I’m reposting from elsewhere a friend’s take on the communization critique posted below. This was only commentary made in passing, but I think it makes an important point, particularly in linking the rhetorical style of the original critique to the oft-used method of identity politics, which critiques any group that doesn’t speak to it own “pet issue.” Following it is a list of articles the same friend recommended on the topic.
“There’s a serious problem with how that article deals with the old communist left especially the Italian/Bordigist current, misrepresenting ‘Auschwitz, or the Great Alibi’ and suggesting that they “[see] all forms of capitalist rule as identical” which is just factually inaccurate and a lazy device used to link the tradition with negationism(something that everyone in the milieu at the time, except for like 2-3 weirdos, disavowed). Fact of the matter is that the ‘historic ultraleft’ had plenty to say with regards to fascism and its particularities, and the author seems to want to sidestep that on his way to critique the fresher/hipper(and agonizingly misunderstood) communization theory which is strange because it’s exactly where he identifies the so-called problem’s roots.
I think a lot of the misunderstandings come from the fact that people like TC write like they’re some kind of Hegelian fortune tellers, so it’s in part their own damn fault. But there’s a certain desire among a lot of leftists to criticize communization theory because it doesn’t address their pet issue. I’ve seen it attacked for not having a “line” on race/gender identity politics and now these anarchists want it to accommodate ‘anti-fascism’ which is it’s own truckload of bullshit. These people miss the point entirely.”
These last two are older pieces from Bilan: