Anarchism and Marxism

The Haymarket incident, organized by Communists and Anarchists | Getty 

The Sectarian Position

A potential reason to doubt the tactical conclusion presents itself: if resolving the differences between anarchism and Marxism was as simple as reconciliation, then why have the Comrades of the past not done so? It appears unlikely that so many brilliant revolutionaries would have all failed to amend simple, easily reconcilable differences. At some point, the Marxists would have considered organizing society into a less-centralized State in order to appease the anarchists, or the anarchists would have considered organizing into more centralized councils or syndicates in order to appease the Marxists. As a result, the two tactics would have coalesced into a unified trend, marked only by occasional differences in opinions, as all ideologies are.

However, this is not what happened. As much as some would like to attribute this rift to personal infighting between Marx and Bakunin, history shows that this is simply not the case. Since the foundational developments of Marxism, before it had even been codified as an ideology in itself, clashes between those in favor of the scientific Socialist positions put forward by Marx and the anarchist views espoused by Bakunin led to what some consider the first major division within the international Socialist movement—ultimately resulting in the dissolution of the First International.

Such a severe schism is unlikely to have been brought about by a simple disagreement on the methods with which an identical goal should be achieved, or by a simple personality conflict between the lead proponents of either theory. Rather, such a split is most likely to have occurred because of more fundamental differences which could not as easily be reconciled. This is evidenced by a comment made by Aristride Cladis, an associate of Bakunin, which is presented in The First Socialist Schism, an account of the split in the International Working Men’s Association: “Two schools of thought, each representing a different principle, have emerged[…] the authoritarian current[...] at the head of which is Karl Marx, and the anti-authoritarian or anarchic current.” [5a]

The opposition between the two emerging tendencies displays how deep their ideological opposition lies. At this early phase in both of their developments, just when collaboration would have been expected due to their more severe differences not yet having the opportunity to emerge, the differences that were already present were too fundamental to be avoided. Of these differences, Bakunin himself wrote: “I profess an order of ideas diametrically opposed to those of Marx.” [5b] This “diametric opposition” would take many forms over the centuries, extending from the time of Marx and Bakunin to the present day. The gap between these two points—the First International and the twenty-first century—is, obviously, massive: containing a number of important world-historical events. Namely, for Marxists, the realization of multiple successful revolutions.

Though anarchists failed to bring about comparable successes, their ideological criticism continued. [6] Amongst such critiques from the anarchists of his time, Stalin wrote Anarchism or Socialism?, a thorough examination of both ideologies, in which he identified, like the tactical position, that the key difference centers around the place of a revolutionary State:

“There is the dictatorship of the minority, the dictatorship of a small group[...] Marxists are the enemies of such a dictatorship[...] There is another kind of dictatorship, the dictatorship of the proletarian majority, the dictatorship of the masses, which is directed against the bourgeoisie[...] such a dictatorship is the magnificent beginning of the great socialist revolution.” [7]

But just as Marxists uphold such a revolutionary State, anarchists universally reject it, believing that such a “dictatorship of the masses” is impossible due to the very nature of the State as a hierarchical institution. This view on the matter is expressed by the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta: 

“This is the question; either things are administered on the basis of free agreement among the interested parties, and this is anarchy; or they are administered according to laws made by administrators and this is government, it is the State, and inevitably it turns out to be tyrannical.” [8]

While one could argue that this disagreement over the conception of the State still technically constitutes a tactical difference rather than an ideological one, the necessity of the revolutionary State to the doctrine of Marxism—“the magnificent beginning of the great socialist revolution”—when compared to its equally emphasized rejection from the anarchist viewpoint—“it inevitably turns out to be tyrannical”—transforms this dispute from mere tacticalism into sectarianism; a fundamental dispute over the very nature of material analysis and, subsequently, revolution, the necessity of which is central to both now-distinct ideologies.

The severity of this sectarian difference finds its greatest example in the longest-standing anarchist criticism of Marxism: the role of authority.

The Question of Authority

Although very nebulous, understanding the meaning and function of authority in the anarchist framework is necessary to understand the anarchist ideology. This is a difficult task, given that anarchists and Marxists view authority in very different ways. For example, Stalin, in the above quote regarding the dictatorship of the masses, clearly states that such a dictatorship is necessary in order to establish Socialism, and such a viewpoint has been continually displayed through multiple Socialist countries who employed such a dictatorship in order to further the goals of the proletariat. Anachism’s view on the matter is quite different, as is expressed by Bakunin in Marxism, Freedom and the State: 

“The Communists are the upholders of the principle and practice of authority, the Revolutionary Socialists have confidence only in liberty.” 

As abstract as this statement is, attempting to make this point less abstract would take away from its intention. Abstraction, as opposed to material analysis, has played and continues to play a large role in the development of anarchism; a basic fact from the view of Malatesta. [9] The anarchist critique of authority is no different, often constituting, at best, generalizations and, at worst, outright lies. While an example of such a generalization is epitomized by Bakunin’s quote above, anarchist theorists like Peter Kropotkin offered many falsehoods, especially concerning the Soviet Union. In a letter to Lenin, he wrote: 

“One thing is indisputable. Even if the dictatorship of the party were an appropriate means to bring about a blow to the capitalist system (which I strongly doubt), it is nevertheless harmful for the creation of a new socialist system.” [10]

The Bolsheviks did not “harm” the Socialist system that they themselves were introducing. The Marxist position is precisely that Socialism was successfully established by the Bolsheviks, despite Kropotkin’s “doubt” that such a method was appropriate. The system that was successfully introduced is, according to the anarchist perspective, completely divorced from the pursuit of Socialism, as further evidenced by Kropotkin’s letter to Lenin:

“I owe it to you to say frankly that, according to my view, this effort to build a communist republic on the basis of a strongly centralized state communism under the iron law of party dictatorship is bound to end in failure.” [11a]

Obviously, the Bolshevik revolution did not fail, and Kropotkin was wrong. The Tsarist government was overthrown and the first proletarian government in the world was established. Yet Kropotkin seems less than keen on celebrating this achievement and, like most of the anarchists before and after him, is content to discredit its successes despite no such similar project emerging from the anarchist method. Rather, Kropotkin writes: 

“At the present moment the Russian revolution is in the following position. It is perpetrating horrors. It is ruining the whole country. In its mad fury it is annihilating human lives.” [11b]

The narrative surrounding the supposed atrocities that the Bolsheviks committed during the revolutionary period is explicitly reactionary, made abundantly clear given that these acts would eventually be referred to as the “Red Terror”, with the sole blame for the difficulties endured by Russia at the time being placed squarely on the shoulders of Socialism and the Bolsheviks. It is odd that Kropotkin, or others, would so willingly accept a narrative that demonizes Socialism while still referring to themselves as Socialists. Upon further inspection, one realizes that this is not odd at all; the blame for the Terror is placed on the Bolsheviks, the State Socialists, who, according to the anarchist view, either were not introducing Socialism in the correct way (Kropotkin), or were not even Socialists at all—a divergence not only of tactics, but of ideology. 

As untrue as Kropotkin’s statements were from a Marxist perspective, they provide an important insight into the anarchist ideology’s foundational understanding and rejection of authoritarianism, which often relies on what Marxists would describe as explicitly anti-Socialist talking points that may likewise be found in the “criticisms” put forward by counter-revolutionaries. This phenomena, at times, results in a confluence between anarchist criticisms of Actually Existing Socialist (AES) countries with those of the United States’ own State Department—such as recent castigations over the manufactured narrative of genocide against ethnic Uyghur people living in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). 

Unfortunately, this confluence is itself representative of the anarchist ideology, and one which, unless overcome, makes its proponents increasingly difficult to consider genuine in the eyes of many Marxists: that either anarchists are not genuine in their revolutionary rhetoric and seek to discredit past revolutions for this reason, or they truly believe in the importance of revolution, but are too absorbed with their own idealist conceptions of “authoritarianism” to offer much of anything to contemporary Socialist dialogue. 

Conclusion

The differentiation between contemporary anarchists and Marxists precisely exists in the differentiation of two specific trends: tactically-minded people who view the Marx-Bakunin split in terms of a simple, albeit deeply-rooted, disagreement over the methodology by which to pursue the same goals, and sectarians who view the ensuing theoretical distinctions brought about by the former as having ultimately bisected the two into distinct Socialisms in and of themselves—whereby Marxists are no longer deemed Socialist in the eyes of anarchists, or vice versa. 

While a degree of unity may be—and in some cases has been—possible on the tactical basis, the so-called sectarian anarchist position renders itself both ineffective and utopian, rejecting a foundation in material analysis in favor of a blanket rejection of the idealistic self-conception of “authority”. At its core, such a position mythologizes the State as being inherently “bad” regardless of its context or function; mirroring the fascist conception of the State as being inherently “good”. 

Further, while both anarchists and Marxists agree that, in an ideal society, reactionary views would be totally obsolete, and the State would become obsolete along with them, Marxists believe in taking the developmental steps necessary to secure the revolution and diminish the necessity of the State—eventually abolishing it. Sectarian anarchists however, through the rejection of “authority” and “centralism”, posit spontaneous revolution and voluntary self-organization as the method by which this shall occur. 

For these reasons, collaboration with anarchists in order to achieve common goals in a tactical manner is generally encouraged, but the task of developing revolutionary organization and dual power will remain in the hands of Marxists.