Anarchist theories of change / critiques of dialectical-historical materialism

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 anarchist though.

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 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 Nationalism and Culture iirc.

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 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

Does Marxism equal totalitarianism? Are the ideas of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels somehow responsible for the horrors of Communism? Or were Communist societies simply an aberration - the result of a profound misreading of Marxian concepts, the unfortunate outcome of objective conditions, or the work of perverse, power-hungry individuals?

In this volume, Tabor argues that, despite the apparently libertarian vision of Marx and Engels, the roots of totalitarianism lie within Marxism itself. Focusing on central facets of Marxist theory – its conception of the state; the notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat; the analysis of capital; the materialist conception of history; and dialectical materialism — Tabor argues that the sources of despotism can be traced in all of these.

However, Tabor contends, Marxism’s totalitarian logic is especially apparent in two of Marxism’s most fundamental notions: (1) the belief that the state, in the form of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” can be utilized to establish a free society; (2) a philosophical outlook that insists that human society, history, and the cosmos as a whole can be convincingly explained by, and subsumed under, one logically consistent world view, its own. Seen philosophically, then, Marxism must be understood as a form of totalizing rationalism that seeks to impose itself on humanity (and the Earth) by means of a monolithic state.

Ronald D. Tabor is a long-time revolutionary activist and writer (author of Trotskyism and the Dilemma of Socialism [with Christopher Z. Hobson], and A Look At Leninism). A Marxist for many years, Tabor was active in SDS, a member of the International Socialists, and a founder of the Revolutionary Socialist League. After years of study, Tabor became critical of Marxism and embraced anarchism, becoming involved in the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation. He is currently part of the collective that publishes the Utopian magazine and is a member of the First of May Anarchist Alliance.

You can get it from Thoughtcrime Ink..

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 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 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:

“
it is certain that the actual world is divided into two camps, those who desire to maintain poverty, i.e. hunger for others, and those who demand comforts for all. The forces in these two camps seem at first sight very unequal. The supporters of existing society have boundless estates, incomes counted by hundreds of thousands, all the powers of the State, with its armies of officials, soldiers, policemen, magistrates, and a whole arsenal of laws and ordinances. And what can the Socialists, the artificers of the new society, oppose to all this organised force? Does it seem that they can do nothing? Without money or troops they would indeed succumb if they did not represent the evolution of ideas and of morality. They are nothing, but they have the progress of human thought on their side. They are borne along on the stream of the times.

The external form of society must alter in correspondence with the impelling force within; there is no better established historical fact. The sap makes the tree and gives it leaves and flowers; the blood makes the man; the ideas make the society. And yet there is not a conservative who does not lament that ideas and morality, and all that goes to make up the deeper life of man, have been modified since "the good old times." Is it not a necessary result of the inner working of men's minds that social forms must change and a proportionate revolution take place?

….

This freedom of the human will is now asserting itself in every direction; it is preparing no small and partial revolutions, but one universal Revolution. It is thoughout society as a whole, and every branch of its activity, that changes are making ready. Conservatives are not in the least mistaken when they speak in general terms of Revolutionists as enemies of religion, the family and property. Yes; Socialists do reject the authority of dogma and the intervention of the supernatural in nature, and, in this sense however earnest their striving for the realisation of their ideal, they are the enemies of religion. Yes; they do desire the suppression of the marriage market; they desire that unions should be free, depending only on mutual affection and respect for self and for the dignity of others, and, in this sense, however loving and devoted to those whose lives are associated with theirs, they are certainly the enemies of the legal family. Yes; they do desire to put an end to the monopoly of land and capital, and to restore them to all, and, in this sense, however glad they may be to secure to every one the enjoyment of the fruits of the earth, they are the enemies of property.
….

In no modern revolution have the privileged classes been known to fight their own battles. They always depend on armies of the poor, whom they have taught what is called loyalty to the flag, and trained to what is called "the maintenance of order." Five millions of men, without counting the superior and inferior police, are employed in Europe in this work. But these armies may become disorganised, they may call to mind the nearness of their own past and future relations with the mass of the people, and the hand which guides them may grow unsteady. Being in great part drawn from the proletariat, they may become to bourgeois society what the barbarians in the pay of the Empire became to that of Rome-an element of dissolution. History abounds in examples of the frenzy which seizes upon those in power. When the miserable and disinherited of the earth shall unite in their own interest, trade with trade, nation with nation, race with race; when they shall fully awake to their sufferings and their purpose, doubt not that an occasion will assuredly present itself for the employment of their might in the service of right; and powerful as may be the Master of those days, he will be weak before the starving masses leagued against him. To the great evolution now taking place will succeed the long expected, the great revolution.

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.