Add new comment

Disputes between the different tendencies of the spectrum at the ultra-revolutionary class probably as old as all of these trends. In their moments of revolutionary upsurge of the dispute dies down, during a recession - erupted. But it never stops. I'll try to figure out how to understand the anarchists and the Marxists, the concept of a revolutionary class. I will not criticize any of the parties, just give my opinion.

To do this you need to understand what is the difference of the Marxist and anarchist approaches.
What is for anarchists - Communism? For them - this project is an alternative, they fit into the propaganda "from the ideal," ie, compare the most just society (anarchy) to a class society, unfair (mostly anarchist theory does not distinguish between the different formations of class society, their theory metaphysical - that is,there is a society of justice (classless) society and the unjust (class), respectively revolution - this time moving from injustice to justice). Therefore the main goal of anarchist theory - to prove that anarchy is better the existing system, and as evidence they give those non-hierarchical community who live without government intervention and capital, or live to fight him (Makhnovshchina, the Spanish revolution, various online communities, etc. ).Accordingly, they seek out those elements in the current structure that already exist "anarchic" or try to create them - ecosettlements, opensource, self-managed "libertarian" enterprise, HOA, etc. Who then revolutionary "class" for anarchists? These are the ones who take the model of such a society, those who developed this model (previously it was the peasant commune, now - the small producers who live "independently" of big business and government).On any forum I've read the definition of such a revolutionary fiber - "anarchic people." Consequently, in anarchist theory and practice is constantly looking for "anarchic people", ie those strata of the society in which anarchist propaganda will work the best. Hence the controversy
Now consider a different approach - Marxist.For Marxists - communism - is a historical movement that destroys the capitalist contradictions. Movement that is dialectically - on the one hand the will of the people on the other historical conditions (in particular - the development of productive forces). The moment of the revolution - the moment of greatest glow of these contradictions (a basic contradiction of capitalism as we know from the Marxist theory - the contradiction between social production and private nature of consumption). Therefore, in Marxist theory, there is little description of what will be the "kingdom of freedom", but rather specify what it will not (and even then mostly in passing).Marx considered this description of "utopianism." Much more important Marxists consider the study of mechanisms of capitalist society, the study of contradictions (as is well known dialectical method examines the processes of development), the study of historical laws that move human society, and how these contradictions and laws could lead to revolution. Hence for the Marxists, the revolutionary class is the one who can destroy these contradictions, the one on whom capitalism holds, those who create capital.Who is it? Naturally it is the proletariat (the proletariat - a class that has no ownership of the means of production are not involved in the allocation of capital, but creates it). The revolutionary proletariat is precisely in this, for no one except the proletariat can not destroy capitalism, because that's what the proletariat is its creator. This is the revolutionary proletariat to the Marxists.
To summarize - we see a different approach to the very concept of a revolutionary class in the Marxist and anarchist theory. These concepts may overlap, but they actually mean different things. Therefore, I believe this dispute is not meaningless.