I thank kasamang Renato Flores for their thoughtful letter to the editors of Cosmonaut, “Anarchism and the Necessity of a Modern Critique.” As some angry commentators have indeed surmised, I do have sympathies to anarchism. I consider anarchism part of the scientific socialist family with works like What is Property? and Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution part of its esteemed canon. After all, it is rumored that Proudhon coined the term “scientific socialism.”
Part of my frustration with the Marxist canon has been what I perceive as an overwhelming failure to critically engage with the anarchist canon. I am continually appalled by the thoughtless regurgitation of strawmen anti-anarchist arguments from Engels’ “On Authority” or Lenin’s The State and Revolution as if these have a priori correctness to them. I consider such vulgar “Marxism” as precisely the stagnant tendencies I critiqued; the kind of “Marxists” that let books do the thinking for them.
As such, kasamang Flores’ letter is a breath of fresh air in the stale arguments dominated by vulgarized Marxisms. I was initially going to say that the critique presented by Jo Freeman in “The Tyranny of Structurelessness” is of limited value for a critique of anarchism because anarchists are quite cognizant of the piece and of subtle power—and indeed the text forms part of the ideological syllabus of anarchist groups like the Black Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation (BRRN). But as evidenced by the manifesto of the mass resignees from the BRRN, “Every Rose Has Its Thorn,” anarchists in the BRRN precisely failed to account for the continuing effects of invisible patriarchal power. Flores’ third point—that there is little room for dissent in anarchist spaces—was also quite evident in the criticisms presented in “Every Rose Has Its Thorn,” so much so that oppositionists in the BRRN saw no other alternative other than mass resignation.
As for Flores’ second point—that refusing to engage with the state results in the abstaining of a whole arena of power and struggle—I have my own thoughts and personal replies on the matter. It is quite probably the most important critique of anarchism that anarchists must reckon with. However, Cosmonaut Magazine is hardly the place for me to engage in a spirited defense of anarchism, and my desire in submitting my original essay was to reach across the aisle, as it were. If I may share some brief thoughts: On one level I understand and believe that State power is something that proletarians can never wield constructively because of particular nuances with what makes a proletarian a proletarian, on the other hand, kasamang Flores’ point still raises the problem that abstaining from state power simply may not be enough to engage and deconstruct State power. This is an excellent seed for a strong critique I think.
With that said, I would welcome a modern Marxist critique of anarchism. The critiques of anarchism coming out of the likes Marx, Engels, and Lenin overwhelming failed to critique what anarchism actually was and instead bombed various strawmen of their own creation. For example, Marx’s “Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy” tells us quite a lot on what Marx thought about the state, but not much on why Bakunin’s points are mistaken because many of the points miss the mark of what Bakunin was trying to say. Bakunin does exactly the same to Marx in Statism and Anarchy and this failure to properly engage with each other’s ideas has largely impoverished the debate between the two canons. The most prescient and sharp critiques of anarchism are usually done by anarchists themselves, as with the case of “Every Rose Has Its Thorn” or “Revolution Is More Than a Word: 23 Theses on Anarchism.” One may even point to Nestor Makhno’s Platform as the original harsh self-criticism. A Marxist critique that constructively engages with the anarchist canon would be a welcome development then, a change of scenery from the usual self-critics to outside perspectives.
A reason why I would welcome such a modern Marxist critique of anarchism is that critique has always had a way of strengthening ideas when viewed dialectically. In the canon of the social sciences for example, the institutionalist approach was abandoned because of a failure to be relevant and of failing to explain and predict the Second World War. In its place came the behavioralist approach that shifted the focus of study from institutions to individuals. However, in its turn behavioralism failed to be relevant and account for the spirited events of the Long Sixties and academics returned to institutionalism, but this time informed by the behavioralist experience. This return incorporated all the criticisms behavioralism used against institutionalism as lessons for improvement. The same recuperation and dialectical improvement occurred with behavioralism as well. Today, neo-institutionalism and post-behavioralism are now rich and dynamic perspectives that can offer various tools for one looking to study the social and political. If you may excuse the vulgar formulation of thesis–anti-thesis–synthesis, both neo-institutionalism and post-behavioralism integrate not only the original theses, but the critiques as antitheses, with both combining the into new syntheses. Such synthesis can only strengthen ideas rather than demolish them and the mutual critiques and engagement of both of each other enriched both in turn. I hope the same for Marxism and anarchism.
A new synthesis arising from critique was also my desire when I wrote my original article. I had no desire to demolish Marxism as some anarchist writers gleefully declare with their own works. I want to see Marxism prosper as a rich and dynamic tradition in its own right rather than the impoverished vulgarism that seems to dominate internet spaces. I wish the same for anarchism, for anarchism is also plagued by vulgar and stagnant tendencies as well, and a Marxist critique may be what it needs to improve. I see both as necessary perspectives for revolutionary practice, and constructive engagement between the two canons can only improve both. After all, Daniel Guérin noted: “Thus anarchism and Marxism, at the start, drank at the same proletarian spring.”
Hundreds of years ago, there existed a “republic of letters” that united all scientific socialists; may it be so again! And let us welcome constructive engagements and rich critiques as they come!
Comradely,
Simoun Magsalin.
