Theoretical difference(s) between anarcho-communists and left-communists?

[synthesis]

This question has probably been asked and answered before, but I'd like to hear some thoughts from the figurative mouths of people here, now.

I've noticed that anarcho-communism and left-communism seem to attract different kinds of personalities, and I know they have different historical origins (left-communism having had a closer relationship with Lenin) but what is the primary theoretical difference between the two?

Why do many people identify as one and not the other, and do you think they are mutually exclusive schools of thought? I'm not interested in different attitudes towards class analysis, as I don't think that's intrinsically the case.

Perhaps this is a better way to put it. If an anarcho-communist and a left-communist got into a bar brawl, what do you think it would be about?

[Zukunftsmusik]

Perhaps this is a better way to put it. If an anarcho-communist and a left-communist got into a bar brawl, what do you think it would be about?

The (workers') state.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

The (workers') state.

Yep, pretty much about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Anarchists, being opposed to a state of any kind, have a huge problem with the entire concept of the dotp, even in the highly democratic version that Left-Communists support.

Although, more than likely, they'd probably go to a pub afterwards. :laugh:

[Zukunftsmusik]

There are of course several more differences, as they come from two different traditions. The most obvious and visible one being on the question of how to organise.

[G4b3n]

The primary difference is the question of the state. Anarchist wish to dismantle the state upon revolution, while Left coms wish to use the state as a tool of the working class in adherence to traditional Marxist theory.

The differences other than the primary that I just mentioned are insignificant. They both support bottom up democracy, worker's control, and autonomous organization. As a leftist, these have been the only two ideologies I have been stuck between, I finally chose anarchism (specifically libertarian Marxism) for practical purposes.

[synthesis]

The (workers') state.

Gotcha, although in practice their attitudes toward the issue don't seem to be that different. They both believe that force will have to be used to protect the gains of the revolution, correct? Again, the attitude I've seen from most left-communists about the subject leads me to believe it's sort of an issue of semantics - as in, what terminology is used to describe the mechanism by which the remnants of the bourgeois class are suppressed and eventually dissolved.

But that's still a good summary. With that in mind, I got off my lazy ass and looked it up on Google; I found this article which seems like it does a pretty good job of elaborating on your point.


Communist theory in regard to the state and the revolution is characterised above all by the fact that it excludes all possibility of adapting the legislative and executive mechanism of the bourgeois state to the socialist transformation of the economy (the social-democratic position). But it equally excludes the possibility of achieving by means of a brief violent crisis a destruction of the state and a transformation of the traditional economic relationships which the state defended up to the last moment (the anarchist position). It also denies that the constitution of a new productive organisation can be left to the spontaneous and scattered activity of groups of producers shop by shop or trade by trade (the syndicalist position).

From Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm).

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Why do many people identify as one and not the other, and do you think they are mutually exclusive schools of thought?

There are various reasons as to why one would identify as a left communist rather than an anarcho-communist depending on the various individuals. Most left communists and anarchists see each others as allies, whether they disagree on certain things or not.


If an anarcho-communist and a left-communist got into a bar brawl, what do you think it would be about?

The dictatorship of the proletariat or the importance of the historical vanguard party


even in the highly democratic version that Left-Communists support.

Left communists are not democrats, and do not support democracy. I have talked about this in earlier posts of mine. (I don't mean to be "that guy" but here are some quotes from earlier posts of mine on the matter).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2628991&postcount=14


Democracy, if we take it to mean "the rule of all people" means, within a society stratified by class differences, the rule of all classes. The state does not work this way, it works in the interests of only one class. We seek the rule of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, which is not democratic but dictatorial.

If we are talking about democracy as the rule of the majority there is still a problem. For starters, the proletariat is made up of the majority of the population, so the "democrats" should be on our class side. It is also true that the majority is not always right (otherwise why are any of us fucking here). Extended debate will lead to the best decision, not a split decision based on populism, "I could have a beer with him", etc.

Of course, voting and majority rule is the best course when a decision needs made fast, otherwise it is really something to be "transcended" as Bordiga would put it.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2624200&postcount=13


Left coms wish to use the state as a tool of the working class in adherence to traditional Marxist theory.

