I mean this isn't entirely wrong. I do think the Western powers are a unique evil that must be destroyed by any means necessary, and am willing to extent critical support to any and all who oppose their hegemony.

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

i think there gotta be bordiga addendum to this bordiga-despair

if they are not trying to get colonies?

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A Bordiga addendum, like "I love Hitler, but not as much as I love Mussolini"?

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

he thought, at some point, that overthrowing british empire was worth whatever (i think that hitler line is on the same page) (~~that was before holocaust~~, but after dachau opening for kpd, ~~if i recall correctly~~ gotta reup my bordiga lore smh).

we should call it "bordiga limit of campist critical support" (tm)

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

He floated the idea that Germany was revolutionary for opposing the British empire, yes. Now of course he would use the idea that you could sign a pact with Hitler to oppose Britain/France as evidence that the Soviet Union had lost their way, after having previously supported that exact thing when Hitler did it. Bordiga just hated AES. That was literally his guiding principle from 1920 on.

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

i think he changed tune after 1948 (?), i remember there was some recalibration time of italian leftcoms/particularly him in the 30-40s. hmm but now i can't find that quote, maybe i'm wrong very-smart

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

In an article he wrote in 1960 he condemned the Soviet Union both for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact AND for siding with the allies to defeat the nazis.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1960/vae-victus.htm

In the second war of German revanchism, Russia – now deviated from revolutionary Marxism – at first made a pact with Hitler for a moment, using as a pretense the Leninist thesis that France and England (later America) were fighting for exquisite imperialist motives: those of 1914.

That was the first disgrace, but the second stage was even worse. Reaching out to the French, the English, and the Americans, the Russians threw themselves once again into the most criminal democratic crusadism.

Oh oh and here's the best (worst) bit.

Almost half a century has been enough to show that the Russian leadership of the struggle for communism has ended in failure. [Our] hopes can only be placed in a mission of the great Germanic proletariat

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In an article he wrote in 1960 he condemned the Soviet Union both for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact AND for siding with the allies to defeat the nazis.

Well there's a reason why Gramsci died in prison while Bordiga didn't.

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 3 points 1 week ago

Gramsci supported the Arditi del popolo and other early anti fascists while bordiga spent the early 20s threatening to revoke membership of the communist party of those who engaged in or supported radical anti fascist action.

Bordiga fucking suuuuuucked.

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 6 points 1 week ago

rat-salute-2

[–] randomquery@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago

I think their criticism is based on idealism. They claim (unsure whether sincerely or not) that we categorically consider western powers as uniquely evil (or that we axiomatically consider that). They fail to see that we recognize the western powers as uniquely evil in the particular historical context of actual existing capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism.