Home : Marxist Theory : Editorials and Commentary

Why we must further Marxism and not Anarchism

Today the youth of America are asking the question "what is to be done?" - the question which has always been asked. The majority of the youth are disillusioned with the economic, social and political life around them. Why are they though? After all "even the poor in the US have a color TV"! Color television or not, dissatisfaction still reigns supreme. The youth of America are beginning to realize that life is not about getting good grades in high school, going to college, working for a corporation, retiring and then dying. That is the message they are constantly given in a round about way. Some wish to use this system saying "I'm going to work hard to get great grades, do well in college and get a good paying job in a corporation!" When these type of people are told about any form of socialism; Marxist, Anarchistic or in some cases even reformist it is immediately labeled "Utopian". These people are hard nuts to crack because they are tightly bound up in bourgeois democratic idealism, which rejects dialectical materialism and believes nothing will ever change, but remain static. These layers of the population do not represent the majority of the youth fortunately. As for the largest disillusioned layer of the youth; it seems many of them have turned to "Anarchism" or at least what they believe is Anarchism.

The so-called "Anarchists"

The so-called Anarchistic youth of today, year 2001, for the most part simply use the term "Anarchist" as an indication of not wanting to go along with the "system" in not wanting to assimilate, which is a giant leap forward on their part considering all their lives they've constantly been bombarded with the huge American Corporate propaganda machine. For this achievement, they are already more our ally than our enemy.

In some cases, "Anarchist" youth begin to try to learn about what Anarchism truly is instead of seeing it merely as utter rebellion. They learn Anarchism is a form of Socialism, they learn they have much in common with Marxists, they learn the state must be smashed, they learn the state is a tool of suppression used by one class against another. But what they do not learn, and never will from an Anarchist perspective is what is to replace the smashed state machine? What we as Marxists explain is what must replace the smashed bourgeois state machine.

Engels explains that the state is a "special coercive force". So what must come after the bourgeoisie is overthrown to keep it down?  As Lenin explains in the State and Revolution: the bourgeois state "must be replaced by a 'special coercive force' for the suppression of the bourgeois by the proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat)"(pg 397 vol. 25 collected works) that is workers' democracy. The proletariat "state" is no longer a state in the proper sense of the word, Lenin explains, because it is no longer the minority suppressing the majority, but the vast majority suppressing a tiny minority! The Proletariat suppressing the Bourgeoisie.

Instead of organizing an instrument for the coercion of the bourgeois by the proletariat, the Anarchists wish to simply abolish the state overnight and hope that the capitalists do not make any attempts of counterrevolution, an absurd and unrealistic idea.

Sophomoric Nature of the Anarchists

The majority of our "Anarchist" friends never thought about this little loop hole, and as for the rest of them they shrug it off, or say something to the effect of the armed proletariat themselves will stop capitalist reaction, which, an armed proletariat in reality, is a proletarian "state"! In conclusion our "Anarchists" are simply potential Marxists who need access to genuinely revolutionary ideas. It is our job, as Marxists to explain these ideas to them!  As Lenin states, "the ideas of Marx are all powerful, because they are true"! We have the science of dialectics on our side, not idealism, mysticism or theology. Our philosophy is solid as a rock.

The following excerpt from On the Mass Organizations: Letter to the Russian Marxists by Ted Grant gives more detail on this important question:

"However, the setting up of soviets and strike committees--important as it is--does not solve the fundamental problem facing the Russian workers. In and of themselves, soviets solve nothing. What is decisive is the party that leads them. In February 1917, the workers and soldiers set up soviets--a step of enormous importance to the revolution. But in the hands of the Mensheviks and SRs they were reduced to impotence. As a matter of fact, at one stage (after the July defeat) Lenin described them as "counterrevolutionary soviets" and he temporarily considered abandoning the slogan "all power to the soviets" in favor of "all power to the factory committees." In Germany in November 1918, the soviets were in the hands of the Social Democratic leaders who betrayed the revolution and handed power back to the bourgeoisie. Under these conditions the soviets soon dissolved, and were merely transient phenomena. The same would have happened in Russia, if it had not been for the Bolshevik Party and the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky. Naturally, we are enthusiastically for the establishment of soviets on the widest possible scale, and we call for the linking up of the workers' committees on a local, regional and national basis. But this must go hand in hand with the BUILDING OF A REVOLUTIONARY PARTY, WITH STEELED AND EDUCATED CADRES, people who are not just prepared to fight, but who stand firmly on the basis of Marxism-Leninism.

Marxism and Anarchism

Some say that such a party is not necessary, that the workers do not need a party, that it leads to bureaucracy, and so on. That is a fatal error. The whole history of the international workers' movement shows the absolute need for a revolutionary party. Anarchism is an expression of impotence, which can offer no way out. Of course, the reason why some honest workers and young people turn towards anarchism is because of their revulsion against Stalinism and the bureaucratic and class collaborationist policies of the existing leaderships, both on the political and trade union field. This is understandable, but profoundly mistaken. The answer to a bad leadership is not no leadership, but to create a leadership that is worthy of the workers' cause. To refuse to do this, to abstain from the political struggle and "send them all to the devil" may seem to be very radical, but in practice it is precisely the opposite. It amounts to handing over the workers to the existing leaders without a struggle. In order to combat the policy of class collaboration, it is necessary to pose an alternative in the form of a revolutionary policy, and therefore also a revolutionary tendency.

