Anarchism Vs. Marxism

"Anarchism", "Marxism", "Anarchism","Marxism'. The crowd continues to shout. Where do we stand? We are already predicated that "anarchism is impractical but a beautiful ideal." (Goldman in Anarchism and Other Essays, p. 55) Such that we can determine that anarchism could not truly exist in a large scale society due to its inhabitable style. Without any social class/governing there could be a lack of incentive, of motivation or inspiration to fulfill their needs. To think hypothetically, if individuals did not need to work would they? Plausible yet questioning, we cannot accurately describe whether individuals of a truly free society would engage in labour activities. Nonetheless, in comparing Goldman's anarchism and Marx's capitalism and communism we can say that although they are distinctively from two different schools of thought; Anarchism agrees and somewhat builds upon several topics namely: power through wealth or in the case of Marx, "Bourgeoisie property"; the alienation of labour, the abolishment of the state; and most notably, social change through the means of a revolution. In comparing both schools of thought, we will be able to distinguish whether it is feasible, enhances society or diminishes it, and whether or not we can apply it to modern society.

The use of property to create wealth, has both Anarchists and Communists disagreeing entirely. As stated by Goldman, "The only demand that property recognizes is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade." (Goldman in Anarchism and Other Essays, pg,60). In Marxian language, "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." (Marx in Farganis, pg. 33) Neither Anarchists nor Communist believe private property should exist. This is due to their existence as a society of freedom, promoting an egalitarian society and no hierarchal chain of structure. It also leads both schools of thought, to predict that the owning of property results into the use of power. The ability to essentially subdivide the society from those who had property to those who didn't, resulted in Capitalism for Marx It only recognized individuals as either a proletariat or a bourgeoisie. In the case of Anarchism, they state that individuals with power will only realize that the individuals who helped produce the power is significantly declining. (Goldman in Anarchism and Other Essays, pg.60)

It is intriguing to see that freedom or at least freedom from class struggle could be so distinct and prominent for individuals in the societies of Communism and Anarchism. Perhaps it could be said that due to both schools of thoughts relying on social harmony, individuals should never feel repressed or coerced into their own decision making; regardless of whether it is best choice or not. In today's society, especially in a hierarchal structure; power is abused. Individuals are given too much supremacy to control the status of others. Corporate management is driven by numbers and economic systems which undoubtedly does not promote equality. Rather than management seeing long tenure at a certain position as loyalty towards the company; it sees it as a dispensable piece of furniture which isn't productive any longer.

Productivity it seems, brings about the division of labour and in comparing Anarchism to Marxism, in terms of the alienation of labour we can presuppose that it is indeed a method of repression. Goldman states, "what he gives to the world is only gray and hideous things, reflecting a dull and hideous existence." (Goldman in anarchism and other essays, pg.61) In Marx, "It is true that labour produces for the rich wonderful things." He continues, "It produces beauty but for the worker, deformity." (Marx in Farganis, pg. 39) In reflecting upon both quotes, they are indeed similar. Such that, as individuals living in a society of mechanical labour to perpetuate wealth, the only way to escape from this coercion is creativity, or freedom of expression from Anarchists. (Goldman in Anarchism and Other Essays, pg. 61) For Marx it is the elimination of" private property as it appears to be the source" (Marx in Farganis, pg.43).

Although both solutions to eliminate the alienation of labour seem plausible, one cannot go on and question which is easier to advocate. For Marx, to initiate freedom from the alienation of labour, it seems to be more collective than individualistic. As private property is existent among virtually all of capitalism, it does eventually disembody itself due to the rise of Communism. We can say that a single individual alone, would have great difficulty defeating the state and so, it proposes more problems unless you have the masses of individuals to spare. Anarchism on the other hand, seeks the individual to solve the problem by engaging in free thought and not succumbing to the rigidity of the property owned individuals. It appears to thoroughly promote individualistic consideration as opposed to collective forces in terms of alienation of labour.

In creating freedom from mechanical labour there needs to be an abolishment of the state. Goldman writes, "The State is the altar of political freedom and, like the religious alter, it is maintained for the purpose of human sacrifice." (Goldman in Anarchism and Other Essays, pg. 63) Marx also writes, "The