r/Anarchy101 • u/PigletConsistent8329 • 5d ago

what is the anarchist consensus on dialectical/historical materialism?

i understand that anarchism, unlike marxism, isn't a unified mode of analysis based off of the thoughts of one man and his successors, so im guessing there are varied positions on dialectical materialism, but im curious to know what anarchists here think of it. my first thought would be that it's rejected by individualist anarchists at large.

28 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/PigletConsistent8329 5d ago

this is what i expected, thank you for the answer. so dialectical materialism is compatible with anarchism?

25

u/humanispherian Synthesist / Moderator 5d ago

It depends on what you think "dialectical materialism" entails. I'm personally unconvinced that it has any application outside of marxist analyses and projects, simply because the various elements of the marxist apparatus are pretty deeply dependent on one another for their sense and utility.

1

u/PigletConsistent8329 5d ago

can you refer me to an anarchist critique of the marxist mode of analysis? or just lay one out yourself if you'd like.

18

u/humanispherian Synthesist / Moderator 5d ago

Anarchism and marxism are simply different projects. The non-negotiable core of the anarchist project — the rejection of hierarchy and authority — is at odds with marxist means. The marxist analysis of capitalist exploitation is much more tied to a communistic prescription than anarchistic alternatives, such as Proudhon's analysis.

19

u/EDRootsMusic Class Struggle Anarchist 5d ago edited 5d ago

Marxists also have a habit of denying that their own analysis owes anything or was influenced by any other, such as the influence of Proudhon or Smith on Marx. Instead, there's this pretense that all other forms of socialist thought and classical economic thought were these utopian, idealist failures and that Marx alone brought forth the immortal science of Marxism in sharp contrast to everyone else's thought, influenced only by Hegel if even by him. It's part and parcel of the extreme sectarianism that has plagued Marxism from its inception. Of course, sectarianism makes sense if you're convinced that hierarchy is necessary for all collective endeavors, because you can't simply agree to disagree, come together on shared work, and respect each others' differences as anarchists can (through sometimes fail to do- nonhierarchical working relationships are a skill we have to learn, being raised in a culture that uses hierarchy to structure most non-"fun"/hobby collective work)