Bordiga and the rise of Mussolini

"Let's collaborate with class collaborationists to stop other class collaborationists!"

Feel free to say that things are but a matter of bashing le fash to stop the Italian fascists welcomed with open arms by the liberals you counted on to bash le fash in the first place without any defense and then saying that one of many communist parties with at best 2 million members was going to cut the job of saving liberal democracy for all us workers who definitely really have an interest in one form of capitalism over the other, especially communists.

The PCd'I, PCI and PSI, whom all abstended from bourgeois parliamenterism following the Comintern's (then still led be LENIN) advice NOT to collaborate with liberalism were deeply involved in party politics ''because they were, as the P in every single of them implies: "Partiti" (parties)". They simply refused to collaborate with class traitors on any basis whatsoever, especially class traitors that only "fought" fascism for as long as it was in their class interest.

Sick, immaculate, wicked argument there, buddy. A democratic revolutionist in the making. Do you have a moment to talk about Marxian economics?

I'm going to make a sick edit of pic related for early 20th century European fascist victory in Italy.

He was. Years later, in exile, he still met with the Comintern which was he increasingly criticizing in the later Lenin years and finally in the Stalin years, where this happened:
>On the margins of this discussion, where most of the Western left is concerned, have been the ideas of the fascinating character of Amadeo Bordiga. First General Secretary of the PCI, and, with Gramsci, its most important founder, Bordiga was the last Western revolutionary who told off Stalin to his face (in 1926) as the gravedigger of the revolution and lived to tell the tale.

Also, it's worth noting that all communist parties in Germany during Hitler's rise did the same thing and, surprise surprise, Hitler rose to power despite all supposed objections of liberal social democrats, whom actually embraced him. The idea was the exact same as with the Italian communist left, and Zizek talks about anti-fascist delusions (that have now reached polemic levels accusing Trump of being a fascist in a similar scenario) in this excerpt of one of his latest talks: youtube.com/watch?v=08cNrNCAJkk.

N.B. Rosa's KPD, both the council communist and ML factions.

By which I don't mean the KPD with Rosa in it (the would-be "united front" partisans AKA the liberals had already massacred her swiftly), but the same KPD Rosa founded, led and built its revolutionary principles on: the same principles that learned from what happens when communists try to collaborate with liberals for a "greater good" of extending liberal democracy's lifespan until fascism is comfortably instated; the ones who killed her and invited the fascists over with open arms.

the point was not to save liberal democracy, but to participate with an opposition and active resistance to those who would destroy the worker's movement so to encourage sympathy and support. Organizing that could have led to a credible communist revolt against the facists.

t. lenin
There's a difference between not collaborating with liberalism and not participating in bourgeois democracy.

bonus, more ironic version

Lenin's critique followed the act of abstending from parliamentary vote (which they were in, as they had the option to vote), and they voted against both within the constitutional votes that followed in parliament. Lenin did not tell Bordiga to form a united front with the liberals and bash le fash, as you previously suggested and then later on now discarded as you jump back to issues of a formal stance against fascism (which communists have always had, unlike liberals).

Pick one.

Low energy edit otherwise tbh.

Lmao leftcoms utterly BTFO

Which didn't matter because Emmanuel handed power over to the fascists anyway. Parliamentary democracy is impotent in the face of fascism.

t. Third Congress of the Comintern

tell that to the facists.

I wasn't saying that the opposition and parliamentary democracy could have stopped the facists. but that a united front and participating in such politics would have empowered the communists to fight against facists when the working class realized parliamentary politics were through.

I generally agree with the Comintern's critique and that there was insufficient action that could have been taken (see Gramsci's polemics on the subject with Togliatti). Otherwise, the same principle follows: action, in form of a united front with crypto-fascists in a struggle against fascists, is something Lenin explicitly fails to mention in any form, and was rightly perceived to have been a deadend pseudo-struggle against the same crypto-fascists that comfortably seated the fascists in.

Also digging the general immaculate irony of not just an appeal to Trotskyist and Lenin's arguments while being a marksucc Yugofag, but an argument to Lenin himself as authority as a marksucc Yugofag. This is a subtle, double-edged irony: Trotskyism followed the communist line that explicitly saw Titoist "worker-controlled ""socialism""" as complete bullshit, and Lenin is the authorative figure tankies like Stalin took from to shit on Tito's adoption of Sovkhoz-style units to a much larger sector of the economy in Yugoslavia.

Comintern explicitly adopted principles of a united front in 1921.

'no'

Also, who gives a fuck what trotsky said?

...

When the Comintern oversaw the only party left in Russia with any political power: the Bolsheviks? Seems like you're confusing the then-purged Menshevik-Trotskyist clique and the united front they ended up advocating a few years later in Spain, also with the brave liberal anti-fascist revolutionaries: www.international-communist-party.org/English/Texts/SpainBil.htm.

Then stop pulling an appeal to authority as if it serves to justify more than a critique I've already shown to agree with, which is that of insufficient action in general, and not the class-party collaborationist advocacy you somewhere conjure up.

The people who follow him like a saint: Trotskyists. The ones who at once shit on marksucc for being petty bourgeois compromise but also on ultraleft currents that reject anything but class struggle instead of class-party collaborationism (united fronts) or even worse: popular fronts (outright class collaborationism).

Going to bed rn but I hope to restart my computer tomorrow evening and see a lot more amazing tales of how the Italian communist left did everything from not provide Italy with the few more inches it needed to cuck Mussolini and the liberals that embraced him as well as how the spirit of Bordiga himself ordered Tito to mass-lend from the IMF through mind control.

So leftcoms are essentially leftcontrarians? Doctors No? The Ron Pauls of the left?

when did comintern, which had full power in russia by then, ever even need a united front there? you made it up so far that you don't even realize you're inventing a bullshit here. unlike the liberal democracies that actually let fascists run in the parliaments, the bolsheviks both abolished liberal democracy and would not allowed fascists to even run for office (during parliamentary phase, the only true reactionaries were killed by them in a revolution a few years back, only by this accord lenin came down to russia from switzerland to lead the revolution). besides, the opposition in russia of any influence was the whites outside russia (ukraine, other liberal democraies) and various other communist groups within comintern, none being fascists who need a universal opposition. complete idiot.

that's also you? the only ones who are barely better than liberals. left com are pedantic but you are complete cancer.

Then fucking DO something you useless piece of shit.

We're talking about Italy here.

Yes, morons.

We're not talking about there, we're talking about Italy.

This is the subject of a brilliant book by the late Tom Behan which details the rise and enormous potential of the wonderfully named Arditi del Popolo (ADP, People’s Shock Troops), the spontaneously formed mass-based Italian anti fascist movement. It developed a united front perspective with one aim—halting Mussolini’s mobilisations, by mass based force if necessary, with maximum involvement across the political spectrum of the left. Alas, although many PSI and PCI activists took part, this was not the official line of these organisations.

By July 1921 at least Gramsci had belatedly realised the serious threat that fascism posed and called for Communists to support the ADP. But Bordiga disagreed.

Do we have any italian leftists here?

What would've been the point of that if the King would then just tell Mussolini to form a cabinet anyway? It was fear of the Left that induced him to agree to this idea in the first place, and that fear will only grow stronger in this scenario.

So what I've learned ITT is that Bordiga was the ultimate leftcom and Gramsci sucked at the shit he tried to do

and Gramsci's failures are Bordiga's fault as according to everyone trying to make fun of the leftcoms

And so would the left under this scenario. It was the responsibility of the communists to co-opt and militarize such a movement against facism, so that when the facists took over, there would be credible resistance to them which fought for communism.

That's not what Arditi del Popolo means at all. wtf?
It means "the people's corageous".

It probably refers to the fact that Italian shock troopers in WW1 were called the Arditi

Could be I guess.

Ultra-leftism of leftcoms gave Germany and Italy to fascists. On the other hand opportunism of the Bolsheviks gave Russia to the Koba. Both deviations are worse.

...

From that couch you wont get much done mr leftcom.

also 15hours on photoshop I see.

Actually, in Germany KPD agreed to do a united front with the SPD, CDU and FDP against the NSDAP but they got stabbed in the back by the SPD.

And it was sadly not just the KPD-ML (ML wing of KPD) that agreed to do this despite getting killed by SPD-funded mercenary Freikorps a few decennia before, but the entire KPD, which was no longer majority left of communism anymore, but also fully represented by Comintern policy which was fully Stalinist.

I'm not sure about not joining something like ADP mentioned ITT was a bad move, but considering even the ADP had republicans and liberals in it, the class interest would have been the same anyways and there was a big risk. I still think everything should have been done simply with the communist parties themself: organize communist fronts against the fascists with other working class groups like anarchists and trade unions, but probably not ADP which was so much Italian republic and liberal it was looking bad.

For Yugoslavia specifically the anti-fascist efforts benefitted from the fact that it started when Balkan was not in a state where fascism existed plus liberal democracies (fascist puppets spread simply from Italy and Germany outside, and directly destroyed all liberal democracies for the bourgeoisie), so it was a pure struggle of working class parties fighting against for example Hungarian NP-HM and Austrofascists puppets of Italy and Germany who ruled almost the whole Balkan states themself. No possibility to collaborate with traitors here.

Finaly IDK why Gramsci did not ally PSI with the ADP? He was the leader there, only Bordiga was the leader of the PCd'I (not PSI).

...

Hold on, doesn't this literally mirror the ridiculous Stalinist Comintern line of Social Fascism?

So it turns out leftcoms are completely useless pseudo-intellectual retards who don't do anything? Never would have guessed.

Hard to imagine that 'line' was followed in any way by Stalinist Comintern at all. The fact that it ordered the KPD to ally with the SPD and other reformist parties against the NSDAP, while just after the fact Stalin made a pact with Nazi Germany over an eastern front. 'Social fascism' for Comintern under Stalinism was basically a rhetoric designed to make the USSR the true myth as the only true way to go then, through the holy scripture of Saint Iosif's only Marxism-Leninism.

Italian LeftCom are too hesitating, but not inactive…

I will soon undertake action for its own sake, comrade. Fear not.

Then why bring up the Russian Comintern's line towards party collaborationism if the line is drawn? Is this another appeal to the explicit Menshevik advocacy of united fronts, as they happened in Spain and Germany later on and put fascist victory on a plate, while insisting that Trotsky and Trotskyists are
or what? I've yet to see a single citation by Lenin that supports a united front as proper form of resistance against fascism, but then again the ball's in your park to deside whether making another appeal to Lenin in a hindsight-positioned discussion on whether or not the inclusion of the PCd'I in an alliance with proto-fascists would have been sufficient to stop the actual fascists is worthwhile.

>a brilliant book by the late Tom Behan
Tom Behan, noted Trotskyist and
>Yes, morons

Here's me holding my end of the bargain again (recall: undertake action for its own sake) with a totally ebin, original maymay. Topical!

Thanks for the OC fam. Absolutely brilliant.

wow, the cpi and working class look REALLY comfy in those armchairs. good drawing

Here goes my neurotic ass again:
>a brilliant book by the late Tom Behan*
Gotta patch shit up here: a lot irony is lost on not italicizing the qualities of the venerable Tom Behan, while bolding his insightful name to emphasize the later connection of our dear comrade tarnishing his name by calling him a moron.

That's PCd'I to you, you fucking oportunista, and yes they do.

Fascinating read. It trashes the Jimmy Dore position too, sort of.

that honestly reveals a lot of shit i never thought of. just how classcucked workers are without some kind or organization holding some kind of principle. easy to try to sell yourself out to a fashy porky instead of fighting a long class war against capitalism and fascism.

i also googled his pen name and found a lecture of the author in pic related and i shit you not the fucker is holding a lecture on liberal democracy in europe in a fucking armchair. are left com the most self-aware commies out there or what?

It's only a sign of being a true, inopportune Marxist communist in following the subtle yet fully on display tradition only a true master of the dialectic will continually observe.

No, liberals literally gave it to Fascism in the interest of capital.

You got a pdf of that fam?

Ah yes, make another joke about your own laziness, how impressive. Like I said before, just because you are self-aware enough to call yourself a faggot, doesn't make you any less of a faggot.

It was not Russian Comintern, but the position of the Third Congress of the Comintern (communist International). That is, the third international.

As for Lenin, as I have said repeatedly, I do not agree with him on everything. In fact, there a wide gulf of disagreement on some issues. I find that anyone, even a moron, who takes an issue seriously will eventually be right about some detail, however small.

But the issue here, is a matter of facts. And here are the facts.

In 1922 Comintern issued the "Theses On The United Front" which said

and

marxists.org/history/international/comintern/4th-congress/united-front.htm

with Lenin saying of the Theses
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/06.htm

What is his position?

