Why do anti-state communists like endnotes and tc as well as letters guy and the duponts not identify as anarchists?

Question

It seems to me that these groups have a rather anarchist vision of what the revolution will entail (as the direct expropriation of property and abolition of all capitalist social forms like value, proletariat exchange and all that good stuff.) it seems that they also disagree with progress and view the abolition of class society as a rupture and not a culmination of the class struggle. They also are anti-organizationalist and anti-left. They also seem to view revolution not as an application of conciousness to the production process but as is abolition. Sometimes it also seems like the the logical conclusion of their analysis is that communist revolution will entail the end of civilization. They also seem to believe that the factory and capitaist production process inherently resists socialization and that they are entirely antithetical to communization for they must accumulate value to exist and therefore will be destroyed in the process of communization. Despite how close anti-state communists (or communization people or nihilist communist or anti-political communist people or whatever you call these anti-left yet marx influenced communist types) come to what is basically an anarchist position they do not identiy as such. i understand that all the groups i have mentioned are very different in certain aspects but i would just like to know why these people reject anarchism? Also, nihilist communism and letters journal kind of characterize anarchism as reformist and incomplete in someway and that (at least nihlist communism says this) in order to best aid the revolution; anarchists aught to assume a communist position. what does this mean? could someone maybe direct me to texts where anti-state communist critique anarchism.

Answer 1

i can't direct you to texts, but i can address the other question - at least as far as i have experienced it with people i know.

the difference seems to be in style (ie they prefer the baggage that goes with the word "communism" to the baggage that goes with the word "anarchy"), and in emphasis (economics is generally much more important to anyone calling themselves a communist), and in attitude (communists tend to consider themselves rigorous in their thinking--although a skeptic could just rebut that they can consider themselves rigorous because they like to pay attention to things that are more easily measured--whereas anarchists are more loosey-goosey--or inclusive of the ineffable).

Comments

This is a concise answer but it doesn't address the inquirer's error in assuming a correlation between Marxist groups like Theorie Communiste and endnotes, and the other two projects (one of which, it's worth saying, no longer exists) which are antimarxist and aren't so enamored with "economics" and the empirical inclinations of social sciences. Remember now the book Species Being and Letters Journal's theological motifs. There is ample room for the ineffable in Monsieur Dupont's works and Letters Journal. Both of them don't really have any understanding of economics and they are wholly idealist projects.

just sayin'

---

i haven't read letters enough to be able to say, but while you have a point about msr dupont, the part of him that i would call communist is the part that insists on the essential proletariat, which is an entirely economic concept.
and i didn't mention idealism. both commies and anarchies can be idealist (this gets into the question of whether idealism and materialism are really mutually exclusive - in practice... but i am not doing that here).

---

dot, one counterexample to your 'communists want to talk about economics' thesis (which is generally a good one) is that the invisible committee call themselves communists but would rather talk about almost anything before talking about economics. they are a weird case though

Answer 2

This is a good question, but it's probably something people involved in those writing projects would have to answer.  I don't think I've ever seen any of those writers address this question very directly.

I think you're right that they all have quite a lot in common with anarchists, and I doubt you'll find any of them criticizing anarchists.  The Invisible  Committee I think once had a criticism of anarchists, but it was pretty neitzchean; basically they were saying that anarchists aren't radical enough in certain ways.

...

I often say that I'm a communist instead of an anarchist if I'm trying to explain my beliefs to someone I don't know. I definitely prefer the baggage that goes with the term anarchist, but I would rather be as confusing as possible when I'm explaining my ideas. I've often found that as soon as the person I'm talking to decides they've "got my number" they stop questioning their own ideas.  I think that Letters Journal at one point described its purpose as something like "bringing maximum disorder to habitual perspectives." and I like that.