Right, hierarchies are a necessary tool for managing complex systems. Hence why they continue to show up both in nature and human organizations. They’re not some inherent evil as anarchists see them, but merely a tool for creating abstractions and partitioning work. At this point, I’m convinced that anarchism has been sanctioned and promoted as a legitimate form of dissent within the western system precisely because of its opposition to hierarchies. It ensures that anarchist movements never actually grow and become a real threat to centralized state power.
I think it’s a bit of that, but also more nuanced. Gramsci points out that anarchism does not necessarily have a solid class basis, though it’s common among classes like the petite bourgeoisie, it also attracts proletarians and other classes opposed to the present bourgeois state. After socialist revolution, proletarian anarchists overwhelmingly side with the socialists, as the new proletarian state no longer oppresses them, while petite bourgeois, bourgeois, etc. anarchists continue to oppose the new socialist state.
Anarchism is, essentially, loosely linked by the desire for class freedom against an oppressive class state, not by a proletarian world outlook like Marxism-Leninism. The Russian revolution largely mapped out how Gramsci described, with “Red anarchists” joining the soviets, leaving the remainder to be seen as the new totality of anarchists that occasionally fought the soviets. This form of historiography hides the actual left unity that happened, the working together of the majority of anarchists with the Marxists, and pit them as bitter enemies when class interests brought the majority of anarchists together with the Marxists.
I’d argue that people end up gravitating towards anarchism because they desire personal agency, and I would also argue because western society conditions people to become atomized and see things from individualistic perspective. So these small organizations and flat structures become appealing from that perspective. There’s also an aspect of defeatism to it as well where people can’t really see the system being challenged and they start focusing on carving out something for themselves within it, like making a commune. It’s not about broader liberation, it’s just a way to solve a personal problem.
And this explains the phenomenon of anarchists adapting to a socialist state once others do the heavy lifting of creating it. The new social conditions are more conductive towards making communes and other types of organizations anarchists desire. So, in a way the hostility anarchists have towards Marxism-Leninism is itself strange. If they’re willing to live under a capitalist system and try to carve out spaces for themselves within it, then doing so under a socialist system would surely be easier.
I do think that if there was a serious ML movement in the west, a lot of anarchists would in the end align with it as they have in the past. Part of the problem is that it’s all largely theoretical right now with the conditions being what they are.
Yep, I largely agree with this assessment, with the caveat that these days many anarchists do actually side with MLs, preferring to push for anarchism under socialism than under capitalism.
Right, hierarchies are a necessary tool for managing complex systems. Hence why they continue to show up both in nature and human organizations. They’re not some inherent evil as anarchists see them, but merely a tool for creating abstractions and partitioning work. At this point, I’m convinced that anarchism has been sanctioned and promoted as a legitimate form of dissent within the western system precisely because of its opposition to hierarchies. It ensures that anarchist movements never actually grow and become a real threat to centralized state power.
I think it’s a bit of that, but also more nuanced. Gramsci points out that anarchism does not necessarily have a solid class basis, though it’s common among classes like the petite bourgeoisie, it also attracts proletarians and other classes opposed to the present bourgeois state. After socialist revolution, proletarian anarchists overwhelmingly side with the socialists, as the new proletarian state no longer oppresses them, while petite bourgeois, bourgeois, etc. anarchists continue to oppose the new socialist state.
Anarchism is, essentially, loosely linked by the desire for class freedom against an oppressive class state, not by a proletarian world outlook like Marxism-Leninism. The Russian revolution largely mapped out how Gramsci described, with “Red anarchists” joining the soviets, leaving the remainder to be seen as the new totality of anarchists that occasionally fought the soviets. This form of historiography hides the actual left unity that happened, the working together of the majority of anarchists with the Marxists, and pit them as bitter enemies when class interests brought the majority of anarchists together with the Marxists.
I’d argue that people end up gravitating towards anarchism because they desire personal agency, and I would also argue because western society conditions people to become atomized and see things from individualistic perspective. So these small organizations and flat structures become appealing from that perspective. There’s also an aspect of defeatism to it as well where people can’t really see the system being challenged and they start focusing on carving out something for themselves within it, like making a commune. It’s not about broader liberation, it’s just a way to solve a personal problem.
And this explains the phenomenon of anarchists adapting to a socialist state once others do the heavy lifting of creating it. The new social conditions are more conductive towards making communes and other types of organizations anarchists desire. So, in a way the hostility anarchists have towards Marxism-Leninism is itself strange. If they’re willing to live under a capitalist system and try to carve out spaces for themselves within it, then doing so under a socialist system would surely be easier.
I do think that if there was a serious ML movement in the west, a lot of anarchists would in the end align with it as they have in the past. Part of the problem is that it’s all largely theoretical right now with the conditions being what they are.
Yep, I largely agree with this assessment, with the caveat that these days many anarchists do actually side with MLs, preferring to push for anarchism under socialism than under capitalism.
Haha, I just updated the comment right after you replied to note that. I very much agree with you.
Haha, fair! Agreed!
That’s fascinating and insightful, thanks for sharing
No problem!