It's more complex than that. Left communists, like any traditional Marxist, believes that the bourgeois state and it's forms must first be destroyed, and a new proletarian state, with it's forms of mass worker control, be put in it's place until the abolition of the state with classes.


The differences other than the primary that I just mentioned are insignificant.

I disagree.


They both support bottom up democracy

False.


worker's control

In the sense of the state and society then yes. In a sense of the workplace, then that is just reorganized national capital.


and autonomous organization

Vanguard parties are more of our thing.

[The Jay]

Why do you say that left communists are so against Democracy? Of course they do not approve of the liberal variety, but workers' councils are pretty democratic. You should refine your statement to: left communists are not supportive of democracy in all cases for no reason.

[Sotionov]

The similarities are presumed to be known, so about the differences.

Left-communists, or libertarian marxists, have a marxist view of classes, based on ownership of means of production, thereby being the movement of the proletariat (including managers/coordinators).

Anarcho-communists have anarchist view of classes, based on hierarchy, thereby being the movement of all workers (proletariat, peasants, artisants and coop workers, but not managers/coordinators).

Left-communists have a marxist view of the solution, abolishing not only wage-labor, but also market and money with the same opposition, ending up with this or that level of imposed communism, possibly hierarchical (being that managers are not considered a ruling class).

Anarcho-communist have an anarchist view of the solution, with abolishing wage-labor (and rents) and all hierarchy, ending up with a society of voluntary communist communities, leaving everyone the freedom not to participate in communism but to function on his own, in communal living, in anarcho-individualism, mutualism or anarcho-collectivism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Why do you say that left communists are so against Democracy? Of course they do not approve of the liberal variety, but workers' councils are pretty democratic. You should refine your statement to: left communists are not supportive of democracy in all cases for no reason.

Well, "left communism" is a fairly heterogeneous movement. Left-communists in the German and Dutch tradition (and parts of the Russian tradition) are in favour of democratic workers' councils, but the Italian or Bordigist current is pretty much opposed to democracy, not only in the sense of liberalism, "rule of the people" and so on (that all Marxists are opposed to), but also in the sense of "counting votes" - indeed Bordigists sometimes call (tongue halfway in their cheek) for a return to revolutionary totalitarianism, and support a scientific management of the socialist society through the single communist party.


Left-communists, or libertarian marxists,

No. Libertarian Marxists reject the workers' state, Left Communists do not. Left Communism =/= "anti-authoritarian" Marxism.

[G4b3n]

There are various reasons as to why one would identify as a left communist rather than an anarcho-communist depending on the various individuals. Most left communists and anarchists see each others as allies, whether they disagree on certain things or not.



The dictatorship of the proletariat or the importance of the historical vanguard party



Left communists are not democrats, and do not support democracy. I have talked about this in earlier posts of mine. (I don't mean to be "that guy" but here are some quotes from earlier posts of mine on the matter).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2628991&postcount=14



http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2624200&postcount=13



It's more complex than that. Left communists, like any traditional Marxist, believes that the bourgeois state and it's forms must first be destroyed, and a new proletarian state, with it's forms of mass worker control, be put in it's place until the abolition of the state with classes.



I disagree.



False.



In the sense of the state and society then yes. In a sense of the workplace, then that is just reorganized national capital.



Vanguard parties are more of our thing.

You don't sound like any left com I have ever heard of.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

You should refine your statement to: left communists are not supportive of democracy in all cases for no reason.

That's actually not a bad way of putting it either.


Left-communists, or libertarian marxists

I think you would find it hard to find a left communist calling themselves a "libertarian" in any way. In fact, most left communists would claim that the libertarian v. authoritarian is a false dichotomy.


You don't sound like any left com I have ever heard of.

I don't mean to sound harsh or mean, but to be blunt i'm guessing it's because you don't really understand what left communism is and don't know what you are talking about.

