Left Communism vs. Libertarian Socialism vs. Anarchism

[proudhon10]

Hi-
I have been doing some reading and it seems that everyone has a different definition of anarchism, left communism, and libertarian socialism. They all seem like anti-totalitarian tendencies, opposed to state capitalism, and state socialism. Are there distinguishing qualities of each, or are they basically synonyms? If you know, enlighten me, and if you want to argue on behalf of one of these leftist tendencies.

[Bilan]

They're not synonyms, no.
Anarchism and Libertarian Socialism, though, are often used interchangeably, when the former is referring to "anarchist communism", or class struggle forms of anarchism. However, not all forms of anarchism have class struggle as central to their politics, and therefor the terms are not universally interchangeable.
Left Communism, however, is another kettle of fish altogether.

[proudhon10]

How so? Left communism sounds similar to some forms of libertarian socialism and anarch-communism

[proudhon10]

i meant anarcho-commmunism

[Azurite]

Left communism sounds similar to some forms of libertarian socialism and anarch-communism

In what way? Besides the opposition to Leninism.

[JohnnyC]

How so? Left communism sounds similar to some forms of libertarian socialism and anarch-communism
There are some similarities between left communism and anarcho communism.Both "tendencies" are against parliamentarism, and in support of workers councils as an ideal form of workers control of economy.There are also some council communists(not all) that are, like Anarchists, against party completely.Also, there are many anarcho-communists that share the left communist position on questions such as national liberation/internationalism and trade unionism.In essence, if you ask me, excluding terminology, there are very few practical differences between internationalist anarchist, who is against trade unionism, and a left commie.I hope this was helpful. :)

[Bilan]

How so? Left communism sounds similar to some forms of libertarian socialism and anarch-communism

Left Communists do not reject the role of the Proletarian Party - even though some understand it in different ways, as well as Left Communists are Marxists, whilst not all anarchist-communists are.

For example Party and Class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1921/party-class.htm) - Amadeo Bordiga

[proudhon10]

Thank you guys, that was helpful. I have a similar question, it seems like you poeple kniow what your talking about so i can assume you at least have an opinion. My question is, what is the differnence between collectivist anarchism and anarcho-communism. I think i may have read that they are very similar except collectivist anarchists still believe in keeping wages. Is this true?:)

[ZeroNowhere]

In what way? Besides the opposition to Leninism.
Not necessarily, I remember that in one of the articles against De Leonism on the ICC, the guy was... Well, lets's just say he seemed to like Lenin excessively, IIRC.

Anyways, IIRC, Bordigists would count as left commies, but not libertarian socialists, and there are probably anarchists that support nationalist struggles and the like (certainly, it's possible). Libertarian socialism and anarchism are basically synonymous.

[JohnnyC]

Thank you guys, that was helpful. I have a similar question, it seems like you poeple kniow what your talking about so i can assume you at least have an opinion. My question is, what is the differnence between collectivist anarchism and anarcho-communism. I think i may have read that they are very similar except collectivist anarchists still believe in keeping wages. Is this true?:)
I consider that a crucial difference.Another difference is that Bakunin, founder of collectivist anarchism, had an idea that small and secret group of dedicated revolutionaries should inspire masses to revolt and socialize the means of production/destroy the state.I don't think many anarchists share that view today.

[ZeroNowhere]

Thank you guys, that was helpful. I have a similar question, it seems like you poeple kniow what your talking about so i can assume you at least have an opinion. My question is, what is the differnence between collectivist anarchism and anarcho-communism. I think i may have read that they are very similar except collectivist anarchists still believe in keeping wages. Is this true?
No, because that would be maintaining capitalism.

[apathy maybe]

Thank you guys, that was helpful. I have a similar question, it seems like you poeple kniow what your talking about so i can assume you at least have an opinion. My question is, what is the differnence between collectivist anarchism and anarcho-communism. I think i may have read that they are very similar except collectivist anarchists still believe in keeping wages. Is this true?:)

Most collectivist anarchists at the time thought of it as merely a transitional period to proper communism. There are very few actual collectivist anarchists around any more, the communist sort, sort of took over.

Oh, and because capitalism is much, much more than just having wages, you can ignore the claim that just by having wages you are maintaining capitalism. No anarchist wants to keep the institutions of inheritance, unlimited control over non-used resources and similar essential aspects of capitalism.

[ZeroNowhere]

Oh, and because capitalism is much, much more than just having wages, you can ignore the claim that just by having wages you are maintaining capitalism.
Having wages under a classless society would be impossible, as they are a social relation under capitalism. You may have, for example, a labour credit system, but that is not wages.

[apathy maybe]

Having wages under a classless society would be impossible, as they are a social relation under capitalism. You may have, for example, a labour credit system, but that is not wages.

