Hey comrades... I'm wondering if any of you know where I could read up on any anarchist specific theories of change and/or anarchist critiques of Marxist "science" i.e. dialectical-historical materialism.
Authored on
March 2, 2016
Hey comrades... I'm wondering if any of you know where I could read up on any anarchist specific theories of change and/or anarchist critiques of Marxist "science" i.e. dialectical-historical materialism.
I haven't read the whole
I haven't read the whole thing, but this might be of interest:
http://www.respublica.gr/2015/03/column/cornelius-castoriadis-history-as-creation-part-i/
http://www.respublica.gr/2015/03/column/cornelius-castoriadis-history-as-creation-part-ii/
http://www.respublica.gr/2015/03/column/cornelius-castoriadis-history-as-creation-part-iii/
Castoriadis isn't an
Castoriadis isn't an anarchist though.
well, I hope the OP finds it
well, I hope the OP finds it of interest anyways since Castoriadis is a non-marxist libertarian socialist. If not, I apologize.
Maybe not specific enough and
Maybe not specific enough and not 'anarchist' but I found this short critique of 'Historical Materialism' as applied in practice interesting:
http://libcom.org/library/historical-materialism-anti-revolutionarytheory-revolution
First chapter of Rocker's
First chapter of Rocker's Nationalism and Culture iirc.
Bakunin - Statism and Anarchy
Bakunin - Statism and Anarchy https://archive.org/details/al_Michail_Bakunin_Statism_and_Anarchy_a4
And I would also suggest any of the anarchists who gathered to make up the St. Imier Conference and Anarchist International - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_St._Imier_International
Happy reading comrade :-)
There is The Tyranny of
There is The Tyranny of Theory: A Contribution to the Anarchist Critique of Marxism. Although I have it, I've not read it yet so I have no idea if it's any good. From a skim of a few sections it seemed a bit weak in its understanding of Marx. Here's the blurb for the book, and as you can see it does contain a critique of historical materialism
You can get it from Thoughtcrime Ink..
The SPGB produced a very
The SPGB produced a very simple readable pamphlet on historical materialism
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/historical-materialism
As someone who has seen both
As someone who has seen both sides of the argument, starting out as an anarchist hysterically opposed to Marxism, believing it to inevitably lead to Stalinism, or Stalinism even being completely consistent with Marxism, to gradually becoming a Marxist, I can say that I have not seen a critique by a rival socialist that appears to truly understand Marxism. The one critic that I know of that understands Marxism is a right-wing conservative, Thomas Sowell. I mention this to demonstrate that I do not chalk any disagreement with Marxism up to simply not understanding it. Cornelius Castoriadis does not, however, fully understand Marxism. He mentions, for instance, that similar empires have risen and fallen on similar material infrastructure. But this implies a mechanical and deterministic understanding of Marxism, and is therefore not valid.
Now, I don't want to kick off a drawn out discussion on the accuracy of Marxism versus anarchism, but I would caution to not simply assume that an exposition of Marxism by an anarchist, followed by arguments refuting this exposition, is accurate. This is what I did, as anarchist, which I now realise was wrong.
I believe Reclus has a theory
I believe Reclus has a theory of change.
I remember reading an essay collection which included a bit about Elisée Reclus’s theory of revolution and societal change. If I recall correctly Reclus believed that human hierarchy and capitalism is a structure in nature; and all structures posses the seeds for evolving into something new. Most of Reclus’s theory has yet to be translated from french; it will be hard uncovering the whole of Reclus’s theory for english speakers.
Here are some excerpts from ’Evolution and Revolution’ by Elisée Reclus’s that might help:
First Reclus starts by distinguished between the revolutionary and conservative forces within society. He then asserts that a structure of a society is dictated by the beliefs of individuals within it. Reclus spends the latter half of the essay pointing out how human Ideas are evolving in favor of the revolutionaries; social progress, and inclusiveness of education are given special attention. Reclus goes out of his way to disinclude religion in this evolutionary shift of human ideas. Reclus finally hints that the evolution of ideas may spread to the guards of the ruling class and open space for revolution.
I would argue that Reclus seems to lack the ethnographic perspective of Kropotkin in regards to the development and causes of revolutions. I have family members and family friends who have lived through revolutions talk about a feeling of 'unity among society', and the radicalization of large portions of the population in a short amount of time. Kropotkin’s essay on ‘revolutionary minorities’ beautifully captures that. Reclus seems to view the ideological development within the population as a slow process. One will be pressed to show how Reclus and Kropotkin are consistent.
I can think of two obvious issues with Reclus: He would have the explain the devolution of human ideas that has taken place over the decades. Socialism and Progressivism are at an all time low. Secondly, he has yet to explain the forces behind the evolution of ideas.