The Rhetoric of Marxism-by-default

I’m in the process of writing a slightly longer piece on my perspective on the relationship between anarchism and Marxism. But while watching one of fellow Black anarchist CJ’s YouTube videos, I came across a comment similar to those I’ve seen all too often on my own channel:

It is such a perfect encapsulation of the many question-begging assumptions, strawmen, equivocations, discursive closures, and false dilemmas posed to anarchists that I felt a brief line-by-line analysis would be an illuminating exercise. Here’s the comment in unaltered text form:

Tell me how will anarchist get in to power? If the revolution is defeated in a month what does it matter if you have this lala land of perfection. Let’s say you abolish the state how is the union worker going to get class consciousness like that you need a workers state that allows that to develop other wise your going to have counter revolutionary ideas in the working class. Every institution in the ussr was to defend the revolution from a counterrevolution and foreign interference. I ask you again what is it worth that u have this anarchist revolution that can’t defend itself and leads to the restoration of capitalism.

A note before we begin: though I am an anarchist, the main purpose of this exercise is not to argue in favour of anarchism. I’m not here to write a manifesto. I’m interested in how this comment reveals through its language the all-too-common exercise of evaluating anarchism using a framework that rules it out in advance. I’m going to be annoyingly semantic—focused on the meaning of words—in order to draw out the ideological differences between this commenter and myself. This is your chance to turn back if you’re not interested in dissecting the meanings and assumptions conveyed by words.

With that out of the way, let’s begin!

“Tell me how will anarchist get in to power?”

The comment starts off badly by measuring anarchism against a goal it explicitly rejects. A mundane word like “power” can have quite a few different meanings in different contexts. Anarchists like Uri Gordon write about a threefold distinction between power-to, power-over, and power-with, first proposed in slightly different language by eco-feminist author Starhawk. Gordon summarises:

“[P]ower-to (the basic sense of power as the capacity to affect reality); power-over (power-to wielded as domination in hierarchical and coercive settings); and power-with (power-to wielded as non-coercive influence and initiative among people who view themselves as equals.”

This comment is referring to power in the sense of authority. Anarchists reject authority, the right above others to command, so it is nonsensical to ask anarchists how they plan on “getting into power,” i.e. assuming a position of authority.

“If the revolution is defeated in a month what does it matter if you have this lala land of perfection.”

“The Revolution.” “Defeat.” “Perfection.” These terms carry a lot of baggage. Anarchism does not share the same conception of revolution, or what counts as victory and defeat. Anarchist revolution is not some single decisive rupture, war, or territorial claim. It is the transformation of everything from relationships to economics to technology to culture. It is an ongoing process of dismantling domination and cultivating new relations, everywhere. Confrontation alongside prefiguration. Victory measured in the persistence of free relations and experiments. Thus, the defeat of one experiment does not spell the end, as the practices and ideas can live on elsewhere. I am under no illusion that this struggle won’t be ongoing, prone to backsliding, and in need of iterative refinement. There is no flawless blueprint or “lala land of perfection.” That’s the point.

“Let’s say you abolish the state how is the union worker going to get class consciousness like that you need a workers state that allows that to develop other wise your going to have counter revolutionary ideas in the working class.”

Anarchists are not class-reductionist. Our focus is not on raising class consciousness, but on raising anarchist consciousness. This includes a consciousness of the struggle against the state alongside the struggle against the capitalist. Thus, anarchist consciousness emerges through anarchist education, direct action, free relations, and lived experience. Anarchists do not share this person’s belief that meaningful consciousness-raising can or should flow top-down by a state apparatus to passive recipients.

Like the aforementioned “revolution,” “counter-revolutionary” is a term often wielded with the default assumption that the state is a neutral but necessary tool to “defend the revolution.” Anarchists do not share this premise, as we recognise that states are predicated on the very class stratification we aim to abolish. In the eyes of “revolutionary” states and their defenders, this makes us “counter-revolutionary,” a very useful term for those who seek to legitimise repression. But in the anarchist framework, the state is itself a counter-revolutionary force.

“Every institution in the ussr was to defend the revolution from a counterrevolution and foreign interference.”

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.

—The mantra of those more interested in defending states than evaluating whether they actually meet the revolutionary criteria being posed. The state’s institutions of surveillance and repression are not mere neutral guardians against foreign interference. They transform the very nature of “the revolution” itself from liberation to the maintenance of state power. To defend them as “necessary” is to accept the premise that domination can be revolutionary, which anarchists reject outright.

“I ask you again what is it worth that u have this anarchist revolution that can’t defend itself and leads to the restoration of capitalism.”

“Defence” here is equated with the state, as if the only way to organise defence is through the state. At risk of sounding like a broken record, anarchists reject this premise. Defence can be organised without hierarchy. Organisation and coordination do not inevitably require hierarchy. In fact, the danger lies precisely in how the premise of defence or protection can be used to justify all manner of hierarchical abuse. The very structures of revolution that we build can become its downfall. And yes, past anarchist experiments have failed. I do not view this as a strike against “the Idea.” Countless states and authorities have collapsed throughout history, be they monarchies, republics, empires, or “socialist”. Permanence and stability are not guaranteed by centralisation or decentralisation. But there is something to be said for their respective propensities toward continuous adaptation and distributed resilience.

Anyway, I’m not wedded to past anarchist experiments nor to the historically stateless or “egalitarian” societies sometimes described as “anarchic.” I think that some anarchists, myself formerly included, are so desperate to provide examples of the worlds that we seek that we end up betraying the very Idea. I am a radical. I know that what I seek is unprecedented. Charting a new course is not easy, but it is necessary. I refuse to resign myself to the limits of what has already existed, defending the corpse of dead regimes and failed experiments.

I’m all for critiquing anarchism(s). But if you want to criticise anarchism, start by engaging with anarchism instead of talking past it. If you want to understand anarchism, start by recognising that it has its own set of frameworks. Anarchism is not Marxism-lite, anarchists are not confused Marxists. Proceed accordingly. As previously mentioned, I have a longer piece on Marxism and anarchism coming soon. Stay tuned!

All power to all the people.

Peace.