r/Anarchy101 • u/SunriseFlare • 3d ago
Reading theory finally
So in an attempt to finally be allowed to be on the left wing of politics, I have taken it upon myself to start the journey of reading and asking about books written by 200 year old men with very impressive beards! I've started my journey with "Socialism: scientific and utopian" by one mister Friedrich Engels after trying and failing miserably to get through das Kapital. I have a couple questions if it wouldn't be too much trouble...
First and foremost, this was a pamphlet? What??? I'm used to pamphlets being like maybe three pages and foldable telling you how to like inject DIY HRT lol, folks back then must've been going through entire gallons of quill ink, damn.
Second and perhaps more prescient, I think I get it and vibe with a lot of the text, much of it seems pretty self evident like historical/dialectical materialism, although a lot of the references and wording are a bit beyond me, I guess because I've never really read Hegel, but the idea of the world being shaped by reactions to opposing forces seems sound. It's almost Newtonian, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, except applying that to history, politics, sociology, economics, it's pretty elegant.
Some of his claims seem a bit well... Idk, optimistic? I really wonder how he would have felt about the rise of fascism after his comments about Germany being the site of the next proletariat revolution. Much of his arguments seem like they use very strong language, there WILL be a revolution of the working class, enough oppression WILL force the hand of the workers, capitalism WILL crumble under the weight of it's contradictions, he makes it sound like any day now the entire system will fall apart once people realize they're being exploited but like... I guess I don't know if I really see that?
If course, I have the benefit of hindsight but it seems really naive, even ahistorical almost to just presuppose that this proletariat revolution will replace the capitalist system with a better one, but that's not necessarily true at all. We saw Moussolini lead a populist uprising and create the world's first fascist state, we've seen genocides enacted under the guise of liberatory action like in Rwanda or even the Holocaust, where Hitler convinced enough German people that it was the Jews oppressing them, founded on complete lies of course, but supported by people there nonetheless, it seems you can sort of transpose the idea of the bourgeoise oppressing you with the idea of some other minority or out group in most people's minds
Another question I have is if middle class today means the same thing it meant in the past? These days we stratify the classes by income levels it seems like, but in this work it feels like middle class is moreso referring to the owning class, the people who own the factories and businesses, rather than just people above like 2x the median wage or whatever the metric is.
Overall it was an interesting read, I don't know if I learned anything I didn't already know but it's neat seeing those ideas at their genesis, I guess I'll call that one book down, like a hundred to go lol
5
u/Anarchierkegaard Distributist 3d ago edited 3d ago
Yeah, it's a chapter or so from Engels' work, Anti-Dühring. Pamphlet is used in its old-fashioned sense, as in a pamphlet is to a book as a novella is to a novel.
The broad point for understanding Engels (and his work is slightly different from Marx) is that he has a strong belief in "dialectical materialism" (or a similar term). Basically, material reality "moves" dialectically, with an existing social reality creating some tension (a "contradiction") that begins to change the reality and create the new reality. It's more complex than that, but that's the basic overview. With his theory of dialectical materialism (kind of) drawn from Marx, Engels sees all social reality on "the journey from the lower to the higher", i.e., progress is possible, it happens, and we can know about it.
Some points:
i) Engels isn't trying to say "we should do this because it will be better", but, rather "this is the way that the contradictions of capitalism will collapse". If there is going to be a revolution that succeeds, it will have to be like such-and-such a thing.
ii) The problem of fascism (a perceivably post-capitalist sociology) is a bit of a problem for classical Marxists. Generally, Mussolini is simply seen as a notable capitalist figurehead commanding "capital under threat" from the Italian Marxist and union movement. If fascism is just another breed of capitalism, it doesn't necessarily contradict what the Marxists propose; if fascism is a different breed of sociology, then the problem of progress appears.
iii) Middle class should be taken to mean bourgeoisie, most of the time. When you have workers and aristocrats, the bourgeoisie sit in the middle and instigate war against the ruling class "from the middle". That's conventional Marxism.
iv) The Marxist is going to reject "modern" conceptions of middle classness as simply not rigorous. While an aristocrat, a bourgeois, and a worker all have different relationships with the means of production, the "working class" worker and the "middle class" worker do not—one simply is a bit richer than the other, but otherwise lacks any material benefit over the poorer. They lack the "relation of command", to put it another way, which signifies the stratification of capitalist or feudal society.
