Is there a difference between Anarchist-Communism and Libertarian Communism?

[Oktyabr]

I've always thought that they were the same thing. The two of them seem both to be Marxist principles combined with Anarchist principles, and if there is a difference, I have never realized it. I would appreciate an explanation of the differences between them if my idea was incorrect.

[Pogue]

There isn't really. Although some 'libertarian communists' may be left communists, etc and not anarcho communists explcitly its got the same approaches to revolution and post-revolutionary society. Its like how libertarian socialism basically means anarchist but could also refer to slightly different ideas that fitunder left communism.

i'll elaborate later

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Well it can be a synonym for Anarchist Communism. But Libertarian Communist can also refer to council communists, left communists, luxemburgists etc.

[teenagebricks]

An anarchist communist is a libertarian communist, but a libertarian communist is not always an anarchist communist. Libertarian communism is an umbrella term which refers to a fairly broad set of ideals, whereas anarchist communism is a single ideal which usually falls under libertarian communist. libcom.org (http://www.libcom.org/) is a useful website if you're looking for more detailed information.

[revolution inaction]

What they said.
But

The two of them seem both to be Marxist principles combined with Anarchist principles

I don't consider anarchist communism to be anarchism combined with marxism, communism is not = marxism.

[apathy maybe]

The question has already been answered, but I just want to expand on a point.

Libertarian communism is broader than anarchist communism, and includes non-anarchist types of communism. It includes people who don't have a problem with uniformed police officers enforcing laws, and bring folks to courts which then pass judgement on people who break said laws.

Anarchist communists invariably object to these state like trappings, and would probably say that there would be no "police", and any courts would be nothing like we see today.

Some libertarian communists, in other words, are basically communist miniarchists. They want a state, and government (though, I would suggest, a very hyper-democratic one), just a very small one.

Anarchists want no state, and no government.

[JohnnyC]

I don't consider anarchist communism to be anarchism combined with marxism, communism is not = marxism.
Actually, I don't think that's true.The only correct version of anarchism, class struggling anarchism (anarchist-communism), has accepted as true historical materialism and Marx's critique of capitalism.In a way, it could be said that even though anarcho communists are not Marxists, Marx, and to some extent Engels, have influenced the theory of class struggling anarchism.

[Diagoras]

Actually, I don't think that's true.The only correct version of anarchism, class struggling anarchism (anarchist-communism), has accepted as true historical materialism and Marx's critique of capitalism.In a way, it could be said that even though anarcho communists are not Marxists, Marx, and to some extent Engels, have influenced the theory of class struggling anarchism.


Well of course they have. Marx/Engels have had an undeniable effect on the entire socialist movement. Both anarchism and Marxism developed concurrently, and influenced each other through their conflicts and interactions. Being influenced by something does not mean that you can necessarily simplify whole segments of a theory as simple co-opting.

Radicalgraffiti was not suggesting that anarchism has been unaffected by Marxism, but that the development of anarchist communism was not simply anarchism copy+pasting Das Kapital.

[Blackscare]

Actually, I don't think that's true.The only correct version of anarchism...


Who gave you magical powers to decree what is "correct" or not?
Syndicalism and Mutualism are very much anarchist, and you're in no position to offer anything other than opinion as to their validity.

And no, anarchist-communism is not necessarily based on or related to Marxism. Bakunin (who was a collectivist) and Kropotkin (who created "anarchist communism") were both opposed to Marx. That doesn't mean that all people who call themselves anarcho-communist oppose Marx, but as an ideology it certainly isn't inherently based on the teachings of Marx (although as mentioned before, he of course had an impact).

Also, if "class struggle" (although you're referring to a rather large subject here) was the only element of Marx's thought (and thus a gauge to judge the "Marxistness" of an ideology), Das Kapital would be much shorter.

[JohnnyC]

Well of course they have. Marx/Engels have had an undeniable effect on the entire socialist movement. Both anarchism and Marxism developed concurrently, and influenced each other through their conflicts and interactions. Being influenced by something does not mean that you can necessarily simplify whole segments of a theory as simple co-opting.

