Bordiga's rejection of "workers democracy"

[gorillafuck]

The proletarian state can only be "animated" by a single party and it would be senseless to require that this party organise in its ranks a statistical majority and be supported by such a majority in "popular elections" - that old bourgeois trap. One of the historical possibilities is the existence of political parties composed in appearance by proletarians, but in reality influenced by counterrevolutionary traditions or by foreign capitalism's. This contradiction, the most dangerous of all, cannot be resolved through the recognition of formal rights nor through the process of voting within the framework of an abstract "class democracy". This too will be a crisis to be liquidated in terms of relationships of force. There is no statistical contrivance which can ensure a satisfactory revolutionary solution; this will depend solely upon the degree of solidity and clarity reached by the revolutionary communist movement throughout the world. A century ago in the West, and fifty years ago in the Czarist Empire, Marxists rightly argued against the simple-minded democrats that the capitalists and proprietors are a minority, and therefore the only true government of the majority is the government of the working class. If the word democracy means power of the majority, the democrats should stand on our class side. But this word both in its literal sense ("power of the people") as well as in the dirty use that is more and more being made of it, means "power belonging not to one but to all classes". For this historical reason, just as we reject "bourgeois democracy" and "democracy in general" (as Lenin also did), we must politically and theoretically exclude, as a contradiction in terms, "class democracy" and "workers' democracy".

What does Bordiga mean when he says he opposes workers democracy?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Something like:

"The Workers’ Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans, fetishising the principles of democracy. They seem to have placed the workers’ voting rights above the Party, as though the Party did not have the right to defend its dictatorship even if that dictatorship were to collide for a time with the transitory mood of the workers’ democracy ... What is indispensable is the consciousness, so to speak, of the revolutionary historical birthright of the Party, which is obliged to maintain its dictatorship in spite of the temporary vacillations in the elemental stirrings of the masses, in spite of the temporary vacillations even in the workers’ milieu. That consciousness is for us the indispensable cement. It is not on the formal principle of workers’ democracy that the dictatorship is based at any given moment, though the workers’ democracy is, of course, the only method by whose help the masses are increasingly drawn into political life." - Trotsky

Keep in mind that for Bordiga the party and program were the authentic expressions of the interests of the working class.




On democracy

Bordiga proudly defined himself as "anti-democratic" and believed himself at one with Marx and Engels on this. Bordiga's hostility toward democracy had nothing to do with Stalinist gangsterism. Indeed, he saw fascism and Stalinism as the culmination of bourgeois democracy. Democracy to Bordiga meant above all the manipulation of society as a formless mass. To this he counterposed the "dictatorship of the proletariat", implemented by the communist party founded in 1847, based on the principles and program enunciated in the manifesto. He often referred to the spirit of Engels' remark that "on the eve of the revolution all the forces of reaction will be against us under the banner of 'pure democracy". (As, indeed, every factional opponent of the Bolsheviks in 1921 from the monarchists to the anarchists called for "soviets without Bolsheviks"--or soviet workers councils not dominated by Bolsheviks.) Bordiga opposed the idea of revolutionary content being the product of a democratic process of pluralist views; whatever its problems, in light of the history of the past 70 years, this perspective has the merit of underscoring the fact that communism (like all social formations) is above all about programmatic content expressed through forms. It underscores the fact that for Marx, communism is not an ideal to be achieved but a "real movement" born from the old society with a set of programmatic tasks.

[black magick hustla]

i think the issue of democracy is more than just sterile partyism. bordiga was wrong in many issues like his fetish for the party and he was very dogmatic but he also had a fucking sturdy spine and he never compromised even in the face of armageddon. his point is that communism is a programmatic concern and in as such it does not matter how many people are "communists" or not, and that communist organizations should not pander to the prejudices of the mayority and water down the program even in the face of "democratic reaction".

not only that but there was also the criticism of democracy as an ideological expression of capital. this idea helped him see more clearly that democratic antifascism vs totalitarian fascism are not a justifiable struggle for workers to endanger their necks. the cries of freedom a lot of the time are the cries of the bosses and it does not concern us.

bordiga was certainly right in most of his criticism of democracy. we don't dislike liberal democracy because it is not "real democracy", as if democracy was some sort of dumb platonic form that is good in its distilled form. we dislike liberal democracy because its a particular form of capital. in the beginning of the "democratic principle" however he mentions clearly that workers sometimes use democratic modes of organization as a pragmatic way to self organize. but he added that the democratic form is just that, a form and that forms of organization should be secondary to the principle of communism. anarchists tend to fetishize democracy as a form of organization rather than looking at it as just a form.

