Anarcho-communism/syndicalism vs Authoritarian communism

[Lanky Wanker]

I know it would be unreasonable to ask for a huge essay post on your views against one of the two (although you're more than welcome to do so), so could anyone recommend anything for me to read which directly criticises one from the other side of the story? I know people say don't rush towards any labels, but I find it helpful to hear arguments against rather than just arguments for.

[Lucretia]

By definition communism cannot be authoritarian. It is a classless society in which the state as such has ceased to exist, and its functions are in the process of withering away.

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't mean to piss on your question, but what you're asking for here is a tendency war. Basically the two 'sides' (anarchists/left-communists and stalinists) differ on fundamental questions about authority, hierarchy, and the uprooting of capitalism and transition to communism.

- August

[Lanky Wanker]

By definition communism cannot be authoritarian. It is a classless society in which the state as such has ceased to exist, and its functions are in the process of withering away.

I do know this, I mean authoritarian means of reaching communism.

I don't mean to piss on your question, but what you're asking for here is a tendency war. Basically the two 'sides' (anarchists/left-communists and stalinists) differ on fundamental questions about authority, hierarchy, and the uprooting of capitalism and transition to communism.

- August

Well that's why I'd prefer links or recommendations as opposed to people giving responses in the thread. I know how they differ, but I just want to understand why people carry these different views.

[Искра]

I don't mean to piss on your question, but what you're asking for here is a tendency war. Basically the two 'sides' (anarchists/left-communists and stalinists) differ on fundamental questions about authority, hierarchy, and the uprooting of capitalism and transition to communism.

This is wrong.

We Left Communists reject anarchist point of view where there's "autoritarian" and "libertarian" approach to communism/socialism. Why? Because if there's an "authoritarian" communism than Soviet Union was a communist society. Since, we consider Stalinists as bourgeoisie and reactionaries and Soviet Union as capitalist society we reject any defintion which puts "Soviet Union/Stalinism" in same basket with communism. Also, we Left Communists can hardly be "libertarian" since we support CI.

Our difference with Stalinists, Trotskites, socialdemocrats etc. is an answer on this question: "how can we overthrow capitalism, how can we act thowards this end in a such way that, troughtout the whole process, the proletariat keeps things unter its control?" (KAPD at 3rd Congress of CI, 19219

[Decolonize The Left]

This is wrong.

We Left Communists reject anarchist point of view where there's "autoritarian" and "libertarian" approach to communism/socialism. Why? Because if there's an "authoritarian" communism than Soviet Union was a communist society. Since, we consider Stalinists as bourgeoisie and reactionaries and Soviet Union as capitalist society we reject any defintion which puts "Soviet Union/Stalinism" in same basket with communism. Also, we Left Communists can hardly be "libertarian" since we support CI.

Our difference with Stalinists, Trotskites, socialdemocrats etc. is an answer on this question: "how can we overthrow capitalism, how can we act thowards this end in a such way that, troughtout the whole process, the proletariat keeps things unter its control?" (KAPD at 3rd Congress of CI, 19219

Relax. You are basically affirming what I said. I said that we all have different opinions on fundamental questions like: authority, hierarchy, bouregoisie, etc...

Also, I have no clue what you're talking about when you say:

We Left Communists reject anarchist point of view where there's "autoritarian" and "libertarian" approach to communism/socialism.

Anarchists are arguably the most anti-authoritarian leftists out there, why would they have a "point of view" where there's an "authoritarian approach to communism"?

You aren't making sense.

- August

[Robespierre Richard]

I know it would be unreasonable to ask for a huge essay post on your views against one of the two (although you're more than welcome to do so), so could anyone recommend anything for me to read which directly criticises one from the other side of the story? I know people say don't rush towards any labels, but I find it helpful to hear arguments against rather than just arguments for.

You mean like this?

[Искра]

Relax. You are basically affirming what I said. I said that we all have different opinions on fundamental questions like: authority, hierarchy, bouregoisie, etc...

Hm... why relax? Let’s keep this discussion on political level.

Anyhow, I disagree with you. It's not authority or hierarchy what makes left communists differ from Stalinists. That can be case with anarchists. Left Communists criticize Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin etc. from different point of view. We criticize from point of revision of basic Marxist principles. For example, when make critique of Soviet Union we start from concept of “socialism in one state” not from concepts of vanguard party, or proletariat dictatorship, transitional period etc. which we, unlike anarchists – support. Also, our critique of Soviet Union is based on Marx’s Capital.

