I don't think in the context of Spain, at least, the various versions of libertarian socialism saw themselves as that clearly distinguished. POUM had people who described themselves as "communist", "socialist", and "anarchist", some of whom were the same people. They specifically dissociated themselves from the Soviet Union (and more specifically from Stalin), but were largely supportive of some kind of non-authoritarian "socialism" or "communism". I mean the party flag was the red flag with a hammer and sickle!
> I don't think in the context of Spain, at least, the various versions of libertarian socialism saw themselves as that clearly distinguished.
I don't disagree. Reading in 'Homage' about the wide variety of affiliations and beliefs is really eye-opening, which is one reason I recommended it in my response to the (now deleted) comment above.
However, it's just completely wrong from 2014 and with a view of the entire 20th century and of Orwell's entire life to state that he "was a communist for a long time," which is what I was responding to. I hope the author of that comment takes my recommendation. Orwell writes with such integrity and clarity and without even a hint of the tribalism that plagues political discussions.
I just finished reading 'Homage to Catalonia' and 'Down and Out in Paris and London'. Two early Orwell novels that possibly reveal more of his political thinking than either 'Animal Farm', or '1984'.
Homage is great. What I came away with was a profound sense of how ideology and labels are completely destructive to clear political understanding. This is really a running theme in Orwell's work. Once one identifies as a 'this' or a 'that' one becomes beholden to its leaders, or whomever might be wagging 'this' or 'that' dog.
His reference and definition of Trotskyism in Homage sticks with me the most. When Poum are labelled Trotskyists it's never made clear what Trotskyists actually are, only that they're bad, and somehow counter to goodness. This appears again in his discussion of how Stalin, American and British interests want Fascism to fail, but actually dread any real social revolution in Spain more than Fascism. So they're not willing to arm anarchists against Fascists. The eventual suppression of Poum and the anarchists by Communists loyal only to the USSR, ultimately ruins any chance the Republicans might have had.
It was a fascinating read, and it must be read by anyone interested in understanding the Spanish Civil war, or Orwell. One can see where Orwell got the idea for '2 legs bad, 4 legs good' --> '4 legs good, 2 legs better' in 'Animal Farm' from his experience in Spain.
This scene from chapter 10 sticks in my mind. Orwell is approached by a Communist friend and asked to join their unit. This is after Communist propoganda has started to paint the Poum as 'counter revolutionary'.
"I had to tell him that after this affair I could not join any Communist-controlled unit. Sooner or later it might mean being used against the Spanish working class. One could not tell when this kind of thing would break out again, and if I had to use my rifle at all in such an affair I would use it on the side of the working class and not against them. He was very decent about it. But from now on the whole atmosphere was changed. You could not, as before, 'agree to differ' and have drinks with a man who was supposedly your political opponent."
Orwell wants the reader to understand that these various 'isms' and 'ists' are extremely susceptible to internal corruption. No matter what their initial beliefs. In addition he strongly discouraged 'mealy mouthed' language, and imprecision. 'Doublespeak' from '1984' and his essay on 'Politics and the English Language' are all about this strongly held belief of his. He skill and precision at writing allowed him to more easily deconstruct propoganda, and he was frustrated by the misuse of language for political manipulation.
So any notion someone might have that Orwell was a 'this' or a 'that' is utter hogwash. He would never identify himself as anything, for he knew that once he did that something would alter its form to something terrible.
Technically, the difference is the power structure. They have sort of the same economic system as a goal, but social democratism is reversible, since it's based on democratic voting while right-out communism is more autocratic. Most social democrat parties are just capitalist redistributionists at this point, though.
I'm not sure power structure is inherently part of the definition. There's a certain kind of communism that supports the vanguard party, General Secretary, etc. (the Soviet approach). POUM had a lot of anarcho-communists, and more recently council communism also supports decentralized power. There's a lot of gray area in the terminology. I think the terms are more different now than they used to be, however. Many libertarian socialists who might've used the term "communism" prior to the 1930s are more likely to call themselves something else today, to avoid being mistaken for Leninists or Stalinists.
But it's pretty hard to call POUM "social democratic" or even "democratic socialist" either. By modern standards they are far too radical-left to fit into a "respectable" socialist or social-democratic party. Could you imagine them standing for Labour, or the Parti Socialiste or SPD? Waving a red flag and declaring that the time is ripe for the socialist revolution...
