Anarchism with Marxian analysis?

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

Do anarchists generally think a Marxian or Marxist analysis is applicable to society, or do they have an alternative? Is there something which would be considered a bridge between the two ideologies (i.e. in effect, "Anarcho-Marxism" (though obviously not that because that would be contradictory)).

[Ele'ill]

Insurrectionary communism

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What is "Marxian"? Because to be honest that word generally means using Marxist jargon to cover completely non-Marxist analyses. So yeah, you can find such anarchism. But Marxist? No, not to my knowledge, and in my estimate people on this site tend to play up the closeness of anarchism to Marxism anyway.

[Rafiq]

Anarchism is much more vague, but in context it can have meaning: The anarchist tradition in the United States is not at all aversed to the usage of Marxisn terminology, methodology, ETC.

The point is simple: Anarchism is hardly a unified tradition. One can be an anarchist of this or that current, but generally anarchism refers to that disappointment with radical bourgeois liberalism, which is why in certain contexts, anarchists have been able to re-invent themselves across historic epochs with far more ease than 'dogmatically' inclined pseudo-Marxists.

This, however, far from being a highpoint of anarchism vis a vis Marxism, reflects its lack of theoretical rigor.

[mutualaid]

To be fair, Marx was inspired by some of Proudhon's work, though he later disowns him. Anarchists in the tradition of Bakunin and Kroptkin, in general, have a materialist understanding of history and believe in a socialist revolution. Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread is excellent.

[The Idler]

I'd recommend going through An Anarchist FAQ particularly this bit
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA4.html#seca44
I think there is stuff on libcom too about anarchists accepting marx's critique of capitalism if not what follows from that.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The anarchist FAQ is shit.

Take the description of councilism:

"Council Communism was born in the German Revolution of 1919 when Marxists inspired by the example of the Russian soviets and disgusted by the centralism, opportunism and betrayal of the mainstream Marxist social-democrats, drew similar anti-parliamentarian, direct actionist and decentralised conclusions to those held by anarchists since Bakunin."

Bzzt! Sorry, wrong answer. Council communism, as the term is used today, dates to the thirties, in an anti-party and anti-October (or "dual revolution") split from the Dutch-German communist left.

" While critical of anarchism, the differences between the two theories are relatively minor and the impact of the Situationists on anarchism cannot be underestimated."

I think most anarchists would object to identification with a current that embraced Ben Bella. But the author of the "FAQ" probably doesn't know who Ben Bella is, since he seems to have gotten his information off Wikipedia or somewhere equally dreadful.

[mutualaid]

If you're looking to understand the intellectual tradition of anarchism and how it relates to marx, you should check out rudolph rocker https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/rocker-rudolf/misc/anarchism-anarcho-syndicalism.htm

[The Idler]

The anarchist FAQ is shit.

Take the description of councilism:

"Council Communism was born in the German Revolution of 1919 when Marxists inspired by the example of the Russian soviets and disgusted by the centralism, opportunism and betrayal of the mainstream Marxist social-democrats, drew similar anti-parliamentarian, direct actionist and decentralised conclusions to those held by anarchists since Bakunin."

Bzzt! Sorry, wrong answer. Council communism, as the term is used today, dates to the thirties, in an anti-party and anti-October (or "dual revolution") split from the Dutch-German communist left.

" While critical of anarchism, the differences between the two theories are relatively minor and the impact of the Situationists on anarchism cannot be underestimated."

I think most anarchists would object to identification with a current that embraced Ben Bella. But the author of the "FAQ" probably doesn't know who Ben Bella is, since he seems to have gotten his information off Wikipedia or somewhere equally dreadful.
It is 'An Anarchist FAQ' not 'the anarchist FAQ' and there is not an author as such so I'm not sure you are familiar with it.
Please tell me 'anti-October' is not a term in use now, it sounds like something the Monster Raving Loony party would dream up.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It is 'An Anarchist FAQ' not 'the anarchist FAQ' and there is not an author as such so I'm not sure you are familiar with it.
Please tell me 'anti-October' is not a term in use now, it sounds like something the Monster Raving Loony party would dream up.

Most of the FAQ was written by one person, Iain McKay. And it's a bad resource, trying to argue against "anarcho"-capitalists by practically supporting most of their contentions (i.e. socialism is not communism, markets are compatible with anarchism etc.). If I were an anarchist, I would be embarrassed. And yes, "anti-October" is a term used by the communist left, and that you haven't even heard about it is indicative of the very strange way in which many on RL understand left communism.

