communism is not a problem of...

[Lyev]

Hello all, apologies if this question is a little vague.
Basically, I have this phrase going around in my head, "communism is not a problem of forms of organisation". I think I have got it from Bordiga (?), but the problem is I cannot remember the origin of it, or where I first read it, or even if that was the exact phrase. "Revolution" might not be the opening word, instead of "communism", and there might be a similar word to replace "problem". Anyway, in looking for this phrase, and what it means, it seems there are similar ideas in people like Gilles Dauve, Camatte (I think), and Loren Goldner. In fact, I thought originally that Goldner was where I first read this, in his essay on Bordiga and Bordigism, Communism is the material human community, from which the Bordiga wikipedia seems to borrow much of its content. I skim-read the essay to find anything pertinent, and the closest I could find was the footnote:
27. For a critique of the formalism which flows from seeing the problem of socialism as a problem of "forms of organization", cf. the essay of Jean Barrot "Contribution a la critique de l'ideologie ultra-gauche (Leninisme et ultragauche), in his Communisme et question russe (Ed. de la Tete de Feuilles, 1972), pp. 139-178.However, I think this essay by Jean Barrot (i.e., Gilles Dauve) has never been translated from the original French. The phrase "critique of formalism" appears once in the Goldner's essay on Bordiga. (what I think is basically the nub of this issue here). Again, there is perhaps a similar idea presented here, in the Goldner essay:
Bordiga absolutely 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.I'm not sure I know fully what the formalism critique is, nor can I seem to fully grasp the meaning of the above passage. Perhaps if I gave my ideas on what the meaning of this "critique of formalism" is, then that would help clear up this question for those answering it. (My exposition of it is probably quite iffy, so perhaps folks would like to open it up as a point of discussion; why the formalism debate is important; why they are against "formalism" etc.) Anyway, it seems to be that a group that is formalist has as one of their primary tasks as a communist organisation debate over what kind of structure their group should uphold and take up. Importantly, this is at the expense of the said group's relationship with the working class. The currents that emphasise formalism have maybe stagnated as a result of isolation from the working class. Where this "formalism" has appeared historically, Goldner notes, is in the new left of the '60s. I think perhaps also he refers to it as an issue for the SPD, but post-1914 and before the war. And perhaps also in the second and third internationals, who would have at least been influenced to an extent by prewar German social democracy.
I think my definition is pretty rubbish, and maybe this post is a bit rambling, but I hope this issue can be cleared up. Sorry if this post appears a little garbled or confused.

In short: Firstly, does anyone know the origin of the quote, "communism is not a problem of forms of organisation"? And second, could anyone explain what this formalism debate is? A discussion of where it has appeared notably in the history of the workers' movement (SPD, Second and Third Internationals*) etc. Thanks a lot

*Not sure of any of these to be honest.

[Zanthorus]

Somewhat ironically, the original version of this particular phrase occurs in the Heidelberg theses of the KPD, quoted in Dauve and Authier 'The Communist Left in Germany 1918-21' (Relevant section online here (http://www.marxists.org/subject/germany-1918-23/dauve-authier/ch10.htm#h2)) as follows:


"The conception according to which one can create mass movements by means of a particular form of organization, and consequently that the revolution is a matter of the form of organization, is rejected as a relapse into bourgeois utopia."

Bordiga's formulation of the same occurs initially in his text 'Party and Class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1921/party-class.htm)', as part of a critique of syndicalist conceptions of organisation, as follows:


"Thus the illusory solution reappears, which consists of thinking that the everyday satisfaction of economic needs can be reconciled with the final result of the overthrow of the social system by relying on an organisational form to solve the old antithesis between limited and gradual conquests and the maximum revolutionary program. But – as was rightly said in one of the resolutions of the majority of the German Communist Party at a time when these questions (which later provoked the secession of the KAPD) were particularly acute in Germany – revolution is not a question of the form of organisation."

The point which is common to both Bordiga and the KPD thesis is an opposition to the idea that the problem with unions is that their organisation is too 'bureaucratic', rather than the inherent limits of purely economic struggle itself, hence the need for the party, the content of whose struggle is political. Of course the KAPD were as against 'revolutionary unionism' as Bordiga but unfortunately the Italian Left were never very good at understanding the German Left and vice versa.

The debate is also linked to the debate over 'workers' control', since the conception of socialism as 'workers' control' ultimately concieves socialism as a question of the organisational form of the enterprise, rather than the abolition of the juridicial unit of the enterprise itself and by extension value. Of course Bordiga in a number of quotes which you've probably read hundreds of times now stated that he considered this to be basically a revamping of capitalism which was at best useless and at worst completely reactionary. Here also we find the theme of economic and political struggles, since the idea of 'workers' control' was used by the Italian government to break the factory occupation movements during the biennio rosso and avoid any direct challenge to the existing state power (The German government did something analogous when it made the 1918 Workers' Councils part of the Weimar constitution).

The idea that communism is not a question of forms of organisation is big in the contemporary 'communisation' current, by which I mean people like Riff-Raff and Endnotes rather the Insurrectionary Anarchists who also seem to have latched onto the idea. Relevant links:

http://endnotes.org.uk/articles/8
http://www.troploin.fr/textes/60-communisation-uk