Any serious political philosophy must engage with its most serious critics, and anarcho-communism has attracted serious criticism from multiple directions. It would be dishonest to simply ignore these, and the anarcho-communist theory of freedom is strengthened, not weakened, by engaging with them directly.
The most common objection from the liberal centre is that anarcho-communism is utopian, that human beings are, by nature, too competitive, too self-interested, and too inclined toward hierarchy for a free communist society to be sustainable. This objection has been rehearsed so many times that it has acquired the status of common sense, which should itself be a reason for suspicion. Arguments that naturalise the existing order, that present capitalism and the state as the inevitable expressions of human nature, are performing ideological work, dressing historical contingency up as biological destiny.The anarcho-communist response is not to deny that human beings are capable of self-interest, competition, and cruelty, obviously they are. It is to point out that human beings are equally capable of solidarity, cooperation, and care, and that which tendencies predominate is a function of the social conditions people live in rather than of fixed human nature. A society organised around competition, scarcity, and hierarchical authority will tend to produce competitive, acquisitive, authoritydeferring people. A society organised around mutual aid, abundance, and collective self-governance will tend to produce different kinds of people, with different habits and values. This is not naive optimism, but it is a reasonable inference from both historical evidence and social psychology.
The most serious objection from the Marxist-Leninist left is that anarchism is incapable of mounting an effective challenge to capitalism, that without centralised organisation, without a vanguard party, without the seizure of state power, revolutionary movements will be defeated by the organised force of the ruling class. The history of the twentieth century, on this reading, is a history of anarchist failure and Leninist success. It is a serious argument, and the anarcho-communist owes it more than a dismissive rebuttal.
Let us be honest about the defeats, because honesty is more useful than defensiveness. The most advanced anarchist experiment of the twentieth century, the Spanish Revolution of 1936-1939, centred on the CNT-FAI and the collectivisations in Catalonia and Aragon, was crushed. Workers had reorganised production on genuinely free and communal principles. Millions of people were governing themselves without bosses, without police, without the mediation of a party or a state. And they lost. They were attacked by Franco's fascists, bombed by Hitler and Mussolini, and, critically, actively undermined and ultimately destroyed by the Stalinist forces that were nominally on the same side. The anarchist currents in the Russian Revolution were similarly suppressed when the Kronstadt sailors who demanded real soviets rather than Bolshevik management were massacred by the Red Army in 1921. The Makhnovist movement in Ukraine, which organised genuinely libertarian communism across a vast territory during the civil war, was eventually annihilated by the same Red Army that had briefly allied with it against the Whites. These are not footnotes, they are the central events of anarchism's most serious confrontation with power, and they ended in defeat.
The honest anarcho-communist does not get to simply say, well, the Leninists cheated. That is true, but it does not resolve the question. If your politics cannot survive being betrayed by its nominal allies, that is a political vulnerability, not just a moral complaint. The question the defeats force on us is whether the anarchist commitment to non-hierarchical organisation, to prefiguration, to refusing the seizure of state power, is compatible with the level of coordination and discipline that confronting a militarily organised capitalist state actually requires. This is an open question, not a settled one, and any anarchism worth taking seriously has to live with its difficulty rather than explaining it away.
The Leninist successes, meanwhile, deserve honest assessment rather than easy dismissal. The Russian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, the Vietnamese resistance to American imperialism, these were not nothing. They represented genuine popular mobilisations against genuine ruling-class power, and in several cases they won, at least militarily. The anarcho-communist counter-argument is not that these were not real movements or real victories, but that the regimes they produced were not, by any meaningful measure, free communist societies. They were state capitalisms managed by party bureaucracies that quickly became new ruling classes, not the dictatorship of the proletariat but the dictatorship over the proletariat, exactly as Bakunin had predicted in the 1870s. The ends were profoundly shaped by the means. The Leninist model achieved revolutionary seizure of state power and then produced states indistinguishable in their basic structure of domination from the ones they replaced.
This is not a peripheral failure, rather it goes to the heart of what freedom requires. There is also a question about what we are comparing. The Leninist critique holds Kronstadt and Spain up against the Russian and Cuban revolutions and declares the score obvious. But this comparison has a selection bias: it is comparing the outcomes of revolutionary situations, moments of acute crisis where the question of armed force was decisive, rather than the full range of social and political transformation.
The anarchist contribution to working-class history has not only been in the dramatic ruptures. It has been in the labour organising of the IWW, in the culture of the CNT, in the free schools and cultural centres of Catalan anarchism, in the mutual aid networks that sustained communities through crisis, in the feminist politics that Goldman and de Cleyre developed decades before the mainstream left took seriously the connection between personal and political freedom. These contributions are harder to count as victories on a military ledger, but they have shaped how people organise, resist, and imagine alternatives in ways that continue to matter. Perhaps most importantly, the Leninist critique assumes that the only relevant question is whether anarchism can win against capitalism in direct armed confrontation, now, in the conditions of the existing world. But the anarchocommunist vision of social transformation is not primarily about a single decisive revolutionary rupture followed by the administration of state power. It is about the long, unglamorous, often dispiriting work of building free institutions in the present, developing the capacities for self-governance that a free society requires, and creating, within and against the existing order, the social relations and practices that make another world possible. This is a different conception of what revolution looks like. It is harder to measure, less cinematically satisfying, and more compatible with the actual complexity of social change. Whether it is sufficient to the scale of what we face is a question the twenty-first century is in the process of answering.
https://thepolarblast.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/to-be-free-together.pd
_________________________________________
Link: (en) NZ, Aotearoa, AWSM: Polar Blast - The Objections: Taking the Critics Seriously (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten