State Differences

[Scarlet Fever]

Hey, I'm fairly new to this, but I've been trying to sort through the different tendencies for some time now, and one thing is still really confusing to me. If Marxism in general requires abolition of the state, how do Luxemburgism, Left Communism and Council Communism differ from it (and from each other)? And how do these in turn differ from Anarchism and Libertarian Socialism/Marxism?

Thank you! :confused:

[Psy]

Hey, I'm fairly new to this, but I've been trying to sort through the different tendencies for some time now, and one thing is still really confusing to me. If Marxism in general requires abolition of the state, how do Luxemburgism, Left Communism and Council Communism differ from it (and from each other)? And how do these in turn differ from Anarchism and Libertarian Socialism/Marxism?

Thank you! :confused:
The abolition of the state is the end goal thus there is arguments over how to get there, the biggest being there are those that see the need for a transitional workers state (and how this state would operate) till there is a classless society and those that think we should go right to a stateless society.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Hey, I'm fairly new to this, but I've been trying to sort through the different tendencies for some time now, and one thing is still really confusing to me. If Marxism in general requires abolition of the state, how do Luxemburgism, Left Communism and Council Communism differ from it (and from each other)? And how do these in turn differ from Anarchism and Libertarian Socialism/Marxism?

Thank you! :confused:


The abolition of the state is the end goal thus there is arguments over how to get there, the biggest being there are those that see the need for a transitional workers state (and how this state would operate) till there is a classless society and those that think we should go right to a stateless society.

First we differentiate between Marxist and non-marxist. Coucil communism, Left Communism and Luxemburgism are Marxist schools of thought, as are Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism.

Anarchism (anarcho communism, social anarchy, libertarian socialism), democratic socialism, etc. are all non-marxist schools of thought.

Marxists have a specific sociological view and a particular way of achieving communism. It involves violent revolution, a transitional stage, etc. ( see the communist manifesto).

The non-marxist views do not believe in a transitional stage after revolution, and sometimes do not believe in violent revolution, and do not necessarily hold the sociological views of Karl Marx.

Now, we differentiate between Marxists tendencies. What makes council communism different from Luxemburgism? Simple, council communists do not necessarily follow Luxemburgs theories and they believe in a specific way to organize the transitional stage and afterward.

Between tendencies are basically some theoretical and organizational differences such as Stalin's "socialism on one country", the vanguard, views on national liberation, free elections, etc.

Wikipedia's articles on specfic tendencies are usually accurate and informing. You can also check out the writings of those such as Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky and others at marxists.org

Hope that helped!

[Aurora]

Marxism doesnt hold that the state is abolished. 'the state isn't abolished, it withers away'. Marxists believe that the state is an institution of organised violence used by one class to repress another and it is only in society's where the are classes and class antagonisms that states exist. For example within hunter-gatherer society (primitive communism) there were no classes and as such no need for a state, it's only when technology became more advanced and society was able to produce a surplus that the first classes came into existence and with them a state used to protect their interest by force. Marxists believe that the only way the state as an institution can be got rid of is by ridding society of class antagonism (which can be done by the proletariat expropriating the bourgeoisie) and by the elimination of scarcity (which can be done by rapidly expanding the productive forces by freeing them from the capitalist market) Scarcity must be done away with because when there is scarcity want is generalised, the mass of the people are in need of the means of subsistence and as marx puts it 'all the old crap must revive'

Luxembourgism doesn't exist I'm afraid, luxembourg was a marxist and her views dont differ significantly from Lenin's or Marx's to warrant a tendency. Council communism dosn't exist anymore, it used to but i dont think there is any organisation left that claims to be council communist. Im not so sure about the Left Communists view, probably best to ask one of them, from what ive seen on this board i'd say they lean away from the marxist view. Just my observation though better ask one of them.

The anarchists on the other hand are harder to explain, probably because anarchism doesn't have a methodology and as such is completely different today then it was. You could probably get a diferent answer to that question from just about everyone you asked. Some think the state can be abolished overnight, ive seen it argued several times on the board that a 'transition period' is nessesary before the state can be abolished etc etc I dont think there is any particular anarchist view of the state, because anarchists tend to view things in terms of 'power' or 'authority' and not with concrete class relations and materialist analysis. The state is placed above society rather than growing out of it.

Man im gonna get shit for that :p

[Widerstand]

Luxembourgism doesn't exist I'm afraid, luxembourg was a marxist and her views dont differ significantly from Lenin's or Marx's to warrant a tendency. Council communism dosn't exist anymore, it used to but i dont think there is any organisation left that claims to be council communist. Im not so sure about the Left Communists view, probably best to ask one of them, from what ive seen on this board i'd say they lean away from the marxist view. Just my observation though better ask one of them.

Council Communism isn't dead...where'd you get that? Just because there is no organization that is strictly CoCo (assuming there isn't) doesn't mean there aren't individual CoCos. In fact, Council Communism played part in the New Left and Situationist movements, and nowadays Left Comms and Anarchists draw on Council Communist ideas.