[Anarcho Jackson Jones]

The main point of contention is the worker's state. Anarcho-communists believe in going straight to the gift economy. Some (like myself) consider anarcho-syndicalism as a good 'transition' stage. The left communists put more emphasis on councils.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Once again, the "councilist" German-Dutch current is not the only form of Left Communism.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

My and the user Blake's Baby's response in the "Ask the Tendencies" sticky

I'll quote some of the more important parts from the responses and leave the links for other users.


Except that both M-Ls and Left Communists accept the need for a vanguard party.

But they define the role of the vanguard differently...Left Communists are those organisations (and their political descendents) that were expelled from the 3rd International between 1920 and 1930. Start with the KAPD, end with the Italian Left Communists, don't include the Trotskyists. That's about it.

There are some other groups that broke with Trotskyism that evolved towards Left Communist positions but I'm not sure how many of them are still in existence.

There was also a split in Left Communism, with many of the Dutch and German Left Communists coming to a position that the Bolsheviks and the October Revolution were bourgeois; these (ex-)Left Communists began to call themselves 'council communists' to distinguish themselves from the 'party communists'...Anarchist Communism arose as a political theory in the 1880s-90s, primarily around Kropotkin, but also in part based on Bakunin, among the Anarchist organisations that were holding on to the gains of the First International. Left Communism arose from the left currents of the Third (Communist) International in the 1920s. They have very little point of contact in terms of history or organisation.


Left Communists are generally against participating in bourgeois parliaments and trade unions for reasons that Gorter gave in his Open Letter. They would also disagree with Lenin's writing on Left Communism as an infantile disorder and agree with Gorter's response already mentioned. Many would also disagree with Popular Frontism of the Stalinists and United Frontism of the Trotskyists (although some are not against united fronts, just the Trot version of them). Most Left Communists are against national liberation movements, seeing them as not a blow to imperialism as Stalinists describe it because the system of global capitalism is still kept in tact and so imperialism will still remain. We also believe that such struggles keep the working-class divided. The ICC has some good writing on national liberation struggles...As for the whole "authoritarian" and "libertarian" terms, as others have noted these terms really are meaningless to Left Communists. There are reasons for this. These terms are so loaded that they become meaningless and lack a class analysis behind them. For example, all communists support the abolition of private property. To the working class, this would be "libertarian" while the bourgeoisie would view this as being highly "authoritarian". Bordiga actually has a very good quote on this from his writing on dialectics

Blake's Baby's entire response: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2461022&postcount=14

My entire response: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2462721&postcount=16

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, I think, as mentioned above, the starting point for this is too broad insofar as the "communist left" isn't a coherant whole, nor, obviously, are anarchists. Throw "libertarian Marxists" in to the mix (who tend to be an eclectic and unorganized mix borrowing heavily from a hodgepodge of traditions) and good luck sorting anything out.

One could point to specific organizations on the self-described "Communist Left" (e.g. ICC or ICT) and contrast their positions with particular anarchist organizations, but it's not necessarily likely to clarify anything.

Basically, there are a whole lot of various starting points and turning points that have brought us to where we're at now, in such a way that positions that seem similar in the abstract are coming from different sets of theoretical assumptions, emerging out of different types of historical practice, etc.

As for a bar brawl? It's more likely to be between anarchists and other anarchists or left communists and other left communists than between anarchists and left communists because what has informed these differences is their historical/practical separation.

Oh, or about street fighting. Anarchists love street fighting and left coms seem to think it's because anarchists are petit-bourgeois hooligans. ;)1

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Isn't it the case, though, Brosa, that certain Bordigist currents support national liberation, on paper at least, and that the original PCd'I left - PCI was not against participation in parliaments?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Isn't it the case, though, Brosa, that certain Bordigist currents support national liberation, on paper at least, and that the original PCd'I left - PCI was not against participation in parliaments?

You are absolutely correct and I do not deny any of this. That being said, most Bordigists (and i'm not denying at all an exception to this) do not agree with Bordiga's later writings on things such as national liberation, trade unionism, etc. (not to deny that there is value in some of Bordiga's later work). I would say that the degeneration of German/Dutch left communism into council communism is mirrored with Bordiga's later writings.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You are absolutely correct and I do not deny any of this. That being said, most Bordigists (and i'm not denying at all an exception to this) do not agree with Bordiga's later writings on things such as national liberation, trade unionism, etc. (not to deny that there is value in some of Bordiga's later work). I would say that the degeneration of German/Dutch left communism into council communism is mirrored with Bordiga's later writings.

