re: anarcho-marxists

[James Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brian Green writes: >As one of these "anarcho-marxists" -- though I'd
probably self-define as an autonomist marxist, if anything -- I'd suggest a
different distinction here. In my opinion, the state/non-state issue is
better understood as a debate between socialists and anarchists, rather than
marxists and anarchists.

>As far as I'm concerned, identifying as 'marxist' has nothing whatsoever to
do with one's position on working class use of the state. Marxism is the
study of the movement of the working class, a set of analytical tools and
concepts to make sense of concrete social struggles; as such, my own sense
is that marxism is a method of enquiry and a mode of analysis, not a
conclusion or set of laws....<

The meaning of the word "Marxist," like most other words, varies according
to the context. I'm sorry about not indicating the context of my remarks. I
agree with your meaning of Marxism as a set of tools as far as political
economy is concerned (one context). But my unstated context was the long
debate between Marx and Bakunin, between the Marxists and the anarchists,
during the 19th century and after, as described by people such as Hal
Draper. (Of course, there are gaps between theory and practice on both
sides.) That is, I was talking about Marxist politics vs. anarchist politics.

I see nothing wrong with the general idea of "Marxist in political analysis,
anarchist in politics" as a coherent viewpoint, though don't ask to agree
with it. Rather than arguing about the meaning of terms, let's discuss the
details.

>So I can then recognize myself in the terms anarchist and marxist -- and
communist too for that matter. It is the term 'socialist' that makes me
uncomfortable, having (for me) many more state-centred connotations than any
of the other terms.<

Socialism in practice has definitely been state-centered, either of the
stalinist or social-democratic flavor. My point was that the Marx's
political view was that the conquest of state power was a necessary evil,
before the state could be replaced by something better (or rather, before
the difference between the state and society withers away). Marxists have to
figure out how to prevent the necessary evil from becoming a permanent
self-sustaining evil, while anarchists have to face our inability to "skip
stages."

for socialism from below,

Jim Devine


Jim Devine
jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
Academic version of a Bette Midler song: "you are the hot air beneath my wings."