Libertarian Socialism and its Variants (?)

[smk]

Are anarcho-communism, Luxemburgism, collectivist anarchism, and council communism essentially the same thing? If not, what are the fundamental differences?

[syndicat]

Are anarcho-communism, Luxemburgism, collectivist anarchism, and council communism essentially the same thing? If not, what are the fundamental differences?


There is no such thing as "Luxemburgism". There has never been any such distinct political trend. Her views on the mass strike in Russia in 1905 were viewed sympathetically by syndicalists and other libertarian socialists but i doubt that she varied greatly from a form of Marxist partyism.

"Collectivist anarchism" is another non-existent entity. There has never been any such distinct political trend. Kropotkin coined the term "collectivism" to refer to anybody (including Marx) who advocated a system of remuneration for work in socialism.

Historically on the libertarian left there have been differences over both vision and strategy. The dominant strategy was mass working class struggle, and the most important form of this was revolutionary syndicalism, but there have also been other forms of mass struggle, such as mass peasant insurrections (Ukraine 1918, Mexico 1910-1917).

In terms of vision the Proudhonists advocated a market economy of worker cooperatives, and there are still a minority of libertarian socialists who advocate for some form of self-managed market socialism, but the large majority of libertarian socialists have advocated some form of libertarian communism, as did the revolutionary syndicalist movement historically.

Platformist groups nowadays generally identify as "anarcho-communist" but there are other influences on libertarian socialism, like the participatory economics ideas of Michael Albert & Robin Hahnel, which can be considered a form of libertarian communism.

"Council communism" is another term that lacks a clear meaning. Who are you talking about? People like Otto Ruhle, Anton Pannekoek? Contemporary "autonomist marxism"?

[Son of a Strummer]

I am a little unclear on this term "platformist." What does it mean? Is it opposed to partyism?

thanks.

[syndicat]

i'm not a platformist so i may be wrong, but i think platformists vary in terms of the relative importance in role they assign to the revolutionary political organization. but most...maybe all of them for all i know...would say a revolutionary transformation happens from below through the mass social movements of the working class & oppressed.

platformism derives from the "Organizational Platform of the General Anarchist Union" pubished in 1926 by a gruop that included Nestor Makhno and Peter Arshinov. platformists emphasize the importance of political organization in addition to mass organization and the need for a fairly tight, horizontally disciplined political organization that has theoretical and tactical unity.

i would understand "partyism" to refer to the idea of building a political party to capture state power and implement is program thru the state. any platformist would be opposed to that. i think a partyist strategy is inconsistent with libertaran socialism.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

"Anarcho-collectivism" was a shortly lived belief. It was mainly advocated during Bakunin's later years in Italy, guided by the principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his productivity." (Not to be confused with "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.") Anarchist-Collectivism embraced salaries and currencies, whereas Anarchist-Communism (it's ideological successor) wants to abolish the wage system. Anarchist-Collectivism wasn't developed too long; However, we can look at it as maybe an early blueprint of anarchist-communism, and the general (sometimes vague) thoughts of anarchists in the 1860s up to the late 1870s.

Shortly after Bakunin's death, along with subsequent events such as the failure of the Banda del Matese to spread a countryside insurrection, the Italian Anarchist Federation agreed to an early concept of anarcho-communism (later developed by Kropotkin) rather than anarcho-collectivism. They deemed several problems with collectivism, especially inevitable hierarchy.

I would mainly consider Anarcho-collectivism a shortly lived political-trend, mainly embraced by Bakunin, and contained within Spain, Italy, and Switzerland. However, there is no Anarchist-Collectivist movement in today's world, seeing that Anarcho-Communism has become the superior ideology.

[Tablo]

Also left out mutualism, but I don't think much of anyone identifies as mutualists anymore since it would fail miserably.

[syndicat]

"Anarcho-collectivism" was a shortly lived belief. It was mainly advocated during Bakunin's later years in Italy, guided by the principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his productivity."

i doubt it. i think remuneration was to be equal per hour, as with Marx's proposal in the Critique of the Gotha Program.

and it's not a "wage system." the wage system refers to a class system where workers are forced to do work for capitalist firms and receive only a part of the revenue from sale of product so as to buy their consumption goods. capital/wage labor is a social relation between workers and owners.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

i doubt it. i think remuneration was to be equal per hour, as with Marx's proposal in the Critique of the Gotha Program.
You may be right, but I was thinking that was one of the early guiding principles of early anarchism, especially Italian anarchism in the 1870s. They present anarchist-collectivism as an early radical belief.
One of the key issues at the Italian (Anarchist) Federation's third national congress was a break in their traditional orthodoxy of "Bakuninist" theory, in regard to post-revolution society. Bakunin's anarchist-collectivism advocated the formula "from each according to his ability, to each according to his productivity." The 38 delegates attended at this congress agreed to changing part of their ideology, because "in a truly just society, the notions of mine and yours have no reason for being."
Yes, it was short-lived, and maybe not even a genuine ideology, and more-or-less a vague thought of anarchism. Whichever one it was, anarchist-collectivism, as a term and a belief was espoused by anarchists frequently.
(If anyone is wondering why it was abandoned, a problem of their former theory was blind trust in the collectivism. Eventually, major figures feared the possibility of individuals becoming empowered and creating a hierarchy. It probably didn't help that after collectivism gained strong ground after the IWA's 1869 congress in Basel, almost no attention was focused towards a method in which to: 1) assign the materials and instruments to individuals, and 2) to assign an exchange value to it)

