Gramsci vs. Bordiga

[Lenina Rosenweg]

In this thread I thought we could move from borscht, coposta, pelimini, caviar and vodka to linguini, riccotti and Tuscan wine. In other words, instead of arguing over dead Russians, it might be more interesting to argue over two deceased Italian guys.

Antonio Gramsci and Amadeo Bordiga were both leaders of left wing factions in the PSI, Italian Socialist Party. They later became founders and rivals for leadership of the PCI. Gramsci became head of the L'Ordine Nuovo group. He was quicker to see the dangers of nascent fascism than Bordiga.

Bordiga was an "ultraleft". He believed the Party should function as the "brain" of the working class. He believed in a centralized disciplined party as a means of armed struggle. He fiercely resisted the Comintern's pressure for a "united front policy". Gramsci's more "dialectical" approach won out.

In 1923 Gramsci sided with Stalin in the struggle with Trotsky, although people like James Cannon initially did as well.In 1926 Gramsci was sentenced to 20 years in jail, despite parliamentary immunity. "We have to silence this mind for 20 years" was the comment of the fascist judge.He was treated horribly in prison and died in 1937.

While in prison Gramsci wrote the very moving "Prison Diaries" and the "Prison Notebooks". He had interesting ideas about the role of the intellectual in society, "hegemony" of institutions, and a "war of position vs. a "war of maneuver".

Bordiga was among the earliest to see the degeneration of the Comintern. He called Stalin the "gravedigger of the revolution" to his face. He was famous for oppossing "democracy", he went further than other Marxists in rejecting bourgeois democracy. After being ousted from the PCI he drpped out of politics for several decades and worked as a machinist. Surprisingly Mussolini left him alone.His writing on the "agriculture question" his theory of Soviet degeneration and how the Stalinist regimes essentially played the role of the 18th century "enlightened monarchies" is interesting.

Bordiga lived until 1970. He played some role in the 1968 uprisings.

I hope my summary makes sense.

Ok, who do you like better, Tony or Arman?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Surprisingly Mussolini left him alone.

That is really suprising, seeing how Mussolini's fascists harrassed Marxists and anarchists across the political spectrum, everyone from Gramsci to Galleani...

[Lenina Rosenweg]

You are right, correction, Mussolini had Bordiga imprisoned for 3 years. My mistake.

[Barry Lyndon]

That is really suprising, seeing how Mussolini's fascists harrassed Marxists and anarchists across the political spectrum, everyone from Gramsci to Galleani...

Given how Bordiga and the Left Communists trashed anti-fascism at every turn, while Communists and anarchists were risking their lives fighting in the Italian partisan resistance, it makes sense Mussolini went so soft on him. The blackshirts probably considered leftists like Bordiga a unwitting ally of sorts.

[scarletghoul]

Gramsci was awesome. Bordiga was, ultra-left, out of touch, and often objectively reactionary.

[Raúl Duke]

Did Bordiga support or (even better) played part in the partisan movement during the time it was a mass movement?

[Paulappaul]

the Left Communists trashed anti-fascism at every turn

Where?

[Bilan]

Gramsci was awesome. Bordiga was, ultra-left, out of touch, and often objectively reactionary.

I like your use of "objectively".

[Os Cangaceiros]

Where?

People who don't support left communism's stance towards antifascism usually cite Fascism/Antifascism by Gilles Dauve and Auschwitz or the Great Alibi by Bordiga as their reference points, it seems.

[Bilan]

They're both quite interesting. Gramsci's theory of hegemony is good; Bordiga's style of writing, and positions were quite good.
Can't think of much more to add.

[9]

Didn't Gramsci side with Stalin against the left opposition and end up expelling the Bordiga faction from the party on charges of "Trotskyism"?

[Devrim]

Didn't Gramsci side with Stalin against the left opposition and end up expelling the Bordiga faction from the party on charges of "Trotskyism"?

Yes, Gramsci had Bordiga and thousands of other militants expelled for defending Trotsky. This is hardly surprising though as Gramsci was Stalin's man placed in the leadership of the party despite Bordigas having majority support.


Given how Bordiga and the Left Communists trashed anti-fascism at every turn, while Communists and anarchists were risking their lives fighting in the Italian partisan resistance, it makes sense Mussolini went so soft on him. The blackshirts probably considered leftists like Bordiga a unwitting ally of sorts.

How the fascists described the left communists is on record from police reports on their press:


The only independent paper. Ideologically the most interesting and prepared. Against any compromise, defends a pure communism, undoubtedly Trotskyist, and thus anti-Stalinist. Declares itself without hesitation an adversary of Stalin's Russia, while proclaiming itself faithful to Lenin's Russia. Fights against the war in all aspects: democratic, fascist or Stalinist. Even struggles against 'the partisans', the Committee of National Liberation and the Italian Communist Party.

Of course there were many many instances of armed left communists physical fighting fascists. What they didn't do was drop class politics.


Did Bordiga support or (even better) played part in the partisan movement during the time it was a mass movement?

No, the left communists opposed the partisan movement.



the Left Communists trashed anti-fascism at every turn Where?

Bordiga wrote that 'the worst product of fascism is anti-fascism' by which he meant the abandonment of class politics and the forming of cross class national alliances.

Devrim

[Red Commissar]

Didn't Gramsci side with Stalin against the left opposition and end up expelling the Bordiga faction from the party on charges of "Trotskyism"?


Yes, Gramsci had Bordiga and thousands of other militants expelled for defending Trotsky. This is hardly surprising though as Gramsci was Stalin's man placed in the leadership of the party despite Bordigas having majority support.

Bordiga's and the others were expelled from the party in 1930. This is sometime after Gramsci had been arrested and imprisoned.

And while Gramsci was friendly to the Soviet Union, he only did so out of a question of unity and his fears of what would happen if they appeared weak on the international scene. This doesn't mean however that he was subservient to Stalin, nor was his securing the General Secretary of the party a command from Moscow. If anything Togliatti filled that role later on.

After the PCd'I was founded it came into conflict with Moscow's policy of the United Front, as they feared that adopting Moscow's wishes might result in them being reabsorbed back into the PSI and working with the reformist trade-union leaders, both of these they had come into conflict with over their indecisiveness and in some cases treacherous behavior during the factory occupations of 1919 and 1920. Gramsci and the rest of the centre did support the United Front as a concept, but opposed the means that Moscow was wanting to implement it. Tasca's wing was accused of being liquidationist by both the "centre" and the "left.

To that end much of the party's centre backed Bordiga and his wing to counteract the more overtly pro-Moscow elements of the party, represented by Angelo Tasca. The latter's segment, the "right" of the party was in the minority, and the centre backed Bordiga and the "left" in order to counter act his influence and prevent Moscow's total takeover of the party.

The point where Bordiga and the rest of the party came into conflict with the Centre was by the point Tasca and the rest stopped being a threat, and eventually they got into a conflict over how to respond to the political climate in Italy. In the Lyons Congress of 1926 was the big showdown and lasted a week. This came out in favor of the party's centre and Gramsci's own victory and consolidation of his position.

However this did not last long, as later that year the attempt on Mussolini's life was made, resulting in the clamp down on opposition parties and eventually Gramsci's own arrest. Bordiga was already arrested by this point.

While Gramsci was being tried, Togliatti, being the only major figure from the centre not yet arrested, gradually assumed control over the party. It was during this time that the "right" represented by Tasca and three other members of the central committee were expelled after Bukharin's fall from the Politburo and the Comintern in 1929. Three of these members (Leonetti, Tresso, and Ravazzoli) were expelled for criticizing the Comintern's "left-turn" after Bukharin's downfall as opportunistic rather than theoretical. This was followed by Bordiga and the rest in 1930.

An interesting snippet- after Gramsci's arrest towards the end of 1926, he was put in detention at the island of Ustica near Sicily for six weeks. There he was with Bordiga, and there the two collaborated with one another to reach out to the other political prisoners. The two organized educational courses for the prisoners, Gramsci taught history and geography with Bordiga teaching various sciences. The two respected one another as fellow communists even if they disagreed on matters, something I think is lost on some people nowadays.

Gramsci opposed Bordiga on matters of theory and the direction of the party, but he respected Bordiga as a fellow communist. And again, the decision to expel people was not his decision. Bordiga and Tasca were expelled when Gramsci was interred at Turi prison. Gramsci could have hardly made a decision after being out of the party for 3 and a half years by this point, and was replaced by Togliatti.

He was hardly "Stalin's Man". Gramsci had supported Stalin and Bukharin against Trotsky and Zinoviev, but more out of supporting a majority for the purposes of party unity. He said as much in a letter in 1926, but he also warned against the method that the majority was asserting itself to achieve what he felt to be only an external unity. Togliatti who was at Moscow at the time did not forward this letter to the Stalin and co. fearing repercussions for the PCd'I.

Additionally a fellow prisoner with Gramsci, Athos Lisa, had transmitted to the PCd'I reports about Gramsci's activities in prison, notably his conversations with other communists during their exercise time. Lisa reported that Gramsci went against the official line at the time and criticized the "left-turn" for the same reasons that the three CC members were expelled for (opportunism), as well as the policy of "frontal attack".

Later on Antonio Gramsci's brother, Gennaro visited Antonio. Antonio told his brother that he felt that the three expelled members of the CC were perfectly warranted in their criticism of the "left-turn" for what it really was. When Gennaro related the story to the PCd'I, he said rather that Gramsci had agreed with the expulsion of those three member. Gennaro would tell the biographer of Gramsci later that he had lied in order to save his brother from any repercussions from the party for opposing the official line of PCd'I and the Comintern.

The one thing that I give props to Gramsci though is that he came into prison with a number of physical defects and illnesses, and had to endure all that time with his illnesses being exacerbated and worsened by imprisonment. That he was able to produce the concepts he laid out in the Prison Notebooks with those conditions is admirable and displayed incredible perseverance on his part.

Bordiga on the other hand played a significant role in the formation of the PCd'I and keeping the party from being reabsorbed into the PSI as a part of the Comintern's policies. It allowed the party to be autonomous and even though he was expelled later, he still maintained himself and continued doing what he thought was right, even if he came under attack.

Both Gramsci and Bordiga are admirable for their parts however. They both contributed to political theory and communism in general, and in the midst of a fascist take over of Italy and its consolidation of power, this is all the more respected.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Red Commissar,could you recommend something to read on Gramsci and or Bordiga or that period in communist history? My knowledge of this is pretty much from the Quentin Hoare introduction to the Prison Notebooks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Bordiga was the first to suggest a structurally international party, in spite of Moscow's extreme vacillation between "discipline" (interfering in regional and local branches, of all places) and "national" questions.

Gramsci coughed up a poor substitute for "mechanical" False Consciousness in the form of "dialectical" Ideology. His hegemony stuff was OK, though.

[Red Commissar]

Red Commissar,could you recommend something to read on Gramsci and or Bordiga or that period in communist history? My knowledge of this is pretty much from the Quentin Hoare introduction to the Prison Notebooks.

Truth be told, I got most of that information from the introduction of the same book. I recall seeing a few in my library, but not a biography or a dedicated history of either figures. I think the one in the introduction to Prison Notebooks is fairly thorough though for Gramsci.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Yes, Gramsci had Bordiga and thousands of other militants expelled for defending Trotsky. This is hardly surprising though as Gramsci was Stalin's man placed in the leadership of the party despite Bordigas having majority support.



How the fascists described the left communists is on record from police reports on their press:



Of course there were many many instances of armed left communists physical fighting fascists. What they didn't do was drop class politics.



No, the left communists opposed the partisan movement.



Bordiga wrote that 'the worst product of fascism is anti-fascism' by which he meant the abandonment of class politics and the forming of cross class national alliances.

Devrim


As I understand left communists are "anti-anti-fascist"? That is they see fascism as the product or expression of capitalism in extreme crisis and view the main enemy as capitalism.I understand the need to avoid anti-fascist popular fronts. but how does the ICC or the LC movement feel about the Antifa movement? What would be the strategy or view on countering groups like the EDL, BNP, or US fascist or Nazi groups?

[Devrim]

Bordiga's and the others were expelled from the party in 1930. This is sometime after Gramsci had been arrested and imprisoned.

Yes, but I seem to remember that his brother conveyed his opinions to the party supporting the expulsion. I could be wrong though.


And while Gramsci was friendly to the Soviet Union, he only did so out of a question of unity and his fears of what would happen if they appeared weak on the international scene. This doesn't mean however that he was subservient to Stalin, nor was his securing the General Secretary of the party a command from Moscow. If anything Togliatti filled that role later on.

I thought it was quite widely acknowledged that Gramsci was Stalin's man. If not I am certainly not the only person who thinks so:


Out of a regard for discipline, Bordiga and his comrades (who became known as the 'Italian Left') accepted the Comintern decision but were in an increasingly difficult position. When Bordiga was arrested in February 1923 on a trumped-up charge by the new Mussolini government, he had to give up his post as General Secretary of the PCI but, on his acquittal later that year, he decided not to reclaim it, thus implicitly accepting that he was now an oppositionist. In 1924 the Left lost control of the PCI to a pro-Stalin group whose leader, Gramsci, became the Party's General Secretary in June. This loss of control was confirmed at the third Congress of the PCI, held in exile in Lyons in January 1926, at which the 'theses' drawn up by Bordiga and presented by the Left were rejected and those of the Stalinist leadership accepted.2 (http://www.reocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3909/bordbuik.html#f2) At the end of 1926 Bordiga was again arrested by Mussolini and sent to prison for three years. He was formally expelled from the PCI in 1930 for 'Trotskyism'. On his release from prison he dropped out of all political activity until the fall of Mussolini in 1943.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I understand the need to avoid anti-fascist popular fronts. but how does the ICC or the LC movement feel about the Antifa movement?

From a recent article on the EDL:


There is a need for the working class to defend itself against racist attacks, as one component of all the attacks reigning down on it. Following the attacks on Romanians in Belfast, there were practical efforts made to guard potential victims' homes by local residents acting together with some politicised elements, students and so on. In a higher stage of the class struggle it would be possible to develop a more organised and massive defence of working class or immigrant neighbourhoods from pogromist attacks, as we saw for example in the great strikes of 1905 in Russia, or in the opposition of the London dockers to Moseley's planned march through the Jewish East End in 1936. But anti-fascist fronts drown out class solidarity in what is, fundamentally, a defence of the democratic system. There are two elements to this. The first is the desire to 'confront' right wing elements be it at demonstrations or particular events. Such 'exemplary' actions by individuals and small groups tends to act as a substitute for real class solidarity, which is based on widening the collective struggle.


What would be the strategy or view on countering groups like the EDL, BNP, or US fascist or Nazi groups?


The leftists' anti-fascist fronts are based on the idea that fascism is the number one danger to the working class. But it wasn't the BNP or EDL that have been breaking down people's doors at 3am, or locking up women and children in detention centres where they suffer traumas and abuse, but the democratically elected Labour Party, which used the issue of immigration as and how it suited its needs. Phil Woolas, the last Labour immigration minister said: "This is a deliberate attempt by the EDL at division and provocation, to try and push young Muslims into the hands of extremists, in order to perpetuate the divide. It is dangerous." But the Labour Party has certainly driven many more young Muslims into the hands of the jihadists with its war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan and its increasingly repressive arsenal of laws aimed at ‘fighting terrorism' at home. The fundamental problem with anti-fascism is that it aims to convince us that we should ally with ‘democratic' bourgeois parties who are no less our enemy than the fascists.

Devrim

[Red Commissar]

Yes, but I seem to remember that his brother conveyed his opinions to the party supporting the expulsion. I could be wrong though.

His brother asked him concerning the expulsion of Tasca, Leonetti, Tresso, and Ravazzoli in 1929 from the Central Committee. Angelo Tasca had formerly been a very close friend to Gramsci but turned into one of his biggest rivals, much more so than Bordiga. Tasca had initially been part of the party's "right" faction and was the most pro-Moscow of all the factions. Tasca and his followers were expelled after Bukharin's downfall.

Where Gramsci came in was regarding the party's choice towards Leonetti, Tresso, and Ravazzoli. These three, in light of the Comintern's so-called "left-turn" with the downfall of Bukharin and the end of NEP, said this move was not rooted in theoretical gains, but rather politiking and opportunism.

His brother, Gennero, told the PCd'I that Gramsci supported the party's decision to expel these three in a vist to Gramsci in 1929 (this is before Bordiga's expulsion in 1930). However the PCd'I also received a report from a prisoner inside, Athos Lisa, who related a debate between Gramsci and other communists at the prison over the expulsions, where Gramsci supported the opinion of the Three CC members who were expelled, and opposed the party's expulsion of the three, as well as the party's stance towards the Comintern's left turn (and by extension, Moscow).

And again, this was all in 1929, before Bordiga's expulsions. Gramsci's comments to his brother were concerning the explusion of three CC members criticizing the nature of "left-turn" of the Comintern. And in some regards the new directives set by the Sixth World Congress and the statements of the Executive Committee of the Comintern.

Gennero would tell Antonio Gramsci's biographer, Giuseppe Fiori, that he had lied to the CC in order to keep his brother safe from any repercussions, say being expelled from the party like Bordiga had been in jail, or worse something happen to Gramsci's wife and children in Moscow. Gramsci had told his brother pretty much what Athos Lisa had reported to the CC in reality.



I thought it was quite widely acknowledged that Gramsci was Stalin's man. If not I am certainly not the only person who thinks so:


I don't know about that, it would be a gross over-simplification of the political climate at the time. Gramsci, like other members of the centre, supported the majority group which was the Stalin/Bukharin block against the Trotsky/Zinoviev block. This was a matter of unity, but as I mentioned earlier Gramsci was critical of both the Trotsky/Zinoviev block and the Stalin/Bukharin bloc, which led to Togliatti suppressing his letter as General Secretary to the Russian Communist Party.

Gramsci and the Centre also found more common ground with the "left" and Bordiga at first, as they saw Tasca and the "right" whole-hearted endorsement of the United Front with the PSI and Moscow's directives as tantamount to a liquidationist stance.

Gramsci had a lot of heated arguments with Bordiga over official line, and in this regard he was more inclined to support the Stalin/Bukharin block as opposed to Bordiga's initial support for Trotsky, as he saw the whole matter as endangering party unity. However he never made the call to expel or harm them in any way, as he knew this was not going to help party unity in any way.

By the time Gramsci had gotten arrested it was only the beginning of Stalin's consolidation of power, and only much later on was Bukharin removed was Stalin's victory secure, and by this point it was Togliatti as General Secretary who was following directives from Moscow more or less.

The reason why I don't buy Gramsci as "Stalin's man" is for the following:

-Gramsci could have easily aligned himself with Angelo Tasca and the "right" of the PCd'I in the early years of the party, which was favored by Moscow.

-Gramsci secured General Secretary in 1924, and following the Lyons Congress he could have easily moved against Tasca and Bordiga if he had wanted to, which would have pleased Moscow, particularly in the case of Bordiga.