Trotsky once said that the theory of anarchism is like an umbrella full of holes--useless precisely when it rains! There are many examples to corroborate this assertion. The most tragic case was Spain in 1936. The anarchist workers of the CNT played a heroic role in the struggle against fascism. In July 1936, they rose up and stormed the barracks armed with just sticks and knives and a few old hunting rifles, and beat the fascists. They set up soviets and established a workers' militia and workers' control in the factories. The CNT and the POUM (a centrist party led by ex-Trotskyists) were the only power in Barcelona. Soon the whole of Catalonia was in the hands of the workers. The bourgeois President of Catalonia, LLuis Companys, actually invited the CNT to take power! But the anarchist leaders refused to take power, and the opportunity was lost. Yet later, these same ladies and gentlemen did not hesitate to enter as ministers in the bourgeois Popular Front government, which played the same role in Spain as the Provisional Government in Russia in 1917. This paved the way for the shipwreck and destruction of the revolution.. The Spanish working class with 40 years of Franco dictatorship.

However, the most crushing answer to anarchism is the fate of the Albanian revolution. The Albanian masses, as the result of the nightmare brought about by the collapse of so-called market reform (very similar to what is happening in Russia on an even bigger scale) rose up in a spontaneous insurrection. With no organization, no leadership, and no conscious plan, they stormed the barracks with their bare hands. The army fraternized (not just the soldiers, but also the officers), opened the gates of the barracks and distributed arms. Revolutionary committees were established, especially in the South, and the armed militias spread the revolt from one town to the next. The forces of reaction sent by Berisha were routed by the armed people. There was nothing to stop them from entering Tirana, where lorry loads of soldiers were circulating in the streets, chanting slogans in support of the revolution.

But here the importance of leadership becomes clear. Lacking a revolutionary leadership with the perspective of taking power and transforming society, the insurrectionists failed to take Tirana. By retreating to their own local areas, they allowed Berisha the opportunity to regroup his forces in the North. Into the vacuum stepped the former Stalinists of the so-called Socialist Party led by Fatos Nano. In common with all the other former "Communist" leaders of Eastern Europe, Nano and the others have no perspective of socialism--not even of returning to Stalinism. They have all embraced the "market" and "democracy"--that is, capitalism. In the case of Albania, that meant embracing imperialism also. The American and European imperialists were terrified by the events in Albania and attempted to intervene, using the services of Italy and Greece. But foreign intervention alone could not liquidate the Albanian revolution. That was the task of Fatos Nano and the ex-Stalinists of the "Socialist" Party. They played the same role as Noske and Scheidemann in Germany in 1918, that of carrying out the counterrevolution in a "democratic" disguise. If the Albanian revolution had been carried through to a conclusion, especially with the program of workers' democracy and internationalism of Lenin and the Bolshevik Party, it could have been the beginning of the socialist revolution on the Balkans. One word from Nano would have been sufficient. The masses would have finished the job very quickly. The example of a workers' democracy would have an electrifying effect on the workers and youth of Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia, Greece and throughout the Balkans. There would be no question of intervention. On the contrary, the reactionary bourgeois cliques in the neighboring countries would have been faced with revolution. But Fatos Nano had no intention of carrying through the revolution.

The defeat of the Albanian revolution has had the most catastrophic results, not only for the people of Albania, but for the whole of the Balkans. By refusing to take power, the Albanian former "Communists" left the door open to Berisha to rebuild his base in the North. Basing himself on all kinds of cut-throats, thieves, drug barons and assorted scum, Berisha has already attempted to take power once. This is a warning to the Albanian masses. At the same time, he has been intriguing with the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army and providing them with arms. The present flood of Kosovar refugees into impoverished Albania will deepen the internal crisis and create further possibilities for reaction. Nano, acting as a puppet of imperialism, has opened the doors to NATO, which is in the process of turning Albania into an armed camp, with the risk of dragging it into the war with Yugoslavia. This would spell a new nightmare for the masses. And the Committees of Salvation? Those revolutionary committees which played such an inspiring role at the beginning of the revolution? We no longer hear anything of them. They are reduced to silence and impotence. In the absence of a genuine revolutionary leadership, in the absence of a clear perspective of taking power, this was inevitable. It was always a question of "either...or" for the Albanian revolution. This we explained from the beginning. The same is true for Russia--even more so. Either the Russian workers, basing themselves on their own strength and organization, take power into their own hands, or else, sooner or later, the way will be prepared for the most monstrous reaction. That is the threatening catastrophe of which Lenin spoke in 1917. We are faced with a similar threat now. The only alternative is the program of Lenin--the program of the socialist revolution in Russia and internationally."