@@ChristoffelTensors I dunno. That seems... See, I think it's more that they just haven't learned enough YET. It's overwhelmingly people who are very new And from there, they get a case of what I call "smartest kid in the room syndrome". So.. they've discovered capitalism is the problem. And so they shout it from the rooftops (which is like... Twitter and youtube comments). And they get a lot of people who know literally nothing about it who disagree with them. And they KNOW they're right on this (and they are). So when we come along and say "that's good, but you don't know everything yet - here is someone who taught you that fact, but he seems to be dishonest about something else; here is the source for how" their immediate reaction is to treat us like one of the original people who knew nothing about it. That's why I try to always provide the place I get the info from. (Like William Z Foster's "history of the three Internationals" - of which there is a free pdf online, everyone)
@@khrachvikkhrachvik7049 I think you're still being unreasonably dismissive towards anarchists/libertarian socialists. There are plenty of anarchists who have nuanced understandings of power and capitalism and their anti-authoritarian thinking is not just a byproduct of a 'lack of theory'. I think it's more the case that authoritarian or statist marxists see centralism as the only option for worker emancipation and so they dismiss libertarians out of hand. Framed in that way, it's sometimes hard to discern whether authoritarian and libertarian socialists are striving toward similar ends at all, despite the similar rhetoric.
Dude! The Wobblies were HUGE before the First World War, and the Anarcho-Syndicalist sensibility was massively influential in American folk culture way back when. Joe Hill . . . One Big Union . . . Bill Haywood . . . that stuff's as American as apple pie!
It got pushed aside in America, starting from the First Red Scare (1917--1920), in the early Cold War era after WWII by McCarthy's Second Red Scare (1945--1950s) and finally in the post-Stagflation Thatcherite-Reaganite neoliberal era (1979--¿present?).
A Nation's future should never hinge on the proclivities of any single person. Voters on both sides are exactly the same. Both turn into triggered name calling fascists whenever someone challenges their beliefs and both accuse anyone who doesn't parrot their assigned talking points of supporting the other party. Thus the supporters of both parties have hijacked and sold out the rest of humanity for the sake of their own egos and lack of imagination. And this is how they've controlled us from the dawn of the 20th century, where they pit us against each other, seed the debate with misinformation, a little populism, some catchy epithets, and go about their plunder completely unopposed. All representatives will always be subject to influence from monetary interests, blackmail, or assassination. The solution is a velvet revolution to install a Scaled Direct Democracy without representatives and politicians. Citizen initiated referendums with thresholds and a social contract using Blockchain technology and open public forums for sourced, evidence based debate means communities can vote for their own policies without politicians. *Thorium energy renders their global oil monopoly obsolete* *#VelvetRevolution* *#ScaledDirectDemocracy* *ThoriumEnergy* Thorium energy can process both nuclear and toxic waste as well as perform salt water desalination, carbon sequestration, and synthetic fuel production/ electricity for road/rail transport energyfromthorium.com/ "The thorium molten salt power plant can produce clean energy cheaper than coal, which could be reliable energy system toward a low-carbon economy," PAL said. www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-nuclearpower-idUSKCN1UD0D0 If the profits from American labour were shared equally, as they are with Corporate Shareholders, every household would receive $700k a year. If we got even a fraction of that amount we would have more than enough to fund education, healthcare and infrastructure for everybody. 52% of all Greenhouse gases come from methane produced by Beef farming, which is 90% subsidised. Ending Beef Communism and embracing Hemp as a moonshot technology alongside Kelp farming for use in packaging, construction, and manufacturing provides an alternative means for land rehabilitation, food production, and industrial oils, as well as medicines, insulation, and clothing. It would also be conducive for there to be an independent public authority drawing from volunteers to act as advocates for the public interest, with the authority to both observe police and govt interactions with the public, and prosecute bad actors in our own courts. This would ensure law enforcement and government agencies are held to a high standard of etiquette and ethical behaviour for everyone, regardless of their creed, color, or economic bracket. www.au.org/church-state/september-2008-church-state/people-events/american-jews-don-t-support-christian-zionism www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-poll-shows-support-for-israel-plummeting-among-u-s-liberals-millennials-and-women-1.6594182 ffwd.medium.com/all-of-youtube-not-just-the-algorithm-is-a-far-right-propaganda-machine-29b07b12430 www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/israel-news/1813262/frightening-report-6-out-of-7-immigrants-to-israel-are-not-jewish.html
William Z Foster, the great American communist, came out of the wobblies. I'm ML, there's a lot I love and appreciate about the IWW. I started leftism as an anarcho syndicalist. However, I think the split over the party issue was inevitable, and I don't think we can go back to the tactics of the IWW without effectively making them part of a communist party that engages in multi front struggle.
What should always be mentioned in discussions like this is the reason why anarchists reject the state. It is because the state will never 'wither away' the way Engels and Lenin described it. The state is always based on hierarchy and coercion (otherwise it wouldn't be a state). The people at the top of the hierarchy have a strong incentive to preserve the state, along with the power to do so. This, of course, is exactly what we observe in history: The state in the soviet union was at its weakest in 1917 and quickly became more powerful, more bureaucratic and more repressive in the years after. This development culminated under Stalin, but was well under way right from the start with the institution of the cheka, suppression of the Ukrainian anarchists and the Kronstadt rebellion, etc. You will also be hard pressed to find an example of the state withering away to a significant extent in any of the other so-called communist countries. Typically, the grip of the state is gradually tightened as soon as the leaders reckon they can do so without risking an insurrection.
@Matias Martinez Well, there's a lot about Chomsky that doesn't come out in the mainstream. He's part of what we call the "synthetic left", having gotten his start at "Partisan Review Magazine", which was wholly organized, funded, and distributed by the CIA with their "Congress for Cultural Freedom" program. He's been sort of the 'safe' radical for liberals to like since then, maintaining close friendships with the CIA, who fund his dept. at MIT. He's told blatant lies about existing socialism, playing on the trust he'd built with people on other subjects to have them believe him. (That's kind of the schtick, for lack of a better word.)
@Matias Martinez If you wanted that stuff, you should have asked for it. There's a great book that describes the beginning of the program "Congress for Cultural Freedom" (the program the CIA funded and distributed Chomsky with at first) by Joel Whitney, called "Finks". There's a more in-depth book coming out soon (since a lot of the proof has been only thanks to recently declassified CIA documents and freedom of information act demands) called "Synthetic left". So I'd keep my eyes peeled for that. You can look up proof for yourself. It's very widely known in communist circles that Chomsky is a CIA man, and offers only a "safe" non-threatening complaint about capital and the worst excesses of imperialism that, instead of actually threatening capitalism, serves to draw people into support of its upper echelons. I know this can seem weird at first glance, but that's what happens. Finance capital, etc., are very okay with the same liberalism Chomsky himself says he embodies. Michael Parenti has written some good articles on it as well. I would suggest looking this stuff up yourself, now that you've got some direction. Directly? He has massively lied and mischaracterized existing socialism over his entire career. I could have pointed this out, so sorry about that. I usually take it as a given that people are aware of it, and I shouldn't. This is the sort of trade off the synthetic left always does. The utopian ideas in their heads are good, everything in the real world is bad, so you here in the USA, you should try to support the less bad according to them, which just so happens to be monstrous imperialists.
@@khrachvikkhrachvik7049 man i really hate your type of 'leftists'. you guys go full-blown conspiracy theorists when anything is antagonistic to you guy's world view. i heard some guys argued black markets in the soviet union (which very well happened because the lack of consumer goods) is 'CIA action'. Hungary uprising? It is fascists. Instead of embracing the failures of your shitty economic systems that did not give much to the people especially with regards to political power, you guys revision the history. I actually can not believe Stalinist propaganda can live up to 21st century. You guys lack the instinct of freedom and in the name of 'international proleteriat' you forgot what was the objective. Chomsky criticized many times what cia did both with coups and COINTELPRO.
That’s ignoring the possible harm of both Reaction and Reformism that can be even more counterproductive than nothing. See Great Britain, the first to fully meet modern Class Struggle, the first eager to reform, then they captured the middle class to their side and to this day one of the most socially retrograde countries. Tzarist Russia? Those people didn’t give an inch, see what happened. Europe with its Social Democracy is the perfect example of how “moving forward” can actually hurt the cause as a whole. Secondly, it isn’t hard to believe that without an USSR, there wouldn’t be such a rise in Fascism or such a scar as the one left by the Cold War on consciousness of most people. Reform might be morally good for the immediate sake of people, but if turning the page is the goal, there’s no space for half-measures or concessions.
.·´¯·.´¯·.¸¸.·´¯·.¸·.´¯·.¸¸.·´¯·.¸> well, lets get right to the REVOLUTION "The three countries, out of 133, that are worse off [in terms of social progress are]: Hungary, Brazil and the United States of America... The United States ranked 19th in 2011. And in 2020 it ranks 28th... The United States ranks #1 in the quality of its universities but it ranks #91 in the access to quality basic education... The US leads the world in medical technology, yet we are #97 in access to quality health care... Americans have health statistics similar to those in the following three countries: Chile, Jordan, and Albania, while kids in the United States get an education roughly on par with what children get in Uzbekistan and Mongolia..." - Richard Wolff SEPTEMBER 21, 2020 The most memorable pages in Das Kapital are the descriptive passages, culled from Parliamentary Blue Books, on the misery of the English working class. Marx believed that this misery would increase, while at the same time the monopoly of capital would become a fetter upon production until finally “the knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.” hint hint, two class system, neoliberal (capitalist) KILLED the middle class In Marxist philosophy, the bourgeoisie is the social class that came to own the means of production during modern industrialization and whose societal concerns are the value of property and the preservation of capital to ensure the perpetuation of their economic supremacy in society. CAPITALISM IS NOT DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM IS NOT FOR LABOR ARE YOU THE EMPLOYER OR THE EMPLOYEE ARE YOU THE BOURGEOISIE OR LABOR ARE YOU THE LORD OR A SERF ARE YOU THE MASTER OR A SLAVE ARE YOU THE RICH OR POOR WHO MAKES THE RULES ? the masters WHO LIVES THE RESULTS? the slaves Can you quit your job ? retire ? No, then you are labor, make that a slave. LOL Can you retire ? What is wrong ? well punk, are you a slave ? That's right the Capital brings the relationship of power, class division if you understand it as so. Capital is not only that described by prof. Wolff but also political power that is needed to maintain it, the superstructure. So for example, in 2008 the Gov. could have instead of giving the billions bailout "almost free money" to the financial system, actually financed(bought) part of the debt of the people who bought the houses or whatever. Even if the price was too high, the effect would be exactly the same(maybe better for the bubble) for the economy except that the power would go to save the people and no the rich capitalists who made a lot on the financial system. The money would come exactly from the same place, but without people have lose their homes, etc. Unfortunately, that relative power. Capital is power,as much any previous class system we had. The only difference is that the previous systems used a form of violent dominance over the lower class, while Capitalists uses their Capital and power to create their ideology, including that fake story that says everyone can be rich is just a matter of hard working or good entrepreneurship. got your rice and beans ? 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
A Nation's future should never hinge on the proclivities of any single person. Voters on both sides are exactly the same. Both turn into triggered name calling fascists whenever someone challenges their beliefs and both accuse anyone who doesn't parrot their assigned talking points of supporting the other party. Thus the supporters of both parties have hijacked and sold out the rest of humanity for the sake of their own egos and lack of imagination. And this is how they've controlled us from the dawn of the 20th century, where they pit us against each other, seed the debate with misinformation, a little populism, some catchy epithets, and go about their plunder completely unopposed. All representatives will always be subject to influence from monetary interests, blackmail, or assassination. The solution is a velvet revolution to install a Scaled Direct Democracy without representatives and politicians. Citizen initiated referendums with thresholds and a social contract using Blockchain technology and open public forums for sourced, evidence based debate means communities can vote for their own policies without politicians. *Thorium energy renders their global oil monopoly obsolete* *#VelvetRevolution* *#ScaledDirectDemocracy* *ThoriumEnergy* Thorium energy can process both nuclear and toxic waste as well as perform salt water desalination, carbon sequestration, and synthetic fuel production/ electricity for road/rail transport energyfromthorium.com/ "The thorium molten salt power plant can produce clean energy cheaper than coal, which could be reliable energy system toward a low-carbon economy," PAL said. www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-nuclearpower-idUSKCN1UD0D0 If the profits from American labour were shared equally, as they are with Corporate Shareholders, every household would receive $700k a year. If we got even a fraction of that amount we would have more than enough to fund education, healthcare and infrastructure for everybody. 52% of all Greenhouse gases come from methane produced by Beef farming, which is 90% subsidised. Ending Beef Communism and embracing Hemp as a moonshot technology alongside Kelp farming for use in packaging, construction, and manufacturing provides an alternative means for land rehabilitation, food production, and industrial oils, as well as medicines, insulation, and clothing. It would also be conducive for there to be an independent public authority drawing from volunteers to act as advocates for the public interest, with the authority to both observe police and govt interactions with the public, and prosecute bad actors in our own courts. This would ensure law enforcement and government agencies are held to a high standard of etiquette and ethical behaviour for everyone, regardless of their creed, color, or economic bracket. www.au.org/church-state/september-2008-church-state/people-events/american-jews-don-t-support-christian-zionism www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-poll-shows-support-for-israel-plummeting-among-u-s-liberals-millennials-and-women-1.6594182 ffwd.medium.com/all-of-youtube-not-just-the-algorithm-is-a-far-right-propaganda-machine-29b07b12430 www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/israel-news/1813262/frightening-report-6-out-of-7-immigrants-to-israel-are-not-jewish.html
I appreciate the fair comparison here. I haven't been happy with Richard's characterisation of Anarchism in the past, but it seems that he's being much fairer here! One issue I have though is the idea that Anarchism just kind of disappeared. Anarchists were the most persecuted in the First Red Scare, and after the first world war the Wobblies still stayed relevant and powerful. They were dealt a second blow in the Second Red Scare however. Few people know this but while Communists were being sent to prison, many Anarchists were being executed in a more extrajudicial fashion - often in the streets by way of police brutality. We should also remember the successes of the Spanish Revolution at the beginning of The Civil War and that it was crushed by both Fascists and Marxist-Leninists. However short the experiment, it showed us that a mostly bloodless and sudden takeover was possible, and that the state did not need to be an intermediary. Militias still existed, they put up a good fight, but in the end they weren't as well armed, well funded, and were betrayed. In the 21st century though, we've seen a huge resurgence in Argentina and the US with Occupy Wall Street. There is an argument to be made that Occupy is an Anarchist movement because it is leaderless, grassroots, and anti-capitalist. There is also interest popping up all around Europe and praxis is being exercised in Greece, Spain, France, and a few other countries. I hope it lasts and I hope that the Anarchists are succesful and right because Marxists would prefer the state to disappear overnight but see it as a necessary evil in the transitionary stage. At the end of the day, we all want the same thing and agree on many parts of the methodology. I'm happy to see Marxists engaging more in direct action in the last decade too, something that Anarchists never stopped doing particularly in Athens.
Please read about a society that is functioning similar to Anarchism ideas ( Marxism as well) . The society has no state, no police, democratic as Professor Wolf Co-ops with gender equality and Centeral decision making that are responsible and accountable and can be recalled by Co-ops that elected them . 50% gender representation division. The place is called Rojava in Western Kurdistan. It is functional right now. Please google it and let me know of your thoughts
Yeah, Marx and Bakunin had what they both essentially described as a friendly rivalry of sorts and they agreed on far more than they disagreed, they just disagreed vehemently on the things they disagreed on. I think it was Marx who said his debates with Bakunin were "the highlight of my day" which he thoroughly enjoyed. They both looked at the Paris Commune as their ideas put into practice 😂 Marx thought it was possible to use the state to bring about and maintain a socialist transition, anarchists (mostly) do not and feel that the social revolution must abolish both the state and capitalism. There's no evidence that states can be anything more than top-down oppressive institutions and Marx wasn't as married to the idea as Leninists would later be. He stated on multiple occasions that he saw other possible means of achieving this that didn't include the state or included interacting with the state in very different ways. Bakunin and other anarchists made clear too that they agreed with Marx on essentially everything aside from the role of the state and a few other particulars of less importance. A lot of what Marxists believe of anarchism and anarchists believe of Marxism are the results of petty sectarianism and struggles for influence that wasn't above slipping into dishonesty, which is really unfortunate, and there was far less daylight between us than many make it out to be til Lenin changed everything. In the US (and many other parts of the world) anarchists got the Red Scare treatment well before 1919 and was the leading form of socialism in the states aside from the less defined syndicalist style that Debs would later come to embody. There was also a great deal of mixing and it was much more difficult to tell who was what or if it even mattered, anarchists joined Socialist and Communist Parties, Marxists joined anarchist trade unions and orgs. But with the perceived success of the Bolsheviks in October of 1917 many socialists around the world thought they'd finally found their magic bullet and joined ML CP's around the globe regardless of their preferences, which can be seen the the seemingly endless fracturing that has resulted since. Many anarchists believed that since the Black Guard and Russian anarchists initially joined/worked with the Bolsheviks after they consolidated power that they too should join the CP and and did so in huge numbers before many were later being purged or broke away again to form another organization. By the 60's many became completely disillusioned with what Leninist states had become and come to represent and Anarchism and Maoism, as well as other forms of socialism and revolutionary theory, saw a boom/resurgence that's largely continued til this day, particularly since the 80's. Leninism was largely viewed as a dead end and it really wasn't til pretty recently that it started to see any resurgence of it's own. Either way, most anarchists (and I don't mean the 15 y/o's online) back then and now are essentially Marxists who are skeptical of or opposed to the state, and there are even a lotta Marxists that are lol So there's often not much of a difference aside from aesthetics and rhetoric. But it's also not really accurate to say that anarchists don't want leaders, particularly when viewing any anarchist movement throughout history lol Most all have had leaders. They were just well liked, respected and usually elected officials subject to immediate recall should faith in them be lost. There's no issue with leaders who are just good at leading, the problem is when leaders hold undue power, negative influence or become rulers using coercion to get their way regardless of what those under them want. Leadership is a good thing most of the time. But if we are students of history and wish to apply the standards of science to struggle then looking back it's easy to see that most every successful socialist movement and uprising has been the direct result of Marxists and anarchists working together. Aside from a coup or two and a few particularly large anarchist movements success has usually been found in combining the two tendencies to take on the enemies of socialism. There are some Marxists who will never be convinced of anarchism and some anarchists that will never be convinced of the state having a role to play in liberation so I don't know why we stay at eachother's throats so much on the few areas of disagreement that'll likely never change when we agree on so much and have much bigger problems than eachother. We make an ocean of what's a stream and let the right off the hook entirely. Makes no sense. There are some people I won't work with and they don't wanna work with me and that should be fine! But for most we got work to do! ✊👊🖤☮️🥀🏴🌐A///E
I agree with the essence of what you said. What bothers me and i believe you didn't point to that is " terrorism " that Anarchist were so much in love with that killing Reactionaries that were figures of operation against workers creates an uprising. Marxism does not believe in that. Social Revolutionaries and Anarchist worked hand in hand . Please reference to "Living my Life" Emma Goldman. Engels blamed the brake up of First International to Bukharin and his group
Interesting read, thank you. To add to your point about accepting leadership or authority in general, I believe some anarchists say that that the authority is only legitimate if those under it accept it as legitimate. At least, that’s what I’ve heard Chomsky espouse. If I’m wrong please correct me.
I absolutely love your points and truly wish that Marxists and Anarchists would work together in a United Front rather than being at each other's throats all the time. I'm a relative Orthodox Marxist (not a Leninist even though I freely and happily admit that Lenin himself had many good points and a brilliant understanding of theory and strategy), but I have great respect and admiration for Anarchism and Anarchists. I have come to realize that a lot of Anarchists have an insufficiently structural understanding of capitalism, and a lot of Anarchists out there seem to be okay with Anarchism being a lifestyle (but certainly not all anarchists), but I also respect the ideas of autonomy and understand their skepticism of the state, because I am incredibly skeptical of the state myself. Regardless of our disagreements, however, we both must remember that both Marxists and Anarchists (and even to some degree social democrats) are a small minority in American society, and fighting each other doesn't do anything to help destroy capitalism. We both must remember that if your main goal in politics isn't to improve the living conditions of the working class, and if you are happy with your political group being just a subculture, you are not really a socialist, but instead someone who just uses socialism as a way to appear chic. One thing we both must remember and while I hate to say it, global capitalism isn't going away anytime soon, but that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't fight our hardest to weaken it, and in our current society that unfortunately means using the electoral politics for our ends as Bernie Sanders and AOC have done. Political campaigns on the Democratic Party ballot line (unfortunately) are the quickest way to reach the working class where they are, and to make certain major political ideas well-known and popular (e.g., Medicare for All, which would allow workers to engage in labor strike actions without fear of losing their access to healthcare). I hate that the Democratic Party is important, but the old strategy of creating leftist 3rd parties and hoping we reach the working class HAS NEVER WORKED in the United States, with notable the exception of the Socialist Party under Eugene V. Debs, which even then was never a real threat to the party duopoly. Anyway, sorry for the rant, let's work together and make capitalism history. Peace and Solidarity comrades!
