What's the difference between libertarian Marxism and anarcho-communism?

Libertarian Marxists don't reject the state entirely, they just want to see it placed firmly under the control and oversight of the people.

You also gotta care about beard consistency. By that measurement marx wins.

I think its funny how non tankie marxists try to say that the USSR was a horrible example of Marxism when Bakunin predicted it years before Lenin

Yeah, what a hot take. Where would we be without le bearded illiterate hobo man's sharp critiques?

Your brain on MLism/Maoism/[insert special snowflake variety of Leninism], everyone. Entirely ignorant of leftist theory and smug about it.

I can't think of a council communist who was enough of a philistine to use that term.

Everyone that went on to first pioneer council communism (Pannekoek, Gorter, etc.) from the KAPD rejected the adjective "libertarian" and they even went on to associate themselves with "authoriarian" communists. They simply disagreed on policy. I mean Rosa Luxemburg, one of the direct prior influences on developed council communist theory, outright called herself a Bolshevik. "Libertarian Marxism" is a meme.

So what if she called herself a Bolshevik? It doesn't change the fact that she was outspoken about her position against Lenins authoritarianism and it doesn't change the fact that libertarian Marxism is a useful term for differentiating between lines of Marxist thought.

Different stances on wage labour

It's mostly semantics to be honest. Marx and Kropotkin's ideas were almost identical, it's just tankies and anarcho-liberals who make a fuss about it.

Try hiding your disdain for the lower classes next time.

It's only usefull for burgers that can't understand what communism is.

marxists being pretentious elitists well shoot me down

Libertarian is just the classic word for anarchist

Libertarian Marxism is the umbrella term for things like ancommunism

TIL that Luxemburg is against revolution

You're kidding

We are both advocating for a classless, stateless, moneyless society that doesn't operate on the law of value, right?

Anarcho-communism and Marxism have an identical endpoint, but they're different ideological traditions with contradictory attitudes toward the state and its potential role in a revolutionary movement.

Tbh I'd argue that Marx had both libertarian (ie more democracy and democratizing the workplace) and authoritarian ideas (central planning and nationalization) in his works and if you do read one he rejected big chunks of the Communist Manifesto later in life which a lot of the USSR's policies were taken from take that Peter Jordanson/whoever wrote the Gulag Archipelago and in fact he actually very much liked the Paris Commune and thought that it was a good direction to go towards and btw this isn't even considering the significant amount of censorship that the Soviet Union did of Marx's works when they heavily contradicted what the Communist party's doctrine.

It's the idealism fam

No, Marxism as in "ideological tradition" is social democracy and its descendants, real Marxism is a science.

And the anarchist's ideas about the state are irrelevant, they create them out of necessity whether that's what they call it or not.

Have you tried reading Kropotkin or Bakunin or Proudhon, any one of those? Different definition of state. Workers' councils were originally anarcho-communist praxis. I like Pannekoek, but his tirades against anarchists were all straw men. Lenin was even worse - he actively advocates an essentially anarchist plan of action in "State and Revolution", while simultaneously disparaging them as something they're not. In fact, there has only been one Marxist who has come close to admitting the lack of distance between Marxism and anarchism, and that's Dauve. I'm still not sure whether I agree with his critiques of anarchism both in "When Insurrections Die" and "Eclipse And Reemergence Of The Communist Movement", but at least he's somewhat honest about what it is.
So much for "leftcoms are well read". You illiterate, unquestioning moron.

Was Bakunin NazBol?

Can you read? I address that in the post. I don't care what your idealistic definition of state is.
No, they were spontaneously created by the Russian working class, and before that the Commune.
Enlighten me.

But not Theorie Communiste, Endnotes, etc.?

"You illiterate, unquestioning moron."

Violent revolution =/= authoritarian, you moron.
Libertarian socialism means that you don't create a centralized state structure where all power is concentrated in a single institution. Gulags are fine if they're deemed absolutely necessary and are controlled by the workers' councils (on the condition that they are themselves self-managed). You're a libertarian Marxist in denial.

Have you tried reading either? They're incredibly different - extremely incompatible, in fact, even if some varieties of Marxism come to the same conclusions as ancoms in terms of praxis.
Absolutely retarded.

