Differences Between Left Communism and Council Communism

[Marshal of the People]

Greetings comrades.

I should like to know your opinions on the differences please.

Your favourite member out.

[SovietCommie]

Council Communism is Marxian Communism or Bolshevism, which follows the 10 planks of Communism as stated in The Communist Manifesto.

Left Communism is Pure Communism. No state, no class and no banks. Basically the same as Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Left Communists don't see themselves as Leftists

[reb]

Council Communism is Marxian Communism or Bolshevism, which follows the 10 planks of Communism as stated in The Communist Manifesto.

Left Communism is Pure Communism. No state, no class and no banks. Basically the same as Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Nope. Seriously nope. I can't answer properly right now but this isn't close to correct.

[Taters]

Council Communism is Marxian Communism or Bolshevism, which follows the 10 planks of Communism as stated in The Communist Manifesto.

Left Communism is Pure Communism. No state, no class and no banks. Basically the same as Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Bolshevik Sickle, what is it with you and anarcho-syndicalism?

[L.A.P.]

left communism views the Eastern Bloc and other Communist states as state capitalist, oppose parliamentary politics and popular fronts, critical of labor unions, etc. Council communism became a distinct current when Dutch-German left communists changed their positions. Council communism holds all the previously mentioned tropes as left communism except it views the October Revolution as a bourgeois-democratic revolution breaking feudal relations, oppose political parties, and reject the vanguard in favor of a fully class conscious proletariat organized into workers councils.

I'm sure there will be far more knowledgable users to chime in

[Marshal of the People]

Good, thanks comrades. I just wondered if your views on what council communism were were the same as mine.

[G4b3n]

Council Communists regard worker's control as being a primary goal of the revolution. In Russia for example, they didn't believe that any party should seize state power. They actually believed that all power should go to the soviets (radical, I know).

Left communists are most known for their rejection of Leninist ideas such as democratic centralism. They generally believe things such as the right to assemble and to voice opposition to the state are essential for workers to actually be considered as holding the reins of political power.

Left communism is not anarchism and is not very similar to anarcho-syndicalism, which is really more a set of anarchist tactics and strategy than an ideology in and of itself.

[IBleedRed]

I don't know much about council communism but "left communism" is irrelevant historically and largely unrealistic.

[Marshal of the People]

I personally know a lot about council communism. What I would like to know is; Is council communism a form of Left communism and in what ways did left communism influence it.

[spiritof56]

council communism is a form of left-communsim that sort of sprang from the dutch-german left communists (Pannekoek, Gorter Ruhle). This is only one part of the left-communist tradition though. The other part is the Italian left (ICP, Bordiga). The coucilists, like the early dutch-german left-communists have a decidedly "libertarian" bent to them and very much stress the workers council as appropriate form of workers rule. This is contrasted by the Italian/Bordigist left which much more stresses the content of communism over its form. Most Modern left-communists are neither strictly councilists or "Bordigists" instead they tend to synthesize different elements from each tradition together.

[Remus Bleys]

I don't know much about council communism but "left communism" is irrelevant historically and largely unrealistic.
well this is to be expected "the ruling ideas are ruling class ideas" and all of that

[L.A.P.]

Good, thanks comrades. I just wondered if your views on what council communism were were the same as mine.

the more I read about various strains of radical political theory, the more I'm unsure of it all. Not to mention I'm too irl politically inexperienced to act like I know what tendency is most effective to emancipate the working class.

I don't think parties per se should be opposed as a general rule, the narrative of the Russian Revolution as bourgeois can hold some truth but is a cop-out for the most part, and wanting the whole proletariat to adopt revolutionary consciousness in order to ignite insurrection rather than a militant minority is disagreeable.

nonetheless, i still appreciate the council communist texts and critiques that I myself have read so far

[G4b3n]

I don't know much about council communism but "left communism" is irrelevant historically and largely unrealistic.

"I am a Leninist, please join me in not liking left Communism".

[Marshal of the People]

"I am a Leninist, please join me in not liking left Communism".

Enemy! (Just joking comrade.)

[IBleedRed]

"I am a Leninist, please join me in not liking left Communism".
Once "Left communists" leave some sort of mark on history to be studied, I'll pay more attention.

