Outlining the differences between anarchism and left-communsim

[Prinskaj]

I have notice, since my introduction to this site, a large conflict between the anarchist and the left-communist on this site. This has caused a great deal of confusion for me, since they seem to be very much alike, at least at times. The main issue seems, to me, to be the existence of a state in the revolutionary period.
So I therefore started this thread in the vague hope, that someone would help in clearing up this confusion that I currently hold.

[Caj]

I have notice, since my introduction to this site, a large conflict between the anarchist and the left-communist on this site. This has caused a great deal of confusion for me, since they seem to be very much alike, at least at times. The main issue seems, to me, to be the existence of a state in the revolutionary period.
So I therefore started this thread in the vague hope, that someone would help in clearing up this confusion that I currently hold.

If you ask me, the dispute between left communists and anarchists regarding the use of the state apparatus during the revolution revolves more around semantics than actual differences in revolutionary theory. The left communist conception of the DotP wouldn't really constitute a state using anarchist definitions.

[Railyon]

I have notice, since my introduction to this site, a large conflict between the anarchist and the left-communist on this site.

News to me, usually I only see the usual pro-state vs anti-state etc...

Left-communism is not a homogeneous tendency as far as I'm aware. There are among them those that are also anti-state (state in the Leninist and Trotskyist sense), who are so close to class struggle anarchism that their difference are merely semantic to me... (that's why I prefer the term "libertarian socialist" even though I'm in an anarchist org)

[Book O'Dead]

I'd say that the main difference between anarchism and communism is that anarchism does not accept the principles of majority rule, whereas communism is based on the concept of worker democracy and majority rule.

[Caj]

I'd say that the main difference between anarchism and communism is that anarchism does not accept the principles of majority rule, whereas communism is based on the concept of worker democracy and majority rule.

Are you trolling? In what way don't anarchists also advocate democracy?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I'd say that the main difference between anarchism and communism is that anarchism does not accept the principles of majority rule, whereas communism is based on the concept of worker democracy and majority rule.

This is flawed. I am not an anarchist, but a big part of anarchism has been direct democracy vs. consensus. Yes, mainly it tends to be anarchists who are against democracy and support consensus, but not all anarchists do support consensus seeing it as hypocritical. If you are against democratic centralism for it's conformity, why would you support a system like consensus that supports and fosters more conformity than democratic centralism would?

I used to call myself an anarchist, but I now say I am a council communist, which is a part of left-communism. I do see socialism as synonymous with communism (classless and stateless society) yet I believe that a transitional period (the dictatorship of the proletarian) is necessary to reach that end. I do agree with CAJ though, by most anarchist standards the conception and idea of the DOTP (workers' councils, direct democracy, etc.) does not go against anarchist principles but I also agree with keeping a military and preserving the typical hierarchy of a military establishment, etc. until such a time that it is not needed and socialism can be introduced. I think, personally, this does go against anarchist principles.

I have actually created a new group about the DOTP here. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=932)

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Are you trolling? In what way don't anarchists also advocate democracy?

He meant the ones supporting consensus decision making, I think.

[Book O'Dead]

Are you trolling? In what way don't anarchists also advocate democracy?

As I understand it, anarchism is opposed to "government" and "authority". Communism accepts the need for government authority, but one that flows directly from the workers' economic organization.

[gorillafuck]

If you ask me, the dispute between left communists and anarchists regarding the use of the state apparatus during the revolution revolves more around semantics than actual differences in revolutionary theory. The left communist conception of the DotP wouldn't really constitute a state using anarchist definitions.except left communists don't consider themselves anti-authoritarian at all whereas anarchists allege themselves to be.

[Caj]

As I understand it, anarchism is opposed to "government" and "authority". Communism accepts the need for government authority, but one that flows directly from the workers' economic organization.

Anarchism is opposed to the state, not authority in general. Communism (as in Marxism) accepts the use of the state during the revolution, after which it will "wither away." The communist "state" does, as you say, "flow directly from the workers' economic organization." By the standards of most anarchists, this wouldn't really be a state.

[Caj]

except left communists don't consider themselves anti-authoritarian at all whereas anarchists allege themselves to be.

Again, I think that's really just semantics.

[gorillafuck]

I'd say that the main difference between anarchism and communism is that anarchism does not accept the principles of majority rule, whereas communism is based on the concept of worker democracy and majority rule.and left communists are not necessarily pro-democratic either, whereas you'd never meet anarchists who proclaimed themselves anti-democratic


Again, I think that's really just semantics.how is that just semantics?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

As I understand it, anarchism is opposed to "government" and "authority". Communism accepts the need for government authority, but one that flows directly from the workers' economic organization.

Again, not an anarchist, but this framework is wrong. Anarchism is not opposed to authority, it is opposed to hierarchy which is where a group of people are placed above the majority of people. Anarchists would accept the authority of the workers and people in an anarchist society and respect their decisions.

Anarchists support direct democratic workers councils as well, and stress that this is the only way for the workers and their communities to run society.

Communism doesn't accept the need of a "state". Communists (such as myself) may accept the need of a transitional period with a temporary state (which some anarchists don't agree with, but this was already discussed in this forum) but overall the definition of communism is a classless and stateless society. Marx said it. Engels said it. Even Lenin said it.

[Caj]

how is that just semantics?

Left communists don't consider themselves anti-authoritarians because they advocate a DotP. However, the left communist conception of the DotP isn't necessarily incompatible with anarchism.

[gorillafuck]

Again, not an anarchist, but this framework is wrong. Anarchism is not opposed to authority, it is opposed to hierarchy which is where a group of people are placed above the majority of people.no, that is not what hierarchy means. hierarchy refers to authority in general.

if we were to go by the definition you're giving, a minority being above a majority, then that would actually mean that there is no race hierarchy in America because the majority (white people) is above the minorities, because you specifically said that hierarchy is when minority is above majority.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Left communist don't consider themselves anti-authoritarians because they advocate a DotP. However, the left communist conception of the DotP isn't necessarily incompatible with anarchism.

I agree that it is not NECESSARILY incompatible with anarchism and the anarchist tradition but I think that most anarchists would find it incompatible and not like the idea of the DOTP.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

no, that is not what hierarchy means. hierarchy refers to authority in general.

How is bottom-up authority, compared to top-down authority, hierarchy?

[Caj]

I agree that it is not NECESSARILY incompatible with anarchism and the anarchist tradition but I think that most anarchists would find it incompatible and not like the idea of the DOTP.

It seems like anarchists tend to think of the DotP as what emerged in Russia, despite that that was not a dictatorship of the proletariat (after 1918, anyway).

[Railyon]

I do agree with CAJ though, by most anarchist standards the conception and idea of the DOTP (workers' councils, direct democracy, etc.) does not go against anarchist principles but I also agree with keeping a military and preserving the typical hierarchy of a military establishment, etc. until such a time that it is not needed and socialism can be introduced. I think, personally, this does go against anarchist principles.

I don't think so. Obviously anarchists are pro-militia, but they advocate a different kind of "hierarchy" within it, with mandated and recallable delegates filling in the higher ranks.

So while the need for a militant defense of the revolution should be obvious, we disagree with strict hierarchical structures within it that were not decided upon by those fighting.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I don't think so. Obviously anarchists are pro-militia, but they advocate a different kind of "hierarchy" within it, with mandated and recallable delegates filling in the higher ranks.

So while the need for a militant defense of the revolution should be obvious, we disagree with strict hierarchical structures within it that were not decided upon by those fighting.

That was pretty much the point I was trying to make.

[gorillafuck]

Left communists don't consider themselves anti-authoritarians because they advocate a DotP. However, the left communist conception of the DotP isn't necessarily incompatible with anarchism.except left communists are not necessarily pro-democratic. (go down to IV for the part you'd most want to read (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm), and you can probably just skim it to get his point)

[Brosa Luxemburg]

except left communists are not necessarily pro-democratic. (go down to IV for the part you'd most want to read (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm), and you can probably just skim it to get his point)

I was just about to make the Bordiga point, zeekloid! I don't agree with him, and I know a good amount of other left-coms don't either, but he is apart of our tradition!

[Railyon]

I agree that it is not NECESSARILY incompatible with anarchism and the anarchist tradition but I think that most anarchists would find it incompatible and not like the idea of the DOTP.

Coming back to this point, it depends on who you ask.

I think it boils down to semantics; obviously anarchists dislike the sound of that term but when broken down to those who are unaware of what a dotp would look like, they'd actually agree with it - that's why I think it's a semantic issue.

And partly why I am in favor of revising key socialist concepts to avoid issues like these. Oh, and building a libertarian socialist international but that's just the Lenin in me speaking...

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Coming back to this point, it depends on who you ask.

I think it boils down to semantics; obviously anarchists dislike the sound of that term but when broken down to those who are unaware of what a dotp would look like, they'd actually agree with it - that's why I think it's a semantic issue.

And partly why I am in favor of revising key socialist concepts to avoid issues like these. Oh, and building a libertarian socialist international but that's just the Lenin in me speaking...

I would disagree. I think most would still oppose it, even when broken down for them. Hey, maybe I am wrong though!:D

[Caj]

except left communists are not necessarily pro-democratic. (go down to IV for the part you'd most want to read (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm), and you can probably just skim it to get his point)

Good point. Bordiga, of course, isn't representative of all of left communism, though.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Good point. Bordiga, of course, isn't representative of all of left communism, though.

Sure doesn't represent me!

[Railyon]

I would disagree. I think most would still oppose it, even when broken down for them.

The "lifestylists" maybe, as libcom regulars like to call them.

Class struggle anarchists worth their salt most likely won't.

[gorillafuck]

Good point. Bordiga, of course, isn't representative of all of left communism, though.yes, but he is probably the single most popular left communist theorist, though.

one thing I have noticed is that generally anarchists tend to group left communists with them as being the good marxists, whereas left communists do not feel the same way about anarchists.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

yes, but he is probably the single most popular left communist theorist, though.

one thing I have noticed is that generally anarchists tend to group left communists with them as being the good marxists, whereas left communists do not feel the same way about anarchists.

I do not agree that he is the most popular left communist theorist. Yes, most left-coms have read him, I am sure, but (I hope) most do not agree with him.

[Book O'Dead]

How is bottom-up authority, compared to top-down authority, hierarchy?

Try thinking in terms of horizontal structures of authority and consent instead of vertical "Top-down" & "Bottom-up" structures.

[gorillafuck]

How is bottom-up authority, compared to top-down authority, hierarchy?that's not what you said, though. you said that hierarchy means a minority being placed above a majority. my point is that if a majority if placed above a minority, it can still be hierarchy. an easy example being non-immigrants (majority) being placed above immigrants (minority).


I do not agree that he is the most popular left communist theorist. Yes, most left-coms have read him, I am sure, but (I hope) most do not agree with him.I'd say your hopes are pretty unfulfilled.

[Anarpest]

Well, I guess that you could say that some of the differences are primarily semantics, and certainly some council communists, and the like, have been very close to anarchism and only divided from it by a gulf of rhetoric. Still, in the case of the aforementioned Bordiga, while I'm not really an expert on him, from what I do know he doesn't sound particularly close to anarchism, to understate matters, so you could see why there would be conflict between left communists close to him and anarchists.

I suppose that you could also expect some conflict between left communists and syndicalists, given that the latter often have quite a bit of animosity towards unionism and the union-form, although as far as I'm aware the extent of this varies quite notably between left communists. I'm not really an expert on left communism, so I may be wrong on this, but I have noticed that there are some left communists who, for example, abstain from union membership on the whole, and others who say that unionism performs a valuable, if limited, service on the whole. Still, conflicts of this kind probably wouldn't be exclusive to anarchists, since many other socialists oppose the left communist position.

From what I've seen in the couple of left communist-anarchist arguments I've noticed here, it seems to be mainly to do with 'authoritarianism,' which, as I said, would definitely make sense for left communists of the Bordigist persuasion, although generally speaking the argument seems to often consist more of catchphrases than content, so I can't really confirm that for sure.

[gorillafuck]

Anti-Capitalist, are you sure you're a left com? you are a member of a real lot of groups that left communists would totally oppose.

[Art Vandelay]

Personally I think that, like a lot here, that the difference between many of the left-communists and council communist is merely semantics. The argument stems from differing definition of what constitutes a "state." Also a revolution is necessarily an authoritarian act so the whole anti-authoritarian and authoritarian dichotomy is meaningless.

With many left-coms, especially those with a Bordiga fetish, anarchism is simply incompatible. By that I do not mean that we could never work together, but that both would not be able to co-exist in an organization. However there are also other left-coms, as well as council coms, that I think could easily work in organizations with anarchists.

I think that the historical example of the Paris Commune is one which can help clear up some confusion surrounding the DotP. While Marx did not agree with all of the tactics used, he saw it as a fairly correct implementation of the DotP. Bakunin similarly thought that the Paris commune resisted the temptations of "state socialism." The reason for this is because they both defined the state differently, but the implementation of the two strains of thought are compatible.

Also I think it needs to be stated that anarchism is not against all authority, as has been misconstrued in this thread, but against illegitimate authority. Decentralized, non-hierarchical forms of organization built from the bottom up with immediately recallable delegates are compatible with anarchists, council communists and some left-communists. Three tendencies which if united, would be the largest and most influential revolutionary group in the world.

[Railyon]

Decentralized, non-hierarchical forms of organization built from the bottom up with immediately recallable delegates are compatible with anarchists, council communists and some left-communists. Three tendencies which if united, would be the largest and most influential revolutionary group in the world.
Two thumbs up comrade, I've been thinking this for quite some time now and really would like to see these united. I think in practical application they wouldn't vary from each other all that much.

[Rooster]

Two thumbs up comrade, I've been thinking this for quite some time now and really would like to see these united. I think in practical application they wouldn't vary from each other all that much.

From my experience you get four types of communist parties: the milieu of vaguely leftist "socialist" groups, the anarchist and left-coms and then the ultra sectarian ML parties. The first four don't have any problem with each other and you don't see any poison like bickering between them. Even the majority of ML membership are okay to work with even if you think they are in the wrong party at times. But it's the hardcore ones that you have real trouble with and refuse to co-operate: the stalinists.

[Ostrinski]

Left communism is a broad tendency. The councilists identify more with the anarchists while the Bordigists identify more with Leninism. I lean toward the Bordigist current.

[arilando]

Left communists support government, and are opposed to free association. Anarchists are opposed to government, and support free association.

[arilando]

Anarchism is opposed to the state, not authority in general.
I disagree with this. There would be no use of force under anarchism, no one would be forced to do anything against they will, thus there would be no authority. All kinds of political organisations like communes and federations would be voluntarily formed entirely without the use of force.

[Prinskaj]

There would be no use of force under anarchism, no one would be forced to do anything against they will, thus there would be no authority.
Please stop being so utopian, you are embarrassing yourself.

[Caj]

I disagree with this. There would be no use of force under anarchism, no one would be forced to do anything against they will, thus there would be no authority. All kinds of political organisations like communes and federations would be voluntarily formed entirely without the use of force.


Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/authrty.htm

Anarchists don't reject authority in general, merely imposed authority.

And all anarchists, except for the utopian pacifists, advocate the use of force during the revolution.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Anti-Capitalist, are you sure you're a left com? you are a member of a real lot of groups that left communists would totally oppose.

Yeah, I am a left-com. I am apart of those groups to discuss things. For example, I am apart of a group that studies Poland under the communist party. This doesn't mean I support Poland under the communist party, I just want to discuss it.

[arilando]

Please stop being so utopian, you are embarrassing yourself.
That is what anarchism is.

[arilando]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/authrty.htm

Anarchists don't reject authority in general, merely imposed authority.

And all anarchists, accept for the utopian pacifists, advocate the use of force during the revolution.
Yes there would off course be force during the revolution, i'm talking about the post revolutionary situation.

[Caj]

Yes there would off course be force during the revolution, i'm talking about the post revolutionary situation.

Yes, and the post-revolutionary situation envisioned by both anarchists and Marxists is more or less indistinguishable.

[Railyon]

That is what anarchism is.

Only if you can eradicate all, and I mean all, sources of human conflict. Then there would of course be no reason to use force.

Can you really expect that post-rev, crimes like murder and rape will never, ever again happen? I don't. There is just no way to completely prevent it, that's what's so utopian about the idea of anarchism meaning "no use of force whatsoever".

In my humble opinion it is thus important to differentiate what force constitutes from how it manifests itself in hierarchy.

[Prinskaj]

That is what anarchism is.
No anarchism is not utopian, saying that the post-revolutionary society will be filled with rainbows, butterflies and idealist thoughts, such as saying that there will be "no use of force under anarchism" is utopian.
Anarchism doesn't oppose force, actually it encourages the use of force, because it is necessary to abolish or dismantled illegitimate institutions of power.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Yes, and the post-revolutionary situation envisioned by both anarchists and Marxists is more or less indistinguishable.
You know, every time I see a thread like this, my first thought is to discuss commonalities. I think anarchists and Left Coms would generally agree on the self-liberation and self-rule of the working class.

[Alf]

The (left communist) ICC recently published a series on what it has in common with what it calls internationalist anarchism. The first one is here: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/336/anarchism

The key points are: opposition to all capitalist states and wars (internationalism) including so-called national liberation struggles; defence of working class self-organisation through general assemblies etc.

I agree with those who have pointed out that there are different forms of left communism, but there are many, many forms of anarchism. Some of them are more like Trotskyists without the party, others are 'life-stylist', individualist etc. So we are talking about those tendencies in anarchism with whom we share some basics.

Some of the ICC's main points of disagreement even with the 'internationalist anarchists':
- question of the transitional state: we think that the state in the transitional period is not identical to the organisations of the working class, and is therefore a potential danger, but still inevitable in a class-divided society
- need for communists to work towards the formation of a communist party (but not with the aim of taking power, a key difference between us and the Bordigists)
- proletarian nature of Russian revolution and the Bolshevik party (before they both degenerated and died)
- nature of the historic period (the decadent epoch of capitalism)

[Railyon]

Some of the ICC's main points of disagreement even with the 'internationalist anarchists':
- question of the transitional state: we think that the state in the transitional period is not identical to the organisations of the working class, and is therefore a potential danger, but still inevitable in a class-divided society
- need for communists to work towards the formation of a communist party (but not with the aim of taking power, a key difference between us and the Bordigists)
- proletarian nature of Russian revolution and the Bolshevik party (before they both degenerated and died)
- nature of the historic period (the decadent epoch of capitalism)

I think the first point is worthy of in-depth discussion whereas I see the others as fairly uncontroversial, harmless differing opinions not necessarily related to our own contemporary struggles. And I don't think our not supporting the decadent epoch theory is making such a huge dividing difference at all.

On the issue of the party, I think that anarchists don't have a problem with it as long as it is not supposed to be taking power but instead serves as an assembly, or think tank if you like, of the "class-conscious pro-revolutionaries" not separate from the working class itself (a concept I actually like).

Which really only leaves us with the "necessary evil" of the state in the transitional period.

[arilando]

Yes, and the post-revolutionary situation envisioned by both anarchists and Marxists is more or less indistinguishable.
For left communists that may be true, but i'm not so sure regarding other marxist. I have seen marxists advocate that we ban drugs, violent video games and movies, pornography etc Even post revolution, which is clearly in violation of anarchist principles.

[arilando]

Only if you can eradicate all, and I mean all, sources of human conflict. Then there would of course be no reason to use force.

Can you really expect that post-rev, crimes like murder and rape will never, ever again happen? I don't. There is just no way to completely prevent it, that's what's so utopian about the idea of anarchism meaning "no use of force whatsoever".

In my humble opinion it is thus important to differentiate what force constitutes from how it manifests itself in hierarchy.
Well i'm just going to say that there exists primitive communist societies (such as the bushmen and others) where the use of force and violence is virtually unknown.

[Railyon]

Well i'm just going to say that there exists primitive communist societies (such as the bushmen and others) where the use of force and violence is virtually unknown.

As I said, it all comes down to how you define force.

I'm hardly under the impression that anarchists are of the opinion that one has to "turn the other cheek" instead of defending yourself, which in my opinion constitutes force but is not authoritarian.

It's a fair assumption that most of the things going wrong today will be virtually non-existent postrev, but I am skeptical about their complete abolishment. Since I picked the examples of rape and murder, I believe they will (nearly completely) vanish in a communist society, but we're not fortune tellers.

[Anarpest]

To be honest, I think that using 'illegitimate authority' definitionally can be problematic. Surely every political belief is against 'illegitimate authority'? What distinguishes us seems to rather be what we count as 'illegitimate,' and that can't simply be a collection of assorted 'bad' kinds of authority, but rather has to be a coherent, unified grouping, justified theoretically, if anarchism is to be a coherent viewpoint rather than just an assortment of positions. To use an analogy, a Marxist who wants to argue that class is the driving force of history has to have an analysis which to some degree sees all historical classes as connected and unified in some way, as hence composing a unified phenomenon of 'class,' rather than simply picking out completely disconnected phenomena and grouping them under the word 'class.'

Too often, the problem seems to be that we attack Marxists for using terms with a different definition to us (usually quite a fair criticism), but don't actually have a definition of our own, or alternatively do have a definition, but one which is overall arbitrary rather than connected to our overall social analysis. If we have a view on how society should be which is fairly unique, surely we should have an analysis of society which is as well. I can't claim to have definitive solutions to any of this, and am still reading anarchist theory to see how it has been addressed, but it does seem like something which could do with more treatment.

[Prinskaj]

For left communists that may be true, but i'm not so sure regarding other marxist. I have seen marxists advocate that we ban drugs, violent video games and movies, pornography etc Even post revolution, which is clearly in violation of anarchist principles.
The prohibition or legalization of recreational procession has nothing to do with anarchism as an ideology. Anarchism is solely about opposing the structure, which we find to be illegitimate, such as the state. All these aspects of freedom and liberty are not a part of the philosophy. Most anarchist embrace these concepts because they like them separately from their political tendency.

[gorillafuck]

so far the people who say that there isn't conflict between anarchism and left communism are basically anarchists...

here is a fairly good post with some points on anarchist and left communist ideological relations and conflict http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2405428&postcount=33

[Railyon]

here is a fairly good post with some points on anarchist and left communist ideological relations and conflict http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2405428&postcount=33

The only "ideological relation and conflict" I see there is that "Left Communism" (here again in a nebulous catch-all way) is "Marxist doctrine" and does not fit into the "anarchist authoritarian/libertarian spectrum".

Yawn. Where is the controversy? The contradiction to what was said here? :confused:

All it did was make me think Left-Communism as a tendency does not make all that much sense because it's all over the place.

[arilando]

The prohibition or legalization of recreational procession has nothing to do with anarchism as an ideology. Anarchism is solely about opposing the structure, which we find to be illegitimate, such as the state. All these aspects of freedom and liberty are not a part of the philosophy. Most anarchist embrace these concepts because they like them separately from their political tendency.
It is, and if you do not support it your not an anarchist. Part of anarchism is the complete opposition to any form of political interfernece into peoples personal lives, not only that, the voluntary and decentralized nature of anarchist organisation would make doing such impossible.

[Caj]

so far the people who say that there isn't conflict between anarchism and left communism are basically anarchists...

I don't identify as an anarchist. . . .

[Art Vandelay]

To be honest, I think that using 'illegitimate authority' definitionally can be problematic. Surely every political belief is against 'illegitimate authority'? What distinguishes us seems to rather be what we count as 'illegitimate,' and that can't simply be a collection of assorted 'bad' kinds of authority, but rather has to be a coherent, unified grouping, justified theoretically, if anarchism is to be a coherent viewpoint rather than just an assortment of positions.

When it is said that anarchism is against illegitimate authority, it is mostly meant to dispel the preconceived notions held by many that anarchism is against everything. There are types of authority that anarchists have no issue with, for example: the authority a parent holds over their child; or for an example which relates to politics, the authority an influential person has, in the sense that people are naturally drawn to their ideas. What anarchists advocate is that any authority needs to be questioned and examined, after which its legitimacy can be determined.


To use an analogy, a Marxist who wants to argue that class is the driving force of history has to have an analysis which to some degree sees all historical classes as connected and unified in some way, as hence composing a unified phenomenon of 'class,' rather than simply picking out completely disconnected phenomena and grouping them under the word 'class.'

For the most part, all anarchists largely accept Marx's economic theories and if they do not they should. What separates anarchists from marxists is that they do not see class as the only major issue, hierarchy is as well. Say the revolution happens tomorrow and succeeds, there would still exist the unfair hierarchical relationships between men and women for instance.


Too often, the problem seems to be that we attack Marxists for using terms with a different definition to us (usually quite a fair criticism), but don't actually have a definition of our own, or alternatively do have a definition, but one which is overall arbitrary rather than connected to our overall social analysis.

Well anarchists should not be attacking marxists to begin with, at least real marxists that is.


If we have a view on how society should be which is fairly unique, surely we should have an analysis of society which is as well. I can't claim to have definitive solutions to any of this, and am still reading anarchist theory to see how it has been addressed, but it does seem like something which could do with more treatment.

You should definitely not be only reading anarchist theory, you should get a healthy mix of marxist and anarchist thought, among other things.


so far the people who say that there isn't conflict between anarchism and left communism are basically anarchists...

This is true, perhaps some of our left-communists comrades could chime in, I would be especially interested to hear the opinions of the left-coms who tend not to be of the Bordiga strain.


That is what anarchism is.

Its pretty clear you do not know what you are talking about.

[Rafiq]

1. What seperates Left Communism with the rest of the socialist movement isn't an ethical dillema

2. More emphasis on the Materialist-Scientific method

3. Marxism

4. Bordiga is basically Lenin 2.0

[Art Vandelay]

1. What seperates Left Communism with the rest of the socialist movement isn't an ethical dillema

I definitely was not arguing anything to do with morals.


2. More emphasis on the Materialist-Scientific method

I do not think that this is incompatible with anarchy.


3. Marxism

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.


4. Bordiga is basically Lenin 2.0

Am definitely not fond of Lenin.

[Railyon]

I do not think that this is incompatible with anarchy.

Me neither, if anything, it's quite the contrary; anarchist communism just would not come into being outside vague notions of authority. Personally, I consider Marxism to be an essential part of it (at least I am a big fan of the marxist scientific method), but maybe that's just because I have a fetish for men with beards.

The rest of the differences outlined by Rafiq I do not quite understand...

[Dr Doom]

The (left communist) ICC recently published a series on what it has in common with what it calls internationalist anarchism. The first one is here: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/336/anarchism


from the article:

ICC wrote:
Those who identify with the struggle for the revolution have traditionally been classed in two categories: the marxists and the anarchists. And there are indeed important divergences between them:
- Centralism/federalism

- Materialism/idealism

- Period of transition or ‘immediate abolition of the state'

- Recognition or denunciation of the October 1917 revolution and of the Bolshevik party

that is some bullshit, anarchism is in no way idealistic. for the most part they accept the same materialist conception of history as marxists. i also think again for the most part, anarchists don't denounce the russian revolution but the role the bolsheviks played in it.

i think the point on the period of transition is the only important divergence listed.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

that is some bullshit, anarchism is in no way idealistic. for the most part they accept the same materialist conception of history as marxists.
That's been my experience with class struggle anarchists, too. They may not be Marxists, but they tend to accept materialism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What separates anarchists from marxists is that they do not see class as the only major issue, hierarchy is as well. Say the revolution happens tomorrow and succeeds, there would still exist the unfair hierarchical relationships between men and women for instance.
And even that isn't necessarily a point of separation between Marxists and anarchists, depending on the Marxists in question.

[gorillafuck]

The only "ideological relation and conflict" I see there is that "Left Communism" (here again in a nebulous catch-all way) is "Marxist doctrine" and does not fit into the "anarchist authoritarian/libertarian spectrum".

Yawn. Where is the controversy? The contradiction to what was said here? :confused:in that, by anarchist definition, left communism is an authoritarian ideology. that is definitely a noteworthy division.


i also think again for the most part, anarchists don't denounce the russian revolution but the role the bolsheviks played in it.and left communism is pro-bolshevik.

[Caj]

in that, by anarchist definition, left communism is an authoritarian ideology. that is definitely a noteworthy division.

An authoritarian ideology because it advocates a DotP. However, some conceptions of the DotP held by left communists are not authoritarian by anarchist standards.


and left communism is pro-bolshevik.

Not necessarily.

[Ostrinski]

Italian left communism certainly is pro Bolshevik, I'm not familiar with the Dutch-German stance, but I think they regard the Russian Revolution as bourgeois.

[Caj]

Italian left communism certainly is pro Bolshevik, I'm not familiar with the Dutch-German stance, but I think they regard the Russian Revolution as bourgeois.