Radicalgraffiti was not suggesting that anarchism has been unaffected by Marxism, but that the development of anarchist communism was not simply anarchism copy+pasting Das Kapital.
I agree.Of course I'm not saying that whole anarcho communist movement is a copy of Marxism.


Who gave you magical powers to decree what is "correct" or not?
Syndicalism and Mutualism are very much anarchist, and you're in no position to offer anything other than opinion as to their validity.
You misunderstood me.When I said only "correct" anarchism I thought about all theories that accept class struggle, not only anarcho-communism.I used the word "correct" simply to make a distinction between anarchism and "anarcho" capitalism. ;)



Also, if "class struggle" (although you're referring to a rather large subject here) was the only element of Marx's thought (and thus a gauge to judge the "Marxistness" of an ideology), Das Kapital would be much shorter.

I'm not refering to class struggle.I think I clearly explained what part of Marxist theory influenced anarchism, in my opinion.


Actually, I don't think that's true.The only correct version of anarchism, class struggling anarchism (anarchist-communism), has accepted as true historical materialism and Marx's critique of capitalism.In a way, it could be said that even though anarcho communists are not Marxists, Marx, and to some extent Engels, have influenced the theory of class struggling anarchism.

[ZeroNowhere]

Actually, I don't think that's true.The only correct version of anarchism, class struggling anarchism (anarchist-communism), has accepted as true historical materialism and Marx's critique of capitalism.In a way, it could be said that even though anarcho communists are not Marxists, Marx, and to some extent Engels, have influenced the theory of class struggling anarchism.
'Anarcho-communists' don't necessarily know anything about the critique of the political economy. That is, it's not a necessary part of it. The same applies to 'Marxists', interestingly enough.
And 'class struggle anarchism' is hardly equivalent to 'anarcho-communism', which generally is just used to describe a specific current.

[JohnnyC]

'Anarcho-communists' don't necessarily know anything about the critique of the political economy. That is, it's not a necessary part of it.Virtually all anarchists I met in real life and on the internet accepted it.It's not necessary part of anarchism but I think it's accepted as true by a great majority of anarchists.


And 'class struggle anarchism' is hardly equivalent to 'anarcho-communism', which generally is just used to describe a specific current.
It's not equivalent, but anarcho communism supports class struggle and therefore "class struggling anarchism" could be used to describe it.

[apathy maybe]

It's not equivalent, but anarcho communism supports class struggle and therefore "class struggling anarchism" could be used to describe it.

Except that "class struggle anarchism" could also be used to describe other sorts of anarchism, including collectivism. Whoops.

[ZeroNowhere]

Except that "class struggle anarchism" could also be used to describe other sorts of anarchism, including collectivism. Whoops.
I believe he meant that 'anarcho-communism' is a type of 'class struggle anarchism', but typed it up badly. He was saying that they weren't equivalent in the post you quoted.

[apathy maybe]

I believe he meant that 'anarcho-communism' is a type of 'class struggle anarchism', but typed it up badly. He was saying that they weren't equivalent in the post you quoted.

Yes, it could be used to describe it, but it shouldn't be used to describe only it, which is the impression I got. My apologies to all concerned if I'm wrong.

[Bilan]

Who gave you magical powers to decree what is "correct" or not?

Well, one can judge through the results of activities, etc what is 'correct' by their outcomes, and the relativity between the actions and methods and their positive/negative outcomes.



Syndicalism and Mutualism are very much anarchist, and you're in no position to offer anything other than opinion as to their validity.

Anarcho-syndicalism is not necessarily a negation of anarchist-communism. I don't think there are many modern syndicalists (if any) who are not aiming for communism. Mutualism is long dead. There are but a few necrophiliacs.



And no, anarchist-communism is not necessarily based on or related to Marxism. Bakunin (who was a collectivist) and Kropotkin (who created "anarchist communism") were both opposed to Marx.

You should be a bit careful about citing Bakunin in terms of anarchism. Kropotkin less so. And just because they disagreed with Marx, doesn't mean they were right, or that the modern anarchist movement has much to do with either of them.



That doesn't mean that all people who call themselves anarcho-communist oppose Marx, but as an ideology it certainly isn't inherently based on the teachings of Marx (although as mentioned before, he of course had an impact).