But again I think this whole matter ignores the political landscape of the 1920s and the Communist movement in general at the time. It was a confusing mess of pro and anti-Leninist sentiment, trying to maneuver around the reformists in the trade unions, party unity, how the the Soviet Union and the Comintern should be operated, the methods to formulate party strategy, and how to treat the fascist movement. I don't really think at this point being pro or anti-Stalin was relevant in these debates, at least not until well after Gramsci had been thrown in jail.

[scarletghoul]

Bordiga was the first to suggest a structurally international party, in spite of Moscow's extreme vacillation between "discipline" (interfering in regional and local branches, of all places) and "national" questions.
Bordiga's idea of having all the international communists run the USSR was completely ridiculous and stupid, for the simple reason that the workers of Russia probably would not want a bunch of western European intellectuals running their country. Even if the workers were ok with it, it would still be terrible; the moment you give control over to some international party elite, you take it away from the workers of the territory they govern. I can't believe anyone takes this stupid idea seriously. Its based on the view of communist party members as a magical elite who are seperate from the stupid masses and should all come together to exercise power over them wherever possible. The Soviet people should run the USSR, not the international Communists. This is elementary democracy.. Besides, didn't the Italian communists have anything better to do at the time ? I guess not, if combating fascism is apparently bourgeois reformism..

So silly.

[S.Artesian]

Bordiga's idea of having all the international communists run the USSR was completely ridiculous and stupid, for the simple reason that the workers of Russia probably would not want a bunch of western European intellectuals running their country.

And here, all this time, I thought workers had no country. Silly me.

Let's be honest, the opposition from inside Russia to Bordiga's notion had nothing to do with what workers in the fSUnion, which was made up of a lot of non-Russian workers, wanted or didn't want; had nothing to do with "western European intellectuals" as, presumably, the international communist movement included non-western, non-European, non-intellectuals; and even less to do with democracy.



Even if the workers were ok with it, it would still be terrible; the moment you give control over to some international party elite, you take it away from the workers of the territory they govern.

As opposed to what.... having a national party elite take control of the economy, and take control of an international movement?


I can't believe anyone takes this stupid idea seriously. Its based on the view of communist party members as a magical elite who are seperate from the stupid masses and should all come together to exercise power over them wherever possible.

No, it's based on the view that for the revolution to succeed, to develop itself in any single location, it requires the support, aid, of revolutionary forces in every location. And... it certainly eliminates the possibility of one "national elite" determining policy for an entire international movement based on that elite's identification of itself with the revolution within and without it's borders.

Nothing about this entails any view of masses as "stupid" or communists as "elite."



The Soviet people should run the USSR, not the international Communists. I think the point is that without a true internationalism, there would be no chance for the people of the fSU to actually run the fSU, unless of course, you conflate the rule of a national elite, with its national intellectuals, [and a bit of national chauvinism] with democracy and rule by all the people. So did the "Soviet people" actually run the fSU?


So silly.

Not quite as silly as the belief that socialism was built and achieved in one country.

But tell me, what's your idea for the organization and administration of the economy after various revolutions? 2,3, many national parties administering national economies according to national interests? Or perhaps, taking cognizance of the already existing international division of labor, international organization of the means of production by workers on an international basis, reconciling the needs of all through the collective efforts of individuals?

[Red Commissar]

Bordiga's idea of having all the international communists run the USSR was completely ridiculous and stupid, for the simple reason that the workers of Russia probably would not want a bunch of western European intellectuals running their country. Even if the workers were ok with it, it would still be terrible; the moment you give control over to some international party elite, you take it away from the workers of the territory they govern. I can't believe anyone takes this stupid idea seriously. Its based on the view of communist party members as a magical elite who are seperate from the stupid masses and should all come together to exercise power over them wherever possible. The Soviet people should run the USSR, not the international Communists. This is elementary democracy.. Besides, didn't the Italian communists have anything better to do at the time ? I guess not, if combating fascism is apparently bourgeois reformism..

So silly.

I would not think it to be fair to riddle Bordiga's beliefs down to his stance on how the Soviet Union should be run and his stance on anti-fascism. He had a lot of another stances that we should look at. While I am more impartial to Gramsci, Bordiga showed a lot of initiative and perseverance on his part to create the PCd'I and made it a true communist party that operated on its own basis, rather than to follow through and work with the PSI again.

Both Gramsci and Bordiga belonged to the more radical maximalist wing of the PSI, though at this juncture Bordiga was more older and experienced and led the charge against the reformists in both the party and its associated trade union, CGL.

Which brings me to my point again, both of these men deserve respect for their differing but important contributions.

[Barry Lyndon]

The Left-Communists can babble and equivocate all they want, but such contemptible pieces of theoretical trash like 'Auschwitz: The Great Alibi' speak for themselves.
From everything I have read about the anti-fascist underground in Italy before and during World War II, I have never read about the Left-Communists playing any significant role.
It's pretty obvious that the Left-coms did little or nothing to throttle the fascist snake, precisely at the time when the radical Left so badly needed to fight.
In my view, the fight against fascism of the Communist partisans was one of the finest hours in the history of the international communist movement, but to left-coms its a badge of shame, so fanatical and doctrinaire is their ultra-leftism.
The left-coms, endlessly waiting for their communist utopia to arrive, are willing to condemn the workers in the meantime to any horror, even the gas chamber, because under capitalism it's 'all the same'.

[Devrim]

His brother asked him concerning the expulsion of Tasca,...

I think he was also involved in the expulsion of Bordiga too. I have a friend who knew a lot of the people who were involved in it all. He is pretty much my expert on this kind of stuff. I will e-mail him and ask him.


I don't know about that, it would be a gross over-simplification of the political climate at the time.

That is how the political descendants of Bordiga's current tell it. They may be biased, but I think they are well aware of the complexity of the situation:


In Italy the situation was becoming more desperate for the working class as the revolutionary momentum had been lost. Now a period of reaction followed. At the same time the Comintern was in visible decline. At its Fourth Congress in 1922, it decided to form “united fronts” with those very socialist parties which had supported imperialist war and which had so painfully slowed the process of founding communist parties. For the Communist Left, the adoption of the united front marks a turning point in the history of the working class. It is one of the factors which distinguish us all from the Trotskyist currents today. In Italy, the Left still controlled the party so they came up with the idea of proclaiming a “united front from below” and even tried to persuade other parties to adopt this interpretation. The idea was that communists would cooperate with socialist workers at the factory level but not with their parties. However even this was too much for the Comintern EC and when Bordiga was arrested by the Fascist Government in 1923, they took the opportunity to install Gramsci as party secretary. Gramsci had always recognised Bordiga as the real leader of the party but Moscow prevailed upon him to replace its most known leader. Under him the party was “bolshevised” and the Left was gradually removed from power. Bordiga did not actively lead the opposition to this as he accepted the central authority of the EC of the Comintern. But he did not hide his opposition to the course which the party and the International were taking. This led him to support the efforts of the comrades of the Committee of Intesa (Agreement Committee) who drew up a critique of the degeneration of the party. Amongst its signatories were Onorato Damen and Francesca Grossi (Cecca) whom he later married. They would be in 1943 amongst the founders of our Italian section, the Internationalist Communist Party.



The same text also states that Gramsci was involved in the expulsions of the left, though not Bordiga himself:




The Committee of Intesa argued that “It is mistaken to think that in every situation expedients and tactical manoeuvres can widen the Party base since relations between the party and the masses depend in large part on the objective situation.” (The Platform of the Committee of Intesa (CWO Pamphlet) p.18)
The EC of the Comintern demanded the expulsion of all who had supported the Committee. Its members were stripped of all offices by Gramsci but the Left continued to fight politically against the degeneration of the party. This culminated in 1926, in two events which summed up this fight, Bordiga’s last speech to the CI and the Lyons Congress of the PCd’I. The former saw Bordiga denounce Stalin, the abandonment of the internationalism of the Russian Revolution and the treatment of Trotsky. Stalin is supposed to have replied “May God forgive you”. The PCd’I certainly did not. At the Lyons Congress, all the party officials who had supported the Left were told by Gramsci that if they did not vote for his theses they would lose their party positions and their pay (which is one reason why our comrades have opposed the idea of “professional revolutionaries “ever since). Under this pressure many recanted so that the Left was now more isolated. The Left was now expelled from the Party and some went into exile in France and Belgium. Damen never went into exile. He was to be arrested several times and was imprisoned during both the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War. Bordiga also remained in Italy but retired back into civil life and allowed to pursue his occupation as an engineer in Naples. He played no further part in political activity until 1945.


Source (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2009-07-01/the-italian-communist-left-a-brief-internationalist-history)


The reason why I don't buy Gramsci as "Stalin's man" is for the following:...
-Gramsci secured General Secretary in 1924, and following the Lyons Congress he could have easily moved against Tasca and Bordiga if he had wanted to, which would have pleased Moscow, particularly in the case of Bordiga.

As we have seen above he did.


But again I think this whole matter ignores the political landscape of the 1920s and the Communist movement in general at the time. It was a confusing mess of pro and anti-Leninist sentiment, trying to maneuver around the reformists in the trade unions, party unity, how the the Soviet Union and the Comintern should be operated, the methods to formulate party strategy, and how to treat the fascist movement. I don't really think at this point being pro or anti-Stalin was relevant in these debates, at least not until well after Gramsci had been thrown in jail.

