Bordiga

[Entrails Konfetti]

I don't know much about Bordiga, to be honest I read pretty much Pannekoek and Mattick.

So, what are some key works by Bordiga, and his concepts?

People say there are some odd things about Bordigist organizations, and indications of them. Are Bordigists really dogmatic, wishy-washy, or have really different theories?

[Leo]

I do separate Bordiga from the Bordigists for the most part as Bordiga, although obviously close to the Bordigists, was never really active in the Bordigist International Communist Party and more importantly I don't think he would have liked what the party became after his death.

Here's a few key works by Bordiga:

Theses of the Abstentionist Communist Faction of the Italian Socialist Party (May 1920) (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/lipu/lipuhcaboe.html)

Draft theses for the 3rd Congress of the Communist Party of Italy presented by the Left (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/pre/lunita/dufeadixye.html)

Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/lipe/lipexbibue.html)

Bordigists came from the tradition of the Italian Communist Left and they were very principled and courageous internationalist militants. Italian Communist Left had worked considerably on the question of the party and had finally concluded that the party can only be formed in a revolutionary struggle, that the working class opening a revolutionary period can make the formation of the party possible; according to them, in a counter revolutionary period the party couldn't exist - only communist fractions. In 1943 or so, they had gained considerable support in Italy following the wave of strikes. Just like the hostility they had drawn from the fascist government in the past, this time they were being attacked by the Stalinists who were petitioning to get their leaders hanged, and even gunning down their militants in the streets. They thought that the counter-revolutionary period was over, they thought that the revolution was coming so they ended up forming the party in Italy: Internationalist Communist Party (PCInt). Of course, it turned out that the revolution was not coming. This lead the Bordigists to abandon the Italian Left's theoretical advancements regarding the party and the fraction. They were claiming to be the party now, they even started recruiting; I think this mistake lead them to both opportunism and sectarianism.

Bordiga did not enter the party when it was founded. He actually did not trust the party. However soon after it's foundation, the party started to move towards a split with Vercesi and Maffi in one side and Damen and Stefanini in the other. They had very different positions: Vercesi and Maffi opposed all parliamentary participation but thought that national liberation could hypothetically be supported. Damen and Stefanini thought that electoral participation was acceptable but national liberation was not to be supported in any case. Also, Damen thought that trade unions could be reconquered where Stefanini thought that trade unions were definately the instruments of the bourgeoisie. Bordiga didn't manage to prevent the split and ended up siding with Vercesi and Maffi to whom his positions were closer to although he wasn't deeply involved with active party work. Damen and Stefanini were actually in the majority at that time so they kept the party name and the names of the party organs. Later on they changed their position on parliamentarianism. After forty years of existence in Italy, they formed the IBRP with the Communist Workers Organization in Britain.

As for the Vercesi and Maffi, the mainstream "Bordigists'" wing, they grew to be significantly strong in late seventies, they had a considerable presence in Europe, Norther Africa and the Middle East and I think they had presence in the Americas as well. However the kind of people they had been recruiting showed up soon: in 1982 (I think) the whole party exploded over the question of Arab nationalism. Now there are more four-five organizations all claiming to be the party. They are sectarian and opportunistic however I wouldn't say that it's due to them being crazy people; it is rather a tragic consequence of a big mistake: forming the party in a period that wasn't revolutionary.

[Devrim]

I think you have to place Bordga, and the Italian left within their time. The lessons of the Russian Revolution didn't fall to the working class as mana from heaven. It was a period of imense confusion in the communist movement. On some questions Bordiga was very right (particulary 'frontism' and parlimentarianism), on others very wrong (he was confused on the nature of the Soviet State until very late in life). On a superficial level he comes across as some sort of uber Leninist. I think that his positive side outweighs the negative though.

