Anarchism: A Petit Bourgeois Ideology
In the mid to late 19th century, two ideologies began to develop. Anarchism, and Marxism. Both of these ideologies framed themselves as for the masses, for a proletarian interest. The reality of it is, Anarchism, as opposed to Marxism, was not proletarian in its intentions. It was inherently individualistic and petit bourgeois in its ways. However, firstly, we must define what a petit bourgeois mindset is.
A petit bourgeois mindset is one in which, even if you do not take the role as a petit bourgeoise in society, you still are left with the world outlook of one. It is characterized by a worldview of individualism and liberalism. To quote Marx on this issue:
“The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history.”
Now the question arises, how does this relate to Anarchism?
Firstly, the forefather of Anarchism, Max Stirner, was indeed a petit bourgeoise shop keeper. Thus, his worldview is bound by his material reality, and as an egoist like him would suggest, his interest was petit bourgeois in its nature. This reflects obviously in his writing. His ideological egoism treats the individual as the absolute. He saw the infringement of the individual as the highest offense of freedom and liberty. He then asserted that the State in ways asserts its interests over all other interests, along with morality, the church, the family and other spooks etc. This is again an instance of the individualism that is akin to Anarchism, as Stirner wholeheartedly rejected the collective.
Next point I bring to attention, is the question of authority, dictatorship of the proletariat, and organization. Throughout history, Anarchists have shown that the lack of dictatorship of the proletariat, has for the most part, lead to failures in the Anarchist movement. Revolutionary Anarchist movements were employed in Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War, and the Ukraine, during Russian Civil War. These Anarchist experiments only had sprung up in short lived times during civil war and mass unrest. Additionally, they failed to organize a disciplined vanguard and authentic base of mass support which inevitably lead to their downfall. Their failures proved that a vanguard party must be used, and that a centralized movement is the only way to succeed in fighting capitalism in the long term.
Last but not least, their desire to ‘skip a stage’ is in large part due to their petit bourgeois impatience. They reject what is known to be the Marxist scientific way of doing things and instead opt out to utopianism and believing that we can leap from semi feudal or capitalist modes of production to an immediate communist utopia. They do not recognize the dictatorship of the proletariat and pre-DotP stages of development. Why?… because they reject historical and dialectical materialism.
In conclusion, Anarchism is a petit bourgeois ideology. It is individualist, liberal, and idealist in its ways and should not be taken as a legitimate proletarian ideology.