So, my own views are hard to pin down in simple labels, but I guess you could call me a modern synthesis anarchist, drawing both on traditional social anarchist ideas and post-left, egoist and market anarchist critiques thereof, with something of a lean towards the latter camp, albeit specifically through a queer intersectional feminist lens as pertains to the material dynamics of oppression. Insofar as actual anarchists (read: libertarian anti-capitalists, non-ancaps/akratists) go, I'm not quite so far from orthodox Marxism as, say, Gary Chartier or Lysander Spooner, but needless to say, I am highly critical of Marxist ideas, particularly those in the Leninist tradition. However, in terms of actually getting things done in the real world and the kind of people who I can trust to cover me should matters go pear-shaped, I'm not going to be all too choosy. So long as you're not spreading hateful rhetoric or being a creep or a dogmatic stick in the mud, at the end of the day, I'll watch your back if you watch mine. We all know that this system is a nightmare and needs to end. We want to breathe free, to survive and to thrive.
Anarchists were federalists and skeptical of nationalism. They were against the emergence of parliamentary political engagement. Two ways in which they differed from the state orientated left.
Thanks Dr Wolf! Anarchism was popular alongside trade unions in the US before the USSR and was ruthlessly suppressed in the US, Europe and USSR. Also, my understanding is that the soviets in revolutionary Russia were not led by Lenin and were an example of anarchism that had the potential to govern the country. Lenin outlawed them immediately after his revolutionary coup.
Wow you anarchists are actually illiterate. The Soviets were run by Mensheviks ans SRs until the Bolsheviks became the most popular party in the cities. Anarchists had a small section of the Soviets. Mostly less than 5%.
@@thechekist2044 Or insane.... There is only one definition of anarchy and it means a stateless society . Given that upholding the rule of law is a major role of state I think at least they should think about ti a bit longer. . The USSR wan not stateless. One hell of a state to have to live under.
@@ananousous There is only death when "uniting," with Leninists/centralists (like younger Marx). No unity to be found without decentralization, only an anarchist flavored meal 🫤 You won't ever be able to rid yourself of the state if the state is unitary. It needs to at least be federated first. Really federated, like America before the Civil War. When people were still under the illusion a state could leave if it wanted. Where the individual parts are able to govern themself without being crushed by a boot.
I think you left out some of the most important reasons for the hostility between anarchists and communist: the anarchists rightly pointed out that those who make up the ruling class of the state are always incompetent, corrupt, and evil and will never give up its power. This prediction from early anarchists about what Marx’s ideas would inspire turned out to be exactly correct. As Bakunin himself wrote: “But in the People’s State of Marx, there will be, we are told, no privileged class at all. All will be equal, not only from the juridical and political point of view, but from the economic point of view. At least that is what is promised, though I doubt very much, considering the manner in which it is being tackled and the course it is desired to follow, whether that promise could ever be kept. There will therefore be no longer any privileged class, but there will be a government and, note this well, an extremely complex government, which will not content itself with governing and administering the masses politically, as all governments do to-day, but which will also administer them economically, concentrating in its own hands the production and the just division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factories, the organization and direction of commerce, finally the application of capital to production by the only banker, the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many “heads overflowing with brains” in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant and contemptuous of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and pretended scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe betide the mass of ignorant ones!”
Lenin murdered 20,000 anarchists in Moscow in November 1918 with the CHEKA his thugs. He called them ' useful Idiots" The first of Millions of middle class White trust fund party Punks on Karl Marx bull Sh*t Anarchist bs
The State, any state has an interest in it's own survival and perpetuation, lots of cushy jobs, the access to corruption, lots of cute interns and a six figure income when you retire. The Soviet State is a prime example of where that self interest takes a state. Of course the United States Government is no different.
Every morning I wake up and say to myself, "anarchist economics". I love it and it hypes me up for the day. Organize the people, unionize the workers, unite the communities! Seize the time fellow travelers and fellow workers! Smash fascism!
For anyone interested in learning more about anarchism on UA-cam, be sure to check out Zoe Baker (aka Anarchopac). She’s incredibly informative, a great historian, and the best anarchist UA-camr out there.
You left out the MOST IMPORTANT difference where Marx and Bakunin disagreed: The definition of capitalism. Proudhon and Blanc had coined the concept of capitalism, using it to refer to the political class violating economic freedom by granting itself a monopoly on most capital, like land, finance, and so on. Bakunin was close to Proudhon's position on this. That monopoly is recognizable by almost everyone as harmful/evil. Marx, who wanted to CONTROL a monopoly over capital while nonetheless retaining the popular opposition to "capitalism", therefore reversed the meaning of the term. His "capitalism" is expanded to include economic freedom. The economic system he proposes actually IS capitalist, and the freedom of association and economy that Proudhon and Bakunin seek, he calls "capitalism" and wants to ban.
بادرود فراوان بر رفیق محیط عزیز و فراموش نشدنی. جای فوتبالیست انسان و دوست دار زحمتکشان و مبارزان راه سوسیالیست مارادونا در صحبتهای آین هفته شما بنا برفوت این انسان خالی بود. زنده وپاینده باشی آقای محیط گرامی.پرنسیپ و دقت شما در طرح سیاسی اجتماعی واقتصادی واقعا جاافتاده و دلنشین قابل حظم و همه فهم است واقعا استفاده میکنم ، دوستدار شما رومیانی از وفردا المان
Very, very true. I think people get hung up on Bakunin because he was the source for the well of anarchists in the Russian revolution, and people tend to think that he is to anarchism what Marx is to Marxism. But this couldn't be further from the truth. It is possible to engage with modern anarchism and read not a single word of Bakunin. His writings are not treated as holy texts with orthodox exegesis the way many thinkers in the ML tradition tend to be.
@@yuzhouxingzhe yeah I've never gotten that Marx comparison. I mean in terms of who started anarchism you've got Proudhon and then Kropotkin really gave it a scientific basis ala Marx (I'm thinking of works like mutual aid). Seems just bc Bakunin was a contemporary of Marx he's seen as the top guy. But tbf you are right you don't really need to read any of them - I'd say someone could learn all the essentials of anarchism from a few five minute Bookchain videos or just googling a bit about Rojava or the anarchist region in Mexico
The truth is that capitalism has existed since humans started to trade at all, so that you want to "end capitalism" is as absurd as ending the very thing that drives society forward. And before you say capitalism is a modern invention; with capitalism I mean the law of nature that decide prices, supply and demand. As these mechanisms ALWAYS has been there for thousands of years. Meaning when there is a shortage of something, either because there is an increased demand or a sudden slow in supply the mechanism of capitalism has pushed people into make and produce more, of course the price helps to push for this as the price in a capitalistic society is decided on the condition of supply/demand. That communism fell because it had no good system to replace this with proves that communism failed, and will always fail or create a society with huge problems in the area of supply and demand. Same with anarchy, as it would be even worse as you want to remove hierarchy as well. A totally insane idea as of course everything always will have a hierarchy, not possible to remove as some other hierarchy ALWAYS will be created.
Socialism and anarchism need the perfect balance to work. Both are amazing doctrines but I agree with the new left (Chomsky, Russell) that certain forms of socialism could lead us to a situation where we could use syndicalist doctrine instead of socialist. Getting there needs serious work, something that could be done with a popular movement in the U.S that bleeds to already budding forms of syndicalism happening around the globe.
Socialism by Karl Marx murdered more human beings in one century ( the 20th) Than any war or religion in all human history. At least 120+++ MILLIONS of Russians, Eastern EUROPEANS and Chinese by decades of Forced labor, starvation and diseases. WTF get a clue read something about What an A hole Karl Marx really was and said and did. He caused the deaths of more human beings with his insane cliches and platitudes and zero sum economics than any human beings in world history
I think it’s possible to simultaneously build dual power structures to contest the power of the state apparatus and elect sympathetic figures into the state to wield state power against capitalism and give the dual power structures room to grow.
THANK YOU! As a Marxian anarchist, it’s been a VERY frustrating two months of trying to get the different ideologies working any where near together. So much damn infighting. It’s refreshing to see an honest take on anarchism and Marxism :)
Except this isn't an honest take. I'm very disappointed in Prof. Wolff. He knows exactly what the actual facts are, yet dances around them and misrepresents. The entire time. The split between Marxists and Anarchists isn't simply on a tactical question of "the state". It is foundational. This in no way means that we shouldn't work with Anarchists, or that they won't be helping us build socialism. I'm sure they will. But as you learn about Marxism, you'll learn why it's kind of impossible to be a Marxian anarchist. What I see is... people new to the left that get interested in anarchism because communism has been lied about and demonized to them their entire lives, so it seems like "the good option". Then they realize that there is no material analysis of society, no guiding science that leads to tactical and strategic advance, only a sort of moral argument. Marxism provides this. So they get to where you are, using Marxism's correct discovery of the laws by which capital accumulates and economy functions. Then they continue learning, realize that these laws were discovered because of the science Marx and Engels created (this is when they truly begin understanding dialectical and historical materialism, not just hearing the words) and drop anarchism altogether in favor of Marxism. I will say that people like Wolff are plastered all over the internet, and while they play a mostly progressive role, these misrepresentations and lies they engage in harm us, over all. And there is NOT enough real Marxist content on the internet (how young people do their learning today) to teach people and bring them in more quickly. Learning dialectical materialism is mandatory - it is the sharpest weapon the working class has.
@@khrachvikkhrachvik7049 You should take some time to learn about anarchism in its various forms before going off on your high horse. As a Marxist, you have to be rigorous, materialist and scientific in your observation and analysis. Your comment does not reflect this. It appears to me that you have simply listened to your "teachers" and not done your due diligence to research anarchist theory and praxis. For example, nothing stops an anarchist from using dialectical and historical materialism to underpin their praxis...as many have done and will continue to do. Follow your own advice. Do better.
@@TheLucasbr152 the economic calculation problem was never actually a problem. It was a weird sort of propaganda piece by fascist sympathizers like Hayek. Regardless, with modern computers, even that wouldn't matter now. Paul cockshott mathematically proves that. But socialism itself has learned lessons since the Soviet Union. These days, consumer goods are largely left to the market, which is under direction of the economic plan. So democracy decides the direction, then market decides the individual commodities. And it works really well. As far as malthusianism goes, that's always sort of been nonsense. Marx proved as much in his pamphlet "theories of surplus value", but it's immediately evident these days. We produce far far far more than enough resources for everyone. It is because it's a capitalist system that people starve, die of easily cured disease, etc. Not because there are just too many people and there's not enough to go around. There's way way more than enough to go around. As far as daydreaming goes, too too too many armchair liberals in the west, running around trying to call themselves socialists. You're right about that one.
@@tenmanX I've studied anarchism in depth. What anarchists call theory isn't the same thing marxists call theory. This isn't to rag on actual anarchists. It's to correct facts. If we come to this fight with our facts all mixed up, we will get defeated. We will earn the reputation of a cartoon the right paints us with, delusional, moralizing woke scolds. We need to be realistic. If you're an anarchist, you need to be able to confront the fact that anarchism has never achieved much, for instance. You need the facts on the accomplishments of socialists, as well. Lifting more people out of poverty than any other force in all of human history, space travel, fucking... Tetris. These are huge achievements. We need to understand things as officer as we can, learn how the capitalist class has infiltrated this thing and distorted even the terminology we use, in order to ideologically confuse us.
Has someone any good description in a book, or other media, of how a modern complex anarchist society would look like/work? How would it be different from say a direct democracy? No trolling, I just would really like to know more.
When asked this question, Chomsky would often scoff saying it's a fool's errand to try and sketch an anarchist society in considerable detail. But he often referred people to the work of his former student, Michael Albert, founder of Z Magasine. I haven't checked to find what he might be referring to. I'll leave that to you, if you're interested.
I wouldn't ask the question "how do we get rid of the state", but rather "how do we start to function without the state". Let me elaborate. In the times of covid-19, I think it's more likely that the role of the state will diminish by itself. For example, in my country, Croatia, they did not impose a lockdown this autumn and spikes in infections were huge. State is trying to preserve the main business here, and that's restaurants, coffee shops etc. Hospitals are full etc. So what happened, the rate of infections are a bit better in some areas, because people themselves started changing their own behaviour to stop the infection spread. It wasn't the fear of punishment by the state, it was solely the subconscious social self-organization. Of course it yet remains to be seen if this will continue to be the case, but I believe in the long run, the state will become powerless exactly in their attempt to protect capital. In the end, the police, the military, the doctors, are all working on helping people without direct enforcement of the state, and even against the misery they live in. Once the proleteriat gets used to functioning on its own and state remains a pack of bickering fools, and capitalists just a bunch of Wall Sreeet gambling addicts, the revolution will happen, as just a formal end to what we call the state and capitalism. That's what I believe at least. I mean, the capitalism has to go, or we will perish with it. And I think self organization which leads to marginalization of the state is the key.
Please read about a society that is functioning similar to Anarchism ideas ( Marxism as well) . The society has no state, no police, democratic as Professor Wolf Co-ops with gender equality and Centeral decision making that are responsible and accountable and can be recalled by Co-ops that elected them . 50% gender representation division. The place is called Rojava in Western Kurdistan. It is functional right now. Please google it and let me know of your thoughts
Bakunin wasn't interested in any system. Bakunin recognized that Marx sought to replace the capitalist state with the state in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Bakunin did not support the existence of the state in any of its forms including the dictatorship of the proletariat. That's why Marx kicked Bakunin out of the First International. As far as any alliance between communists and anarchists, the first armed action of the Cheka was against Lev Cherni and the Moscow Anarchists Collective. Marxists are statists as much as capitalists.
Although the tactical considerations of Marx/Lenin regarding the use of the state to provisionally put down anti- revolutionary forces were sensible, Bakunin was totally right in his prediction that this provisional character would vanish and a tyranny would take over. A horrible one. A "minor" historical detail Richard should have mentioned. The state question was a real conundrum. BTW, Richard is an anarcho-syndicalist, I'm always wondering why he never uses these words, nor why he never mentions Chomsky.
It still is a real conundrum. The path to socialism is very unclear IMO. Prof. Wolf advocates for worker coops in a market economy containing today's powerful elites and market forces. How wouod Marx's and Bakunin's visionary society come about?
@@philipganchev2306 basically, the workers would establish a Dictatorship of The Proletariat (democratic worker control over the means of production and the state - society) and then phase out commodity production, money (initial use of labor vouchers), class (no money means no class), and the state (no class means no state). It's a little different in Anarchism though. I've heard Malatesta is a very good theorist, and is often reccomended over even Baukinin and Prouhdon.
Not only Bakunin was right, to some extent at least, but even Engels was right in his usually forgotten but fierce and spot on critique of Blanquism, the precursor of Bolshevism or Leninism. Engels slammed Blanquistes as an organization detached from the masses that was so hierarchical that was already a dictatorship in itself, and as such could only produce a dictatorship if they ever managed to take power. Leninism is not the same as Marxism, it is somewhat derived but so is social-democracy and one could say that many other tendencies, including Bakunin's and more modernly Worker Autonomy and Ecosocialism (both of which try to reunify and update the best of Marxism and Anarchism). Leninists have monopolized the term "Marxism", growingly so since 1917, while social-dems have been dropping it in turn, but one could well say that someone like Corbyn is a true Marxist or that someone like Maduro is a social-democrat. We should probably let go those closed boxes that linger from the past, a past that must be respected but almost certainly not just copy-pasted. We are not at the beginning of Capitalism as Marx and Bakunin were, nor in the middle of the disciplinary Fordist period, as was the case of Lenin and the revolutions and tendencies that follow him, we are at the very end of the Toyotist period and almost certainly near the end of Capitalism itself (ecology and the development of the working class obligues), we must reconsider everything and build our own synthesis or syntheses.
@@jessesaranow7724 Capitalists and the political-professional-managerial class would oppose any moves towards worker control. And even if there is worker control, as long as distribution is done via a market, it will tend to bring out market rationale, competition, individualism, consumerism and ultimately accumulation and class separation.
Coop in Work place or family can be an example of simple organization with simple agreements between members. After all distribution of resource only becomes a problem when there is inequality. Governments protecting systems under capitalist structure only makes the problem worst.
Thanks a ton for the precise explanation, Prof. Wolff is exceptional in explaining things which may takes days for us to research through, and best part is, he explains what terminologies mean first, and then later on gives his own opinion about that. Also, let us know, what is your opinion on the actual "withering away of the state" do you think its possible, or is it just "limiting the state" bcz as soon as some resources go scarce, a management has to arise to control the distribution, say for example, when parking is plenty, we don't need a parking management, but when theres an event or gathering, all of a sudden, parking goes scarce and then you need people to manage and give priority to those who need the most. Whats your take on that?
One often hears the phase *"bomb throwing"* precede the word *"anarchist"* and such is the power of repetition that when one hears the one, the other is automatically called to mind, but the few bombs thrown by anarchists pale in comparison to millions of tons of bomb dropped at the behest of capitalists. Arguably, bomb dropping is one of capitalisms defining features. I propose that whenever one uses the term *"capitalist"* it be preceded by the phrase *"bomb dropping"* as in *"Bomb Dropping Capitalist."*
Also because of this Spanish anarchist hymn maybe: "arroja la bomba, escupe metralla..." (throw the bomb, spit shrapnel...) >> ua-cam.com/video/4odfyMksTko/v-deo.html
@@joecaner - At some points anarchists embraced the term but I fear it is because of the less systematic, more utopian, somewhat negative, influence of Proudhonism, largely via Kropotkin's excessive optimism about human nature. Bakunin was not that utopian and the term "anarchist" was originally conceived as derisive, directly implying disorganized, chaotic, unruly. I'm OK with anarchists calling themselves whatever they want but when I was anarchist, I'd rather call myself libertarian communist. Nowadays, more eclectic and definitely more Marxist but not strictly so, I'd call myself democratic communist or ecosocialist. I don't want any compromise with capitalism (i.e. not social-democrat at all) and I don't want a centralized totalitarian state in which the working masses have almost no say (so not leninist either), I want a decentralized democratic and socialist/communist type of state in which the working class has the real power.
I wonder how many people noticed he didn't explain what he thinks Anarchism is, or where he thinks it differs from Socialism or Communism, or how he thinks Anarchism is inappropriate. Here's a clue : From the Greek, "An" meaning without, and, "Archos", meaning rulers, or rulership. Please note, that isn't the same as being without rules, because of course, we share rules, when we co-operate, to create or sustain shared goals, like use of language, attitudes to behaviour, overthrowing, (or withering away), the state, etc.
The difference between anarchism and socialism (as in using the state as a transitional tool), is that when applied, anarchism has actually worked and we have had stateless societies as a result of that, (catalonia in spain 1936 is one of those societies) and the only way these societies have been defeated was through usage of force (wars, militarization etc.). Unlike in socialism where the problem was usually the state itself and the so called "proletariat" with their unnecessary bureaucracy and authoritarianism.
@@Mutineer9 Exactly! Franco's Fascists being supported by Germany and the Communist faction being supported by Stalin and the Anarchists being supported by no-one had nothing to do with it. Of course.
The anarchists were also not quite supported by USSR either. I consider myself mostly anarchist. But we should be honest: the fact that anarchist Catalonia was short lived makes the case more difficult.
just a short take but i do think any movements towards post-capitalist society should take into account the *material condition*, so depends on the country's current state, they can choose to take an anarchist direct state-abolishing path, or the more transitional state proletarian dictatorship that ML believe in
I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with Bakunin. I mean, I know who he was, but I don't really know much about his theories. I'm much more familiar with Proudhon, having read his "What is Property?" back in 2014 and his "General Idea of the Revolution" about a year or two ago. There's some overlap between the two, but Bakunin was more aligned with Marx in embracing materialism while rejecting Proudhon's mostly abstract methodology.
Bakunin hated Proudhom and admired Marx. He used the label "anarchist" to derise Proudhonians (he considered himself "revolutionary socialist", not "anarchist") but he also thought that Marx, while a great genius, was egotic and authoritarian. Nobody is perfect, I guess. We must rethink it all: those people were at the beginning of Capitalism, we are at the end of it, we need to reformulate in terms of how to overcome Capitalism and not so much on what the heck is Capitalism, back then a novelty, now old history.
