The struggle against fascism begin with the fight against bolshevism!

[mk12]

Well, the ICC is close to Bordigism, and they are sympathetic and supportive of the Bolsheviks. Therefore, Bordiga was fairly close to Leninism.

 

[Top Dog]

Well, the ICC is close to Bordigism, and they are sympathetic and supportive of the Bolsheviks. Therefore, Bordiga was fairly close to Leninism.

i think thats fairly well established, but would be interested in how Roger argues that Bordiga wasn't as Leninist, despite his analysis of the USSR. Or where he sees the point that Bordiga actually broke with Leninism, rather than reinterpreting it.

I sensed you were close to conflating the ICC's positions with those of Bordiga himself

 

[mk12]

From what i've read of Bordiga, it seems he was a Leninist all his life. When did he break with Leninism?

 

[Top Dog]

From what i've read of Bordiga, it seems he was a Leninist all his life. When did he break with Leninism?

read my post again

 

[mk12]

Gotcha.

 

[Diogenes]

This is a meaningless question. You may as well ask if anarchism was so good why has anarchism failed? I mean if you are going to go on the historical record the score thus far in terms of succesful revolutions is 1-0 to Lenin and Trotsky. I don't think that's much of an argument either way.

Why would you count the Russian revolution as succesful? Unless you consider the Bolshevik's preservation of party power as success? At least the anarchists recognise defeat.

Could you detail what you think were the Bolsheviks' more serious mistakes? One hears Leninists graciously say this fairly often, but they don't always elaborate.

The need to survive, the need to keep the revolution alive, led to more and more desperate measures.

Perhaps the desperate measures, which strangely enough consolidated the Bolsheviks' grip on power, strangled the revolution.But then perphaps anarchists have a differenct concept of revolution...too many Marxists continue to identify the revolution with the fate of the Bolshevik Party. If 1) a revolution consists of (amongst other things) transforming the means of production by moving towards self-managment, and 2) the factory committees were a serious attempt to that, and 3) if the Bolsheviks consistently opposed the Factory Committees from when they seized power, then it would seem that the Bolsheviks were [objectively ] counter-revolutionary. Therefore the "desperate measures" contributed to the destruction of the revolution rather than saving it.

My own organisation has neither a Central Committee nor a Politburo.

Do the Irish Socialist Party not have a National Executive Committee. How is this different from a Politiburo? Are members rotated for every meeting or so? Are they issued with specific mandates from local branches on policy issues? Are they instantly recallable if the branches consider them to be acting outside their mandate? Do they have access to much greater amounts of information than ordinary members, e.g. is there a common email list to which everyone can post or do policy submissions, ideas for tactics and activities have to go through the National Executive Committee?

The usual anarchist response to all of this is to produce a series of quotes from Lenin or Trotsky out of their post-revolutionary writings where they defend desperate measures as if they were objectively good things or to provide a list of anti-democratic measures taken by the Bolsheviks, stripped of the context of an increasingly desperate struggle for survival.

I would have thought that quoting Trotsky is reasonably fair provided they are not taken out of context. Especially if the ideas expressed weren't retracted when the heat of the moment had passed. The onus would be on you to show that anarchists have done that, I think, as they are a rather lot quotes from Lenin and Trotsky advocating authoritarian methods.

The quote below seems quite dodgy and at odds with your inclinations towards working class self management. Do you know if Trotsky later regretted these sentiments? Or would they continue be in your opinion, or that of the CWI, valid measures in a revolutionary situation.

It would be a most crying error to confuse the question as to the supremacy of the proletariat with the question of boards of workers at the head of factories. The dictatorship of the proletariat is expressed in the abolition of private property in the means of production, in the supremacy over the whole soviet mechanism of the collective will of the workers and not at all in the form in which individual economic enterprises are administered.....
I consider that if the civil war had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest, most independent. most endowed with initiative, we should undoubtedly have entered the path of one-man management in the sphere of economic administration much sooner and much less painfully...

Cf. above on the Bolsheviks' attacks on the Factory Committees, begining in 1918, i.e. well before the decimation of the working class, (as outlined in "The Bolsheviks and Workers Control"). Given that the Bolsehviks were attacking self-management experiments well before they made the pronouncments above, and indeed before the civil war itself had kicked off, the probablity is that they really did genuinely prefer authoritarian top-down methods of introducing socialism over libertarian self-management.

 

[roger rosewall]

i think thats fairly well established, but would be interested in how Roger argues that Bordiga wasn't as Leninist, despite his analysis of the USSR. Or where he sees the point that Bordiga actually broke with Leninism, rather than reinterpreting it.

I sensed you were close to conflating the ICC's positions with those of Bordiga himself

'Leninism' was an invention of Zinoviev not Lenin. What Bordiga grasped at and what he had in common with the current that held the reins of the Comintern, that is Zinoviev and his chums, was the idea of 'Leninism' as an organisational solution to the problems besetting the workers movement. So what Bordiga took hold of from 'Leninism' was the idea of a party that was purely revolutionary and extremely centralised.

This is all well and good but has nothng to do with the ideas of Lenin. For Bordiga 'Leninism' is nothing but a set of organisational prescriptions to be followed which is very different from Lenin's far more flexible understanding of the forms party organisation might take at any given moement depending on circumstances. Bordiga also took over from 'Leninism' the idea of that revolutionary class consciousness is the possession of the party not of the proletariat. A position that Lenin had rejected by the time of the October Revolution only tending to readopt it during the earliest period of the degeneration of the Russian Commune. This misinterpetation of Lenins ideas by Bordiga was then an early product of the degeneration of the revolution and the accompanying fathering of 'Leninism' by Zinoviev.

 

[Top Dog]

'Leninism' was an invention of Zinoviev not Lenin. What Bordiga grasped at and what he had in common with the current that held the reins of the Comintern, that is Zinoviev and his chums, was the idea of 'Leninism' as an organisational solution to the problems besetting the workers movement. So what Bordiga took hold of from 'Leninism' was the idea of a party that was purely revolutionary and extremely centralised.

That is a very partisan reading of Bordiga, Roger. You wouldnt be a Leninist yourself would you?

This is all well and good but has nothng to do with the ideas of Lenin. For Bordiga 'Leninism' is nothing but a set of organisational prescriptions to be followed which is very different from Lenin's far more flexible understanding of the forms party organisation might take at any given moement depending on circumstances. Bordiga also took over from 'Leninism' the idea of that revolutionary class consciousness is the possession of the party not of the proletariat.

My understanding of Bordiga is very much the opposite of that. I would say he remained a Leninist, however rather than being more centralised than Lenin, Bordiga actually stretched the conception of the 'party' to its widest possible interpretation and inclusion. Party in this sense was with a small 'p' as shorthand for the most advanced and militant sections of the class. A formal division between intellectual and manual labour was to be minimised. While Leninists of all shades might argue for this as their own but never practice, it appeared something that Bordiga attempted to realise. I should point out that im not a Bordigist btw

 

[JoePolitix]

Cf. above on the Bolsheviks' attacks on the Factory Committees, begining in 1918, i.e. well before the decimation of the working class, (as outlined in "The Bolsheviks and Workers Control"). Given that the Bolsehviks were attacking self-management experiments well before they made the pronouncments above, and indeed before the civil war itself had kicked off, the probablity is that they really did genuinely prefer authoritarian top-down methods of introducing socialism over libertarian self-management.

This is not true. Immediately after the revolution the All Russian Council of Factory Committees passed a decree which urged for a central body to manage the economy and it was Lenin’s own decree on workers’ control which toned down the demand. This was because Russian rank and file workers realised that workers’ control of their own individual production units had to be complimented by worker’s control over the economy as a whole.

The state nationalisation of the factories came about as a result of demands from the local factory committees following a wave of bosses lockouts in response to worker control. All the evidence actually indicates that most of the demands for nationalisation came from below and the Bolsheviks initially lagged behind these demands.