German-Dutch was initially pro-Bolshevik. They later adopted the position that the Russian Revolution was bourgeois.

[Welshy]

Italian left communism certainly is pro Bolshevik, I'm not familiar with the Dutch-German stance, but I think they regard the Russian Revolution as bourgeois.

If I'm not mistaken, the position was developed later by those who would eventually become Council Communists. I know the ICC, which is somewhere in between the German/dutch left communists and the Italian left communists, regard the russian revolution as being proletarian.

From their article on Russian Left Communism:


In Russia itself, from 1918, left fractions appeared within the Bolshevik Party,[2] expressions of different disagreements with its politics.[3] This is in itself proof of the proletarian character of Bolshevism. Because it was a living expression of the working class, the only class that can make a radical and continuous critique of its own practice, the Bolshevik Party perpetually generated revolutionary fractions out of its own body. At every step in its degeneration voices were raised inside the party in protest, groupings were formed inside the party, or split from it, to denounce the betrayals of Bolshevism's original programme. Only when the party had been buried by its Stalinist gravediggers did these fractions no longer spring from it. The Russian left communists were all Bolsheviks; it was they who defended a continuity with the Bolshevism of the heroic years of the revolution, while those who slandered, persecuted and exterminated them, no matter how exalted their names, were the ones who were breaking with the essence of Bolshevism.

[MarxSchmarx]

One point that hasn't come up is what these disagreements imply in practice.

Most anarchists, at least in my experience, don't take left communism particularly seriously if they know it even exists. Responses run the gamut from benign indifference to a vague "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" attitudes about left-communism's problems with Leninism.

Both of these are based on general ignorance, and frankly left communism's general obscurity among anarchist circles is unlikely to change. Anarchists aren't really alone in this, but they are more predisposed to being sympathetic to left communism for its anti-Bolshevism and perhaps its consistent internationalism without knowing the facts. I would imagine anarchists that know what they're talking about when it comes to left communism aren't particularly sympathetic or interested in engaging it.

Left communism, on the other hand, seems largely happy to ignore anarchism altogether and see its proponents more often than not of attempting to subsume them in the non-Leninist left, of which anarchism is the supposed vanguard. That's probabably a reasonable assessment of the situation, and consistent with their general view that a few uber-engaged activists are unlikely to make any meaningful impact against capitalists.

I should add that there is really no reason to expect this status quo to change. Anarchists have little to gain from studying in depth a rather obscure and fiercly sectarian ideology whose relevance in the worker's movement is by its own admission minimal. Left communists have no reason to take the anarchists seriously, because most anarchist activists while perhaps more visible frequently have not learned from the very failures of the left around the turn of the 20th century the left coms point out. My suspicion (I have no meaningful proof) is that leftcoms, while deeply suspicious of anarchist motives for embracing certain left com thinkers, nevertheless rate leninism several orders of magnitude more problematic than anarchism for the left, not so mjuch because they hate leninists but because they genuinely feel anarchism, unlike Bolshevism, is a pretty clear dead end that has little hope of expanding among the working class.

[Grenzer]

Italian left communism certainly is pro Bolshevik, I'm not familiar with the Dutch-German stance, but I think they regard the Russian Revolution as bourgeois.

It depends on the period you're looking at. The German/Dutch left was supportive of the October Revolution and the Bolsheviks until their degeneration and could be said to be pro-Lenin during the 1920's and 1930's, much like the Italian left. The post-war(World War 2) German/Dutch left took an increasingly negative view of the October Revolution, and eventually viewed it as having had a bourgeois character the whole way through.

Pannekoek initially critically supported the Bolsheviks, but I believe near the end his life he denounced them and Lenin; I'm not exactly sure on that point.

[arilando]

When it is said that anarchism is against illegitimate authority, it is mostly meant to dispel the preconceived notions held by many that anarchism is against everything. There are types of authority that anarchists have no issue with, for example: the authority a parent holds over their child.
In my experience i would say most anarchists at least (rightfully) heavily question the authority parents have over a child.

[Devrim]

I have notice, since my introduction to this site, a large conflict between the anarchist and the left-communist on this site.

I don't think that there is actually a large conflict between anarchists and left communists on here at all.


Left-communism is not a homogeneous tendency as far as I'm aware.

Well I suppose that you could say that 'left communism' spans a lot of things ranging from Bordigism to counclism, but of the people who post on here who are actual left communists, I think not so many of them go to that far towards either extreme. I think the left communists on here are pretty homogeneous, certainly when compared with Trotskyists or even anarchists.


except left communists don't consider themselves anti-authoritarian at all whereas anarchists allege themselves to be.

Again, I think that's really just semantics.

To a certain extent, yes, I don't think that there are that many left communists, with the exception of certain Bordigist groups, who would go around shouting that "We are authoritarian". It just isn't a part of the left communist 'vocabulary' whereas it is a central one in the anarchist's.

Devrim

[Leo]

that is some bullshit, anarchism is in no way idealistic. for the most part they accept the same materialist conception of history as marxists.

This a fair objection to an extent. However it is also understandable for any marxist to see idealism in the historical origins of anarchism (through people like Proudhon and Bakunin), see the contemporary acceptance of the materialist conception of history to be insufficient for it lacks the study or the attempt to deepen the understanding of the historical materialist method. I'm not surprised the conclusion that anarchism is inherently idealist was reached from this point.


Left communism, on the other hand, seems largely happy to ignore anarchism altogether and see its proponents more often than not of attempting to subsume them in the non-Leninist left, of which anarchism is the supposed vanguard.

I am not sure this is true actually. Left communism differentiates within anarchism to an extent depending on the political positions, and considers the anarchist organizations who defend internationalist positions to be comrades and others as little different from the leftists such as the Trotskyists.


Pannekoek initially critically supported the Bolsheviks

Actually, Pannekoek initially very enthusiastically supported the Bolsheviks.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Actually, Pannekoek initially very enthusiastically supported the Bolsheviks.
Yes, this is certainly true, and it was true for many revolutionaries until it became clear that "the important political position had been seized by the Communist Party" and not the workers.

[Railyon]

I should add that there is really no reason to expect this status quo to change. Anarchists have little to gain from studying in depth a rather obscure and fiercly sectarian ideology whose relevance in the worker's movement is by its own admission minimal. Left communists have no reason to take the anarchists seriously, because most anarchist activists while perhaps more visible frequently have not learned from the very failures of the left around the turn of the 20th century the left coms point out. My suspicion (I have no meaningful proof) is that leftcoms, while deeply suspicious of anarchist motives for embracing certain left com thinkers, nevertheless rate leninism several orders of magnitude more problematic than anarchism for the left, not so mjuch because they hate leninists but because they genuinely feel anarchism, unlike Bolshevism, is a pretty clear dead end that has little hope of expanding among the working class.

Maybe it's just time to move on and away from exclusively historical positions, re-evaluate strategy and stress the need for a synthesis for any meaningful move forward for the Libertarian Socialist movement.

I am, for my part, not clinging to certain labels like Anarchism. Sectarianism is pretty much the biggest internal problem of the left in this day and age... everyone thinks they're right while only disagreeing on relatively minor points and so on.

Reminds me of the whole sect schtick in Monty Python's Life of Brian.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Sectarianism is pretty much the biggest internal problem of the left in this day and age... everyone thinks they're right while only disagreeing on relatively minor points and so on.
Agreed. As Marx said, the point is to change the world. That seems to be less important to some than sectarianism, arguing over labels, and purism.

[Alf]

The aim of discussing what class struggle anarchists and left communists have in common would be to draw out the bases for common activity. Discussion of their differences has to be seen in this perspective - it can be developed most fruitfully in a framework of cooperation.

[Art Vandelay]

One point that hasn't come up is what these disagreements imply in practice.

Most anarchists, at least in my experience, don't take left communism particularly seriously if they know it even exists. Responses run the gamut from benign indifference to a vague "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" attitudes about left-communism's problems with Leninism.

Both of these are based on general ignorance, and frankly left communism's general obscurity among anarchist circles is unlikely to change. Anarchists aren't really alone in this, but they are more predisposed to being sympathetic to left communism for its anti-Bolshevism and perhaps its consistent internationalism without knowing the facts. I would imagine anarchists that know what they're talking about when it comes to left communism aren't particularly sympathetic or interested in engaging it.

Left communism, on the other hand, seems largely happy to ignore anarchism altogether and see its proponents more often than not of attempting to subsume them in the non-Leninist left, of which anarchism is the supposed vanguard. That's probabably a reasonable assessment of the situation, and consistent with their general view that a few uber-engaged activists are unlikely to make any meaningful impact against capitalists.

I should add that there is really no reason to expect this status quo to change. Anarchists have little to gain from studying in depth a rather obscure and fiercly sectarian ideology whose relevance in the worker's movement is by its own admission minimal. Left communists have no reason to take the anarchists seriously, because most anarchist activists while perhaps more visible frequently have not learned from the very failures of the left around the turn of the 20th century the left coms point out. My suspicion (I have no meaningful proof) is that leftcoms, while deeply suspicious of anarchist motives for embracing certain left com thinkers, nevertheless rate leninism several orders of magnitude more problematic than anarchism for the left, not so mjuch because they hate leninists but because they genuinely feel anarchism, unlike Bolshevism, is a pretty clear dead end that has little hope of expanding among the working class.

I can definitely see this.

[daft punk]

It seems like anarchists tend to think of the DotP as what emerged in Russia, despite that that was not a dictatorship of the proletariat (after 1918, anyway).what was it

[x359594]

It seems to me that over time anarchism developed a critique of all forms of hierarchy and domination. I would say that this concern with oppressive power relations in all activities of life is what distinguishes anarchism from left communism. By contrast, left communism has concerned itself with economic reorganization in favor of the producers and equitable distribution of goods and services, at least that's the impression I get from reading most left communism thinkers with the possible exception of Maurice Brinton who does address the question of unequal power relations (assuming that he can be fairly described as a left communist.)

[Caj]

what was it

Capitalist

[daft punk]

Capitalist

The Bolsheviks wanted capitalism?

Not remotely true, their aim was socialism. Their leaders said it many times. They were busy fighting a civil war against the capitalists. They had a policy called war communism from 1918 to 1921, then a temporary economic retreat called the NEP to boost food production during the famine, then the idea was to slowly build towards socialism as best they could in a backward country while trying to internationalise the revolution (a vital step).

Then in 1924 the revolution went off the rails.

[Avocado]

This is a really interesting discussion.:)

I wonder what lapel I would wear/what 'grouping' I would be closest to.

I do not believe in private property.
I do not believe in equity.
I do not believe in loans.
I do not believe in absence of government.

I believe in direct suffrage through electronic voting on all issues.
I believe in a sustainable world - which for me means limiting childbirth to no more than 2 children; living in a vegan world; living in a society that uses renewable energy.
I believe in world were weapons are outlawed.
I believe in a world were there there are no borders and freedom of travel.
I believe in a society that has a central bureaucracy to maintain social amenities and utilities.
I believe in a society that has no currency and no bills.

Unique? :D

[Prinskaj]

I wonder what lapel I would wear/what 'grouping' I would be closest to.
[...]
I do not believe in absence of government.
If by "government" you mean a state, then you certainly don't belong here.

[daft punk]

This is a really interesting discussion.:)

I wonder what lapel I would wear/what 'grouping' I would be closest to.

I do not believe in private property.
I do not believe in equity.
I do not believe in loans.
I do not believe in absence of government.

I believe in direct suffrage through electronic voting on all issues.
I believe in a sustainable world - which for me means limiting childbirth to no more than 2 children; living in a vegan world; living in a society that uses renewable energy.
I believe in world were weapons are outlawed.
I believe in a world were there there are no borders and freedom of travel.
I believe in a society that has a central bureaucracy to maintain social amenities and utilities.
I believe in a society that has no currency and no bills.

Unique? :D

Ultimately in communism there would be no government because everybody would be part time worker and part time planner

[Caj]

The Bolsheviks wanted capitalism?

Is that what I said?


Not remotely true, their aim was socialism. Their leaders said it many times. They were busy fighting a civil war against the capitalists. They had a policy called war communism from 1918 to 1921, then a temporary economic retreat called the NEP to boost food production during the famine, then the idea was to slowly build towards socialism as best they could in a backward country while trying to internationalise the revolution (a vital step).

I didn't say that their aim wasn't socialism, but a proletarian dictatorship can't survive in a backward, peasant country facing civil war, rampant internal and external counter-revolution, isolation, etc. when the revolution fails to spread. That's why the dictatorship of the proletariat collapsed in 1918.


Then in 1924 the revolution went off the rails.

Yeah, and the only reason you arbitrarily choose 1924 for the degeneration of the Russian Revolution is because that was the year the god Lenin died. The Russian Revolution degenerated in 1918 with the dissolution of the soviets.

[Prinskaj]

The Bolsheviks wanted capitalism?
What? That was not remotely what Caj was talking about..
Caj merely said that the Soviet Union after 1918 was capitalist, he/she said nothing about what the Bolsheviks were trying to achieve, but merely what he/she perceived the system to be.
Saying that what they wanted to achieve would make any difference on what the society was, is idealist at best.

[Thirsty Crow]

I agree that it is not NECESSARILY incompatible with anarchism and the anarchist tradition but I think that most anarchists would find it incompatible and not like the idea of the DOTP.
The Bordigist conception of DotP is indeed contrary to the conception usually held by the anarchists. Though, contemporary left communism shouldn't be identified solely with Bordigism.
For instance, organizations such as the ICC (which in fact was formed by the remnants of the Gauche Communiste de France) hold the soviets, the councils of workers' delegates, alongside the grassroots mass assemblies, can take on the role of the basic structure of the proletariat's political power once the bourgeois state is smashed. I don't think that this vision clashes with all possible variations within anarchism on this question.

On the idea of the transition, or the (in)famous DotP, it's not really important what one would or wouldn't like as any revolutionary doctrine will be forced to consider the dismantling of both the economic and political bases of bourgeois rule as essential, and effectively advocate a political domination of the working class. You could actually draw the line here between (mere) revolutionary rhetoric and revolutionary programme - I don't think that people who do not call for measures outlined above (dismantling of the bourgeois state; socialization of productive facilities with the aim of eradicating commodity production throughout the world) can be considered as adherents to a revolutionary theory and politics.

