Αναρχισμός - μια μαρξιστική κριτική

by John Molyneux

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy

110 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

Molyneux joined the International Socialists in Britain in 1968 after being radicalized by the antiwar movement and the revolt of that year. He became one of the Socialist Worker's Party's leading theorists and a popular speaker. He was a lecturer at the School of Art, Design, and Media, University of Portsmouth, from 1992.
During his years in Portsmouth, he was a significant influence in the city left as well as a lecturer at the polytechnic university there. He organized a number of demonstrations, including getting 12 coaches of people to the 2003 demonstration against the Iraq War, in London. In January 2009 he was arrested for organizing a peace rally of 400 people against the Israeli attacks on Gaza.

His book Marxism and the Party (1978), analyzes the revolutionary left approach to the political party and the question of the revolutionary organization. and the discussion of Marx, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky, and Gramsci. In 1981 he published Leon Trotsky’s Theory of Revolution (1981), which critically explored Trotsky’s weaknesses and strengths. What is the Real Marxist Tradition? (1983/85) started life as a long article and was later published as a short book and is perhaps his most widely read publication.

He wrote a weekly column, “The ABCs of Marxism,” published in Socialist Worker (UK) for almost 15 years some of which were collected into a book Arguments for Revolutionary Socialism (1987) and a pamphlet on The Future Socialist Society (1987).

After he moved to Ireland he edited the Irish Marxist Review and contributed to many issues.

In 2006, he set up a blog where he "writes mainly about Marxist theory and art". He remained fascinated by this issue. His book The Point Is to Change It! was included in a display at the Tate Liverpool's exhibition Art turning Left (2013) showing the role that art plays in changing society.

In October 2020, he hosted the podcast Introduction to Marx/Marxism, which was described as "a series of short introductions to the ideas of Marx/Marxism".

In his last years, Molyneux also became involved in building an eco-socialist response to the climate crisis. He was one of the founders of the Global Ecosocialist Network.

He once wrote an article in the SWP's Internal Bulletin called "Democracy in the SWP", which argued that, though the SWP is democratic, it needs to be more so, prompting the Weekly Worker, the organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) to call him a "loyal rebel". Molyneux remained a member of the loyal opposition in the SWP staying with the organization in 2012-13 when the SWP faced a major crisis in the wake of an accusation of rape against a leading member.
- Wikipedia

Reviews

[Laura Hewson · Rating 5 out of 5]

a useful intro to the differences between Marxists & anarchists, but also a sober assessment of the limitations of the Spanish revolution. short but packs a punch

[Michael Palkowski · Rating 1 out of 5]

"If we all spit together, we would drown the bastards" - Tony Cliff

There are real issues relating specifically to semantics here which blurs and complicates the debate. Specifically, the nature of how we define the state. In anarchist literature, this tends to be viewed as a rule of a minority and so a post revolutionary society that organizes from the ground up is not forming a state in those definitions. Also, libertarian communists on the left do elect people, it's not an unaccountable leadership as suggested and so therefore many of the concerns and ideas expressed do seem to blur. Part of the concern obviously is that anarchism is not homogeneous and has hundreds of different factions and so the type of anarchism that he views as argumentative allies are very specific and quite a scarce branch especially in the light of the growing influence of anarchic-capitalism. A Leninist critique however in principle is almost amusing. Opportunistic vanguardism is not democracy.

I think it makes sense to critique the prevailing disenchantment with leadership in general as being an unfair generalization and that it's actually quite a trivial naive point of view to hold, the point however is that it's a point of view that isn't held by many anarchists who are serious as their contention and beef is unaccountable and illegitimate forms of leadership. I may be wrong but libertarian communists would probably find organized elections from below to be accountable and legitimate. Lenin wasn't a hero for this kind of accountability though as the very first thing he did was to destroy the soviet councils after the revolution. I won't go into what would be lengthy and really tedious critiques of Marxism in general but they take a similar form of glaring assumption, badly theorized conceptual understandings of history, economics and what class is.

He begins by describing the society we live in as rotten. I want to refer John to a video Howard Bloom did on this cynicism about western civilization as the premise seems rather unmerited [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlCspY...] and while its correct to cite anthropological evidence into the extent to which human societies have lived without states for most of history, such a statement is implicitly anachronistic as it assumes that the gains we have made as a civilization would have developed and prospered in much the same way had we kept small communal bands of tribes self organizing until now. This as the same anthropological research will show isn't clear. Instead anarcho-primitives like John Zerzan use the same sort of analysis as a way to argue against progress and linking progress in the modern era to war. Much of human history was a persistent stasis that barely survived living off small patches of unsustainable land. I think that would be a valid critique of the simple anarchism that he laid out and more powerful than the ones he offers.