[gorillafuck]

we dislike liberal democracy because its a particular form of capital. in the beginning of the "democratic principle" however he mentions clearly that workers sometimes use democratic modes of organization as a pragmatic way to self organize. but he added that the democratic form is just that, a form and that forms of organization should be secondary to the principle of communism.
If democratic organization is secondary to communism, then where does the state-capitalism analysis come from? It has nothing to do with lack of workers control, hence lack of workers democracy, or the one-man management in the USSR? Because all of those criticisms are criticisms to do with lack of workers democracy, at least anarchist state-capitalism criticisms. Am I wrong in thinking that left-communists make the same criticism?

[Kotze]

It was one of those I-prove-you-are-wrong-by-using-different-definitions things, which makes one forever known as one of the intellectual giants of the left.

[Zanthorus]

I'm not sure where the confusion comes from. There is no attempt to be clever in that piece that you quote, he quite literally is rejecting democracy as an organisational principle.


If democratic organization is secondary to communism, then where does the state-capitalism analysis come from?

I don't believe Bordiga ever used 'state-capitalism' to describe the economic formation of the USSR. The lack of any democratic control is not enough to ascribe the label of capitalism to an economy. In the case of Bordiga, he seemed to tend to focus on the continued existence of multiple enterprises within the Soviet Union (Freedom with regard to the individual enterprise but not with regard to the total social capital being what differentiates capitalism from pre-capitalist forms of labour). Actually, if there is one thing I would have no problem agreeing with Bordiga on, it's that "workers' control" is not a feature of socialism but means the continued existence of capitalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Is it because "control" is more limited than "management"? Is it also because "workers" still implies the existence of workers as a class?

[gorillafuck]

I don't believe Bordiga ever used 'state-capitalism' to describe the economic formation of the USSR.
Isn't it the traditional left-communist view? Or just capitalism, I guess. I assume he would ascribe to the left-com view.


The lack of any democratic control is not enough to ascribe the label of capitalism to an economy. In the case of Bordiga, he seemed to tend to focus on the continued existence of multiple enterprises within the Soviet Union (Freedom with regard to the individual enterprise but not with regard to the total social capital being what differentiates capitalism from pre-capitalist forms of labour).
The economy was planned and collectivized. How were there different enterprises?

[Savage]

The economy was planned and collectivized. How were there different enterprises?
The economic plans of the USSR never matched their results, it can hardly be called a planned economy. Enterprises competed (to an extent) even though they didn't officially have private individual owners.

[gorillafuck]

Back that up, I'm curious. And is that actually what Bordiga meant? I feel like that wasn't his main criticism which led him to believe the USSR was capitalist.

[Savage]

Back that up, I'm curious. And is that actually what Bordiga meant? I feel like that wasn't his main criticism which led him to believe the USSR was capitalist.
I believe that Bordiga did actually use the term 'state capitalist' in 'Doctrine of the Body Possessed by the Devil', I haven't read enough of him to summarize his position though. There was a thread started by Zanthorus on book 'The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience' in which there was a dicsussion of competing capital in the USSR, you should check that out for more info on that position.

[HEAD ICE]

I don't believe Bordiga ever used 'state-capitalism' to describe the economic formation of the USSR.

If I'm not mistaken Bordiga uses the term "state-capitalism" (a rarity) and he uses it to describe the USSR (indirectly, by mocking the "not capitalism nor socialism" position) in "Doctrine of the Body Possessed by the Devil"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/doctrine.htm

This is actually my favorite text by Bordiga (even above "The Democratic Principle") because it displays all his positives. His prowess as a theoretician, his sharp wit and humorous quips, and great quotations that can stand on their own. Also it has a great title.

Edit: Damn you LibertarianMarxist!

[Os Cangaceiros]

bordiga was wrong in many issues like his fetish for the party

I like some of what left communists have said, and I agree with some of their positions, but a lot of their exhaltation of THE PARTY strikes me as something that would lead to demagoguery (at least if we're to take someone like Bordiga at his word).

And, I should add, not RIGHTEOUS DEMAGOGUERY OF THE PROLETARIAN DICTATORSHIP AGAINST THE CLASS ENEMY. Just to clarify.