Now, there are concrete differences between left communists and anarchists. To take up this issue of a post-revolutionary society, left communists repudiate the autonomy of seperate enterprises - te famous workers' self-management in this instance means self-managed exploitation and competition between isolated enteprises. In this case, what we argue is that production should be socialized and subject to a social plan, meaning that productive entities in one specific branch should not have the autonomy to decide on, for example, how much to produce, since it is society, workers and pensioners (children, the disabled etc.) who decide what will be produced. This corresponds to the notion of production for use as opposed to production of (exchange) value.
Though, bear in mind, this is only a variant of abarchists' ideas, and I do not mean to imply that all anarchists hold this view.

One other difference might be centered on the notion and practice of political rights. I think that left communists would unuformly subject the right to political organizing to class criteria - that is, no political organizations of the bourgeoisie, defending counter-revolutionary positions. I'm not sure whether there are strands of anarchism which wouldn't advocate this kind of a "ban" on specific political organizations.

And with respect to organizing within capitalist society, the difference is that of federalism as opposed to (variants of) centralism. The communist left hold that organizational federalism is harmful and dangeours for revolutionary practice as it tends to encourage localisms of all kinds and a lack of united action. This is where the differences in the conception of the revolutionary political organization come into play

And of course, the issue of unions which is also related to anarcho-syndicalism.

[daft punk]

What? That was not remotely what Caj was talking about..
Caj merely said that the Soviet Union after 1918 was capitalist, he/she said nothing about what the Bolsheviks were trying to achieve, but merely what he/she perceived the system to be.
Saying that what they wanted to achieve would make any difference on what the society was, is idealist at best.

what it was after 1918 was war communism, then the NEP, then forced collectivisation. It was semi-capitalist during the NEP obviously.

[Railyon]

To take up this issue of a post-revolutionary society, left communists repudiate the autonomy of seperate enterprises - te famous workers' self-management in this instance means self-managed exploitation and competition between isolated enteprises. In this case, what we argue is that production should be socialized and subject to a social plan, meaning that productive entities in one specific branch should not have the autonomy to decide on, for example, how much to produce, since it is society, workers and pensioners (children, the disabled etc.) who decide what will be produced. This corresponds to the notion of production for use as opposed to production of (exchange) value.
Though, bear in mind, this is only a variant of abarchists' ideas, and I do not mean to imply that all anarchists hold this view.

I think Mutualism is pretty much dead. I don't know any other pro-market branches of anarchism, so this point doesn't have much meat on its bones in my opinion.

[arilando]

This is a really interesting discussion.:)

I wonder what lapel I would wear/what 'grouping' I would be closest to.

I do not believe in private property.
I do not believe in equity.
I do not believe in loans.
I do not believe in absence of government.

I believe in direct suffrage through electronic voting on all issues.
I believe in a sustainable world - which for me means limiting childbirth to no more than 2 children; living in a vegan world; living in a society that uses renewable energy.
I believe in world were weapons are outlawed.
I believe in a world were there there are no borders and freedom of travel.
I believe in a society that has a central bureaucracy to maintain social amenities and utilities.
I believe in a society that has no currency and no bills.

Unique? :D
I think your tendency would be, authoritarian asshole.

[Devrim]

The Bolsheviks wanted capitalism?


Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please

What does what they wanted have to do with anything?


Not remotely true, their aim was socialism. Their leaders said it many times.

What does what they said have to do with anything? Now I actually think they wee sincere, but that they said something proves nothing. Hilary Clinton said many times that she wanted to liberate women in Afghanistan. Should we therefore believe her?


what it was after 1918 was war communism, then the NEP, then forced collectivisation. It was semi-capitalist during the NEP obviously.

These are not modes of production, but the names of policies. What on earth does semi capitalist mean in this context anyway?



Then in 1924 the revolution went off the rails.Yeah, and the only reason you arbitrarily choose 1924 for the degeneration of the Russian Revolution is because that was the year the god Lenin died. The Russian Revolution degenerated in 1918 with the dissolution of the soviets.

Just to add that it is also the year that Trotsky showed the first signs of opposition, which leaves both of them off the theoretical hook.

Devrim

[Anderson]

Again, not an anarchist, but this framework is wrong. Anarchism is not opposed to authority, it is opposed to hierarchy which is where a group of people are placed above the majority of people. Anarchists would accept the authority of the workers and people in an anarchist society and respect their decisions.

Anarchists support direct democratic workers councils as well, and stress that this is the only way for the workers and their communities to run society.

Communism doesn't accept the need of a "state". Communists (such as myself) may accept the need of a transitional period with a temporary state (which some anarchists don't agree with, but this was already discussed in this forum) but overall the definition of communism is a classless and stateless society. Marx said it. Engels said it. Even Lenin said it.



As far as Communists position goes:
State is an organ of class rule.
After revolution if there is to be no State then it would require a classless society to emerge suddenly. While we may want that to happen it is not possible. Also, State (as defined above) is not a creation of Marxists, it is a historical phenomenon.
Revolution defeats the bourgeois but does not make them extinct.

As much as state is an organ of repression and class rule of bourgeois today.
Similarly the working class will have to use the State for preventing the counter-revolution and also retain control of the party by keeping out bourgeois people and their ideology.

I cannot define the position of the Anarchists
I will appreciate if a Anarchist member on this forum can detail how the state can be dissolved immediately after revolution; how do we deal with the defeated ruling classes post revolution without a machinery to keep suppress their counter revolution.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I cannot define the position of the Anarchists[/B]
I will appreciate if a Anarchist member on this forum can detail how the state can be dissolved immediately after revolution; how do we deal with the defeated ruling classes post revolution without a machinery to keep suppress their counter revolution.





Again, I am not an anarchist but from studying anarchism and talking to anarchists I would say that they believe the revolution itself is enough of a transition period and another state would therefore not be needed.

As for suppression of violent counter-revolutionaries, anarchists would say that people's militias that operate in a democratic way could suppress them.

Again, I am not an anarchist and generally do not agree with them on these points. I support keeping the traditional military hierarchy and establishment in a revolutionary society to suppress violent counter-revolutionaries. I think a military run democratically would weaken that military and give the enemy the upper-hand.

[x359594]

If the domination of women by men, gays by straights, people of color by whites and all other forms of domination are abolished by revolution, how would a traditional male, straight, white military hierarchy forestall counter-revolution?

Or will domination and hierarchy be preserved? Any student of anarchism (whether or not in agreement) will have to address these issues.

[daft punk]

What does what they wanted have to do with anything?


Why are you asking that? If what you want is irrelevant, pleas go and join a fascist party or a conservative one, it wont make any odds.

Originally Posted by K.Marx
Men make their own history




What does what they said have to do with anything? Now I actually think they wee sincere, but that they said something proves nothing. Hilary Clinton said many times that she wanted to liberate women in Afghanistan. Should we therefore believe her?

First, I dont trust Clinton on that, whereas Lenin was very honest. Second, the proof is in the pudding, the Bolsheviks tried for socialism and fought (overthrew) capitalism.

It wasnt capitalism. No, you say what they wanted was irrelevant. Take a country after a revolution which is run by socialists, moving towards socialism. Replace that government overnight with a bourgeois one, wanting to move towards capitalism. Both can be swayed by the masses, by material conditions, but both can have a fair degree of influence also.

I dunno how long you have been into politics, but sometimes I do have to wonder if some people have just discovered Marxism and got so excited about materialism that they miss the other half of it, the subjective factor, the dialectical.

