Results 21 to 40 of 47
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.
not all left-coms are anti-lenin, many are very pro-lenin.
Last edited by Remus Bleys; 15th January 2014 at 11:30.
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
But the left communists who are pro-Lenin are generally anti-"Leninism".
☭ “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” - Karl Marx ☭
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.
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
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.
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
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?
“All that a well-organized secret society can do is, first, to assist in the birth of the revolution by spreading among the masses ideas corresponding to their instincts, and to organize, not the army of the revolution—the army must always be the people [—] but a revolutionary General Staff composed of devoted, energetic, intelligent and above all sincere friends of the people, who are not ambitious or vain, and who are capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instincts.” - Bakunin the Leninist
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?
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.
Last edited by Remus Bleys; 15th January 2014 at 18:14.
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
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.
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'.
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.
Intriguing on paper, the question is how it works in practice.
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
fka xx1994xx
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.
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.
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.
Something I have no insight into. Do the ICC/ICT practice 'organic centralism'?
This goes into some detail about the relationship between Gramsci and Bordiga:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=HhYH...zation&f=false (chapter Bolshevization, espcially from page 147).
Last edited by Tim Cornelis; 16th January 2014 at 21:06.
pew pew pew
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
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.
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.
No, it is a Bordigist thing. The ICC and the ICT aren't Bordigists.
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.Originally Posted by Devrim
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.
“Marx says in order to create a new society we need new people. New people are created in activity and we need a revolution not only because the old ruling class can only be overthrown in a revolution, but you need a revolution in order to transform the people making it. So they become qualified to create a certain society. That’s clearly the reverse of what most Marxists think. Most Marxists think you have to change people. You have to convince them and then you make a revolution, but Marx says no. You make a revolution and that will change them.” - Martin Glaberman
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.
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
I suspect most left communists would agree that it's the working class who carry out revolutions, not themselves.