For the record, I'm not against "left communists" since I'm not against any sort of communist. We all want the same thing. I am just tired of all the -isms and all the abstract bullshit.

[Marshal of the People]

Once "Left communists" leave some sort of mark on history to be studied, I'll pay more attention.

For the record, I'm not against "left communists" since I'm not against any sort of communist. We all want the same thing. I am just tired of all the -isms and all the abstract bullshit.

Define "mark on history" please.

[IBleedRed]

Define "mark on history" please.
As in, actually carried out a revolution. We can talk all day about how good or bad the USSR et al were, but at least we'd be talking about things that exist[ed].

Nobody wants to recreate any of those failed experiments, but having something to study historically is alot better than sitting around and saying "that wasn't real socialism" and dismissing the past with a simple one-liner the same way naive lolbertarians do.

[Marshal of the People]

As in, actually carried out a revolution. We can talk all day about how good or bad the USSR et al were, but at least we'd be talking about things that exist[ed].

Nobody wants to recreate any of those failed experiments, but having something to study historically is alot better than sitting around and saying "that wasn't real socialism" and dismissing the past with a simple one-liner the same way naive lolbertarians do.

Every communist revolution has been a failure. Have you head of the Paris commune?

[G4b3n]

Once "Left communists" leave some sort of mark on history to be studied, I'll pay more attention.

For the record, I'm not against "left communists" since I'm not against any sort of communist. We all want the same thing. I am just tired of all the -isms and all the abstract bullshit.

They have left a huge mark on history. You realize the world's labor movement has been more than the USSR right? I think you need to reevaluate your early to mid 19th century history. You realize that left communists have served as the heads of many of the most influential communist parties and actively committed to the class struggle of the international proletariat?

We do not all want the same thing. Some of us want workers to control the means of production and some of us don't. As far as I see it, that is the only divide in the left.

[Remus Bleys]

As in, actually carried out a revolution. We can talk all day about how good or bad the USSR et al were, but at least we'd be talking about things that exist[ed].

Nobody wants to recreate any of those failed experiments, but having something to study historically is alot better than sitting around and saying "that wasn't real socialism" and dismissing the past with a simple one-liner the same way naive lolbertarians do.
Ideology doesn't make a revolution. Neither Leninism nor Maoism nor Left Communism carries out a revolution.

[IBleedRed]

Ideology doesn't make a revolution. Neither Leninism nor Maoism nor Left Communism carries out a revolution.
You're right. I mean Leninist strategy.

[Remus Bleys]

council communism is a form of left-communsim that sort of sprang from the dutch-german left communists (Pannekoek, Gorter Ruhle). This is only one part of the left-communist tradition though. The other part is the Italian left (ICP, Bordiga). The coucilists, like the early dutch-german left-communists have a decidedly "libertarian" bent to them and very much stress the workers council as appropriate form of workers rule. This is contrasted by the Italian/Bordigist left which much more stresses the content of communism over its form. Most Modern left-communists are neither strictly councilists or "Bordigists" instead they tend to synthesize different elements from each tradition together.
i wouldn't classify the entirity of the italian left as bordigism, as there is "damenists" which break with bordiga somewhere post-ww2.
edit: i also wouldn't confuse bordigism with the thing bordigism became.

You're right. I mean Leninist strategy.

not all left-coms are anti-lenin, many are very pro-lenin.

[Comrade #138672]

i wouldn't classify the entirity of the italian left as bordigism, as there is "damenists" which break with bordiga somewhere post-ww2


not all left-coms are anti-lenin, many are very pro-lenin.But the left communists who are pro-Lenin are generally anti-"Leninism".

[Skyhilist]

Unlike left communists, council communists think that revolutionary parties should be dissolved as quickly as possible, view the nature of the October Revolution more harshly, and some other minor stuff. Council communism emerged from left communism, so they aren't extremely different or polar opposites though.

[Tim Cornelis]

But the left communists who are pro-Lenin are generally anti-"Leninism".

Are they? Or are they more Leninist than Lenin?

[Remus Bleys]

Or are they more Leninist than Lenin?
Basically this.

