Okay y'all *raises hand* Difference between Left-Coms and Anarchists?

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Okay y'all, I gotta ask a question that has been bugging me recently:

What's the difference between Left Communism and Anarchism/Libertarian-Communism? Both ideologies seem to be about the same thing, soooo... explain.

Thanks!

[Drace]

I am not sure but I think the way in which they plan to reach communism.

Anarchists for example, are against the idea of a Vanguard party and the state of socialism that will "guide the people into communism"

[9]

Well, I'm not an anarchist or a left communist for starters. But drace is correct, left communists support the notion of a vanguard. Left communists are also Marxists, or have some form of a Marxist/materialist analysis. Another difference comes with the fact that a great variety of positions are taken by radicals claiming the banner of anarchism, while left communists are more or less consistent with their positions. For example, some anarchists support national liberation struggles, some anarchists are feminists, some anarchists would have supported the original Black Panther Party. Left communists consider all these things 'bourgeois'.
But I'm sure an anarchist or left communist will have better information to offer on the subject.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

I thought that Left-Communists rejected the idea of the vanguard party... I do realize that Left-Communists see themselves as coming out of a specifically Marx-and-Engels-inspired tradition, but then again I have also met Anarchists that consider themselves to be "libertarian Marxists" (including an ex-girlfriend of mine).

[Nwoye]

Left-Communists reject the concept of a vanguard party. They differ with anarchists in historical analysis, their position on unions, and their position on the state (among other things).

Here's an introduction from Marxist.org to Left-Communism: http://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/

Here's an article by the ICC (a major left-communist organization) regarding the state in a transition period: http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648

An excerpt from above: "It is absolutely impossible to deal with the problem of the state after the revolu*tion if you haven’t already understood that “between capitalist society and communist society lies the period of revolutionary transformation of the one into the other” (Critique of the Gotha Program); if you haven’t understood why this period takes place not before but after the victory of the revolution, or why it is radically dif*ferent from previous transition periods; if you haven’t understood the fact that after destroying the rule of the capitalist class, there will still exist huge masses of the laboring population who are profoun*dly anti-capitalist but not pro-communist, and that there can be no question of exclu*ding them from political life and active participation in the organization of society."

[Искра]

Well I think that term "anarchist" is to wide to talk about. I think that it's not fair to talk about Left Communism, as one small part of communist tendencies, and to compare it with whole anarchist movement/idea.

There are a lot of moronic people and movements calling themselves anarchists. Especially this "modern" (or better to say post-modern) individualists and lifestylish asses. If we want to have decent discussion about difference between anarchism and left communism we should exclude them and talk about anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalists tradition, which are only two anarchist traditions with revolutionary potential. Those traditions are for working class revolution lead by working class and against collaboration with bourgeoisie. Unfortunately there were few mistakes in history which compromised whole idea (Spain, Mexico...).
Also, anarcho-communists do not reject Marx's theory, although we have few parts that we don't accept, therefore anarcho-communists could could be labelled as Marxist.

I think that main difference between Left Communism and anarchism were mentioned by Organised Confusion. Never the less, I would like just to add that Left Communists are internationalists and that (as far as I saw on this forum) they think that anarchists are not usually internationalist. To me that's kind of funny, because I think that you can't be nationalist anarchist. If you are then you are not anarchists but ultra liberal contra-revolutionary which will be purged :)



For example, some anarchists support national liberation struggles, some anarchists are feminists, some anarchists would have supported the original Black Panther Party. Left communists consider all these things 'bourgeois'.
All those things are bourgeois and therefore those things are not anarchistic.
Only thing I will not consider bourgeois is female struggle (not feminism!), which is essentially part of anarchist ideology (and communist, also).

[9]

Left-Communists reject the concept of a vanguard party.

As far as I am aware, you are mistaken.


Originally Posted by Leo
Left communists are and have always been for a vanguard party.http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=459

[Die Rote Fahne]

Left Coms believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat whilst Anarchist believe in an immediate ending of the state as a result of the revolution.

[Niccolò Rossi]

A thread by the name of 'Difference between Anarchism and Left Communism?' was coincidentally started yeterday on Libcom. There are alot more posts in this thread and it is much more factual. I would suggest you have a look at. You can find it here (http://libcom.org/forums/theory/difference-between-anarchism-left-communism-14112009).