The problem of Leftcoms, especially today, but at the dawn at the modern era, is that they had an analysis of Capitalism and civilization that was ultimately based too much on the realities of the mid-to-late 19th century, before capitalism in its later form had stratified and calcified, creating the complex and extremely adaptable system we see today; the kind of revolution that must have seemed inevitable to thinkers like Marx, proves to be must less so today, since Civilization itself has become able to subvert and incorporate almost any and all struggles, even class-struggle itself, as it did in the USSR.
Therefore, while some LeftComs might say anti-fascist unity is futile, since it is merely cooperating with one type of class-collaborationists together against another kind of class-collaborations, we must remember that, while fascism represents capitalism in the final phases of decline and thus desperate militaristic expantion, this is not necessarily at all a desirable way to make the system collapse.

Sure, while the collapse of the Roman Empire gave way to a society that way much closer to what had been envisioned by the Brothers Grachii and later coopter by the proto-fascist Caesar, this society was war-torn, poor and disorganized, and thus civilization easily arose in it's wake (especially helped along by the fact that the christian Church still thrived in Europe, thus ensuring that state-structures could be maintained). The same pattern can be seen with the slow erosion of the Japanese Empire and the Turkic invasions of the Middle East.

Thus we must not think that the collapse of capitalism will result in the dawn of a new paradise. This is too influenced by judaeo-christian thought. Instead, we must understand the development and fall of civilization as a pattern of eternal recurrence, a cycle that will require conscious and active effort to break, and whose conclusion is in no way revolutionary.

...

That's opPortunista to you, you double armrested chair.

This.

Yes, here.

I only posted one page, but it's insane how far SPD went to betray KPD. They created anti-fascism (Iron Front) just to control everyone, then kill them when they are worthless and have to ‘surrender’ against NSDAP, which just means welcome them and cooperative with them.

Thanks comr8

That's concerning.

Yeah they had to use numbers rather than industrial power in order to win a war.
Then they lagged behind the US technologically for 50 years.

The reality of a left nation confirms what we see with the modern rise. Laziness and apathy were always linked to communism.

BUT - nowadays when we're dealing with tech - money is becoming ineffective at stimulating people into learning it and contributing with it. Hence why Holla Forums influences the world a lot. They studied the memes because they found it fun.
Money was ineffective at beating it.

The Holla Forumsacks that come here want to learn.
If anything - the distinction between communism and nazism is diminishing on here and Holla Forums. The memes are mutating.

Hello illiterate newfag, leftcoms have never been in a war. leftcoms != commies

I for one want both multicultural and ethnically homogenous communities to coexist. I don't like having one or the other.

I read it as lefty tbh.

Why do Leftcoms think anyone would support them if they literally do nothing? Why would a movement who decries all action outside of a narrowly-defined vision of proletarian revolution as 'opportunism,' expect to win over any converts by staying silent in the face of capitalist/fascist violence?
Everyone is going to ignore them and instead align with the movements who actually work to help them, even if it doesn't dogmatically lead to some perfect communist society.

Holla Forumsyp psyops detected

This is a stupid fucking meme and you fell for it because you base your politics on shitposts that embody postmodernism and reactionary fun.

There is one contemporary instance, which is where they are currently relevant. Leftcoms actually have noticeable presence in some parts of Italy and could thus feasibly "organize". Bordigists actually have some traction among radical union activity through the SI Cobas.

fuckin true dude. Hey did you vote for Hillary this last election? Wouldn't want to place sectarianism over fighting fascism would we, fellow leftist :^)

fuck off

oh now that's a bit sectarian. hey by the way how do we feel about siding with "principled conservatives?" They don't like Trump, we don't like Trump, it seems like a natural fit. Let's face it, Hillary mobilized a lot more people than we ever could have in the US. How 'bout we compromise on a couple of our principles so we can appeal to them better. I say we leave out the anti-capitalism as that seems like a bit of a downer. OP is already a titoist so he's like 80% of the way there.

The issue in Italy was whether to literally cooperate with other anti-capitalists or not. As it is today. No one is suggesting partnering with neo-libs and conservatives.

...

...

...

wew

The other "anti-capitalist" parties were working hand-in-hand with porky. During the Biennio Rosso the PSI sabotaged the movement and simply negotiated for a slight increase of wages while the factory councils literally occupied the factories in Milan and Turin.

...

Oh and should we just forget who else was opposed to the factory councils?

t. Bordiga

Sure the PSI made many strategic mistakes, but the Bordigists hardly did any better.

...

