leaps and bounds since Bakunin and Marx, and the far left has fractured into a thousand pieces and in many cases devolved into petty infighting. Mounting an effective resistance involves finding common ground, and these two schools of thought have so much in common, they need to get better at working together.
Both are impossible ideologies in the 21st century. A country simply cannot run without central government control of services, mineral exploration, defense. Industry and its resultant jobs also require investment. Therefore the end product will degenerate into communism, where a self appointed government controls everything and the ideologists end up in jail (or worse). What the world needs is a government who balances control and ensures that its citizens are not EXPLOITED by capitalism, while services and jobs are maintained. Ask a supporter of anarchism who would provide gas, electricity, water, sewage, communications including internet, while upholding basic law and order. I wonder how many sensible answers would emerge.??????
Couple of points to address here. Nothing that you said in the opening paragraph contradicts what a Marxist would say. The key in both instances is to move away from a centralised, heirarchical system of governance and towards a decentralised, non-heirarchical system. Secondly, when you say Communism, I think you mean Stalinism, Totalitarianism or Authoritarianism? communism is simply the term for a stateless, classless, moneyless society. It's the end goal of both anarchism and marxism. I think you might be working under the common misconception that Communism is simply a 'more extreme and oppressive' version of socialism. It really isn't. Both a marxist and an anarchist would say that your vision of a government that effectively protects workers from exploitation under a capitalist system is pie-in-the-sky. They would argue that capitalism is inequality and exploitation, that is the only way that it works. There is no way, they would say, to 'keep the good bits'. 'Ask a supporter of anarchism who would provide....' this is an old one, they would probably answer 'the same people as do already, they would just be working under a different system'. Anarchists have differing views over the nature of this system, but most revolve around the idea that state-held power should be devolved, that workers should form into autonomous collectives and decide things through direct democracy, rather than there being an all-powerful state demanding their fealty. There are arguments against this and arguments for it, but the argument that is still most commonly held (and that I believe you were hinting towards) is 'if there isn't centralised control, we go back to the stone age' which I think is not the case. This is essentially the most useful myth of capitalism 'Sure, I'm taking the profits of your labour, but without this hierarchical structure (with me at the top!) who would make the decisions? The workers? how could they be trusted? It would be chaos!' It is certainly in the interests of those in economic power that the term 'Anarchism' has become synonymous with chaos. But if you read any anarchist literature, this is far from being their vision of society. The anarchy symbol, an A in an O, is representative of Malatesta's proclamation 'Anarchy is Order', meaning that the only sustainable system, free from the contradictions of capitalism that create a constant cycle of crises, is a non-statist, non-capitalistic model of society. A very effective smear campaign against anarchism has been at play here, which is why i personally prefer the term 'libertarian socialism', which is much closer to an effective definition anyway. The truth is that there are many thousands of examples of mutualism, communism and voluntary association that already exist within our current society. the idea that these could present viable alternatives to centralised government may be far-fetched, but its not nearly as far-fetched as those who benefit from capitalism would have you believe.
anarchism isn't anarchy. the first is an ideology. the second is the absence of hierarchy. marxism is also an ideology. regardless of the details, all ideologies exist to manufacture consent. capitolism is also an ideology, and the same problem applies. tyranny is not an ideology either. tyranny is the dominance of aggressiveness. and the dominance of aggressiveness is tyranny. it can and does happen under any and every ideology, form of government, economic principle, system of belief. there is no ideology that can, will, or ever has prevented it. only a culture of recognizing consideration as the foundation of, and only real, morality, that does not hate logic, nor try to substitute any belief, political, religious or otherwise for it, ever will or can. and when enough people are considerate enough, of not just each other individually, but of all things, it is then, and only then, that hierarchy in any form, becomes superfluous and atrophies. it is only by lack of consideration, that we create the niche in our social environment, that hierarchy is sucked into existence to fill.
Anarcho-communism is a paradox. How the fuck do you enforce equality through the barrel of a gun, and big government regulations in a zero-government society?