Possibly. And as far as I can tell, most Bordigist organisations have taken the side of Damen in his split from Bordiga. That said, perhaps an argument could be made (I am purposefully phrasing this in a very tentative manner because my knowledge of Bordigism is shaky) that the support for national liberation is implicit in Bordiga's notion of the "invariant programme" (since the old Marxist and Bolshevik programme did in fact include the democratic demand for national liberation), and (to the extent that national-liberation struggles are led by Stalinists) his analysis of Stalinism as a capitalist solution to the Agrarfrage.

[Devrim]

Possibly. And as far as I can tell, most Bordigist organisations have taken the side of Damen in his split from Bordiga.

This is factually incorrect. Most Bordigist organisations come from Bordiga's side of the split. The 'Damenist' side has only had one split since 1952 as far as I know.

Devrim

[synthesis]

This is factually incorrect. Most Bordigist organisations come from Bordiga's side of the split. The 'Damenist' side has only had one split since 1952 as far as I know.

Devrim

It's kind of weird that I know this, but am I wrong in thinking that you were part of an anarchist organization before joining the ICC? If so, can I ask what led to the shift? Was it an issue of theory or more just an interpersonal thing? It's fine if you'd rather not get into it.

[G4b3n]

I don't mean to sound harsh or mean, but to be blunt i'm guessing it's because you don't really understand what left communism is and don't know what you are talking about.

I may not be an expert on left communism, as I have never claimed to be, but that is a bit out of line considering that left communism can differ a great deal in theoretical composition. You simply appear to be more authoritarian than any left com I have come into contact with. I have seen left coms argue directly against vanguard parties and for worker's control, unless these are just pseudo-leftcoms, i.e anarchists in disguise? If you are part of the theory police, please let me know.

[Devrim]

It's kind of weird that I know this, but am I wrong in thinking that you were part of an anarchist organization before joining the ICC? If so, can I ask what led to the shift? Was it an issue of theory or more just an interpersonal thing? It's fine if you'd rather not get into it.

Yes, I was a member of one of the IWA sections. It was over twenty years before I joined the ICC though. I am on holiday at the moment and can't be bothered to write a long post, but when I get home I will answer your questions.

Devrim

[Brosa Luxemburg]

but that is a bit out of line considering that left communism can differ a great deal in theoretical composition.

You're right, left communism can differ greatly in theoretical composition, but not in the way that you are implying below.


You simply appear to be more authoritarian than any left com I have come into contact with.

Umm......okay?



I have seen left coms argue directly against vanguard parties

No, you have not. You may have heard left coms argue about the importance of the party (such as L'Ouvrier Communiste which saw the party question as a secondary concern and the party performing an essentially educational role rather than an organ of working class struggle) but the support for a party existed. As I said above, differences exist within the tendency for sure, but not in the way you are implying.



If you are part of the theory police, please let me know.

I think theory death squad has a cooler ring to it.

[Devrim]

It's kind of weird that I know this, but am I wrong in thinking that you were part of an anarchist organization before joining the ICC? If so, can I ask what led to the shift? Was it an issue of theory or more just an interpersonal thing? It's fine if you'd rather not get into it.

Somebody actually postedon my page asking if I would come back to this, so here goes.

I was in the UK section of the IWA, which is no called SolFed, but at the time was called DAM during the mid to late 80s when ı was working as a postman in London. I was never a very good anarcho-syndicalist in any case. I was an anarchist and I suppose I could have just as easily joined the ACF, now AF. There were a group of us in South London active around various things including the News International strike, and we perhaps joined DAM because there was a local group there whereas the ACF had one London group, which met in the central London if I remember correctly.

What moved me from anarchist to left communist ideas was my experience at work with the unions (it was a time when the Post Office had more days lost in strikes than the rest of the country combined), reading left communist stuff about the unions, and stuff about the failure of anarcho-syndicalism in Spain.