Luxemburgism exists as long as people define themselves as Luxemburgists. If anything, she was a Left Communist - at least I've seen many Left Comms view her that way.

The Left Comm's views are probably as close to an "Anarchist transitional phase" as it gets.



The anarchists on the other hand are harder to explain, probably because anarchism doesn't have a methodology and as such is completely different today then it was. You could probably get a diferent answer to that question from just about everyone you asked. Some think the state can be abolished overnight, ive seen it argued several times on the board that a 'transition period' is nessesary before the state can be abolished etc etc I dont think there is any particular anarchist view of the state, because anarchists tend to view things in terms of 'power' or 'authority' and not with concrete class relations and materialist analysis. The state is placed above society rather than growing out of it.

What methodology are you talking about and how does Anarchism not have it?

And yes, Anarchism is completely different than it was, but so are most if not all relevant Communist currents.

Anarchists don't view things in terms of power or authority and neglect class analysis. That's sectarian bullshit. The true part is that Anarchism is primarily a critique of hierarchy and authority (and "power" if you will).

What you were right about, however, is that there is no unified Anarchist answer, because Anarchism has many roots and branches and no "central" thinkers.

[Zanthorus]

If Marxism in general requires abolition of the state, how do Luxemburgism, Left Communism and Council Communism differ from it (and from each other)?

I cannot speak for the other two tendencies. On the question of the state, Left-Communists tend to refer to a 'Semi-State' or 'Commune State' as being the political form of the transition period, in recognition of the fact that the transitional state will be and has historically been characterised by the 'smashing' of several traditional features of the state. For example, the Paris Commune broke down the division between executive and legislative branches, and was a working not a parliamentary body. Or another example would be that both the Commune and the Soviets in Russia had delegates which were recallable by their electors.

The International Communist Current has a rather unique view of the state in terms of Marxism. I would advise you to read their article (http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648) and pamphlet (http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/transition) on the subject, just in case I get any points wrong (And clarification of points from ICC members would be appreciated). Basically, the ICC's view is that the state is an inherently conservative organ which tends to perpetuate existing social conditions. On the other hand it is also the product of a class divided society, one which exists as a substitute community as long as the real human community does not exist. For this reason, the state cannot be eliminated save with the introduction of Communism. In order to reach Communism, a transitional period will be necessary, in which the state will still exist. However, the working-class will have to work to subordinate the state to it's own interests, and if necessary exercise these interests against the transitional state. The ICC also claims that the transitional period will be characterised by mass participatory democracy in which people will be involved in the direct administration of the state, rather than parties administrating. I believe the ICC's analysis derives from the work of the theoretical journal of the Italian Left in Exile, Bilan, or at least flows from aspects of Bilan's analysis of the failure of the Russian Revolution.


And how do these in turn differ from Anarchism and Libertarian Socialism/Marxism?

'Anarchism' is far too broad to pinpoint exact differences. Some anarchists would probably completely disagree with us, and then again others would be almost indistuinguishable in terms of practice (One of the most tedious points which continually occurs in these debates is that Anarchists and Marxists do not use the word 'state' in the same way).


Council Communism isn't dead...where'd you get that? Just because there is no organization that is strictly CoCo (assuming there isn't) doesn't mean there aren't individual CoCos.

I think this is basically irrelevant. Although there may be individuals out there who identify as 'Council Communist', the lack of any organised expression of the tendency pretty much means that they're dead by any real standards.


In fact, Council Communism played part in the New Left and Situationist movements, and nowadays Left Comms and Anarchists draw on Council Communist ideas.

You can probably draw a line of descent from Council Communism down to the Situationists but it would be very tenuous. Left-Communists and Anarchists drawing on Council Communist ideas does not mean the tendency is not dead organistionally.


If anything, she was a Left Communist - at least I've seen many Left Comms view her that way.

I am not aware of any Left-Communists who would view Rosa Luxemburg as such.

[Magón]

Marxist Theory= w/Middle Man

Anarchist Theory= w/o Middle Man

[PoliticalNightmare]

I think this is basically irrelevant. Although there may be individuals out there who identify as 'Council Communist', the lack of any organised expression of the tendency pretty much means that they're dead by any real standards.

So if there was a lack of Left Communist organisations, would such an ideology be dead also by your reasoning?

[Zanthorus]

So if there was a lack of Left Communist organisations, would such an ideology be dead also by your reasoning?

Yes.

[Scarlet Fever]

Thank you for the responses--I think it's becoming more clear.

I found the conversation about Rosa Luxemburg, who I sort of identify with, especially interesting. I suppose it would be easier to pin down her views had her life not been shortened as it was. I mean, it seems like her ideas contributed to Left Communism (as Widerstand pointed out), but she may not actually be considered a Left Communist herself (as Zanthorus said)--perhaps she would have developed into one if she had lived longer?

Anyway, I'll keep reading up, and thanks for everyone's help!