Actually, he was the last communist to tell Stalin what he was (and live):


Originally posted by Wiki+--> (Wiki)He attended his last meeting of the Executive Committee of the Comintern in 1926, the same year in which he confronted Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin face-to-face. In his final confrontation with Stalin in Moscow in 1926, Bordiga proposed that all the Communist Parties of the world should jointly rule the Soviet Union, as a demonstration of the supra-national reality of the workers' movement. This proposal was, needless to say, coolly received by Stalin and his friends. Bordiga accused Stalin of betraying the Revolution calling him "the gravedigger of the revolution"; he was the last person to do such a thing and survive. At the end of 1926 Bordiga was again arrested by Mussolini and sent to prison for three years. Bordiga was, along with his thousands of supporters, expelled from the PCd'I for taking the defence of Leon Trotsky in 1930.[/b]


Leo Uilleann
in 1982 (I think) the whole party exploded over the question of Arab nationalism.

Actually, for some reason it was always refered to as an implosion.

Devrim

[RedCat]

Nature of Ussr: Bordiga after his engagement with the organizations founded by Trotsky in late 20's,
from 30's onwards developed a conception regarding the soviet republic similar to that
formulated later by Trotskists as Tony Cliff: it was seen as a State capitalist system
ruled by a bureaucracy, having lost every trace of socialism
Then during WW2 he rejected the notion of antifascism because marred by interclassism
and considered the war as an inter-imperialist struggle, refusing to take any side in it: he also stated that from a revolutionary point of view Axis victory should have been considerated preferable because in the world power-relationships Germany and Italy represented the weaker imperialist forces, while Usa and England the strongest, and their victory would have meant a riconsideration of the imperialist power relationships
on a global level.

During the war he ceased any political activity returning to his profession of engineer in Naples (he was strictly controlled by fascist) but continued to exert a considerable influence during and after the war over the left as founder of the communist party and one of the most charismatic leaders. He was also one on the few persons that could claim to have attacked Stalin face to face and be still alive.
if you are interested you can study the history of the italian PC written by Paolo Spriano:he was stalinist but the work is balanced. another interesting book is "communism left and Gramsci" by bordigists historian Peregalli, but i don't know if it's translated

[Leo]

Originally posted by RedCat+--> (RedCat)Bordiga after his engagement with the organizations founded by Trotsky in late 20's, from 30's onwards developed a conception regarding the soviet republic similar to that formulated later by Trotskists as Tony Cliff: it was seen as a State capitalist system
ruled by a bureaucracy, having lost every trace of socialism[/b]

This is actually wrong; Bordiga never considered the USSR as state capitalism, he instead considered it as youthful capitalism.

Also, state-capitalism is not something that was formulated by Cliff: left communists were talking about it as early as 1919.


he also stated that from a revolutionary point of view Axis victory should have been considerated preferable because in the world power-relationships Germany and Italy represented the weaker imperialist forces, while Usa and England the strongest, and their victory would have meant a riconsideration of the imperialist power relationships on a global level

I don't think true either: I've read that Bordiga opposed the war in all aspects, and I've never read that he thought the victory of one camp would be preferable. Can you provide resources for that?


Devrim

in 1982 (I think) the whole party exploded over the question of Arab nationalism. Actually, for some reason it was always refered to as an implosion.

What is the difference between explosion and implosion?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
What is the difference between explosion and implosion?

Think about external, and internal. An implosion is a sort of inward collapse.

Devrim

[RedCat]

http://www.marxists.org/italiano/bordiga/1.../rivrus.htm#p26 (http://www.marxists.org/italiano/bordiga/1955/8/rivrus.htm#p26)

In the premise to his 1955 work "le grandi questioni storiche della rivoluzione in russia"(referring to the acts registered by the groups of the communist left that met the same year)
he states clearly that Ussr had an economic and social structure which was entirely capitalistic. and repeats this concept again in the text.perhaps you refer to the fact that he refused to simply dub ussr as "state capitalism",advoating the difference between state capitalism in bourgeois and proletarian social structure?

[Leo]

In the premise to his 1955 work "le grandi questioni storiche della rivoluzione in russia"(referring to the acts registered by the groups of the communist left that met the same year)
he states clearly that Ussr had an economic and social structure which was entirely capitalistic. and repeats this concept again in the text.perhaps you refer to the fact that he refused to simply dub ussr as "state capitalism",advoating the difference between state capitalism in bourgeois and proletarian social structure?