By the time Gramsci was imprisoned, Bordiga had already told Stalin that he was the 'gravedigger of the revolution' to his face. I would say it was sort of relevant in the debates.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Bordiga's idea of having all the international communists run the USSR was completely ridiculous and stupid, for the simple reason that the workers of Russia probably would not want a bunch of western European intellectuals running their country.

It's no more "ridiculous" than interference by the Comintern's Executive Committee in a branch affair of some European Communist party, in reality being totally unnecessary micro-management from Moscow.

I will point out one weakness of Bordiga's transnationalist model, if comrades here don't mind addressing this: even in a non-revolutionary or revolutionary situation, what if one or a select few national sections have the mass and so many others don't? How does one prevent the party from becoming a fan club of sorts for the leading national section or for one of the competing national sections in the lead?

[Bilan]

Bordiga's idea of having all the international communists run the USSR was completely ridiculous and stupid, for the simple reason that the workers of Russia probably would not want a bunch of western European intellectuals running their country. Even if the workers were ok with it, it would still be terrible; the moment you give control over to some international party elite, you take it away from the workers of the territory they govern. I can't believe anyone takes this stupid idea seriously. Its based on the view of communist party members as a magical elite who are seperate from the stupid masses and should all come together to exercise power over them wherever possible. The Soviet people should run the USSR, not the international Communists. This is elementary democracy.. Besides, didn't the Italian communists have anything better to do at the time ? I guess not, if combating fascism is apparently bourgeois reformism..

So silly.

Yeah, because that what was what Stalin was down with: workers democracy.
And also, that is definitely what internationalists want: a bourgeois elite controlling the revolution, so that the the masses in their motherlands are oppressed by us all knowing Western intellectuals.

We've been rumbled. Damn it.

[Bilan]

The Left-Communists can babble and equivocate all they want, but such contemptible pieces of theoretical trash like 'Auschwitz: The Great Alibi' speak for themselves.
From everything I have read about the anti-fascist underground in Italy before and during World War II, I have never read about the Left-Communists playing any significant role.
It's pretty obvious that the Left-coms did little or nothing to throttle the fascist snake, precisely at the time when the radical Left so badly needed to fight.
In my view, the fight against fascism of the Communist partisans was one of the finest hours in the history of the international communist movement, but to left-coms its a badge of shame, so fanatical and doctrinaire is their ultra-leftism.
The left-coms, endlessly waiting for their communist utopia to arrive, are willing to condemn the workers in the meantime to any horror, even the gas chamber, because under capitalism it's 'all the same'.

Why be simplistic? Do you know anything about what the communist left did during that time?
Do you have any idea?
Because if you do, the above statement is a straight out lie.
And if you don't, well then, your ignorance is hardly surprising.

Just because left coms didn't go around beating up fascists doesn't mean they did nothing, or were indifferent when it came to the Holocaust.
Don't be such a muppet.

And how the fuck is it International communisms "finest hour"? Seriously, what the hell?
Because it produced pretty pictures that people can now use as display pictures on forums?
It was a terrible, horrible time: millions of people were ruthlessly murdered by fascism and by the major imperialist powers. Instead of fighting against capitalism generally, and other capitalist states, who shared similar positions on questions like anti-semitism, racism, etc. to Nazi Germany (though not as extreme), communists joined up with bourgeois left wing groups, and others, to shoot fascists; instead of pointing out, clearly and concisely, that the enemy is not just fascism, which is merely the most barbaric form of capitalism, capitalism in reaction if you will, but that if we want to destroy fascism we have to take out capitalism.

And what the fuck did that all amount to? What the hell does the communist movement have to show for itself?

[Hit The North]

And here, all this time, I thought workers had no country. Silly me.


Nevertheless, if workers democracy is about the control exerted by the direct producers over all aspects of their society, then Bordiga's notion is a deviation from this. Transferring authority to a trans-national organisation, when most of its constituents lived in still capitalist nations, would, as ScarletGhoul argues, just result in the further alienation of the Russian proletariat from the democratic control of their own lives.


As opposed to what.... having a national party elite take control of the economy, and take control of an international movement? As opposed to genuine workers democracy from below, I suppose?

[ComradeOm]

Honestly I've read very little Bordiga. Gramsci is excellent though; he can be a bit challenging (for someone like myself who is not philosophically inclined at least) but his Prison Notebooks have some very interesting ideas in them. His thoughts on hegemony are the perfect antidote to the crass mechanicalism that so often plagues Marxism


But again I think this whole matter ignores the political landscape of the 1920s and the Communist movement in general at the time. It was a confusing mess of pro and anti-Leninist sentiment, trying to maneuver around the reformists in the trade unions, party unity, how the the Soviet Union and the Comintern should be operated, the methods to formulate party strategy, and how to treat the fascist movement. I don't really think at this point being pro or anti-Stalin was relevant in these debates, at least not until well after Gramsci had been thrown in jail.This has to be emphasised. The situation in the early to mid 1920s was exceptionally fluid and is not easily reduced to a pro/anti-Stalin line. Granted, I'm no expert on the situation in Italy but I do feel that a lot of this talk is post-hoc analysis and line drawing. Certainly on an ideological level, I don't see much of Stalin in Gramsci

[Devrim]

This has to be emphasised. The situation in the early to mid 1920s was exceptionally fluid and is not easily reduced to a pro/anti-Stalin line. Granted, I'm no expert on the situation in Italy but I do feel that a lot of this talk is post-hoc analysis and line drawing.

I think it is also how it was expressed at the time.

Devrim

[Devrim]

As opposed to genuine workers democracy from below, I suppose?

Which as we all know there wasn't at the time.


Nevertheless, if workers democracy is about the control exerted by the direct producers over all aspects of their society, then Bordiga's notion is a deviation from this. Transferring authority to a trans-national organisation, when most of its constituents lived in still capitalist nations, would, as ScarletGhoul argues, just result in the further alienation of the Russian proletariat from the democratic control of their own lives.

I think that there were merits in the proposal, namely that it realised that emphasis had to be put on the development of the international revolution, and not the development of 'socialism in one country'.

Of course, it also suffers from many weakness even beyond Bordiga's ultra-Leninist partyism, and his idea that the party was the brain of the class. On purely practical terms the Comintern was completely dominated by the interests of Russian national foreign policy by that point anyway.

Devrim

[Red Commissar]

I think he was also involved in the expulsion of Bordiga too. I have a friend who knew a lot of the people who were involved in it all. He is pretty much my expert on this kind of stuff. I will e-mail him and ask him.

I can't see him being involved in the expulsion of Bordiga because he was in prison at the time. He was no longer general secretary or held any position in the party to make these decisions.

It was no secret he was opposed to Bordiga, but he had not expelled anyone during his brief tenure as General Secretary. He had restructured the other positions in the party to consolidate his own group's dominance in policy making, but afaik no expulsions.



That is how the political descendants of Bordiga's current tell it. They may be biased, but I think they are well aware of the complexity of the situation:

And again I don't know about that, because from what I read here it said the centre also supported the approach from the bottom and for this reason were united with Bordiga and the left of the PCd'I against Moscow's idea of the United Front that Tasca was whole-heartedly endorsing.



The same text also states that Gramsci was involved in the expulsions of the left, though not Bordiga himself:


Source (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2009-07-01/the-italian-communist-left-a-brief-internationalist-history)

As we have seen above he did.


Now this, I'm not sure but seems to be a fabrication or twist. While the left were obstructed at some parts due to pressure, there was no large scale expulsion from the party. Gramsci had convinced Bordiga to join the Central Committee, along with the representative of the right, Tasca. And there was a considerable amount of time between the Lyons Congress and Bordiga and his supporters expulsion in 1930, by then with Gramsci removed out of the party's leadership.

The problem I'm having with these articles is that they put a jilted view on history and try to view history from our standpoint and make it seem oppression from stalinists in the PCd'I against the left communists and trots, but this kind of mindset is oversimplifying a more complex situation.



By the time Gramsci was imprisoned, Bordiga had already told Stalin that he was the 'gravedigger of the revolution' to his face. I would say it was sort of relevant in the debates.

Devrim

Bordiga had told this to Stalin as a part of a delegation of the PCd'I to the Enlarged Executive of the International, on 15th February 1926. They arrived to this after the Lyons Congress had finished (Bordiga wasn't expelled...) where Bordiga made a number of speeches critical of the Bolsheviks' current approach as well as the proposal to have members of the Comintern have influence over the direction of the Soviet Union. In the midst of this a verbal and near-violent argument broke out between Bordiga and Stalin during a meeting between PCd'I reps and the Bolsheviks.

This occurred AFTER the Lyons Congress (where Bordiga was supposedly expelled... how could Bordiga represent a party he was supposedly expelled from at Lyons according to those articles?). On his way back Bordiga could have easily as a result of his scuffle with Stalin been expelled by Gramsci but this never happened.

This was mainly because Gramsci was always worried about party unity. He retained his arch-nemesis Tasca in the CC along with Bordiga. The political climate in Italy was repressive and unfavorable to the Communists as it was, in light of fascist thugs harassing them and arresting their members, lowing their membership numbers considerably. The last thing the PCd'I needed at this juncture was an expulsion of members from an already small party.

Again we're falling in to the matter of using political labels that weren't relevant in the debates of the 1920s, and certainly most of this really has no bearing on whether or not Gramsci or Bordiga produced influential works. Which they both did. Unfortunately people who claim to follow both their legacies, or claim their ideologies are birthed from them, take it upon themselves to smear and twist history for their own gain.

