What's the difference between leftcoms and anarchists (CNT like ones, not Bob Blacks obviously)...

What's the difference between leftcoms and anarchists (CNT like ones, not Bob Blacks obviously)? Is it just their concept of State and authority?

I know Luxembourg basically said that anarchists were a bunch of lumpen kiddies but anyways I don't see any serious difference between them. Except that leftcoms are marxist and tend to do marxist analysis on history and economy while anarchists see everything through their "freedom glasses" or libertarian ideology. But just that, different ways of seeing history while in praxis it is still the same.

Proof of this is that in Spain left-coms and anarchists (also trosks kek) joint together against tankies and fashies.


I forgot that stalin supported Franco in the Spanish civil war

No but the May Days were like a Civil War inside the Civil War, between CNT-FAI, POUM and trosks against Stalin-supported PCE and PSUC. All of them were against Franco anyways.

seems like people with similar interests fighting against one another instead of fighting a common enemy is usually detrimental to the cause

tell that to tankies who screwed everything and started all the inclass fighting by trying to remove workers from the communications building.. although there was more worker support in CNT and POUM than in PCE, so it's not very "inclass"

haven't read anarchist theory/10

What's that? Graeber in Anarchist Anthropology basically says that it doesn't exists. He even sets a dichotomy between Marxism as theorical and Anarchism as practical.

To the tankies?? The anarchists were the ones trying to do their "revolution" against the republic before even beating the fash, and losing in every fight without the help of the so called "tankies".
Even Durruti said the war had to be won first (and some sorces suggest he was killed by fellow anarchists for stating this).
Oh and the chief of the PCE/PSUC José Díaz Ramos, although he was very critical of the anarchists, he protected them when some soviet hardliners suggested dissolving their militias, even when it was clear they were useless on the war.

There it is

You realize that the republic intentionally gave the anarchist militias near useless weapons right?

What kind of leftcom?

Also Rosa wasn't a leftcom.

Are you fucking retarded? Do you need mental help?

He might as well have. The prerogative of the PCE and PSUC and other Stalinist factions were to eliminate anarchism and left-communism and Trotskyism, even if it was at the expense of ultimate victory.

Just read Proudhon, would you? It's such a shame that Kropotkin didn't finish his work on anarchist morality - it would have finally completed the basis of anarchist theory off which further analyses could be made. Graeber's tacit contributions to anarchist theory by elaborating on the concepts of mutual aid expounded in "Mutual Aid: A Factor Of Evolution" as they relate to human social organization are themselves are excellent, but his own praxis is entirely disconnected from it and even lifestylist at times (OWS's failure came from the inability of the anarchist core, of which Graeber was effectively a leader, to learn from past theory and analyses and discard consensus democracy as the steaming turd that it is).

Which type of leftcom? Anarchists are very similar to communization currents and council communism in praxis (almost identical to the former, in fact), but couldn't be further from Bordiga's ideas. Theory does matter, though - to make a comparison to military matters, praxis is akin to tactics and theory to strategy, with the relation between the two and result corresponding to the operational level of war. During times of insurrection, leftcoms are much more intransigent about certains matters of strategy than most anarchists (although plaformism is similar in this regard; it is more similar to anarcho-syndicalism outside of these instances, however).
The biggest differences of all are during the normal functioning of capitalism and the resultant planning for insurrection. Whereas anarchists actively try to create structures which coordinate proletarian self-activity come revolution while also providing glimpses into possible future problem solutions (prefigurative politics), leftcoms would rather lie in wait in affinity groups and prepare to prevent the degeneration of insurrection, relying on the capacity of workers to spontaneously self-organize. Kropotkin's ideas were actually closer to the leftcom ones posited here (and Dauve and Kropotkin read almost the same in what they concretely call for), but I'm speaking for the anarcho-syndicalists mainly.
Also, Luxemburg was not a leftcom. She was a Second International Marxist (like Lenin) who advocated workers' councils as revolutionary praxis, whereas Pannekoek was a council communist. Big difference right there, bigger than the words themselves might suggest at first. Read Pannekoek's "Lenin As A Philosopher" if you want to understand the criticism of Lenin's theory (and many Second International ideas by extension) from a council communist perspective.

He was trying to be sarcastic but failed miserably because he's historically and theoretically illiterate. You just surpassed him by taking him seriously, though.
Tankies, everyone.

I don't think there are too many orthodox Bordigists or Council Communists around these days, most Leftcoms are into Communization Theory and take different bits and pieces from Bordiga, Pannekoek, and the Situationist International. Communization, of course, is pretty contentious in and of itself, and not even strictly Leftcom, as there are also more traditionally Anarchist currents, like Invisible Committee and Joshua Clover. But yes, generally speaking Leftcoms and Ancoms have far more in common then in contention. My personal opinion is that some kind of combination of Leftcom and Ancom ideas is probably the future of the Left.