Certainly true. I think he was pointing out though that the most consistent and accurate form of anarchist communism is one which does take things from Marx.



Also, if "class struggle" (although you're referring to a rather large subject here) was the only element of Marx's thought (and thus a gauge to judge the "Marxistness" of an ideology), Das Kapital would be much shorter.

Das Kapital is an analysis of capitalism - from the commodity, to (at the time) contemporary examples, primitive acculation, etc, etc.- not simply class struggle.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes, it could be used to describe it, but it shouldn't be used to describe only it, which is the impression I got. My apologies to all concerned if I'm wrong.Yeah, that was the first impression I got too, he had specified after I pointed it out.


You should be a bit careful about citing Bakunin in terms of anarchism. Kropotkin less so. And just because they disagreed with Marx, doesn't mean they were right, or that the modern anarchist movement has much to do with either of them.
Well, yes, but they said 'necessarily'. If there are 'anarcho-communists' who aren't Marxist, then 'anarcho-communism' isn't necessarily based on Marxism. There are Marxists who would fall under the 'anarcho-communist' label, such as the SPGB, and 'anarcho-communists' who aren't Marxist (or don't know anything about it, which is no fault of their own, IMO) such as Krakinpot.


Das Kapital is an analysis of capitalism - from the commodity, to (at the time) contemporary examples, primitive acculation, etc, etc.- not simply class struggle.
Technically, it was as much a critique of the political economy. And hell, Marx was going to write a book on class struggle as a part of Capital (he died before that, though, meaning that people like Cardan could complain about a lack of emphasis on it in Capital). So we can conclude that if Capital were only focused on class struggle, it would be a book or so long (of course, I would assume that after the book on class struggle, it would be brought up more in the following). Which isn't hugely shorter, seeing as the second and third volumes would probably have been shorter than they are if they were actually completed (they would have also been far better, and have somewhat less bias from Engels).

[Bilan]

Well, yes, but they said 'necessarily'. If there are 'anarcho-communists' who aren't Marxist, then 'anarcho-communism' isn't necessarily based on Marxism. There are Marxists who would fall under the 'anarcho-communist' label, such as the SPGB, and 'anarcho-communists' who aren't Marxist (or don't know anything about it, which is no fault of their own, IMO) such as Krakinpot.

What is Krakinpot? Anyhow, I would agree. But I don't think there are a whole heap of anarchist communist groups which reject Marx's theory of capitalism now days (Not least any I can think of). And I wouldn't be overly surprised if those that reject 'Marxism' (Which usually ends up being a rejection of Leninism or Trotsykism, etc.) hold Marx's theory without realizing it (That being, one that is very similar to Marx's analysis, with the only difference being the understanding of the state).



Technically, it was as much a critique of the political economy.

Very true, but this does not make it a text on simply class struggle. An analysis of capitalism is naturally going to be a critique of political economy by a Communist, or anti-capitalist.



And hell, Marx was going to write a book on class struggle as a part of Capital (he died before that, though, meaning that people like Cardan could complain about a lack of emphasis on it in Capital).

The key words being 'going to' rather than 'did' or 'is'. He may have planned on doing so, but nevertheless, it was not.

[ZeroNowhere]

Very true, but this does not make it a text on simply class struggle.
I don't believe that I said that it did. Certainly, it in no way does. Class struggle is an important part of what was to be, but certainly not the whole, as is illustrated by the fact that the book on it hadn't even been written, and the first books (well, first book and some notes and manuscripts) didn't concern themselves with it as much, as that was to be left until that book.

[Blackscare]

Das Kapital is an analysis of capitalism - from the commodity, to (at the time) contemporary examples, primitive acculation, etc, etc.- not simply class struggle. Exactly my point. I was saying that "Marxism" has a lot more to it than simply class struggle.

[Black Sheep]

DAmn.Ok here i made this.
If you decide to divide communism into authoritarian/libertarian, you get fucked, they get interchangeable as you become more specific.
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3531/graph.jpg

So,to answer your Q, anarcho-communism is a branch of libertarian communism.