Very limited approach, IMO. Both are tendencies rooted in the 19th century and with peak in the early 20th century (not just the rather successful Bolshevik model peripheral revolutions of the Fordist period but also social-democracy, which is a "Marxist" tendency, because Marx preferred to ally with them in spite of clear differences, and of anarchism itself: Makhnovism, Catalan Revolution, etc.) Back in the event of the breakup of the 1st International, our smartest class enemy, Chancellor Bismarck, wrote: "let the great fortunes and the crowned heads tremble if the reds and the blacks ever unite again". I think he was right and I also think that a road to that refoundation of revolutionary socialism (incidentally Bakunin's choice of label for himself, he did not like "anarchism", which he used derisively against Proudhonists) has been laid out largely by the late US thinker Murray Bookchin, whose model has been adapted with some success by the ongoing Kurdish-plus revolutionary movement. Arguing about the state is futile, any rural commune is a "state" of sorts, there's no stateless society, there are however different forms of state or of political organization of a given society: more or less centralized, more or less democratic, etc. And of course more or less socialist, although this may be a fundamental divide. Even anarcho-capitalists, who are arguably more anarchist than the anarchists (but not more socialist, of course) would need some form of state, even Tortuga Island, their model, was a state, and absolute lack of state can only lead to warlordism, which in turn can only produce some other state. My problem with most Marxists, I have discovered, is not about Marx nor Engels, much less Lafargue (these three are the founding fathers of Marxism), but with Lenin and what he and the other Bolsheviks actually did in Russia (and by extension in other states of the same model like China, Yugoslavia, etc.) Incidentally Lenin and the Bolsheviks are copycat of an earlier 19th century organization, that of Louis Blanqui, and incidentally this group was fiercely attacked by Engels with great foresight (Marx was more ambivalent however). Engels argued that Blanquistes were detached from the masses and constituted a political dictatorship that could only produce a political dictatorship if they ever were successful. Lenin proved Engels right (on the other hand the actual Blanquistes behaved much more democratically in the Paris Commune but it was short lived). On the side of Anarchists it must be criticized their excess of individualism and "purity", their degeneration towards utopian socialism. And I believe these are the criticisms that Bookchin rightly makes, arguing for an hybrid model, not stateless and not dictatorial either, as far as I can discern it'd be something like Cuba in terms economic and social but like Switzerland in terms political and of human rights, more or less, be creative. This needs to be debated and IMO adopted by as many people as possible, and organized politically.
libertarian originally meant socialist, and was a euphemism for anarchist. the "libertarian right" started under murray rothbard. the state is a form of authority. hence, libertarians, going all the way back to Classical Liberals like Thomas Jefferson and Humboldt, were skeptical of the state. being anti-state isn't new. personally, i'm a classical liberal/libertarian socialist closer to Jefferson meets Proudhon (mutualism) or the Ricardian Socialists (think Benjamin Tucker) with a minimal state (minarchy). where the state would rule in public affairs with a power structure, capitalists rule in economic affairs (private). both are authoritarian, and both should be questioned.
there is another difference: anarchist says that the State is always authoritarian, therefore a State Socialism is always authoritarian; moreovere, Marx and Bakunin started to HATE themselves because according to Bakunin, Marx WAS authoritarian, parties are always authoritarian, and the First Internarnational was authoritarian
@@Elektribe I wanna say thank you for taking the time to write on this but I am definitely getting lost in the weeds. I’m definitely more literate on Marxism than a progressive average, some Marx And Kerpotkin as well as some Adam Smith. ( I believe I would probably be an an-com more than anything. And I fully understand that capitalism is a death machine, But really all I want is to live in a world where it’s easier to solve problems.) so I’m wondering if you might be able to give me a shorter summary? Like you did with the first two paragraphs because when I try to read this, I just get lost. But essentially here in the United States at this point in time, would it be fair to say that the state would just be whatever group has the monopoly on violence, i.e., the government protecting the bourgeois from the proletariats needs?
@@Elektribe also the quote from Lennon saying let’s forget about the word state and use community makes the most sense to me out of what I would want I guess.
I find that a lot of confusion around this comes from the differences in the definition of the state. anarchists tend to define the state by it's top-down/hierarchical organisation and role in control and oppression while Marxists tend to define it by its use in establishing the power of one class over the other. I think that a Marxist and an anarchist could agree entirely on the role of the state if they didn't use the word state to describe it. a state in Marxist terms could (and should) be horizontally organised directly by the workers themselves. however, going by the anarchist definition of the state, I think even Marxists should oppose the state, but unfortunately, many do not.
Bakunin's "Anarchy and Statism" is brilliant. You can pick it up for $0.50 as a Kindle download. It discusses specifics regarding the lives of common Russians under the Czar. However the parallels are not so far off.
Someone can tell me how an anarchist society works, how does an anarchist society manage to provide some form of social security, free education, free healthcare, and free housing? How is it organized? What kind of institutions exists? How do we architect such a society?
The idea is small groups that coordinate with each other in larger groups ets. There is lots of thought about this but no decisive model. The clearest I have seen is the work of Michael Albert and colleagues, starting with participatory economics (parecon.info), then politics and other spheres. A lot of questions can be decided by each community, such as should there be professional police etc.
@@philipganchev2306 Thank you! I saw your link! It seems to me that anarchism or any other kind of "model" always constructs some kind of mini-state apparatus. That idea of decentralizing state, creating many mini independent mini-states, that have the capacity to organize and rule themselves makes a lot of sense in theory since each community has specific needs, but in each one there is always the necessity to built some kind of institutions that help to construct and regulate this mini-society, that's why I struggle with the concept of Bakunin and other anarchism that imagine societies completely stripped of any kind of institution. And I would also argue that we would need other institutions that help manage all these mini-societies. It would be interesting to build a complex model, because when you do it so many questions come to the surface like for example how it would be done and regulated the exchange of goods between these societies, how these societies cooperate with each other without falling into a competition over goods, land, property, how effectively abolish the notion of property, but at the same time provide housing that is a form of property, etc. There are many dilemmas and conflicting ideas, don't you think?
Lenin's "Withering away of the state" was like Thacher's "Trickle down economics". Both hint and an incremental improvement in our living conditions but neither came true and it is questionable whether they even meant what they said.
Absolute genius!! Never seen a better comparison. Such statements make some far fetched assumptions far from reality, which are actually the same: that people in power have the interests of all in mind instead of the immediate interests of theirs.
The difference is, Thatcher trickle down was not under any attack. Britain was not sanctioned, invaded and sabotaged in any possible way. You can not say the same about Soviet Union.
I'm not a Marxist-Leninist but I disagree. Overall, the Bolsheviks did decrease state power. They also objectively improved things in the USSR an undeniable amount. Though they absolutely committed atrocities.
@@Mutineer9 And it was upon those reasons why they claimed to never to able to whither-away their power. The moment you are so weak that you cannot even handle a bit of internal opposition, that is the moment when you lost. Socialism ought to be defended by the people taking into their own hands the means for their subsistence, the moment you take that away by centralizing, only the State will defend it, and as it ultimately happened to the USSR, we know that isn’t enough. POWER TO THE SOVIETS!! There were Workers Councils in both rural and urban areas of the former Russia, they were handling it, then the Bolsheviks came to F with the peasants. Revolutionary Spain as another example demoralized (Although they were at a disadvantage resource wise either way) by the Communist influence taking power away from the councils and their ardent defenders. Revolution organized by Worker’s Councils have launched spontaneously without the need of a Vanguard taking State power, after all that was the spark that made the USSR possible. If your priority for the construction of Socialism is a zealous State? Then it is the like having a Cart (Vanguard Party) before a Horse. (Social Revolution) And honestly the Horse could go at it alone...
The thing Wolff does is he only focuses on the mode of production, which I totally understand, but I'd reccomend his video on "How to make Central Planning Democratic".
@@jessesaranow7724 I would like to see his look on an rbe from Jaque fresco.... resource based economy.. we aways use a system that was created before technology why not use a system thats new based on technology.... well new compared to the other systems by a century
A Nation's future should never hinge on the proclivities of any single person. Voters on both sides are exactly the same. Both turn into triggered name calling fascists whenever someone challenges their beliefs and both accuse anyone who doesn't parrot their assigned talking points of supporting the other party. Thus the supporters of both parties have hijacked and sold out the rest of humanity for the sake of their own egos and lack of imagination. And this is how they've controlled us from the dawn of the 20th century, where they pit us against each other, seed the debate with misinformation, a little populism, some catchy epithets, and go about their plunder completely unopposed. All representatives will always be subject to influence from monetary interests, blackmail, or assassination. The solution is a velvet revolution to install a Scaled Direct Democracy without representatives and politicians. Citizen initiated referendums with thresholds and a social contract using Blockchain technology and open public forums for sourced, evidence based debate means communities can vote for their own policies without politicians. *Thorium energy renders their global oil monopoly obsolete* *#VelvetRevolution* *#ScaledDirectDemocracy* *ThoriumEnergy* Thorium energy can process both nuclear and toxic waste as well as perform salt water desalination, carbon sequestration, and synthetic fuel production/ electricity for road/rail transport energyfromthorium.com/ "The thorium molten salt power plant can produce clean energy cheaper than coal, which could be reliable energy system toward a low-carbon economy," PAL said. www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-nuclearpower-idUSKCN1UD0D0 If the profits from American labour were shared equally, as they are with Corporate Shareholders, every household would receive $700k a year. If we got even a fraction of that amount we would have more than enough to fund education, healthcare and infrastructure for everybody. 52% of all Greenhouse gases come from methane produced by Beef farming, which is 90% subsidised. Ending Beef Communism and embracing Hemp as a moonshot technology alongside Kelp farming for use in packaging, construction, and manufacturing provides an alternative means for land rehabilitation, food production, and industrial oils, as well as medicines, insulation, and clothing. It would also be conducive for there to be an independent public authority drawing from volunteers to act as advocates for the public interest, with the authority to both observe police and govt interactions with the public, and prosecute bad actors in our own courts. This would ensure law enforcement and government agencies are held to a high standard of etiquette and ethical behaviour for everyone, regardless of their creed, color, or economic bracket. www.au.org/church-state/september-2008-church-state/people-events/american-jews-don-t-support-christian-zionism www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-poll-shows-support-for-israel-plummeting-among-u-s-liberals-millennials-and-women-1.6594182 ffwd.medium.com/all-of-youtube-not-just-the-algorithm-is-a-far-right-propaganda-machine-29b07b12430 www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/israel-news/1813262/frightening-report-6-out-of-7-immigrants-to-israel-are-not-jewish.html
I think... this is a very charitable interpretation to anarchists and Bakunin, specifically. Bakunin and the Bakuninites tried to take over the IWA and kick out the Marxists multiple times, and it was their refusal to be reasonable that led to the fall of the IWA (or first international). Not to mention Bakunin thinking that capitalism was a Jewish plot. But that's neither here nor there. Here's the thing: Marxists and Anarchists come from mutually opposed places to arrive at different positions that end up with a similar long term goal. Anarchists, coming from the Bakuninite tradition, believe in "eternal justice" and a sense of moral righteousness, what Engels called "Petit bourgeois naivety". So calling the role of the state their major disagreement isn't really the case. It's far, far, far more foundational than that. It is the foundations that came to the conclusions of the state that are the issue. Marx didn't advocate a state, but an acknowledgment that it will be there, since the conditions for it being there are present. It is a scientific understanding. Bakunin's idea was that the state controlled people and didn't like that. For anyone. Petit bourgeois, bourgeois, proletarian, whatever. Bakunin's ideas were actually VERY similar to Thomas Jefferson's "nation of shopkeepers". On "the withering of the state" - this is something Wolff seems to be dancing around. This is directly from Marx and Engels, not Lenin. He says that Lenin first used the term, and I'm not sure if that's correct, but the idea of the dicatorship of the proletariat and withering of the state is absolutely in Marx. So I'm very disappointed in Prof. Wolff here. NONE of this, by the way, means Marxists and Anarchists can't work together. In my experience, people new to the left get into anarchism and then continue learning and end up as Marxists. But even if they don't, we share an enemy, and that means an alliance. The real world and concrete conditions will point the way forward, and it's up to scientific analysis (and not what we WANT the world to be, but what it is) that will help us build what must be built. If you're looking for good history on the IWA, the Marxists and Anarchists, etc., PLEASE don't get all your info from UA-cam videos. "History of the Three Internationals" by William Z Foster covers this in-depth, as well as the conditions that led to all of the debates, arguments, etc. In almost every modern edition of Marx's "Capital" there are transcripts of the bitter arguments between Marx and Bakunin. Read Engels's short essay "On Authority" and you'll quickly see where the divide lies.
Did they? AFAIK it was Marx and his social-dem allies who took over the IWA and kicked out Bakunin and his section for no obvious reason at all. Then the IWA collapsed. Where did Bakunin say that Capitalism was "a Jewsih plot"? He admired Marx too much to be anti-semitic. I agree with you re. Wolff not being either sufficiently knoweldgeable or sufficiently honest re. "the withering of the state" (and other stuff, I could not upvote this video) but the notion of "dictatorship of the proletariat" was never meant to be a dictatorship of some party, in fact Engels fiercely attacked the Blanquistes, clear precursors of Leninism, for being detached from the masses and a truly dictatorial organization that could only achieve a dictatorship if they ever reached power. Marx was more ambivalent but Engels was the insightful one in this case. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" should be understood as a transitional period in which former bourgeois have no rights, in which expropriation takes place, it should be understood as a dictatorship of the proletarian or worker majority over the former oligarchy in order to destroy their unfair power, not as the dictatorship of a minority of organized intellectuals, i.e. the party, truly a Neoplatonic and not genuinely Marxist concept, and a clear symptom of immaturity of the revolutionary process, much as the dictatorship of Cromwell was relative to the bourgeois revolutionary process. You say: "people new to the left get into anarchism and then continue learning and end up as Marxists". I can only agree with this (although there are exceptions, some people also begin as Marxist and end up in anarchist organizations, I know some, but my own trajectory is as you say), however one thing is reaching Marxism (which could perfectly be embraced by Bakunin himself in the essentials) and another thing is embracing Leninism (which would have been rejected by Engels for example). And most Marxist organizations are ferociously Leninist, and invariably either neo-Stalinist or Trostkyist, I tend to agree a lot with the latter but could never work in their doctrinary or sectarian organizations because they have a dogma which includes dethroning the soviets and imposing party dictatorship instead, a dogma they would never renege of. They are not Marxist but Leninist and that is a problem for me and surely many others. So you end up as Marxist but unable to get organized as such.
@@LuisAldamiz okay. That's a lot! Haha. I'll try to hit it all. So.. regarding Bakunin and the IWA. the minutes from their meetings are all free to browse. That and marx's arguments with Bakunin. History of the three Internationals by William Z Foster uses those and gives a very good summary. The accosts anarchists tried to continue a solely anarchist international after it split, but without the power of the unions and marxists, they faded into obscurity. You then go in with a critique of the vanguard party, but it seems based in something like an idealist, best circumstances type thing, and say engels would have criticized, for example, the bolsheviks, which I don't think there is any evidence for. This set up has its problems and is continually tweaked and shifted to meet changing conditions. The idea that the bolsheviks could have done anything else at all just doesn't match their unique conditions, history, or culture of that time. And even as problems began to arise later on (something Stalin warned against, with his continual battles against beuracratization), they were still a working class party, and it was still a dictatorship of the proletariat. Their methods to protect the revolution, those could have been better. And it seems as if the Cuban and Chinese vanguards have found far better ways to eliminate counter-revolution, sabotage, etc. Rather than "disappear" people, crack down, etc., The masses are educated and mobilized to defend their system. I don't know what you mean by "neo-stalinist". To me, this seems like a demonization of marxists. As far as most organizations being leninist, that's true. Lenins additions to marxist science are important. Imperialism, uneven development, anti-dogmatism (though many so called marxists these days are actually very dogmatic, which is anti-marxist), these are important updates. To me, though, we seem to be in what we could call a higher stage of imperialism now, and need to move beyond lenin. (I refer to it in my head as "Marxism leninism fill in the blankism).
@@LuisAldamiz oh! Bakunin and anti-semitism! Yeah. He railed against jews in multiple letters. (And that isn't just a misrepresentation, like right wingers try to do with marx and his "Jewish question" paper.) And... Don't quote me on this, but I want to say that his same book he talked about "eternal justice" in, he was super anti-semitic in. If you're really interested, I can hunt down the exact stuff. Let me know.
@@khrachvikkhrachvik7049 - Sorry, I missed your other (longer) comment. Engels on Blanquism: "From Blanqui's assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals." www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm Should ring a Leninist bell or a dozen. Lenin admitted to be quite Blanquist, even Robespierrist. And as Engels continued: "We see, then, that Blanqui is a revolutionary of the preceding generation". And so is Lenin even if more recent in time. With Lenin Marxism (or his particular branch/heresy) got stuck in a rut, which is a serious problem we should try to address if we want to achieve something.
Lenin murdered every anarchist in Moscow in November 1918. 20,000 or more inside two weeks In November 1918 The history of the CHEKA and Felix Djerinsky
I view anarchism as individual view of socialist working together to achieve bigger goals. Goals can be the only agreement between anarchist with respect to each other's view.
The only thing presently that can stand up to the overwhelming power of the corporate sector are public institutions that can issue directives that corporations are compelled to abide by. Public institutions that can effectively enforce compliance onto the most powerful corporations and individuals. Why do we need this? Because whatever is not unlawful is lawful. How do we protect the life giving forces of nature on this planet without making the destruction of life giving forces unlawful. The rivers, lakes, aquifers, estuaries, oceans, forests, landscapes, mountain ranges, sand dunes, the oceans, the atmosphere, the climate. Human rights. Need to be protected. One person, one entity can own a fleet of thousands of earth moving machinary that can create unprecidented changes in unprecidented time frames Currently it is the neoliberals clamouring for the 'withering of the state' and with the greatest success they have deconstructed and dis integrated the structures of the state, around the world. The state can be reconfigured to be the protector of the people rather than the protector of the destructive forces of a baseless ideology cntered on greed and self obsession.
Something quite interesting (to me at least) is that, in his earlier works, Bakunin described the form of government in his vision of a free society as a "Workers' State". It was only later when the phrase became associated with the Lassallians (The people Marx talks about in Critique of the Gotha Program) that Bakunin stopped using the phrase. Back then they were called "federalists", not anarchists. I honestly think there would be twice the number of anarchists if we just called ourselves that instead today.
At this stage the differences do not matter in this country. The U.S. has a state that is weighing us down and it isn't going to wither right now. I'm looking for any kind of socialism that is cooperative and wants to get rid of the corporate capitalist oligarchy that is strangeling everyone I know and love. I will listen to anyone and work toward a cooperative life and worker led life and I will oppose any kind of stratification that disadvantages any working person. I tend to think that under most socialist systems the state does not wither. It becomes a class and then strongarms everyone else. The state is like a weed. It puts down roots and you can't get rid of the damned thing because they have grown into every crevice. But that's for later. Now, we must survive and issue by issue we have to build, cooperate and make a strong worker's movement. That's a lot to do right now.
Anarcho-capitalist is an oxymoron. Anarchism is about questioning illegitimate power mostly. I don't know why these people call themselves anarchists... they should just go by "hardcore capitalist".
Is there type of socialist ideology that straddles the balance between Anarchism and Marxism? For instance, on a PCM chart it would be far-left but near the middle X-axis.
Essentially, i agrre, anarchists and marxists should work together. But, we should be materialists; I don't care so much about the name of the Ideoloigy someone haves, what's important is if they help the people, the working class, colonised people and all other oppressed groups achieve power. thank you for your videos, if you ever want to have an anrchist-marxist collabartion i would love that.
Dear Professor Wolff I would like to ask you whether Marx was a practical social philosopher or just a theorist. We know from the French Revolution, the 1848 revolutions and the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 that the prevailing plutocratic regimes would not tolerate an alternative system. Hence, they battled the French and Russian revolutions and reneged on their promises to the 1848 revolutions. Without a government, a revolution would be defenseless against the military coalition that it would have to face and therefore could not succeed even if there was just one capitalist regime left on earth. Besides defense, society needs all the other functions which a government provides like education, health, research, courts, police, etc. Hence, throughout, history the absence of government is possible up to a tribal society only. Hence, Marx has erred by imagining no government. What do you think? Basil Al-Nakeeb
Dear Dr. Wolff, would you please explain the reason First International was broken apart ? Who were 3 groups in that International? Also were Anarchist collaborated with Social Revolutionaries that believed in killing ( terrorism) of major capitalists or major Medalists. As we now that SR's were the ones who shot Lenin the eventually cost him his life? Please explain the reason Anarchists love for taking terrorist action against figure of capitalism. Thank you
The Narodniki or SR were into armed struggle (Lenin's brother was one of those and was executed for that reason) but so were the Bolsheviks (Stalin's political career was initially about armed struggle, hence the nickname "steel man"), anarchists were sometimes also into that. The shooting of Lenin was arguably justified from the viewpoint of the SR because Lenin and the Bolsheviks had taken power (granted in a democratic election) from them. Lenin was admittedly and admirer of Robespierre and as such went into excesses and got some of the same medicine as Marat did. Karma? In any case it seems that the attackers were a very small group, not "party orders" but almost personal animosity. "Please explain the reason Anarchists love for taking terrorist action against figure of capitalism". It's called propaganda by action or direct action, the exact meaning of it, much as in Muslim jihad, varies. Many people just because of their character feel that violence is needed, even if the situation does not favor its use, this applies to anarchist as to marxists or almost any political current that hopes to change things radically (and as quick as possible). Others instead seem to favor a more peaceful approach (not necessarily rejecting violence in all instances) because of the need to build movement and use relative tolerance in order to spread the word and get organized around specific issues or in general. This is at least the take from someone who used to be in favor of "Ghandian" nonviolence (and even had once a lenghty discussion with an Italian anarchist "terrorist" on it, not to mention more recent ones with marxists who also favor to some extent armed struggle). My approach has always been that they are tactics and should be pondered depending on the circumstances (greater oppression only allows for armed struggle or almost so, greater tolerance instead seems to favor nonviolent or less violent approaches instead and render armed struggle less legitimate instead). Even Ghandi could agree when he wrote: "the real difference is not between those who fight with guns and those who do with the satyagraha (nonviolence) but between those who fight and those who do not".
@@LuisAldamiz dear luis Aldamiz, thank you for taking time and replying to my question to Professor Wolff. I really respect your opinion even if i disagree with some of it. First Professor Wolff was comparing Anarchism and Marxism and so was my question on the other major differences besides the timing of abolishment of state. Not the difference between Stalinism and Anarchism. What i said was the using assassination of major reactionary leaders of ruling elite ( major disputable generals, czars, major capitalists, chief of police and so) is not encouraged by Marx and Engels when they were debating with Bakunin. I was not refering to mass armed uprising . I do agree that armed mass uprising is not rejected by Marx and Engels, however we need to see the armed mass uprising is not the same as individual assassination of a tyron employer that is crushing a peaceful strike of workers. Parliamentarian can be a way of class struggle and so is armed mass struggle but assassination of figure heads of reactionary class is not marxism. Assassination of Lenin or Trotsky was not Marxism. Maybe if Linen had not been assassinated the outcome of ussr was different. One of the books that explains how Anarchists believed and used assassination is " Living my Life" by Emma Goldman. Hope you care to read I believe Marxists and Anarchists can work together and i wish it happens, however while i do not see the disagreement on when to abolish state a big disagreement at this time of struggle, but assassination to support strikes and street protests is a huge difference. A sample of a society working similar to Anarchism idea is West Kurdistan sociaty ( Rojava in Western Kurdistan) please google it to see how they abolished state, police and how they created democracy, equality of gender, individual rights. Equal distribution of wealth and authority. Let me know what you think of Rojava.
@@janhouston9125 - I took it as an open question. I don't think Wolff has time to reply to comments, at least not most of them. My opinion is my opinion and not anybody else's in any case (disclaimer). As Marx famously wrote to his son in law, Paul Lafargue: "if those are Marxists, I am not Marxist myself". This was meant to some French socialists of their time but it surely applies to most if not all self-proclaimed Marxists, including myself. Two people are always going to disagree on something, if not today then tomorrow, and thus a lot of Marxists have chosen (by grade or force (there's probably no other realistic choice when the regime turns extremely totalitarian such as Tsarist Russia was) to attempt various forms of guerrilla with various types of targets, loosely understood as collective self-defense of the working class vs the violence of the exploiters and the state, or also as attempt (sometimes successful) to overthrown the extant regime and impose a worker regime instead (usually a Leninist one). Anyhow, I think that Marx and Engels were correctly focused on forging a socialist movement that would lead the way to a socialist revolution eventually and in that sense they broadly considered political violence counter-productive, and I concur (provided the conditions of the country are open enough for debate and socio-political organization, activism, worker strikes, etc.) Bakunin and the Blanquists were instead rather insurrectionist, but Lenin was at least as Blanquist as he was Marxist, and he did not reject that notion, all the opposite. Marx himself was ambiguous towards Blanqui, whose personal leadership capabilities he praised at times, but Engels was more hostile: www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm "From Blanqui's assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals". A critique that I think is very correct and that should also apply to Leninism or Bolshevism. Re. parliamentarism, I believe there is a clear notion since the beginning that it could not work, that, if socialists could ever reach the representation threshold to change things (and managed somehow not to be corrupted by capitalism, as we see happening again and again) they would be impeded to actually do it by violent means (i.e. military coup, fascism, bonapartism, etc.) I don't think that Marx and Engels embraced parliamentarism as main avenue for the revolution but only as yet another front for the class struggle. Notice that this is much more debatable in the context of 1917 Russia because there had been already a revolution (February and also the Kornilov coup attempt that resulted in armed soviets by decision of Kerensky) and because the political party that was overthrown by the Bolsheviks was also a socialist party and not a clearly defined bourgeois or otherwise oligarchic force. The assasination of Lenin (foiled, he died of other health issues, possibly syphillis) and that of Trotsky are very different affairs. In the case of Lenin it was causde by grassroots rage by displaced socialists, Fanny Kaplan was a Social-Revolutionary and, much like anarchist Kropotkin, blamed Lenin of destroying the Russian Revolution. In the case of Trotsky it was.... well, Stalin (but the foundations of Stalinism had been set by Lenin and others, not just Stalin). It's possible that the assasination of other revolutionary leaders like Durruti and Ascanio in Spain was also done by Stalin's agents (but has never been confirmed, unlike the case of Trotsky), certainly Stalin's reign was one of terror all around, and it makes me think of the admiration Lenin had for Robespierre, whose reign of terror was shorter but not less notorious (in this older context I would define myself as Dantonist and Sans-Coulotte, not as Robespierrist and Jacobin like Lenin). I haven't read that book by Emma Goldman but my roommat is a great fan of it. I'm more inspired by local Basque insurrectionists from Likiniano (who led the forgotten Commune of San Sebastian and later some anarchist maquis that did not obey to the CNT, "those pesky bureaucrats in Toulouse") and to some extent also by the best of ETA, notably Argala, who led the commando that killed Franco's right hand and dauphin, Admiral Carrero-Blanco. This does not mean that I favor that kind of struggle under all circumstances (although certainly under fascism the was no other choice, and sometimes it feels that way even under "democracy" too), I think that violence and nonviolence are tactics that should be chosen depending on which one can achieve the best results, what usually depends on how tolerant and relaxed (or oppressive and brutal) is the class enemy, not a choice that we can freely make but that is to a large extent imposed to us. As for "Marxists and Anarchists" I think they (we) can only work together if we both abandon sectarianism stemming from old and pretty much obsolete quarrels of the past, if we can become again just revolutionary socialists. Bismark celebrated the breakup of the First International with a quite witty remark: "let great fortunes and crowned heads tremble if the reds and the blacks ever unite again". My thought is that we should do exactly that, but that it cannot be done from dogmatism, maximalism and sectarianism but from the conscious decision to synthesize the best of both currents and discard the worst. AFAIK, the one who was closer to that was Murray Bookchin and he has a legacy in the Kurdish-plus Revolution, the only active communist revolution on Earth. "Let me know what you think of Rojava". I'm a strong sympathizer but they are not "anarchist", they are a local variant of "ecosocialist" (i.e. Bookchin's ideas) as refubished by Abdullah Öçalan and others in the PKK (a party with Leninist roots it must be said, but that has managed to transition to a post-Leninist reality in very creative manner). They are my main reference but I also do not have all the information as I have not been there in person. For what I know they are trying hard to make my own dream of a "Swiss Cuba" (so to say) real, even if the conditions are very hostile and difficult. If I'd be religious I'd pray for them, if I'd be younger and less miopic, I'd probably go there to fight the good fight in person, as many others have done. That's the way to go rather than capitalist pseudo-red China.
I see the difference between Marxism and Anarchism as differnt methods to achieve the same goal. Marxist-lenism seems to be more effective at revolution than anarchism though anarchism keeps a better idea of communism. I see ML forming a revolution as long as they don't repress the anarchists they can direct the state towards proper communism.
The only reason that a few of the largest anarchist societies of the early 20th century died (Ukraine, Catalonia, Manchuria, and Southern Fujian) was largely because of Marxist-Leninists betrayal. ML ended up being about absolute power in the end, which is what one of the talking points of Orwell's 1984 was making.
I have a theory of anarchy (Neo-anarcho-primitivism?) where the only truly stable anarchist society must be able to accommodate all of humanity's vices, and incorporate them to reinforce anarchy, in a similar way to how capitalism has invaded every aspect of our lives. Of course the theory being that anarchy works, is holistic, and completely aligned with humanity and its well being (which I believe). Being intoxicated by anarchy will immunize us against, and leave no room for abuse and tyranny to corrupt our society. Such a society would simply be immune to the temptations of capitalism except for academic, or artistic interests (where it can't hurt society or its people). Ideally this system should reduce the role and importance of intelligence in running the society, which means the system could be run by idiots or animals with little effect on the community's quality of life. Yes, that is right, I want to idiot-proof politics, in the same way that nature is ecologically stable outside of natural disasters or human intervention. The Neo part of my title refers to the incorporation of new ideas to improve the quality of people's life while maintaining the spirit of a primordial human nature being the example for society.
What about the idea of a vanguard party? This has been my problem with Marxism-Leninism; the control by a state that is not democratically run. I am fine with a transitionary state, but I see no reason why a leader like stalin should have immense power and be chosen undemocratically.
The idea of a vanguard party is where the "Leninism" in Marxism-Leninism comes from, and is not present in other Marxist strains such as Luxemburgism for example. Democratic socialism also seems to lack such a characteristic, and market socialists usually don't seem to support it either from what I've seen, and are content working within the parliamentary system to ensure democratic representation and avoid such tyrannical statism
well, there is the theoretical side of Leninist ideas and the actual way it turned out. Lenin was the only one at the time who proclaimed "All power to the soviets". Not the parlement, not the ministers, and not one single political party. Soviets had arose in Petrograd, Moscow and a few other places, Kiev I think, but there were more, they were multi-party bodies that held elections in 1917 and served as an alternative to the Duma (parlement). So, in a sense one could say that if the soviets held a form of regional power, and the factories and public services were owned collectively by the workers (this was the theory), then 'the state' would not excist as such. (A system derived from this was tried out in China, but this time with farmer-communes). But, as the Communist party held absolute power (mostly due to the civil war, not entirely by choice), the party itself in essence became the state bureaucracy.
' Freedom involves the Recognition of Necessity ". And read '. Left Wing Communism : An infantile disorder " I think Lenin explains his strategy very clearly in both instances.?
In an ideal world, there would be space for both camps to operate, experiment, and learn - both directly and from one another. Over a period of time victories and faults may be found and considered, with refinement along the way. This is perhaps one of the grave failures of the Left - so much debate, often intense, sometimes bitter ... often a time in proceedings when matters remained at the theoretical stage. It would clearly be much better to agree to afford space to multiple systems, and therefore provide the scope for learning through practical experimentation. Not only would this provide a peaceful space for fellow travellers to invest in their own preferences, but it would also (critically) limit the scope for internal tension, which has historically being of enormous benefit to the enemies of progress!
One of the better short presentations on Marxism and Anarchism. I don't think the Spanish CNT/FAI got it wrong when they referred to there philosophy and programs as Libertarian Communismo. Classic American Libertarianism started about the same time as Marx's earliest writings, so way before the First International. There's a few new works about the International that could bring Anarchists and Marxists closer if they can get away from their own dogmas and take the arguments between the two in a historical and personal context. I recently reread and listened to a video/podcast about Bakunin's anti-semitism. Very disturbing Surprised other Anarchists didn't call him on that, but he may not have listened. Means and ends became more prominent in the 60's and 70's when feminism and movements/history from below began to be discussed. Keep up the good work Richard.
How about anarchomutualism no rule mutual aid it is more of a life style than a political system but good to live by but certain people will always try to rule others hence we need government
I think we need government. I don't think this invalidates anarchism. But what government? How can we structure it so that it is as inclusive as possible, power remains as equal as possible and yet it is functional. Those are the concerns of anarchism. For example, check out participatory economics parecon.info and later work by Michael Albert and colleagues.
This is where the theorists disagree and agree and if that was the whole story I'm sure co-operation could be maintained hell that's what both Rojava and the Zapatistas are a co-operation of Marxists and Anarchists. The problem is historically their has been betrayal from the less libertarian Marxists. Krondstad, The increased centralization of party control, The lack of autonomous zones for anarchists. If MLs are really interested in unity than some type of concessions have to be made on both sided i know anarchists who are very willing to give concessions like the state still existing most anarchist support Rojava and The Zapatistas. But i Don't know of any ML party actually extending any promises to anarchists post transition. How do we know that colaboration will not end in a massacre for being "Ultra Leftists"
Anarchism is popular only in capitalistic societies. US, France, imperial Russia etc. In USSR, China, Cuba loyalty to the state, responsibility to the society, family, friends, party, working environment quickly replace personal freedom. For me, as a former citizen of USSR, it is strange to watch nowadays anarchism in US. It is not socialism. It's a mix of parasitism and stupidity, manipulated by some financial capitalists. Trump's ritoric sounds for me more socialistic.
Would be nice to go deeper on anarchism and the whole abolishment of the state thing. From my perspective, this seems impractical. While i can see a very different role that a state can play in everyday life, i do not understand how you can want to abolish it completely. The "tragedy of the commons" is a problem that needs some kind of authority to solve in my oppinion. Basically, since not everybody (or even most people) will act altruistically you need some kind of governance, at least with the current population. And then there is the problem with other countries. You can not just ignore the rest of the world, so you need people to speak for your country, to make agreements. This can happen much more democratic (like in switzerland for example) but i do think some kind of government is needed.
There's not a good corpus on that. Most anarchists would have loved the soviets but certainly not the Soviet Union. But that's also surely the case of Engels and even maybe Marx himself. There is a Marx-Bakunin split but also a secondary one inside the Marxist camp between Social-Dems (later mostly abandoning Marxism and revolutionism in general) and Bolsheviks (who sacrificed people's power instead in favor of what I dub a Neoplatonic regime of "rule of the philosophers", truly unstable and not very Marxist after all). I agree that abolition of the state in absolute terms is not possible at all, even the most utopian rural commune is a state of sorts. Disdaining politics and the state in absolute terms as many anarchists do is utopian and senseless. A much better pragmatic yet democratic communist approach is that of Murray Bookchin, who was first Leninist, later anarchist and finally on his own. I would describe his idea as roughly "like Cuba in social-economic terms, like Switzerland in political ones". Switzerland is not "anarchy", not even "anarcho-capitalism", but it is generally much more decentralized and democratic than any other polity I know of (and that's surely because it is founded on a peasant revolution of sorts). They even raised their minimum salary by referendum just weeks ago, go figure!
Yes, but we have historical examples in both Russia and France of " revolutionary " movements seizing control of the " State " apparatus. What transpired afterwards is of course the great debating point. Whether it was inevitable etc....?
Every leftist from Marxist-Leninists, to Maoists, to anarchists all desire the same end state, a moneyless, classless, stateless society and the dissolution of all material and social power hierarchies, the only disagreements come in the form of how they will achieve this end state. Anarchists desire the immediate dismantling of the state, and assert that anyone who attempts to levy state power towards any end is an authoritarian, I personally believe that this is a naive and myopic understanding of the revolutionary process that all but assures a reactionary resurgence and subsequent defeat of any anarchist movement as they would by definition lack the institutional capabilities to resist reactionary and capitalist subversion from within and aggression from without. The state should be viewed as nothing more than a vehicle of power over which the bourgeoisie and proletariat are fighting for control of. As Lenin clearly illustrates in State and Revolution, the "dissolving" of the state takes place when the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (direct democracy and public ownership of the means of production) has been established and classes themselves no longer exist due to there no longer being any class distinctions. With all this being said, I think anarchists should play the crucial role of essentially guaranteeing the full dissolution of the state when certain conditions have been met, as utilizing the state does come with the inherent risk of opportunist hijacking. We all need to work together in order to manifest our goal of dismantling capitalism and ushering in the next system.
@@LuisAldamiz Lenin formed his entire ideology on the foundations of Marx, in his actual execution I would say he stays true to this. The USSR had an opportunist problem from the start, and unfortunately, right after Lenin died one could say that the opportunists took full control and started the slow subversion of the Soviet towards the ultimate reassertion of capitalist power in the 90s.
Hello. I liked your video. I am anti-socialist. But recognize it's reality in ' mindset ' of many folks. I have used Bakunin as an example ' a more realistic look at a working model of a collectivist society ' ( like Oscar Wilde in his work about Socialism and the Individual ). I have read about Political and Philosophic ( Ideological ? ) concepts since I began being interested in History...starting about 55 years ago. I have some scholastic background...but not 4 year University level. But I can keep up thru my history of studying. You seem clear headed in your talk...no wandering or digressing. Kudos. That is commendable. So I would like to ask you-- We can look back to Thomas More and his Utopia, or the Protestant Revolution, or the Magna Charta ...or so many other examples of People getting a glimpse of Liberty and Self Will Choice--and action . But just starting with ' The Birth Of Working Democracies ' in the late 1700s , would you say that there was a Primary Focus on The Rights Of Individuals or the Rights of People within a Collective Environment ( That could be construed as Economics or Class or a Nation or Past History ties...we saw the Break Away attempt in the French Revolution with Changing many Old Notions...like the Mile to the Kilometer ) ? Would you characterize People as having a More Collectivist Nature or a More Individual-Centered Mindset ? Or is it Both and very Complicated and something that Must Be handled with the Most Sensitive care ( in setting up a society ) ? Where do you put ' work ' at in the level of Necessity of a Practical Working Successful Society. And by Work , I do not mean Capitalism or Free Enterprise or Skills or a Job or Occupation. I am just talking about the idea of folks Having ( or not having ) to actually have to Work...at anything ? ** I believe Bakunin was one of those who promoted a Universal Income of some sorts. Thanks
Hearing Wolff even say the words “Anarchism” and “Bakunin” gets me feelin all warm and fuzzy I love it
Unfortunately, he really doesn't give an explanation of it. :(
@@khrachvikkhrachvik7049 Anarchists don't read enough to even notice.
@@ChristoffelTensors I dunno. That seems... See, I think it's more that they just haven't learned enough YET. It's overwhelmingly people who are very new
And from there, they get a case of what I call "smartest kid in the room syndrome". So.. they've discovered capitalism is the problem. And so they shout it from the rooftops (which is like... Twitter and youtube comments). And they get a lot of people who know literally nothing about it who disagree with them. And they KNOW they're right on this (and they are).
So when we come along and say "that's good, but you don't know everything yet - here is someone who taught you that fact, but he seems to be dishonest about something else; here is the source for how" their immediate reaction is to treat us like one of the original people who knew nothing about it.
That's why I try to always provide the place I get the info from. (Like William Z Foster's "history of the three Internationals" - of which there is a free pdf online, everyone)
@@khrachvikkhrachvik7049 can you link the free PDF?
@@khrachvikkhrachvik7049 I think you're still being unreasonably dismissive towards anarchists/libertarian socialists. There are plenty of anarchists who have nuanced understandings of power and capitalism and their anti-authoritarian thinking is not just a byproduct of a 'lack of theory'. I think it's more the case that authoritarian or statist marxists see centralism as the only option for worker emancipation and so they dismiss libertarians out of hand. Framed in that way, it's sometimes hard to discern whether authoritarian and libertarian socialists are striving toward similar ends at all, despite the similar rhetoric.
Dude! The Wobblies were HUGE before the First World War, and the Anarcho-Syndicalist sensibility was massively influential in American folk culture way back when. Joe Hill . . . One Big Union . . . Bill Haywood . . . that stuff's as American as apple pie!
It got pushed aside in America, starting from the First Red Scare (1917--1920), in the early Cold War era after WWII by McCarthy's Second Red Scare (1945--1950s) and finally in the post-Stagflation Thatcherite-Reaganite neoliberal era (1979--¿present?).
A Nation's future should never hinge on the proclivities of any single person. Voters on both sides are exactly the same. Both turn into triggered name calling fascists whenever someone challenges their beliefs and both accuse anyone who doesn't parrot their assigned talking points of supporting the other party. Thus the supporters of both parties have hijacked and sold out the rest of humanity for the sake of their own egos and lack of imagination.
And this is how they've controlled us from the dawn of the 20th century, where they pit us against each other, seed the debate with misinformation, a little populism, some catchy epithets, and go about their plunder completely unopposed. All representatives will always be subject to influence from monetary interests, blackmail, or assassination.
The solution is a velvet revolution to install a Scaled Direct Democracy without representatives and politicians. Citizen initiated referendums with thresholds and a social contract using Blockchain technology and open public forums for sourced, evidence based debate means communities can vote for their own policies without politicians. *Thorium energy renders their global oil monopoly obsolete*
*#VelvetRevolution*
*#ScaledDirectDemocracy*
*ThoriumEnergy*
Thorium energy can process both nuclear and toxic waste as well as perform salt water desalination, carbon sequestration, and synthetic fuel production/ electricity for road/rail transport
energyfromthorium.com/
"The thorium molten salt power plant can produce clean energy cheaper than coal, which could be reliable energy system toward a low-carbon economy," PAL said.
www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-nuclearpower-idUSKCN1UD0D0
If the profits from American labour were shared equally, as they are with Corporate Shareholders, every household would receive $700k a year. If we got even a fraction of that amount we would have more than enough to fund education, healthcare and infrastructure for everybody.
52% of all Greenhouse gases come from methane produced by Beef farming, which is 90% subsidised. Ending Beef Communism and embracing Hemp as a moonshot technology alongside Kelp farming for use in packaging, construction, and manufacturing provides an alternative means for land rehabilitation, food production, and industrial oils, as well as medicines, insulation, and clothing.