As a general note, I think there is alot of confusion regarding the Communist Left and what Left Communism actually is. I think alot of this is due to the use of words and how these questions are posed. For example, what is Anarchism? What is Left Communism? What is a vanguard? What is a party? How do these differ from communist organisations as they currently exist? and so on.

I think the biggest problem with the question, as Jurko notes, is that 'Anarchism' is not a universal, coherent or internally consistant entity. Some of the most vile kinds of reactionary shit pass for 'Anarchism' in much the same way as it does for 'Communism'.

There are certain fundamental differences between Marxism and Anarchism which can be identified, such as the question of an revolutionary analytical method. However to be more specfic, that is, if you actually want to know what political positions divide anarchism and left communism, you have to be specific. What divides left communism from anarcho-syndicalism, is very different from that which divides left communism and lifestylism or modern platformism and so on.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Left Communism is a branch of Marxism, while Anarchism is not.

That's the fundamental difference.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that main difference between Left Communism and anarchism were mentioned by Organised Confusion. Never the less, I would like just to add that Left Communists are internationalists and that (as far as I saw on this forum) they think that anarchists are not usually internationalist.

Sometimes they're right.

When they say "internationalist", usually they mean that they don't support "national liberation" struggles. Some anarchists do support these struggles*, therefore they wouldn't be truly "internationalist" in the minds of left communists (and some libertarian socialists like myself).

*especially Platformists like Wayne Price and Michael Schmidt.

[Shin Honyong]

Didn't left communists generally support the Russian Revolution (while noting the flaws) while anarchists didn't?

[Sentinel]

They differ with anarchists in historical analysis

Your post is very good. I'd like to point out here though, that not all anarchists reject marxian class analysis or historical materialism.

I for instance am an anarcho-syndicalist, but also consider myself a libertarian marxist in the sense that I agree with this part of Marx' work -- while I disagree on a centrally governed workers movement, the vanguard (other than as in equal role-models) and of course a post-revolutionary state.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Didn't left communists generally support the Russian Revolution (while noting the flaws) while anarchists didn't?

The Russian Left Communists were Bolsheviks in 1917.

As a rule, I don't think it's not right to say that the anarchists opposed the October Revolution. Large sections of the anarchist movement (broadly and loosely defined as it is) were swept up in the reality of proletarian revolution, Even with the Bolsheviks at it's head as they were. For some, this meant themselves becoming Bolsehviks (Victor Serge would be the most prominent here, I believe).

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Ok so I haven't really seen many clear answers in this thread, partly down to the vagueness of the question itself. So I think a better question would be how does the Left Communist concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat differ from the Leninist concept?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Ok so I haven't really seen many clear answers in this thread, partly down to the vagueness of the question itself. So I think a better question would be how does the Left Communist concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat differ from the Leninist concept?

What is the Leninist conception of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

As Marxists, Left Communists stand for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

[Il Medico]

What is the Leninist conception of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

Perhaps by Leninist he means Marxist-Leninist. If this is the case, they believe the the USSR was properly implementing socialism (and the dictatorship of the Proletariat) pre-Khrushchev which is bullshit.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Perhaps by Leninist he means Marxist-Leninist. If this is the case, they believe the the USSR was properly implementing socialism (and the dictatorship of the Proletariat) pre-Khrushchev which is bullshit.

Thank you. I do mean Marxist-Leninist. But, in theory is what constitutes the DOTP the same in your ideology and in Marxist-Leninsit ideology?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Oh, and as Madvillainy mentions here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1604592&postcount=2), left communists seem to make a bizarre fetish of "decadence theory", which apparently explains everything ever. They can explain it for themselves better than I can, no doubt.

[Leo]

"The bizarre fetish" about the theory of decadence is not something which was invented or is only shared by left communists. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky etc. all had a central concept of the ascent and decline of societies, it is a part of the basic marxist understanding of history.

[Alf]

Marxist-leninism - ie Stalinism - is for virtually all forms of left communism the capitalist counter-revolution, the total negation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which the ICC would argue can only be expressed through the direct power of the workers councils over all aspects of political, social and economic life during the period of transition to communism. There are however differences among descendants of the left communist tradition about the role of the party within the dictatorship of the proletariat. Somewhat schematically: for what we would call the 'Bordigist' groups, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the party. For the 'councilists', all parties, including communist ones, inevitably end up opposing the power of the working class. For the ICC, the IBRP and others the party is still a necessity, but its role is not to exert power on behalf of the class.