The Italian Left is very pro-Lenin, with Damen (whom I am not as well read with) but the so-called "Damenites" I have contact with really like the theoretical contributions of Lenin and have huge praise for many of Lenin's works, and Bordiga and the Bordigists are said to "out lenin lenin," for instance, in 1926 bordiga was praising Leninism as he perceived it.

What they were opposed to was "bolshevization," a policy which tried to make basically every communist party the pawn of Moscow.

[reb]

You're right. I mean Leninist strategy.

First, you have to define this thing "leninism" and then you to define this thing you called "leninist strategy", now you have to completely ignore history where even the least dogmatic of these interpretations don't fit and then again have to break it down even further when you try to apply to places outside of Russia. And, you also have to assume that this even resulted in anything that wasn't outright counter revolution. Does history not exist for the soviet union and it's ideology?

[Art Vandelay]

From what I understand council-communism is seen as a degeneration of left-communism, by many who consider themselves of the more 'Bordigist' oriented left-communist tendencies (ICC, ICT). I'm sure this is a highly disputed position to take (especially by the council-communists) but it seems to be somewhat true, from my (admittedly limited) understanding of the topic, especially given their classification of October as a bourgeois-democratic revolution.

Also this 'more Leninist than Lenin' line is a non-sequitur as far as I'm concerned. I mean, what does that even really mean?

[Remus Bleys]

More leninists than Lenin is one of the criticisms Bordiga will get because of the fact he, in certain cases idealized Lenin and leninism (though I don't think it's fair). Or the fact that Bordiga was changing his mind about unions and natlib, and this is attributed both to his "ultra" leninism and degeneration. It's a bit of a silly statement, like when people conflate bordigas view of the party with stalinism, referring to Bordiga as an ultra left stalinist.
It is a non sequitur I just went with it because it's arguable that he took a lot of Lenin's arguments and theory to a "different"extreme.

[Art Vandelay]

More leninists than Lenin is one of the criticisms Bordiga will get because of the fact he, in certain cares idealized Lenin and leninism (though I don't think it's fair). Our the fact that Bordiga was changing his mind about unions and natlib, and this is attributed both to his "ultra" leninism and degeneration. It's a bit of a silly statement, like when people conflate bordigas view of the party with stalinism, referring to Bordiga as an ultra left stalinist.
It is a non sequitur I just went with it because it's arguable that he took a lot of Lenin's arguments and theory to a "different"extreme.

Ahh I see, thanks for the clear up. Bordiga is actually someone who I highly respect (calling Stalin the grave digger of the revolution and not being murdered is impressive) and I've enjoyed all of his works that I've read, despite the fact that I obviously have some political differences. It seems most Bordigists view the positions he adopted later in life as a 'degeneration' whereas I view him as slightly moving away from his ultra-leftism. His views changing on unions/natlib were positive developments in my opinion, but obviously that is going to be highly contentious. I also find his thoughts on 'organic centralism' highly intriguing, although I've yet to give his works on the matter a proper study and can't say I have much of a grasp on the concept. I'd heard that 'more Leninist than Lenin' statement before, but was never really sure what it meant.

[Devrim]

I'd heard that 'more Leninist than Lenin' statement before, but was never really sure what it meant.

It is a reaction to Bordiga's politics. Bordiga was an ultra-centralist, emphasised the role of the party (in contrast to the councils), and a stickler for party discipline. At the Second Congress of the 3rd International, twenty condition were proposed for admittance of parties into the Comintern. Bordiga demanded a 21st, which basically said that anybody who didn't follow the other 20 to the letter should be out. This was despite the fact that he didn't agree with all of the twenty conditions in the first place. When Stalin later had him replaced in the leadership by Gramsci, Bordiga went right along with it even though he still had a majority in the party in the name of centralisation and party discipline.


The left communists in the 3rd International were not a unified bloc, and perhaps if Lenin hadn't written that little book compounding them we might not even group them together today. Beyond the abstentionist question, they agreed on very little. Bordiga thought the the KAPists had a 'syndicalist deviation', and they in turn thought he was an 'ultra-Leninist'.


It seems most Bordigists view the positions he adopted later in life as a 'degeneration' whereas I view him as slightly moving away from his ultra-leftism. His views changing on unions/natlib were positive developments in my opinion, but obviously that is going to be highly contentious.