It would also be conducive for there to be an independent public authority drawing from volunteers to act as advocates for the public interest, with the authority to both observe police and govt interactions with the public, and prosecute bad actors in our own courts. This would ensure law enforcement and government agencies are held to a high standard of etiquette and ethical behaviour for everyone, regardless of their creed, color, or economic bracket.
www.au.org/church-state/september-2008-church-state/people-events/american-jews-don-t-support-christian-zionism
www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-poll-shows-support-for-israel-plummeting-among-u-s-liberals-millennials-and-women-1.6594182
ffwd.medium.com/all-of-youtube-not-just-the-algorithm-is-a-far-right-propaganda-machine-29b07b12430
www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/israel-news/1813262/frightening-report-6-out-of-7-immigrants-to-israel-are-not-jewish.html
@Lanzy Fabian Don't be like Mr Block! Pull out the Little Red Song Book and say HELLO to sabo-kitty. :)
@UCUjfhFEeotF3WHt9A46hXzg Thank you this post. What you have shared is energizing and much needed. I will now go to the addresses you provided.
William Z Foster, the great American communist, came out of the wobblies. I'm ML, there's a lot I love and appreciate about the IWW. I started leftism as an anarcho syndicalist. However, I think the split over the party issue was inevitable, and I don't think we can go back to the tactics of the IWW without effectively making them part of a communist party that engages in multi front struggle.
What should always be mentioned in discussions like this is the reason why anarchists reject the state. It is because the state will never 'wither away' the way Engels and Lenin described it. The state is always based on hierarchy and coercion (otherwise it wouldn't be a state). The people at the top of the hierarchy have a strong incentive to preserve the state, along with the power to do so. This, of course, is exactly what we observe in history: The state in the soviet union was at its weakest in 1917 and quickly became more powerful, more bureaucratic and more repressive in the years after. This development culminated under Stalin, but was well under way right from the start with the institution of the cheka, suppression of the Ukrainian anarchists and the Kronstadt rebellion, etc. You will also be hard pressed to find an example of the state withering away to a significant extent in any of the other so-called communist countries. Typically, the grip of the state is gradually tightened as soon as the leaders reckon they can do so without risking an insurrection.
They are tightening the grip because the government is collapsing.
Hierarchy is natural. Leftism is inhuman.
Oh what I wouldn't give for a discussion on these issues between prof Wolff and Chomsky.
Better yet, Parenti and Wolff. Maybe throw in Steve Keen, and Hudson too.
Please, no. This video is bad enough. Don't add ChIAmsky to it.
@Matias Martinez Well, there's a lot about Chomsky that doesn't come out in the mainstream. He's part of what we call the "synthetic left", having gotten his start at "Partisan Review Magazine", which was wholly organized, funded, and distributed by the CIA with their "Congress for Cultural Freedom" program.
He's been sort of the 'safe' radical for liberals to like since then, maintaining close friendships with the CIA, who fund his dept. at MIT. He's told blatant lies about existing socialism, playing on the trust he'd built with people on other subjects to have them believe him. (That's kind of the schtick, for lack of a better word.)
@Matias Martinez If you wanted that stuff, you should have asked for it. There's a great book that describes the beginning of the program "Congress for Cultural Freedom" (the program the CIA funded and distributed Chomsky with at first) by Joel Whitney, called "Finks". There's a more in-depth book coming out soon (since a lot of the proof has been only thanks to recently declassified CIA documents and freedom of information act demands) called "Synthetic left". So I'd keep my eyes peeled for that.
You can look up proof for yourself. It's very widely known in communist circles that Chomsky is a CIA man, and offers only a "safe" non-threatening complaint about capital and the worst excesses of imperialism that, instead of actually threatening capitalism, serves to draw people into support of its upper echelons. I know this can seem weird at first glance, but that's what happens. Finance capital, etc., are very okay with the same liberalism Chomsky himself says he embodies.
Michael Parenti has written some good articles on it as well. I would suggest looking this stuff up yourself, now that you've got some direction.
Directly? He has massively lied and mischaracterized existing socialism over his entire career. I could have pointed this out, so sorry about that. I usually take it as a given that people are aware of it, and I shouldn't. This is the sort of trade off the synthetic left always does. The utopian ideas in their heads are good, everything in the real world is bad, so you here in the USA, you should try to support the less bad according to them, which just so happens to be monstrous imperialists.
@@khrachvikkhrachvik7049 man i really hate your type of 'leftists'. you guys go full-blown conspiracy theorists when anything is antagonistic to you guy's world view. i heard some guys argued black markets in the soviet union (which very well happened because the lack of consumer goods) is 'CIA action'. Hungary uprising? It is fascists. Instead of embracing the failures of your shitty economic systems that did not give much to the people especially with regards to political power, you guys revision the history. I actually can not believe Stalinist propaganda can live up to 21st century. You guys lack the instinct of freedom and in the name of 'international proleteriat' you forgot what was the objective. Chomsky criticized many times what cia did both with coups and COINTELPRO.
Totally agree. As someone who leans Anarchist, I would prefer sooner then later, but we all have to be moving in the right direction.
That’s ignoring the possible harm of both Reaction and Reformism that can be even more counterproductive than nothing.
See Great Britain, the first to fully meet modern Class Struggle, the first eager to reform, then they captured the middle class to their side and to this day one of the most socially retrograde countries. Tzarist Russia? Those people didn’t give an inch, see what happened. Europe with its Social Democracy is the perfect example of how “moving forward” can actually hurt the cause as a whole.
Secondly, it isn’t hard to believe that without an USSR, there wouldn’t be such a rise in Fascism or such a scar as the one left by the Cold War on consciousness of most people.
Reform might be morally good for the immediate sake of people, but if turning the page is the goal, there’s no space for half-measures or concessions.
rushing towards it sooner entails greater violence
.·´¯·.´¯·.¸¸.·´¯·.¸·.´¯·.¸¸.·´¯·.¸>
well, lets get right to the REVOLUTION
"The three countries, out of 133, that are worse off [in terms of social progress are]: Hungary, Brazil and the United States of America... The United States ranked 19th in 2011. And in 2020 it ranks 28th... The United States ranks #1 in the quality of its universities but it ranks #91 in the access to quality basic education... The US leads the world in medical technology, yet we are #97 in access to quality health care... Americans have health statistics similar to those in the following three countries: Chile, Jordan, and Albania, while kids in the United States get an education roughly on par with what children get in Uzbekistan and Mongolia..." - Richard Wolff
SEPTEMBER 21, 2020
The most memorable pages in Das Kapital are the descriptive passages, culled from Parliamentary Blue Books, on the misery of the English working class.
Marx believed that this misery would increase, while at the same time the monopoly of capital would become a fetter upon production
until finally “the knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.”
hint hint, two class system, neoliberal (capitalist) KILLED the middle class
In Marxist philosophy, the bourgeoisie is the social class that came to own the means of production during modern industrialization and whose societal concerns
are the value of property and the preservation of capital to ensure the perpetuation of their economic supremacy in society.
CAPITALISM IS NOT DEMOCRATIC
CAPITALISM IS NOT FOR LABOR
ARE YOU THE EMPLOYER OR THE EMPLOYEE
ARE YOU THE BOURGEOISIE OR LABOR
ARE YOU THE LORD OR A SERF
ARE YOU THE MASTER OR A SLAVE
ARE YOU THE RICH OR POOR
WHO MAKES THE RULES ? the masters
WHO LIVES THE RESULTS? the slaves
Can you quit your job ? retire ?
No, then you are labor, make that a slave. LOL
Can you retire ?
What is wrong ? well punk, are you a slave ?
That's right the Capital brings the relationship of power, class division if you understand it as so. Capital is not only that described by prof. Wolff but also political power that is needed to maintain it, the superstructure. So for example, in 2008 the Gov. could have instead of giving the billions bailout "almost free money" to the financial system, actually financed(bought) part of the debt of the people who bought the houses or whatever. Even if the price was too high, the effect would be exactly the same(maybe better for the bubble) for the economy except that the power would go to save the people and no the rich capitalists who made a lot on the financial system. The money would come exactly from the same place, but without people have lose their homes, etc. Unfortunately, that relative power. Capital is power,as much any previous class system we had. The only difference is that the previous systems used a form of violent dominance over the lower class, while Capitalists uses their Capital and power to create their ideology, including that fake story that says everyone can be rich is just a matter of hard working or good entrepreneurship.
got your rice and beans ?
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
A Nation's future should never hinge on the proclivities of any single person. Voters on both sides are exactly the same. Both turn into triggered name calling fascists whenever someone challenges their beliefs and both accuse anyone who doesn't parrot their assigned talking points of supporting the other party. Thus the supporters of both parties have hijacked and sold out the rest of humanity for the sake of their own egos and lack of imagination.
And this is how they've controlled us from the dawn of the 20th century, where they pit us against each other, seed the debate with misinformation, a little populism, some catchy epithets, and go about their plunder completely unopposed. All representatives will always be subject to influence from monetary interests, blackmail, or assassination.
The solution is a velvet revolution to install a Scaled Direct Democracy without representatives and politicians. Citizen initiated referendums with thresholds and a social contract using Blockchain technology and open public forums for sourced, evidence based debate means communities can vote for their own policies without politicians. *Thorium energy renders their global oil monopoly obsolete*
*#VelvetRevolution*
*#ScaledDirectDemocracy*
*ThoriumEnergy*
Thorium energy can process both nuclear and toxic waste as well as perform salt water desalination, carbon sequestration, and synthetic fuel production/ electricity for road/rail transport
energyfromthorium.com/
"The thorium molten salt power plant can produce clean energy cheaper than coal, which could be reliable energy system toward a low-carbon economy," PAL said.
www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-nuclearpower-idUSKCN1UD0D0
If the profits from American labour were shared equally, as they are with Corporate Shareholders, every household would receive $700k a year. If we got even a fraction of that amount we would have more than enough to fund education, healthcare and infrastructure for everybody.
52% of all Greenhouse gases come from methane produced by Beef farming, which is 90% subsidised. Ending Beef Communism and embracing Hemp as a moonshot technology alongside Kelp farming for use in packaging, construction, and manufacturing provides an alternative means for land rehabilitation, food production, and industrial oils, as well as medicines, insulation, and clothing.
It would also be conducive for there to be an independent public authority drawing from volunteers to act as advocates for the public interest, with the authority to both observe police and govt interactions with the public, and prosecute bad actors in our own courts. This would ensure law enforcement and government agencies are held to a high standard of etiquette and ethical behaviour for everyone, regardless of their creed, color, or economic bracket.
www.au.org/church-state/september-2008-church-state/people-events/american-jews-don-t-support-christian-zionism
www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-poll-shows-support-for-israel-plummeting-among-u-s-liberals-millennials-and-women-1.6594182
ffwd.medium.com/all-of-youtube-not-just-the-algorithm-is-a-far-right-propaganda-machine-29b07b12430
www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/israel-news/1813262/frightening-report-6-out-of-7-immigrants-to-israel-are-not-jewish.html
With all due respect, you can't lean Anarchist: Either you're an Anarchist, or you're not.
I appreciate the fair comparison here. I haven't been happy with Richard's characterisation of Anarchism in the past, but it seems that he's being much fairer here! One issue I have though is the idea that Anarchism just kind of disappeared. Anarchists were the most persecuted in the First Red Scare, and after the first world war the Wobblies still stayed relevant and powerful. They were dealt a second blow in the Second Red Scare however. Few people know this but while Communists were being sent to prison, many Anarchists were being executed in a more extrajudicial fashion - often in the streets by way of police brutality. We should also remember the successes of the Spanish Revolution at the beginning of The Civil War and that it was crushed by both Fascists and Marxist-Leninists. However short the experiment, it showed us that a mostly bloodless and sudden takeover was possible, and that the state did not need to be an intermediary. Militias still existed, they put up a good fight, but in the end they weren't as well armed, well funded, and were betrayed. In the 21st century though, we've seen a huge resurgence in Argentina and the US with Occupy Wall Street. There is an argument to be made that Occupy is an Anarchist movement because it is leaderless, grassroots, and anti-capitalist. There is also interest popping up all around Europe and praxis is being exercised in Greece, Spain, France, and a few other countries. I hope it lasts and I hope that the Anarchists are succesful and right because Marxists would prefer the state to disappear overnight but see it as a necessary evil in the transitionary stage. At the end of the day, we all want the same thing and agree on many parts of the methodology. I'm happy to see Marxists engaging more in direct action in the last decade too, something that Anarchists never stopped doing particularly in Athens.
@@annarock8966 ...no.
This is literally all ahistorical nonsense. Cite your sources on this. Because you are just pulling this shit out of your ass.
Please read about a society that is functioning similar to Anarchism ideas ( Marxism as well) . The society has no state, no police, democratic as Professor Wolf Co-ops with gender equality and Centeral decision making that are responsible and accountable and can be recalled by Co-ops that elected them . 50% gender representation division.
The place is called Rojava in Western Kurdistan. It is functional right now. Please google it and let me know of your thoughts
Unfortunately, this video is incredibly dishonest. I'm seriously very disappointed in Prof. Wolff for this one. See my comment above.
@@khrachvikkhrachvik7049 I can't see your comments. Nothing from you
Yeah, Marx and Bakunin had what they both essentially described as a friendly rivalry of sorts and they agreed on far more than they disagreed, they just disagreed vehemently on the things they disagreed on. I think it was Marx who said his debates with Bakunin were "the highlight of my day" which he thoroughly enjoyed. They both looked at the Paris Commune as their ideas put into practice 😂 Marx thought it was possible to use the state to bring about and maintain a socialist transition, anarchists (mostly) do not and feel that the social revolution must abolish both the state and capitalism. There's no evidence that states can be anything more than top-down oppressive institutions and Marx wasn't as married to the idea as Leninists would later be. He stated on multiple occasions that he saw other possible means of achieving this that didn't include the state or included interacting with the state in very different ways. Bakunin and other anarchists made clear too that they agreed with Marx on essentially everything aside from the role of the state and a few other particulars of less importance. A lot of what Marxists believe of anarchism and anarchists believe of Marxism are the results of petty sectarianism and struggles for influence that wasn't above slipping into dishonesty, which is really unfortunate, and there was far less daylight between us than many make it out to be til Lenin changed everything.
In the US (and many other parts of the world) anarchists got the Red Scare treatment well before 1919 and was the leading form of socialism in the states aside from the less defined syndicalist style that Debs would later come to embody. There was also a great deal of mixing and it was much more difficult to tell who was what or if it even mattered, anarchists joined Socialist and Communist Parties, Marxists joined anarchist trade unions and orgs. But with the perceived success of the Bolsheviks in October of 1917 many socialists around the world thought they'd finally found their magic bullet and joined ML CP's around the globe regardless of their preferences, which can be seen the the seemingly endless fracturing that has resulted since. Many anarchists believed that since the Black Guard and Russian anarchists initially joined/worked with the Bolsheviks after they consolidated power that they too should join the CP and and did so in huge numbers before many were later being purged or broke away again to form another organization. By the 60's many became completely disillusioned with what Leninist states had become and come to represent and Anarchism and Maoism, as well as other forms of socialism and revolutionary theory, saw a boom/resurgence that's largely continued til this day, particularly since the 80's. Leninism was largely viewed as a dead end and it really wasn't til pretty recently that it started to see any resurgence of it's own. Either way, most anarchists (and I don't mean the 15 y/o's online) back then and now are essentially Marxists who are skeptical of or opposed to the state, and there are even a lotta Marxists that are lol So there's often not much of a difference aside from aesthetics and rhetoric.
But it's also not really accurate to say that anarchists don't want leaders, particularly when viewing any anarchist movement throughout history lol Most all have had leaders. They were just well liked, respected and usually elected officials subject to immediate recall should faith in them be lost. There's no issue with leaders who are just good at leading, the problem is when leaders hold undue power, negative influence or become rulers using coercion to get their way regardless of what those under them want. Leadership is a good thing most of the time.
But if we are students of history and wish to apply the standards of science to struggle then looking back it's easy to see that most every successful socialist movement and uprising has been the direct result of Marxists and anarchists working together. Aside from a coup or two and a few particularly large anarchist movements success has usually been found in combining the two tendencies to take on the enemies of socialism. There are some Marxists who will never be convinced of anarchism and some anarchists that will never be convinced of the state having a role to play in liberation so I don't know why we stay at eachother's throats so much on the few areas of disagreement that'll likely never change when we agree on so much and have much bigger problems than eachother. We make an ocean of what's a stream and let the right off the hook entirely. Makes no sense. There are some people I won't work with and they don't wanna work with me and that should be fine! But for most we got work to do!
✊👊🖤☮️🥀🏴🌐A///E
I agree with the essence of what you said. What bothers me and i believe you didn't point to that is " terrorism " that Anarchist were so much in love with that killing Reactionaries that were figures of operation against workers creates an uprising. Marxism does not believe in that. Social Revolutionaries and Anarchist worked hand in hand . Please reference to "Living my Life" Emma Goldman. Engels blamed the brake up of First International to Bukharin and his group
Interesting read, thank you. To add to your point about accepting leadership or authority in general, I believe some anarchists say that that the authority is only legitimate if those under it accept it as legitimate. At least, that’s what I’ve heard Chomsky espouse. If I’m wrong please correct me.
I absolutely love your points and truly wish that Marxists and Anarchists would work together in a United Front rather than being at each other's throats all the time. I'm a relative Orthodox Marxist (not a Leninist even though I freely and happily admit that Lenin himself had many good points and a brilliant understanding of theory and strategy), but I have great respect and admiration for Anarchism and Anarchists. I have come to realize that a lot of Anarchists have an insufficiently structural understanding of capitalism, and a lot of Anarchists out there seem to be okay with Anarchism being a lifestyle (but certainly not all anarchists), but I also respect the ideas of autonomy and understand their skepticism of the state, because I am incredibly skeptical of the state myself. Regardless of our disagreements, however, we both must remember that both Marxists and Anarchists (and even to some degree social democrats) are a small minority in American society, and fighting each other doesn't do anything to help destroy capitalism. We both must remember that if your main goal in politics isn't to improve the living conditions of the working class, and if you are happy with your political group being just a subculture, you are not really a socialist, but instead someone who just uses socialism as a way to appear chic. One thing we both must remember and while I hate to say it, global capitalism isn't going away anytime soon, but that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't fight our hardest to weaken it, and in our current society that unfortunately means using the electoral politics for our ends as Bernie Sanders and AOC have done. Political campaigns on the Democratic Party ballot line (unfortunately) are the quickest way to reach the working class where they are, and to make certain major political ideas well-known and popular (e.g., Medicare for All, which would allow workers to engage in labor strike actions without fear of losing their access to healthcare). I hate that the Democratic Party is important, but the old strategy of creating leftist 3rd parties and hoping we reach the working class HAS NEVER WORKED in the United States, with notable the exception of the Socialist Party under Eugene V. Debs, which even then was never a real threat to the party duopoly. Anyway, sorry for the rant, let's work together and make capitalism history. Peace and Solidarity comrades!
So, my own views are hard to pin down in simple labels, but I guess you could call me a modern synthesis anarchist, drawing both on traditional social anarchist ideas and post-left, egoist and market anarchist critiques thereof, with something of a lean towards the latter camp, albeit specifically through a queer intersectional feminist lens as pertains to the material dynamics of oppression. Insofar as actual anarchists (read: libertarian anti-capitalists, non-ancaps/akratists) go, I'm not quite so far from orthodox Marxism as, say, Gary Chartier or Lysander Spooner, but needless to say, I am highly critical of Marxist ideas, particularly those in the Leninist tradition. However, in terms of actually getting things done in the real world and the kind of people who I can trust to cover me should matters go pear-shaped, I'm not going to be all too choosy. So long as you're not spreading hateful rhetoric or being a creep or a dogmatic stick in the mud, at the end of the day, I'll watch your back if you watch mine. We all know that this system is a nightmare and needs to end. We want to breathe free, to survive and to thrive.
Anarchists were federalists and skeptical of nationalism. They were against the emergence of parliamentary political engagement. Two ways in which they differed from the state orientated left.
Thanks Dr Wolf! Anarchism was popular alongside trade unions in the US before the USSR and was ruthlessly suppressed in the US, Europe and USSR. Also, my understanding is that the soviets in revolutionary Russia were not led by Lenin and were an example of anarchism that had the potential to govern the country. Lenin outlawed them immediately after his revolutionary coup.
The menchovics is who I believe you're referring to
Wow you anarchists are actually illiterate. The Soviets were run by Mensheviks ans SRs until the Bolsheviks became the most popular party in the cities. Anarchists had a small section of the Soviets. Mostly less than 5%.
this is completely ahistorical. Lenin called for 'All Power to the Soviets', the direct opposite of outlawing them.
@@ronanpayinda4978 he really meant "all power to the party", he betrayed the anarchists, as marxists always do...
@@thechekist2044 Or insane.... There is only one definition of anarchy and it means a stateless society . Given that upholding the rule of law is a major role of state I think at least they should think about ti a bit longer. . The USSR wan not stateless. One hell of a state to have to live under.