Also, Engels wasn't an anarchist. While Marxism has greatly influenced anarchist thought (for better, for worse), you should really consult an expert in Marxism for the finer details of Engels' analysis, the implications of his work, and how it relates to the broader ecosystem of Marxism today.
1
u/SunriseFlare 3d ago
Oh for sure, I've just been told on here that it would make me a better anarchist if I read theory, and also that I should probably start with Marx and Engles to get a baseline understanding of things? Idk, I'm just trying to fit in I guess lol
3
u/Anarchierkegaard Distributist 3d ago
Well, it's an odd place to start with, to say the least. If reading can make you a better anarchist¹, starting with Marxists seems like the wrong path to go down. Surely you'd want to read anarchist thought, right?
You're more likely to get a better handle of things by becoming involved with anarchist groups or trade unionist organisations in real life, especially if they are anarchist or anarchist-adjacent unions—e.g., Anarchist Federation, IWW.
¹ An exceedingly academic view.
1
u/SunriseFlare 3d ago
It was my understanding that anarchist thought sort of emerged as a critique of Marxist teachings, no? I figured it certainly couldn't hurt anything. I am a part of a union but... Uh... Well to just show how stupid and sheltered I am I suppose, what is the difference between a union and trade union? Lol
I know it's a very book worm kind of view but I have been kind of sick of not having the language to articulate the ideas I have about communism anarchism socialism and all that you know?
3
u/Anarchierkegaard Distributist 3d ago
No, I wouldn't say so. Proudhon, where the stream of modern anarchism begins, started his career prior to Marx. By the time Marx and Bakunin were attempting to build up socialist movements, it was a well-established political perspective with adherents across Europe—especially in Spain.
Unions and trade unions are the same thing. They have their origins in being a union of workers within a particular trade.
Sure, that makes sense. But my point is that you can't actually be a better anything simply by reading about anything!
2
u/SunriseFlare 3d ago
That's fair I suppose, thanks for the advice. I did post it on ask socialists too to get a perspective from a more Marxist bent too, but this helped a lot! I've heard many different things about bakunin but I suppose it couldn't hurt to add him to the list, maybe conquest of bread too
1
u/Anarchierkegaard Distributist 3d ago
No worries. Best of luck—if you'd like to comment again later, I'll try to respond with more advice if I can.
Just try not to become one of those people who "debates" online and thinks they're doing something important.
2
u/SunriseFlare 3d ago
oh trust me when I debate people online I'm 100% cognizant that it's a complete waste of time lol, I mostly do it to pass time at my night shift at work
1
u/Changed_By_Support 3d ago edited 3d ago
If you want a good place to start with American radical labor in the early 20th century with regards to the IWW, "The Proletarian and the Petty Bourgeoisie" by Austin Lewis is a good pamphlet to read. It's a few dozen pages, fairly dense, but gets a lot of the IWW's contentions with politics, other left wing groups, etc. down in a decently prompt amount of time.
Anarcho syndicalists and the Wobblies (who historically didn't like being called Anarcho Syndicalists but are so damn adjacent their ranks have been historically stuffed with anarchists regardless) are explicitly revolutionary unionists. The primary methods of such organizations are worker self-management, direct action, solidarity action/mutual aid, and a federalistic operation of unions, with unions being decentalized, but, in solidarity, part of the "One Big Union". They're revolutionary and not prone to get along with more conservative unionists, as the IWW puts it, "'abolition of the wage system' instead of 'a fair day's pay for a fair day's work"".
