Submitted by darkecology in Philosophy (edited )

I'm hoping to get some reading suggestions here.

For many years now I've been a Marxist. In some senses, I still consider myself one, though I should add I've always had sympathy for anarchism and my position therefore holds closest to the autonomist, left communist and insurrectionary traditions. I broadly agree that the state needs to be abolished as part of the process of revolutionary transformation, and I agree with the Anarchist and left-communists who argue that the changes has to start here, now, and that it can't simply be achieved overnight.

One problem I've had is that, as an academic attempting to understand the world, Marxism provides me with a hugely sophisticated and supple way of doing that. I have access to over a century of incredibly powerful analyses, frameworks, etc. from the Frankfurt School to Open Marxism etc. I can draw on concepts of alienation, reification, overdetermination, ideological state apparatuses, abstract and real subsumption, etc. in order to try and understand how really important political forces operate today.

I've been profoundly affected by reading work by Tiqqun, The Invisible Committee, and a few others in tandem with work by the rather unorthdox Marxists over at Endnotes. And as someone who's fascinated by Deleuze and Guattari and Foucault, the work of Saul Newman and Todd May on a post-structuralist influenced approach to Anarchism is also fascinating. And I agree with much of what they say - and I love the way they use Deleuze and Guattari and Foucault to bolster a contemporary understanding of capitalism, the state, and power.

Are there any serious academic anarchist (I know that sounds a little oxymoronic!) critiques of Marxism? Frankly I've never been convinced by the basic ones we hear all the time, and I always find it a shame when I come across one of those in Tiqqun's works (at one point they criticise Marxists for failing to appreciate how far capital's effects would reach which is... funny), so I'm really looking for the absolute best there is to offer. Kropotkin etc. is pretty unconvincing and quite basic. Any suggestions?

8

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Ennui wrote

Hello. You don’t seem to be the typical Dragunov waving Leninist and so it’s kind of hard to pin down your beliefs. It might help if you specify aspects of Marxism that you believe in and want critiqued, since it’s not impossible to be both a Marxist and an anarchist. You might already understand the role of the state and even be opposed to it, for all I know. If you wanted a critique of history according to Marxists I could help you out. Same with if you wanted a critique of Marxists’ conception of the role of force.

To be honest, I haven’t read a significant amount of critical theory, so do you want critiques of that huge body of critical theorists who are also Marxists, or do you want to focus on Marx and Engels?

4

darkecology OP wrote (edited )

I'd like to think I'm not. You only have to read State and Revolution where Lenin describes socialist society as being a universal office and factory floor in order to see where that one leads!

I know it's kind of predictable for an academic to be interested in this 'high theory', but it's also the thing I'm good at, and I'm trying to use it towards ends which can lead us to a better society. I'd like to think I can play my part in my own way. I'm trying to stay anonymous here ofc, but I use my academic training to provide educational materials in various formats on the internet to interested radical leftists in order to help us as a movement to develop a better understanding of the challenges we face and the best ways of confronting them. So I try and avoid the 'ivory tower' problem.

You might already understand the role of the state and even be opposed to it, for all I know.

Of course. One of my problems with the Gramscian left is that all they can talk about is how to address demands for recognition and equality to the capitalist state, never how they would actually abolish the capitalist state. I don't want 'recognition', I want to burn the damn thing to the ground.

I suppose I'm interested in anything which is informed by a serious understanding of Marxism and critical theory (though the latter isn't strictly Marxists-only; Foucault, Derrida etc. weren't Marxists; I see too many lazy dismissals of 'postmodernists') which attempts to show where Marxism goes wrong and where Anarchism provides better answers to problems which affect all of us on the radical left right now.

4

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

What specifically are you not convinced by? There's a lot that's unclear to me in what you've said.

I agree with the Anarchist and left-communists who argue that the changes has to start here, now

Prefiguration is the primary difference between Marxism and anarchism - so your position is anarchic.

4

darkecology OP wrote

I'm unconvinced by the classical anarchist tradition's reliance on outdated enlightenment concepts and ideals. Notions of 'human nature', a simplistic and one-dimensional understanding of power emanating downwards from the state, a lack of rigorous historical methodology, a lack of attunement to cultural phenomena, these sorts of issues.