Professor Wolff said leftist unity!! :)
We'll live together or we'll die alone
@@ananousous There is only death when "uniting," with Leninists/centralists (like younger Marx). No unity to be found without decentralization, only an anarchist flavored meal 🫤 You won't ever be able to rid yourself of the state if the state is unitary. It needs to at least be federated first.
Really federated, like America before the Civil War. When people were still under the illusion a state could leave if it wanted. Where the individual parts are able to govern themself without being crushed by a boot.
I've been anticipating a video like this for a long time! Keep up the great work Richard!
Thank you, Professor Wolff. Only a Progressive International can save humanity and the planet.
Thanks!
I think you left out some of the most important reasons for the hostility between anarchists and communist: the anarchists rightly pointed out that those who make up the ruling class of the state are always incompetent, corrupt, and evil and will never give up its power. This prediction from early anarchists about what Marx’s ideas would inspire turned out to be exactly correct. As Bakunin himself wrote:
“But in the People’s State of Marx, there will be, we are told, no privileged class at all. All will be equal, not only from the juridical and political point of view, but from the economic point of view. At least that is what is promised, though I doubt very much, considering the manner in which it is being tackled and the course it is desired to follow, whether that promise could ever be kept. There will therefore be no longer any privileged class, but there will be a government and, note this well, an extremely complex government, which will not content itself with governing and administering the masses politically, as all governments do to-day, but which will also administer them economically, concentrating in its own hands the production and the just division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factories, the organization and direction of commerce, finally the application of capital to production by the only banker, the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many “heads overflowing with brains” in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant and contemptuous of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and pretended scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe betide the mass of ignorant ones!”
Could you please give me the name of the book where he wrote that??
@@nestorcsamacho6328 I believe it was The State and Marxism.
Lenin murdered 20,000 anarchists in Moscow in November 1918 with the
CHEKA his thugs.
He called them ' useful Idiots"
The first of Millions of middle class
White trust fund party Punks on
Karl Marx bull Sh*t Anarchist bs
The State, any state has an interest in it's own survival and perpetuation, lots of cushy jobs, the access to corruption, lots of cute interns and a six figure income when you retire. The Soviet State is a prime example of where that self interest takes a state. Of course the United States Government is no different.
Every morning I wake up and say to myself, "anarchist economics". I love it and it hypes me up for the day.
Organize the people, unionize the workers, unite the communities! Seize the time fellow travelers and fellow workers! Smash fascism!
Dream on The workers won't agree any more than congress.
Excellent introduction. Lots of ground for fruitful discussion and respectful disagreement.
For anyone interested in learning more about anarchism on UA-cam, be sure to check out Zoe Baker (aka Anarchopac). She’s incredibly informative, a great historian, and the best anarchist UA-camr out there.
You left out the MOST IMPORTANT difference where Marx and Bakunin disagreed:
The definition of capitalism.
Proudhon and Blanc had coined the concept of capitalism, using it to refer to the political class violating economic freedom by granting itself a monopoly on most capital, like land, finance, and so on. Bakunin was close to Proudhon's position on this. That monopoly is recognizable by almost everyone as harmful/evil.
Marx, who wanted to CONTROL a monopoly over capital while nonetheless retaining the popular opposition to "capitalism", therefore reversed the meaning of the term. His "capitalism" is expanded to include economic freedom. The economic system he proposes actually IS capitalist, and the freedom of association and economy that Proudhon and Bakunin seek, he calls "capitalism" and wants to ban.
Marx on the Paris Commune, and his 18th Brumaire are interesting in relation to his attitude towards the state.
بادرود فراوان بر رفیق محیط عزیز و فراموش نشدنی. جای فوتبالیست انسان و دوست دار زحمتکشان و مبارزان راه سوسیالیست مارادونا در صحبتهای آین هفته شما بنا برفوت این انسان خالی بود. زنده وپاینده باشی آقای محیط گرامی.پرنسیپ و دقت شما در طرح سیاسی اجتماعی واقتصادی واقعا جاافتاده و دلنشین قابل حظم و همه فهم است واقعا استفاده میکنم ، دوستدار شما رومیانی از وفردا المان
Bakunin was great. I've really enjoyed reading his work and firmly side with him over Marx after having also read his.
Spot on, professor. Glad to see this topic coming up. Keep up the fantastic work!
Kropotkin is far more compelling than Bakunin
Very, very true. I think people get hung up on Bakunin because he was the source for the well of anarchists in the Russian revolution, and people tend to think that he is to anarchism what Marx is to Marxism. But this couldn't be further from the truth. It is possible to engage with modern anarchism and read not a single word of Bakunin. His writings are not treated as holy texts with orthodox exegesis the way many thinkers in the ML tradition tend to be.
@@yuzhouxingzhe yeah I've never gotten that Marx comparison. I mean in terms of who started anarchism you've got Proudhon and then Kropotkin really gave it a scientific basis ala Marx (I'm thinking of works like mutual aid). Seems just bc Bakunin was a contemporary of Marx he's seen as the top guy. But tbf you are right you don't really need to read any of them - I'd say someone could learn all the essentials of anarchism from a few five minute Bookchain videos or just googling a bit about Rojava or the anarchist region in Mexico
The only common we have is anticapitalism. And that's simply not enough.
The truth is that capitalism has existed since humans started to trade at all, so that you want to "end capitalism" is as absurd as ending the very thing that drives society forward. And before you say capitalism is a modern invention; with capitalism I mean the law of nature that decide prices, supply and demand. As these mechanisms ALWAYS has been there for thousands of years. Meaning when there is a shortage of something, either because there is an increased demand or a sudden slow in supply the mechanism of capitalism has pushed people into make and produce more, of course the price helps to push for this as the price in a capitalistic society is decided on the condition of supply/demand. That communism fell because it had no good system to replace this with proves that communism failed, and will always fail or create a society with huge problems in the area of supply and demand. Same with anarchy, as it would be even worse as you want to remove hierarchy as well. A totally insane idea as of course everything always will have a hierarchy, not possible to remove as some other hierarchy ALWAYS will be created.
@@truxton1000 sure buddy
Socialism and anarchism need the perfect balance to work. Both are amazing doctrines but I agree with the new left (Chomsky, Russell) that certain forms of socialism could lead us to a situation where we could use syndicalist doctrine instead of socialist. Getting there needs serious work, something that could be done with a popular movement in the U.S that bleeds to already budding forms of syndicalism happening around the globe.
Socialism by Karl Marx murdered more human beings in one century ( the 20th)
Than any war or religion in all human history.
At least 120+++ MILLIONS
of Russians, Eastern EUROPEANS and
Chinese by decades of
Forced labor, starvation and diseases.
WTF get a clue read something about
What an A hole Karl Marx really was and said and did. He caused the deaths of more human beings with his insane cliches and platitudes and zero sum economics than any human beings in world history
I think it’s possible to simultaneously build dual power structures to contest the power of the state apparatus and elect sympathetic figures into the state to wield state power against capitalism and give the dual power structures room to grow.
THANK YOU! As a Marxian anarchist, it’s been a VERY frustrating two months of trying to get the different ideologies working any where near together. So much damn infighting. It’s refreshing to see an honest take on anarchism and Marxism :)
Except this isn't an honest take. I'm very disappointed in Prof. Wolff. He knows exactly what the actual facts are, yet dances around them and misrepresents. The entire time.
The split between Marxists and Anarchists isn't simply on a tactical question of "the state". It is foundational.
This in no way means that we shouldn't work with Anarchists, or that they won't be helping us build socialism. I'm sure they will.
But as you learn about Marxism, you'll learn why it's kind of impossible to be a Marxian anarchist. What I see is... people new to the left that get interested in anarchism because communism has been lied about and demonized to them their entire lives, so it seems like "the good option". Then they realize that there is no material analysis of society, no guiding science that leads to tactical and strategic advance, only a sort of moral argument. Marxism provides this. So they get to where you are, using Marxism's correct discovery of the laws by which capital accumulates and economy functions. Then they continue learning, realize that these laws were discovered because of the science Marx and Engels created (this is when they truly begin understanding dialectical and historical materialism, not just hearing the words) and drop anarchism altogether in favor of Marxism.
I will say that people like Wolff are plastered all over the internet, and while they play a mostly progressive role, these misrepresentations and lies they engage in harm us, over all. And there is NOT enough real Marxist content on the internet (how young people do their learning today) to teach people and bring them in more quickly. Learning dialectical materialism is mandatory - it is the sharpest weapon the working class has.
@@khrachvikkhrachvik7049 You should take some time to learn about anarchism in its various forms before going off on your high horse. As a Marxist, you have to be rigorous, materialist and scientific in your observation and analysis.
Your comment does not reflect this.
It appears to me that you have simply listened to your "teachers" and not done your due diligence to research anarchist theory and praxis.
For example, nothing stops an anarchist from using dialectical and historical materialism to underpin their praxis...as many have done and will continue to do.
Follow your own advice. Do better.
@@khrachvikkhrachvik7049 Ok, but have you guys solved the economic calculation problem? the malthusian trap? Or it's just daydreaming?
@@TheLucasbr152 the economic calculation problem was never actually a problem. It was a weird sort of propaganda piece by fascist sympathizers like Hayek.
Regardless, with modern computers, even that wouldn't matter now. Paul cockshott mathematically proves that. But socialism itself has learned lessons since the Soviet Union. These days, consumer goods are largely left to the market, which is under direction of the economic plan. So democracy decides the direction, then market decides the individual commodities. And it works really well.
As far as malthusianism goes, that's always sort of been nonsense. Marx proved as much in his pamphlet "theories of surplus value", but it's immediately evident these days. We produce far far far more than enough resources for everyone. It is because it's a capitalist system that people starve, die of easily cured disease, etc. Not because there are just too many people and there's not enough to go around. There's way way more than enough to go around.
As far as daydreaming goes, too too too many armchair liberals in the west, running around trying to call themselves socialists. You're right about that one.
@@tenmanX I've studied anarchism in depth.
What anarchists call theory isn't the same thing marxists call theory.
This isn't to rag on actual anarchists. It's to correct facts. If we come to this fight with our facts all mixed up, we will get defeated. We will earn the reputation of a cartoon the right paints us with, delusional, moralizing woke scolds. We need to be realistic. If you're an anarchist, you need to be able to confront the fact that anarchism has never achieved much, for instance.
You need the facts on the accomplishments of socialists, as well. Lifting more people out of poverty than any other force in all of human history, space travel, fucking... Tetris. These are huge achievements. We need to understand things as officer as we can, learn how the capitalist class has infiltrated this thing and distorted even the terminology we use, in order to ideologically confuse us.
Has someone any good description in a book, or other media, of how a modern complex anarchist society would look like/work? How would it be different from say a direct democracy? No trolling, I just would really like to know more.
There is NO difference from Direct Democracy, it's Concensus making democratic type.
Anark has videos on "Constructing the Revolution" and "After the Revolution"
When asked this question, Chomsky would often scoff saying it's a fool's errand to try and sketch an anarchist society in considerable detail.
But he often referred people to the work of his former student, Michael Albert, founder of Z Magasine.
I haven't checked to find what he might be referring to. I'll leave that to you, if you're interested.
ua-cam.com/video/ZzEl5RIMp7M/v-deo.html
Anark is great on UA-cam
I wouldn't ask the question "how do we get rid of the state", but rather "how do we start to function without the state". Let me elaborate.
In the times of covid-19, I think it's more likely that the role of the state will diminish by itself. For example, in my country, Croatia, they did not impose a lockdown this autumn and spikes in infections were huge. State is trying to preserve the main business here, and that's restaurants, coffee shops etc. Hospitals are full etc. So what happened, the rate of infections are a bit better in some areas, because people themselves started changing their own behaviour to stop the infection spread. It wasn't the fear of punishment by the state, it was solely the subconscious social self-organization. Of course it yet remains to be seen if this will continue to be the case, but I believe in the long run, the state will become powerless exactly in their attempt to protect capital. In the end, the police, the military, the doctors, are all working on helping people without direct enforcement of the state, and even against the misery they live in. Once the proleteriat gets used to functioning on its own and state remains a pack of bickering fools, and capitalists just a bunch of Wall Sreeet gambling addicts, the revolution will happen, as just a formal end to what we call the state and capitalism. That's what I believe at least.
I mean, the capitalism has to go, or we will perish with it. And I think self organization which leads to marginalization of the state is the key.
Please read about a society that is functioning similar to Anarchism ideas ( Marxism as well) . The society has no state, no police, democratic as Professor Wolf Co-ops with gender equality and Centeral decision making that are responsible and accountable and can be recalled by Co-ops that elected them . 50% gender representation division.
The place is called Rojava in Western Kurdistan. It is functional right now. Please google it and let me know of your thoughts
It is time for the state to wither away. Right now. Bakunin was ahead of his time, and his time is now.
Bakunin wasn't interested in any system. Bakunin recognized that Marx sought to replace the capitalist state with the state in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Bakunin did not support the existence of the state in any of its forms including the dictatorship of the proletariat. That's why Marx kicked Bakunin out of the First International. As far as any alliance between communists and anarchists, the first armed action of the Cheka was against Lev Cherni and the Moscow Anarchists Collective. Marxists are statists as much as capitalists.
Although the tactical considerations of Marx/Lenin regarding the use of the state to provisionally put down anti- revolutionary forces were sensible, Bakunin was totally right in his prediction that this provisional character would vanish and a tyranny would take over. A horrible one.
A "minor" historical detail Richard should have mentioned.
The state question was a real conundrum.
BTW, Richard is an anarcho-syndicalist, I'm always wondering why he never uses these words, nor why he never mentions Chomsky.
Since when is Wolff an ansynd?
It still is a real conundrum. The path to socialism is very unclear IMO. Prof. Wolf advocates for worker coops in a market economy containing today's powerful elites and market forces. How wouod Marx's and Bakunin's visionary society come about?
@@philipganchev2306 basically, the workers would establish a Dictatorship of The Proletariat (democratic worker control over the means of production and the state - society) and then phase out commodity production, money (initial use of labor vouchers), class (no money means no class), and the state (no class means no state). It's a little different in Anarchism though. I've heard Malatesta is a very good theorist, and is often reccomended over even Baukinin and Prouhdon.
Not only Bakunin was right, to some extent at least, but even Engels was right in his usually forgotten but fierce and spot on critique of Blanquism, the precursor of Bolshevism or Leninism. Engels slammed Blanquistes as an organization detached from the masses that was so hierarchical that was already a dictatorship in itself, and as such could only produce a dictatorship if they ever managed to take power.
Leninism is not the same as Marxism, it is somewhat derived but so is social-democracy and one could say that many other tendencies, including Bakunin's and more modernly Worker Autonomy and Ecosocialism (both of which try to reunify and update the best of Marxism and Anarchism). Leninists have monopolized the term "Marxism", growingly so since 1917, while social-dems have been dropping it in turn, but one could well say that someone like Corbyn is a true Marxist or that someone like Maduro is a social-democrat. We should probably let go those closed boxes that linger from the past, a past that must be respected but almost certainly not just copy-pasted. We are not at the beginning of Capitalism as Marx and Bakunin were, nor in the middle of the disciplinary Fordist period, as was the case of Lenin and the revolutions and tendencies that follow him, we are at the very end of the Toyotist period and almost certainly near the end of Capitalism itself (ecology and the development of the working class obligues), we must reconsider everything and build our own synthesis or syntheses.
@@jessesaranow7724 Capitalists and the political-professional-managerial class would oppose any moves towards worker control. And even if there is worker control, as long as distribution is done via a market, it will tend to bring out market rationale, competition, individualism, consumerism and ultimately accumulation and class separation.
People want society to be based on their interpretation. Everyone has different interpretations, based on lifestyle, class, and upbringing.
Coop in Work place or family can be an example of simple organization with simple agreements between members.
After all distribution of resource only becomes a problem when there is inequality. Governments protecting systems under capitalist structure only makes the problem worst.
Thanks a ton for the precise explanation, Prof. Wolff is exceptional in explaining things which may takes days for us to research through, and best part is, he explains what terminologies mean first, and then later on gives his own opinion about that.
Also, let us know, what is your opinion on the actual "withering away of the state" do you think its possible, or is it just "limiting the state" bcz as soon as some resources go scarce, a management has to arise to control the distribution, say for example, when parking is plenty, we don't need a parking management, but when theres an event or gathering, all of a sudden, parking goes scarce and then you need people to manage and give priority to those who need the most. Whats your take on that?
One often hears the phase *"bomb throwing"* precede the word *"anarchist"* and such is the power of repetition that when one hears the one, the other is automatically called to mind, but the few bombs thrown by anarchists pale in comparison to millions of tons of bomb dropped at the behest of capitalists. Arguably, bomb dropping is one of capitalisms defining features. I propose that whenever one uses the term *"capitalist"* it be preceded by the phrase *"bomb dropping"* as in *"Bomb Dropping Capitalist."*
That's because of Mateo Morral: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morral_affair
Also because of this Spanish anarchist hymn maybe: "arroja la bomba, escupe metralla..." (throw the bomb, spit shrapnel...) >> ua-cam.com/video/4odfyMksTko/v-deo.html
@@LuisAldamiz Perhaps either or both, of course, the epithet was coined as a pejorative to define an opponent.
@@joecaner - At some points anarchists embraced the term but I fear it is because of the less systematic, more utopian, somewhat negative, influence of Proudhonism, largely via Kropotkin's excessive optimism about human nature. Bakunin was not that utopian and the term "anarchist" was originally conceived as derisive, directly implying disorganized, chaotic, unruly.
I'm OK with anarchists calling themselves whatever they want but when I was anarchist, I'd rather call myself libertarian communist. Nowadays, more eclectic and definitely more Marxist but not strictly so, I'd call myself democratic communist or ecosocialist. I don't want any compromise with capitalism (i.e. not social-democrat at all) and I don't want a centralized totalitarian state in which the working masses have almost no say (so not leninist either), I want a decentralized democratic and socialist/communist type of state in which the working class has the real power.
More videos on anarchism 🏴 !
I wonder how many people noticed he didn't explain what he thinks Anarchism is, or where he thinks it differs from Socialism or Communism, or how he thinks Anarchism is inappropriate.
Here's a clue :
From the Greek, "An" meaning without, and, "Archos", meaning rulers, or rulership.
Please note, that isn't the same as being without rules, because of course, we share rules, when we co-operate, to create or sustain shared goals, like use of language, attitudes to behaviour, overthrowing, (or withering away), the state, etc.
The difference between anarchism and socialism (as in using the state as a transitional tool), is that when applied, anarchism has actually worked and we have had stateless societies as a result of that, (catalonia in spain 1936 is one of those societies) and the only way these societies have been defeated was through usage of force (wars, militarization etc.). Unlike in socialism where the problem was usually the state itself and the so called "proletariat" with their unnecessary bureaucracy and authoritarianism.
That has one huge problem, With out state Catalonia was not able to defend itself.
@@Mutineer9 Exactly! Franco's Fascists being supported by Germany and the Communist faction being supported by Stalin and the Anarchists being supported by no-one had nothing to do with it. Of course.
The anarchists were also not quite supported by USSR either. I consider myself mostly anarchist. But we should be honest: the fact that anarchist Catalonia was short lived makes the case more difficult.
@@philipganchev2306 We still have Rojava.
@@Mutineer9 Yeah, because the USSR betrayed them and they had to fight Franco and counter revolutionary USSR agents at the same time.
Please make another longer more in-depth video on Marx and Bakunin. It is election time and people are not paying attention.
How do you square the circle with corporations then and the polluting that would be done?
Not a troll I’m asking for real
just a short take but i do think any movements towards post-capitalist society should take into account the *material condition*, so depends on the country's current state, they can choose to take an anarchist direct state-abolishing path, or the more transitional state proletarian dictatorship that ML believe in
I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with Bakunin. I mean, I know who he was, but I don't really know much about his theories. I'm much more familiar with Proudhon, having read his "What is Property?" back in 2014 and his "General Idea of the Revolution" about a year or two ago. There's some overlap between the two, but Bakunin was more aligned with Marx in embracing materialism while rejecting Proudhon's mostly abstract methodology.
Bakunin hated Proudhom and admired Marx. He used the label "anarchist" to derise Proudhonians (he considered himself "revolutionary socialist", not "anarchist") but he also thought that Marx, while a great genius, was egotic and authoritarian. Nobody is perfect, I guess.
We must rethink it all: those people were at the beginning of Capitalism, we are at the end of it, we need to reformulate in terms of how to overcome Capitalism and not so much on what the heck is Capitalism, back then a novelty, now old history.
@@LuisAldamiz Well said.
Very limited approach, IMO. Both are tendencies rooted in the 19th century and with peak in the early 20th century (not just the rather successful Bolshevik model peripheral revolutions of the Fordist period but also social-democracy, which is a "Marxist" tendency, because Marx preferred to ally with them in spite of clear differences, and of anarchism itself: Makhnovism, Catalan Revolution, etc.) Back in the event of the breakup of the 1st International, our smartest class enemy, Chancellor Bismarck, wrote: "let the great fortunes and the crowned heads tremble if the reds and the blacks ever unite again". I think he was right and I also think that a road to that refoundation of revolutionary socialism (incidentally Bakunin's choice of label for himself, he did not like "anarchism", which he used derisively against Proudhonists) has been laid out largely by the late US thinker Murray Bookchin, whose model has been adapted with some success by the ongoing Kurdish-plus revolutionary movement.