That's a nice way of putting collaborating with capitalists to undermine a workers movement. It's true that Bordiga had ideological/theoretical misgivings on workers councils but at least he never actively sabotaged or sold out the working class.

I come back here and niggas be defending Italian communist praxis against latent liberal pseudo-oppositions to fascism…

What the fuck happened? Has ultra meme magic finally started taking off? Did you cunts come near my bong the one time I leave my armchair for a quick shower and shit (I haven't upgraded it to connect to the sewage just yet)?

Holy shit man, there it is:
>you've seen anti-fascist brigades backstab communists, refused to join anti-fascist brigades that backstab communists and oversaw half a dozen other anti-fascist brigades backstab communists, but hey, you're just as bad as the people who backstabbed communists!

This is a terrible post. You attacked the Italian left communists on the worst part you could possibly attack them.

The Adriti del Popolo isn't what most people think it was. It wasn't a popular movement and it was composed of many different social classes. In fact, the AdP split from the original Adriti, wanted nothing more than a return to a regular state of affairs with a program of a "peace pact".

Argo Secondari of the AdP said in an interview that the "defense of manual and intellectual workers" was an empty formula from the proto-fascist charter of Carnaro and that the "The Arditi could not remain indifferent and passive in the face of the civil war triggered by the fascists. And as they had been in the vanguard of the Italian army, they intended to be in the vanguard of the working people. At first, fascism seemed to be aimed at a goal which, in its outward forms, seemed to us, inspired by patriotism: to prevent red violence. We, who were essentially aiming to achieve inner peace by giving freedom to the workers, might as well have remained strangers to the struggle between fascists and subversives. But today, the fascists have the sad monopoly of political brigandage". Keeping this in mind, Secondari also said that the objectives of his movement were "the restoration of order and normal social life". It was for them to fight anyone who used violence: the proletarians as long as they "held the monopoly of political brigandage", then the fascists when this monopoly was passed in their hands. For the chief of the Arditi (and there is no cause for surprise) the essential question was to restore its strength to the State, to the Nation. What he wants is a return to "civility" in the relations between men and classes, just like a fraction of the bourgeoisie, like the socialists of the right and the center, and needless to say, like the republicans.

According to a communique from the AdP "The Directory of the Arditi del Popolo appeals to all parties to contribute materially and morally to the development of the Arditi del Popolo Association. At the same time, he urged all its members not to create within the Arditi political groups which would weaken its military discipline ". Combined with the AdP's structure of veterans having a commanding role while non-vets were considered "volunteers" and were to be used little more than cannon-fodder, meant that working within the AdP on a communist basis was impossible. This is why the PCdI felt it necessary to advance their own military organization and not to take party in a nationalist and patriotic movement that had no intention of handing power over to the proletariat.

Also, your history of the PCd'I is REALLY wrong. The Socialist Party of Italy (PSI) were deeply involved with parliament during much of the struggle with fascism, enacting policies and working hand in hand with the trade unions to undermine the working class movement 1919-1920. Bordiga was at the time correctly arguing for a rejection of parliamentary tactics, but he wasn't arguing for a split so that the proletariat could have its leading party. The Communist Party of Italy (PCI, no longer PCd'I) was later formed after this in time for the Aventine Secession 1924-25, where Mussolini really came to power, where the socialists and liberals boycotted parliament at the time most suited for agitation, which the communist party provided. The rejection of united fronts has nothing to do with lesser-evilism: the horrors of fascism were beyond terrible experiences, and the Italian bourgeoisie and its parliamentary apparatus must be held responsible for its supposed rejection of fascism that it nonetheless allowed not only to run in, but its bourgeois members welcomed whenever it wasn't inconvenient to. Rejection of united fronts in fact has everything to do with having a revolutionary party. At no time during this would have working with these counter-revolutionary groups have resulted in the stopping of fascism or the move towards revolution.

Only fools would form united fronts: the same fools who blindly formed them before in Germany and those who then had two examples to not be fools over in Spain. The only thing that can be done is to carry on the class struggle and the struggle for the party, which had always been its uncontested biggest motor in especially Italy, but everywhere else too. Communist principles and the communist party should never be compromised with alliances with counter-revolutionary elements.

A few sources:
libcom.org/history/articles/italy-factory-occupations-1920
leftcom.org/en/articles/2015-03-01/bologna-1919-a-page-from-history
libcom.org/library/workers-councils-italy-bordiga
libcom.org/library/power_or_factory_bordiga

By literally doing nothing? Yeah, in my opinion, doing nothing was just as bad as backstabbing.