I joined the ICC years latter when the small left communist organisation I was involved in joined the ICC as its Turkish section.

Devrim

[Thirsty Crow]

The main point of contention is the worker's state. Anarcho-communists believe in going straight to the gift economy.
This, if it is a serious position, definitely signals a big difference.

To sum it up, if this is the case, then those anarchists aren't internationalists at all. Why? Because the point to social revolution is not to establish an autarkic national economy, a gift economy or whatever, but of a classless, stateless world community (since the former implies a great reduction, virtual impoverishment, of needs that can be satisfied, and in fact is probably impossible to achieve).

This is implicit in the fact that it is illusory to expect a simultaneous world revolution. Therefore, certain territories will be liberated from bourgeois political rule sooner, and a period of transition will effectively and necessarily follow (combating the political tendency to substitutionism; the transition to the new mode of production through concrete measures benefiting workers, instituting mechanisms suitable to that mode, the first measures of elimination of the division of labor, and so on). This also holds even if most of the world is freed from bourgeois rule in a very short time span.

[Skyhilist]

To be as basic as possible, anarchists view what they've accomplished after the revolution at a stateless society, while left communists, taking a more Marxist viewpoint, do not and continue to see society as having a state (or "DoTP"). Really though, besides disagreements over what constitutes a state, disagreements sometimes over what can be called socialism, and also the fact that left communists feel the need for there to be a revolutionary party playing some type of role (though not necessarily being a part of the governance process themselves), there's not too much anarchists and left-communists disagree on. Also, left-communists are generally anti-syndicalist where anarchists may or may not support (anarcho) syndicalism.

[Skyhilist]

To sum it up, if this is the case, then those anarchists aren't internationalists at all. Why? Because the point to social revolution is not to establish an autarkic national economy, a gift economy or whatever, but of a classless, stateless world community (since the former implies a great reduction, virtual impoverishment, of needs that can be satisfied, and in fact is probably impossible to achieve).

I don't think this is really fair. It's not that anarcho-communists think we can establish an autarkic gift economy. Obviously we need resources from multiple places in the world, so we'd need to (unfortunately) rely on an international market at some point. The term "gift economy" is used, because the items are distributed internally within society as they would be in a gift economy. For example, the workers trade what they produce with outside sources. They can use whatever compensation they get to get other goods on an international market (the goods that they get would be according to the need of the people within society). So once they get these goods they are distributed according to people's need. So people work to their ability and in return get the goods that they need. Whether it's a proper use of the term may be debatable, but this is why they use the term "gift economy." It's not they they think they can be autarkic or don't care about worker struggles on an international scale. There can be slight variations, but this is the general idea.

[Skyhilist]

Also, I think the disagreement on here is kind of silly because a lot of it comes from people just having different definitions.

The whole democracy thing: a popular vote after plenty of debate over an issue is something that I think the person who said "left coms support democracy" would consider a type of democracy. The difference is just what you guys call democracy.

Same with vanguard party. Left coms do support a vanguard party but it's not enough to just say this alone imo, because it's confusing. Most people who are new to libertarian socialism think of M-L style vanguard parties when they hear the term. It should be explain that vanguard parties play a much different role in left communism, playing a role in governance for Bordigists, but not even doing that for other left coms (who really just want them to play a role in guiding revolutionary attitudes and spreading class consciousness and stuff like that). Correct me if I'm off base.

Personally, I think when you have the same or very similar things, it's irrelevant what you call them. A lot of the time the arguments between left coms and anarchists are just what you should call things. For example, "autonomous self governance" vs "DoTP". Pretty similar; differences are trivial at best. The argument over what to call it is in my opinion pretty dumb; i couldn't give a shit what society gets labelled or if it gets labelled at all.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't think this is really fair. It's not that anarcho-communists think we can establish an autarkic gift economy.
Yes, I'm aware of that, and I only made that points in relation to what Anarcho Jackson Jones said about the immediate transition, nay, jump to a gift economy, because this necessarily presupposes that this is possible within one country or a bloc of countries because a simultaneous world revolution is practically impossible to occur.