But as I've said, what I've been discussing is mainly attributed to the early years of Italian anarchists (Malatesta, Cafiero, Pezzi, early Costa) being influenced by a lot of Bakunin's later years and personal communications with them. A lot of their congresses and publications specifically mentioned "anarchist socialism" and "anarchist-collectivism"

and it's not a "wage system." the wage system refers to a class system where workers are forced to do work for capitalist firms and receive only a part of the revenue from sale of product so as to buy their consumption goods. capital/wage labor is a social relation between workers and owners.
Thank you for the correction :)

[Savage]

There is no such thing as "Luxemburgism". There has never been any such distinct political trend. Her views on the mass strike in Russia in 1905 were viewed sympathetically by syndicalists and other libertarian socialists but i doubt that she varied greatly from a form of Marxist partyism.




i would understand "partyism" to refer to the idea of building a political party to capture state power and implement is program thru the state. any platformist would be opposed to that. i think a partyist strategy is inconsistent with libertaran socialism.
It's true that ''Luxemburgism'' isn't a distinct school of thought but it is generally used (broadly) to describe left communists that are particularly sympathetic towards her. Your concept of 'partyism' is quite consistent with the Leninist concept of revolution, which I would consider to be antithetical to the Left Communist ('Luxemburgism included') theory of revolution, which in fact would be more in line with the way that you described the 'platformist' approach.

[Bethechange]

I believe Council Communism is a libertarian Marxist trend of Rosa Luxembourg and other thinkers which opposed Bolshevism. The German Revolution was partly in this vein I believe though I'm not well informed about it. Left Communism is broader I think and was lambasted by Lenin in his "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder." The reply "An Open Letter to Comrade Lenin" is less known. The Situationists also supported worker self-management I believe, like the Autonomist Marxists as you mentioned. They probably flow together, like anarchist trends.

[Savage]

I believe Council Communism is a libertarian Marxist trend of Rosa Luxembourg and other thinkers which opposed Bolshevism. The German Revolution was partly in this vein I believe though I'm not well informed about it. Left Communism is broader I think and was lambasted by Lenin in his "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder." The reply "An Open Letter to Comrade Lenin" is less known. The Situationists also supported worker self-management I believe, like the Autonomist Marxists as you mentioned. They probably flow together, like anarchist trends.

Rosa Luxemburg was not a council communist (although there is generally mutual sympathy between her followers and council communists). Rosa Luxemburg was not entirely opposed to Bolshevism, she praised them on various things (councilists provide a much more hostile opposition to Lenin), whilst maintaining sharp criticism against their increasingly authoritarian agenda.

[9]

Rosa Luxemburg was not entirely opposed to Bolshevism

Not only was she "not entirely opposed":


Originally Posted by Rosa Luxemburg
Only a party which knows how to lead, that is, to advance things, wins support in stormy times. The determination with which, at the decisive moment, Lenin and his comrades offered the only solution which could advance things (“all power in the hands of the proletariat and peasantry”), transformed them almost overnight from a persecuted, slandered, outlawed minority whose leader had to hid like Marat in cellars, into the absolute master of the situation.

Moreover, the Bolsheviks immediately set as the aim of this seizure of power a complete, far-reaching revolutionary program; not the safeguarding of bourgeois democracy, but a dictatorship of the proletariat for the purpose of realizing socialism. Thereby they won for themselves the imperishable historic distinction of having for the first time proclaimed the final aim of socialism as the direct program of practical politics.

Whatever a party could offer of courage, revolutionary far-sightedness and consistency in an historic hour, Lenin, Trotsky and all the other comrades have given in good measure. All the revolutionary honor and capacity which western Social-Democracy lacked was represented by the Bolsheviks.

[Savage]

Not only was she "not entirely opposed":
Her support for the Bolsheviks has to be contrasted with her criticism of them, my conclusion is that she was a critical ally of Lenin and co.

[28350]

It's true that ''Luxemburgism'' isn't a distinct school of thought but it is generally used (broadly) to describe left communists that are particularly sympathetic towards her. Your concept of 'partyism' is quite consistent with the Leninist concept of revolution, which I would consider to be antithetical to the Left Communist ('Luxemburgism included') theory of revolution, which in fact would be more in line with the way that you described the 'platformist' approach.

You're grouping together the Italian Communist Left and the German / Dutch Communist Left.

The Italian Communist Left is very much "partyist."

[Savage]

You're grouping together the Italian Communist Left and the German / Dutch Communist Left.

The Italian Communist Left is very much "partyist."

Sorry I probably should have clarified that, obviously Councilism is quite different from Bordigism.