No, that's not exactly what I mean... State-capitalism is a different concept, Cliff's understanding of it for example is quite empty, it has little to do with the actual concept. State-capitalism is seen as a tendency in the whole world, regarding the state taking specific roles for the capitalist society: it is not limited to the USSR, it is something seen everywhere because the state plays a role in the economy everywhere - this is seen as a sign of the decadence of capitalism. Bordiga didn't think that the USSR was state-capitalism as he thought that Marxism was invariant, he thought capitalism could still develop and he regarded the USSR as a "youthful" capitalism, developing capitalism and he regarded Stalinists like Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara as "romantic bourgeois revolutionaries". This is why Bordiga was rather vague on the question of national liberation. Although very interesting, I would say that his take on this, connected to his theory of invariance, was deeply mistaken - I find myself in agreement with the left communists theory of decadence and the analysis of state-capitalism.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 23, 2007 02:52 pm
State-capitalism is seen as a tendency in the whole world, regarding the state taking specific roles for the capitalist society: it is not limited to the USSR, it is something seen everywhere because the state plays a role in the economy everywhere - this is seen as a sign of the decadence of capitalism.
Don't confuse state capitalism with dirigisme.

[Djehuti]

Bordiga is very interesting, he was important in that he revived the marxist critique of the commodity form (wich had fallen much in the shadow at the time). He was also one of the most brutal critics of capitalism:

Murdering the Dead
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby...iga/mtdtoc.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3909/bordiga/mtdtoc.html)

Auschwitz - the big alibi
http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/cosi/cosiicebie.html

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 23, 2007 02:52 pm
State-capitalism is a different concept, Cliff's understanding of it for example is quite empty, it has little to do with the actual concept.
This is a side point in a debatae on Bordiga (which makes interesting reading, btw) but the concept of 'State Capitalism' has to refer to Cliff, among others. Granted its a broad concept; Cliff wasnt the first and not the last to come up with a 'State Capitalist' theory - but he was one of the most influential. Words loose their meaning if State Capitalism (inter alia) doesnt refer to Cliff.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by gilhyle+July 23, 2007 09:31 pm--> (gilhyle @ July 23, 2007 09:31 pm)
Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 23, 2007 02:52 pm
State-capitalism is a different concept, Cliff's understanding of it for example is quite empty, it has little to do with the actual concept.
This is a side point in a debatae on Bordiga (which makes interesting reading, btw) but the concept of 'State Capitalism' has to refer to Cliff, among others. Granted its a broad concept; Cliff wasnt the first and not the last to come up with a 'State Capitalist' theory - but he was one of the most influential. Words loose their meaning if State Capitalism (inter alia) doesnt refer to Cliff. [/b]

[email protected] April 20, 1918
We stand for the construction of the proletarian society by the class creativity of the workers themselves, not by the ukases of the captains of industry. . . if the proletariat itself does not know how to create the necessary prerequisites for the socialist organisation of labour no one can do this for it and no one can compel it to do this. The stick, if raised against the workers, will find itself in the hands of a social force which is either under the influence of another social class or is in the hands of the soviet power; but the soviet power will then be forced to seek support against the proletariat from another class (e.g. the peasantry) and by this it will destroy itself as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism and socialist organisation will be set up by the proletariat itself, or they will not be set up at all - something else will be set up - state capitalism.

The communist left warned about the dangers of state capitalism in 1918.

Cliff came to the concept late, and at a very superficial level, seeing it more as the policy of individual states than as a global tendency.

He may have been influential in certain quarters, but his ideas were neither original nor interesting.

Devrim

[gilhyle]

Well, its another days work ... much discussed on this site ... but while Cliff's views are wrong - in my opinion - his ideas reflect a fundamentally important tendency in erroneous interpretations of Marxism, namely the tendency to judge states not by their class character but by the form of their decision making structures as if workers could be assured that their State would necessarily take the most democratic character irrespective of material conditions and the state of political forces.