Re Left? Left Politics?

Mauro jr Stefanini mauro.jr at
Wed Oct 18 18:12:41 MDT 1995

At 13.51 13/10/95 GMT, Adam wrote:
>On the other hand, if the working class as a whole demands a thirty hour 
>week, this is a political demand.

>I am in favour of this sort of politics.

Let clarify some misunderstanding.That one you mentioned is a political
demand, true.
But what is its aim, as such? To improve the labour conditions in a
bargaining with the capitalist class. 
Sure, I'm in favour of the demand of thirty hour week but I would add (and
we're actually adding during the struggles for the 36 hours in Italy) that
this demand 
cannot be anything else than a challenge to capitalism, which beeing in
crisis, is able just to attack the w.c. And no doubt, the capital is hardly
attacking the labor. The real problem is that the wprking class is neither
able to defend itself as class in this period.
Would we fight for such demand? Of course, because it's in the struggles
that this truth can grow in the mind and .. consciousness of the w.c.. But
this truth has to be stated at any and each step of the same struggle. Never
a revolutionary can conceal or pretend to ignore the real meaning of a
struggle, and its possible goals on the immediate terrain and on the
strategical ground.

>This is because you have a different definition of politics, which is
>essentially "politics == mediation". That is, you define politics as what
>reformists do. So you are against it. I distinguish between revolutionary
>politics and reformist politics, and am against reformist politics.
No, Adam. It's not a MY definition. Politics in society is only that: is the
proposal of a certain style and method for to manage the given social formation.
We could talk about proletarian or working class politics. That is: the
specific proposal for carrying on and leading the w.c. movement.In this
sense, our politics must be absolutely opposed to the reformist one. It
cannot exist any approach.

>i)	The CP's.
>> 5. They, the C.Ps and all the S.Ps, the Left, made always politics, for
defending, as far as possible inside the establishment and for its defence,
the immediate economical and social interests of the working people.
>>"as far as possible inside the establishment and for its defence" and
>"the immediate economical and social interests of the working people"
>summarise the nature of these parties. Therefore I would define them as
>"bourgeois workers" parties ( although in the case of the CP which bourgeoisie
>is not clear : at first USSR, increasingly and now completely the Italian ).

I reject that definition. We could talk about the particular nature of
Russian and national bourgeois politics of the CPI (or CPF or CPE...)in the
sense that those parties defended at the same time the interestes of the
national capital (against the working class, do not forget it) AND the
foreign politics' interests of Ussr. They could do so; and the class nature
was anyway the same: bourgeois.
 But we cannot imagine the double class-nature of those parties.  A party
either is bourgeois or is proletarian, in the substancial programme that it
This is a methodological issue. "Bougeois worker" may be a comfortable
definition, but has nothing to do with the description of reality.
Then, is quite "logical" your conclusion:
>.. where the choice is between a "bourgeois workers" and an openly
bourgeois party I >would support the bourgeois workers against the openly
capitalist one.

But it's not equally ... logic the second sentence:
> This would enable me to have an argument with the Communist voting workers
about the need to go beyond reformist politics to revolutionary politics.
Forty years of such support and votes succeeded in ... nothing. The CP (and
S or LP) ceased to refer to the workers without any reinforcing of such
revolutionaries, at the contrary....
>... do revolutionaries take part in the day to day class struggles? Do they
raise and
>fight for both economic and political demands?
>I think yes. Of course revolutionaries need to fight on an ideological level.
>But they also need to fight on a practical one if they ever want to build
>mass revolutionary parties.

Of course. The problem is not to be or not to be on the practical level, but
what to do and to say on it. The example of the MMM is good: are we for the
"emancipation" of the blacks or for the emancipation of the workers (black,
white, latinos, yellos...)? Has any of the so-called revolutionary groups in
the USA intervened clearly in this sense and THEREFORE opposing the spirit,
the goals and the sense of the MMM? If so, let me know them. And I've
appreciated very much the Alan Spector contribution.
And now to the core of the problem. To <build a mass revolutionary party>?
No; not a mass party. In the social formation really-dominated by capital,
the working class cannot escape the social, ideological, political,
religious, psychological (too) domination, until the revolutionary collapse.
The German Ideology, the Grundrisse have not been clear enough?
The revolutionary party can be certainly stronger than now, but never a
mass-party, ultil the revolution. If you wait the communist mass
consciousness, the mass consciousness of the political, social and
economical programme of the communist revolution for leading it, you can
change your life and go back to try to enjoy the delights of this society.
>In summary, are you a Bordiga-ist or a Leninist ?

I hate the -isms. Anyway I'd say am both. But... We (Partito comunista
internazionalista - 1943) collected the bordigists in 1945 and dropped them
in 1952. (We share anyway many points). On leninism: we are leninist, but
even the trotskists are, and the maoists claim to be, and... 
Leninism is a warm blanket for so many ideologies!
I stop for the moment, inviting you to read or visit our british comrades of
the CWO not far from you:
Write to: CWO PObox 338, Sheffield S3 9YX 
Mauro Jr Stefanini
Tel  (-39)02/35.51.275 fax (-39)02/33.200.101

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list