Left Communist Opinions, Criticisms, etc of Anarchism

A reason why I like left communists is basically that they're not like the Leninists (and offshoots) and the reformists yet aren't anarchist either, which intrigues me (not in a negative way) and thus why I would like to learn more.

SO, I would like to hear the left communists' opinions and criticisms of anarchism and the current anarchist movement. I also would like the criticisms to be accompanied with a solution/etc to that problem. In a way, it could be somewhat (somewhat because well this isn't the anarchist forum...) what the "Anarchism without the crap" thread (in the Anarchist group section) should've been.

It is difficult to argue against 'anarchism' as a whole if only because it is so diverse. We accept that there can be a revolutionary anarchism, and that it is a real trend within the workers movement. Of course we have disagreements with it, or we would be anarchists.

More importantly though I think that many anarchists are just plain 'leftists' dressed up in an 'anti-authoritarian' skin. For us the first principle is internationalism. Large sectors of the anarchist movement are, in our opinion, either opposed to internationalism, or at best ambivalent on the question.

In our opinion support, however critical or conditional, for national liberation movements is anti-working class. Equally so would be taking sides in imperialist wars, as many anarchists did in WWII.

Devrim

To be honest, I think a lot of anarchists took a side in WWII because of the huge deal they make about authority. Fascists were more "authoritarian" than the western liberal democracies, ergo, they are much worse.

If by authoritarian you mean tried to ethnically cleanse large portions of the population that were non-combatants, than they do sound a touch worse.

If by authoritarian you mean tried to ethnically cleanse large portions of the population that were non-combatants, than they do sound a touch worse.

anarchists took that side before they knew germans were cleansing jewish people.

You see, this is what sometimes makes me a little bit reluctant about left communist sweeping statements. But at the same time, millions and milliones died on the battlefronts to protect their bourgeosie. THe jewish werent the only ones that died.

From the new IR talking about a communist conference in the 1940s:
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/20...947_conference

The attitude towards anarchism

An important discussion, both before and during the conference itself, was the attitude to adopt towards anarchism. For the GCF it was clear that "like the Trotskyists or any other movement which has participated (or participates) in imperialist war under the pretext of defending a country (Russia) or defending one form of bourgeois rule against another (defence of the Republic and democracy against fascism), the anarchist movement had no place in a conference of revolutionary groups". The exclusion of anarchist groups was thus determined not by the fact that they were anarchist, but by their attitude towards imperialist war. The distinction is an important one and is illustrated by the fact that the conference was in fact presided by an anarchist (as we can read in a "correction" to the report published in Internationalisme n°24).
The heterogeneity of the anarchist current is such that today the question can no longer be posed in such simple terms. Under the same denomination of "anarchist" we can find groups which differ from the Trotskyists on the sole question of the "party" while at the same time supporting the whole range of Trotskyist demands (right down to the demand for a Palestinian state!), and truly internationalist groups with which communists can perfectly well not only discuss but undertake a common activity on the basis of internationalism.[11] In our opinion, there can be no question today of rejecting discussion with groups or individuals simply because they describe themselves as "anarchists".

Devrim

If by authoritarian you mean tried to ethnically cleanse large portions of the population that were non-combatants, than they do sound a touch worse.

So did the allies though.

anarchists took that side before they knew germans were cleansing jewish people.

You see, this is what sometimes makes me a little bit reluctant about left communist sweeping statements. But at the same time, millions and milliones died on the battlefronts to protect their bourgeosie. THe jewish werent the only ones that died.

That's true. But if left communism is to concede that class consciousness does not develop evenly and a vanguard is a political necessity, doesn't it also make sense to say that class consciousness develops differently depending on the socio-political realities of oppressed workers?

I think it does. It is one of my personal irritations with leftists that support national liberation movements despite a movement being dominated by "Islamofascist" groups, or other reactionary political movements. While the left communist criticism that any such liberation attempt will be incapable of circumventing capitalist imperialism are perhaps valid, I certainly think that it is also important to point out that these sorts of political movements will be an obstruction to class struggle in that they are a step backward from bourgeois liberalism.

Marx certainly wasn't shy to praise American and British democracies as being potential tools for the working class. He supported Lincoln and the abolitionist movement because "as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes." Do you think that the destruction of free speech, rights to assembly, bourgeois democracy, etc. are irrelevant to the working class if they are to be replaced by fascism?

That's true. But if left communism is to concede that class consciousness does not develop evenly and a vanguard is a political necessity, doesn't it also make sense to say that class consciousness develops differently depending on the socio-political realities of oppressed workers?

I think it does. It is one of my personal irritations with leftists that support national liberation movements despite a movement being dominated by "Islamofascist" groups, or other reactionary political movements. While the left communist criticism that any such liberation attempt will be incapable of circumventing capitalist imperialism are perhaps valid, I certainly think that it is also important to point out that these sorts of political movements will be an obstruction to class struggle in that they are a step backward from bourgeois liberalism.

Marx certainly wasn't shy to praise American and British democracies as being potential tools for the working class. He supported Lincoln and the abolitionist movement because "as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes." Do you think that the destruction of free speech, rights to assembly, bourgeois democracy, etc. are irrelevant to the working class if they are to be replaced by fascism?

Yeah, Marx also cheered the American Invasion of Mexico. He said that we mexicans were "lazy". Marx also lived when imperialism wasn't a world system and the bourgeosie had progressive characteristics.

"freedom of speech", and "bourgeois democracy" are not worth the millions of piled corpses. I do think there is a qualitative diffrence, and i certainly prefer bourgeois democracy than bourgeois fascist dictatorship. However, i think all of us would be thinking differently if we where thrown by conscrpiton to the battlefront to be swept by german blitzkerieg.

However, i think all of us would be thinking differently if we where thrown by conscrpiton to the battlefront to be swept by german blitzkerieg.

Well to be honest, I would say that about any political movement, be it fascist or communist. I ain't into dying.

Well to be honest, I would say that about any political movement, be it fascist or communist. I ain't into dying.

Me neither, but I doubt you wouldn't be seduced by the romanticism of Spain 36 or Russia 17, when normal people armed themselves to protect the places they have siezed. I would imagine that wouldn't be the same feeling of some asshole throwing you into a conscription army and treating you like shit.

For us the first principle is internationalism. Large sectors of the anarchist movement are, in our opinion, either opposed to internationalism, or at best ambivalent on the question.

I would think Anarchists, myself ultimately identifying as one, would see an Anarchist world as an ultimate goal, but I do agree that the Anarchist movement as a whole may not be particularly dismissive of an Anarchist society being confined to one area or several separate areas. Basically I think the idea is that where ever Anarchism prevails it can prosper and defend itself, and there wouldn't really be special emphasis on international Anarchy, but it wouldn't be opposed either.