I know that anarchism, specifically anarcho-communism and marxism are very different. People always talk about their main difference being that they have a different means of achieving their goals but the same end goal , but that’s definitely not true. So what are some of the ways they are different?

  • SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    11·
    3 days ago

    Everyone here is an anarchist so I’d like to give my view as far as I understand Marx.

    People have already talked about anarchist views here anyways.

    “The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” Marx.

    The condition where revolution occurs is when contradictions reach a breaking point, Marx thought the proletariat would become conscious of its collective exploitation and overthrow the capitalist system.

    This is not a gradual reform but a revolutionary transformation, since the capitalist state and its institutions (law, police, army, religion, ideology) serve the interests of the bourgeoisie.

    Contradictions being the concentration of wealth in fewer hands (bourgeoisie) and the growing exploitation and alienation of the proletariat.

    Then theres the infamous Dictatorship of the Proletariat which I see misunderstood in memes a lot here.

    After the revolution, Marx envisioned a transitional phase but this is not a dictatorship in the modern sense, but the political rule of the working class.

    In this stage:

    • The workers would abolish private property in the means of production.
    • They would use the state to suppress the former ruling class.
    • Production would be organized collectively and democratically.

    The state would begin to “wither away” as class divisions disappeared.

    Then we get to communism and humanity reaches a stage of freedom and self-realization beyond the struggle for survival.

    In Marx’s view, true communism is a classless, stateless, and moneyless society characterized by common ownership of the means of production, cooperative labor, abolition of alienated work and full human development and creativity.

    Also Marx did not think communism could be imposed artificially or “designed” by intellectuals. It had to emerge historically, through the self-emancipation of the working class as capitalism exhausted its potential.

    “The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves.”

    To me the bone of contention between most anarchists and Marxists is that dictatorship of the proletariat phase. In a way you could argue for that being an anarchic structure in the right historical setting (not ours). “The dictatorship of the proletariat” tends to become simply a dictatorship. Theres no good solution to avoid this.

    The more vaguely you read Marx the more anarchic you can make him. And hey after all, ‘if a philosopher really has compromised, it is the job of his followers to use the inner core of his thought to illuminate his own superficial expressions of it’ -Marx.

    Now Marxism has changed as the world has changed. Globalism firstly is the big issue.

    “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.”

    Marx saw “globalism” as a structural feature of capitalism itself.

    There is the historical problem of Marx. His key prediction failed, he expected the proletarian revolution to occur first in the most advanced capitalist countries (like Britain or Germany). Instead revolutions happened mainly in less industrialized societies (e.g., Russia, China).

    Capitalism has proved more resilient than he thought.

    Now theres this idea in modern Marxism that the world is a single capitalist system divided into:

    • Core (wealthy industrial states)

    • Semi-periphery (developing industrial countries)

    • Periphery (poor, raw-material-exporting nations)

    Capitalism survives by shifting exploitation globally — cheap labor in the periphery sustains profits in the core.

    This is globalized class domination. Institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO enforce capitalist rules worldwide. Outsourcing, financialization, and global supply chains reproduce class inequalities internationally.

    Then theres the cosmopolitan Marxists, who think the working class must organize globally too. Problems like climate change, migration, and corporate power are transnational, so solutions must be as well. They advocate global labor solidarity, international regulation of capital, and a cosmopolitan socialism that builds institutions beyond the nation-state. This position differs from older Marxist anti-globalization movements, which often viewed globalism purely as imperialism.

    • SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      11·
      3 days ago

      The anarchist critique:

      “Freedom can be created only by freedom, by an insurrection of all the people and the voluntary organization of the workers from below.” — Mikhail Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy (1873)

      You cannot use the state to abolish the state. Any centralized, coercive power — even a workers’ state — will reproduce domination. This is the biggest issue. Marx’s transitional state would not “wither away” — it would entrench a new ruling class (party bureaucrats, intellectual elites, etc.). History (Soviet Union, Maoist China, etc.) is seen as confirmation of this.

      Now many anarchists reject historical determinism — freedom isn’t a mechanical outcome of “laws of history.” Revolution must be direct, decentralized, and bottom-up, through worker councils, cooperatives, mutual aid networks, direct action and federations of free communes.

      Marx may be fine on the revolution part with anarchists tho but then he adds a step.

      “If you take a revolutionary dictatorship, even though it calls itself proletarian, it will inevitably lead to the formation of a new privileged class.” — Bakunin to Marx, 1872 (at the First International)

      Now, both Marxists and anarchists are internationalists — they oppose nationalism and see capitalism as a global system.

      So take it as 4 steps.

      • capitalism needs getting rid of ✅
      • revolution is necessary ✅
      • dictatorship of the proletariat ❌
      • communism ✅ (although this is debatable too, because Marx’s opinions and hence some Marxist factions) the communism Marx saw had some issues, but some Marxists agree with our view now despite liking his methods. Bc Marx sees productive labor as central to human self-realization once alienation is overcome.

      Now since we’ve seen the soviets etc, we can see an existing pathway. Nothing on that scale exists for anarchists.

      • SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        11·
        3 days ago

        In my blabbering I completely forgot the original question lol.

        Marx and some Marxists:

        “In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity… society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow… without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, or critic.”

        So the end goal is not idleness, but un-alienated work: work as self-expression, as art, as social cooperation.

        Anyone beyond that gets a fuck you.

        Anarchists and some Marxists:

        Where Marx emphasizes transforming labor into a free, social activity, anarchists often emphasize abolishing the social dominance of labor altogether — no longer defining human worth by productivity.

        This is THE key difference in the end goal. Ive spoken a lot to get to the point im sorry.

        But some anarchists may agree with Marx there too. 🤷‍♂️

        For Marx human beings fulfill themselves through labor, once it’s free and unalienated.

        For anarchists human beings fulfill themselves beyond labor, through a variety of freely chosen activities — productive, creative, or otherwise.

    • mistermodal@lemmy.ml
      1·
      2 days ago

      This is why historical materialist frameworks are required to plot anti-imperialist strategies. Marx, in his time, had limited access to statistics, and scholars often had to visit foreign libraries themselves to read a book. When statistics showed capital exports from imperialists out, it was assumed to be towards the periphery, rather than to other imperialists. This is important for understanding how the imperial core is able to delay revolution by exporting its contradictions.

      No offense guys but if anarchism doesn’t account for this - and shoehorning in anticolonialism is possible but is actively drawing from Marxist revolutionaries in the periphery anyways - you are going to try to create a classless society in Israel or Canada. I would say anarchism’s lack of internationalism can even raise questions about it having the same end goal.