He lays out how post revolutionary societies need to have an organized 'state' to protect against reactionary counter-revolutions thus adopting Lenin's argument of the organization of violence to resist gains made. However, this isn't a valid critique as mentioned since the anarchists that he refers to would have similar militias organized from below with much the same system of organization. Pure semantics.

Another premise is that the state will 'own' all the expropriated industries and businesses and he says the anarchistic alternative of localism is problematic because:

"If these businesses were owned not by the new state but bythe workers of each separate enterprise, this would not only hamper cooperation and planning but also lead to competition between different workplaces which would divide the workingclass, just when it had the greatest need for unity"

Why would competition be a concern when you essentially are removing 'class symbolization' and thus wealth distinctions which therefore means everyone has the same status theoretically and the labor organizations become communes unmotivated by monetary value both in terms of wages and in relation to the value of the commodities produced? It's simply absurd to state that competition would ruin the post revolutionary society as there wouldn't be any. Infact Marxism seems hellbent on crushing any as it may create inequalities somewhere based on really simplistic notions of ownership and power, thus an ironic critique of anarchism emerges which is very funny:

"The weakness of anarchism here is that all too often it has a romantic conception of revolution"

Ah those sober minded theoretical and methodological masterminds in the Marxist movement who are ready to ditch their theory if new evidence emerges contrary to the data, who do not cling to ideological utopian dreams of a centrally controlled economic paradise. I had no idea. Other ironies arise in his critique of "lifestyle anarchism" the urge to live within cracks (John Holloway) and take over spaces within capitalism. I wonder if he remembers champagne socialism and what ought to be termed lifestyle Marxism in paraphrasing a critique made by Zizek referring to those academics who write and muse about the revolutionary potential of far off places such as Latin America whilst keeping their comfortable hierarchical university job fully intact without surrendering their own immediate access to the luxuries of capitalism. Furthermore he seems unaware of his own sources:

The first is just that it offers no strategy or perspective on how to change the world, indeed it does not even seriously attempt to offer such a strategy.

Has he read Holloway's book?, I don't think he has and furthermore:

I suspect that the direct influence of Godwin or Stirner on present day anarchism is close to zero

I feel as though, I am be wrong but Anarcho- Capitalism is very individualistic. I wont cover this section too in depth but he seems to falsely equate individualism with solipsism.

If Marxism wants to adopt a viable critique of anarchism, it needs to first start by realizing that the dyadic class structure that it formulates based on a binary of oppressor/oppressed and proletariat and bourgeoisie is too simplistic to analyze society with and it creates really simple minded sketches labeling people as 'enemies' that need to be 'defeated'. Marx was aware in his historical materialism account of dialectics that things are never the same and yet Marxism uses the same form of analysis to understand what has morphed into a different beast. If anything Anarchism (of the left) despite it's flaws and problems is way more accountable and open to debate than the dogmatism that pervades much of Marxism today. I believe therefore we have major disagreements as I think the narrow definition is an accurate one and I wish to keep my analysis of society predicated in accuracy. Therefore his critique of Autonomism is in my opinion very lazy:

The multitude is a vague term referring to almost everyone not actually part of the ruling class, similar to the old term ‘the people

As his alternative is not radically different, instead it's merely to call the 'multitude', the 'working class'. The change of rhetoric doesn't change the fact that he is openly calling for expansionism of a stratified social class category for political purposes. It doesn't matter how we test or analyze people's living standards all we know is that the truth is the truth and that's all that matters.

[Megan Lindsay · Rating 5 out of 5]

An informative and thought-provoking read. At the time of reading I knew very little of substance about anarchism, communism, and their differences. I found this book to be a good starting point for learning as it was succinct, accessible, and engaging. If you already have a fair bit of knowledge in these areas you might not gain as much from it, or on the other hand might might have more insightful critiques to give in response to the author’s argument.

