Section One: Marxist and Anarchist Theory¶
Core Argument¶
In Section One: Marxist and Anarchist Theory, the chapter establishes a rigorous Marxist critique of anarchism, arguing that while both traditions aspire to a classless, stateless society, only Marxism provides a scientific method for achieving it. The core argument is that anarchism’s rejection of political leadership, state power, and theoretical analysis is not only mistaken but historically and materially untenable.
The chapter grounds its case in historical materialism. Class struggle emerges from humanity’s struggle with nature; material conditions determine consciousness. Early classless societies lacked exploitation because productivity was too low to support a privileged stratum. As productive forces developed, competition and war produced class divisions. Against Dühring, Engels insists that force is merely the means to economic advantage; the state arises from and serves the ruling economic class. The state is a tool for repression, but the working class must wield it to defend revolution. A workers’ state is not the end goal; it will dissolve when class struggle ends.
The chapter directly refutes Kropotkin’s fear that centralised collectivism creates a new ruling group. It argues that existing class exploitation and long hours prevent workers from planning production, not centralism itself. Indeed, localism—not centralism—contributed to Stalinism, as seen in the Russian Revolution when isolated factory committees hoarded resources. The solution is a globally planned economy with high productivity to shorten the working week and enable mass participation.
Anarchist hostility to political leadership is shown to be self-defeating. The existence of theorists like Marx and Bakunin proves leadership is unavoidable; anarchists who propose a “leadership of ideas” merely rename it. When anarchists gained real influence, as with Makhno’s movement, they reintroduced leadership and state functions: voluntary mobilisation became conscription, property was allotted by authority, and “free” soviets excluded parties while Makhno appointed officers. Syndicalist proposals for a general strike fail because strikes alone have not overthrown capitalism; trade unions have reformist leadership that sells out strikes. An organised political grouping must lead the struggle.
Finally, the chapter condemns anarchist rejection of theory as scientific study. Bakunin’s prediction that Marxist revolution would degenerate into dictatorship lacked materialist analysis; he registered state oppression without understanding its basis. International revolutionary leadership is necessary to coordinate worldwide struggle against imperialism. The chapter thus defends Marxism as the only coherent path to liberation.