That may well be the case, but few people would argue that a transitional period is going to be classless.

Any, just because you have wages (or a labour credit system, which in this context, for this discussion are basically the same), doesn't mean you have capitalism.

[ZeroNowhere]

That may well be the case, but few people would argue that a transitional period is going to be classless.
Perhaps, but certainly not capitalist either, except perhaps for some Leninists. I don't really see much point in a 'transitional period' in which we still have a capitalist class within the commune, and a working class working for them, which is what gives birth to the social relation called wages, nor why it is especially transitional.

[proudhon10]

Which socialist, communist, and anarchist group support using democratic means to achieve revolution? Do council communism and luxemborgism support elections or not? I cant see the problem with working with the system to destroy it, some call this revolution from above. Democracy is tainted by capitalism, but, as leftists we can restore it. What are your thoughts?

[ZeroNowhere]

Which socialist, communist, and anarchist group support using democratic means to achieve revolution? Do council communism and luxemborgism support elections or not? I cant see the problem with working with the system to destroy it, some call this revolution from above. Democracy is tainted by capitalism, but, as leftists we can restore it. What are your thoughts?
Well, I have a few objections to the use of the word 'democratic', but anyways, I suppose I get what you mean...
Well, there's De Leonism, which I would count among libertarian socialism. We propose organization on both the political and industrial fields, that is, a Socialist Industrial Union and a party. Information here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/de-leonismi-t100202/index.html?p=1341927#post1341927).
Another libertarian socialist tendency that follows this would be the World Socialist Movement (http://www.worldsocialism.org/index.php). They only propose the use of political organization, and their other main difference from us De Leonists is on 'free access' vs labour credits immediately after a revolution, with them advocating 'free access' to everything from the start, and us... Not. Their article on SIUs is fairly crappy, though, but hasn't been replaced even after being continually called on it. But anyways, their articles are generally great, so they're worth checking out.

As for council communists, they don't, and I'm not entirely sure about Luxemburgists.

Though keep in mind that the 'socialism - communism' distinction is generally only shared by the Leninists, who are somewhat less common in libertarian socialism, so 'socialism' and 'communism' are often used as synonyms, as in the writings of Marx, Engels, and most other socialists at the time. On the other hand, within anarchism, 'anarcho-communism' refers to a specific current, and therefore the term 'communist' is occasionally used to refer to that group alone. Also, of course, anarchism is a form of socialism/communism.

[Diagoras]

Which socialist, communist, and anarchist group support using democratic means to achieve revolution? Do council communism and luxemborgism support elections or not? I cant see the problem with working with the system to destroy it, some call this revolution from above. Democracy is tainted by capitalism, but, as leftists we can restore it. What are your thoughts?

I am assuming you mean bringing about revolutionary change through elections. Like ZeroNowhere, I have a problem with considering such a thing the "democratic" way. I would argue that instituting direct democracy in communities, workplaces, and for the economy at large would be "using democratic means", while simply participating in elections would be maintaining the overall undemocratic and unjust structures of the present system, with a few superficial alterations (that will be reversed when the "opposition" regains electoral strength). In my opinion, any meaningful democracy requires a type of mass access to control over the economy and the structure of society that would necessitate the removal of the present forms of governmental structure. The state/military/corporations that profit from the present system will oppose any true challenge to their hierarchy and privilege, and have not hesitated to use force in the past to stop such changes... this will then necessitate some form of conflict. We will not bring about any meaningful revolutions by just picking the right leaders for us. It is going to require cultural and social reconstruction.

I fully agree that it is up to the libertarian left to try and fight for real democracy, but I do not think parliamentarism is the way to do this.


I consider that a crucial difference.Another difference is that Bakunin, founder of collectivist anarchism, had an idea that small and secret group of dedicated revolutionaries should inspire masses to revolt and socialize the means of production/destroy the state.I don't think many anarchists share that view today.This was a silly and temporary opinion held by him, partially resulting from his association with the nihilist Nechayev. He renounced that idea and his association with him later on.


My question is, what is the differnence between collectivist anarchism and anarcho-communism. I think i may have read that they are very similar except collectivist anarchists still believe in keeping wages. Is this true?They are similar. Theoretically, the anarcho-collectivists preceded the emergence of the anarcho-communists, so realize that many of the ideas of anarcho-communism developed in response to some of the perceived theoretical weaknesses of @-collectivism (which itself was influenced by the more individualist/mutualist ideas of Proudhon). @-collectivists did propose the use of what amounts to labor vouchers to determine consumption rights. Although each community/workplace would be essentially left to work out its own details and nuances, one would essentially be paid based upon how much/hard one worked, and distribution could in many respects retain the use of markets and competition (within a more communal and "comradely" context, and in conjunction with social planning), except with democratically-run workplaces. @-communists, on the other hand, argued that such a system of remuneration based upon labor would require what would amount to a recreation of the state and currency to enforce. @-collectivism is not really a rigid system... some view it as transitional until productive capacities allow for a post-scarcity economy (more conducive to @-communist forms of organization) to flourish. Others view remuneration based upon labor alone to be a good goal in itself; ParEcon advocates would essentially fall into this camp.