[Blake's Baby]

The anarchist FAQ is shit.

Take the description of councilism:

"Council Communism was born in the German Revolution of 1919 when Marxists inspired by the example of the Russian soviets and disgusted by the centralism, opportunism and betrayal of the mainstream Marxist social-democrats, drew similar anti-parliamentarian, direct actionist and decentralised conclusions to those held by anarchists since Bakunin."

Bzzt! Sorry, wrong answer. Council communism, as the term is used today, dates to the thirties, in an anti-party and anti-October (or "dual revolution") split from the Dutch-German communist left...

I'm not so sure. The German Left called itself both 'Linkskommunismus' and 'Rätekommunismus' without any real distinction. That current embraced both what we'd think of now as 'Left Communists' (pro-party, pro-October) and 'Council Communists' (anti-party, anti-October) individuals. Sometimes, like Pannekoek, these were even the same people.

It was the Left Commnists in France (particularly the people who became the ICC) as far as I can tell that solidified the distinction between 'Council Communists' (or even 'Councilists') and 'Left Communists' that we understand now. The main Dutch-German group called itself the 'Group of Communist Internationalists', as far as I recall.


... " While critical of anarchism, the differences between the two theories are relatively minor and the impact of the Situationists on anarchism cannot be underestimated."

I think most anarchists would object to identification with a current that embraced Ben Bella. But the author of the "FAQ" probably doesn't know who Ben Bella is, since he seems to have gotten his information off Wikipedia or somewhere equally dreadful.

I think that there is a crossover. Certainly the Council Communists I know in the UK (sure, not many) tend to be quite favourably-inclined towards Anarchism and to an extent vice versa.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Please tell me 'anti-October' is not a term in use now, it sounds like something the Monster Raving Loony party would dream up.


... yes, "anti-October" is a term used by the communist left, and that you haven't even heard about it is indicative of the very strange way in which many on RL understand left communism.

Mea culpa.

Not just 'RL' = RevLeft, but also RL = real life. The Idler and I spend a certain amount of time not understanding each other both on RevLeft and real life, unfortunately. But I am surprised that The Idler has never heard me use the term 'anti-October' before.

It's a piece of ugly shorthand. The point is that are there are some groups and currents that regard the October Revolution as being other than a proletarian revolution. The (modern) Council Communists (or Councilists), following Otto Ruhle I suppose, are one such current. The SPGB of course is another.

The Communist Left, or maybe some of the Communist Left (which is characterised in this case by not being 'anti-October'), still regards these two currents as being genuine expressions of the workers' movement, even if there are profound disagreements.

[Comrade #138672]

Depends on the anarchist. Some anarchists are more Marxist than some Marxists (e.g., the Dutch anarchist Peter Storm). Other anarchists are very idealistic and may even find materialist analysis "dehumanizing". And of course there are many strands in between.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm not so sure. The German Left called itself both 'Linkskommunismus' and 'Rätekommunismus' without any real distinction. That current embraced both what we'd think of now as 'Left Communists' (pro-party, pro-October) and 'Council Communists' (anti-party, anti-October) individuals. Sometimes, like Pannekoek, these were even the same people.

It was the Left Commnists in France (particularly the people who became the ICC) as far as I can tell that solidified the distinction between 'Council Communists' (or even 'Councilists') and 'Left Communists' that we understand now. The main Dutch-German group called itself the 'Group of Communist Internationalists', as far as I recall.

But that was then. After the split, the term "council communist" acquired its present connotations, just as the use of the term "social-democrat" changed after the formation of the Communist International. And, while there were indeed anti-party and anti-October individuals in the KAPD etc., their organisational line was pro-party and pro-October - what we would call "left communist" now.

[Comrade Jacob]

A lot of Anarchists don't and the ones that do don't often do it well because a "Marxian" analysis naturally point to a state-transition to Communism. But they could still possibly use a Historical-Material analysis for everything else but I haven't met many anarchists that use dialectics.

(This is just my experience; any anarchist care to correct me?)

