Marxism  and  anarchism  in  an  age  of  neoliberal  crisis     Simon  Choat   School  of  Economics,  History,  and  Politics,  Kingston  University,  Penrhyn  Road,  Kingston   upon  Thames,  Surrey  KT1  2EE     Abstract     In  the  aftermath  of  the  financial  crisis  that  began  in  2008,  various  commentators  have   suggested  that  we  are  witnessing  an  ‘anarchist  turn’:  a  revival  of  anarchist  ideas  and   strategies  exemplified  by  resistance  movements  such  as  Occupy.  In  the  light  of  this  revival,   some  have  argued  in  favour  of  a  ‘left  convergence’:  an  alliance  between  anarchism  and   Marxism  that  can  unite  the  radical  left.  Although  it  accepts  that  such  alliances  can  have   pragmatic  efficacy,  this  article  argues  that  these  calls  for  convergence  should  be  treated   with  caution.  It  challenges  claims  of  a  recent  anarchist  turn  by  claiming  that  neoliberalism   itself  has  been  the  central  beneficiary  of  a  crisis  to  which  the  left  has  failed  to  respond   effectively.  Given  this  context  of  reversal  and  even  defeat  for  the  left,  the  article  suggests   that  what  is  required  today  is  a  sober  reflection  on  the  relative  merits  of  Marxism  and   anarchism.  It  sets  out  to  establish  what  distinguishes  Marxism  from  anarchism  today  and  it   argues  that  the  former  contains  superior  resources  with  which  to  challenge  the  current   dominance  of  neoliberalism.  In  order  to  elucidate  the  strengths  of  Marxism,  it  addresses   three  common  anarchist  criticisms  of  Marxism  concerning:  its  authoritarian  strategies;  its   economic  reductionism;  and  its  lack  of  moral  or  ethical  perspective.  It  argues  that  each  of   these  criticisms  inadvertently  highlight  the  advantages  of  Marxism  over  anarchism.  The  aim   of  the  article  is  not  render  anarchism  obsolete  but  to  respond  to  claims  of  an  anarchist  turn   and  subsequent  calls  for  left  convergence  by  highlighting  the  continuing  vitality  and  strength   of  Marxism  and  raising  questions  for  those  who  advocate  an  anarchist  politics.   *   *   * 1 Introduction:  A  left  convergence?   In  the  wake  of  the  financial  crisis  that  began  in  2007,  there  have  been  a  growing  number  of   calls  for  convergence  on  the  radical  left.  In  particular,  there  have  been  appeals  for  a   rapprochement  or  alliance  between  anarchism  and  Marxism  (e.g.  Kinna  and  Prichard  2012).   These  calls  have  a  certain  logic,  given  that  both  anarchism  and  Marxism  appear  especially   well  placed  to  address  the  neoliberal  conditions  that  led  to  the  crisis.  The  consequences  of   neoliberal  globalisation  have  after  all  vindicated  some  of  the  central  arguments  of  both   ideologies:  in  The  Communist  Manifesto  Marx  and  Engels  presciently  anticipated  economic   globalisation  and  its  effects,  while  the  dispersion  of  state  sovereignty  that  it  has  produced   has  arguably  validated  claims  that  at  least  at  a  global  level  we  already  live  in  an  anarchic   world  (Bottici  2013:  25).  More  importantly,  both  anarchism  and  Marxism  have  played  high-­‐ profile  roles  in  responding  to  the  crisis:  anarchist  activists,  ideas,  and  strategies  have  been   central  to  resistance  movements  like  Occupy  (Graeber  2012,  2013),  while  Marxist  political   economy  has  proved  invaluable  in  analysing  events  over  which  mainstream  classical   economics  has  only  been  able  to  maintain  an  embarrassed  silence  (Lapavitsas  2012,  2013).     On  the  other  hand,  however,  it  can  be  argued  with  equal  plausibility  that  anarchism,   Marxism,  and  the  left  in  general  have  proved  notably  ineffective  in  responding  to  the  crisis.   Far  from  representing  a  revival,  in  Western  Europe  at  least  it  is  just  as  credible  to  claim  that   this  is  a  moment  of  historic  defeat  for  the  left.  If  this  has  been  a  neoliberal  crisis,  it  is  not   simply  because  it  was  caused  by  neoliberalism,  nor  because  for  a  brief  moment  it  seemed   that  the  theories  and  logic  of  neoliberalism  had  been  discredited  and  hence  thrown  into   crisis.  Rather,  it  is  above  all  because  neoliberal  capitalism  has  emerged  even  stronger  from   the  crisis  that  it  caused:  what  is  euphemistically  named  ‘austerity’  represents  the   2 consolidation  and  extension  of  the  same  neoliberal  policies  that  produced  the  very   problems  (of  recession,  debt,  and  unemployment)  that  it  is  purported  to  solve.   So  while  in  theory  anarchism  and  Marxism  are  well  placed  to  offer  insights  into  our   current  predicament,  in  practice  the  conditions  for  any  revival  of  the  radical  left  are  not   necessarily  propitious.  As  such,  it  is  my  argument  that  we  should  treat  with  caution  calls  for   an  alliance  between  anarchism  and  Marxism  and  instead  engage  in  sober  reflection  on  their   relative  strengths  and  weaknesses.  Anarchists  and  Marxists  find  common  cause  in   confronting  the  forms  of  exploitation  and  oppression  generated  by  contemporary   neoliberalism,  and  our  everyday  organisation  and  activism  can  only  be  strengthened  by   maintaining  and  extending  existing  alliances.  But  there  is  no  contradiction  in  calling  for   solidarity  in  practice  and  using  the  tools  of  theory  to  investigate  and  sharpen  distinctions.   Indeed,  any  attempt  to  find  ‘common  ground’  must  necessarily  involve  some  assessment  of   the  relative  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the  two  parties,  as  a  prelude  to  the  search  for  or   negotiation  of  such  common  ground.  Hence  although  I  ultimately  argue  that  Marxism  offers   superior  resources  for  challenging  neoliberalism,  this  claim  does  not  in  any  way  rule  out  a   potential  left  convergence.     Even  those  calling  for  convergence  implicitly  acknowledge  that  anarchism  and   Marxism  remain  distinct:  this  article  sets  out  to  explore  those  distinctions  in  more  detail.   Recognising  that  both  anarchism  and  Marxism  are  broad  and  varied  movements,  I   nonetheless  claim  that  it  is  both  possible  and  desirable  to  identify  important  differences   between  each.  I  will  argue  that  the  recent  crisis  and  its  aftermath  help  to  bring  into  sharper   focus  the  differences  between  anarchism  and  Marxism  –  and,  moreover,  illuminate  the   advantages  of  the  latter  over  the  former  in  terms  of  helping  us  to  understand  and  resist  the   dominance  of  neoliberalism.   3 This  argument  is  not  made  in  the  interests  of  doctrinal  purity  or  petty  political  point-­‐ scoring,  but  as  part  of  a  pragmatic  investigation  into  the  opportunities  for  resistance  under   current  conditions.  Moreover,  rather  than  initiating  a  Marxist  offensive  against  anarchism,   my  argument  here  is  to  a  great  extent  reactive  or  defensive:  it  is  made  to  counter  and   moderate  claims  that  radical  politics  over  the  past  decade  has  experienced  an  ‘anarchist   turn’  (Critchley  2013),  that  we  are  witnessing  a  ‘new  anarchism’  (Graeber  2007)  or  ‘neo-­‐ anarchism’  (Castells  2005),  or  even  that  ‘we  are  all  anarchists  now’  (Carter  and  Morland   2004).  Very  often  these  celebratory  claims  are  made  at  the  expense  of  Marxism,  as  a   resurgent  and  rejuvenated  anarchism  is  contrasted  with  an  outmoded  and  exhausted   Marxism.  What  follows,  therefore,  is  as  much  a  defence  of  Marxism  as  it  is  a  critique  of   anarchism.  