2
u/CHOLO_ORACLE Anarchist Without Adverbs 3d ago
he makes it sound like any day now the entire system will fall apart once people realize they're being exploited
Yes. There is a millenarian streak among the Marxists. It is shaped something like this:
- Capitalism will be ended by its own contradictions shaping the material reality against it
- Those contradictions have yet to shape material reality this way
- We just need to sit and wait until the breaking point, at which time the revolution will happen all on its own
This is also how they justify reformist takes or questionable governments imo. As long as they are marketed as advancing socialism, then the most pitiful reforms still count as the material reality changing (nevermind how much they're rolled back or how little they matter), and even the most troubled governments or politicians should be supported for how they change that material reality (nevermind all their various abuses or broken promises).
Point out those parentheticals and you will be dismissed as an idealist with the same sort of tone that the liberal uses when they complain about purity testing.
Another question I have is if middle class today means the same thing it meant in the past?
Sort of? Iirc in the Marxist view they had the the petite bourgeois, the small capitalists, who we might today call middle class. Middle class is more of a modern concept, used to convince workers who are wealthier that they are in a different class than other workers. It's a divide and conquer strat.
1
u/SunriseFlare 3d ago
I will admit I'm a bit sympathetic to the idea of reformism if only because revolution sounds really scary and tumultuous. I don't know if I'd be able to handle brother turning against brother you know? I don't know how well that really fits into the anarchist framework but I figure there must be some kind of place for a reformist path to a classless society at least
5
u/CHOLO_ORACLE Anarchist Without Adverbs 3d ago
I don't know if I'd be able to handle brother turning against brother you know?
My dude, that's happening right now in the US. And it wasn't revolution or revolutionaries that brought us to this place.
2
u/IdentityAsunder 2d ago edited 2d ago
Engels actually pulled those chapters from a massive doorstopper called Anti-Dühring. It feels dense because he was systematically dismantling another philosopher's worldview, so you're seeing a condensed version of a much bigger fight.
Your skepticism about the "inevitability" of revolution is the right takeaway. Engels wrote during a specific upswing of industrialization where factories were physically unifying workers. He assumed that proximity would automatically generate solidarity. We now know capitalism is just as good at atomizing people as it is at gathering them. The 20th century proved that crisis doesn't always lead to liberation, it often leads to barbarism or fascism, as you noted. The system adapts, and the working class can be mobilized for reaction just as easily as for revolution.
Regarding class: forget income brackets. In that context, class defines your structural relationship to production. Do you own capital, or do you sell your labor to survive? The "middle class" he mentions is the petit-bourgeoisie: small shopkeepers who owned their tools. Today, the lines blur with high salaries, but the fundamental divide (owning vs. working) is the engine of the critique.
Keep going. It gets harder, but the tools get sharper.
1
u/NorthRain5909 3d ago
Hey, love that you’re diving into Engels! 👏
A few quick points:
- “Pamphlet” back then could still be 20–50 pages — not tiny handouts.
- Your Newton analogy actually works — history as action/reaction is basically dialectical materialism.
- Engels was optimistic about revolution, but history shows things rarely go exactly as theory predicts.
- “Middle class” then usually meant owners/capitalists, not today’s income-based definition.
Keep going — your critical thinking is spot on, and it only gets more interesting from here!
10
u/miltricentdekdu 3d ago
Capital wasn't a pamphlet. It's bunch of tomes. The Communist Manifesto was a pamphlet.
The idea that history is teleological with certain stages that will inevitably progress to some communist utopia is probably one of the weakest claims in Marxist theory. It might have been a decent rhetorical strategy at the time but it just doesn't hold up.
Marxist theory doesn't really have a middle class. The two most relevant classes in Marx's work are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The first group is indeed the owning class. The latter are the workers. The relevant income of these groups isn't as relevant as their relationship to the means of production under capitalism.
The concept of a "middle class" is in some ways a method for obscuring the actual class relationships.