Left anarcho- communism?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

So hi, I'm basically just wondering if there is such a thing in one form or another as a recognised tendency, current or whatever?
What I'm referring to is (some kind of) anarchist- communism which is basically the anarchist equivalent of left communism, consistently has the same or similar positions as the communist left on most issues such as internationalism vs. nationalism, unions, "real-existing socialism" (seeing it as a form of capitalism and not "state socialism" or whatever) etc.
I could also frame the question asking if there is a special term to designate the ultra- lefts of anarcho- communism, if they form a specific tendency?

Thanks in advance.

[Sasha]

i guess one could say that some anarcho-communists that reject anarcho-syndicalism would have similar positions as left-coms.
or at least came, on the basis of the spanish and mexican experiences, to the same critisms as leftcoms did more based on the german and russian experience, on subjects like syndicalism, parliamentary participation and popular frontism.

but they wouldnt form an distinct tendency as such, more individual writers and their circles/publications

[G4b3n]

There are left coms and anarchist commies who support nationalism in the sense of national liberation. Not in the Maoist class collaborationist sense but a sort of "nationalism of the oppressed" none the less.

[Tim Cornelis]

There's no word. Anarchism is a less coherent political theory, I guess that's why. There are also anarcho-communists that reject anarcho-syndicalism that aren't ultraleft.

I'd just call 'em ultra-left anarchists.

[Devrim]

There are left coms and anarchist commies who support nationalism in the sense of national liberation. Not in the Maoist class collaborationist sense but a sort of "nationalism of the oppressed" none the less.

There are not left communists who support national liberation. It's a defining point for us.

Devrim

[G4b3n]

There are not left communists who support national liberation. It's a defining point for us.

Devrim

While it is not ideologically inherent or even common, they do exist. It does not push you out of the ideology for supporting national lib.

[Brutus]

While it is not ideologically inherent or even common, they do exist. It does not push you out of the ideology for supporting national lib.

Opposition to NatLib is a key defining trait of Left Communism. What you're saying is like telling us all that while it is not ideologically inherent or even common, there are some Stalinists that reject Socialism in One Country.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

There are not left communists who support national liberation. It's a defining point for us.
At the very least there are some people who call themselves leftcoms who support it.

[newdayrising]

As far as I know the only people who could be called left-communists who could be considered supoorters of any sort of national liberation would be some Bordigists who want to be consistent with Bordiga's "back to Lenin" theoretical support of national liberation in some cases.
However, I've never seen them show support to actual national liberation struggles. The only time it actually happened in any significant way, as far as I know, was in the early 80's and it basically ended the old Bordigist party and splintered it in the many similarly named groups existing today.
Plus, I don't think they call themselves left-communists or recognize a "communist left" that goes beyond themselves anyway.
Other users like Leo, Devrin and Remus Bleys probably know more about it and may correct me if I'm wrong.

[G4b3n]

Opposition to NatLib is a key defining trait of Left Communism. What you're saying is like telling us all that while it is not ideologically inherent or even common, there are some Stalinists that reject Socialism in One Country.

Rejection of Nat Lib is not nearly as central to left communism as (or was) SiOC is to Stalinism, and I think you know that. I know quite a few left coms who support Nat Lib in some contexts. Are they not real left coms? Have they degenerated into revisionism? I had better let them know that their ideological purity is slipping.

[ñángara]

Reading the following ICC "basic position," it's seems to be unlikely finding an "Anarcho-leftist-communist" and so little space to maneuver in a national liberation front with them.


All factions of the bourgeoisie are equally reactionary. All the so-called ‘workers’, ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ parties (now ex-’Communists’), the leftist organisations (Trotskyists, Maoists and ex-Maoists, official anarchists) constitute the left of capitalism’s political apparatus. All the tactics of ‘popular fronts’, ‘anti-fascist fronts’ and ‘united fronts’, which mix up the interests of the proletariat with those of a faction of the bourgeoisie, serve only to smother and derail the struggle of the proletariat.

[Brutus]

Rejection of Nat Lib is not nearly as central to left communism as (or was) SiOC is to Stalinism, and I think you know that. I know quite a few left coms who support Nat Lib in some contexts. Are they not real left coms? Have they degenerated into revisionism? I had better let them know that their ideological purity is slipping.

There have been a few Bordigists who have supported it theoretically as part of a "return to Lenin" type palava, but they never went as far as supporting any actual NatLib movements. Rejection of NatLib is central, as it's what distinguishes it (in the main) from all other communist currents. And please do point out these fabled left comms that you folks are on about. I haven't come across any in my contact with ICC and ICT members, or amongst my conversations with unaffiliated left comms.

[Devrim]

Could G4b3n, and Danielle tells us which nationalist movement these people supported, and what organisation they were in, please?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Could G4b3n, and Danielle tells us which nationalist movement these people supported, and what organisation they were in, please?
All I know is how they labeled themselves, and they supported the Irish national liberation struggle and one the Puerto Rican national liberation struggle. I'm not saying that's consistent with the leftcom tendency, just that they self-identified as such.

[Devrim]

All I know is how they labeled themselves, and they supported the Irish national liberation struggle and one the Puerto Rican national liberation struggle. I'm not saying that's consistent with the leftcom tendency, just that they self-identified as such.

Well clearly they are not left communists. They are obviously people who have a very poor understand of politics if they don't think it is compatible with Irish nationalism.

Also, they certainly weren't members or supporters of left communist organisations, which disqualifies them from being left communists.

I don't really care what people 'identify' as.

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well clearly they are not left communists. They are obviously people who have a very poor understand of politics if they don't think it is compatible with Irish nationalism.

Also, they certainly weren't members or supporters of left communist organisations, which disqualifies them from being left communists.

I don't really care what people 'identify' as.

Devrim

From what I've seen, a lot of people on RevLeft have very strange ideas about what left communism is. Generally people think that anything "left" ( = more "libertarian", I think I can hear Bordiga spinning in his grave) of Leninism is "left communism".

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Well clearly they are not left communists.
I'll leave that up to you leftcoms to decide. It's not my tendency, after all. I was just saying that they call themselves leftcoms, not that they necessarily are.

[Art Vandelay]

I'll leave that up to you leftcoms to decide. It's not my tendency, after all. I was just saying that they call themselves leftcoms, not that they necessarily are.

But words/terms mean something, now don't they? I really don't mean to come across as antagonistic - since that is not my intention - but why should your anecdotal evidence of 'left-communists' supporting national liberation struggles matter, when it comes to what actually constitutes a left-communist? Social-democrats who self style as socialists, despite openly representing the left wing of capital (at best), call themselves 'socialists' all the time, doesn't stop us from calling them out for what they are. Truth be told I'm far from a left-com - and for that matter agree with Lenin on the national question - but it is pretty clear that rejection of nat-lib struggles is a key element of left-com thought; who cares what self described folks say to the contrary, anyone with an elementary grasp on the history of the tendency will see through their line of reasoning.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

But words/terms mean something, now don't they? I really don't mean to come across as antagonistic - since that is not my intention - but why should your anecdotal evidence of 'left-communists' supporting national liberation struggles matter, when it comes to what actually constitutes a left-communist?
I feel like I'm communicating very poorly in this thread, because nowhere have I said my anecdotal evidence should matter as far as what a leftcom is. I was just relaying that I've known people who called themselves leftcoms while advocating certain things leftcoms generally don't.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

So, would and could you guys direct me to some some writers (historical or contemporary), websites and/or texts which are solidly ultra- left anarchist- communist and representative of this type of politics?

Cheers!