According to Marx, Communism is the last stage of development after the dictatorship of the proletariat. No countries in the world have made it to the communist stage yet, all of the ones we call "Communist" being still in the "Socialist"/ Dictatorship of the Proletariat stage. The dictatorship of the proletariat after the revolution uses state power to liquidate the last vestiges of the capitalist class, after which there will be a classless society, therefore no need for government. The State will wither away, and the government of people will be replaced by the administration of things. Society will operate according to the communist principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Of course, it's a load of crap, but Marxists believe it. Bakunin-style anarchists reject the dictatorship of the proletariat, but think communism can be brought about by a spontaneous revolution in which workers and peasants will take over the factories and farms and run them according to communist principles by democratic consensus. Again, a load of crap, but it has its True Believers. Murray Bookchin, the late reigning anarchist guru of the Institute for Social Ecology in Vermont, preached communalism, calling for the abolition of markets, community ownership of land and enterprises, and the re-organization of society into decentralized confederations of libertarian municipal communes run according to the principle of consensus. Another utopian ideal. "Post-Left" Anarchists whom Bookchin denounced "lifestyle anarchists", such as Bob Black, Hakim Bey, Jason McQuinn, Lawrence Jarach, Wolfi Landstreicher, and George Bradford, favor a radical individualism inconsistent with any government at all, but also ascribe to the ideal of a propertyless, classless, workless (as opposed to "productive play") society. Finally, anarcho-primitivists, following John Zerzan, harken back to the paleolithic ideal of egalitarian hunter gatherer bands before agriculture came along and spoiled everything. None of this very practical. but none sees "big government regulators" in the picture during the communist stage. rosa luxemburg - Yahoo Video Search Results Difference Between Communism and Anarchism | Difference Between What is Anarchist Communism? Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, Communism and Revolutions
Marx is full o’ shit. An anarchist communist is as paradoxical as: A Jewish Nazi A religious atheist A carnivorous vegan A male feminist A warmongering hippie A gay womanizer A socialist with a full time job
Marxism is a theory of history. Anarchism is I guess a vision for society. I am not sure that the OP was looking for this, but it's accurate... Marxism means the theory of a cycle of political, economic and social shifts into new forms of statehood and new societies, which in turn come to oppress the people and then must be replaced again. Maybe you wanted to discuss the difference between anarchism and communism, in which case I can say that anarchy is the end result of communism, after the dismantling of all the structures that perpetuate social, class and economic divisions. Basically, communism isn't a form of government but rather a state of consciousness and shared values, which, when achieved, will allow society to function in a mutually beneficial fashion without the need for a state. I would say it's much like 23rd and 24th century Earth's society in Star Trek.
Marxism assumes that continued automation and technological advances will eliminate scarcity and allow people more free time to pursue their creative passions. Natural resources would become public property, workplaces socially owned and democratically managed. Production would be determined through scientific assessment and planning thus removing anarchy of production. Anarchism means "one without rulers".
I think both communism and anarchism are off base pie-in-the-sky ideologies. That said, it's theoretically possible to have both. In fact, that's what anarchist Bakunin envisioned. To understand this, we need to take a look at the term "communism" which in Marxist terminology describes a stage which is achievable at a later stage after the revolution, after all vestiges of capitalism have been removed. After capitalism had been eliminated, leaving a classless society, society could move toward communism. Since the function of the State and government was to enable the ruling class to exploit the workers, once a classless society had been achieved, the governance of men would be replaced by the administration of things. Human relations would then be guided cooperatively, according to the principle "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." To get there, though, Marxists thought it was first necessary for the proletariat to take control of the government and use the machinery of the state to liquidate the last vestiges of capitalism, including he spirit of competition. This is called the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Bakunin disagreed, and thought any involvement with the State and government was a mistake. Instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he thought the workers could simply take over the factories and other means of production directly and operate them by a decentralized system of democratic worker's committees guided by group consensus--i.e., anarchy, as modern anarchists understand it.
