Marxism or anarchism - An open letter to thinking anarchists

Marxist Theory · 2017-05-12

Core Argument¶

The central thesis is that anarchism and Marxism are not complementary tendencies within the same revolutionary project but fundamentally opposed methods rooted in incompatible theoretical foundations. Alan Woods argues that anarchism's rejection of the state, its hostility to political organisation and democratic centralism, and its suspicion of theory itself lead it into a practical dead end: either sectarian irrelevance or absorption into reformist and liberal currents. The article claims that only Marxism — with its materialist conception of history, its understanding of the state as a product of class society, and its insistence on building a disciplined revolutionary party — can provide a coherent strategy for the abolition of capitalism and the construction of socialism.

The open letter is written as a polemical intervention aimed at "thinking anarchists", those whom Woods considers open to argument rather than hardened in anti-Marxist prejudice. It seeks to win them to Marxism by demonstrating that anarchism's critique of bureaucracy and authoritarianism, while containing a kernel of genuine revolutionary feeling, ultimately lacks the theoretical tools to understand the state, the class struggle, or the transition to a classless society.

Theoretical Grounding¶

The analysis draws on the classical Marxist tradition, particularly the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. The key theoretical reference points are:

The Marxist theory of the state: The state is not an instrument that can be captured and used for socialist ends, nor is it merely a coercive apparatus that can be abolished by an act of will. It is a product of class society, and its abolition requires the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist class and the creation of a transitional workers' state — a state that is not a state in the full sense because it begins to wither away from the moment of its establishment.
The experience of the Russian Revolution: The article repeatedly returns to 1917 as the decisive historical test. The Bolsheviks' successful seizure of power, their establishment of a workers' state, and the subsequent degeneration under Stalin are presented not as a refutation of Marxism but as confirmation of its analysis. The degeneration is explained by the isolation of the revolution and the backwardness of Russian society, not by any inherent flaw in the Bolshevik method.
The critique of anarchism as a petty-bourgeois current: Woods situates anarchism historically as a movement that arises in periods of revolutionary upsurge but lacks a consistent materialist method. Its rejection of theory, its moralism, and its hostility to organisation are traced to the social position of the déclassé intellectuals and artisans who have historically formed its base.
Democratic centralism: The article defends the Leninist conception of the party as a necessary instrument for the working class to achieve consciousness of its historical role. Anarchism's opposition to discipline, centralism, and leadership is presented not as a sign of superior revolutionary purity but as a recipe for fragmentation and impotence.

The article sits within the orthodox Trotskyist tradition, with its insistence on the centrality of the transitional programme, the need for a revolutionary party, and the defence of the Soviet Union as a degenerated workers' state. It is a direct continuation of the polemics of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky against Bakunin, the anarchists of the First International, and later against the anarchist currents that emerged in Spain and elsewhere.

Conjunctural Relevance¶

The article was published in 2017, a period of renewed interest in anarchism among younger radicals, particularly in the Global South. The specific trigger is an article by the Brazilian anarchist group Black Flag, but the broader context includes:

The rise of new social movements: The Occupy movement, the Indignados, and the various "horizontalist" currents that emerged after the 2008 financial crisis had revived anarchist and autonomist ideas. Woods is intervening in a conjuncture where many young militants, disillusioned with social democracy and Stalinism, were turning to anarchism as a seemingly purer alternative.
The experience of the Arab Spring and the Ukrainian crisis: These events demonstrated, in Woods' view, the limits of leaderless, horizontalist movements. Without a clear programme, a centralised leadership, and a strategy for taking state power, revolutionary upsurges either collapse or are co-opted by existing bourgeois or reactionary forces.
The crisis of the traditional left: The article is also a response to the long-term decline of Stalinism and social democracy, which has left a vacuum that anarchism has partially filled. Woods argues that this vacuum can only be filled by a revived Marxism, not by a retreat into anti-political posturing.

