Why did she consider non-participation in elections to be childish?

I may need to reread everything

...

Where do people get the idea that left communists were impossibilists? One of them was literally Leninist. Both the Italian left and Dutch-German left did class-party politics and were fully incorporated into parliament. They had their particularities though; the communist faction in the PSI and later PCd'I grew huge by mostly using parliament as a tribune for workers, and the KAPD used it to announce demands before issuing mass strikes.

He was literally the worst one if them all

Lenin did have to force bordiga to engage I elections, his first instinct was abstention

He never stopped doing abstentionism (particular use of parliament). Abstentionism != impossibilism. If you want to see impossiblism see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Great_Britain.

Abstentionism is still infantilism

Compelling argument. I'll take it as a compliment.

Wow, it's an argument that is entirely non existent

But I thought leftcoms did nothing, and that being the largest representation of the left in both Italy and the Netherlands and Germany while doing nothing was just magic.

The only thing bordiga ever accomplished was Mussolini's rise to power and the decomposition of the Italian communist party in the post war years. Nearly every tactic he pursued was shown to be ineffectual and incorrect, and his theory was among the most bankrupt of his peers.

Seriously, when did leftcoms go from being a meme to this?

When the redditors decided to let themselves in

Salty

What an unfortunate display of a lack of information. Inquire into the full history of the Italian left with the excellently sourced and researched historiography of Philippe Bourrinet on the Italian left here: left-dis.nl/uk/bordigist.pdf. I've thrown in the history of the Dutch and German left as well as PDF here, just because, both for you and anyone else interested.

If we decide the validity of particular strategies this way, only Leninism as per Lenin has shown itself to be effective at all. I'm going to be generous here and pretend that the Italian left wasn't Leninist here and join you in marveling at the immortal science of Leninism, which we should all follow from now on.

People probably just started doing more reading of Bordiga than laughing at Bordiga meme. On the whole it seems that reading things does more than looking at memes.

I mean I'm guessing she didn't make this statement after they killed her.

But really I agree, not voting is just silly, obviously don't take voting as your sole civic duty but at least vote for the furthest left party available.

Read Bordiga

Because accelerationism is the truth

The leftcom is immunized against all dangers; one may call him a shitposter, a parasite, an autist, or an infant and it will all run off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a redditor and be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, he suddenly shrinks back: "I've been found out!"

Except what you were trying to say is that this was before her controversy with social-democrats, or reformists, or anyone this board thinks has a monopoly on electoral politics, which it wasn't because it's one of the last things she wrot in her life. Own up to your stupid statements fam.

>and it was probably not even a leftcom or redditor he was replying to

Let's remedy that. And not with a book written by an openly biased leftcom.

The facts are these, both Gramsci and Lenin supported working with groups such as the Arditi Del Populo and the syndicalists. Bordiga refused such tactics and the military power of these forces were squashed in part because they lacked the logistical and political support of a larger party. Bordiga's autism about centralism proved to be completely ineffectual against the fascist threat, and his earlier comments proved to be completely incorrect.

t. Bordiga

The fascists took every pain to destroy the worker's movement, and imprisoned all the leaders of the communist party. The movement fared even worse in other parts of Europe thanks to the fascist governments, especially in Germany. Can you really compare that to the immediate post-war strength of many of the communist parties?

Only if we completely detach the Bolshevik revolution from its consequential creation of the USSR and all its failures. At best you can say that a dictatorship of the proletariat only lasted a couple years, and it was Lenin's own actions that crushed it. Perhaps he had no choice. But either way, his tactics were specific to the extreme situation of russia, they should not be made a goal for future revolutions for the most part.

...

He's not wrong though.

How is this wrong? Marx wrote the same thing

Maximum hehe

The historical record shows it was wrong, like I said just compare the difference between the 40's and the 50's in terms of the communist movement in Europe. I would add though, fascism was no ordinary reactionary bourgeois government. It's ideological nature was unique.

when you talk about simple reactionary bourgeois governments, you usually refer to something like pinochet or reagan, there's a wide gulf there between them and Hitler and Mussolini.

Bourrinet wrote these two texts with nothing but the intention to chronicle fully what the Italian and Dutch-German left did. Whining about "muh biases" while very clearly displaying your own biases, and not sourcing them in any way, leaves me wonder if you have any intent of having an honest discussion at all. I should add that the point of posting these two texts was mostly to show the various things beyond what you mentioned the communist left did and achieved, how popular it was in the workers' movements, and so on.

This is again pure whataboutism. Wherein the same breath you draw large conclusions based on general tactics and approaches and write them off, you secure the validity of frontism's sucess purely here, where it didn't occur. What about the great success of frontism in Paris, Barcelona and Shanghai, where beyond just getting crushed these movements were betrayed without even being able to put up much of a fight? In particular the CNT-Republic-Stalinist alliance was absolutely deadly for the workers' movement in Spain, particularly the anarchists, and the KMT-CPC alliance made it die in one fell swoop, see: insurgentnotes.com/2012/10/notes-towards-a-critique-of-maoism/ and pic related. On top of this, the Arditi, both the original and reincarnation, were comprised of the exact same type of random ex-military loyalists that ended up betraying those in the very first frontism featuring communists in Germany (look at the ex-militaries the SPD saddled with them). Quite ironically, in Italy the communists were the only ones to actually even put up a fight at all; the KPD crumbled immediately, the CPC had no weapons even because of the frontism, and in Spain funneling things to the Republic and the Comintern left them almost defenseless when the Republic let the Francoists slaughter them. The PCd'I with the trade union front, the front Bordiga did support and with heart and soul pushed til the very end, had the Guarde Rosse fight off Blackshirts for weeks as well as the cops of bourgeois democracy the Italian State deployed against them as well.

So again, what does constitute success for you? Where today have we gone beyond the years of DotP Leninist Russia knew post-'17? Is there communism somewhere on earth right now we don't know of? Speak up!

I should add that Bourrinet is expertly sourced and informed, using archives from Smolny, Tasca, Archives Autonomtes, State historical archives like for example the Italian State's, sure witnesses, and so forth. His work on history is meant to be empirical and as impartial as possible, which shows if you read it (no ideological or political debating, except where it is informative on the situation and so on).

On July 10, 1921, Lenin wrote in the Pravda an article praising the Arditi and criticizing the Bordigan tendency of the PCI which opposed militant anti-fascism.[1] On August 3, 1921, the PSI signed a "pacification pact" (patto di pacificazione) with the National Fascist Party, while the General Confederation of Labour (CGT

Bordiga didn't think so either. Again, this isn't controversial stuff. It isn't even controversial to consider the Freikorps not-fascist either, even though they may be categorized as proto-fascist in their original form and because most of these slayers of the KPD went on to assimilate into actual German fascist paramilitaries.

This… again, is not controversial. What is controversial here is whether or not anti-fascism is and has shown to be useful against fascism, or if the unconditional opposition to all non-communist forces has been more successful. One of the best ways to investigate the question is to look at the historical record of anti-fascism, which texts like When Insurrections Die do very well. For anyone ITT, /ourguys/ at Zero Books discussed the text and the topic of anti-fascism on one of their podcasts not too long ago here, which is a good listen: youtube.com/watch?v=LKtJBMTXUjY. These are the same people we had a Holla Forums insider chat with BTW, and that podcast should be released within the coming week IIRC.

Who is Mao?
Who is Fonseca?
Who is Castro?
Who is Ho?
Who is Tito?
Who is Ngouabi?
Who is Sukarno?
Who is Kim?

Who is Palme?
Who is Blair?
Who is Clinton?
Who is Assad?
Who is Amin?
Who is Mugabe?
Who is Brundtland?

What proletarian success stories did this breed, besides the total slaughter thereof and slowly decaying capitalisms under the red banner? (insurgentnotes.com/2012/10/notes-towards-a-critique-of-maoism/ / marxists.de/china/sheng/whither.htm)

Idem?

So the very same things you said about what Lenin ultimately supposedly set the trajectory towards with the USSR, is different from any of these examples how, exactly? It seems we are now supposed to appreciate social democracies at the barrel of a gun, but only if they're not Lenin's offspring in particular. Give us some consistency, damn it. This isn't just failing to convince me, but any other Marxist or anarchist who might be browsing this thread either!

Castro was not even a communist and "adopted" Marxism Leninism years later to get the favor of Khruschev era Soviet Union, along with Che Guevara, years after the revolution, which was petit bourgeois in character. Not only that, but his guerrilla was fairly disconnected from the class struggle that was already waged in the streets of Cuba. Please stop vindicating petit bourgeois opportunists.

good post

You forgot Pol Pot m8

Considering his constant accusations of revisionism, I think I'll doubt that explanation.

I've had this debate so many times, I figured it was well established by now.

Lenin supporting unity between the Italian Communist Party and the Syndicalists
marxists.org/history/international/comintern/4th-congress/united-front.htm
Lenin in a letter said he approved of this approach, it will take me a moment to find it if you want.
Also as this user pointed out

There is the article in Pravda by him.

Gramsci
marxists.org/archive/gramsci/1921/07/arditi_del_popolo.htm

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Look at where and how it failed, I say. In Spain, Stalin's stubborn tactics and authoritarianism doomed the effort, in the case of China, the success of the CCP would not have been even possible had it not for be the strategic ceasefires and alliances with the nationalist forces, no matter how shaky they were.

And how ironic! You blame the ex-military folks for the failure of the german revolution when were it not for the rebellious soldiers, there would have been no revolution! It all started with a sailor's mutiny! The failure in this case was in deed on the part of the Sparticus League, in how it did not effectively plan for revolution and have mass appeal. Even if they did fail, their efforts were still commendable, and had they succeeded, I think we would have seen a much more durable dictatorship of the proletariat than what we saw in Russia.

Hah! Don't make me laugh! The workers themselves put up the most energetic and valiant defense and it was with ex-military leadership such as from the Arditi Del Populo that they were the most successful. The resistance was there! The fight was there! But the communist party withdrew into its narrow confines under Bordiga's leadership against all sensible advice. Here's an excerpt that illustrates the situation very well.

dutch/french leftcom > italian leftcom

BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU GET DONALD DRUMPF THE BIG FREAKIN' ORANGE CHEETOH!!!!
WE COULD HAVE HAD THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT FOR FR*CKS SAKE! DANG IT!

he was an anprim funded by the CIA

marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol8/no2/rossi.html

We haven't. There has been no greater success that those precious few years of genuine worker control. Today, we see it in only isolated, rural parts of the world such as the Zapitastas in Mexico and the Rojava Revolution. They, however, are impotent at destroying capitalism, it being a global system after all. I have no illusions about that poor track record, but class warfare still exists, resistance still exists. Thus, there is still hope. Today, more hope than in many decades.

I'll admit, it's not a good record. But, we shouldn't forget to be self critical here. Communist parties have often thrown a wrench into these attempts just as much as reformist movements have. All the dynamics involved were genuinely tragic.

Would woman have shut up if they got their Hillary?

this

because she's a woman

A bunch of Leninists, literally.