Anti-capitalism and anarchism

But what is anarchism really all about? And what are the similarities and differences between Marxism and anarchism?

Marxism and anarchism represent the main political currents on the far left.

Historically, every time there is a rise in mass struggle against capitalism, both Marxism and anarchism rise in influence.

Anarchism and Marxism are both against capitalism. Both are for militant action to stop it. And both stand for revolution.

But at the same time, there are important differences.

At the centre of these differences is not whether or not to change the world. At issue is how do we organize those who want to change it?

Not all anarchists are the same. And not all Marxists are the same. But in general two issues divide Marxism and anarchism: the need for revolutionary party, and the centrality of the working class.

Marxists argue for the necessity of a revolutionary organization, a mass party, as a means to ensure a successful challenge to capitalism. And the working class, a class which is the source of all profit, is seen as the central agent of revolutionary transformation.

Anarchists generally are suspicious of, or opposed to, any form of organization, within the left no less than on the right. There is a well-placed fear of bureaucracy and authoritarianism. Some anarchists — notably anarcho-syndicalists — look to radical trade unionism as a means of resistance, and are therefore closer to Marxism than other currents.

But for most anarchists, and most anarchist theorists, it is not the working class but the revolutionary individual who is the central agent of resistance and change.

Marxists understand that the main contradiction within the system is between capital and labour; for anarchists the line is drawn between the people and authority.

But anarchism today is a world view in flux.

It tends to take the form of a sort of anarcho-populism, loosely drawn to anti-authoritarian premises but in no sense hardened in its perspectives or loyalty to traditional anarchist philosophy.

Noam Chomsky, for example, is an anti-capitalist theorist with a self-identified anarchist perspective. Chomsky wrote the introduction to the 1970 original edition of a classic book that continues to be frequently cited on anarchist web sites, Anarchism: From Theory to Practice, by Daniel Guérin.

Though Chomsky is frequently identified for his sympathy for anarchism, when pressed he has hesitated to present more than a general sense of contempt for the state and a celebration for mass creativity among the population.

Organizations like the Direct Action Network, the Ruckus Society and Global Exchange, whose main spokespersons and organizers are associated with anarchist politics to varying degrees, also express this current of anarcho-populism. Here’s how an article in the SF Weekly summarized the new movement last year:

Other anti-capitalist theorists are less ideologically fixed in their perspective, but are rapidly moving left.

Maude Barlow and Tony Clark for example firmly defend the direct action advocates and call for a "new democracy movement" that draws in everyone in "civil society" from labour unions to registered charities, in a decentralized movement for local control and accountable government.

There is a tendency to celebrate the looseness of the movement. The open and broad reach has indeed been a huge feature of its success. But loose organizational structures also comes with risks.

Questions posed for the movement about strategy and tactics are compelling more and more activists to consider the case for a more structured movement of some sort.

Naomi Klein, for example, is drawn to many of the basic premises of anarchism — particularly the notion of decentralized organizing and an absence of collective ideological cohesion.

But Naomi Klein has also begun to point out the limitations of the movement, groping towards conclusions she might herself reject.

When considering the events surrounding the April, 2000 demonstrations against the IMF and World Bank in Washington, DC, she commented in The Nation on the direct action tactics. She was present when Kevin Danaher, another anti-capitalist activist and writer, announced that most of the IMF delegates had succeeded in entering the building by sneaking in before 5:00 AM.

A discussion followed about whether to try to lock them in.

It was concluded that each affinity group at every door could decide autonomously if they wanted to continue to remain at the gates, or instead to join the mass permitted demonstration and continue the protest. As Naomi Klein pointed out:

Though the anti-capitalist movement is considerably influenced by loosely defined anarchist ideas, at the same time it has cut its political baby teeth going up against the most powerful, centralized ruling class in world history.

The full armed force of the state is at the disposal of this class, and they have made it clear time and again that they intend to use it.

Regardless of the ideas in peoples’ heads, in any given anti-capitalist action that has taken place, there is a leadership that comes to the fore. And any of us on the other side of the police repression are damned happy about that.

Anarchism today is not the same as it was a year ago, or a decade ago.

The politics of the movement is compelling a level of organization, self-discipline and focus to emerge which runs counter to traditional anarchist politics.

And it is also compelling a dialogue between the ideas of anarchism and Marxism that anyone opposed to capitalism should welcome.