[jake williams]

I don't really know Bordiga but if you just read that quote, he's making it pretty clear that "democracy" as such implies rule "of the whole people" regardless of class, and thus "workers' democracy" is a contradiction in terms.

From what I see here there is nothing criticizing workers' control of society, the direct participation of the whole working class in the management of society and industry, etc. He may or may not say that elsewhere, but I don't see him saying that here.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm pretty sure that democracy has always really meant the rule of one class over another, regardless of rhetoric (a good example of this being democracy in the early USA, which essentially meant political rights for landowners). Worker's democracy might as well simply mean democracy for workers, I'm not exactly sure why this matter needs to be complicated.

In any case, the view of THE PARTY as an relatively narrow body of militants (presumably who work at the behest of the working class, although who probably aren't beholden to their every infantile whim, or "vacillation", of the working class) carrying forth a program for socialism and/or communism is one that I can see potential issues arising with. And that's really what I was refering to, not Bordiga's views on democracy...I know that he didn't care for it, at least not the Bordiga rhetoric-based view of democracy. He's the guy who favored stripping peasants of any and all political rights, after all.

[Savage]

I like some of what left communists have said, and I agree with some of their positions, but a lot of their exhaltation of THE PARTY strikes me as something that would lead to demagoguery (at least if we're to take someone like Bordiga at his word).

In any case, the view of THE PARTY as an relatively narrow body of militants (presumably who work at the behest of the working class, although who probably aren't beholden to their every infantile whim, or "vacillation", of the working class) carrying forth a program for socialism and/or communism is one that I can see potential issues arising with.

I hope you don't think that critique applies to the entire communist left, even if it is valid in regards to Bordigism.

[ZeroNowhere]

presumably who work at the behest of the working class, although who probably aren't beholden to their every infantile whim, or "vacillation", of the working classI'm not sure what's wrong with this, really. A large part of the working class are reactionary, and I don't see that a working class in a revolutionary period could yield to backwards elements due to democratic principles without sacrificing its struggle and probably dying and suffering en masse. Of course, independent of developed capitalist crisis this force does not hold; nonetheless, given this presupposition the struggle of the workers will have to take on increasingly revolutionary and united forms if it is to be sustained rather than forfeited, and this will involve the alienation of reactionary and racist elements, but this is not important. Giving these elements influence based on their size would mean weakening the actual power of the working class, hinc the majority, for a state of sterile bean-counting independent of actual working class interests, whether or not the actual voters were confined to the 'working class' somehow or not. As such, 'democracy' as such is abstract regardless of whether or not it is 'workers' democracy', in either case being composed of head-counting and hence abstraction from working-class interests, hence in either case abstraction from class and the essence of communism, and therefore power belonging to all classes. While necessity's weight will have ultimately the greatest influence, and be the prime enemy of reaction, nonetheless it shall not erode it completely, that is, in the entire working class at once. Paradoxically, upholding democratic principles could entail the restoration of bourgeois power rather than its continual eroding and the progress of working-class struggle.

Of course, this is a matter for revolutionary periods of crisis, rather than one of abstract theorizing about the present. Communism is most likely to come about through struggles which begin divorced from communism. The main point of Bordiga's view of democracy seems essentially the same as that of Marx's 'Political Indifferentism'. Indeed, some of Marx's targets there are the same who reduce 'socialism' to mere 'workplace democracy' or some such and hence confine themselves to being reformist system-builders.


It was one of those I-prove-you-are-wrong-by-using-different-definitions things, which makes one forever known as one of the intellectual giants of the left.Not particularly, I don't think that Bordiga's definition of 'democracy' was much different to that of leftist adherents of the 'democratic principle'.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Of course I believe that the majority can sometimes be wrong. If I didn't believe that I probably wouldn't believe what I do. The question is how a potentially isolated minority can identify what's some kind of reactionary trend within a population, or what's merely a passing phase, or what's a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed. I think that there's an unfortunate tendency to respond to such matters with theoretical hubris...Bakunin's "real and pseudo-scientists" of socialism. This is a common anarchist criticism, really, and I don't offer any solutions.

But then I have to ask myself: if not for theoretical hubris, how do we know what we stand for? Obviously I believe what I believe because I'm right and everyone else is wrong, so why shouldn't my (and my fellow travellers) will be carried out? Man. Shit's heavy, dude.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Trotsky was expelled because he organized a strike that broke party ranks. Not exactly a model for "unity in action," is it?