[Comrade Jacob]

If you're looking to understand the intellectual tradition of anarchism and how it relates to marx, you should check out rudolph rocker https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/rocker-rudolf/misc/anarchism-anarcho-syndicalism.htm

I have that book, found it in a charity shop. Haven't really read it but it was my first leftist book I got when I decided to collect. (still the only anarchist text I have tho, lol)

[Comrade_Zero]

Take a look at some writings concerning Anarcho-Communism, and especially the ideology of Neozapatismo. The 1994 uprising by the EZLN in Chiapas Mexico is a primary example of how anarchism and communism as well as other left wing ideologies can be mixed to create a effective social and political structure. Definitely take a look at some of the writings and thoughts of Subcomandante Marcos of the EZLN.

[Blake's Baby]

But that was then. After the split, the term "council communist" acquired its present connotations, just as the use of the term "social-democrat" changed after the formation of the Communist International. And, while there were indeed anti-party and anti-October individuals in the KAPD etc., their organisational line was pro-party and pro-October - what we would call "left communist" now.

Yes.

But the German Left still called itself 'Council Communist' before the '30s, and the GIK and Pannekoek and Mattick and Daad en Gedacht and so forth saw themselves as being in continuity with the 'Council Communists' of the 1920s, even if the rest of the Communist Left started drawing distinctions. Both tendencies claimed continuity with the revolutionary period basically, but took away different lessons.

[Vee]

Would that not be this whole "libertarian marxism" movement?

[Blake's Baby]

'Libertarian Marxism' is a pretty much myth peddled by Daniel Guerin and the like. It means 'Marxists that Anarchists can selectively quote to make Lenin look bad'.

If you want to make Lenin look bad, quote Lenin. No need to drag Rosa or Pannekoek into it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yes.

But the German Left still called itself 'Council Communist' before the '30s, and the GIK and Pannekoek and Mattick and Daad en Gedacht and so forth saw themselves as being in continuity with the 'Council Communists' of the 1920s, even if the rest of the Communist Left started drawing distinctions. Both tendencies claimed continuity with the revolutionary period basically, but took away different lessons.

Sure, but to continue the analogy, Lenin, Liebknecht and Luxembourg saw themselves as in continuity with what they considered the revolutionary tradition of the Second International before the betrayal by the Kautskys and Cunows. And in their own way they were, too much so in fact. But if someone, today, started an article by saying that social-democracy advocates the smashing of the bourgeois state, I would object to that.


'Libertarian Marxism' is a pretty much myth peddled by Daniel Guerin and the like. It means 'Marxists that Anarchists can selectively quote to make Lenin look bad'.

If you want to make Lenin look bad, quote Lenin. No need to drag Rosa or Pannekoek into it.

I think "Libertarian Marxism" pretty much was Guerin. The poor man had to deal with the French left and even the French Trotskyist left at some points, so it's no wonder he went loopy, but I don't think his particular kind of loopiness found that many followers.

[Vee]

So libertarian marxists are just marxists that were critical of lenin at times? i was under the impression that it was an actual idea.

[The Feral Underclass]

So libertarian marxists are just marxists that were critical of lenin at times? i was under the impression that it was an actual idea.

Libertarian Marxism is not so much a single body of work but a broad term used to describe anti-authoritarian Marxist tendencies. Left communism, autonomist Marxism, council communism, the communisation tendency (ultraleft) and the Situationists could all be described as libertarian Marxist to some extent.

[The Feral Underclass]

A Libertarian Marx? (https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/guerin/19xx/xx/libmarx.html)

This is an essay written by Daniel Guérin (who I'm fairly certain identified as an anarchist communist), which tries to claim Marx as a libertarian.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I really don't see how dissident Stalinists (Tronti, Negri etc.), supporters of Ben Bella (situationists) and Left Communists could be called "anti-authoritarian", even the "fusionist" variety of Left Communism represented by the ICC. This is what I'm trying to point out here; people are making up political similarities where there are none just for the sake of inventing a "libertarian" Marxism.

[The Feral Underclass]

I really don't see how dissident Stalinists (Tronti, Negri etc.), supporters of Ben Bella (situationists) and Left Communists could be called "anti-authoritarian", even the "fusionist" variety of Left Communism represented by the ICC. This is what I'm trying to point out here; people are making up political similarities where there are none just for the sake of inventing a "libertarian" Marxism.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by libertarian.

I think Situationist theory and practice, as well as autonomist Marxism and Left communism are more than these people, views and organisations. The body of theory that makes up these tendencies are decidedly libertarian despite these things you reference, if by libertarian you mean an anti-authoritarian current that either rejects or provides a critique of the role of the workers' state.