For what it matters despite their ideological and theoretical differences, Gramsci and Bordiga got along better on a personal level. As I mentioned earlier Gramsci's brief stay on the prison at Ustica with Bordiga was probably the only point in his long imprisonment where he actually meaningfully connected with someone. Reports afterwards show that Gramsci while undertaking debates with other communists at his Turi prison, he never developed a connection with the other prisoners like he did in Ustica.

My point is, how can Gramsci expel members of the left and Bordiga in 1930 when he was in prison along with Bordiga? By this point power of the party shifted to Togliatti and stayed there until his death. Under that time the party became more aligned to the Soviet Union's directives.

[Devrim]

I can't see him being involved in the expulsion of Bordiga because he was in prison at the time. He was no longer general secretary or held any position in the party to make these decisions.


Yes, I said I wasn't sure on that and would have to check.


And again I don't know about that, because from what I read here it said the centre also supported the approach from the bottom and for this reason were united with Bordiga and the left of the PCd'I against Moscow's idea of the United Front that Tasca was whole-heartedly endorsing.

That is not how Gramsci saw it:


I deny emphatically that the party's tradition is reflected in the manifesto [of the communist left]...I at last before the Rome Congress, in the speech I made before the Turin assembly, said clearly enough that ı was accepting the these on tactics only for contingent reasons of party organisation, and declared myself in favour of the united front right through to its normal conclusion in a workers' government.


The problem I'm having with these articles is that they put a jilted view on history and try to view history from our standpoint and make it seem oppression from stalinists in the PCd'I against the left communists and trots, but this kind of mindset is oversimplifying a more complex situation.

Of course all political histories contain bias, but I would tend to trust the documents of the opposition over those of the PCI.


Bordiga had told this to Stalin as a part of a delegation of the PCd'I to the Enlarged Executive of the International, on 15th February 1926.

So as I said about 8 months before Gramsci was imprisoned. One can also assume that there must have been discussions about it in the party. I doubt it was something that Bordiga came up with on his own on a lonely Valentine's day.


This occurred AFTER the Lyons Congress (where Bordiga was supposedly expelled?).

Bordiga was expelled in 1930. The Lyons congress was the begining of the forcing out of the left.


Again we're falling in to the matter of using political labels that weren't relevant in the debates of the 1920s,

I think that they were. The fact that Bordiga condemned Stalin as the 'grave digger' shows that the lines had been drawn.

Devrim

[scarletghoul]

As opposed to what.... having a national party elite take control of the economy, and take control of an international movement?


It's no more "ridiculous" than interference by the Comintern's Executive Committee in a branch affair of some European Communist party, in reality being totally unnecessary micro-management from Moscow.
LOL, the primary Bordigaist argument here seems to be "Stalin was bad. You are not completely anti-Stalin, therefore you must agree with every single thing that Stalin did. They were bad though so this means you are not allowed to criticise any other ideas, because you are by default advocating Stalin's policy which is bad."




And here, all this time, I thought workers had no country. Silly me.What a load of empty thoughtless rhetoricist bullshit. Sure we have no country, but there is the matter of territory. That's what this is all about. The bourgeoisie control territory which they divide up into states etc. And workers live within those pieces of territory. Each territory has its own unique circumstances and conditions, as does its working class. The working class in each of these has a separate communist party in accordance with their separate situations.

There was a liberated territory, the USSR, and the workers there were in control, mostly via the CPSU, which was the organ of the workers in the territory of the USSR. That is why the CPSU governed that territory, because it belonged to the workers there.

The PCF, for example, did not govern the territory of the USSR because it was the party of the workers of France, not the workers of the USSR. The territory of France was controlled by the bourgeoisie. The mission of the French workers was not to govern the Soviet Union, it was to make revolution in France. So the PCF set about making revolution in France.

It is very simple, comrade.
Not quite as silly as the belief that socialism was built and achieved in one country.lol stalin was awesome
But tell me, what's your idea for the organization and administration of the economy after various revolutions? 2,3, many national parties administering national economies according to national interests? Or perhaps, taking cognizance of the already existing international division of labor, international organization of the means of production by workers on an international basis, reconciling the needs of all through the collective efforts of individuals?Oh sure of course all workers' states should work in coordination with each other beyond territorial boundaries, perhaps merging state apparatus where possible etc etc.. But that's completely fucking different to having the French Communists run the USSR while the French workers are still struggling for liberation ! You're full of idealist shit. You think "oh wouldnt it be great if we all got together and done everything together" without taking into account even the basic reality.

[scarletghoul]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/bordiga.jpg
Objective reality ?! I'm freakin out maaan

[S.Artesian]

You're full of idealist shit.

It's been so long since I've been called an "idealist" [even if it's used as a modifier as to what I'm full of, which happens to be, right now, a very nice 2009 Provencal rose^, that I find it refreshing.

The point was that the proletarian revolution precisely does not define itself by nation or whatever euphemism you care to use like "territory," and that the liberation that is at stake is not geographical but social. I know that's a hard concept, social, for the "realpolitikers" of the "Runnin' with Joe" group, to grasp, so I'll try to explain.

Before his death, and actually all through his period in power, Lenin was worried about the "great Russian chauvinism" that might display itself in its disregard for those people who had made up the great Russian empire, that "prison-house" of peoples. Turns out Lenin was more than right, and not just regarding the "internal" development of the fSU,--as if such internal development could ever be isolated from the international developments-- but also regarding the great Russian chauvinist influence on the international communist movement.

Sure enough and soon enough that movement was subordinated to the policies and interests of the Russian CP.

That's what history shows us what happened, although that-- history-- is another concept "I'm with Joe" group can't seem to recognize.

So we can look at the "totally awesome" result of "totally awesome" Joe's way of doing things, and we can look at ways that might involve a bit more risk to "comfortable thinking" and we can decide what's idealistic, and what's total reactionary bullshit-- which what I think Scarlet Ghoul is full of.
With my sincere best wishes for the future.

[Red Commissar]

That is not how Gramsci saw it:

This was given after the threat of the PCd'I being liquidated back into the PSI ended. Before then there was a danger of Tasca and the right's overt support for the official Comintern stance that they would lose the struggle to reformists in the PSI.

This concern later on and their stance on the united front, came down to a fundamental difference between the Centre and the left in regards how to deal with the fascists. Gramsci and the other saw it as a tactical advantage, whereas Bordiga was worried that these manifestations of a popular anti-fascist struggle would pose for the class struggle.



Of course all political histories contain bias, but I would tend to trust the documents of the opposition over those of the PCI.

These are articles written in the modern time however. They are picking parts of history they prefer and ignoring others for emotional effect, the stab-in-the-back type mentality. These are secondary sources using facts in such a way to illicit their desired impact, to make Bordiga's fall seem like a vile Stalinist plan by Gramsci, where the reality was simply quite



So as I said about 8 months before Gramsci was imprisoned. One can also assume that there must have been discussions about it in the party. I doubt it was something that Bordiga came up with on his own on a lonely Valentine's day.

If the party wanted Bordiga expelled they could have done it right then and there. They were in a position two in regards to the Centre's dominance in the party, but Gramsci never made the move because it would have been detrimental to an already weakened and repressed party. My point is how can Gramsci expel Bordiga and the left when this occurred in 1930, when Gramsci was in the slammer? That decision was ultimately made by those who were controlling the party then. Gramsci was irrelevant by this point.

Much less another article you posted stated that Gramsci warned the left and Bordiga with expulsions if they did not vote for the centre's platform in the Lyons Congress. It then goes on to say they were "expelled", which would happen four years after the fact.

Bordiga was very well still a member of the party and represented the PCd'I to this meeting of the Comintern where he confronted Stalin after this supposed expulsion. What had happened was a combination of political scheming from the centre and oppression by the fascists had caused the left of the party to lose clout in decision making.

It was at 1930 when these expulsions took place, which was part of a broader trend by Moscow for member parties of the Comintern to remove Trotskyist or other opposing thought. General Secretary Togliatti was by this point essentially supporting Stalin's moves to consolidate power among other parties of the Comintern.

My issue is that with the first post here where you made the claim that Gramsci was responsible for the expulsion of Bordiga and his supporters on charges of Trotskyism, when this simply was not the case.

As for his stance on Bordiga he never gave one but I think his stance on the expulsion of dissidents from the party could be summarized in the letter that Togliatti withheld, particularly in his conclusion where he warned the Stalin/Bukharin majority of not taking drastic steps.


...today you risk destroying your own handiwork, you are degrading and may even annul completely the leading position which the CPSU acquired under Lenin’s leadership. It seems that your absorption in Russian questions is making you lose sight of the international implications of these questions ... we would like to be sure that the majority of the CPSU central committee does not intend to go too far, that it does not intend to abuse its victory and take excessive measures."


This is from a letter was sent in October of 1926 that was written by Gramsci on behalf of the PCd'I. And as we saw within the next year Zinoviev and Kamenev were thrown out of their positions and Trotsky's exile. Togliatti with held the letter fearing it would rouse the anger of Moscow.



Bordiga was expelled in 1930. The Lyons congress was the begining of the forcing out of the left.

Yes, after four years. During all of that time Gramsci and Bordiga both spent time in prison and could have hardly had input on the decisions by the party. The decision was ultimately made by Togliatti and the members who replaced the imprisoned communists, and later on the PCd'I had taken up Stalin's position in the Communist movement as a whole.



I think that they were. The fact that Bordiga condemned Stalin as the 'grave digger' shows that the lines had been drawn.
Devrim

My point is that this concept of being pro- or anti- "Stalin" was not relevant until Stalin himself had consolidated power with the removal of Bukharin. This process was beginning in 1926 when Bordiga confronted Stalin after Trotsky had left the country, and Zinoviev and Kamenev removed from their positions. We are analyzing these concepts using our conceptions of political allegiances that had not yet solidified in the time of Gramsci and Bordiga.

