What is the Left Com approach to democracy? How does it differ from Lib Com?

Here's my somewhat vague memory of it (I looked into it maybe a couple years ago?) but I could easily be wrong....

Left communists advocate for delegates who are recallable but who follow the mandate of their party (or perhaps their own personal views),

Libertarian communists advocate for delegates who are recallable and follow the mandate of the assembly or the lower level council they were elected from

Left coms aren't interested in referendum style direct democracy

Lib coms are interested in this when possible (but done in combination with assembly meetings where the issues are discussed and debated before being voted on)

Please someone tell me if I'm correct or incorrect? And if I'm wrong,just WTF is the left com approach to democracy and how is it different from lib com?

That depends on which 'left

That depends on which 'left coms' you are talking about. The Bordigist tradition is for the rule of the party; the councilist tradition is against the party form as such. The ICC's position is that a delegate of an assembly is mandated by the assembly, but will also clearly state the views of his party or political organisation - if it conflicts with the mandate he or she may have to say that they can no longer be a delegate. There can be no question of a kind of surreptitious assumption of decision-making power by a political party.

"Referendum-style democracy" seems to be antithetical to the methods of assemblies/councils, since it is based on the notion of the isolated citizen/ individual voter rather than the principle of association which is the foundation of proletarian forms of organisation.

Thanks. So why is the ICC

Thanks.

So why is the ICC defined as left communist instead of libertarian communist? What's the difference?

"Referendum-style democracy" seems to be antithetical to the methods of assemblies/councils, since it is based on the notion of the isolated citizen/ individual voter rather than the principle of association which is the foundation of proletarian forms of organisation.

That would be the case if the voting was done as an isolated act, the way it is in referendums that happen today. But it's not the case when the voting is preceded by discussion and debate in assemblies and councils, with delegates serving as conduits of communication between assemblies.

In a now defunct anarchist organization my friend used to be a member of, decisions involving multiple branches were made in a way that was pretty similar to this.

What do other people think

What do other people think about decisions being made by people voting in multiple assemblies (after thorough discussion) rather than by mandated delegates in councils? It's more directly democratic, so it seems closer to the libertarian ideal.

In the past I've seen threads on libcom where people spoke favorably about this one person one vote style of directly democratic decision making (so long as it's coupled with discussions in assemblies and councils). But I don't know what the range of opinions on this is among libertarian communists, or where those opinions tend to cluster.

Just as an FYI, here's what

Just as an FYI, here's what An Anarchist FAQ has to say about the democratic decision making process. It seems to suggest a combination of both mandated delegates decision making, and a more direct one person one vote decision making. Different approaches for different situations, I guess. This seems the right way to me.

From section I.5 "What could the social structure of anarchy look like?"

These delegates would co-ordinate policies which have been discussed and voted on by the neighbourhood assemblies, with the votes being summed across the district to determine district policy by majority rule. The issues to be discussed by these confederal meetings/assemblies would be proposed by local communes, the confederal council would collate these proposals and submit them to the other communes in the confederation for discussion. Thus the flow of decision making would be from the bottom up, with the "lowest" bodies having the most power, particularly the power to formulate, suggest, correct and, if need be, reject decisions made at "higher" levels in the confederation.

and

In the system we have sketched, policy proposals formulated by higher-level confederal bodies would often be presented to the grassroots political units for discussion and voting (though the grassroots units could also formulate policy proposals directly)

Thanks. So why is the ICC

Thanks.

So why is the ICC defined as left communist instead of libertarian communist? What's the difference?

probably because
- we historically derive from the left communist tradition
- we are for an international communist party
- we recognise the inevitability of a transitional state after the destruction of the bourgeois state

Yeah, in terms of the

Yeah, in terms of the "difference" between the two Alf pretty much nails it with this point:
Alf

- we recognise the inevitability of a transitional state after the destruction of the bourgeois state

boomerang

What do other people think about decisions being made by people voting in multiple assemblies (after thorough discussion) rather than by mandated delegates in councils? It's more directly democratic, so it seems closer to the libertarian ideal.

In the past I've seen threads on libcom where people spoke favorably about this one person one vote style of directly democratic decision making (so long as it's coupled with discussions in assemblies and councils). But I don't know what the range of opinions on this is among libertarian communists, or where those opinions tend to cluster.

In terms of decision-making, I would agree with the Anarchist FAQ. Basically a mixture of mandated delegates and mass voting, depending on the circumstances. Technological changes in recent years do mean that individual voting for large numbers of people on a wide variety of issues is now very easy. But of course referenda can be easily manipulated by those who set the questions and possible answers. So this would have to be done in some sort of collaborative and directly democratic way as well.