Arguing about the state is futile, any rural commune is a "state" of sorts, there's no stateless society, there are however different forms of state or of political organization of a given society: more or less centralized, more or less democratic, etc. And of course more or less socialist, although this may be a fundamental divide. Even anarcho-capitalists, who are arguably more anarchist than the anarchists (but not more socialist, of course) would need some form of state, even Tortuga Island, their model, was a state, and absolute lack of state can only lead to warlordism, which in turn can only produce some other state.
My problem with most Marxists, I have discovered, is not about Marx nor Engels, much less Lafargue (these three are the founding fathers of Marxism), but with Lenin and what he and the other Bolsheviks actually did in Russia (and by extension in other states of the same model like China, Yugoslavia, etc.) Incidentally Lenin and the Bolsheviks are copycat of an earlier 19th century organization, that of Louis Blanqui, and incidentally this group was fiercely attacked by Engels with great foresight (Marx was more ambivalent however). Engels argued that Blanquistes were detached from the masses and constituted a political dictatorship that could only produce a political dictatorship if they ever were successful. Lenin proved Engels right (on the other hand the actual Blanquistes behaved much more democratically in the Paris Commune but it was short lived).
On the side of Anarchists it must be criticized their excess of individualism and "purity", their degeneration towards utopian socialism. And I believe these are the criticisms that Bookchin rightly makes, arguing for an hybrid model, not stateless and not dictatorial either, as far as I can discern it'd be something like Cuba in terms economic and social but like Switzerland in terms political and of human rights, more or less, be creative. This needs to be debated and IMO adopted by as many people as possible, and organized politically.
Good points.!!
Agree, except "the withering away of the state" was Engles, Anti-Duhring.
libertarian originally meant socialist, and was a euphemism for anarchist. the "libertarian right" started under murray rothbard. the state is a form of authority. hence, libertarians, going all the way back to Classical Liberals like Thomas Jefferson and Humboldt, were skeptical of the state. being anti-state isn't new. personally, i'm a classical liberal/libertarian socialist closer to Jefferson meets Proudhon (mutualism) or the Ricardian Socialists (think Benjamin Tucker) with a minimal state (minarchy). where the state would rule in public affairs with a power structure, capitalists rule in economic affairs (private). both are authoritarian, and both should be questioned.
"withering away of the state" is a term from Engles, not just Lenin.
there is another difference: anarchist says that the State is always authoritarian, therefore a State Socialism is always authoritarian; moreovere, Marx and Bakunin started to HATE themselves because according to Bakunin, Marx WAS authoritarian, parties are always authoritarian, and the First Internarnational was authoritarian
Can anyone help me interpret what the state is in either of these schools of thought?
@@Elektribe I wanna say thank you for taking the time to write on this but I am definitely getting lost in the weeds. I’m definitely more literate on Marxism than a progressive average, some Marx And Kerpotkin as well as some Adam Smith. ( I believe I would probably be an an-com more than anything. And I fully understand that capitalism is a death machine, But really all I want is to live in a world where it’s easier to solve problems.) so I’m wondering if you might be able to give me a shorter summary? Like you did with the first two paragraphs because when I try to read this, I just get lost.
But essentially here in the United States at this point in time, would it be fair to say that the state would just be whatever group has the monopoly on violence, i.e., the government protecting the bourgeois from the proletariats needs?
@@Elektribe also the quote from Lennon saying let’s forget about the word state and use community makes the most sense to me out of what I would want I guess.
I find that a lot of confusion around this comes from the differences in the definition of the state. anarchists tend to define the state by it's top-down/hierarchical organisation and role in control and oppression while Marxists tend to define it by its use in establishing the power of one class over the other. I think that a Marxist and an anarchist could agree entirely on the role of the state if they didn't use the word state to describe it. a state in Marxist terms could (and should) be horizontally organised directly by the workers themselves. however, going by the anarchist definition of the state, I think even Marxists should oppose the state, but unfortunately, many do not.
Bakunin's "Anarchy and Statism" is brilliant. You can pick it up for $0.50 as a Kindle download.
It discusses specifics regarding the lives of common Russians under the Czar.
However the parallels are not so far off.
So how would a person go about a monetary system under socialism?
Anarcho-syndicalist here, gonna listen with interest :)
Comrade,long live anarchy ✊🏻✊🏻✊🏻
Good jumper Richard
Someone can tell me how an anarchist society works, how does an anarchist society manage to provide some form of social security, free education, free healthcare, and free housing? How is it organized? What kind of institutions exists? How do we architect such a society?
The idea is small groups that coordinate with each other in larger groups ets. There is lots of thought about this but no decisive model. The clearest I have seen is the work of Michael Albert and colleagues, starting with participatory economics (parecon.info), then politics and other spheres.
A lot of questions can be decided by each community, such as should there be professional police etc.
@@philipganchev2306 Thank you! I saw your link! It seems to me that anarchism or any other kind of "model" always constructs some kind of mini-state apparatus. That idea of decentralizing state, creating many mini independent mini-states, that have the capacity to organize and rule themselves makes a lot of sense in theory since each community has specific needs, but in each one there is always the necessity to built some kind of institutions that help to construct and regulate this mini-society, that's why I struggle with the concept of Bakunin and other anarchism that imagine societies completely stripped of any kind of institution. And I would also argue that we would need other institutions that help manage all these mini-societies. It would be interesting to build a complex model, because when you do it so many questions come to the surface like for example how it would be done and regulated the exchange of goods between these societies, how these societies cooperate with each other without falling into a competition over goods, land, property, how effectively abolish the notion of property, but at the same time provide housing that is a form of property, etc. There are many dilemmas and conflicting ideas, don't you think?
Lenin's "Withering away of the state" was like Thacher's "Trickle down economics". Both hint and an incremental improvement in our living conditions but neither came true and it is questionable whether they even meant what they said.
Very fair point
Absolute genius!! Never seen a better comparison.
Such statements make some far fetched assumptions far from reality, which are actually the same: that people in power have the interests of all in mind instead of the immediate interests of theirs.
The difference is, Thatcher trickle down was not under any attack. Britain was not sanctioned, invaded and sabotaged in any possible way. You can not say the same about Soviet Union.
I'm not a Marxist-Leninist but I disagree. Overall, the Bolsheviks did decrease state power. They also objectively improved things in the USSR an undeniable amount. Though they absolutely committed atrocities.
@@Mutineer9 And it was upon those reasons why they claimed to never to able to whither-away their power. The moment you are so weak that you cannot even handle a bit of internal opposition, that is the moment when you lost. Socialism ought to be defended by the people taking into their own hands the means for their subsistence, the moment you take that away by centralizing, only the State will defend it, and as it ultimately happened to the USSR, we know that isn’t enough.
POWER TO THE SOVIETS!! There were Workers Councils in both rural and urban areas of the former Russia, they were handling it, then the Bolsheviks came to F with the peasants. Revolutionary Spain as another example demoralized (Although they were at a disadvantage resource wise either way) by the Communist influence taking power away from the councils and their ardent defenders.
Revolution organized by Worker’s Councils have launched spontaneously without the need of a Vanguard taking State power, after all that was the spark that made the USSR possible. If your priority for the construction of Socialism is a zealous State? Then it is the like having a Cart (Vanguard Party) before a Horse. (Social Revolution) And honestly the Horse could go at it alone...
So Marx got it wrong.
thank you, this was very helpful
Great message for election night.
Dr. Wolff, always soft on capitalism. Doesn't give Anarchism it's due.
Viva Anarchy!
Worker co-ops are most like anarchism
The thing Wolff does is he only focuses on the mode of production, which I totally understand, but I'd reccomend his video on "How to make Central Planning Democratic".
@@jessesaranow7724 I would like to see his look on an rbe from Jaque fresco.... resource based economy.. we aways use a system that was created before technology why not use a system thats new based on technology.... well new compared to the other systems by a century
They are most like Mutualist Anarchism. There are also Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism and other Anarchisms.
A Nation's future should never hinge on the proclivities of any single person. Voters on both sides are exactly the same. Both turn into triggered name calling fascists whenever someone challenges their beliefs and both accuse anyone who doesn't parrot their assigned talking points of supporting the other party. Thus the supporters of both parties have hijacked and sold out the rest of humanity for the sake of their own egos and lack of imagination.
And this is how they've controlled us from the dawn of the 20th century, where they pit us against each other, seed the debate with misinformation, a little populism, some catchy epithets, and go about their plunder completely unopposed. All representatives will always be subject to influence from monetary interests, blackmail, or assassination.
The solution is a velvet revolution to install a Scaled Direct Democracy without representatives and politicians. Citizen initiated referendums with thresholds and a social contract using Blockchain technology and open public forums for sourced, evidence based debate means communities can vote for their own policies without politicians. *Thorium energy renders their global oil monopoly obsolete*
*#VelvetRevolution*
*#ScaledDirectDemocracy*
*ThoriumEnergy*
Thorium energy can process both nuclear and toxic waste as well as perform salt water desalination, carbon sequestration, and synthetic fuel production/ electricity for road/rail transport
energyfromthorium.com/
"The thorium molten salt power plant can produce clean energy cheaper than coal, which could be reliable energy system toward a low-carbon economy," PAL said.
www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-nuclearpower-idUSKCN1UD0D0
If the profits from American labour were shared equally, as they are with Corporate Shareholders, every household would receive $700k a year. If we got even a fraction of that amount we would have more than enough to fund education, healthcare and infrastructure for everybody.
52% of all Greenhouse gases come from methane produced by Beef farming, which is 90% subsidised. Ending Beef Communism and embracing Hemp as a moonshot technology alongside Kelp farming for use in packaging, construction, and manufacturing provides an alternative means for land rehabilitation, food production, and industrial oils, as well as medicines, insulation, and clothing.
It would also be conducive for there to be an independent public authority drawing from volunteers to act as advocates for the public interest, with the authority to both observe police and govt interactions with the public, and prosecute bad actors in our own courts. This would ensure law enforcement and government agencies are held to a high standard of etiquette and ethical behaviour for everyone, regardless of their creed, color, or economic bracket.
www.au.org/church-state/september-2008-church-state/people-events/american-jews-don-t-support-christian-zionism
www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-poll-shows-support-for-israel-plummeting-among-u-s-liberals-millennials-and-women-1.6594182
ffwd.medium.com/all-of-youtube-not-just-the-algorithm-is-a-far-right-propaganda-machine-29b07b12430
www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/israel-news/1813262/frightening-report-6-out-of-7-immigrants-to-israel-are-not-jewish.html
Nope, worker coops have hierarchy
I think... this is a very charitable interpretation to anarchists and Bakunin, specifically. Bakunin and the Bakuninites tried to take over the IWA and kick out the Marxists multiple times, and it was their refusal to be reasonable that led to the fall of the IWA (or first international). Not to mention Bakunin thinking that capitalism was a Jewish plot. But that's neither here nor there.
Here's the thing: Marxists and Anarchists come from mutually opposed places to arrive at different positions that end up with a similar long term goal. Anarchists, coming from the Bakuninite tradition, believe in "eternal justice" and a sense of moral righteousness, what Engels called "Petit bourgeois naivety".
So calling the role of the state their major disagreement isn't really the case. It's far, far, far more foundational than that. It is the foundations that came to the conclusions of the state that are the issue. Marx didn't advocate a state, but an acknowledgment that it will be there, since the conditions for it being there are present. It is a scientific understanding. Bakunin's idea was that the state controlled people and didn't like that. For anyone. Petit bourgeois, bourgeois, proletarian, whatever. Bakunin's ideas were actually VERY similar to Thomas Jefferson's "nation of shopkeepers".
On "the withering of the state" - this is something Wolff seems to be dancing around. This is directly from Marx and Engels, not Lenin. He says that Lenin first used the term, and I'm not sure if that's correct, but the idea of the dicatorship of the proletariat and withering of the state is absolutely in Marx. So I'm very disappointed in Prof. Wolff here.
NONE of this, by the way, means Marxists and Anarchists can't work together. In my experience, people new to the left get into anarchism and then continue learning and end up as Marxists. But even if they don't, we share an enemy, and that means an alliance. The real world and concrete conditions will point the way forward, and it's up to scientific analysis (and not what we WANT the world to be, but what it is) that will help us build what must be built.
If you're looking for good history on the IWA, the Marxists and Anarchists, etc., PLEASE don't get all your info from UA-cam videos. "History of the Three Internationals" by William Z Foster covers this in-depth, as well as the conditions that led to all of the debates, arguments, etc. In almost every modern edition of Marx's "Capital" there are transcripts of the bitter arguments between Marx and Bakunin. Read Engels's short essay "On Authority" and you'll quickly see where the divide lies.
Did they? AFAIK it was Marx and his social-dem allies who took over the IWA and kicked out Bakunin and his section for no obvious reason at all. Then the IWA collapsed.
Where did Bakunin say that Capitalism was "a Jewsih plot"? He admired Marx too much to be anti-semitic.
I agree with you re. Wolff not being either sufficiently knoweldgeable or sufficiently honest re. "the withering of the state" (and other stuff, I could not upvote this video) but the notion of "dictatorship of the proletariat" was never meant to be a dictatorship of some party, in fact Engels fiercely attacked the Blanquistes, clear precursors of Leninism, for being detached from the masses and a truly dictatorial organization that could only achieve a dictatorship if they ever reached power. Marx was more ambivalent but Engels was the insightful one in this case. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" should be understood as a transitional period in which former bourgeois have no rights, in which expropriation takes place, it should be understood as a dictatorship of the proletarian or worker majority over the former oligarchy in order to destroy their unfair power, not as the dictatorship of a minority of organized intellectuals, i.e. the party, truly a Neoplatonic and not genuinely Marxist concept, and a clear symptom of immaturity of the revolutionary process, much as the dictatorship of Cromwell was relative to the bourgeois revolutionary process.
You say: "people new to the left get into anarchism and then continue learning and end up as Marxists". I can only agree with this (although there are exceptions, some people also begin as Marxist and end up in anarchist organizations, I know some, but my own trajectory is as you say), however one thing is reaching Marxism (which could perfectly be embraced by Bakunin himself in the essentials) and another thing is embracing Leninism (which would have been rejected by Engels for example). And most Marxist organizations are ferociously Leninist, and invariably either neo-Stalinist or Trostkyist, I tend to agree a lot with the latter but could never work in their doctrinary or sectarian organizations because they have a dogma which includes dethroning the soviets and imposing party dictatorship instead, a dogma they would never renege of. They are not Marxist but Leninist and that is a problem for me and surely many others. So you end up as Marxist but unable to get organized as such.
@@LuisAldamiz okay. That's a lot! Haha. I'll try to hit it all.
So.. regarding Bakunin and the IWA. the minutes from their meetings are all free to browse. That and marx's arguments with Bakunin. History of the three Internationals by William Z Foster uses those and gives a very good summary. The accosts anarchists tried to continue a solely anarchist international after it split, but without the power of the unions and marxists, they faded into obscurity.
You then go in with a critique of the vanguard party, but it seems based in something like an idealist, best circumstances type thing, and say engels would have criticized, for example, the bolsheviks, which I don't think there is any evidence for. This set up has its problems and is continually tweaked and shifted to meet changing conditions. The idea that the bolsheviks could have done anything else at all just doesn't match their unique conditions, history, or culture of that time. And even as problems began to arise later on (something Stalin warned against, with his continual battles against beuracratization), they were still a working class party, and it was still a dictatorship of the proletariat. Their methods to protect the revolution, those could have been better. And it seems as if the Cuban and Chinese vanguards have found far better ways to eliminate counter-revolution, sabotage, etc. Rather than "disappear" people, crack down, etc., The masses are educated and mobilized to defend their system.
I don't know what you mean by "neo-stalinist". To me, this seems like a demonization of marxists.
As far as most organizations being leninist, that's true. Lenins additions to marxist science are important. Imperialism, uneven development, anti-dogmatism (though many so called marxists these days are actually very dogmatic, which is anti-marxist), these are important updates. To me, though, we seem to be in what we could call a higher stage of imperialism now, and need to move beyond lenin. (I refer to it in my head as "Marxism leninism fill in the blankism).
@@LuisAldamiz oh! Bakunin and anti-semitism!
Yeah. He railed against jews in multiple letters. (And that isn't just a misrepresentation, like right wingers try to do with marx and his "Jewish question" paper.) And... Don't quote me on this, but I want to say that his same book he talked about "eternal justice" in, he was super anti-semitic in. If you're really interested, I can hunt down the exact stuff. Let me know.
@@khrachvikkhrachvik7049 - A link would be nice, it's the first time I read such claim, so I'm perplex.
@@khrachvikkhrachvik7049 - Sorry, I missed your other (longer) comment. Engels on Blanquism:
"From Blanqui's assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals."
www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm
Should ring a Leninist bell or a dozen. Lenin admitted to be quite Blanquist, even Robespierrist.
And as Engels continued: "We see, then, that Blanqui is a revolutionary of the preceding generation".
And so is Lenin even if more recent in time. With Lenin Marxism (or his particular branch/heresy) got stuck in a rut, which is a serious problem we should try to address if we want to achieve something.
I just call myself an anarchist to trigger the cringe Marxist-Leninists
Lenin murdered every anarchist in Moscow in November 1918.
20,000 or more inside two weeks
In November 1918
The history of the CHEKA and Felix Djerinsky
I view anarchism as individual view of socialist working together to achieve bigger goals. Goals can be the only agreement between anarchist with respect to each other's view.
Marxists focus their analysis on the power of economy whereas anarchists focus on the economy of power.
The only thing presently that can stand up to the overwhelming power of the corporate sector are public institutions that can issue directives that corporations are compelled to abide by. Public institutions that can effectively enforce compliance onto the most powerful corporations and individuals.
Why do we need this? Because whatever is not unlawful is lawful. How do we protect the life giving forces of nature on this planet without making the destruction of life giving forces unlawful. The rivers, lakes, aquifers, estuaries, oceans, forests, landscapes, mountain ranges, sand dunes, the oceans, the atmosphere, the climate. Human rights. Need to be protected. One person, one entity can own a fleet of thousands of earth moving machinary that can create unprecidented changes in unprecidented time frames
Currently it is the neoliberals clamouring for the 'withering of the state' and with the greatest success they have deconstructed and dis integrated the structures of the state, around the world.
The state can be reconfigured to be the protector of the people rather than the protector of the destructive forces of a baseless ideology cntered on greed and self obsession.
Something quite interesting (to me at least) is that, in his earlier works, Bakunin described the form of government in his vision of a free society as a "Workers' State". It was only later when the phrase became associated with the Lassallians (The people Marx talks about in Critique of the Gotha Program) that Bakunin stopped using the phrase. Back then they were called "federalists", not anarchists. I honestly think there would be twice the number of anarchists if we just called ourselves that instead today.
Indeed. But many misunderstand what Federalism in an Anarchist context is.
At this stage the differences do not matter in this country. The U.S. has a state that is weighing us down and it isn't going to wither right now. I'm looking for any kind of socialism that is cooperative and wants to get rid of the corporate capitalist oligarchy that is strangeling everyone I know and love. I will listen to anyone and work toward a cooperative life and worker led life and I will oppose any kind of stratification that disadvantages any working person. I tend to think that under most socialist systems the state does not wither. It becomes a class and then strongarms everyone else. The state is like a weed. It puts down roots and you can't get rid of the damned thing because they have grown into every crevice. But that's for later. Now, we must survive and issue by issue we have to build, cooperate and make a strong worker's movement. That's a lot to do right now.
Anarchism like socialism is a critique of capitalism.
Anarcho-capitalists: *hold my beer*
Anarcho-capitalist is an oxymoron.
Anarchism is about questioning illegitimate power mostly. I don't know why these people call themselves anarchists... they should just go by "hardcore capitalist".
There is no such thing as an anarchist capitalist. You guys stole the word deliberately.
Is there type of socialist ideology that straddles the balance between Anarchism and Marxism? For instance, on a PCM chart it would be far-left but near the middle X-axis.
08:05 ...and against fascism. 🤔
Essentially, i agrre, anarchists and marxists should work together. But, we should be materialists; I don't care so much about the name of the Ideoloigy someone haves, what's important is if they help the people, the working class, colonised people and all other oppressed groups achieve power.
thank you for your videos, if you ever want to have an anrchist-marxist collabartion i would love that.
I got an idea lets just call what we have socialism if all Mr Wolff cares is what we call it.
Dear Professor Wolff
I would like to ask you whether Marx was a practical social philosopher or just a theorist. We know from the French Revolution, the 1848 revolutions and the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 that the prevailing plutocratic regimes would not tolerate an alternative system. Hence, they battled the French and Russian revolutions and reneged on their promises to the 1848 revolutions. Without a government, a revolution would be defenseless against the military coalition that it would have to face and therefore could not succeed even if there was just one capitalist regime left on earth. Besides defense, society needs all the other functions which a government provides like education, health, research, courts, police, etc. Hence, throughout, history the absence of government is possible up to a tribal society only. Hence, Marx has erred by imagining no government. What do you think?
