Remus Bleys

Haha. I assumed sarcasm but the Internet is indeed a sea of lost sarcasms.

I'm a little tired from work, but yes mostly, the two both develop together hence the different ideas regarding how capitalism works from Keynesian to free market Reaganomics and the changes in ideology. To say that the superstructure can change the mode of production would be to allow the idea that you can change mode of production just by voting people into power in a regular bourgeois state ie, idealism. This is one of the reasons as to why stalinism/leninism and other variants of social democracy won't work according to those not of that tradition.

Of course to say that the superstructure does not in anyway affect the base would be vulgar materialism. There is an interaction between both because the superstructure is how we interact and view the base. What I was getting at in that post, which probably wasn't clear, was that a change in the superstructure can not possible change the base because the former grows out of the latter. So for instance, going from capitalism to communism requires a change in the mode of production, the smashing of the law of value, and it's this new base from which communist society grows out of.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Crusades, but I hope that I have cleared myself up.

Agreed. If there's one thing I've noticed on this website, it's that people prefer to focus on whether certain events in history should be favored rather than the present result of said history.

You realise that was a Freudian Slip? You know it's a form of Leftism really.

So; though he's the most famous Left Comm to non-Left Comms, he is actually a bit of a fringe figure I think for the Communist Left. The main groups of the Communist Left today, the ICT and the ICC, are both descended from 'non-Bordigist' currents of the Italian Left. The PCInts are pretty irrelevant outside of Italy.

In short; I don't really think it's 'Leninism' as such; but there are problems with Bordigism; but it's a fringe current in the Communist Left anyway.

Does that answer the question?

Bordiga is hard. How much is it 'really' Leninism, and how much was Bordiga using Lenin to justify his own positions? The Livorno Conference is generally held to be as important (or more so) than the foundation of the ComIntern, by the (various) PCInt(s). So perhaps it's not so 'Leninist' after all.

On the other hand, Bordiga is very hard-line, which might be seen as 'Leninist'. He's an ultra-partyist, which goes against almost all other Left Communist currents. He's pretty much opposed to workers' councils, seeing them as a form of anarcho-syndicalism.

But, there are problems with Bordigism, some of which go back to Bordiga. 'Red unions', and qualified support for some anti-imperialist struggles, are going back towards Leninist versions of Leftism.

(more)

Politics are just a game.

I have to ask, can you really not comprehend that I was saying "full" and "higher phase" synonymously?

I won't make fun of you if you admit that you were confused by my post and I proved you wrong. In fact, I would respect you a hundred times more if you had the intellectual honesty to admit that you and Subvert were wrong to criticize my usage of it.