Moving along, “At times they seem to assimilate Marx and Engels to a “classical Marxism” (the German SPD) which was “statist.” The SPD was in fact statist (i.e., “Lassallean”), but Marx and Engels wrote scathing critiques of it for exactly that.

Not so. Firstly, there were two main disagreements between Lassalle: the latter’s “iron law of wages,” and the his strategy of seeking an alliance with the Kaiser’s government in order to defeat the bourgeoisie and, over time, to establish socialism. Lassalle wanted to use the existing state, Marx insisted it had to be overthrown and a workers’ state take its place. Hence they held two opposing statist theories.

But this is not what anarchos mean by statism–the use of the state to effect socialism. We are against any state, including Marx’ workers’ state, which for us is an oxymoron. Engels said the state was necessary for the proletariat to hold its class enemies in subjection, we argue that any state holds everybody in subjection. Accordingly for us it is a false dichotomy to contrast Marx’ and Lassalle’s statisms. In any case, it was not for statism generally which caused Marx and Engels to critique Lassalle, rather it was the latter’s particular ideas on the subject.

Moreover, the SPD was not Lassallean. It was in fact a merger of Lassalle workers’ association [can't remember name] and the Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany, which was solidly Marxist. The rest of Moriarty’s criticism on these lines are rendered meaningless by his fundamental mistakes of stating that the SPD was not Marxist; that it was statist because it was Lassallean; and that its revolting reformism was due to its Lassallean nature.

“The greatest weakness of Black Flame is its almost total lack of a discussion of the Marxists (after Marx) that one might broadly call “libertarian communist,” namely Rosa Luxemburg, Anton Pannekoek, Herman Gorter, CLR James and some aspects of Guy Debord. It also lacks an in-depth consideration of the soviets and workers’ councils in the Russian and German revolutions…”

Once again, Black Flame is a book about anarcho-syndicalism, not a history of the various tendencies within Marxism.

“There were thirty years of CNT/FAI rejection of “politics” and the state, and suddenly, in 1936, they have ministerial portfolios in a bourgeois government.”

Indeed, most anarchos I know would agree with you, but this is an odd line of criticism for a Marxist.

“Yes, the IWW was syndicalist, but IWW rank-and-filers organized study groups on Marx’s Capital, one of the few mass movements in the West where that happened, to my knowledge.”

If Moriarty means the American West, then there is a chance he is correct, but if he means the broader West, then he is not. Furthermore, many anarchos, myself included, have read Marx. He has made an enormous contribution to the socialist movement. But if they remained Wobblies then they obviously broke with Marxist theory to some degree.

“Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution for Russia (Marx had one for Germany) was a blast precisely against the two-stage theory, and it is completely false to say that the bourgeois revolution fell to the “party.” It fell to the working class, as was confirmed by 1905 and again by 1917. Trotsky was an anti-Leninist when he developed the theory, and it was a total outlier in the European revolutionary milieu until 1917 when Lenin adopted it. Such sloppiness, even on a small point, makes one wonder just how much Schmidt and van der Walt know about the adversary.”

First, the adversary is capital. Second, Moriarty is in no position to talk abt sloppiness. Third, did the events of 1905 disprove the stages theory? How so? It is not merely the case of the proletariat participating in revolutionary activity, they have done that throughout history, it is a matter of its claiming power and exercising it over the other classes. This certainly did not occur. Fourth, did Lenin accept the theory of permanent revolution. There are certainly some Leninists who disagree [the CPGB, M-L, leaps to mind].

“The truth was that many people they call anarchists and syndicalists found something in early Third International communism that was lacking in anarchism and syndicalism. As they do say, many anarchists and syndicalists read Lenin’s State and Revolution and assumed that anarchists had taken power in Russia.”

Now that is a remarkable statement. Indeed SAR was written at the end of Lenin’s hippy period, which began with his Theses, but neither of those flower-power tomes in any way reflected the totalitarian state Lenin instituted in Russia. And SAR contained passages which were explicitly statist and would not be acceptable to anarchos. Indeed there were some who went over to the Bolsheviks, they were called anarcho-Bolsheviks, but this was due largely to resignation rather than a belief that Lenin had become an anarchist. That is utterly preposterous.

Moreover, anarchos don’t take power, that is the point of anarchism.

Moriarty stated at the outset that his was going to be a comradely critique. It was hardly that.

Also, the Russian soviets of 1905 were created under anarchist influence and had participation by anarchists, especially when they re-appeared in 1917 (see Voline’s The Unknown Revolution), and the anarchists were defeated in Russia and Spain mainly due to a deliberate campaign of violence by the Marxists, although obviously they made errors and could be criticized on any number of specifics, such as when the CNT moderates joined the government. But you can’t discuss the anarchists in the Russian and Spanish revolutions without admitting that they were attacked and murdered by Marxists.