Worker control over the economy was fizzled out during the course of the civil war when industry came close to a complete melt down and the most militant members of the class joined the red army or were incorporated into the state bureaucracy. In siege conditions of isolation and economic backwardness this was an unavoidable outcome.

 

[mk12]

All Russian Council of Factory Committees

Wasn't that the All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions?

 

[JoePolitix]

Wasn't that the All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions?

No, The ARCFC. I imagine the ARCTU did aswell though given that they voted to merge the committees with the unions.

 

[mk12]

Oh right. Do you have a link for that?

 

[JoePolitix]

Oh right. Do you have a link for that?

Fraid not. It is documented in S A Smith's "Red Petrograd" which is a detailed study of workers control of the factories in the early stages of the Revolution.

 

[mk12]

OK, thanks.

 

[gurrier]

Fraid not. It is documented in S A Smith's "Red Petrograd" which is a detailed study of workers control of the factories in the early stages of the Revolution.

Did it read something like "We demand that the state abolishes us, with force if necessary"?

 

[roger rosewall]

That is a very partisan reading of Bordiga, Roger. You wouldnt be a Leninist yourself would you?

My understanding of Bordiga is very much the opposite of that. I would say he remained a Leninist, however rather than being more centralised than Lenin, Bordiga actually stretched the conception of the 'party' to its widest possible interpretation and inclusion. Party in this sense was with a small 'p' as shorthand for the most advanced and militant sections of the class. A formal division between intellectual and manual labour was to be minimised. While Leninists of all shades might argue for this as their own but never practice, it appeared something that Bordiga attempted to realise. I should point out that im not a Bordigist btw

No I am not a 'Leninist'. If only because there can be no 'Leninists' in the year 2005. Those who shout loudest about their claims to 'Leninism' are, in my opinion, as far removed from the thought of Lenin as the Earth is from Alpha Centauri.

I'm entertained by your understanding of Bordigas version of 'Leninism'. Very good it sounds but in practice Bordigas own grouplet, Battaglia Comunista, has been as narrow as any of the so called Trotskyist groups. Indeed it is no accident that in the 1970's many of the narrower, more sectarian, hyper-Leninist Trotskyist groups, drew their initial cadre from the ranks of Bordigism.

 

[gurrier]

No I am not a 'Leninist'. If only because there can be no 'Leninists' in the year 2005. Those who shout loudest about their claims to 'Leninism' are, in my opinion, as far removed from the thought of Lenin as the Earth is from Alpha Centauri.

Sounds like they've failed to recognise your good self as the re-incarnation of the man himself. Piteous wretches dragging the proud bolshevik tradition into the sectarian swamp, while greviously ignoring their saviour in waiting. Deviationists and revisionists to a man.

 

[roger rosewall]

Sounds like they've failed to recognise your good self as the re-incarnation of the man himself. Piteous wretches dragging the proud bolshevik tradition into the sectarian swamp, while greviously ignoring their saviour in waiting. Deviationists and revisionists to a man.

Ahhhh, sarcasm I luvs it!!!

No you got me wrong. My point is that a healthy revolutionary left should not be looking to reincarnate Lenin but to his negation.

Mind you've probably got something when you write that much of the left consists of piteous wretches. And I'm sure a lot of those deviationists and revisionists are women. I'm all for equal opportunity sectarianism you know.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm entertained by your understanding of Bordigas version of 'Leninism'. Very good it sounds but in practice Bordigas own grouplet, Battaglia Comunista, has been as narrow as any of the so called Trotskyist groups. Indeed it is no accident that in the 1970's many of the narrower, more sectarian, hyper-Leninist Trotskyist groups, drew their initial cadre from the ranks of Bordigism.

Battaglia Comunista was never Bordiga's grouplet - it came from a split with the Internationalist Communist Party in 1952 - which then became more closely associated with Bordiga and changed it's name to the International Communist Party - a party which whilst adopting Bordiguist postions Bordiga himself was never formally a member of despite his writing numerous anon articles for their journals. The new Battaglia Comunista group (they formally kept the original name of Internationalist Communist Party) was formed on the basis of their profound disagreements with Bordiga on a range of centrally important questions - and acceptance of the ideas of Damen. I'd say they have made the most far reaching criticisms of the orthodoxy of Bordiguism from within the communist left camp. They were the anti-bordiguist in fact.