I don't tink his views did change on these issues. Instead the people who changed their views were the rest of the non-Bordigist left communists. Bordiga's views on these issues remained reasonably consistent.


I also find his thoughts on 'organic centralism' highly intriguing, although I've yet to give his works on the matter a proper study and can't say I have much of a grasp on the concept.

Intriguing on paper, the question is how it works in practice.

Devrim

[L.A.P.]

Bordiga's views on these issues remained reasonably consistent


I think most people understand Bordiga/Bordigism to have been vehemently against unions and national liberation, but became more sympathetic towards them in Bordiga's later years. I'm guessing they would be mistaken. I got the impression from his writings that he took a critical distance towards the former and the latter, opposed currents that held unions and national liberation up as general principles, but didn't necessarily make an absolute principle out of abstaining from union-activity and struggling against imperialist wars

please inform me

[Rurkel]

The left communists in the 3rd International were not a unified bloc, and perhaps if Lenin hadn't written that little book compounding them we might not even group them together today. Beyond the abstentionist question, they agreed on very little. Bordiga thought the the KAPists had a 'syndicalist deviation', and they in turn thought he was an 'ultra-Leninist'.

I find it interesting how, despite that, sympathizers of both German and Italian leftcom tendencies usually get along just fine on the Internet. Lenin's book seemingly did tie them fairly close. Then again, many ultra-lefts are perfectly happy to synthesize these two tendencies.

[Art Vandelay]

It is a reaction to Bordiga's politics. Bordiga was an ultra-centralist, emphasised the role of the party (in contrast to the councils), and a stickler for party discipline. At the Second Congress of the 3rd International, twenty condition were proposed for admittance of parties into the Comintern. Bordiga demanded a 21st, which basically said that anybody who didn't follow the other 20 to the letter should be out. This was despite the fact that he didn't agree with all of the twenty conditions in the first place. When Stalin later had him replaced in the leadership by Gramsci, Bordiga went right along with it even though he still had a majority in the party in the name of centralisation and party discipline.

That's actually interesting, I knew he was considered quite the stickler for centralization and party discipline, but I didn't know that anecdote about the 2nd congress of the 3rd. What was the relationship like between Gramsci and Bordiga? If you don't mind taking the time, to give me a brief run down. I've never heard much on the topic.


I don't tink his views did change on these issues. Instead the people who changed their views were the rest of the non-Bordigist left communists. Bordiga's views on these issues remained reasonably consistent.


It was just something I'd seen repeated often on here by individuals who self styled as left-communists, but truthfully I don't know much about his supposed 'degeneration' or whatever it is usually called.


Intriguing on paper, the question is how it works in practice.


Something I have no insight into. Do the ICC/ICT practice 'organic centralism'?

[Tim Cornelis]

That's actually interesting, I knew he was considered quite the stickler for centralization and party discipline, but I didn't know that anecdote about the 2nd congress of the 3rd. What was the relationship like between Gramsci and Bordiga? If you don't mind taking the time, to give me a brief run down. I've never heard much on the topic.


This goes into some detail about the relationship between Gramsci and Bordiga:

http://books.google.nl/books?id=HhYHyI9b13YC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=Bolshevization&f=false (chapter Bolshevization, espcially from page 147).

[Devrim]

I think most people understand Bordiga/Bordigism to have been vehemently against unions and national liberation, but became more sympathetic towards them in Bordiga's later years. I'm guessing they would be mistaken. I got the impression from his writings that he took a critical distance towards the former and the latter, opposed currents that held unions and national liberation up as general principles, but didn't necessarily make an absolute principle out of abstaining from union-activity and struggling against imperialist wars

please inform me

OK, I have never come across this impression before. I am pretty sure I am right on this. I hope so because if I am wrong I have seriously misunderstood things for the last few decades.

Anyway as I understand it, Bordiga was always pro-union work, and supported national liberation struggles. The positions against these things that are held today by left coomunists don't come from the Italian left, but from the German left, and in particular find their roots in, the practical struggle against the unions by workers in the revolutionary period after WWI, and Luxemborg's criticism of the polish national movement.