[Iliiiiiiiii · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow, what a great book. I finally understood the basic reasons why anarchism fails to be a revolutionary strategy/alternative/ideology. This booklet represented for me the necessary supplement to my lived experience with activism in leftist spaces, in coalitions with anarchists. Even before I became a marxist, when I was still considering myself a baby-leftist and an anarchist without any direction, I would notice without fail the creation of unspoken, implicit, undemocratic, immutable, unaddressable power dynamics, in every group that was describing itself as "decentralized, non-hierchical, etc.". And this book finally made me understand why this happens every time, and how it is not an exception, but an inherent trait of anarchism. My first ever such experience made me orientate myself for a short while towards individual activism (a bullshit), out of hurt and absolute confusion as a result of the unspoken and harmful hierarchies that I could clearly notice and that were affecting me inside an anarchist group that I used to be active in. Now, almost 7 years later, I finally understood why that happened. But what a bliss and such a revigorating hope I got when I discovered socialism from below, with its organisation, sharp politics and analysis, firm democracy and democratic centralism! I learned for the first time what real democracy could look like, how important it is, and what a hard job it is to maintain and create it.

Enough with my personal experiences, back to the book. I loved the style of writing of the author. It felt like he would take the reader by their hand and guide them through all the argument. But totally not in a patronising way. I liked the fact that you don't need to have much prior history knowledge to understand pretty much all the information in the book, thus making it accessible for beginners. I was thinking while reading the book that it has the potential to instil so much hope in the people who read it, because more than criticising anarchism, it tries to draw lessons from past revolutions, it admits where mistakes were made, and it leaves a lot of room for improvement. I like how at some point around its beginning it started with admitting that he wished that anarchism worked, because it would have saved everyone of so much effort. But it doesn't. Mainly, because a lack of clear organization, strategy, and analysis of the world. The tone is also not a mocking, hateful or patronising one towards anarchists. It just tries to learn from their failure and it feels like the author is actively thinking while it writes, trying to figure out the best strategy or alternative that could work in the face of the pitfalls of anarchism.

At some points I was not very convinced by the arguments, or I would think that some points are quite superficial, I would ask myself "Whyyy??", or I would simply come hy myself with a counter-argument, especially drawn from things I heard from anarchists or other people in my life, and I would constantly ask myself what would the anarchist's counter-arguments would be, reading this book. But the author would inevitably provide every time a well-thought and convincing explanation, and a response to all of my questions and shatter all of my counter-arguments.

I honestly recommend this book to all anarchists. Not to talk them out of their ideas (although, this would be an amazing result), but for them to ponder, and strenghtened their strategy and politics. It's always good to read counter-arguements to your beliefs, and always question them, to be able to continuously improve and sharpen your politics. Naively adopting some ideology and defending it only because it sounds like the most radical thing that you know, it's simply a foolish thing that serves nobody.

And this book made me also understand why anarchism came to be in the first place. The author describes it as the politics of desperation (not in these words), but he mentions that people become susceptible to anarchist ideas the moment when they lose hope in (or there is no) revolutionary leadership. Anarchists saw the beaurocratization of the Bolshevik Revolution, and naturally, instead of analysing the causes of it, tried to find a third solution. This is a logical thing and kinda common sense thing to do. But unfortunately, revolutionary moments throughout the history prove that a lack of capable leadership and a revolutionary party and leadership fails to safeguard the revolution from the counter-revolutionary forces.

And I cannot stress enough how anarchism always breeds leaders!! (But they fail to recognise them as such).

Also, some things were really eye-openers and surprising. One of them was the observation of the author that the anarchist movement is recognised by its leaders, individual people, while the history of Marxism consists of organisations. Who is the undemocratic one?

A second fascinating new thing I learned was about platform anarchism. Until reading this book, I didn't know about its existence. And it was so funny to discover that it is word by word Leninism, but a disillusioned one, which still doesn't want to call a mass organization "party" or use the word "leadership". It's basically Marxism lacking the sharp and deep analysis of Marxism. They would have so much to win if they would adopt the Marxist/historical materialist lenses.

[Nick De Voil · Rating 4 out of 5]

probs better books but a nice summary of most strains of anarchism, anarcho-communism (the real thing not weird left unity larpers) could be expanded on but is good at a quick understanding of marxist critiques of anarchists.

[Paschalia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Κατανοητή, καλά δομημένη και ευκολοδιάβαστη προσέγγιση που όμως τα επιχειρήματά της είναι αρκετά επιφανειακά.

[Ahmed Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

شايفه مفيد جدا للي عنده التباس (زي اللي كان عندي) بشأن الاشتراكية الثورية، من ضمن وسائل شرح هي معرفة الحاجة بمعرفة نقيضها.