It's why I've found so much to love in the work of Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee, as well as in the more academic work of Saul Newman, Lewis Call and Todd May. These people definitely get it.

So I suppose now that I think about it: Are there any good post-anarchist (i.e. post-structuralist anarchism) critiques of Marxism?

3

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote (edited )

You don't need an anarchist to do it though. Contemporary 'Marxists' like Deleuze and Guattari have dismantled Marxism from the metaphysics up, in every way making the theory more anarchistic.

You seem a little familiar with postanarchism. Its enactment is a critique of Marxism. Do you need there to be a text speaking directly to the issue? Marxism is not an interesting subject for anarchists, in my experience. We've been laughing at Hegel-derived dialectical materialism and philosophy of lack, 'progress' and the teleological view of history, the vanguard and the electoral approach from day one. Insofar as Marxism is a unit rooted in those metaphysics and the concomitant political formations, postanarchists have done away with all of it already. But it's been done away with in anarchism since anarchism was influenced by Stirner and Nietzsche.
Postanarchism went in a circle. It built a straw man of 'enlightenment anarchism' that it pretended to critique with postructuralism, but there had always been a pure anti-authoritarian value system underlying anarchism, sitting at the margins of (capital-A) Anarchism, that rejected enlightenment values. Even in anarchists like Proudhon, I'm told. Nobody really does postanarchism now because postanarchists realised it was just anarchism all along.

Maybe have a look around in Deleuze and Anarchism.

7

darkecology OP wrote

Thanks for the reply. I'm 100% going to be diving into Deleuze and Anarchism, it's a topic I've been exploring a lot recently! Thanks for the perspective as well. It's an interesting history to be sure. One essay I read suggested that Anarchism has been in a continuous process of improving its approach through these sorts of engagements - Nietzsche, Stirner, Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari - such that post-anarchism is less a distinct political current as much as it's a slightly more 'theoretical' element already contained within anarchism. That it's basically the 'wing' of anarchism which performs this role of updating and modifying theory in line with new conditions.

I suppose it's hard to tell though, sometimes. I spend a bit of time on /r/anarchism and it would be nice if these sorts of thinkers and ideas were discussed as often as the bread book. One of the strengths of Marxism is the unity of theory and praxis - I've long held the opinion that Anarchism has been quite 'lopsided' towards praxis, but that's why I'm finding it so fascinating to investigate this material.

5

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

I think that the bread book is more popular than this stuff for the same reason that Marxism is more popular than anarchism. It requires less of you, it is easier. Pure anti-authoritarianism requires that most people completely reconstitute themselves.

I don't think that anarchism lopsided towards praxis, but also I shit on Marxist-informed forms of anarchism almost as much as I do Marxism, which in my experience is basically harmful garbage.

6

darkecology OP wrote (edited )

I've just started reading Daniel Colson's A Little Philosophical Lexicon of Anarchism: From Proudhon to Deleuze and I'm loving it so far. I'm open to May and Newman going about 'joining up post-structuralism and anarchism' in the wrong way, but I'm absolutely convinced that it's necessary and important to do so.

I think that the bread book is more popular than this stuff for the same reason that Marxism is more popular than anarchism. It requires less of you, it is easier. Pure anti-authoritarianism requires that most people completely reconstitute themselves.

I'm not sure if I entirely agree with this, but I'm interested in what you're saying. You're clearly a frequent contributor in this sub so I'd be interested to hear more about this. On the one hand, it seems quite clear to me that a thorough grasp of Marxist theory is much more difficult than a thorough grasp of Anarchist theory; but are you saying that it's nevertheless easier in the sense that the Marxist can remain at the level of theory, whereas the Anarchist has to reassess their entire subjectivity/orientation towards the world? Even then I'm not so sure, insofar as it's a core tenet of Marxism that theory and praxis have to mutually mould each other.

I don't think that anarchism lopsided towards praxis, but also I shit on Marxist-informed forms of anarchism almost as much as I do Marxism, which in my experience is basically harmful garbage.

I find this a little odd. Even in the basic case of political economy, what other approach do we have to understanding it other than Marx which isn't simply liberal nonsense? I suppose we can turn to Deleuze and Guattari, but even they draw their political economy largely from Marx but passed back through Nietzsche and Freud.

3