I am not sure where people have picked up these ideas about Bordiga's politics. I see two possibilities. Either they have looked at the politics are the left communists today and extrapolated backwards, or I am very very wrong.

Devrim

[Devrim]

That's actually interesting, I knew he was considered quite the stickler for centralization and party discipline, but I didn't know that anecdote about the 2nd congress of the 3rd. What was the relationship like between Gramsci and Bordiga? If you don't mind taking the time, to give me a brief run down. I've never heard much on the topic.

I will come back to this tomorrow. There is some stuff about it on-line, but I am typing on a phone now and posting links is more difficult.




It was just something I'd seen repeated often on here by individuals who self styled as left-communists, but truthfully I don't know much about his supposed 'degeneration' or whatever it is usually called.

I don't really know what they are talking about. It must be coonected with the 1952 split, but I don't think Bordiga 'degenerated'. He stayed the same, and refused to change. Perhaps they are referring to later events, and what is sometimes called the 'implosion' of the ICP, but Bordiga was dead by then.


Something I have no insight into. Do the ICC/ICT practice 'organic centralism'?

No, it is a Bordigist thing. The ICC and the ICT aren't Bordigists.

Devrim

[Android]

Bordiga was always pro-union work, and supported national liberation struggles. The positions against these things that are held today by left coomunists don't come from the Italian left, but from the German left, and in particular find their roots in, the practical struggle against the unions by workers in the revolutionary period after WWI, and Luxemborg's criticism of the polish national movement.

I do not think this is strictly true. The people around Damen developed these positions in the 1930/40s when Bordiga dropped out of active political involvement. It is a common view that positions against national liberation and trade unionism emerged solely from the German left. I do not think this is true, or at least not true in a unqualified way.

Re Bordiga's 'degeneration': I can not attest to this myself but I have certainly heard plenty of people suggest that his view hardened on certain questions post-WW2 in a dogmatic manner. But then again it is in this period too he outlined his communist critique of self-management/syndiclalism.

[Devrim]

I do not think this is strictly true. The people around Damen developed these positions in the 1930/40s when Bordiga dropped out of active political involvement. It is a common view that positions against national liberation and trade unionism emerged solely from the German left. I do not think this is true, or at least not true in a unqualified way.

Yes, I know this. A similar thing happened with the 'Bilan' group, who the ICC consider their political ancestors. Maybe I should have inserted the word originally. I am sure that the people around Damen were at least aware of the positions taken by the German left. They weren't positions held by Bordiga in the 1920s though, which is what was at issue here.


Re Bordiga's 'degeneration': I can not attest to this myself but I have certainly heard plenty of people suggest that his view hardened on certain questions post-WW2 in a dogmatic manner. But then again it is in this period too he outlined his communist critique of self-management/syndiclalism.

He may have got more stubborn. Old men do. I don think that he made substantial changes on the union and national liberation questions.

Devrim

[newdayrising]

As in, actually carried out a revolution. We can talk all day about how good or bad the USSR et al were, but at least we'd be talking about things that exist[ed].


I suspect most left communists would agree that it's the working class who carry out revolutions, not themselves.

[Remus Bleys]

So on the case of National Liberation, in 1912 Bordiga had written this
http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/cote/cotesdadae.html
In this piece he talks about the slogan "Balkans for the Balkan People" and his rejection of it.
"Socialism must oppose all wars, avoiding captious distinctions between wars of conquest and wars of independence."
"The intensification of nationalism and patriotism, which delays the organisation of the proletariat into an internationalist class party."
nor did Bordiga unconditionally support National Liberation, as in Lyons Theses it is stated "To elevate the struggle of the national minorities, per se to the level of a matter of principle is therefore to distort the communist conception, since altogether different criteria are required to discern whether such struggles offer revolutionary possibilities or reactionary developments." I remember reading and when talking to many different people that Bordiga's view on national liberation was confused and underdeveloped, but it probably is what Devrim says it is, imposing what is seen as left communist theory on all left-communists.