[Devrim]

And yes, "anti-October" is a term used by the communist left, and that you haven't even heard about it is indicative of the very strange way in which many on RL understand left communism.

I've never heard the term before.

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I've never heard the term before.

Devrim

I'm surprised. It's not that I don't believe you, but it was one of the first pieces of leftcom jargon I'd heard (obviously I'm not a leftcom myself but for one reason or another most people I talk to online are either leftcoms or recovering Shachtmanists). The second, I believe, after "pro-rev". It's one of the terms specific to that milieu (another term mostly used by leftcoms from my experience, particularly the ICC).


I suppose it depends on what you mean by libertarian.

I think Situationist theory and practice, as well as autonomist Marxism and Left communism are more than these people, views and organisations. The body of theory that makes up these tendencies are decidedly libertarian despite these things you reference, if by libertarian you mean an anti-authoritarian current that either rejects or provides a critique of the role of the workers' state.

But that's the point; none of these tendencies reject or criticise the notion that a workers' state is necessary in the transition. "Criticise" doesn't really mean anything; each of us "authoritarians" criticises the conceptions of other tendencies about what the workers' state will be. The tendencies you list aren't necessarily any more "libertarian" or even "democratic". Bordigists of course reject the notion that the workers' state will be democratic. The ICC I've found pretty waffling on this - Devrim might know better. On one hand, they talk about "proletarian democracy" in the Bolshevik party being endangered; on the other they also seem to have inherited much of the organicist language of Bordiga. The Autonomists stood for socialism in one country! I think it is massively lazy to lump all of these disparate tendencies together as "libertarian".

[The Feral Underclass]

But that's the point; none of these tendencies reject or criticise the notion that a workers' state is necessary in the transition. "Criticise" doesn't really mean anything; each of us "authoritarians" criticises the conceptions of other tendencies about what the workers' state will be. The tendencies you list aren't necessarily any more "libertarian" or even "democratic". Bordigists of course reject the notion that the workers' state will be democratic. The ICC I've found pretty waffling on this - Devrim might know better. On one hand, they talk about "proletarian democracy" in the Bolshevik party being endangered; on the other they also seem to have inherited much of the organicist language of Bordiga. The Autonomists stood for socialism in one country! I think it is massively lazy to lump all of these disparate tendencies together as "libertarian".

It's difficult to unpack what you're saying without understanding what your view is predicated on. I've never seen a text on autonomist Marxist or left communist ideas that orientates towards a definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat that Leninists defend or champion, or that upholds organisational methods like democratic centralism, for example.

If you take all the understandings and definitions of the dictatorship of the proletariat and ideas of organisational methods and you place all of these tendencies in a range from Anarchism to Stalinism, I think you would clearly be able to create Libertarian to Authoritarian scale. Of course autonomist Marxism and left communism are more libertarian than, say, Trotskyism or Maoism. These ideas emerged as critiques of these authoritarian reading of Marx.


The Autonomists stood for socialism in one country!

You'll have to provide some references for that because I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's difficult to unpack what you're saying without understanding what your view is predicated on. I've never seen a text on autonomist Marxist or left communist ideas that orientates towards a definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat that Leninists defend or champion, or that upholds organisational methods like democratic centralism, for example.

See e.g. Damen's "Centralised Party, Yes - Centralism over the Party, No!" (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2010-03-17/centralised-party-yes-centralism-over-the-party-no). Bordiga of course, contra Damen, argued for an explicitly anti-democratic organisation, "organic centralism".


If you take all the understandings and definitions of the dictatorship of the proletariat and ideas of organisational methods and you place all of these tendencies in a range from Anarchism to Stalinism, I think you would clearly be able to create Libertarian to Authoritarian scale. Of course autonomist Marxism and left communism are more libertarian than, say, Trotskyism or Maoism. These ideas emerged as critiques of these authoritarian reading of Marx.

Yes, well, that's the problem, the idea that political lines are going to make a convenient spectrum that you can order from "libertarian" to "authoritarian" (but then the far "authoritarian" end would be occupied by - left communists, whereas Stalinists as everyone knows are the most democratic people alive, they practically live on nothing but democracy, they breathe democracy, they probably shit and piss democracy too).



You'll have to provide some references for that because I have no idea what you're talking about.