Are you trolling? Looking through the thread, he has been more that clear about what the Italian communists and Bordiga have done and attempted against fascism. He might be smug and self-deprecating, but you've so far avoided literally all his arguments and went back to your one stupid argument. You didn't even address MY points: >>1434058 , and they also add to discredit your poor argument. Useful idiot and troll.

The Arditi Del Pololo isn't want you describe either. Yes, it was founded by veterans of ww1, but I hardly see how that's disqualifying. Veterans and defecting soldiers have been apart of practically every revolutionary movement.

As for Argo Secondari, I wouldn't put too much stock into the words of one man considering each regional section had a high amount of autonomy.

Also, I can hardly see how you can just characterize as a movement of republicans. Every source I've seen so far has said quite clearly they were primarily composed of anarchists and syndicalists.

This movement was also supported by both Lenin and Gramsci, not to mention the Unione Sindacale Italiana (Italian Syndicalist Union) and the Unione Anarchica Italiana (Italian Anarchist Union). Considering the Arditi mainly took on the ideology that was popular with the area it was operating in, had a large party such as the communist party lended its support, it probably would have become a principally communist movement.

sources btw

flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/history/italy/ArditidelPopolo.html
pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj99/picelli.htm

lol, someone's butthurt. And no, I haven't seen anything in this thread that showed Bordiga and his footsoldiers doing anything to credibly stop fascism.

oh, and here's some arguments.
expect more incoming.

Stop fascism why?

they were chickenshits, sure, but I'd hardly call the majority of them malicious in intent. they did help or

'no'
t. lenin
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm

The Arditi tried to assassinate Mussolini. Had they succeeded, its quite possibly the communists could have gained the upper hand in the ensuing chaos.

oh yes, I forgot, fascists are basically liberals anyway and don't represent an existential threat to the worker's movement in anyway shape or form.

Also meant to say on the left wing of the PSI would eventually fuse with the communist party in 1924 under Serrati, after realizing their mistake.s

oh yes, I forgot, liberals are basically communists anyway and represent an existential pillar of support to the worker's movement in every shape and form.

kill urself. the leftcoms wouldn't even work with anarchists.

That's literally what it meant in the context of Italy at the time.

Also nobody wants to work with anarkiddies.

Read the fucking thread.

That's not exactly true. The AdP became more and more centralized as time went on. So much so that it became impossible for anyone to actually infiltrate it. I have posted documents that time and time show this.

That's also not really accurate for the above reasons. It also doesn't contradict what I said or the formula of anti-fascism, as a reaction against both fascism and communism.
They were directly responsible for the defeat of the factory council movement. The first three links I posted outline the facts, the fourth shows Bordiga pondering over why his efforts with the PCd'I were thwarted by them, and what lessons it should serve for the communist movement henceforth.
"Possibly".

We have gotten to the point where you would have communists risk every single repercussion that has happened before (namely: they got exterminated) and which continued to happen because there's a tiny-ass chance that something that something could have happened involving the same people who made sure no worker's councils could be established. This is further than "chickenshit".

And why did you reply in pieces? You talk more like a contrarian and an obsessive person with a personal hate boner for Italian communists than a person who wants to critique, and it shows in that your critique is pure possibilism and appeal to Lenin (OP flag is Yugoslav, WTF?), the same guy ended up using parliamentarism, created a dictatorship and made the base for eternal state capitalism (also like Tito lolz).

WEW

I have nothing against anarchists in principle. Just like I have nothing against communists in principle. What I have a problem with is bourgeois society and its tools, and if anarchists or communists join them, I will not join their useful idiocy and blind death wish. History taught me this enough times.

The "anti-capitalist" resistance to fascism was working with liberals. Read a book.

Here we see the anti-fascist in his natural habitat: liberal democracy, his createst enemy being fascism, not capitalism.

He would say the PSI and their "socialismo liberale" doing EVERYTHING to ruin communist action against capitalism is a "mistake" and they're just "chickenshit", the same things which if they succeeded would have put everything in communist control, no chance for fascist, and then blame Italian communists for not joining their joint organization, with same ideologies?

Yes because as they kept bleeding numbers from state persecution and lack of support they also became less relevant as time went on.

