Bordiga Vs. Gramsci?

[The Intransigent Faction]

So I've been reading the introduction to a copy of Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, which is actually more of a general background on how the Italian situation during/post-WW1 related to the Bolshevik revolution and the Comintern at large.

The background gets into some pretty heavy detail around the rift between Bordiga (left), Gramsci (centre), and Tasca (right). The book portrays them all as unprepared for the scope of the fascist threat and Bordiga as somehow naïve in sticking to a definition of social democracy as the "left wing of fascism". More to the point, though, Bordiga is "intransigent" in his refusal to adopt a united front, whereas Gramsci is more open to some sort of compromise, and Tasca along with at least the Russians wanted a fusion of the PCI with the reformist PSI.

In short, is there somewhere I can look for a reasonably succinct breakdown of the differences between Bordiga and Gramsci? Because I'm more inclined toward Bordiga's "intransigence" on participation in a united front, yet somehow Gramsci's less (in hindsight) mechanistic view of how to build class consciousness seems vindicated.

Aside from that, one other question is how could Gramsci and Mao (the book touches a bit on Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin) be compared in terms of their views on the importance of a "worker-peasant alliance"?

Sorry for the rant. I'm just trying to get as good a grasp on a comparison between Gramsci & Bordiga as I can, because I was dealing with some distractions while reading through that.

[Devrim]

I haven't read this, but it seems to be what you are looking for:https://libcom.org/library/amadeo-bordiga-myth-antonio-gramsci-john-chiaradia

Devrim

[The Intransigent Faction]

I haven't read this, but it seems to be what you are looking for:https://libcom.org/library/amadeo-bordiga-myth-antonio-gramsci-john-chiaradia

Devrim

Thanks, I'll give that a look once I've delved a bit more into the Prison Notebooks. Though, from what I've read so far, the idea that


Gramsci was nothing other than Stalin's hatchet man

seems like a grossly unfair oversimplification. Surely, even judging from a cursory understanding of his ideas, there's plenty worth reading from Gramsci even for those who aren't "Stalinist".

Also, even in the intro to this book, Gramsci is quoted as saying with regard to the "inner-party struggle" of 1920s Soviet Russia that "unity and discipline cannot be mechanical and coercive". It seems likely that, if and when he was fully aware of the goings-on around Stalin's reign, Stalin's methods surely would have fit that description in his view if anything ever did.

He certainly could have been more...intransigent than he was, but again, the idea that he was someone's lackey seems suspect.

[Devrim]

As I said, I haven't read this article, but it is right on that point. Gramsci was certainly Stalin's man.

Devrim