While  it  is  indisputable  that  many  radical  activists  today  identify  as  anarchists,   many  do  not,  and  I  maintain  that  there  are  flaws  in  anarchist  approaches  to  politics.   In  order  to  draw  out  the  strengths  of  Marxism,  I  will  address  three  of  the  most   common  criticisms  of  Marxism  made  by  anarchists,  and  in  so  doing  attempt  to  develop  a   definition  of  Marxism  that  is  restrictive  enough  to  distinguish  it  from  anarchism  yet   capacious  enough  to  incorporate  its  many  varieties.  Those  criticisms  are  that,  first,  Marxism   favours  authoritarian  forms  of  organisation,  and  that  this  authoritarianism  is  rooted  in   theoretical  flaws.  Secondly,  that  Marxism  is  economically  reductive,  unable  in  particular  to   account  for  the  specific  threats  posed  by  the  power  of  the  state.  Thirdly  and  finally,  that   Marxism  lacks  a  moral  theory  and  hence  its  economic  critique  requires  an  ethical   supplement.  I  will  argue  that  each  of  these  criticisms  unintentionally  highlights  the   advantages  of  Marxism  over  anarchism.  In  making  my  argument  I  will  respond  to  recent   anarchist  texts,  avoiding  as  much  as  possible  the  disputes  of  the  ‘classical’  period,  such  as   those  between  Marx  and  Proudhon  or  Bakunin,  or  as  took  place  around  the  1917   4 revolution.  This  is  for  a  number  of  reasons.  First,  those  disputes  are  already  well  known   enough  and  do  not  need  to  be  rehearsed  here.1  Second,  while  those  disputes  have   enormous  historical  importance,  and  the  terms  in  which  they  were  undertaken  remain   influential,  there  is  a  danger  that  in  focusing  on  them  we  obscure  what  is  distinctive  about   and  most  relevant  to  contemporary  radical  politics,  replicating  yesterday’s  polemics  rather   than  illuminating  today’s  disagreements.  Finally,  anarchism  is  if  anything  much  broader  than   Marxism,  and  hence  any  characterisation  of  anarchism  and  its  critique  of  Marxism  will   necessarily  be  selective:  focusing  only  on  recent  anarchist  works  is  one,  relatively   uncontroversial,  way  of  narrowing  the  criteria  of  definition.  The  presentations  of  Marxism   and  anarchism  that  follow  will  of  course  be  open  to  dispute,  but  that  is  true  of  all  attempts   to  determine  any  large,  diverse,  and  living  body  of  political  thought  and  practice.     Strategy  and  organisation   The  most  common  way  to  distinguish  anarchism  from  Marxism  is  to  claim  that  while  they   share  a  mutual  aim  –  a  stateless  and  classless  society  –  they  diverge  in  their  proposed   means  to  that  end.  Anarchists  reject  the  consequentialist  claim  that  the  end  justifies  the   means  and  instead  insist  on  a  prefigurative  politics  in  which  the  means  prefigure  the  end:   because  they  look  to  a  non-­‐hierarchical  and  decentralised  future,  they  support  non-­‐ hierarchical  and  decentralised  strategies  in  the  present  (Franks  2012:  216,  220;  Shannon  et   al  2012:  32;  Schmidt  and  van  der  Walt  2009:  65).  This  difference  is  often  framed  in  terms  of   strategy,  as  in  the  recent  debate  between  the  syndicalist  anarchist  Lucien  van  der  Walt  and   the  Marxist-­‐Leninist  Paul  Blackledge,  in  which  the  issue  of  the  state  and  the  associated   questions  of  political  organisation  and  leadership  came  to  the  fore  (Blackledge  2010;  van   1  For  an  overview  of  Marx’s  relationship  to  anarchism,  see  the  classic  study  by  Thomas  2010.   5 der  Walt  2011;  Blackledge  2011).    In  practice  the  anarchist  position  entails  support  for   tactics  such  as  direct  action  and  the  rejection  of  antidemocratic  forms  of  organisation  in   favour  of  autonomous  and  polycentric  networks  of  activists  (Gordon  2008:  34-­‐40,  14-­‐17;   Graeber  2007).  Because  the  state  is  viewed  as  an  authoritarian  body,  they  reject  any   engagement  with  the  state,  from  participation  in  parliamentary  elections  to  the   revolutionary  seizure  of  the  state  apparatus.  This  is  often  formulated  as  a  rejection  of   politics  per  se:  political  parties  in  particular  are  viewed  as  elitist,  autocratic,  and  likely  to   lead  to  the  reformist  co-­‐option  of  radical  goals  (Kinna  2009:  161).   Marxism  –  especially  in  its  Leninist  forms  –  is  in  contrast  viewed  by  anarchists  as   authoritarian  in  its  promotion  of  a  vanguard  party  and  a  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat.  The   dangers  of  such  an  approach  have  for  anarchists  been  confirmed  by  the  experiences  of   Marxist  regimes  in  the  20th  century:  ‘all  Marxist  regimes  ended  as  state  capitalist   dictatorships’  (van  der  Walt  2011).  For  anarchists  this  is  not  merely  a  contingent  dispute   over  choice  of  tactics,  because  they  argue  that  the  practical  deficiencies  in  Marxism  that   they  identify  are  rooted  in  theoretical  weaknesses,  two  of  which  in  particular  are  significant.   First,  by  viewing  the  state  merely  as  the  instrument  of  the  ruling  class,  Marxism  does  not   recognise  that  the  state  is  itself  an  autonomous  source  of  power  and  so  is  always  a  threat  to   freedom,  even  if  it  is  controlled  by  the  working  class  or  their  representatives.  Second,   because  it  privileges  a  single  site  of  oppression  –  i.e.  capitalist  relations  of  production  –  it   also  privileges  a  single  agent  of  change,  namely  the  industrial  proletariat,  who  must   necessarily  be  led  by  a  vanguard  leadership  of  intellectuals  whose  task  is  to  interpret  and   analyse  that  oppression  and  who  thereby  disable  the  potential  for  bottom-­‐up  emancipation   (Newman  2010:  81-­‐86).   6 It  can  hardly  be  denied  that  some  forms  of  Marxism  have  been  violently  and   disastrously  authoritarian  in  practice.  But  this  historical  fact  does  not  indicate  a  fundamental   flaw  within  Marxism.  In  the  first  place,  and  as  some  anarchists  recognise  (Franks  2012),   Marxism  is  not  inherently  authoritarian  and  contemporary  Marxism  certainly  cannot  be   reduced  to  Leninism.2  There  is  a  diversity  of  tactics  and  organisational  forms  within  both   anarchism  and  Marxism:  neither  can  be  defined  or  condemned  according  to  their  practical   strategies.  Like  anarchists,  Marxists  such  as  John  Holloway  (2010)  and  Michael  Hardt  and   Antonio  Negri  (2006)  have  advocated  ‘networked’  and  ‘horizontal’  forms  of  organisation   that  reject  or  seek  to  limit  centralised  and  ‘vertical’  hierarchies.  The  point  here  is  not  that  all   Marxists  are  in  agreement  with  Holloway  or  Hardt  and  Negri,  nor  that  they  represent  a   more  ‘authentic’  or  compelling  form  of  Marxism  than  Leninism:  the  point  is  simply  that  the   anarchist  critique  of  Marxism’s  authoritarianism  is  called  into  question  by  the  existence  of   self-­‐identified  Marxists  who  advocate  explicitly  non-­‐authoritarian  modes  of  organisation.   Moreover,  such  figures  are  only  the  latest  in  a  long-­‐standing  line  of  libertarian  Marxists,   from  Luxemburg  via  Marcuse  and  Guérin  and  even  including  some  of  Lenin’s  work  (The   State  and  Revolution  was  anti-­‐authoritarian  enough  to  be  praised  by  Lenin’s  anarchist   contemporaries  [Birchall  2010]).  By  invoking  the  threatening  spectre  of  the  dictatorship  of   the  proletariat,  anarchists  are  not  only  reviving  debates  whose  relevance  is  doubtful  when   applied  to  our  own  political,  economic,  and  social  conditions,  they  are  also  failing  to   recognise  or  acknowledge  the  diversity  of  Marxism.   Notwithstanding  this  strategic  plurality  within  Marxism,  it  is  anyway  questionable   whether  a  particular  form  of  organisation  can  be  defined  as  intrinsically  progressive.  Given   2  Though  even  where  the  existence  of  other  traditions  in  Marxism  is  recognised  by  anarchists,  the   conclusion  is  often  that  ‘the  predominant  element’  of  Marxism  remains  nonetheless   ‘overwhelmingly  authoritarian’  (Schmidt  and  van  der  Walt  2009:  24).   7 that  both  the  US  army  and  its  enemies  such  as  al-­‐Qaeda,  for  example,  are  increasingly   adopting  polycentric,  networked  forms  (albeit  in  combination  with  traditional  vertical   hierarchies),  it  is  clear  that  such  forms  do  not  always  produce  a  radical  politics.  Ultimately,   what  really  distinguishes  emancipatory  from  reactionary  groups  are  not  their  strategies  or   organisational  arrangements  but  the  goals  that  they  pursue  (Hardt  and  Negri  2006:  54-­‐62,   93,  218).  The  risk  of  anarchism’s  preoccupation  with  prefigurative  politics  is  that  is  fetishises   tactical  purity  at  the  expense  of  political  analysis  and  aims.     Above  all,  the  anarchist  critique  of  Marxist  strategies  is  premised  on  an  overly   simplistic  understanding  of  the  relationship  between  theory  and  practice.  Anarchists  have   attempted  to  attribute  Marxism’s  supposed  antidemocratic  tactics  to  its  theoretical  claims,   but  there  can  never  be  any  straightforward  connection  between  theoretical  arguments  and   organisational  or  strategic  practices.  The  links  between  theory  and  practice  are  complex  and   subtle  and  it  is  dangerous  to  read  back  from  the  practical  failures  of  a  movement  in  order  to   criticise  a  set  of  concepts  and  theories.  To  claim,  for  example,  that  Stalinism  can  be   explained  by  mistakes  in  Marx’s  methodology,  or  even  that  the  former  throws  doubt  on  the   latter,  is  to  risk  the  idealist  and  ultimately  untenable  argument  that  political  or  economic   failures  are  produced  by  incorrect  or  adequate  theory.  Historical  events  can  never  simply   disprove  or  discredit  any  ideological  position,  because  ideas  are  always  developed  and   applied  within  a  variety  of  social  and  historical  contexts.  The  gulag  does  not  result  from   something  that  Marx  wrote,  but  from  a  complex  web  of  material  causes.  Anarchists  in   particular  should  be  especially  wary  of  attempting  to  discredit  Marxism  in  this  way,  because   practical  experiments  in  anarchism  have  so  seldom  been  successful:  if  we  are  to  judge  an   ideology  or  movement  by  its  operation  ‘in  practice’,  then  anarchism  does  not  fare  much   better  than  Marxism  (Choat  2013:  337-­‐8).  It  may  be  that  Leninist  tactics  have  not  achieved  a   8 classless  and  stateless  society,  but  so  far  neither  have  anarchist  tactics:  anarchists  may  have   cleaner  hands  than  Marxists,  but  that  is  only  because  anarchists  have  had  their  hands  on  so   little.     The  anarchist  critique  of  Marxist  organisational  forms  is  unconvincing,  then,  because   it  does  not  acknowledge  the  diversity  of  Marxist  approaches  and  it  tends  towards  a   theoreticism  that  sees  a  linear,  causal,  and  continuous  line  from  theory  to  practice.   Nonetheless,  there  are  significant  differences  of  strategy  between  anarchism  and  Marxism:   it  is  just  that  these  are  less  to  do  with  organisation  as  such,  and  are  much  more  broadly  to   do  with  differing  attitudes  toward  politics  and  the  state.  