Marxism came about when he rejected materialism. Materialism was too simplistic, only told one half of the story, so Marx came up with a dialectical version which included

Man make their own history.






These are not modes of production, but the names of policies. What on earth does semi capitalist mean in this context anyway?

No they are modes of production and policies
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/o.htm

caj said it was capitalist after 1918 when it was war communism. Funny kind of capitalism, the Bolsheviks had to adopt to fight the capitalists.




Just to add that it is also the year that Trotsky showed the first signs of opposition, which leaves both of them off the theoretical hook.

Devrim

Why do you say 1924 was the first sign Trotsky showed opposition? And Opposition to what exactly?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

After revolution if there is to be no State then it would require a classless society to emerge suddenly. While we may want that to happen it is not possible.
Why isn't it? Presuming the revolution is carried out by the working class itself and on a geographically broad basis, why is a transitional state strictly necessary?

If the workers are in control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and there is a workers' militia, do we need a state to defend the revolution?

[x359594]

...If the workers are in control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and there is a workers' militia, do we need a state to defend the revolution?

That's the gist of it. What does having a state add to the above? Unless one assumes that it's not enough to have workers in control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and there is a workers' militia to defend the revolution.

[Anderson]

Again, I am not an anarchist but from studying anarchism and talking to anarchists I would say that they believe the revolution itself is enough of a transition period and another state would therefore not be needed.

As for suppression of violent counter-revolutionaries, anarchists would say that people's militias that operate in a democratic way could suppress them.

Again, I am not an anarchist and generally do not agree with them on these points. I support keeping the traditional military hierarchy and establishment in a revolutionary society to suppress violent counter-revolutionaries. I think a military run democratically would weaken that military and give the enemy the upper-hand.

Do the anarchists base their understanding of revolution keeping in mind the class division in society and what is their vision of things to be done after revolution?

[Anderson]

Do the anarchists base their understanding of revolution keeping in mind the class division in society and what is their vision of things to be done after revolution?

[x359594]

Do the anarchists base their understanding of revolution keeping in mind the class division in society and what is their vision of things to be done after revolution?

From the anarchist perspective there is no separation between ends and means, so the things to be done after the revolution are the same things to be done before and during the revolution.

I would add that anarchists are not narrow economic positivists and that economic determinism is seen as a form of alienation. Even in the economic battleground of the workplace, the conflict between workers and owners is not merely economic, not solely a haggling over wages and hours. Workers organize and fight over such non-economic goals as as decision-making power, the ability to freely express their own creativity at work, and even the ability to have fun on the job. When workers at a plant strike to protest sexual harassment on the job, or to demand day care centers at the workplace, they are fighting for the right to determine their own destiny and to have control over their own circumstances. This fight extends into every sphere of bourgeois society.

To combat capitalist hegemony in the workplace, it is necessary to replace the institution of the marketplace with direct cooperative production and exchange. To combat the hegemonies of men over women and straight over gay, sexist and heterosexist institutions must be replaced by freely-chosen personal relationships. To overthrow the hegemony of the nuclear family, free sexual relationships are a necessity. To end the destruction of the natural enviorment, industry must be transformed from a force of an for itself into the consciously-controlled tools of human beings. To break the grip of alienating ideology, education must be turned from an institution for training and socializing people into a personal learning experience. All of these struggles go on before, during and after the revolution.

[MarxSchmarx]

Maybe it's just time to move on and away from exclusively historical positions, re-evaluate strategy and stress the need for a synthesis for any meaningful move forward for the Libertarian Socialist movement.


I think it is really only a matter of time before a tendency-wide umbrella "anarchists" movements coalesce, coordinate and find a way to work with each other effectively and systematically; truly sectarian anarchists that care about this or that hair-splitting minutea from 1848 or 1938 are actually in the minority in most countries, and I would wager even in places like Spain where such disagreements persist. It will be difficult and fraught with peril, not least because I think one of the unique strengths of the anarchist strategy is the autonomy of each local component of struggle. There will be missteps and quite likely massive failures, and fighting off encrusting bureaucratization will not be easy. But I think it will have to happen eventually, and am much more optimistic about it than, say, a comparable entity being formed among Trots.

Indeed, anarchism's commitment to diffusive action, by and large, has meant they do not suffer from the same sort of ideological sectarianism that preclude meaningful cooperation across groups of Bolshevists in the same region - indeed, anarchists do a good job engaging in diverse forms of activism (think food not bombs versus iww versus TAZ in the global north) and even outlook without engendering strong animosity between the different approaches.

left-coms, based on my limited interactions with them almost entirely online, on the other hand, would not join such an org and, are too committed to their approach and world view to see the value in such a project. In general I dont think they see themselves as libertarian socialists. Moreover, although I've never worked within a left-com org, I get the distinct impression most left-com orgs define themselves as already being the leftist organization deserving of the largest membership. Having said that, my guess is that a few individuals, but not groups, that identify themselves as things like council communists or what have you would be attracted to a more coordinated anarchist effort.

Other nascent non-leninist groups, like certain contemporary "luxemburgist" orgs and some study circles that read non-bolshevik marxists, might find a role for themselves in such an anarchist umbrella group. But I think they will play a distinctively secondary role to the anarchists that will inevitably greatly outnumber them. My guess is that at best they can sharpen the theoretical and rhetorical components of the umbrella org but their day to day activism will be carried out within the local anarchist groups that would make up such an entity. Perhaps these non-leninist groups are tiny enough (even within the universe of tiny leftist sects!) that they won't really matter.

[Alf]

What would be the aim of such an 'umbrella' group and why would it have to be specifically anarchist? For me it is most important to get together around shared principles, even if there are other points of disagreement. As I've said before, left communists can work with those 'anarchists' who oppose all capitalist wars but not with 'marxists' like the SWP who endlessly support them.

[TomVine92]

What are left communists? Surely all communists are left?

[Alf]

left communists, historically, have their origin in the left wing of the Communist International. They were among the first to oppose the degeneration of the revolution in Russia and of the International. We're talking about the current around Bordiga in Italy, the German KAPD, Sylvia Pankhurst in Britain, Miasnikov and others in Russia. For most of them, the USSR and the official Communist parties - like the social democrats before them - had become integrated into capitalism by the 1930s. In other words, most the organisations and currents that call themselves communist are not communist at all... Here's a short article on this tradition: http://en.internationalism.org/the-communist-left

[Jock]

What are left communists? Surely all communists are left?

Tom

Its because we are the only communists left!

Joking apart the Communist Left sees itself as being part of the formation of an international which our ancestors thought would bring about a world revolution. When that Third or Communist International began to retreat back to the social democratic framework with which it had broken in 1914 then they formed opposition groups which became designated as the "left" (the most consistent and coherent being the Italian Left). All the subsequent heirs to the Comintern from Stalinism and Trotskyism still peddle social democratic politics adn hence are our class enemies.

In relation to anarchism the anarchists were a reaction to the ambiguous class nature of social democracy before the First World War but since then they a more materialist and less moralist analysis (which was always present amongst many anarchists) has become more predominant and on this basis there is a stronger degree of agreement between the Communist Left and Anarchism than between us and the other so-called Marxists as Alf has been trying to say on various of his posts.

I think this thread is interesting for posing a serious discussion about how the transformation from capitalism to a classless stateless society will come about.