What in the hell is "invariance" in left communist theory?

sabotage

Is it basically anti-revisionist Bordigism?

Yes, essentially that is right, as I understand it. Bordigists often speak of the 'invariance of the communist program' since the Communist Manifesto of 1848. The concern is apparently to prevent opportunism or any kind of compromise with the enemy, to maintain an essential purity of principles, in a word, to not sell out. It seems to have arisen as a result of seeing the disaster of the course of social democracy, beginning as a proletarian movement, and ending up integrated into the capitalist state during the period of 1890-1914.

Yup, what waslax said... not too much there to 'get'. ...
Invariance the journal under the editorship of Camatte moved from advocating a Bordiguist Left Communism to Primitivism... hence the critical quip about it: "nothing varies more than Invariance." IIRC essentially Camatte came to feel that we are so alienated from our 'species-being' in advanced industrial capitalism that we can't combat alienation and reclaim the material human community, communism, through the sublation of the class anatgonism... but rather must first get in touch with nature to reclaim any sense of our 'sensuous being', a sort of a deep ecology approach... in this he influenced Perlman and Zerzan (thus birthing anarcho-primmies). (edit- or at least the pomo-ish critical theory tendency of anarcho-primmies ... cavorting nudists, vegetarians, back-to-the-land types, and such exist/ed as a fringe tendency throughout anarchism and the workers movement)

I agree with Waslax - the idea was an attempt to erect a wall against opportunism; at that time, the period after the second world war, Bordiga would have been thinking of the former Communist Parties even more than the social democratic parties as examples of what happens when you allow opportunism to develop.
But it was also directed at what Bordiga called the 'modernisers', those who were opposed to Stalinism, but who felt that it was necessary to ask questions about the shortcomings in the marxist movement which had allowed Stalinism to arise out of it. If I am not mistaken, Bordiga saw the Socialisme ou Barbarie group as one example of this - a group which had begun by questioning the role of Lenin and the Bolsheviks and had ended up rejecting marxism itself. But Bordigism in its present form also emerged within the Italian left in opposition to those who were also questioning some of the positions of the Third International which Bordiga continued to defend, such as the idea of the dictatorship of the party and support for the 'colonial revolutions' - in other words the tendencies around Damen in Italy and Chirik in France.

Is the idea of Invariance linked to the Bordigist (or ultra-Bordigist)idea of the Party (the class is the Party; i.e. the Party always exists, from the Communist League to the International Communist Party[ies] is an unbroken 'red thread' of existence of the Party)? It seems like they support one another very well within the framework of communist theory [that is, if the class Party is in the class, and has had an Invariant program since the beginning, the mission of communists then is to simply maintain the programme-platform and defend it].

Perhaps within some Bordigist groups that is the case, I'm not sure. Otherwise I don't think there is an essential connection of the kind you have suggested. I think the sort of theorisation you have pointed to came later in the development of 'Bordigism' than the idea of 'invariance'.

here in italy there are still some (maybe 12) hardcore-dumb-bordigists who think that they are THE Communist Party, and their role is to keep the communist program from 1848, until the day when the workers of the world will unite under the dictatoship of their very party (Party = metaphysuc pure proletarian vanguard).
"Invariance" is of the program and, of course, of the Party.

Mental cases.

alf

But Bordigism in its present form also emerged within the Italian left in opposition to those who were also questioning some of the positions of the Third International which Bordiga continued to defend, such as the idea of the dictatorship of the party and support for the 'colonial revolutions' - in other words the tendencies around Damen in Italy and Chirik in France.

Its better to say that Damen and Chirik are the true upholders of bordigism, while the various "bordigist" groups after the implosion in the 1980s of the ICP adopted thirdworldism (because the revolution which Bordiga predicted after the 1970s economic crisis didn't happen). I still see no evidence for the belief that Bordiga supported colonial revolutions.

Agree with Communard that the theory of the historic party holding the invariant programme from 1848 is for mental cases (sadly too many Bordigists though believe it and it may be more than 12!). When Noa Rodman asks that hecan find no evidence that Bordiga supported colonial revolution this is because the Bordigist adopted the policy of anonymity in signing texts. We are not sure what he wrote and what his epigones wrote, As Bordiga had at least three different positions on the class nature of the USSR it would not be a surprise to find that he had different positions on the colonial question. Invariance also arises from the lack of demnocractic centralism inside the Bordigist parties. Camatte in the end could not stomach Bordiga's organic centralism which is why he quit to found Invariance which subsequently called all political organisations "rackets" (there is a kind of thread here I think - a sort of descent into even greater madness).

First, to paraphrase Bordiga," I'm not a bordigst". Second, what exactly is 'mental' about invariance? Something does not become untrue because the date of its creation was in 1848. Btw I don't think rackets or parasitism can be dismissed as mental either, silly maybe yes ;) .

[quote=Cleishbotham] We are not sure what he wrote and what his epigones wrote, As Bordiga had at least three different positions on the class nature of the USSR it would not be a surprise to find that he had different positions on the colonial question.[/quote]

That seems contradicting. Don't beat around the bush. As a communist inspired by the Italian Left, shouldn't you know what Bordiga's position is on thirdworld 'revolutions'?

Something does not become untrue because the date of its creation was in 1848. Btw I don't think rackets or parasitism can be dismissed as mental either, silly maybe yes

I think he was reffering to the combination of invariance with the Da Vinci Code esque 'Holy Grail' view of the Party (that is, instead of the blood of Christ being carried on and on by successors, it's the invariant program along with the organizational continuity with the original Party- the Communist League; that there has always been one invariant program and one Party upholding its truths from 1848 to the present day)= mental.

Noa wrote: "its better to say that Damen and Chirik are the true upholders of bordigism".
Can you explain?

This would be a key text to look at : 'The historical invariance of marxism', published in 1952.

http://www.sinistra.net/lib/bas/progco/qioe/qioennobef.html

This is in French. Is there an English translation?

I am not clear when Bordiga first used the term invariance. My impression is that it's something that was theorised in the 1940s-50s and does not appear in the body of material he produced during the revolutionary wave.

Thanks Alf - that is a useful post since the article shows that "invariance" began as a rational theory against revisionism and all subsequent reformist and Stalinist distortions of Marxism. But why don't they just say that it is the theoretical method of Marxism which is the important core of revolutionary marxism? Instead it leaves ambiguous the question about what Marx said in 1848 (which he himself later amended in the light of proletarian experience). I suspect that Bordiga was more subtle (though he has a track record of bending teh stick too far in other cases). Unfortunately when it gets twisted in the hands of some of the epigones of Bordiga "invariance" becomes even less credible.

Noa I am not placing any bets let alone hedging them. I just don't know (And I said it was difficult to work out given the fact that no texts by Bordigists or Bordiga are signed following theri cult of "organic centralism". All I know is tha t after the 1951-2 split in the PCInt the Bordgia faction goes back on the Luxemburg position on the national question which the PCINt had held since 1943 and believes that the national question is still open in some places around the world. This led to its implosion in 1982. "As a communist inspired by the Italiian left" I am still working many things out but chasing into the labyrinthine archaeology of Bordigism is not a top priority.

chasing into the labyrinthine archaeology of Bordigism

I wonder if thats what Hoffa was doing in the diner before he disappeared.

Is the Camatte journal the origin of the change in 'Invariance' from

a rational theory against revisionism and all subsequent reformist and Stalinist distortions of Marxism.

to

(maybe 12) hardcore-dumb-bordigists who think that they are THE Communist Party, and their role is to keep the communist program from 1848, until the day when the workers of the world will unite under the dictatoship of their very party (Party = metaphysuc pure proletarian vanguard).

?

Invariance should not be understood in the sense that nothing should be changed or criticised in Marx or authentic Marxism.

We have often said that the "Manifesto" is an apology of the bourgeoisie, and we add that today, the Second World War and the reabsorption of the Russian Revolution, a second one should be written, not in terms of philosophies of values; for these values pour into the bourgeois ideology the implacable economicism and shopkeeper's spirit appropriate to the class and the time. We need to vindicate the accused, in order to conclude that it is time to condemn him to death.

Marxism of the Stammerers on Libcom and also published by Communist Left, Marxism.org, Sinistra.net etc.

from what I understand, its used to express a commitment to bringing into existence 'actual-existing-communism'..

whatever that means

confusionboats

from what I understand, its used to express a commitment to bringing into existence 'actual-existing-communism'..

whatever that means

That's a strange thing to say considering everything else they had wrote.