re: anarcho-marxists

["James Michael Craven" <CRAVJM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jerry Levy's discussion of anarcho-Marxists is very welcome. My
understanding is that the difference between "antiauthoritarian Marxists" (a
redundant phrase, at least in my book) and pure anarchists is that while the
latter want to abolish the state as soon as possible, the former want to
first subordinate the state to the democratic will of the people (especially
the working class), moving toward the "withering away of the state" as
appropriate, i.e., more slowly. Of course, there are a lot of specific
differences and shades of gray between these two (council communism, etc.)

Hal Draper points out that the (pure) anarchist advocacy of the abolition of
the state is, in effect, anti-democracy on the level of society as a whole
(and anarchists have a tendency to deny the existence of "society as a
whole"). We have the problem of the decentralized democratic workers'
council on the other side of the river stubbornly deciding to install a
nuclear power plant while our co-op has no way to stop it.

Another point: I guess I get the point that prostitution can be "okay" if
it's highly regulated. But can an anarcho-Marxist advocate the involvement
of the state in this regulation? is the informal regulation by grass-roots
democracy enough to deal with the abuses (child prostitution, etc.)? that
is, can decentralized democratic norms prevail against market forces without
support from the unrepresentative and authoritarian state?

in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine

Addendum: In his celebrated passage in the Communist Manifesto Marx
proclaims "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.
They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the
forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." Notice that
Marx was not merely calling for the overthrow of the capitalist
state, but the overthrow of the social conditions
supporting/supported by that state.

Marx understood very well that Socialist construction would be a long
and involved process through which the weeds in the new garden
(capitalist relations, ideas, myths, power structures, instruments of
mystification/coercion, values etc) were progressively uprooted and
eliminated. He understood also that the overthrown capitalists would
not merely throw up their hands and say well now we are finished and
obsolete; they would fight harder than ever to return to the old
conditions, power relations etc. Marx understood further, that under
capitalism nominal and de jure "freedoms" often hid very brutal and
ugly de facto and essential forms of coercion and force; conversely,
Marx understood that nominal or de jure forms of coerion and force
could be and would be necessary for certain de facto or essential
freedoms and liberation of the many from the forms and levels of
capitalist coercion in the interests of the few.

Historically and in the present, the anarchists on the left, like
their kindred spirits of the libertarians on the right, tend to focus
on absolutist and nominalist definitions and concepts of freedom and
liberty; the state, any kind of state is seen typically as coercive
and personal freedom inhibiting without any notion of coercion of the
few attempting to return to the old coercive order may be necessary
for the de facto and essential freedoms of the many. Typically they
see thei world from their own narrow prisms, conditions and
definitions of "liberty" and are more concerned with individualistic
solutions and freedoms than collective action (which invariably
involves sacrifice and yes surrendering certain narrow personal
freedoms) and yes, they typically see "society", if they see it at
all, as simply the aggregation of the individual atomistic atoms.

No doubt, we have many examples where what was done in the name of the
dictatorship of the proletariat was essentially very ugly, despotic
and wound up to be the dictatorship over the proletariat. No doubt,
throughout history, those using very ugly means to deal with very
ugly and determined enemies wound up being corrupted by the means (or
the already corrupt and brutal sought to use/justify ugly means under
banners of liberation) and becoming themselves ugly. But typically
the anarchists although sometimes making heroic sacrifices for good
and progressive causes, have produced very little of substance in
terms of their own or anyone elses liberation. Typically they are
self-absorbed and focused on their own narrow terms/definitions of
"personal liberty". Collective action by anarchists is almost an
oxymoron.

Notice, for example, in every discussion about prostitution when
reference to some very ugly, very brutal and life-destroying forms
and conditions of prostitution and slavery that many women--and some
males--are forced to endure, we hear "Yeah that's true and too bad
but..." This is followed by but I know this prostitute who feels
liberated and not oppressed yada, yada and my pet theory is more
important and yeah I feel their pain but... Their whole focus is
individualistic, narcissistic and typically impervious to real
conditions and forms of oppression outside their limited paradigms
and levels of commitment to which their prepared to act.

I see no real difference between the "left-wing" anarchists and right-
wing libertarians except some of the rhetoric and nominalist concepts
of personal liberty/freedom. Historically they have wrecked more
social movements than they have every contributed to and
historically through their narrow and myopic and nominalist concepts
of liberty and freedom and coercion, have helped more than hindered
the ugly forces on the Right that will never be eliminated or
neutralized through the parlor debates/concepts of the
libertines or without coercion, some form of collective coercion that
is systematic, resolute and more than nominalist.

That just my opinion and why I see "anarcho-Marxist" as an essential
oxymoron.

                                   Jim Craven

*-------------------------------------------------------------------*
*                             "Who controls the past,               *
*  James Craven              controls the future.                   *
*  Dept of Economics           Who controls the present,            *
*  Clark College             controls the past." (George Orwell)    *
*  1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd.                                        *
*  Vancouver, Wa. 98663  (360) 992-2283  FAX:  (360)992-2863        *
*  jcraven@xxxxxxxxx                                                *
* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION  *