It is worth nothing that in jail he attempted to request literature that was written by Trotsky so that he could have a better idea of what exactly Trotsky was arguing about, rather than what he was getting from official party news and the heavily censored state press. Gramsci wanted to know exactly where Trotsky stood so he could make his own judgement, but this letter never made it to his people on the outside, and later on he would not bother asking his connections outside for them as he was getting an idea of the political climate at the time.

One advantage we have nowadays is that we have hindsight- we can criticize both after the fact, and more importantly we have free access to information. In Gramsci and Bordiga's time the issue was much more clouded and up in the air for interpretation. I think had Gramsci not been imprisoned, he would have eventually been removed from the party anyways because frankly I think he would have inevitably got into a conflict with Stalin.

When I read both works I try to see them in the time frame they wrote them in rather than seeing it through our own. Gramsci's worked on other things I find interesting besides Hegemony, that being his analysis of Italian history, the formation of intellectuals, the study of America and Ford and their impact on global capitalism, and some of his more theoretical pondering on Marxism. Some of his earlier stuff is interesting too, particularly looking at his idealism during his days writing for L'Ordine Nuovo when he put full faith in the concept of workers' councils and saw it similar to the Russian concept of Soviets.

And he was able to achieve these things despite his physical shortcomings and frequent illnesses. That he was able to withstand the conditions of prison and produced what he did is a testament to his will.

And Bordiga himself we must see his leadership in forming the PCd'I as well as his time leading the true Communists within the PSI against the reformists and Serrati's reluctance to bring the PSI in line with Marxist thought by expelling Turati and other reformists. And obviously his belief that the interests of Moscow should not be guiding the directives of member parties elsewhere.

While I disagree with some of his views, I respect him as a communist none the less and his historical contribution. I think if you remove the theoretical and polemics between the two, you'll see that they probably got a long a lot better than first seen. If anything Gramsci's main beef came with his issues with Angelo Tasca more than it did with Bordiga, though he opposed both of them.

Now that I look at it it seems I didn't vote for "both", but this is a more correct position of mine.

By the way, for those of you interested in looking at a time line of Gramsci's life- http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=4021

And scarletghoul, you are not being very constructive to this. This sectarian baiting has no place here, and I think it'll make us go off-topic from this issue of Gramsci and Bordiga.

[More Fire for the People]

I don't visit RevLeft very much anymore but I had to stop in and say that Bordiga's writings aren't fit to wipe my ass with. Bordigism is Italian Stalinism but without even the will to commit political terror.

[Devrim]

My issue is that with the first post here where you made the claim that Gramsci was responsible for the expulsion of Bordiga and his supporters on charges of Trotskyism, when this simply was not the case.

And as I have said two or three times, I may have been wrong and will check. I thought Gramsci had supported it, and at the time he still carried a great deal of moral clout. As I have said, I could well be wrong.


These are articles written in the modern time however. They are picking parts of history they prefer and ignoring others for emotional effect, the stab-in-the-back type mentality. These are secondary sources using facts in such a way to illicit their desired impact, to make Bordiga's fall seem like a vile Stalinist plan by Gramsci, where the reality was simply quite

The original documents are probably all there, but in Italian, which I don't read.


Much less another article you posted stated that Gramsci warned the left and Bordiga with expulsions if they did not vote for the centre's platform in the Lyons Congress. It then goes on to say they were "expelled", which would happen four years after the fact.

What it said was:


The PCd’I certainly did not. At the Lyons Congress, all the party officials who had supported the Left were told by Gramsci that if they did not vote for his theses they would lose their party positions and their pay (which is one reason why our comrades have opposed the idea of “professional revolutionaries “ever since). Under this pressure many recanted so that the Left was now more isolated. The Left was now expelled from the Party and some went into exile in France and Belgium.

I think that it is very common when attacking factions in the party to do it piece by piece. It is quite uncommon, but not unknown to throw out the majority of a party in one go. This is something that Gramsci did oversea, and was a first step towards isolating the left.

The fact that it then goes onto them being kicked out very quickly is probably more to do with it coming from an article about Gramsci's ideas in general, and is just giving a brief overview of what happened.


My point is that this concept of being pro- or anti- "Stalin" was not relevant until Stalin himself had consolidated power with the removal of Bukharin. This process was beginning in 1926 when Bordiga confronted Stalin after Trotsky had left the country, and Zinoviev and Kamenev removed from their positions. We are analyzing these concepts using our conceptions of political allegiances that had not yet solidified in the time of Gramsci and Bordiga.

Yet the idea of socialism in one country was first put forward by Stalin in 1924. The second edition of 'Foundations of Leninism'stated that the "proletariat can and must build the socialist society in one country". Bukharin, the intellectual, then elaborated on this the following year in 'Can We Build Socialism in One Country in the Absence of the Victory of the West-European Proletariat?'. It was adopted as state policy in January 1926.


This process was beginning in 1926 when Bordiga confronted Stalin after Trotsky had left the country, and Zinoviev and Kamenev removed from their positions.

Actually Trotsky was expelled from the country in Feburary 1929, though he had been sent into internal exile in Alma Ata in January 1928. Both after Bordiga's confrontation with Stalin.

What you seem to be saying is that the opposition to Stalin didn't appear until Trotsky's opposition, yet Trotsky's opposition didn't really start until Spring 1926, again after Bordiga's confrontation with Stalin.

Your argument reads to me that these weren't categories used at the time because their was no opposition to Stalin until Trotsky. However, there was.

Devrim

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

I think that it is very common when attacking factions in the party to do it piece by piece. It is quite uncommon, but not unknown to throw out the majority of a party in one go. This is something that Gramsci did oversea, and was a first step towards isolating the left.

There is another common trend in this, I mean if you look at other left factions in parties it is usually the case that the right elements attempt to kick out the left when its leaders are in some form incapable of guiding the party, seizing upon the opportunity presented. While this may seem obvious, it serves right factions best to disunite a party while its leaders are not able to best communicate with their section of the party cadre, sometimes this has led to the left faction adopting the main thrust of the party too, mostly induced by a feeling of being a little lost so it seems.

[black magick hustla]

You are probably the first in the history of communism to describe the italian communist left as italian stalinism. Perhaps you have an awesome incite beyond the thousands and thousands who have discussed about Bordiga, but it might also be that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

[Red Commissar]

I think that it is very common when attacking factions in the party to do it piece by piece. It is quite uncommon, but not unknown to throw out the majority of a party in one go. This is something that Gramsci did oversea, and was a first step towards isolating the left.

The fact that it then goes onto them being kicked out very quickly is probably more to do with it coming from an article about Gramsci's ideas in general, and is just giving a brief overview of what happened.

It fails to show however, that Gramsci ordered expulsions. He isolated parts of the left and made them lose clout in party decisions, however did he expel them? The part of the letter I quoted shows his attitude towards the Bolshevik situation and no part was his own policy towards his management of the party.

I just want to see where this claim comes from because I've never actually come across it in any of my readings. However I'm not getting answers and just tangents...



Yet the idea of socialism in one country was first put forward by Stalin in 1924. The second edition of 'Foundations of Leninism'stated that the "proletariat can and must build the socialist society in one country". Bukharin, the intellectual, then elaborated on this the following year in 'Can We Build Socialism in One Country in the Absence of the Victory of the West-European Proletariat?'. It was adopted as state policy in January 1926.

And? The party Centre supported this drive by the Stalin/Bukharin bunch because they felt that as the majority they should be backed in order to arrive at party unity the quickest.

Did this mean Gramsci and the centre came into conflict with the left? Of course. But that's not the issue here.



Actually Trotsky was expelled from the country in Feburary 1929, though he had been sent into internal exile in Alma Ata in January 1928. Both after Bordiga's confrontation with Stalin.

Did you even read the bit about the letter? That was what I was getting at that Gramsci was critical of behaviors within the Bolshevik party because he was worried what shape it would take with the Stalin/Bukharin majority's victory. The excessive measures he was worried about was to remove these Bolsheviks from power and ultimately Trotsky's own forced exit as a means of imposing party unity.

This is what the letter was about, and this is why Togliatti did not forward it. The PCd'I had enough issues with Bordiga's behavior with Stalin, they did not need more baggage on top of this.



What you seem to be saying is that the opposition to Stalin didn't appear until Trotsky's opposition, yet Trotsky's opposition didn't really start until Spring 1926, again after Bordiga's confrontation with Stalin.

Your argument reads to me that these weren't categories used at the time because their was no opposition to Stalin until Trotsky. However, there was.



No, what I am saying is this method of going Pro- or anti-Stalin oversimplifies the situation in our time frame. We can go "Gramsci was a bad person because he was a Stalinist" due to his support for the Stalin/Bukharin block, yet this is clearly ignoring the complexities of the political climate at the time, which would manifest themselves different as it the 1920s went on and went into the 1930s.

Again this original argument of mine comes down to this- did Gramsci expel Bordgia and the left on charges of Trotskyism like was said on the first page? As far as I can see, no, especially considering the man was in prison as the party began to purge out opposition. The tangents this argument has developed is irrelevant and ultimately fails to provide a convincing answer to this, beyond obvious statements that Gramsci and the centre had fundamental ideological differences with Bordiga and the left.

[Devrim]

Again this original argument of mine comes down to this- did Gramsci expel Bordgia and the left on charges of Trotskyism like was said on the first page? As far as I can see, no,

I am not quite sure what part of these sentences you didn't understand:


Yes, but I seem to remember that his brother conveyed his opinions to the party supporting the expulsion. I could be wrong though.


I think he was also involved in the expulsion of Bordiga too. I have a friend who knew a lot of the people who were involved in it all. He is pretty much my expert on this kind of stuff. I will e-mail him and ask him.


Yes, I said I wasn't sure on that and would have to check.


And as I have said two or three times, I may have been wrong and will check. I thought Gramsci had supported it, and at the time he still carried a great deal of moral clout. As I have said, I could well be wrong.

Also I didn't say that Gramsci expelled him. The sentence was causative, but if you can't understand basic sentences such as those above, I doubt there is much chance of you understanding the subtlety of grammar.

Devrim

[9]

Originally Posted by Red Commissar
Again this original argument of mine comes down to this- did Gramsci expel Bordgia and the left on charges of Trotskyism like was said on the first page? As far as I can see, no,Also I didn't say that Gramsci expelled him.

I was actually the one who said this. Its the account of it that I learned, from Trotskyists incidentally, although evidently it wasn't quite accurate.

[Red Commissar]

Also I didn't say that Gramsci expelled him. The sentence was causative, but if you can't understand basic sentences such as those above, I doubt there is much chance of you understanding the subtlety of grammar.

Devrim

I'm not sure what part of this I didn't understand but it was evident this claim at the beginning of the thread is anything but,


Yes, Gramsci had Bordiga and thousands of other militants expelled for defending Trotsky. This is hardly surprising though as Gramsci was Stalin's man placed in the leadership of the party despite Bordigas having majority support.

All I was asking is to see proof of this and this is where it all began. I see later that you switched it to "think" or "may", and I was demanding some solid evidence as to where this was, not tangents about his political beliefs.

And understanding the subtlety of grammar? Really that bit there came off elitist. I asked a fair question.

Unsurprisingly nothing to this effect could be found. All we managed to show was the well-known fact that Gramsci and Bordiga had fundamental differences in approach and theory between the two. However I did not come into this thread giving slander to either figure, and it's a shame to see such statements about Gramsci said, or the ones that were said about Bordiga. It doesn't seem we can go a few posts with out this kind of stuff happening.

[Devrim]

All I was asking is to see proof of this and this is where it all began. I see later that you switched it to "think" or "may", and I was demanding some solid evidence as to where this was, not tangents about his political beliefs.

People make mistakes. As we saw with you having Trotsky expelled from the USSR pre-1926. As I said I may well be wrong here, and don't have any problem admitting if I am. I seem to remember that he did have some sway in it, and have written to somebody to check.


And understanding the subtlety of grammar? Really that bit there came off elitist. I asked a fair question.

Well after you kept banging on about the same thing and ignoring the fact that I had repeatedly said that I wasn't sure, I was just underlining the point.

I am sorry if I caused any offence.

Devrim

[Red Commissar]

I've seen the error of my ways then. Gramsci was a dictator who ruthlessly oppressed Bordiga and his supporters because he was Stalin's man.

Don't worry master, I'll leave the big thinking to you. This is beyond me.

[More Fire for the People]

Please, Bordigism is ultra-left Stalinism. Gramsci was opposed by Stalin ultimately. Moreover, Gramsci is 1000x more relevant to the modern Marxist-socialist movement than Bordiga ever was. Gramsci's theory of hegemony is far more influential and important a concept than Bordiga's defense of fascism.

[Bright Banana Beard]

In short Left Communism = Left Stalinism

[Die Neue Zeit]

Please, Bordigism is ultra-left Stalinism. Gramsci was opposed by Stalin ultimately. Moreover, Gramsci is 1000x more relevant to the modern Marxist-socialist movement than Bordiga ever was. Gramsci's theory of hegemony is far more influential and important a concept than Bordiga's defense of fascism.

But Bordiga wasn't a Third Periodist. :confused:

[black magick hustla]

Please, Bordigism is ultra-left Stalinism. Gramsci was opposed by Stalin ultimately. Moreover, Gramsci is 1000x more relevant to the modern Marxist-socialist movement than Bordiga ever was. Gramsci's theory of hegemony is far more influential and important a concept than Bordiga's defense of fascism.

i dont think gramsci is really that relevant beyond academic circles. gramsci's contributions were not his politics but some theoretical observations about culture etcetera. tbh bordigas contributions are much more bigger than his analysis on antifascism and popular front policies. for example, his analysis on democracy and his analysis of the ussr as state capitalism. i guess under a very shallow understanding one can come up with the ridiculous assertion that bordiga's partyism was "stalinist" if one takes on the stupid idea that stalinist betrayal has to do with centralization and a rejection of democracy (actually stalinist politics were full of democratic rhetoric, and that was an aspect of bordigas critique of democracy), but in reality bordiga was simply elaborating on lenins' view of the party and the theses taken on by the first congress of the comintern. bordiga was also one of the first to elaborate on the idea that the law of value is an enemy of the proletariat and the necessity to destroy money. regardless of the confusion at that time, gramsci's and togliatti's center were partly responsable for the consolidation of the comintern as an agent of the ussrs real politic rather than as a real organ of the world revolutionary minorities.

[S.Artesian]

Wouldn't it be a bit more useful to examine what Gramsci and Boriga actually wrote, actually advocated rather than to argue about Gramsci or Bordiga as reflections of splits in the Bolshevik Party?

[ComradeOm]

i dont think gramsci is really that relevant beyond academic circles. gramsci's contributions were not his politics but some theoretical observations about culture etceteraAnd "theoretical observations" have no application beyond "academic circles"?

[Bilan]

In short Left Communism = Left Stalinism

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSlRD2OlPHoJjso0m9cZkUvv2hIJgTyY nShZ911YyrXBnw4c7I&t=1&usg=__pxOF2bZNJwgNQ7tVahpR2-0vUoA=

[Barry Lyndon]

Wouldn't it be a bit more useful to examine what Gramsci and Boriga actually wrote, actually advocated rather than to argue about Gramsci or Bordiga as reflections of splits in the Bolshevik Party?

The Left coms would lose the argument then, Gramsci's works are classic examples of solid Marxist analysis, while Bordiga's are nothing but putrid apologetics for not standing up to fascism.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

Or even better than that, why not argue about who was more manly in fighting fascists (which despite your unfounded and continuing slander, the Italian communist left DID), dragging the thread off-topic as I'm sure that this will prove whose theories and practice came out on top after all. :rolleyes:

[S.Artesian]

The Left coms would lose the argument then, Gramsci's works are classic examples of solid Marxist analysis, while Bordiga's are nothing but putrid apologetics for not standing up to fascism.

Saying it's so doesn't make it so. Show it. Demonstrate it.

[black magick hustla]

Wouldn't it be a bit more useful to examine what Gramsci and Boriga actually wrote, actually advocated rather than to argue about Gramsci or Bordiga as reflections of splits in the Bolshevik Party?

bordiga

democratic principle

http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/liqe/liqemcicee.html

the democratic principle is in my opinion one of his best.

proletarian dictatorship and class

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm

and the most infamous one of all

auschwitz or the great alibi

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1960/auschwitz.htm

[Red Commissar]

Most of Gramsci's works are not available freely online in English, but there is this,

http://ifile.it/2mkez7t

I would recommend in particular from that selection

Before imprisonment
-The Revolution against Capital
-Class Intransigence and Italian History
-Socialism and Culture
-The Problem of the School: What role do schools occupy in modern socities?
-Anything under III. "Factory Councils and Socialist Democracy", being his time in L'Ordine Nuovo
-"Workers and Peasants": Essentially application of Leninist doctrine
-"Letter to Togliatti, Terracini and Others"
-Anything under V. Fascist Reaction and Communist Strategy 1924-1926, notably the Lyons Theses and the Southern Question (this one in particular is an interesting analysis of the divisions between the North and South of Italy.

The Prison Notebooks
-VI and VII represent Gramsci's concepts of Hegemony and the tactics of a communist party repsectively
-VIII: Gramsci's look at fascism and the concept of a "passive revolution"
-IX: "Americanism and Fordism": Gramsci's analysis of the industrial relations in the United States and why it developed differently from Europe, and its potential impact
-X: Intellectuals and Education: Gramsci's view on the role of intellectuals in society, and the two types- traditional and organic.

Everything past that is more dense, and it's all listed in the table of contents. I can not provide any more than that from the Internet, Marxists.org only has a scattering of his journalistic career. It'd be best to scrounge one up in a library somewhere, because it'd be a pain reading all those in .pdf format >_>. Gramsci's notable works tend to revolve around culture/society and history, and this is not surprising considering that these were his interests from his childhood.

In terms of party organization and strategy, as well as a more international outlook, Bordiga makes more sense than Gramsci would and here he shines a lot more.

But they both have their merits and we have to appreciate them for what they contributed. One thing I don't like these kind of threads is that while they have good discussions, inevitably they tend to encourage sectarian fights.

[ComradeOm]

I can not provide any more than that from the Internet, Marxists.org only has a scattering of his journalistic careerI offered to transcribe some of Gramsci's Prison Notebooks for Marxists.org sometime last year but unfortunately the copyright on the English translations is still active. Can't remember who holds it exactly but they were big enough that MIA didn't want to risk putting anything up. Which is a pity

[Red Commissar]

I offered to transcribe some of Gramsci's Prison Notebooks for Marxists.org sometime last year but unfortunately the copyright on the English translations is still active. Can't remember who holds it exactly but they were big enough that MIA didn't want to risk putting anything up. Which is a pity

I figured, copyright is a *****. Was it the ones done by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith? That's the edition I have and they seem to be the more common ones around.

