Why is Bordiga considered a left-communist?

I've been reading through quite a bit of Bordiga's work lately and I'm curious as to how exactly he is considered a left-communist. My own gathering is that he's more of a Trotskyite more than anything and agrees with most of the actions of the Bolsheviks. Does anyone have anu insight to why he's considered a left-communist?

The left communists all came out of the left of the Communist Parties - in Russia the vast majority of them had been Bolsheviks and considered themselves the real continuators of Bolshevism. So Bordiga was not unique in that. However he was not a Trotskyist, even though he expressed his solidarity with the Left Opposition in Russia against Stalinism. He criticised many of the policies of the Comintern which the Trotskyists supported, such as the United Front with the social democrats and participation in elections. So he was certainly a left communist!

Agree that Bordiga changed positions in the 50s (or, in a number of cases, such as unions and national struggles, went back to old positions that had been superseded, above all by the Italian, Belgian and French left communist fractions in the 30s and 40s) but I would say that 'Bordigism' has remained a part of the communist left despite these regressions.

Agree that Bordiga changed positions in the 50s (or, in a number of cases, such as unions and national struggles, went back to old positions that had been superseded, above all by the Italian, Belgian and French left communist fractions in the 30s and 40s) but I would say that 'Bordigism' has remained a part of the communist left despite these regressions.

Did Bordiga's position change on red unions and national liberation over time? I think it is clear the conceptualisation of the class-party relationship hardened in the post-WW2 era. But I am not sure if unions and national liberation really changed although from what I have picked up in English writings it does not seem that he held to right of nations to self-determination as a principle. Which would have contradicted his writings on the democratic principle.

Guess this would be a good place to advertise this.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=970

I'd like to note that's important to say that Bordiga was Left Communist in 1920's. Some of his positions from 50's are not Left Communist ("red unions", support to national liberation, crazy Party theories etc.) Left Communism is not personality cult. If it was we would call ourseves by the name of some of promited left communists. We follow certain principles (positions) and sometimes people whoes ideas inspire us (like Bordiga, Pannenkoek, Bukharin etc.) changed their positions... But what can we do

Basically this.

Thank you for the insight, comrades.

To be honest, and I almost don't want to admit, I kind of sort of find myself agreeing with his essay, "Proletarian Dictatorship and the Class Party". Just a little...maybe

Kontrrazvedka I am trying to send you the picture but your page is blocked from me.

Android: I think you are basically right about Bordiga not changing his position on trade unions and national liberation from the 20s to the 50s. In my understanding, the irony is that what really changed was the concept of invariance, invoked in the 50s to give a new theoretical foundation for rejecting the 'innovations' (we would say theoretical advances) made by the Italian left during the 30s and 40s....

To be honest, and I almost don't want to admit, I kind of sort of find myself agreeing with his essay, "Proletarian Dictatorship and the Class Party". Just a little...maybe

I agree with much of what Bordiga stated actually, but I would never consider myself a "Bordigist" by any means and I do feel that Bordiga is wrong on some things.

Also, Krontrrazvedka I was wondering what you meant by "crazy party theories".

Unfortunately, Kontrrazvedka has been banned.

I think he means the notion that the party should take power, which is not a position held by the rest of the Communist Left.

To be honest, and I almost don't want to admit, I kind of sort of find myself agreeing with his essay, "Proletarian Dictatorship and the Class Party". Just a little...maybe

Me and Rafiq had a discussion about this writing actually. I agree with Rafiq that Bordiga was wrong to assume that the center and the base could have a dialectical understanding. By this same logic, the proletariat and bourgeoisie could also achieve a dialectical understanding.