There was one opportunity in 1920-21 for the communists and them to join up to defeat fascism, and bordiga soiled it.

I don't doubt that. I just wouldn't be so quick to chalk it up to liberal anti-communist malice. They did after all want to join the third Internationale.

They got exterminated anyway

I honestly don't see how you can defend Bordiga here or anywhere else. His ideas and tactics are just as cancerous for the left as identity politics.

Regardless, critique of history is always a game of hypotheticals. That's inescapable.

As for Lenin, I find that his tactics in gaining power were successful, so that's where I'll take his advice. As for his advice on what to do with that state power, that can go in the garbage can of history.

Nice typo. Almost "pollo", which means chicken. It's like the anti-fascists: intelligence of a chicken, walking around and acting like a chicken.

read the thread, I never suggested joining forces with the PSI.

lmao what an awesome put down comrade. nice to see the italian prisons haven't made you loose your sense of wit!

I said the AdP was its joint organization. Built by non-communists, composed of vague mixture of WW1 veterans and non-communists, allied with the PSI.

And I repeat: the PSI, notorious for being *very* beneficial to communists, like thwarting them in everything they did, most notably controlling two of the largest industrial centers of Italy and directly being responsible for neutering the creation of councils (same councils used as military cores by Russian communists BTW), now allying with an organization being mean to fascists. Yep, great idea.

Again we are here, and the fact you now say "well, in hindsight" but reluctant to admit you have 99% of signals saying fuck off with the anti-fascists and 1% saying "yeah, well if you joined a type of org that backstabbed you before and innately have no support for a communist horizon, maybe an assassination attempt a few years later would have worked with them!".

Recap: You argue that the communists should have lead the Arditi del Popolo. Even if this was possible, the communists had to exist in the first. This meant splitting from the PSI who were destroying the working class movement in parliament with the help of the leading trade unions (wow, who knew trade unions could be reactionary, or at the very least anti-communist, when they are not in the communist movement?), and also it meant going against Gramsci who was pushing for a weakening of the party.

I'm sure they all had good intentions, but nearly everyone bases their judgments on good intentions. Thing is, feelings don't really matter in the moment itself, before it, or after it. Everything here was built on the invariant communist program and the lessons of anti-fascism it learned of and which it rightfully saw as either anti-communistic (first supposedly anti-fascists were also anti-communist), or completely unaware workers joining a movement that just uses them.

Forgot this. The best part: "you didn't first join in the false battle against fascism before getting killed by target practice alongside useful idiots before you died! You have to play in the circus before you face death! Checkmate Italian communists!".

What I mean is: if you are able to effectively fight fascism, why limit yourself to fascism?

AdP wasn't allied with the PSI. That's factually untrue.
wikivisually.com/wiki/Arditi_del_Popolo

And there were plenty of communist organizers involved with AdP, as well as anarchists. This was one of the co-founders of the PSI by the way wikivisually.com/wiki/Gino_Lucetti

I would say that the AdP presented itself as a unique opportunity because it wasn't even a political party, they weren't socdems or liberals.

They communist party had already split from the PSI in early 1921, and Gramsci supported the ADP. initially.

Oh I'm glad you agree, because Bordiga's intentions were surely honorable in all of this. Too bad the intentions for inaction don't make it any more effective.

Man you guy's hard on for historical inevitability never ceases to amaze me.

Oh, I will add here (did not touch fully on this): There were multiple opportunities for the "communists and them to join up to defeat fascism", which is a bourgeois formulation, but that would mean making the PSI follow the communists, which they never did. They were interested in defeating fascism as well but they were opportune about it: for them the basis was not defeating it for anything revolutionary, but first to make sure liberal democracy is maintained. Otherwise, being bourgeois, they very much benefitted from the things the FNP promised them, and they ultimately did.

of course you should also fight the liberals and capitalists. but the issue here is one of strategy. As lenin said, bourgeois democracy is redundant to the communist, but perhaps not to the workers quite yet. fight fascism or liberalism depending on which one is most advantageous to fight at the time.

how many times do I have to say I don't support the PSI and they were clearly just as much at fault.

I wasn't even talking about the PSI in that sentence, but the AdP.