Although  some  (though  by  no   means  all)  anarchists  have  supported  formal  political  organisations,  with  rules,  membership   criteria,  and  even  internal  discipline  (Schmidt  and  van  der  Walt  2009:  247-­‐263),  they  have   traditionally  rejected  any  engagement  with  the  state  –  whether  it  be  voting,  demanding   legal  rights  or  protections,  forming  political  parties,  or  attempting  the  revolutionary  seizure   of  government  –  on  the  basis  that  such  engagement  can  only  end  up  replicating  the   oppressive  hierarchies  that  they  are  fighting:  either  it  will  lead  to  new  forms  of  dictatorship   and  bureaucracy  (such  as  developed  in  the  Soviet  Union);  or  it  will  lead  to  parliamentary   reformism  and  hence  merely  reinforce  existing  structures  and  relations  of  power.   If  Marxists  support  (qualified)  engagement  with  the  state  and  even  the  formation  of   political  parties,  however,  it  is  not  because  they  think  that  centralised  hierarchies  are   desirable  or  inevitable,  but  because  they  begin  from  a  different  understanding  of  politics.   They  argue  that  the  anarchist  abstention  from  state  politics  denies  us  the  most  effective   means  of  political  action:  we  disempower  ourselves  rather  than  the  state  when  we  refuse  to   engage  with  it.  Making  demands  on  the  state  does  not  necessarily  entail  an  endorsement  of   the  state,  any  more  than  the  demands  that  are  made  by  employees  during  a  strike  are  an   9 endorsement  of  the  employer  or  of  the  system  of  wage-­‐labour  (Marx  1988).  Anarchists   themselves  have  at  least  implicitly  recognised  the  efficacy  of  political  engagement  by   occasionally  supporting  the  policies  of  certain  governments  and  even  participating  in   elections  (Engels  1988;  Franks  2012:  216).   More  than  this,  abstention  from  state  politics  is  not  a  genuine  option:  whether  we   like  it  or  not,  we  are  all  already  involved  in  state  politics,  because  we  are  all  always  already   submitted  to  state  power,  control,  and  oppression.  Anarchists  are  concerned  that   participation  in  conventional  politics  will  lead  to  parliamentary  reformism.  But  this  concern   is  itself  ultimately  premised  on  a  tacit  acceptance  of  the  liberal-­‐parliamentary   understanding  of  politics:  to  claim  that  we  can  safely  repudiate  state  politics  simply  by   refusing  ever  to  enter  a  polling  booth  is  to  assume  that  ‘the  state’  stops  at  the  door  of   Parliament.  Marxists,  in  contrast,  have  argued  that  the  state  apparatus  includes  educational   institutions,  the  media,  churches,  the  family,  and  so  on  (e.g.  Althusser  1971):  simply  in  going   about  our  daily  lives  we  are  all  therefore  implicated  in  state  politics.  Given  our  necessary   involvement  within  politics,  the  question  is  not  whether  we  engage  with  it,  but  how  we  do   so;  even  libertarian  Marxists  like  Holloway  argue  that  engagement  with  the  state  is   inevitable  (Holloway  2005:  40).  In  contrast,  the  anarchist  recommendation  of   disengagement  from  the  state  risks  a  politics  of  withdrawal  and  isolation.   There  are  two  related  reasons  why  under  our  current  conditions  in  particular  the   Marxist  willingness  to  engage  in  state  politics  is  preferable  to  an  anarchist  position.  The  first   is  the  dominance  of  neoliberalism  today.  Given  the  strength  of  neoliberalism  since  the  crisis   that  it  created,  there  is  a  strong  case  for  a  certain  pragmatism  in  our  response.  A  danger  of   the  prefigurative  politics  favoured  by  anarchists  is  that  it  dogmatically  dictates  an  a  priori   exclusion  of  certain  forms  of  political  action.  For  Marxists,  on  the  other  hand,  political   10