Beyond that the most I have is a scanning from a book that has a broad selection of Gramsci's, which a user in the Gramsci group, svenne, kindly shared. One thing useful though is that by having such a long item range, people can see how Gramsci's views changed over time from his younger days to his last years in prison.

[ComradeOm]

I figured, copyright is a *****. Was it the ones done by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith? That's the edition I have and they seem to be the more common ones aroundPossibly. I do remember that the copyright was owned by 'International Publishers' and that they have threatened MIA with legal action in the past

[Red Commissar]

Possibly. I do remember that the copyright was owned by 'International Publishers' and that they have threatened MIA with legal action in the past

Yeah, those are the guys that publish the Quintin Hoare edition that I have here (I got it second-hand from a friend awhile back). Though I guess it's another event in the long line of Gramsci's works being beat around, as if it wasn't bastardized enough by Italian eurocommunists.

And take a look at their website- http://www.intpubnyc.com/. They even link to CPUSA :lol:

[Devrim]

Antonio Gramsci and the Bolshevization of the PCI - Thomas R Bates (http://libcom.org/history/antonio-gramsci-bolshevization-pci-thomas-r-bates)

An interesting article on Libcom showing how the Comintern (i.e. Stalin) had Gramsci installed as leader.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

Wasnt Gramsci originally very "Councillist" and a lot of Bordiga's early work was basically defending Marxism-Leninism against Gramsci's conceptions?

[Zanthorus]

Wasnt Gramsci originally very "Councillist" and a lot of Bordiga's early work was basically defending Marxism-Leninism against Gramsci's conceptions?

Yes, Gramsci was certainly not a strict Marxist. In 1917 he wrote an article declaring that the Russian revolution had invalidated the materialist conception of history. I have not read any of Gramsci's L'Ordine Nuovo works, but the counter-polemics by Bordiga would suggest that during that period he thought that anarcho-syndicalism could act as a transition phase to Communism:


The 16 August issue of «L'Ordine Nuovo» contained an interesting article on the Soviet-type system of socialisation. This article explained how in a first stage, dubbed anarcho-syndicalist, the factory councils would take over the management of production, but that subsequently, in later stages involving centralisation, they would lose importance. In the end they would be nothing more than clubs and mutual benefit and instruction societies for the workers in a particular factory.http://www.sinistra.net/lib/pre/soviet/bedu/bedumkuzue.html

For anyone interested, issue 10 of Internationalist Papers, a publication by the International Communist Party (Programma Comunista) has an article on 'The Laboratory of Counterevolution', of which section 2 on page 53 is 'Gramscism: An Age-Long Bane of Communism', from a fairly straight-forward Bordigist perspective:

http://www.ilprogrammacomunista.com/pdf/stampa/internationalist%20papers%20%5B10%5D2001.pdf

[syndicat]

Yes, Gramsci was certainly not a strict Marxist. In 1917 he wrote an article declaring that the Russian revolution had invalidated the materialist conception of history. I have not read any of Gramsci's L'Ordine Nuovo works, but the counter-polemics by Bordiga would suggest that during that period he thought that anarcho-syndicalism could act as a transition phase to Communism

your statement is a bit doctrinaire. as Carl Levy documents in "Gramsci and the Anarchists," much of the rank and file of the Italian Socialist Party in the early 1900s was highly influenced by syndicalist and anarchist ideas. Gramsci re-interpreted historical materialism in a libertarian way.

The vulgar Marxist interpretation of historical materialism interprets "development of the productive forces" in a purely technological sense of productive capacity but Gramsci takes seriously the fact that the working class is the main productive force. It's "development" he interprets to mean the growth of its capacity to take over and run production, that is, the process of class formation is a process of "development of the productive forces." This is a more libertarian interpretation because of its emphasis on the will and consciousness of the workers.

the Turin chapter of the PSI was able to work directly with the Turin Libertarian Group -- an anarcho-syndicalist political group -- because of the Marxist-syndicalist orientation of the Turin PSI chapter. This led to the crucial development of the radical shop stewards movement in Turin, based on mass assemblies in the factories, and holding meetings in the plant, stopping work to do so, and the election of delegates accountable to the base.

At the time Gramsci had an inaccurate picture of what "soviets" were. He thought of "workers councils" as akin to the syndicalist inspired radical shop stewards councils that emerged in the World War 1 era in a number of countries -- UK, Germany, Italy, even in the USA (in the railroad and auto industries). Lunacharsky, who was the rep of the Russian Communist Party in Italy, criticized Gramsci for this, and supported Serrati, the "Maximalist" state socialist leader of the PSI against Gramsci. That is, the Russian Communist Party supported the faction of the PSI who were most responsible for derailing the revolution in Italy. Serrati wanted "soviets" that would be controlled by the party top down and based on geographic constituencies, not workpllaces. but when confronted with the refusal of the union bureaucracy to push forward towards a transformation of society, the PSI leadership backed down and accepted a worthless compromise with the bosses. they failed to develop armed militias to protect against the growing far right threat. it was the anarchists who formed the first Arditi del Popolo (militias) but it was too little too late.

Later on Gramsci was won over to Leninism, like many of the Marxist-syndicalists of the World War 1 era. Nonetheless, in his later writings he did make some useful contributions such as his idea of "hegemony", that capital doesn't rule through sheer force, but through maintaining various aspects of the social arrangement that can sustain legitimacy in the eyes of the population, and that the working class, to win, would need to develop a counter-hegemonic bloc.

[bricolage]

I have not read any of Gramsci's L'Ordine Nuovo works, but the counter-polemics by Bordiga would suggest that during that period he thought that anarcho-syndicalism could act as a transition phase to Communism.
This is interesting as he would soon become openly critical of the anarchists (despite the unfounded nature of a number of the claims);

At the head of the movement to form factory councils were the communists belonging to the socialist section and the trade unions... [the anarchists] also took part and tried to oppose their bombastic rhetoric to the clear and precise language of the Marxist communists... The propaganda of the anarchists and syndicalists against party discipline and the dictatorship of the proletariat had no influence on the masses.

The Italian anarchists are very touchy, as well as arrogant: they have always been convinced of being the repository of revealed revolutionary truth; this conviction has become 'monstrous' since the Socialist Party, under the influence of the Russian Revolution and Bolshevik propaganda, has taken over certain fundamental points of Marxist doctrine, and is spreading them in a simple and popular way among the mass of workers and peasants. For a while now the Italian anarchists have been doing nothing but letting off steam with the satisfied observation:
"We have said it all along. We were right!" without ever posing themselves these questions: Why, if we have been right, have we not been followed by the majority of the Italian proletariat? Why has the majority of the Italian proletariat always followed the Socialist Party and the union bodies allied to the Socialist Party? (Why has the Italian proletariat allowed itself to be 'fooled by the Socialist Party and by the union bodies allied to the Socialist Party'.) The Italians anarchists could only answer these questions exhaustively after a great gesture of humility and contrition: only after having abandoned the anarchist point of view.

In 'Towards a Renewal of the Socialist Party', a paper presented to the National Council of the PSI, April 19-20 1920, Gramsci also stated the need for the party to 'unify and coordinate its efforts' or else see the working class 'move over towards those anarchistic tendencies that bitterly and ceaselessly criticise the centralisation and bureaucracy of political parties'.

[Zanthorus]

The vulgar Marxist interpretation of historical materialism interprets "development of the productive forces" in a purely technological sense of productive capacity but Gramsci takes seriously the fact that the working class is the main productive force. It's "development" he interprets to mean the growth of its capacity to take over and run production, that is, the process of class formation is a process of "development of the productive forces." This is a more libertarian interpretation because of its emphasis on the will and consciousness of the workers.

Really, I just took that passage to be talking about the tendential fall in the profit rate. Although considering how slippery Marx was with words ('Words like bats'), it is possible that the passage could mean a number of things at the same time.


Nonetheless, in his later writings he did make some useful contributions such as his idea of "hegemony", that capital doesn't rule through sheer force, but through maintaining various aspects of the social arrangement that can sustain legitimacy in the eyes of the population, and that the working class, to win, would need to develop a counter-hegemonic bloc.

But this is the basic point of commodity fetishism, as well as Marx's comments in the German ideology about the ruling ideas of every age being those of the ruling class, because those who control the means of production control the means of information production. So it's hardly a new idea. Overthrow of bourgeois ideological supremacy is one of the three demands which the Communist Manifesto posits as the essential demands of the workers' movement.

[syndicat]

Really, I just took that passage to be talking about the tendential fall in the profit rate.

ah, no. if the profit rate falls and capitalists stop investing, this is an example of how "the social relations of production" "fetter" the "development of the productive forces." "The forces of production" refers, obviously, to the forces of production. That is, things that contribute to, have capacity for, production. this includes workers, engineers and scientists, as well as equipment and other things used in production. Marx's theory of history states that it is when this "fettering" takes place that there is heightened social conflict and revolution is more likely...as in a capitalist depression.

[Thirsty Crow]

But this is the basic point of commodity fetishism, as well as Marx's comments in the German ideology about the ruling ideas of every age being those of the ruling class, because those who control the means of production control the means of information production. So it's hardly a new idea. Overthrow of bourgeois ideological supremacy is one of the three demands which the Communist Manifesto posits as the essential demands of the workers' movement.

But was that point seriously considered and worked upon by the parties of the second International?
Honestly asking, this is no rhetorical question?
Umm, maybe it's rhetorical a bit, but I don't know enough so...