Basil Al-Nakeeb
Marc was a brilliant Social Philosopher and Economic Historian . Unfortunately he was a crap economist !! But....2 out of 3 isn't bad ?
Dear Dr. Wolff, would you please explain the reason First International was broken apart ? Who were 3 groups in that International? Also were Anarchist collaborated with Social Revolutionaries that believed in killing ( terrorism) of major capitalists or major Medalists. As we now that SR's were the ones who shot Lenin the eventually cost him his life? Please explain the reason Anarchists love for taking terrorist action against figure of capitalism. Thank you
The Narodniki or SR were into armed struggle (Lenin's brother was one of those and was executed for that reason) but so were the Bolsheviks (Stalin's political career was initially about armed struggle, hence the nickname "steel man"), anarchists were sometimes also into that.
The shooting of Lenin was arguably justified from the viewpoint of the SR because Lenin and the Bolsheviks had taken power (granted in a democratic election) from them. Lenin was admittedly and admirer of Robespierre and as such went into excesses and got some of the same medicine as Marat did. Karma? In any case it seems that the attackers were a very small group, not "party orders" but almost personal animosity.
"Please explain the reason Anarchists love for taking terrorist action against figure of capitalism".
It's called propaganda by action or direct action, the exact meaning of it, much as in Muslim jihad, varies. Many people just because of their character feel that violence is needed, even if the situation does not favor its use, this applies to anarchist as to marxists or almost any political current that hopes to change things radically (and as quick as possible). Others instead seem to favor a more peaceful approach (not necessarily rejecting violence in all instances) because of the need to build movement and use relative tolerance in order to spread the word and get organized around specific issues or in general.
This is at least the take from someone who used to be in favor of "Ghandian" nonviolence (and even had once a lenghty discussion with an Italian anarchist "terrorist" on it, not to mention more recent ones with marxists who also favor to some extent armed struggle). My approach has always been that they are tactics and should be pondered depending on the circumstances (greater oppression only allows for armed struggle or almost so, greater tolerance instead seems to favor nonviolent or less violent approaches instead and render armed struggle less legitimate instead). Even Ghandi could agree when he wrote: "the real difference is not between those who fight with guns and those who do with the satyagraha (nonviolence) but between those who fight and those who do not".
@@LuisAldamiz dear luis Aldamiz, thank you for taking time and replying to my question to Professor Wolff.
I really respect your opinion even if i disagree with some of it.
First Professor Wolff was comparing Anarchism and Marxism and so was my question on the other major differences besides the timing of abolishment of state. Not the difference between Stalinism and Anarchism.
What i said was the using assassination of major reactionary leaders of ruling elite ( major disputable generals, czars, major capitalists, chief of police and so) is not encouraged by Marx and Engels when they were debating with Bakunin. I was not refering to mass armed uprising . I do agree that armed mass uprising is not rejected by Marx and Engels, however we need to see the armed mass uprising is not the same as individual assassination of a tyron employer that is crushing a peaceful strike of workers.
Parliamentarian can be a way of class struggle and so is armed mass struggle but assassination of figure heads of reactionary class is not marxism. Assassination of Lenin or Trotsky was not Marxism. Maybe if Linen had not been assassinated the outcome of ussr was different.
One of the books that explains how Anarchists believed and used assassination is " Living my Life" by Emma Goldman. Hope you care to read
I believe Marxists and Anarchists can work together and i wish it happens, however while i do not see the disagreement on when to abolish state a big disagreement at this time of struggle, but assassination to support strikes and street protests is a huge difference.
A sample of a society working similar to Anarchism idea is West Kurdistan sociaty ( Rojava in Western Kurdistan) please google it to see how they abolished state, police and how they created democracy, equality of gender, individual rights. Equal distribution of wealth and authority.
Let me know what you think of Rojava.
@@janhouston9125 - I took it as an open question. I don't think Wolff has time to reply to comments, at least not most of them. My opinion is my opinion and not anybody else's in any case (disclaimer).
As Marx famously wrote to his son in law, Paul Lafargue: "if those are Marxists, I am not Marxist myself". This was meant to some French socialists of their time but it surely applies to most if not all self-proclaimed Marxists, including myself. Two people are always going to disagree on something, if not today then tomorrow, and thus a lot of Marxists have chosen (by grade or force (there's probably no other realistic choice when the regime turns extremely totalitarian such as Tsarist Russia was) to attempt various forms of guerrilla with various types of targets, loosely understood as collective self-defense of the working class vs the violence of the exploiters and the state, or also as attempt (sometimes successful) to overthrown the extant regime and impose a worker regime instead (usually a Leninist one).
Anyhow, I think that Marx and Engels were correctly focused on forging a socialist movement that would lead the way to a socialist revolution eventually and in that sense they broadly considered political violence counter-productive, and I concur (provided the conditions of the country are open enough for debate and socio-political organization, activism, worker strikes, etc.) Bakunin and the Blanquists were instead rather insurrectionist, but Lenin was at least as Blanquist as he was Marxist, and he did not reject that notion, all the opposite. Marx himself was ambiguous towards Blanqui, whose personal leadership capabilities he praised at times, but Engels was more hostile: www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm
"From Blanqui's assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals".
A critique that I think is very correct and that should also apply to Leninism or Bolshevism.
Re. parliamentarism, I believe there is a clear notion since the beginning that it could not work, that, if socialists could ever reach the representation threshold to change things (and managed somehow not to be corrupted by capitalism, as we see happening again and again) they would be impeded to actually do it by violent means (i.e. military coup, fascism, bonapartism, etc.) I don't think that Marx and Engels embraced parliamentarism as main avenue for the revolution but only as yet another front for the class struggle.
Notice that this is much more debatable in the context of 1917 Russia because there had been already a revolution (February and also the Kornilov coup attempt that resulted in armed soviets by decision of Kerensky) and because the political party that was overthrown by the Bolsheviks was also a socialist party and not a clearly defined bourgeois or otherwise oligarchic force.
The assasination of Lenin (foiled, he died of other health issues, possibly syphillis) and that of Trotsky are very different affairs. In the case of Lenin it was causde by grassroots rage by displaced socialists, Fanny Kaplan was a Social-Revolutionary and, much like anarchist Kropotkin, blamed Lenin of destroying the Russian Revolution. In the case of Trotsky it was.... well, Stalin (but the foundations of Stalinism had been set by Lenin and others, not just Stalin). It's possible that the assasination of other revolutionary leaders like Durruti and Ascanio in Spain was also done by Stalin's agents (but has never been confirmed, unlike the case of Trotsky), certainly Stalin's reign was one of terror all around, and it makes me think of the admiration Lenin had for Robespierre, whose reign of terror was shorter but not less notorious (in this older context I would define myself as Dantonist and Sans-Coulotte, not as Robespierrist and Jacobin like Lenin).
I haven't read that book by Emma Goldman but my roommat is a great fan of it. I'm more inspired by local Basque insurrectionists from Likiniano (who led the forgotten Commune of San Sebastian and later some anarchist maquis that did not obey to the CNT, "those pesky bureaucrats in Toulouse") and to some extent also by the best of ETA, notably Argala, who led the commando that killed Franco's right hand and dauphin, Admiral Carrero-Blanco. This does not mean that I favor that kind of struggle under all circumstances (although certainly under fascism the was no other choice, and sometimes it feels that way even under "democracy" too), I think that violence and nonviolence are tactics that should be chosen depending on which one can achieve the best results, what usually depends on how tolerant and relaxed (or oppressive and brutal) is the class enemy, not a choice that we can freely make but that is to a large extent imposed to us.
As for "Marxists and Anarchists" I think they (we) can only work together if we both abandon sectarianism stemming from old and pretty much obsolete quarrels of the past, if we can become again just revolutionary socialists. Bismark celebrated the breakup of the First International with a quite witty remark: "let great fortunes and crowned heads tremble if the reds and the blacks ever unite again". My thought is that we should do exactly that, but that it cannot be done from dogmatism, maximalism and sectarianism but from the conscious decision to synthesize the best of both currents and discard the worst. AFAIK, the one who was closer to that was Murray Bookchin and he has a legacy in the Kurdish-plus Revolution, the only active communist revolution on Earth.
"Let me know what you think of Rojava". I'm a strong sympathizer but they are not "anarchist", they are a local variant of "ecosocialist" (i.e. Bookchin's ideas) as refubished by Abdullah Öçalan and others in the PKK (a party with Leninist roots it must be said, but that has managed to transition to a post-Leninist reality in very creative manner). They are my main reference but I also do not have all the information as I have not been there in person. For what I know they are trying hard to make my own dream of a "Swiss Cuba" (so to say) real, even if the conditions are very hostile and difficult. If I'd be religious I'd pray for them, if I'd be younger and less miopic, I'd probably go there to fight the good fight in person, as many others have done. That's the way to go rather than capitalist pseudo-red China.
Prof!!!!!!!!!!!!
I see the difference between Marxism and Anarchism as differnt methods to achieve the same goal. Marxist-lenism seems to be more effective at revolution than anarchism though anarchism keeps a better idea of communism. I see ML forming a revolution as long as they don't repress the anarchists they can direct the state towards proper communism.
The only reason that a few of the largest anarchist societies of the early 20th century died (Ukraine, Catalonia, Manchuria, and Southern Fujian) was largely because of Marxist-Leninists betrayal. ML ended up being about absolute power in the end, which is what one of the talking points of Orwell's 1984 was making.
great video! i love to see Bakunin getting talked about. anarchism really does not get the attention it deservesssssssss
Are libertarians capitalist “anarchists”? Is that an accurate generalization?
I have a theory of anarchy (Neo-anarcho-primitivism?) where the only truly stable anarchist society must be able to accommodate all of humanity's vices, and incorporate them to reinforce anarchy, in a similar way to how capitalism has invaded every aspect of our lives. Of course the theory being that anarchy works, is holistic, and completely aligned with humanity and its well being (which I believe). Being intoxicated by anarchy will immunize us against, and leave no room for abuse and tyranny to corrupt our society. Such a society would simply be immune to the temptations of capitalism except for academic, or artistic interests (where it can't hurt society or its people). Ideally this system should reduce the role and importance of intelligence in running the society, which means the system could be run by idiots or animals with little effect on the community's quality of life. Yes, that is right, I want to idiot-proof politics, in the same way that nature is ecologically stable outside of natural disasters or human intervention. The Neo part of my title refers to the incorporation of new ideas to improve the quality of people's life while maintaining the spirit of a primordial human nature being the example for society.
loved this video
sorry to be such a technical pest but first international was founded in london by british trade union leaders who were mostly liberals
Bakunins critique of Marx was spot on and turned out to be true. Love me some Bakky Baby
Anybody remembers why we once called people a mug? Nobody knows what it is to be one. Until you look into an Australian mirror. 🤠
Bakunin is even more relevant than Marx in my opinion. His critique of Marx was accurate. Marx never recovered from it.
@Shoshin Marx never responded to Bakunin 🤷♂️
@@jonnymahony9402 Yeah calling Marx a Rothschild agent. What an argument! God I hate you anarchists.
He never recovered ?!?! Perhaps read some more History ?
Bakunin ? .Better known as " Mikhail Who..? " today. !
What about the idea of a vanguard party? This has been my problem with Marxism-Leninism; the control by a state that is not democratically run. I am fine with a transitionary state, but I see no reason why a leader like stalin should have immense power and be chosen undemocratically.
The idea of a vanguard party is where the "Leninism" in Marxism-Leninism comes from, and is not present in other Marxist strains such as Luxemburgism for example. Democratic socialism also seems to lack such a characteristic, and market socialists usually don't seem to support it either from what I've seen, and are content working within the parliamentary system to ensure democratic representation and avoid such tyrannical statism
Blanquisme, rejected by Engels with great foresight. Leninism is a heresy, not true Marxism but something else.
well, there is the theoretical side of Leninist ideas and the actual way it turned out. Lenin was the only one at the time who proclaimed "All power to the soviets". Not the parlement, not the ministers, and not one single political party. Soviets had arose in Petrograd, Moscow and a few other places, Kiev I think, but there were more, they were multi-party bodies that held elections in 1917 and served as an alternative to the Duma (parlement). So, in a sense one could say that if the soviets held a form of regional power, and the factories and public services were owned collectively by the workers (this was the theory), then 'the state' would not excist as such. (A system derived from this was tried out in China, but this time with farmer-communes). But, as the Communist party held absolute power (mostly due to the civil war, not entirely by choice), the party itself in essence became the state bureaucracy.
' Freedom involves the Recognition of Necessity ". And read '. Left Wing Communism : An infantile disorder "
I think Lenin explains his strategy
very clearly in both instances.?
The wolf , guarding the hen house
In an ideal world, there would be space for both camps to operate, experiment, and learn - both directly and from one another. Over a period of time victories and faults may be found and considered, with refinement along the way. This is perhaps one of the grave failures of the Left - so much debate, often intense, sometimes bitter ... often a time in proceedings when matters remained at the theoretical stage. It would clearly be much better to agree to afford space to multiple systems, and therefore provide the scope for learning through practical experimentation.
Not only would this provide a peaceful space for fellow travellers to invest in their own preferences, but it would also (critically) limit the scope for internal tension, which has historically being of enormous benefit to the enemies of progress!
What a beautiful world this *ideal* world would be! Unfortunately, *material* reality does not exist inside your head.
One of the better short presentations on Marxism and Anarchism. I don't think the Spanish CNT/FAI got it wrong when they referred to there philosophy and programs as Libertarian Communismo. Classic American Libertarianism started about the same time as Marx's earliest writings, so way before the First International. There's a few new works about the International that could bring Anarchists and Marxists closer if they can get away from their own dogmas and take the arguments between the two in a historical and personal context. I recently reread and listened to a video/podcast about Bakunin's anti-semitism. Very disturbing Surprised other Anarchists didn't call him on that, but he may not have listened. Means and ends became more prominent in the 60's and 70's when feminism and movements/history from below began to be discussed. Keep up the good work Richard.
How about anarchomutualism no rule mutual aid it is more of a life style than a political system but good to live by but certain people will always try to rule others hence we need government
I think we need government. I don't think this invalidates anarchism. But what government? How can we structure it so that it is as inclusive as possible, power remains as equal as possible and yet it is functional. Those are the concerns of anarchism. For example, check out participatory economics parecon.info and later work by Michael Albert and colleagues.
@@philipganchev2306 thanks for the comment I am a big fan of co-ops and credit unions
This is where the theorists disagree and agree and if that was the whole story I'm sure co-operation could be maintained hell that's what both Rojava and the Zapatistas are a co-operation of Marxists and Anarchists. The problem is historically their has been betrayal from the less libertarian Marxists. Krondstad, The increased centralization of party control, The lack of autonomous zones for anarchists. If MLs are really interested in unity than some type of concessions have to be made on both sided i know anarchists who are very willing to give concessions like the state still existing most anarchist support Rojava and The Zapatistas. But i Don't know of any ML party actually extending any promises to anarchists post transition. How do we know that colaboration will not end in a massacre for being "Ultra Leftists"
Watch the three videos no god no master to learn about anarchism
We have the alternatives , they have the tanks ...
Discovering Classical Libertarianism is so awesome for anyone who hates the state and capitalism.
Anarchism is popular only in capitalistic societies. US, France, imperial Russia etc. In USSR, China, Cuba loyalty to the state, responsibility to the society, family, friends, party, working environment quickly replace personal freedom. For me, as a former citizen of USSR, it is strange to watch nowadays anarchism in US. It is not socialism. It's a mix of parasitism and stupidity, manipulated by some financial capitalists. Trump's ritoric sounds for me more socialistic.
Would be nice to go deeper on anarchism and the whole abolishment of the state thing. From my perspective, this seems impractical. While i can see a very different role that a state can play in everyday life, i do not understand how you can want to abolish it completely. The "tragedy of the commons" is a problem that needs some kind of authority to solve in my oppinion. Basically, since not everybody (or even most people) will act altruistically you need some kind of governance, at least with the current population. And then there is the problem with other countries. You can not just ignore the rest of the world, so you need people to speak for your country, to make agreements. This can happen much more democratic (like in switzerland for example) but i do think some kind of government is needed.
There's not a good corpus on that. Most anarchists would have loved the soviets but certainly not the Soviet Union. But that's also surely the case of Engels and even maybe Marx himself. There is a Marx-Bakunin split but also a secondary one inside the Marxist camp between Social-Dems (later mostly abandoning Marxism and revolutionism in general) and Bolsheviks (who sacrificed people's power instead in favor of what I dub a Neoplatonic regime of "rule of the philosophers", truly unstable and not very Marxist after all).
I agree that abolition of the state in absolute terms is not possible at all, even the most utopian rural commune is a state of sorts. Disdaining politics and the state in absolute terms as many anarchists do is utopian and senseless. A much better pragmatic yet democratic communist approach is that of Murray Bookchin, who was first Leninist, later anarchist and finally on his own. I would describe his idea as roughly "like Cuba in social-economic terms, like Switzerland in political ones". Switzerland is not "anarchy", not even "anarcho-capitalism", but it is generally much more decentralized and democratic than any other polity I know of (and that's surely because it is founded on a peasant revolution of sorts). They even raised their minimum salary by referendum just weeks ago, go figure!
Yes, but we have historical examples in both Russia and France of " revolutionary " movements seizing control of the " State " apparatus. What transpired afterwards is of course the great
debating point. Whether it was inevitable etc....?
lets remember not all socialists are marxists and bakunin did not represent all anarchists
Are you saying that Biden's many declarations that he does not want to go back to the way it was was a lie? I like most of what you say, but not all.
It didn't pan out the way Karl Marx reckoned. He must have been either extremely naive or stupid.
Every leftist from Marxist-Leninists, to Maoists, to anarchists all desire the same end state, a moneyless, classless, stateless society and the dissolution of all material and social power hierarchies, the only disagreements come in the form of how they will achieve this end state. Anarchists desire the immediate dismantling of the state, and assert that anyone who attempts to levy state power towards any end is an authoritarian, I personally believe that this is a naive and myopic understanding of the revolutionary process that all but assures a reactionary resurgence and subsequent defeat of any anarchist movement as they would by definition lack the institutional capabilities to resist reactionary and capitalist subversion from within and aggression from without. The state should be viewed as nothing more than a vehicle of power over which the bourgeoisie and proletariat are fighting for control of. As Lenin clearly illustrates in State and Revolution, the "dissolving" of the state takes place when the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (direct democracy and public ownership of the means of production) has been established and classes themselves no longer exist due to there no longer being any class distinctions. With all this being said, I think anarchists should play the crucial role of essentially guaranteeing the full dissolution of the state when certain conditions have been met, as utilizing the state does come with the inherent risk of opportunist hijacking. We all need to work together in order to manifest our goal of dismantling capitalism and ushering in the next system.
Maoists are Leninists. What is less clear is how Marxist or not was Lenin.
@@LuisAldamiz Lenin formed his entire ideology on the foundations of Marx, in his actual execution I would say he stays true to this. The USSR had an opportunist problem from the start, and unfortunately, right after Lenin died one could say that the opportunists took full control and started the slow subversion of the Soviet towards the ultimate reassertion of capitalist power in the 90s.
You are reverting to Marxism as a
substitute Religion - with Heaven on Earth .! Marx couldn't escape his religious upbringing!!
Hello. I liked your video. I am anti-socialist. But recognize it's reality in ' mindset ' of many folks. I have used Bakunin as an example ' a more realistic look at a working model of a collectivist society ' ( like Oscar Wilde in his work about Socialism and the Individual ). I have read about Political and Philosophic ( Ideological ? ) concepts since I began being interested in History...starting about 55 years ago.
I have some scholastic background...but not 4 year University level. But I can keep up thru my history of studying. You seem clear headed in your talk...no wandering or digressing. Kudos. That is commendable. So I would like to ask you--
We can look back to Thomas More and his Utopia, or the Protestant Revolution, or the Magna Charta ...or so many other examples of People getting a glimpse of Liberty and Self Will Choice--and action . But just starting with ' The Birth Of Working Democracies ' in the late 1700s , would you say that there was a Primary Focus on The Rights Of Individuals or the Rights of People within a Collective Environment ( That could be construed as Economics or Class or a Nation or Past History ties...we saw the Break Away attempt in the French Revolution with Changing many Old Notions...like the Mile to the Kilometer ) ?
Would you characterize People as having a More Collectivist Nature or a More Individual-Centered Mindset ? Or is it Both and very Complicated and something that Must Be handled with the Most Sensitive care ( in setting up a society ) ?
Where do you put ' work ' at in the level of Necessity of a Practical Working Successful Society. And by Work , I do not mean Capitalism or Free Enterprise or Skills or a Job or Occupation. I am just talking about the idea of folks Having ( or not having ) to actually have to Work...at anything ? ** I believe Bakunin was one of those who promoted a Universal Income of some sorts.
Thanks
🏴🚩🏳️🌈🏴🚩🏳️🌈🏴🚩🏳️🌈