Anarchists are arguably the most anti-authoritarian leftists out there, why would they have a "point of view" where there's an "authoritarian approach to communism"?

As, I said division on “libertarian” and “authoritarian” communism is anarchist bollocks, which left-communists don’t accept. We don’t use it. Why? Maybe this my quote from other discussion will help:

Hm, “libertarian Marxist” is a term invented by anarchists who discovered that Marx was not as bad as Bakunin thought. But I think that we should ask ourselves what makes a tendency tendency? My criterion is set of political views which make them different from other similar political tendencies. For example there’s obvious difference between anarchism and Marxism. Under “libertarian Marxism” anarchists put bunch of different Marxist tendencies which they rate under “libertarian” criteria, which is somehow against “authoritarian”. Now, funny thing is that Mr. Bakunin thought that Marx was an “authoritarian”. So, my first question is how “libertarian” tendency could be formed upon such “authoritarian” basis? Were they influenced by mighty anarchist theory? Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Bordiga etc. were all fierce critics of anarchism, so I guess that they didn’t consider anarchism as something important or inspirational. My second question is if term “libertarian” means absence of parliamentary struggle and usage of state in proletarian dictatorship, why do you put people who advocated such policies under “libertarian” umbrella? My point here is that “libertarian vs. authoritarian” concept is bunch of bollocks and that socialist tendencies should be valued if they follow main principles of Marxism or not. Using this criterion you wouldn’t come into situation that you label Stalinism as “authoritarian socialism”, but you would label it revisionism, because of its revisionist ultra-liberal idea of “socialism in one state”.

So when you say that there’s something called “authoritarian socialism” you are admitting that Stalinists and crew are socialists, while they are nothing but a bunch of revisionists and nationalist bourgeoisie.

[Decolonize The Left]

In short, I agree with you. I don't think that Stalinists (and to a similar degree Leninists) are communists. But the OP's question necessarily involved the assumption that M-Ls were communists as they are the closest thing to authoritarian communism that I can think of.

- August

[Lanky Wanker]

I think maybe I should rephrase my question:

Anarchist communism vs socialist transition communism. Articles? Books? Existing threads on the topic?

...better?

[Lanky Wanker]

You mean like this?

A more direct "fuck your ideology" would be better, but this is also good.

[Blake's Baby]

I think maybe I should rephrase my question:

Anarchist communism vs socialist transition communism. Articles? Books? Existing threads on the topic?

...better?

No. For some of us there is no 'socialist transition to communism'. Communism and socialism are the same thing.

Do you mean Anarchism v Stalinism (ie 'socialism in one country', 'actually existing socialism', Bukharin's theory that the state becomes super-inflated before it withers away)?

Or do you mean Anarchism v Marxism (ie dictatorship of the proletariat)?

Marx and Englels said that the 'if you want to know what the dictatorship of the proletariat looks like, it's the Paris Commune'. The Paris Commune that was started by anarchists and supported by anarchists...so presumably (?) you don't see a problem with the dictatorship of the proletariat?

In short, I agree with you. I don't think that Stalinists (and to a similar degree Leninists) are communists. But the OP's question necessarily involved the assumption that M-Ls were communists as they are the closest thing to authoritarian communism that I can think of.

- August

What about those Left Communists who see themselves as Leninists? Pretty sure Bordigists regard themselves as Leninists, Bordiga I believe declared himself to be 'more Leninist than Lenin' or some such.

The distinction (as I've tried to get at above quoting GK95) may well be between anarchism and Marxism.

Or it may be between immediate communisation and the transitional society.

It's difficult to tell.

[Zav]

Read Emma Goldman's My Disillusionment in Russia for a critique of Bolshevism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

revolution is inherently "authoritarian" conceptually as a result of post-WWII capitalism creating "authoritarianism" as a concept to validate its aggression against the soviet union.

[Omsk]

Since i see anarchists suggesting you some literature for you to read,here is something from the other side.So here is what Vladimir Lenin and Trotsky have to say about anarchism.