Sure, why not. Endnotes publishes Dauve's writings (it's where I read "When Insurrections Die"), and they're practically synonymous regardless. I haven't read Theorie Communiste's writings yet, so I'm not qualified to comment.
Yes they were, and they had been seen before - if you read Bakunin's "Revolutionary Catechism" of 1866, he advocated them well before and in contradistinction to Marx (prior to 1871, after which he began a steady drift towards what were previously anarchist ideas alone, culminating in the "Ethnological Notebooks" and the letter to Vera Zasulich, where he comes to the same conclusions as Kropotkin did independently). Advocacy of the defense and growth of workers' councils, as best informed through an empirical analysis of common material conditions seen in revolutions, is practically the whole of anarcho-communism.
anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/appendix-proudhon-and-marx.html
Many ideas of Marx were plagiarized from Proudhon, who he then disparaged in every untrue way that is spouted by Marxists to this day. Incidentally, Bakunin addresses many of them in the first chapter of "Statism And Anarchy".
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-statism-and-anarchy
Knock yourself out.
I expected more from a leftcom.
A confederation of autonomous workers' councils performing the functions of a state are not a state by the anarchist definition, even if they decide to gulag the reactionaries. I'm not writing a whole refutation of that article on the Spanish Civil War by Helmut Wagner again.

what is the formula? learns me pls

Sure, if you're defining things based on what you want them to mean.

that would be the centralized network of soviets, the part that makes it a semi-state is that it isn't an apparatus for the class which dominates economic relations, it is the tool of a movement which undermines the conditions of the state's very existence.

It is still however, the apparatus of class dictatorship.

"Power" is determined by the unity of class struggle and production relations.

You go on to try and then justify this, completely ignoring the implied void of communist content of such a movement which would find itself taking such measures

fucking no, you idiot

Skimmed it. I got nothing close to a materialist elaboration on the historically discovered form of workers' rule (or whatever you call it) being a centralized network of soviet-type organizations.

Some anarchist writing favorably about some form of organization in an idealistic fashion in a completely different time and place =/= part of the conditions of it coming into actual existence

I'm not going into that argument right now

See first point and past posts. I can define words to fit my agenda however I want to, doesn't make it true.

It's the primary circuit of capital:
Money - Commodities (Labor power + Means of production) - Production - Commodities worth more (commodities prime) - more Money (money prime)

Same to you. Are you really this dense? If you really want to get into this (you don't), go read Derrida. Look at where that lands you - PoMo bullshit territory where nothing ever gets done.
Of course you didn't. It's an even more stripped down version of what the Communist Manifesto aims to be - a platform for a movement at a particular time based on prior observations. If you want to find a justification for workers' councils based in a larger theoretical context, you have to go back to Proudhon (I didn't recommend him because his reformism merits a whole different lenses through which you have to understand any of what he says in the context of revolutionary ideas). If you want, you can go read the theory ("What Is Property?" is a good place to start; "The Conquest Of Bread" is less thorough theoretically, but develops past Bakunin's own developments of Proudhon's ideas to what is today the most common basis of what anarchists believe). Nice double standards.
Then stop calling anarchists idealists. Surplus value is a concept central to Proudhon's "What Is Property?". Unless you can disprove the staunch evidence to the contrary, you have no right to call anarchists idealists because someone else who you respect for other reasons called them that. Seriously. Read a book on a topic before you comment on it.
How so? They both write about Marxian communization from very similar perspectives on it. Technically, Dauve is part of Troploin and not Endnotes, ok, but they republish his essays quite a bit anyways (hence my comment).
What is true is what works and thereby makes itself useful.
anarkismo.net/article/26978
For an anarchist, the libertarian-authoritarian dichotomy is tied up in the nature of the institutions which exercise power (these institutions being abstractions of the direct relations between people and how they treat one another). Is it an institution of violence which is autonomous from the will of the masses and which has the legitimacy to defend itself and continue its survival? Then it's authoritarian. Simple as that!
There will always be reactionaries and discontents in even the most thoroughly-communizing insurrections (Barcelona 1936 is the best example, although it was doomed from the start due to broader geopolitical circumstances and the CNT fudged it with the failure to take the initiative during the May Days due to their vested interests as mediators of the relation between capital and the proletariat). I still can't see a mechanism for it going global without something of the sort happening. Wars break out, shit happens. The most that can be done is to put reactionaries to forced work until the counterrevolution's back is broken or exile if they do not acquiesce to the demands of the workers - it's more sensible and less wasteful than shooting them. You yourself say in that dumb meme that violence is inevitable and will must be imposed (wrongly confusing the pacifism-violence dichotomy with the libertarian-authoritarian dichotomy in a tellingly liberal fashion :^)).

You're being autistic over words while not proposing anything new in practice. Stop it. Go read Malatesta - he's the closest to modern communization theory (Kropotkin comes close and is well-known enough to be used as a reference point, but still has his blind spots - these are largely rectified, along with Makhno's, in Malatesta's writings).
marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1925/04/syndic1.htm

circuit of capital, i belive its in vol.2 of capital by marx

It basically boils down to NAP vs LTV, oh and ancaps, not into the entire revolution thingy