See e.g. Panzieri, "Seven Theses..." (https://viewpointmag.com/2014/09/09/seven-theses-on-workers-control-1958/)

[Devrim]

I'm surprised. It's not that I don't believe you, but it was one of the first pieces of leftcom jargon I'd heard (obviously I'm not a leftcom myself but for one reason or another most people I talk to online are either leftcoms or recovering Shachtmanists). The second, I believe, after "pro-rev". It's one of the terms specific to that milieu (another term mostly used by leftcoms from my experience, particularly the ICC)

'Pro-revolutionary' is a term I have heard. It's never used by the ICC though.

Devrim

[Blake's Baby]

I think 'pro-revolutionary' is used by Internationalist Perspective (who split from the ICC in the 1980s). I don't think it's a particularly useful term. I don't know that there's anything wrong with using 'revolutionary'. But I think ASP meant that the ICC use 'milieu'.

I agree with ASP that there is no real sense in establishing a 'Libertarian - Authoritarian spectrum'. But I've asked on LibCom for definitions of 'libertarian communist', a few years ago when there seemed to be a campaign to chase the Left Communists (particularly the ICC) off the site, and the consensus seemed to be that what makes libertarian communism 'libertarian' was that the proletarian political organisation does not take state power during the revolution. As the ICC and ICT both have that position then they are, by LibCom's definition, 'libertarian'. In that sense (most) Left Comms are 'libertarian', we just reject the label as it's not very useful. We expect the working class to organise a revolution and expropriate the bourgeoisie and re-organise society, at gunpoint if necessary (and I'm pretty sure that we all think it's necessary). That isn't 'libertarian'.

I don't think either the ICT or ICC defends the conception of a 'workers' state' though.

[Sibotic]

Strictly speaking, you might say that anarchism could try to use a Marxian analysis 'without the parts which contradict anarchism,' but other than this separating out such a 'theory' into simple disconnected facts which can some be accepted and others not - in whatever form - it's also rarely how such views are presented or appear, perhaps unsurprisingly for anarchism. Generally speaking you might instead say that anarchism tends to make incursions when it has an 'in' when it comes to Marxism, and hence takes on things in Marx which happens to most overlap with anarchism while not necessarily stating an opinion on the rest. Hence, for instance, the early views of Marx and Engels, which concern history and the historical, and reject attempts, by idealists, to impose upon the people and active individuals schemas which differ from this reality or to be apart from this, have an anarchistic trend which can lead to them saturating into 'anarchism influenced by Marxism,' but obviously other areas might be neglected or not seem to come up as a pressing problem. (As it might have, in Spain.)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think 'pro-revolutionary' is used by Internationalist Perspective (who split from the ICC in the 1980s). I don't think it's a particularly useful term. I don't know that there's anything wrong with using 'revolutionary'. But I think ASP meant that the ICC use 'milieu'.

Yes, I meant to say "milieu" was a term mostly used by the ICC, in my experience. Along with terms like "parasite" and "penetration".


I agree with ASP that there is no real sense in establishing a 'Libertarian - Authoritarian spectrum'. But I've asked on LibCom for definitions of 'libertarian communist', a few years ago when there seemed to be a campaign to chase the Left Communists (particularly the ICC) off the site, and the consensus seemed to be that what makes libertarian communism 'libertarian' was that the proletarian political organisation does not take state power during the revolution. As the ICC and ICT both have that position then they are, by LibCom's definition, 'libertarian'. In that sense (most) Left Comms are 'libertarian', we just reject the label as it's not very useful. We expect the working class to organise a revolution and expropriate the bourgeoisie and re-organise society, at gunpoint if necessary (and I'm pretty sure that we all think it's necessary). That isn't 'libertarian'.

Alright, but this notion of "libertarianism" (1) doesn't really correspond to the historical split between "libertarians" (anarchists) and "authoritarians" (Marxists and Blanquists) on the question of the workers' state; and (2) has the strange consequence that, although the "libertarians" are supposed to be "left" in this scheme (as it's mostly pushed by self-proclaimed libertarians), the most right-wing forms of Leninism easily fit the definition. Such as those that call for a united front of Stalinists and social-democrats to take government.


I don't think either the ICT or ICC defends the conception of a 'workers' state' though.

I know the CWO does; they had a spat with the ICC because they called institutions like the VSNKh, the Red Army and so on the organs of a workers' state. The ICC sometimes uses the term "proletarian state" (same thing) but they veer into a semi-anarchist position sometimes from what I've seen.