[robbo203]

.
Another libertarian socialist tendency that follows this would be the World Socialist Movement (http://www.worldsocialism.org/index.php). They only propose the use of political organization, and their other main difference from us De Leonists is on 'free access' vs labour credits immediately after a revolution, with them advocating 'free access' to everything from the start, and us... Not. Their article on SIUs is fairly crappy, though, but hasn't been replaced even after being continually called on it. But anyways, their articles are generally great, so they're worth checking out..

I dont think that is quite correct about the full "free access" bit right from the start. I have come across articles in the Socialist Standard which suggests the need for some form of rationing based on a points system - at least for some goods. There may be something about this in the excelent pamphlet , Socialism as a Practical Alternative , <http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/saapa.pdf (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/saapa.pdf)> but I havent checked.


I actually think a dual system at least in the lower phase of communism/socialism would be most appropriate with some form of rationing. Since the prioritisation of input allocation means that basic needs are most likely to be attended to first, resource scarcity - logically speaking - is likely to be confined to less important products and services e.g. luxury goods. Such goods that are more likely to be scarce are ipso facto those that are more amenable to rationing (where you can produce enough of everything rationing becomes redundant).

I think what is needed when it comes to rationing is some clear cut principles or criteria upon which to base your rationing. Socialism will inherit from capitalism pretty substantial spatial inequalities. Consider housing. We cannot all immediately build for ourselves decent and adequate homes. Many people will will compelled for sometime to live in a fairly crappy environment. This is why I advocate a compensation model of rationing which gives priority access to scarce goods to those people who have to live in such an enviroment. This also accords with natural justice.

I think such a model may be preferable to the points system approach advocated by the WSM but also I think to the labour voucher scheme which tends to gloss over the problem of inherited spaital inequalities in the lower phase as well as being administratively cumbersome

[Dave B]

I am surprised that we have not already on thread had some Leninist ranting away at the ‘Utopianism’ of discussing socialism in terms of free access and voluntary labour etc.
So perhaps in an attempt to pre-empt that, I call upon Lenin and Trotsky themselves as once upon a time discussions on the nature of free access and voluntary labour in socialism were not taboo and were common currency.


<H2>V. I. Lenin, From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the Creation of the New





Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas;

it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism.

It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale.

But the very fact that this question has been raised, and raised both by the whole of the advanced proletariat (the Communist Party and the trade unions) and by the state authorities, is a step in this direction.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm)


Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, Chapter 3, Socialism and the State




The material premise of communism should be so high a development of the economic powers of man that productive labor, having ceased to be a burden, will not require any goad, and the distribution of life’s goods, existing in continual abundance, will not demand – as it does not now in any well-off family or "decent" boarding-house – any control except that of education, habit and social opinion. Speaking frankly, I think it would be pretty dull-witted to consider such a really modest perspective "utopian."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm)

I think production in socialism would be geared up primarily to providing an abundance of essential products. We wouldn’t or nobody should want to be engaged in making Rolls Royce cars whilst other people didn’t have enough to eat or somewhere reasonable to live.

Luxury good that are direct consumables and that can essentially only be allocated once like food could be allocated by rationing, lottery or by need.

Even in capitalism people can quite readily accept allocation according to need when there is not abundance ie in National Healthcare systems.

Other items like leisure boats or yachts could be just loaned out for use rather than held as personal possessions as they are often now. Even for the super rich there is a finite limit to how many luxury products and how many pairs of shoes they can use at any one particular point in time.

Hopefully in socialism as the personal possession of commodities would no longer carry any kind of social status, people would have that much less desire to collect them.

The amount of time and effort that is spent on advertising for ‘bling’ is probably a reflection of how much we really want this kind of shit, as well as how quickly people get bored of it once they have purchased it
</H2>

[ZeroNowhere]

I dont think that is quite correct about the full "free access" bit right from the start. I have come across articles in the Socialist Standard which suggests the need for some form of rationing based on a points system - at least for some goods. There may be something about this in the excelent pamphlet , Socialism as a Practical Alternative , <http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/saapa.pdf (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/saapa.pdf)> but I havent checked.
Well, yes, I am aware that many of you support at least temporary rationing (hell, pretty much all of you seem to support rationing in some form), and I generally mention that, I just forgot to mention it in this instance. Thanks for pointing that out.