So on Unions, I was wrong, but this was as I have never really cared for his writings on Unions, and when writing "he changed his mind on unions" it was more meant to be "he was uncertain on unions."
"What follows are some excerpts from Bordiga’s letters and documents, which clearly demonstrate, especially with regard to the union issue, that Bordiga’s “thinking” was struggling and shows some uncertainty." http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2013-08-13/on-the-union-question
and in this (http://libcom.org/library/bordiga-versus-pannekoek) it suggests that Bordiga felt that unions were to be opposed, but that he never developed a "solid critique" of the union, something I also hear a lot.

As for his "degeneration" that is actually somehting I picked up talking to a couple members of the Italian Left on Facebook and a couple of other people who say that they agree with pre-ww2 bordiga, but not with post-ww2 bordiga. The person I was talking to suggested this was because of his position on things like National Liberation and Unions, but now I am thinking this is more of a result from his changing on things like democracy (which reading the democratic principle, it seemed that he was developing the theory to eventually oppose all democracy) and on the invariance of marxism. Another instance of his degeneration is "In the higher stage of communism - a stage which does not know commodity production, money nor nations and which will also witness the death of the state - labour unions will be deprived of their "reason to be"." which was in Proletarian Dictatorship and class party, and the reason this is suspect is obvious.

[Devrim]

So on the case of National Liberation, in 1912 Bordiga had written this
http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/cote/cotesdadae.html
In this piece he talks about the slogan "Balkans for the Balkan People" and his rejection of it.
"Socialism must oppose all wars, avoiding captious distinctions between wars of conquest and wars of independence."
"The intensification of nationalism and patriotism, which delays the organisation of the proletariat into an internationalist class party."
nor did Bordiga unconditionally support National Liberation, as in Lyons Theses it is stated "To elevate the struggle of the national minorities, per se to the level of a matter of principle is therefore to distort the communist conception, since altogether different criteria are required to discern whether such struggles offer revolutionary possibilities or reactionary developments." I remember reading and when talking to many different people that Bordiga's view on national liberation was confused and underdeveloped, but it probably is what Devrim says it is, imposing what is seen as left communist theory on all left-communists.


This though is essentially Lenin's position. He didn't believe in spporting national liberation as a point of principle, but as a tactic. It is not the position put forward by modern left communists.

Devrim

[Comrade Jacob]

Council Communism is Marxian Communism or Bolshevism, which follows the 10 planks of Communism as stated in The Communist Manifesto.

Left Communism is Pure Communism. No state, no class and no banks. Basically the same as Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Left Communists don't see themselves as Leftists

I've got a funny feeling this guy was Bolshevik Sickle.

[L.A.P.]

OK, I have never come across this impression before. I am pretty sure I am right on this. I hope so because if I am wrong I have seriously misunderstood things for the last few decades.

Anyway as I understand it, Bordiga was always pro-union work, and supported national liberation struggles. The positions against these things that are held today by left coomunists don't come from the Italian left, but from the German left, and in particular find their roots in, the practical struggle against the unions by workers in the revolutionary period after WWI, and Luxemborg's criticism of the polish national movement.

I am not sure where people have picked up these ideas about Bordiga's politics. I see two possibilities. Either they have looked at the politics are the left communists today and extrapolated backwards, or I am very very wrong.

Devrim

well I thought his criticisms of anarcho-syndicalism in Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism made his views that unions aren't a revolutionary form of organization apparent Hence, why I said "took a critical distance". As for national liberation, that's all second-hand reading.

[freecommunist]

On the union questions, this maybe of help :)


What follows are two further extracts from the book by Onorato Damen “Bordiga: Beyond the Myth”. Other parts of this can be found on our website As the title suggests these are devoted to the union question. The extracts demonstrate that Damen supported work within unions but it was in the form of factory groups, politically constituted and outside of union structures and their conservative aims. Bordiga still had not given up the perspective of reconquering the unions for the working class once the objective situation had changed. Damen considered this impossible. This is the first time this exchange has appeared in English.