(I am quite the anti-trotskyist type,but since you want to read and learn,i am going to list some his works too)

Leon Trotsky
My First Exile, My Life
Why Marxists oppose Individual Terrorism, 1909
The July Days, History of the Russian Revolution
The Makhno Movement, 1919
Makhno’s Coming Over to the Side of the Soviets, 1920
How Is Makhno’s Troop Organised?, 1920

Lenin
Anarchism and Socialism, 1901
Guerilla Warfare, 1906
Socialism and War, 1914
State & Revolution. Controversy with the Anarchists, 1917

And about left communism,read : Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder , Vladimir Lenin.

You could also read about the civil war in Spain,in which the anarchists performed "brilliantly".

[Искра]

Since i see anarchists suggesting you some literature for you to read,here is something from the other side.So here is what Vladimir Lenin and Trotsky have to say about anarchism.

Although I'm quite anti-anarchist and I consider a book Zav proposed an utter bullshit, I have to comment these works you proposed.

Why Marxists oppose Individual Terrorism, 1909

This is actually against nihilists and narodniki, which are not anarchists.

The Makhno Movement, 1919
Makhno’s Coming Over to the Side of the Soviets, 1920
How Is Makhno’s Troop Organised?, 1920

Reading Trotsky on Makhno is like reading Regan on USSR. Only worst thing you can do is to read Trotsky on Kronstadt.

Anarchism and Socialism, 1901

This is just a few notes without anything to back them up.

State & Revolution. Controversy with the Anarchists, 1917

This is actually, only thing which is ok from this list, but the problem is that it doesn’t criticize anarchist movement from 1917, but it goes about Bakunin, Proudhon etc.

And about left communism,read : Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder , Vladimir Lenin.

Yes, but not without response by Herman Gorter: http://www.marxists.org/archive/gort...tter/index.htm

You could also read about the civil war in Spain,in which the anarchists performed "brilliantly".

Better not to come into this subject because it’s more complex then Marxism vs. anarchism. Actually, whole struggle can be put as Marxism vs. bourgeoisie (Stalinists, anarchists, liberals etc.) but then we have really big problem and that is that Marxists were invisible.

[Tim Finnegan]

Better not to come into this subject because it’s more complex then Marxism vs. anarchism. Actually, whole struggle can be put as Marxism vs. bourgeoisie (Stalinists, anarchists, liberals etc.) but then we have really big problem and that is that Marxists were invisible.

Or we could avoid resorting to idealism of either variety.

[Omsk]

Although I'm quite anti-anarchist and I consider a book Zav proposed an utter bullshit, I have to comment these works you proposed.

Of course,the OP cant form his opinion based on just a couple of texts,recomend him Left-Communist sources.

This is actually against nihilists and narodniki, which are not anarchists

But it has a focus on terrorism,so you could say it is linked with the anarchist movements in Russia who used terrorism.(Bombings etc)

Reading Trotsky on Makhno is like reading Regan on USSR. Only worst thing you can do is to read Trotsky on Kronstadt.

Trotsky on anarchists is as same as Left-Comms on the USSR.And i think he should read and inform himself from various sources.If he doesent like what Trotsky has to say about anarchism,he can always stop reading.

This is just a few notes without anything to back them up.

Let him be the judge.

This is actually, only thing which is ok from this list, but the problem is that it doesn’t criticize anarchist movement from 1917, but it goes about Bakunin, Proudhon etc.

He should go from the start,not jump into 1917 when things were complicated as they were.He cant skip Bakunin and jump to the revolution.

Better not to come into this subject because it’s more complex then Marxism vs. anarchism. Actually, whole struggle can be put as Marxism vs. bourgeoisie (Stalinists, anarchists, liberals etc.) but then we have really big problem and that is that Marxists were invisible.

Well,maybe on the forum,because a tendency war might start,but he should definitely read about the civil war,it was an important conflict in history of the 20th century.Your comment was also an over-simplification,not everyone who gave their life in the fight against Franco was a Stalinist,Trotskyist or anarchist.There were many ordinary non political men who left ideology behind and decided that they will fight against the fascists ideas.

[Tim Finnegan]

Trotsky on anarchists is as same as Left-Comms on the USSR.

When were left-coms organised in military opposition to the USSR?

[Omsk]

When were left-coms organised in military opposition to the USSR?

No,no,i didnt mean it like that,i wanted to say that reading Trotskys works on anarchism can be considered as same as reading Left-comms on Stalin and the USSR.