Anarchism and Marxism
The two strongest tendencies (or groups of tendencies) on the left are anarchism and Marxism. What are the differences and similarities between these two approaches?
Anarchists want a stateless society. Consistent anarchists understand that capitalism isn’t feasible without a state (private property isn’t natural, but requires violence by a dominant group, in contradiction with the free association which characterises anarchism), and so are also anti-capitalist. Within the broad tent of anti-capitalism, some anarchists are communists and believe in the abolition of property, money and markets. However, some anarchists think that markets and currency can be acceptable after capitalism (E.G. mutualism).
Marxists agree with anarcho-communists on the ultimate goal of a stateless, classless, moneyless society where goods and services are distributed on the basis of need rather than ability to pay. But Marxists see the need for a transitional period between capitalism and communism, socialism. In this transition period some aspects of capitalist society will remain including the state and compensation of workers on the basis of contribution. Along with self-managed worker’s councils taking the place of private businesses and a people’s militia, a state would exist to protect social property and engage in aspects of macroeconomic planning.
Why do we need this transitional period? Why not just go from state capitalism to anarcho-communism? If we simply abolish the state and capitalism, then there will be no organisation to stop individuals taking control of property by force and reintroducing exploitation. An anarchist might respond that the public would collectively organise to prevent exploitation. But the problem is that the public never has consistently organised against the exploitation of private capitalists or the state. If they did then the capitalist state would vanish tomorrow.
The main exploiters of society have always been a tiny subsection of the public, easily overwhelmed by the collective force of the rest. But the dissent of the public is too easily channeled and dispersed by hierarchical organisations. Leftists need to use a non-exploitative hierarchy in order to defeat the current exploitative hierarchy. But this is only a temporary measure. When society develops to a level of abundance that makes exploitation unnecessary, a state won’t be needed to prevented. It goes without saying that this development has to be achieved internationally to stop states crushing communist settlements. Until then, a state is needed to protect the gains made on the way to true freedom and equality.
