In 1847 Marx and Engles set out the program for the Communist Party in a manifesto that has remained the watchwords of revolutionaries for the better part of two centuries. The doctrine of communism was further advanced by the great theoretical and practical revolutionary thinkers, I.V. Lenin and Leon Trotsky. In 1938 Trotsky wrote the Transitional Program, a work that is probably one of the most fundamentally important pieces concerning Revolutionary development. It describes how a society, after revolution, can progress towards true communism. The Communist theory of sociological development is based upon the 19th century social-historian Frederick Hegel. Hegel’s Historical Materialism stated that materialist motivations propelled society forward. Out of Hegelian thinking came Dialectical Materialism and the Marxist theory of development. Society will inevitably pass through certain stages. From feudalism will come a “National-Democratic” revolution that cast aside the old royalist caste, an example of this is the French Revolution. Out of this stage will come a Socialist Revolution that will begin the transition towards a communist and classless society. This process of sociological development has been the subject of much dialectical thought. The definitive work of this subject was Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution”, which defined the historical and social conditions of revolution and Socialism. However, the Dialectical approach to Revolution is rejected by some. One of the most well known anarchists, Noam Chomsky, criticizes Marxism for being “Authoritarian in nature”. It is his believe that a classless society can not be ‘developed’ according to the Dialectic method, rather it will simply ‘fall into place’ after the abolishment of the state. “We are in a period of corporatization of power, consolidation of power, centralization. That’s supposed to be good if you’re a progressive, like a Marxist-Leninist. Out of the same background came three major things, fascism, Bolshevism, and corporate tyranny. They all grew out of the same more or less Hegelian roots.(Chomsky, Class Warfare p.23)* The argument continues that so long as there is any from of authority, there will not be total freedom. Therefore attempts to stabilize, socialize or democratize a post-revolutionary society are ‘authoritarian’. The Anarchists say that only when there is a society with no authority present at all, will it be free. This will be addressed later. First let us look at the roots of Chomsky’s anarchism. Chomsky says that most of his inspiration came from the 19th century Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin*. Bakunin’s theory of Revolutionary development, which was latter echoed by Chomsky, was that there were three types of Revolutionaries. The first, and according to Bakunin, the only true revolutionary, was the Anarchist who wanted only to destroy the state, after which no organization can be maintained since to plan anything after the destruction of the system was heresy. Any governmental structure would impede the free will of the masses. The other two types of Revolutionaries were those who worked within the system for their own personal gain, what Bakunin called an opportunist Bureaucrat. The third type of political actor, and the root of Anarchist criticism of Marxists, are those who took advantage of circumstances and use the popular will of the people to take control and establish a totalitarian state. This is what Bakunin called a “Red Bureaucrat”*. According to Chomsky, Lenin and Trotsky were ‘Red Bureaucrats’, he writes that the intention of these men was not a classless society but rather to gain power for themselves. Chomsky then states that the Soviet Union’s deterioration into a totalitarian state was not a determination at all, but the natural course of events as Lenin had planned it. Chomsky even goes so far as to refer to one of Lenin’s most important pieces, “The State and Revolution”, as being “an intellectual deviation”*. He suggests that this piece was only written by Lenin to trick support out of the masses by appealing to the ideals of freedom and liberty*. Whether Noam Chomsky has deliberately distorted or simply grossly misinterpreted Lenin and Trotsky is hard to say. However it is an exhaustive falsehood either way. If, as Chomsky claims, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin are of the same stock, then how does he explain the Stalinist purges against those who remained true to the Leninist principals of democracy, or the continued and valiant resistance to Stalinist corruption that Trotsky put up until his death at the hands of the KGB. Chomsky can not explain this, he can only put up an incredibly false and overly simplistic criticism. However, my criticism of Anarchism will not be so easy to repudiate. The anarchists say that Communism is autocratic because we do not dissolve all authority. They claim the only way to ensure total freedom is to eliminate all forms of state structure immediately. This is to say that no one can impose their will, even a collective will, on anyone else at anytime. This is ludicrous. Engels sums it up best in a piece written in 1871. “...no communal action is possible without submission on the part of some to an external will, that is to say authority. Whether it be the will of a majority of voters, of a managing committee or of one man alone, it is invariably a will imposed on dissidents; but without that single controlling will, no cooperation is possible. Just try and get one of Barcelona’s big factories to function without control, that is to say without an authority! Or to run a railway without knowing for certain that every engineer, stoker etc. is at his post exactly when he ought to be! I should very much like to know whether the good Bakunin would entrust his portly frame to a railway carriage if the railway were administered on the principle that no one need be at his post unless he chose to submit to the authority of the regulations, regulations far more authoritarian in any conceivable state of society than those of the Congress of Basle! All these grandiloquent ultra-radical and revolutionary catchphrases serve only to conceal an abysmal ignorance of the conditions under which the daily life of society takes place. Just try abolishing ‘all authority, even by consent’, among the sailors on board a ship! “(Engels to Lafargue, 30 December 1871 Collected works, Vol 44 p.286)* Communism seeks not to destroy authority, but rather to redistribute that authority into the hands of the people. To form a collective society. The anarchist approach is radical and revolutionary up until state power is overthrown, after which action becomes heresy as it would constitute the use of authority. To look at a practical example of this we will look at one of the very few cases where anarchists succeeded in controlling a political body, and even then only for a matter of hours. In 1871, when the Paris commune was established, Bakunin saw his opportunity to impose his ideology. With the extremely weakened state of the nation, Bakunin rushed to the city of Lyon and declared that the state had ceased to exist there. Bakunin firmly believed that without any sort of authority the citizens would now be able to live freely and safely. However, the government of France, decided that this was not the case and promptly occupied Lyon*. The commune however resisted the state with it’s soldiers that had been organized by soldiers and citizens councils. The ‘authoritarianism’ of this Socialist democracy would be seen as a form of terrible oppression to Bakunin. But despite his vision, it was Paris not Lyon, that become a bastion of peace and equality for France and the World. While anarchists dream of a utopian world without authority, the communists believe in a higher purpose. Of the continuing development of the world through unity and democracy. Through working together as a whole and defending the popular will through democratic organization. Yes, Mr. Chomsky, the people when united are indeed an authority. They are such an authority, that no force in the world can ignore them. By * Heiko Khoo - “Noam Chomsky and Marxism On the roots of modern ‘authoritarianism’
Now, I don't mean to be a stickler, Bob.. but Anarchism is the complete lack of any governmental structure and other various qualities of said government, teachings, and law. Communisim is the complete opposite of the lack thereof, therefore the only compareable parts of Marxism and Anarchism, are the lacks and haves.
Hm...that popped into my mind a few times. Did you even bother reading the whole post. I put a LOT of work into typing it!
Yes, I did read it. While I was taking a dump, therefore I read it twice to be exact. (Laptops FTW ) I studied Marxism in AP Government, and it's direct corelation to other forms of government or the lack thereof, and Communism v. Anarchism came up. The only thing that could be argued about it was that there was nothing to argue about.
Man, people argue over these things for like ever and never get anywhere. I have studied both in AM. Hist. but still a noob at it :/. Just let the people think what they think of it and let it go.
Anarchism is dumb. Nothing would work, and there would just be total chaos. Communism isthe opposite with tons of government interference. Communism is better
i am an anarchist, i don't go and blow up cop cars and make bombs in my spare time... i just think it's retarded that everyone is forced to live by a set of general rules and laws, when everyone is different and individuals.... to say anarchism would be "total chaos" is just plain ignorance.... alot of people who actually have an understanding of what it means to be an anarchist belive it will lead to peace of earth... if such a thing is possible. EDIT: just thought i'd throw this quote into there from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
I am a communist. Communism is alot better than capitalism. People ask "Capitalism isnt bad look at the way we live in the US, we live great. I get a new car every year" But what they dont see is the explit workers in China, Indoensia, Taiwan, India and other countrys that have alot of people that do business for western copperations. Eventually these workers will realize that getting piad 22cents for making a product that will sell for over 300$ is just wrong and then the american economy and other western economys will collaplse.
