From: "cwright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
Subject: AUT: Re: Re: Re: Algeria
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:23:28 -0500


My opinion is simply that Bordiga did not fundamentally break with Second
International Marxism in several very important ways (partyism, acceptance
of historical materialism/dialectical materialism/Plekhanovism and a certain
statism).  Would that have lead to the same thing?  I don't know.  I am not
sure the Bordigists would have done much better even though Bordiga made
some valuable contributions.

Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tahir Wood" <twood-AT-uwc.ac.za>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 3:21 AM
Subject: AUT: Re: Re: Algeria


>
>
> >>> cwright-AT-21stcentury.net 10/24/01 09:15AM >>>
> You know, I may think that Lenin was fundamentally screwed politically,
but
> I think he was more of a revolutionary than most.  Lenin was never a
> capitalist, he was a revolutionary who, mistakenly, badly mistakenly,
> thought that state capitalism in Russia was progressive and would lead to
a
> strengthening of the working class.  His notion was not based on the
> transformation of human social relations.  But for all of their strengths,
> the council communists and Bordigists were wrong on this too.  I am not
sure
> how much better they would have done.
>
> I appreciate this balanced view of Lenin - I think we need it. But I would
like to know more about the last judgements you make. How and when did
Bordiga accommodate himself to the state cap view? I know he was close to
Lenin on the party, but I've not seen anything similar on the matter you're
discussing here.
> Tahir
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---