The article's relevance extends beyond 2017. The resurgence of anarchist and autonomist ideas in movements such as Extinction Rebellion, the Yellow Vests, and various anti-fascist and anti-racist mobilisations continues to pose the same questions of organisation, state power, and strategy. The article remains a reference point for Marxists seeking to engage seriously with anarchist currents rather than dismiss them out of hand.

Where the Argument Continues¶

The article is part of a broader body of work by Alan Woods and the RCI that systematically addresses anarchism and related currents. Key continuations include:

Other articles by Alan Woods on Marxist.com: Woods has written extensively on the history of anarchism, the Spanish Civil War, the Kronstadt rebellion, and the relationship between Marxism and anarchism. These provide historical depth to the theoretical arguments made in the open letter.
The RCI's analysis of contemporary movements: The organisation has produced detailed analyses of the Yellow Vests, Extinction Rebellion, and other movements where anarchist and horizontalist ideas have been influential. These apply the same critique to current events.
Against the Stream episodes: The RCI's weekly video and podcast series frequently returns to the question of organisation, the state, and the relationship between Marxism and other radical currents. Specific episodes on the Spanish Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the theory of the state are directly relevant.
Broader Marxist texts: The article points readers towards Lenin's State and Revolution, Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism, and Engels' Anti-Dühring as essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the Marxist position on the state and the transition to socialism.

Connections¶

This article should be read alongside:

Lenin, State and Revolution: The foundational text on the Marxist theory of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Woods' argument is essentially a restatement and defence of Lenin's position.
Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism: Trotsky's defence of the Bolshevik method against anarchist and liberal critics during the Russian Civil War. The article echoes Trotsky's argument that revolutionary violence is not a matter of principle but a necessity imposed by the class enemy.
Engels, Anti-Dühring: Engels' polemic against the anarchist and utopian socialist ideas of Eugen Dühring contains the classic Marxist critique of anarchism's rejection of all authority and its failure to understand the material basis of the state.
Alan Woods, The Spanish Civil War: A Marxist Analysis: A detailed historical study that applies the same theoretical framework to the concrete experience of the Spanish Revolution, where anarchism was a mass movement and its limitations were tragically exposed.
The RCI's programme, The Foundations of the Revolutionary Communist International: The programmatic document that outlines the organisation's strategic perspective, including its defence of democratic centralism and the transitional method.

Key Quotes¶

"The state is not an 'instrument' that can be taken over and used for socialist ends. It is a product of class society. The working class cannot simply 'smash' the state and replace it with something else. It must create its own state — a workers' state — which is not a state in the full sense of the word, because it begins to wither away from the moment it is established."
"Anarchism, by rejecting the need for a revolutionary party and democratic centralism, condemns itself to impotence. It can produce heroic individuals and small groups, but it cannot produce a mass movement capable of overthrowing capitalism. The history of the Spanish Revolution proved this conclusively."
"The anarchist opposition to all authority is not a sign of superior revolutionary consciousness but a reflection of the petty-bourgeois suspicion of organisation and discipline. The working class, in its struggle against capital, is compelled to create its own forms of organisation, its own discipline, and its own authority. To reject this is to reject the possibility of victory."
"The Russian Revolution was the greatest event in human history. It proved that the working class, led by a revolutionary party armed with the theory of Marxism, could take power and begin the construction of a new society. The subsequent degeneration under Stalin was not the result of Leninism but of the isolation of the revolution in a backward country. Anarchism has no answer to this problem."
"The anarchist rejection of theory is a luxury that the working class cannot afford. Without a scientific understanding of the laws of motion of capitalist society, the working class is condemned to grope in the dark, to be led by reformists and opportunists, and to suffer repeated defeats. Marxism is not a dogma but a guide to action. It is the only theory that can provide the working class with a clear perspective for victory."
"The difference between Marxism and anarchism is not a matter of nuance or emphasis. It is a fundamental difference of method, of theory, and of strategy. One leads to the conquest of power and the abolition of class society. The other leads to sectarianism, despair, and ultimately to the defeat of the working class. The choice is clear."