[Devrim]

I think you are right about the ICT and the workers' state.

Devrim

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, I meant to say "milieu" was a term mostly used by the ICC, in my experience. Along with terms like "parasite" and "penetration"...

The ICC's language is strange. Its main group is in France and sometimes the terms it uses in English are just ported over without any real effort to think of better, clearer or less clumsy words.



...
Alright, but this notion of "libertarianism" (1) doesn't really correspond to the historical split between "libertarians" (anarchists) and "authoritarians" (Marxists and Blanquists) on the question of the workers' state; and (2) has the strange consequence that, although the "libertarians" are supposed to be "left" in this scheme (as it's mostly pushed by self-proclaimed libertarians), the most right-wing forms of Leninism easily fit the definition. Such as those that call for a united front of Stalinists and social-democrats to take government...

What was it you said about how we use 'social democracy' and 'council communism' now rather than 100 or 80 years ago? Self proclaimed 'libertarian communists' say that the distinction is between those who believe that the job of 'The Party (TM)' is to take state power and those who believe that the job of the 'Organisation of Revolutionaries (R)' is to be a kind of pressure group in the councils. The ICT ('Damenist') and the ICC ('Synthetic Left Comm') have the latter conception - though of course the Bordigists have the former. Whatever the origins of the split in the First International that is what the current upholders of a 'libertarian/authoritarian' dichotomy believe about it now.



...
I know the CWO does; they had a spat with the ICC because they called institutions like the VSNKh, the Red Army and so on the organs of a workers' state. The ICC sometimes uses the term "proletarian state" (same thing) but they veer into a semi-anarchist position sometimes from what I've seen.

I'd say you're misunderstanding both the ICC's and ICT's positions (but I'm not sure who called the Red Army 'an organ of the workers' state', or when). I've gone into some depth with the ICC what their conception is, and a bit with the ICT (or at least CWO). There are certainly disagreements about the 'state in the period of transition' and how the revolutionary dictatorship conducts itself and is constituted; the ICC warns that the proletariat must guard against the 'semi-state' assuming a conservative function, and the CWO doesn't seem to see any distinction between the councils and the (proletarian semi-)state. Fairly sure that they wouldn't use the term 'workers' state' now though, or if they did there'd be a lot of arguments about it.

EDIT: Well, while I was posting this and asking Devrim to comment, he commented, and completely contradicted me. I'm surprised.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The ICC's language is strange. Its main group is in France and sometimes the terms it uses in English are just ported over without any real effort to think of better, clearer or less clumsy words.

I don't think "milieu" is that strange. What is strange, I think, is how the ICC uses it. Generally, ICC texts often sound off to me, there is a subtle tone of paranoia and the organic metaphors are excessive. Perhaps it sounds different in French.


What was it you said about how we use 'social democracy' and 'council communism' now rather than 100 or 80 years ago? Self proclaimed 'libertarian communists' say that the distinction is between those who believe that the job of 'The Party (TM)' is to take state power and those who believe that the job of the 'Organisation of Revolutionaries (R)' is to be a kind of pressure group in the councils. The ICT ('Damenist') and the ICC ('Synthetic Left Comm') have the latter conception - though of course the Bordigists have the former. Whatever the origins of the split in the First International that is what the current upholders of a 'libertarian/authoritarian' dichotomy believe about it now.

And this would be a fair point. But I don't think someone on an Internet site trying to justify their policy is quite the same as an official political organisation adopting a certain term. All of the political organisations, journals etc. I can think of that use the term "libertarian communism" are anarcho-communist, with the exception of the very brief split from the SPGB.

And the libcom policy is, I think, pretty inconsistent. But then a degree of inconsistency is to be expected in sites such as libcom, or RevLeft. RevLeft is even worse - the de-facto definition of "revolutionary socialism" used here has nothing to do with what the term actually means. Many currents that are allowed fail at being revolutionary; even more fail at being socialist. Meanwhile, actual revolutionary socialist currents are excluded. But I don't think that this means you can make an argument that there exists a "revolutionary socialism" that includes the SPGB but excludes Third-Worldists or Altamirano socialists.

As for the CWO position, I can't find the statement I had in mind right now and it's driving me crazy. I don't think it was recent - the statement might have been made in the seventies or eighties, but my understanding was that the CWO never repudiated it.