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2013-08-13/on-the-union-question

[Leo]

I think based on the Balkans article we can safely say that Bordiga actually had a position clearly against national liberation before WW1:

What stance must the socialists take on so-called «wars of independence», which aspire to the liberation of an oppressed nationality from the foreign yoke? ... as the concepts of race and nationality are so elastic historically and geographically, they're always welladapted to the interests of oligarchic capitalist groups, according to the needs of their economic development. Only after the event can sycophantic history reconstruct fantastic, sentimental motives, and create the patriotic and national tradition, which serves the shrewd bourgeoisie so well as an antidote to the class struggle... The idea that war accelerates the coming of socialist revolution is a vulgar prejudice. Socialism must oppose all wars, avoiding captious distinctions between wars of conquest and wars of independence...In declaring ourselves against wars of independence, we don't mean to defend racial oppression."

I would say what caused him to change his position after WW1 was Lenin's position. I would say even that happened gradually, since the tone of the Theses of the Abstentionist Communist Fraction is more against national liberation than for it, although it is not as clear as Bordiga was before the war: Another fundamental tenet of bourgeois democracy lies in the principle of nationality. The formation of states on a national basis corresponds to the class necessities of the bourgeoisie at the moment when it establishes its own power, in that it can thus avail itself of national and patriotic ideologies (which correspond to certain interests common in the initial period of capitalism to people of the same race, language and customs) and use them to delay and mitigate the conflict between the capitalist state and the proletarian masses. National irredentism's are thus born of essentially bourgeois interests. The bourgeoisie itself does not hesitate to trample on the principle of nationality as soon as the development of capitalism drives it to the often violent conquest of foreign markets and to the resulting conflict among the great states over the latter. Communism transcends the principle of nationality in that it demonstrates the identical predicament in which the mass of disinherited workers find themselves with respect to employers, whatever may be the nationality of either the former or the latter; it proclaims the international association to be the type of political organisation which the proletariat will create when it, in turn, comes to power... This critique demolishes those various interpretations which take up the viewpoint of one or another bourgeois state and try to present the war as a vindication of the national rights of certain peoples or as a struggle of democratically more advanced states against those organised on pre-bourgeois forms, or finally, as a supposed necessity of self-defence against enemy aggression. Communism is likewise opposed to the conceptions of bourgeois pacifism and to Wilsonian illusions on the possibility of a world association of states, based on disarmament and arbitration and having as its pre-condition the Utopia of a sub-division of state units by nationality. For communists, war will become impossible and national questions will be solved only when the capitalist regime has been replaced by the International Communist Republic."

I think the Italian Left shared the general mistrust of the left-wing of the Communist International towards national liberation struggles. The Dutch and German left were traditionally against national liberation, it's true, yet so was a majority of the Bolsheviks in the first years of the Russian Revolution. I think eventually Bordiga and the Italian Left ended up going along with this point because for them the main political battle had to be fought over parliamentarianism, and the change in their position on national liberation was among the many concessions they made in public as well as in their hearts.

As for the unions, I don't know about Bordiga's positions before the war, but according to the Theses: "Communists cannot consider economic trade or craft organisations to be sufficient for the struggle for the proletarian revolution or as the basic organs of the communist economy. The organisation of the class through trade unions serves to neutralise competition between workers of the same trade and prevents wages falling to the lowest level. However it cannot lead to the elimination of capitalist profit, still less to the unification of the workers of all trades against the privilege of bourgeois power... Communists consider the union as the site of an initial proletarian experience which permits the workers to go further towards the concept and the practice of political struggle... Communists therefore penetrate proletarian co-operatives, unions, factory councils, and form groups of communist workers within them. They strive to win a majority and posts of leadership so that the mass of proletarians mobilised by these associations subordinate their action to the highest political and revolutionary ends of the struggle for communism."

I think this position is essentially close to that of Luxemburg and Lenin rather than to the left-wing of International, both the German left communists and many members of the British and American parties. The left, even the German Left, in turn, wasn't very clear in turn on this question at the time because in calling for the destruction of the existing unions, they had formed their own unions or were supporting revolutionary unions of sorts. Eventually there were even some members of the German Left (the Essen tendency) who went on to reject day-to-day class struggles. The current left communist positions which not only rejects existing trade-unions but alternative union forms as well clearly without opposing daily class struggle, and in fact seeing existing trade-unions as enemies of daily class struggle, can be traced back to the positions of Luciano Stefanini and Luigi Danielis, members of the Italian Left, in the 1930ies.

[Queen Mab]

What kind of organisations were the 'Unionen' that the German left was active in?