Can the state be abolished overnight? Or does it require a transition? Since the 19th century, this has been the lynchpin of the debate between anarchists and Marxists.
In 1906, Stalin wrote a series of articles under the title Anarchism or Socialism? In them, he defines one of the key differences between anarchism and Marxism as follows: “According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: ‘Everything for the individual.’” On the other hand, “according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: ‘Everything for the masses.’” Twelve years later, Lenin wrote in The Soviets at Work: “It is especially clear to us now how correct is the Marxian proposition that Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism [anarchist trade unionism] are bourgeois tendencies, irreconcilable with Socialism, with a proletarian dictatorship and with Communism.”
Historically, it has been during the most revolutionary periods that anarchism’s individualist and anti-communist nature has been the most dangerous to the socialist movement. For example, during the period in the 1870s which saw bourgeois revolutionary uprisings against feudal monarchies across Europe, Engels wrote scathing critiques of the anarchism of Proudhon and Bakunin, whose idealist conceptions of philosophy and economics would end up having devastating consequences when applied in practice.
In On Authority in 1872, Engels writes: “Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?”
In this passage, all the fundamental inconsistencies in anarchist thought come to the fore. Firstly, Marxists have studied the emergence of the state historically, recognising that the economic conditions of class society (primarily, private ownership of the means of production) emerged first. It is not the state which creates classes, but classes which create the state. The state therefore cannot disappear until the economic basis which gave rise to it is dismantled, meaning the full socialisation of the means of production.
Secondly, as a tool of class dictatorship, the capitalist class will always seek to use the capitalist state to assert its control over the workers, both by defending capitalism when it comes under attack and by attempting to rebuild capitalism once it has been overthrown. The lesson of the Paris Commune and all previous failed revolutions has been that, to adequately defend against reaction, the capitalist state must not be seized, but must be utterly destroyed and replaced by a body of organised violence which acts on behalf of the working class: the dictatorship of the proletariat.
As private property becomes fully socialised in the higher stage of socialism and socialist consciousness among the people reaches a high enough level, there will then be no need for a state monopoly on violence, as breaks in socialist discipline learn to be managed by the masses themselves, as more and more of the state’s responsibilities become outsourced to society as a whole, and as the state is reduced to a mere administrative body for the allocation of resources. In the words of Marx and Engels, the dictatorship of the proletariat is therefore not a true state, because it represents the interests of the vast majority of the people for the first time, but is instead a reflection of the state “withering away”.
There are two main tendencies in anarchism today: anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-communism argues that communism must be established in the single stroke of a revolution. By this understanding, it is impossible for the state to wither away, regardless of which class achieves dictatorship over the other. It is the dictatorship which is the problem, and all revolutions which do not seek to abolish the state immediately should be opposed.
In The Bakunists at Work, Engels exposed the devastating consequences of applying this anarchist theory in practice through an analysis of the role of the Bakunist anarchists in the failed Cantonal rebellion in Spain. In 1873, the first Spanish Republic was declared and the monarchy deposed, leading to the progressive national government of Francesc Pi i Margall. Influenced by the ideas of Proudhon himself, his was the best possible government under which to prepare for a full socialist revolution at a time when capitalism was still underdeveloped and the proletarian movement was still too weak and fractured, but the Bakunists and their allies opposed Pi and the new government, claiming that “no part should be taken in a revolution that did not have as its aim the immediate and complete emancipation of the working class, that political action of any kind implied recognition of the State, which was the root of all evil, and that therefore participation in any form of elections was a crime worthy of death.” This uncompromising hostility weakened the republican camp and paved the way for the establishment of a military dictatorship in Spain in 1874, followed by the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy and many decades of repression against the left.
Anarcho-syndicalism follows similar ideas, but believes in the ultimate power of the trade unions to rise against and replace the existing social order. Whereas Marxists understand that the political and economic struggles, although closely linked, require different tactics and different organisations, the anarcho-syndicalists argue that the economic is political, and that the development of individual trade unions will result in a federal structure of different unions on a militant and revolutionary basis which can eventually take government, represented by contemporary organisations like the International Workers of the World (IWW).
This idea has also been tried and failed, most notably during the Spanish Civil War when anarcho-syndicalism was the dominant tendency among the resistance fighters to Franco’s fascism. This culminated in individual communities, each with their own militias, engaging in sporadic strikes and uprisings with little coordination between them. Compared with the centralised discipline of the bourgeoisie, the decentralised popular forces were weak and fragmented, and were soon overwhelmed, resulting in the re-establishment of the capitalist republic, rather than the progression to socialism and a dictatorship of the proletariat. Democratic centralism is the only method of organisation which can defeat the bourgeoisie, and stubborn opposition to hierarchy can have devastating effects.
Although many people do not consider themselves anarchists, anarchist ideas against “authoritarianism”, centralised and disciplined organisational structures, and working-class political parties continue to persist. This includes trade unionists who sniff at political work, or promote militant opposition against all political parties equally, regardless of which class they represent. This also includes environmental activists who engage in divisive and individualist acts of terrorism and property damage in the belief that, in leading by example and martyrdom, they can spur the masses into rebellion. Known as propaganda of the deed, this anarchist tactic fails on multiple counts. Firstly, it confuses the performance of power for actual power. Secondly, opposition to these tactics turns the working class against the organised militancy necessary to achieve socialist revolution. Thirdly, even if workers support these tactics, it outsources militancy to small groups of paramilitaries that can be easily snuffed out by the capitalists. It is not the role of communists to wage revolution on behalf of the working class, but to organise the working class to wage revolution themselves.
Often, these tendencies are a reaction to frustration with the reformist and bureaucratic electoral or trade unionist politics which currently dominate the socialist movement, but a revolution cannot be accelerated by practising it from above. It must be built from the ground up, brick by brick. That said, reformism is equally damaging to the revolutionary movement and must be resisted, and Lenin mocked those reformists who sneeringly derided all revolutionary and illegal activity as anarchist “ultra-leftism”. Like him, we must therefore learn to walk the middle road, by going among the masses and helping them to slowly escalate in militancy at a pace they are prepared for, without losing sight of an end goal that can only be achieved through revolutionary action.
Further Reading
On Authority, F. Engels
The Bakunists at Work, F. Engels
Revolutionary Adventurism, V. Lenin
The Soviets at Work, V. Lenin
The Poverty of Philosophy, K. Marx
Anarchism or Socialism?, J. Stalin
Discussion Questions
- What examples of anarchist tactics or organisations can you think of today? Why do they not succeed?
- Opposing anarchism does not mean opposing law-breaking or violence wholesale. In what circumstances are these tactics necessary?
- In what ways is anarchism individualist/divisive? What problems does this cause?
- Why is a political party of the working class necessary? Why are some workers hostile to political parties as a rule and how do we demonstrate that the Communist Party is different?
- How should we engage with anarchists in the trade union movement and other places?
- Why is a dictatorship of the proletariat necessary?
