Fair to say that anarchism has for a long time been under the shadow of Marxism but that's changed. Marxism is fading and anarchism growing. You cannot really judge anarchism by the same yardsticks as Marxism. For anarchists it is not about selling papers or getting people to join the party. Anarchists are active in a range of activities - LETS, squats, social centres, Credit Unions, food coops etc.,

Q: Will anarchism remain the junior partner to marxism for the next 20 years?

A: Yes.

Gary224, RichardG, do you happen to KNOW anything about Karl Marx? Much as I respect the views of anarchists, (I actually beleive that some of the ideas of the anarchist movement, (if you can call it that) are very good), I also think that Marx had some good ideas too, such as the prediction that the bourgeoisie (Blair, Bush, Bill Gates et al) would oppress the proletartat (miners, workers, students, fast-food workers, etc). This opression is more edvident in the poor South of the world, where the gap between rich and poor is enormous. Another valid point that Marx made is that the poor would become so dissillsioned with the current system (captialism) that they would uprise against the oppressors in revoulution (eg the Palestinian Infantada).

I don't really consider myself a socialist, at most I am "well left of New Labour". However, one should not diss Marx just because of the way he is interpreted by certain groups such as the SWP. Although the concept of anarchism seems wonderful on paper (as does communism and socialism!), I am doubtful if it could be practically implemented in its truest form.

Someone tell me one way in which either the Socialist Workers' Party or Workers' Power are Marxist. All welcome, and if this post gets moved down too fast then make a new one. There's nothing Marxist about the SWP or WP except their empty and false claims.

I've read plenty of Marx. A lot more than many 'marxists' I fear. And it's not true to say that 'Marx predicted that the capitalists would exploit the workers' socialists and anarchists had been saying that for decades. Marx wrote up many useful insights into how capital controlls people's lives. These insights have been read and thought about by many anarchists. But the reason I don't want to join a 'Marxist' organisation (apart fron the ludicrous idea of following one 'great thinker') is that MarxIST organisations are usually political parties that want to establish yet another society full of oppression and control. And often, like the SWP, SP, CPGB or other varieties, they are ineffective at protesting, fighting capitalism or getting social change.

The teachings of Marx, to be useful to us nowadays, need to be reacued from these 'Marxists'.

BETTER WEB: www.marxist.com

I am not saying that Marxism is completing rubbish. Yes, there are alot of good things about his writings however . . . Marxism views the state as wonderful . . . and more importantly he thinks that . . . if something (e.g. factories) belongs to the state it therefore belongs to the people.

The state and the people are different. The Communist Revolutions produced undemocratic, anti-capitalist, dictatorships. Although they got rid of capitalism, the state now became the oppresser. Only in a direct democracy can the state be the people's.

Only Anarchism fights against the oppression of the state (as well as capitalism). This is why i am an anarchist and not a marxist. I hope there are anarchists out there and that they organise and become a force in British politics over the next 10-20 years.

By the way, are there any anarchist in Britain?

Just a little link to keep the conversation going. PARECON is an anarchist economic system developed by Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert. It's the most workable plan that I've seen...

The 'founding father'of Anarchism, Proudhon, was Marx's contemporary and rival in the Paris of the 1840's. Now only famous for his slogan 'property is theft', what is less known is that the other half of Proudhon's slogan was 'property is liberty'.- This was because he based his politics of mutualism on small buisiness, rather than the collective power of workers.

With this came his ultra sexist idea that a woman is only worth one eighth of a man(!) and his desire to drive the Jews from France!

Anarchism's first self-declared incarnation 'mutualism' was therefore petty-bourgeoise, sexist, racist shite! Not alot of Anarchists know that!

Marx was loads better. In the 1840's, he ridiculed the self important intellectuals who imagined they had drawn up the blueprint for the future society. These 'utopians' as he called them thought they could reorganise society according to some great idea in their head. Then they would argue amongst themselves about which ideal utopia was the best plan.

(Sounds like DJEB's reference to PARECON "an anarchist economic system developed by Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert. It's the most workable plan that I've seen...")

Marx rejected this. Instead he sought to find the contradictions and possibilities within capitalism - that it produced a collective of propertyless workers. All he then said was that if this group made a revolution they could abolish classes and states. He didn't spend much time saying what this might look like. This is for the workers and oppressed to decide themselves, in the creative act of revolution.

Count Bakunin, the next great anarchist figurhead spent much of his life as a romantic Pan-Slavic nationalist. Only later did he look towards workers 'collectivism'.

It was not until (Prince!)Kropotkin's time at the end of the 19th century that Anarchist- communism was born, a philiosophy based on workers movements and a free communist society. But Kropotkin can't be that cool, because he supported the First world war! Not very 'Anarchist'!

And from my experience today, Anarchism is still a contradictory swamp. Marxism has fared little better(understatement of the year!)

But we still need to get rid of capitalism! So lets learn from the best of both Anarchism and Marxism, and all ditch the baggage.

I hardly think that criticising individual anarchists who have been dead for over 100 years has any relevance for anyone today.
Anarchism is not a staid, unchanging ideology - it is a fluid, constantly evolving set of ideas and theories with the power to change the world. It incorporates much of Marx's economic analysis, but rejects his trumpeting of elections as vehicles for revolution.

The working class does not need to be lead by middle-class intellectuals as ridiculous "Marxist" sects like the SWP and Workers' Power claim, it can and does create its own solutions and create its own forms of organisation (like the asambleas in Argentina) which contain the embryonic new society based on mutual aid and voluntary co-operation, instead of oppression and economic exploitation. As anarchists I believe we need to work within our communities to push for non-hierarchical forms of organising and collective direct action as a means of resistance.

The age of "revolutionary" Parties is over, after many failures causing unmeasurable human suffering. People are no longer fooled by their lies and patronising ideas. Let's take advantage of this and make sure that the next time round, no leaders destroy the revolution and we finally get to live in anarchy!

one of the wonderful things about anarchists is the fact that they're not based around a central thinker. there are more and less prominent ones but we're not bound to them. i'm quite aware of proudhon's faults and the faults of other early anarchists. However this doesn't mean that modern anarchists can't think in radically different ways to those of old. The only thing that all anarchists is a disbelief in government, and a belief that an alternative is viable.

ThomasJ - I have nothing against Marx. I agree somethings he wrote are valuable, BUT .. (1) he was around 150 plus years ago -- the world moves on (in ways he didn't predict) (2) Marxism in practice has overall been a disaster (3) Marxists have seen the state as part of the solution not the problem. Anarchism sees the problems of the world as been the concentration and abuse of power - whether one class against another, humans over non human animals, humans over the environment etc., and the solution mutual aid, cooperation and sustainability. Frankly (and crudely) Marxism (like social democracy) had its chance and blew it! The future is black, red and green!

wow, almost a debate.

Anarchists have a great moral system, but about nothing to offer the running of society. On my first visit to Spain, I have found that they, like their North American brethren are mainly a bunch of surly punks. I mean that literally. They can jabber on all day about the horrors of marxist groups, but they have never accomplished anything beyond a few romantic moments that crashed and burned.

Anarchy is a philosophy that holds to win a revolution is the worst sin imaginable because people actually don´t spend the rest of their lives in some blissed out utopia. I want to change society, the health system, culture and systems of authority. Anarchists offer nothing except platitudes.

Marxists offer analysis, organizational models (quite a few actually) and a history both good and ill we are all still coming to grips with. Obviously they don´t have all the answers. Maybe a few sectarian groupings rumble on about their mantra. But who cares? Really. Again, anarchists are a exactly as wierd and culty as marxists, and often not nearly as friendly and open minded.

So, in short: Marxists are a mixed bag you can learn from and anarchists are losers. All they do is lose. They want to lose and demand you join them in losing. If you don´t lose, you to the anarchists are an "authoritarian."

Cheers.

mmm this debate seems to have moved of the track a little bit, but I think I'll join in anyway, with regards to anarchists being losers that's pretty much right, them the working class, the poor, indigenous populations, immigrants, basically the majority of this world, and that includes self proclaimed Marxists. Burningman your perspective on anarchists seems limited to say the least not all of us are punks, some of us hold what would be considered respectable professions (see the Anarchist Librarians Web  http://www.infoshop.org/library2/stories.php).
To say that anarchism lacks the thought that Marxism has, is a bit far fetched, I would agree that the anarchism hasn't as much published academic thought but I would attribute this simply to the fact that Marxism is considered infinitely more acceptable than anarchism and so occupies a place as the de facto criticism of capitalism, anarchists are still viewed as dangerous unstable individuals intent on destroying order and creating chaos, were as Marxism is very much considered respectable but some what misguided (thanks to the press for that), the imagination thought and creativity is their just not in a form that you recognise, as for being open minded those self proclaimed Marxist groups that I have associated with have been relatively open minded but tend to work with blinkers on guided by accepted dogma, where my experience with anarchist groups is that as long as you have a basically similar perspective (an affinity) you will be accepted thus such groups can be found to have people with a broad range of ideas from feminism, pacifism, environmental, animal rights etc.

You say Marxists view the state as wonderful. Well some Marxists such as the SWP argue for a transitional Workers state(which i disagree with) but certainly not all Marxists. Also it is important to recognise that Marx was aiming at the eventual ABOLITION of the state so i don't think anyone who calls themselves a Marxist would disagree with the ULTIMATE goal of the abolition of the state, as it embodies the interests of the capitalist ruling class. The disagreement lies in whether or not we need a TRANSITIONAL workers state or not. Personally i am completely against some form of authoritarian 'transitional' state led by some self appointed party leadership. However i do see the need for a revolutionary organisation run DEMOCRATICALLY and seeking to inspire people towards running society via DIRECT DEMOCRACY.