 

[roger rosewall]

Battaglia Comunista was never Bordiga's grouplet - it came from a split with the Internationalist Communist Party in 1952 - which then became more closely associated with Bordiga and changed it's name to the International Communist Party - a party which whilst adopting Bordiguist postions Bordiga himself was never formally a member of despite his writing numerous anon articles for their journals. The new Battaglia Comunista group (they formally kept the original name of Internationalist Communist Party) was formed on the basis of their profound disagreements with Bordiga on a range of centrally important questions - and acceptance of the ideas of Damen. I'd say they have made the most far reaching criticisms of the orthodoxy of Bordiguism from within the communist left camp. They were the anti-bordiguist in fact.

Indeed you are correct Butchers. I muddled the ICP's. My bad. My point retains its validity despite this disgraceful muddle on my part. Now I must go this has dreadfully upset me...............

 

[durruti02]

sorry to spoil the academics icc/icp love in but bringing it back to now i have to absolutely agree with the title ..

in essence TSAFBWTFAB is the negative to the positive what IWCA/HI are doing .. it is totally clear to me that to destroy fascism in this country ( and capitalism) we need to aid and abet the creation of a new w/c movement .. and the other side of this coin is that we also have to destroy the middle class ideology of bolshevism ..

it is so fkn clear that leftism stands in the way of the w/c organising for themselves .. every time any strike or (less so) community action happens leftists parachute in and destroy the movement .. i have witnessed this SO many times .. every position the left prioritise these days seems designed to aleinate w/c people .. are they mad or bought or spooks or just middle class??? and every time a w/c person joins a group they must either become a robot like the others or ,as most do, drop out .. the left continually alienate and fck off ordinary people with their christian evangelical robot idiocy .. it is sickenning ..

sorry but i am under the weather today and i fkn hate the left .. i have read Private Eye on the bus today and seing all the corruption that is now endemic in our country the flagrent piss taking of the capitalists and so fkn angry at the left for the wrecking they have done over the years to w/c struggle

you do not know what you have done .. wankers

takes deep breath

 

[roger rosewall]

i have read Private Eye on the bus today and seing all the corruption that is now endemic in our country

Look at this the confession of being under the influence of bourgeois ideas followed by the profession of patriotism. No wonder you're feeling unwell.

 

[davgraham]

come on no one is actually a Bodigist, are they? well apart from the headcases in the ICC.

Given that Amadeo Bordiga denounced most of the people who claimed his name it is a rather odd thing to say. Bordiga was an interesting character and it is worth while looking out for some of his work, mostly characterised by an almost cast iron 'independence of mind' - he must have been difficult to get on with.

As to whether the ICC are headcases or not . . . that's an entirely separate question.

Gra

 

[durruti02]

Originally Posted by durruti02
i have read Private Eye on the bus today and seing all the corruption that is now endemic in our country


Roger Rosewall said ..
Look at this the confession of being under the influence of bourgeois ideas followed by the profession of patriotism. No wonder you're feeling unwell.




ok public school mag and all that

BUT isn't it our country??? ( i guess you an aussie though?? )

 

[cogg]

Originally Posted by durruti02
i have read Private Eye on the bus today and seing all the corruption that is now endemic in our country


Roger Rosewall said ..
Look at this the confession of being under the influence of bourgeois ideas followed by the profession of patriotism. No wonder you're feeling unwell.




ok public school mag and all that

BUT isn't it our country??? ( i guess you an aussie though?? )

Funnily enough, I spoke to my dad tonight and he told me he'd just bought the latest Private Eye which he's been doing since he stayed with me last month. He said it showed the country is in a worst state than even he thought and he's been going on about corruption locally for years.

And durruti02 is right, it is, or should be, our country.

edited for grammar.