While using very persuasive language, referencing nearly all major thinkers in anarchist thought, and touching a chord with the deep discontent many feel when looking around at society today, a careful and well informed reading of Goldman will bring up several questions. The first of which is the nature of the state and the ruling class. Engels has perhaps the best analysis of the difference between Marxists and Anarchists in his piece Versus the Anarchists. In it Engels elucidates the different perspectives of the chief problem in society; the state for the Anarchists, and the ruling class for Marxists. The basic argument is that Anarchists see the ruling class as a product, or at least dependent on the state, and therefore the state should be the main focus, as it is the main problem. Marxists, however, see the state as a tool and product of the ruling class, which is provided to help that class maintain its privileges. This is an insightful distinction, and could possibly help explain the different historical failures of both Marxism and Anarchism.
This is the first issue to take up with Goldman's essay: the state is given to much focus, and the ruling class ignored. The references she makes to trade union organizing and direct action are also dated, as they all fail within ten years. Kropotkin, Tolstoy, and Bakunin are all quintessential Anarchist theorists, however they also have relatively counterrevolutionary histories. Bakunin and Kropotkin were both Russian royalty who stood in opposition to Marxists in the First International and the Russian Civil War. While Bakunin was involved in several abortive revolutions, Kropotkin went so far as to support the Whites in the Russian Civil War. Tolstoy was an aristocratic novelist and devout Christian. The historical failures of Anarchism could perhaps be chalked up to its failure to consider the issue of the ruling class. The Krondstat Mutiny, the Spanish Civil War, and general strikes in Italy, Spain, and France show the willingness of Anarchists to cooperate with the ruling class. However Marxism seems to have erred on the side of focussing too much on the ruling class and neglecting the issue of the state. A quick survey of Stalin and Mao show the potential faults in Marxism, where once the former ruling class has been expropriated, there is no real consideration of the potential dangers of the state.
Well, after a long development I suppose that my point is this: which theory, Marxism or Anarchism, is better at explaining the main problem with society? Do modern problems and alienation stem from the state or the ruling class? Moreover, to what extent can one explain the historical shortcomings of these ideologies through understanding this difference?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Revolution and Reaction: Differences between Marxism and Anarchism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Since the questions presented here are very subjective, I am going to use an established point of view—namely, social contract theory—to answer them, taking the stance of the devil's advocate. Henceforth, this post assumes social contract theory to be true.
"Well, after a long development I suppose that my point is this: which theory, Marxism or Anarchism, is better at explaining the main problem with society?"
I have several problems with this:
First, is there a single main problem? Or are there many equally significant, individual problems that do not link to a single source?
Second, even if there is a single problem with society, how do we know that Marxism or Anarchism has an explanation for it?
Third, are we talking about society in America or in the whole world? I'd say that on a global level, we are basically in a developing state of nature with no government—and I use "developing" because the UN lacks enforcement.
These questions aside (assuming its America/the West we are talking about, and that there is one main problem), one could argue that political correctness is at the root of society's troubles. All parties act as if they favor freedom, but our multifarious taboos and our obsession with finding dirt on people (e.g. McCarthyism in the last century, and, today, the competitive tactics of political candidates) that it places us in chains. We have a goal of freedom of speech and expression, but we limit our ability to attain that goal. As a result, we get into social struggles to dominate one another so that one person seems more "cultured" or something equally inane. Rather than encourage true liberty, our society holds us rigidly to certain artificial standards. I don't think either Marxism or Anarchism or anyone really has a solution to this.
"Do modern problems and alienation stem from the state or the ruling class?"
If you believe Hobbes or Rousseau, the state is the people, the body politic. Anything the state does, the people in the social contract allow it. So even if the people have grievances against the government, the people are responsible for those issues because they entrust the government with a certain degree of power. Thus, one could argue that problems arise from the bottom up. All politics are local.
Nietzsche talks about slave morality and ruling class morality.
Slaves believe that they are weak and oppressed, weakness and humility are good things (because they can't control anything), and that God will avenge their suffering—so they submit to staying weak and oppressed. The ruling class is basically the opposite. The slave morality comes from the bottom class; they pick it and thus give the ruling class the
power (following this logic). At this point, one could say Marxism probably solves the problem because it calls for the lower class to rise up. However, as far as I know it doesn't say how and what will prevent them from inheriting the ruling class mentality.
To have a state you must have a population, territory, laws, and enforcement. Language alone is inadequate: e.g., if someone says, "Don't take my drink," but fails to enforce it, you may as well interpret their command as, "Take my goats and my family, and enjoy this drink while you're at it." This is not to mention rules on murder, property rights, etc. Even in Anarchy or Marxism, what's to guarantee that someone won't just decide to take over all of the people? In other words, going back to the state of nature, we are constantly in a state of war with one another. Any enforcing agency that entered the picture would become a ruling class.
"Moreover, to what extent can one explain the historical shortcomings of these ideologies through understanding this difference?"
Well, look to the analysis above. In a state of nature we are all unprotected and in war with one another. Thus we establish rules and enforcement (a government). Social contract theory says that without said government, we all die (now who wants that?). To the point that we have this government, even if we have a pure democracy where all people need to agree to pass a law, there will need to be a few to enforce it (a ruling class). And a class with power will ultimately want to benefit itself at the cost of others. Voila, we have checks and balances and rule of law. As societies become more complex and industrial, there are different forms of ruling classes, but they all link to enforcement.
Marxism and Anarchism don't have the solution to this matter. Societies need a ruling class and a state to operate. (Of course, as Hamilton states in the Federalist Papers, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary.") But many people would say that the fact of the matter is that we lie, steal, and are just overall lowlifes, so we need laws and someone to make sure we don't break them.
Post a Comment