Because for him, communist organization means nothing in this whole mess. His biggest problem with Italian communists is not doing his little hindsight what-if game, saying because they didn't join a very dubious group, similarly shaped like groups that previously worked against communists and were not communistic, is another way of saying "left communists did nothing, Bordiga was lazy" but also, very subtly, also saying maybe the PSI killing its largest build-ups and near-sure attempts at capturing national labor organization and making worker's councils was "just a mistake, bro". He actually says in the next comment, unironically, the PCd'I's refusal to join the AdP is just as bad as the PSI destroying what could have been the most powerful communist organization ever, following years of effort and PCd'I activity. For him, ideology and class allegiance means nothing, just like he has no suspicions about anti-fascism because the term just reads what it says. He doesn't understand that the communists fight first capitalism and bourgeois society because fascism and anti-fascism are its consequences. You will endlessly slash at a hydra's head and turn into a liberal yourself if you do that, and all fucking anti-fascist efforts either got raped this way or became liberals indefinitely, at the very least anti-communist. On top of this, if he is indeed OP, he is a Titoist now critiquing liberal socialists.

I said joint organization. It fought the same primary fight against fascism. Perhaps I used the wrong language, but that's what I meant.

>And there were plenty of communist organizers involved with AdP, as well as anarchists. This was one of the co-founders of the PSI by the way wikivisually.com/wiki/Gino_Lucetti
So what? You are supposedly a communist, but don't join the largest communist party, a party organized organically meaning all can join and debate in the decision-making process and have an important voice? The PCd'I, then PCI, were gigantic. They were also both organizing militarily (could have been 1000x better if they had councils for organization), but along goals that go with their struggle: the worker's struggle against capitalism, and all those who enable it.

Say the same of the International Battalion (AdP joined them later, I just learned, funny that and how that went), and I will laugh. Remember how the Spanish republic treated the communists in it, after they were used? And don't give me whataboutisms: communists don't do whataboutisms. They build theoretical frameworks first, and conclude that the Spanish republic did what it did because it was in its structural interests. Don't join this if you are a communist.

You're confusing parties and terms here.

Good, cuz I'd rather die by revolutionary principles than ruin whatever was built in an attempt to save liberal democracy, then get killed.

Refusing to join the AdP is a matter of analyzing the roles and elements at play and concluding, as communists and materialists with an understanding of capitalism and organizational allegiance. It has nothing to do with historical inevitability, but funnily enough history does show time and time that communists working together with non-communists is a catastrophic failure, specifically and especially when communists are not in power.

Done with this thread TBH. You troll, change goalposts and manage to contradict yourself a few posts ago from what you said in the OP as principle. Have fun with your contrarian attitude and hate boner.

That's not what joint organization means.

Perhaps they disagreed with their stubborn and pretentious stance of not working with other militant groups and not participating in parliamentary politics before the fascists took over (as lenin and other principled communists disagreed with them over)

And should we also forget how the soviet union under stalin also screwed over leftists in Spain? And whatever the failure of communists in spain, at the very least the civil war weakened Franco to a degree that he was unable to be a real military factor in WW2 and provided much less material support to the axis than he otherwise could have, which is a good in of itself.

the Italian Communist Party, (PCI) Bordiga's party, which was previously a faction of PSI, split from PSI in 1921.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Communist_Party

An analysis which proved to be incorrect and ill thought out in retrospect.

Good riddance. I hope you and your leftcom ilk will be done with this board soon.

My position has been the same from the very beginning. the user's are welcome to see for themselves.

Even in the OP there was equal blame for the PSI as well as PCI. but unlike the PSI, the PCI's ideology has become popular again for some retarded reason.

What I find interesting is just how much leftcoms have been twisting and lying about obvious facts in this thread.

Well, it didn't, now did it? All that party organization and they couldn't radicalize the working class despite fascists literally killing people in the streets on behalf of the ruling class.

Both Gramsci and Lenin had the foresight to know to know they should join such a group as the ADP before it became to late. Don't act as though no one knew what was going on.

Bordiga's actions were also a mistake. I don't know what you want me to say? Go harder on PSI? Why? They're not on leftypol. Leftcoms are.

And i stand by that. Fascism would continue to suppress the worker's movement in an absolute manner until it's collapse in Italy some twenty years later as the allies invaded. Both actions cost the worker's movement in italy everything.

Nice strawman faggot. No one's suggesting not fighting capitalism, and I must have said 20 times now the PSI and the liberals were stupid too. Modern antifa aren't accomplishing much either and they're be little point to join them. But if a bunch of veterans and defecting soldiers started a militant campaign against trump, you'd bet I'd support it, as you should too.