[Ahmad Adel · Rating 2 out of 5]

ينتقد الكاتب وبشدة دكتاتورية باكونين ( القائد الأناركي) خلال اضطرابات شعبية حاول فيها قيادة الجماهير الثورية على أنها تناقد صارخ في الأناركية، قائلاً بأن أفكار باكونين " إذا تحققت لأصبحت الشكل الأقل ديمقراطية للحكم في التاريخ على الإطلاق"... وبعد صفحات قليلة يرد الكاتب على منتقدي الدكتاتورية البلشفية التي مارسها لينين أثناء الثورة البلشفية والحرب الأهلية بأنها ضرورة في ظل صراعه للإنتصار على البرجوازية والثورة المضادة!!
في الحالة الأولى يرجع الكاتب الانحراف الدكتاتوري الموجود إلي قصور وتناقد في الأيدولوجية الأناركية، أما في الحالة الثانية فإن الإنحراف الدكتاتوري للبلشفية كان ضروريا بسبب الظروف التاريخية والصراع القائم.
وفي الحالة الأولى يوحد الكاتب بين الأيدولوجية وباكونين، أما في الحالة الثانية فإنه يرفع الأيدولوجية فوق الصراع وفوق تطبيق لينين او ستالين بعد ذلك.
أدخل عامل الظروف التاريخية المحيطة في الحكم على لينين ولم يدخله عند الحكم على باكونين.
تكررت بعض هذه الازدواجية في عدة مواضع أخرى، ومثل هذه التناقدات جعلتني لم اشعر أن الكاتب يسير على منهج ثابت خلال دراسته.

[Hein Htet · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a good book if you are a Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist or a Maoist. Those who had the privileges brought to think of October revolution as a model might naively believe in what the author suggested.

Apparently, more people had died from starving and oppressive regimes with the Marxism-Leninism and Bolshevik idea of Iron fist democratic centralism. Even Leon Trotsky was a victim of such system. His failure to stop Stalin from rising the power in the party and his failure to seize the power has shown how democratic centralism could be misused by dictators and tyrants.

However, there are none anarchist movements that got destroyed from within unlike the Bolshevik-styled dictatorships.

So, I personally think the book is really biased and superficial. And the author seems to be a privileged westerner or white person who had never lived under a dictatorship or Bolshevik styled bureaucracy.

[Geoff Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This booklet is a good short summary of the Marxist-Leninist socialist critique of anarchism, backed up with historical evidence. It is succinct and very accessible to the average lay reader.

Key historical periods are included, including in Spain during the Civil War against the fascist dictator General Franco, making it a good complement to Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia, where the treachery of the Stalinists is shown.

I was surprised that the (anarcho-syndicalist?) union, the IWW, the Wobblies, was not mentioned.

[Achilleas · Rating 2 out of 5]

Blatantly bias, poor argumentation with few valid points. Claims to attack the idea of anarchism and not individual movements but then proceeds on doing such, with movements that were not even entirely anarchist. I read this book hoping to gain a better understanding of anarchism as only through critique can we improve our knowledge, however I was disappointed as I did not really gain anything...

[Ross · Rating 1 out of 5]

Completely Disingenuous

[James Renaghan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A succinct primer on the limitations of anarchism both contemporary and historic.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Succinct- more historical examples would've been good.
A solid primer on (a) Marxist position on anarchism, notwithstanding.

[Jaap Bennen · Rating 2 out of 5]

One could write "An Anarchist Criticism of Marxism" and end up in the same 'nowhere' as where you started out from.

This is an awesome book if you are a Trotskyist, Leninist or Marxist of the otherwise unnamed sorts.

But overall, since it's written by a Trotskyist -- there is little left that holds true.
There has never been a Trotskyist revolution anywhere in the world.

But anarchist systems have been working in the real world, as well as co-operatives, which are basically of the anarcho type; economic systems that are based on equal power positions.

My heart goes out to Chomsky and Bertrand Russell.
If you are going to read this book, you are hereby dared to read anarchist literature.
Make up your own mind -- don't let Trotsky fool you.

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good read. Not only does this booklet sympathetically analyse anarchism and why, as Marxist John Molyneux puts it, anarchism is fundamentally flawed, it also answers a number of typical questions or concerns many capitalists or sceptics may have with Marxist theory itself.

I would highly recommend this booklet to any Marxist, anarchist, sceptical capitalist or otherwise political enthusiast due to its simplicity and solid logical expounding of ideas.

[Mohamed Badawy · Rating 3 out of 5]

تفنيد...

[Ali Helal · Rating 4 out of 5]

رؤية نقدية جيدة حول اللاسلطوية عموماً بكل إتجاهتها