Christ, I wish everyone on this board was this well informed. Lenin, Luxembourg, and Kautsky before he went renegade not really all that much difference between them once you get past all the hyperbolic polemics and name calling. Now Pannekoek on the other hand, definitely anti-Bolshevik, that man did not care for Lenin. Also, this is just generally a good post user.

I am an Anarchist that uses Marxian critique of Capital from time to time and also uses Marxist Critical Theory, one is theory the other praxis, I think that is a pretty good approach.

Leftcoms sit in armchairs, Anarchists break windows or fill potholes. And Luxembourg wasn't a leftcom.

This is simply untrue, the USSR was the only country to give some support to the republic (altough not enough in my opinion), when the 'democratic' countries accepted the Franco fascist regime, and traded with him during the war.

I would say in that leftcoms are more Marx based than anarchists and the end goal see as a communist society, rather that just the society with no rulers.
Essentially both of these terms are umbrella terms these days so you would need to compare the particular examples to see the differences and simillarities.

It seems to me you may have a bit of an anarchist bias fam.

Well leftcoms do basically do nothing.

this is the post

The only reason why there was a war and not a successful fascist coup was because the Anarchists had been preparing and setting up their own militias months in advance. The coup was stopped in its tracks by militias organized by Anarchist trade unions.

Anarchists actually do things other than complaining.

Yes they helped to stop it of course, but this does not mean that during the war they werent harming the war effort.
And also saying they were the main force stopping the coup is incorrect, for example: In Bacelona was mainely stopped because the Guardia Civil remained mostly loyal to the Republic.
In Madrid it was stopped because some key members of the army here (like Rojo) also stayed loyal, and also because the PCE had the contol of worker districts (like Carabanchel or the University ditrict from where the fascist tried to enter the city and were the coupers were stopped by the PCE militias).
So of course anarchist helped, but saying they were the most important part in stopping the coup is wrong.

Taking the power to never accomplish anything from the leftcoms, and shit tier theory from the narchos.

First off, your response to OP isn't very accurate at all.
Well, there's a reason why anarchism is much more popular than left communism (besides that it doesn't have the word "communism" in it, which is a political and potentially literal death sentence here in Burgerstan): it promises immediate action with the hope of changing material conditions, whereas left communism is much more pensive and analytical. What I gave was the most general overview possible. The left communist critique of opportunism certainly has its merits, but as usual with leftcoms, it's complicated. On a whole, left communism really is a far more impressive and complete theoretical compendium than anarchism if we're talking about Marxian communization (which incorporates aspects of its previous main trends, namely Bordiga's ideas, council communism, and Situationism), but it's much harder to get into because there's so much more thinking (not to disparage anarchism) behind why they take up the exact positions that they do.

What's it like to have a brain that only functions on memes?

leftcoms nap, anarchist smash

Whereas tankies prefer winning the war and then not doing revolution at all

Literally kill yourself, Graeber is cancer. His idea of anarchism is so anti-orthodox that he might as well not be an anarchist at all. In his view, anything which shares any characteristics with anarchism has secret anarchist influences. Wishful thinking from the mind of a fool.

True. Anarchism has a terrible lack of theory. As a result of this, you pretty much get groups where the older guys have more theoretical knowledge (because they spend more time thinking about it and reach the right conclusions) comparatively to newer guys, because this knowledge is not registered correctly in books. This also means that most anarchist ideology today suffers from external influences, such as post-modernism and liberalism. Whenever I express the notion that anarchism ought to have more theory, the others either shrug their shoulders or I am met with ridiculous replies such as "comrade, our theory is made from pratice, and does not require books or theoreticians". These latter guys unironicaly believe that anarchism was literally born from the working class itself spontaneously through the conclusions that they had about being engaged in the class struggle.

Pretty much the only shade of the left that doesn't seem completely sp00ked is Holla Forums.

You are cancer, Debt is probably the most important book to come out in the last decade

It was… read Graeber lol

That says more about our decade's lack of quality in theory than anything else.

Yeah dude, totally. The same guys who worked 12h per day, with one day off, who were almost completely uneducated, were the dudes who invented all the anarchist theory. Bakunin and Kropotkin (both aristocrats) did not exist. It was all the work of the proles, who were totally already anarchists before the anarchists started infiltrating the unions and turning them towards anarchism.

handsome man tbh

Seems like you should have a lenin hat

Retard alert.

hes not being critical so much as he is grasping as a passing knowledge of the subject at hand with absolute certainty.