Is Bordiga worth reading?

[Comrade Jacob]

I've been put off quite a lot by a lot of left-coms and their hard-on over Bordiga, but sinsisterintents said it was quite a good read and she's getting into to more Stalin and such.

[#FF0000]

I don't think so, tbqh. I think The Democratic Principle is an interesting thing by him, but no, I don't think Bordiga's all that important or good.

[Rafiq]

Bordiga is at his best when speaking about the Soviet Union (or, the states that followed it) so much so that there has yet to be a Marxist - of my knowledge, which has so clearly, and precisely contextualized the 20th century catastrophe in its entirety. Even critical theorists like Zizek still tell us that what happened in the 20th century is an enigma of sorts - and it's not because he is unfamiliar with standard, cliche'd claims about how Socialism in one country does not work. The point is that even assuming they could not build Communism, what ensued is for him an enigma. Bordiga honors the tradition of Marxism by unraveling this enigma through critical evaluation on scientific lines.

Many will, for example, talk about the 'revolution needing to spread" or give us a number of casual factors as to why Communism was not possible in these countries. But Bordiga, and Bordiga alone gives us a scientific and consistent understanding of the affirmative historic place these states had in the 20th century. Many here will tell you why the Soviet Union was not a Socialist country, but very few can actually assess properly a number of inherent conundrums which sprawl from this meek assertion - like, living in the Soviet Union in 1941, or contextualizing its interaction with allied powers afterwards, could you actually claim that the Soviet Union was no different? Or for those who characterize it as a "deformed workers' state", how does one actually understand what happened in the 1930's purely in the context of "deformity"?

The reality is that Bordiga correctly qualifies Stalin, and Mao, etc. as romantic bourgeois revolutionaries. His notion of "state capitalism" is infinitely more profound than some of the users here will peddle it. It has nothing to do with some bizarre notion of a "nomenklatura" class replacing the capitalists but an understanding of an emerging generalized commodity production, a capitalist class that was struggling to be wrought into existence within the intricacies of social relations (i.e. NOT in the party-apparatus).

Aside from this, Bordiga is a tragic figure. He was far beyond his time, but at the same time ever more constrained by it in a sense: Completely and wholly unable to produce a real, viable revolutionary strategy. His practical politics proved to be a stepping stone for the worst kind of petite-bourgeois deviationism, and already honestly encapsulates the reactionary muck that is attached to most Left-sects who bury their heads in the sand.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

I think it is important to be as widely read as possible on leftist theorists. Also if you can explain what organic centralism is to the rest of us, then that would be a bonus.

[#FF0000]

I think it is important to be as widely read as possible on leftist theorists. Also if you can explain what organic centralism is to the rest of us, then that would be a bonus.

i can tell you what it means in actual practice: the old men decide.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

i can tell you what it means in actual practice: the old men decide.

Isn't that what gerontocracy means?

[Leo]

I think Bordiga was an incredibly insightful author on questions such as ecology, technology, science, philosophy, democracy and history. I'd say he's a almost unrivaled on these fields in the 20th century. The notion of the historical party, written by Camatte in discussion with Bordiga is also interesting but should be read with a more critical eye in my opinion. There are lots of interesting texts written by Camatte later on too.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I obviously disagree with much of Bordiga's political positions, and he could be horribly vague when it came to basic things like "organic centralism", which seems to be the position that the Party will make the right decision because the right decision is the right decision for the Party to make. Nonetheless I find him a great author when it comes to (1) as Leo mentioned, science, particularly ecology and how it relates to the communist project, and (2) the future communist society itself. If more people took to heart things like:

"A system of commercial exchange between free and autonomous enterprises such as might be supported by cooperators, syndicalists, libertarians, has no historical possibility nor any socialist character. It is even a step backward compared with numerous sectors already organised on a general scale in the bourgeois epoch, as required by technology and the complexity of social life. Socialism, or communism, means that the whole of society is a single association of producers and consumers."

We might have less pointless discussions here.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

I obviously disagree with much of Bordiga's political positions, and he could be horribly vague when it came to basic things like "organic centralism", which seems to be the position that the Party will make the right decision because the right decision is the right decision for the Party to make. Nonetheless I find him a great author when it comes to (1) as Leo mentioned, science, particularly ecology and how it relates to the communist project, and (2) the future communist society itself. If more people took to heart things like:

"A system of commercial exchange between free and autonomous enterprises such as might be supported by cooperators, syndicalists, libertarians, has no historical possibility nor any socialist character. It is even a step backward compared with numerous sectors already organised on a general scale in the bourgeois epoch, as required by technology and the complexity of social life. Socialism, or communism, means that the whole of society is a single association of producers and consumers."Yes, you'd be surprised at how insightful some more obscure players in early 20th century communist politics could be if you ignore their foibles. What passed as orthodoxy seemed to be at a much higher level than today's brightest thinkers on the left. I'm just not convinced Bordiga made any unique contributions.

We might have less pointless discussions here.3EMheiIIVCA

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Oh, I think he did make some theoretical contributions - the invariant programme, organic centralism, and so on. He also had a unique and disputed, even among Bordigists (if we include people like Damen - Leo and Devrim might want to correct me on this), view of the Soviet Union. It's just that I don't think these are particularly good contributions. (Obviously, otherwise I would be a Bordigist.)

And yes, the general theoretical level of the modern left is abysmal. People seem to either degenerate in the direction of purely academic flea-cracking or express wide-eyed surprise at some fairly basic points of socialist politics. But that's what happens when you live in a reactionary period.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

Oh, I think he did make some theoretical contributions - the invariant programme, organic centralism, and so on.

I'm certainly open to this possibility. Let's take organic centralism as a start. To my knowledge, it just means that being right from a scientific materialist perspective on a point of program is more important than being popular at any given moment in a revolutionary process. Okay, I get the concept.

The problem is that it's discussed as a general principle, when the general principle should really be that there are moments when democracy and centralism/unity of correct programmatic analysis come into conflict in definite historical contexts. The imperative in a revolutionary project is to weigh the needs of revolutionary proletarian agency on the one hand against trade-offs on purity of program.

To me, that's not a contribution. Bordiga's concept just describes in a static and one-sided way part of what the Bolsheviks had to grapple with as the revolution in Russia degenerated.


He also had a unique and disputed, even among Bordigists (if we include people like Damen - Leo and Devrim might want to correct me on this), view of the Soviet Union. It's just that I don't think these are particularly good contributions. (Obviously, otherwise I would be a Bordigist.)What was his view of the Soviet Union?


And yes, the general theoretical level of the modern left is abysmal. People seem to either degenerate in the direction of purely academic flea-cracking or express wide-eyed surprise at some fairly basic points of socialist politics. But that's what happens when you live in a reactionary period.Or think that leftish brands of liberalism are a prelude to revolutionary socialist politics.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm certainly open to this possibility. Let's take organic centralism as a start. To my knowledge, it just means that being right from a scientific materialist perspective on a point of program is more important than being popular at any given moment in a revolutionary process. Okay, I get the concept.

The problem is that it's discussed as a general principle, when the general principle should really be that there are moments when democracy and centralism/unity of correct programmatic analysis come into conflict in definite historical contexts. The imperative in a revolutionary project is to weigh the needs of revolutionary proletarian agency on the one hand against trade-offs on purity of program.

To me, that's not a contribution. Bordiga's concept just describes in a static and one-sided way part of what the Bolsheviks had to grapple with as the revolution in Russia degenerated.

I can see where you're coming from, but does a contribution necessarily have to be well thought out? I think organic centralism is vague and, as you said, one-sided, but it was something Bordiga contributed to Left Communist thought. Likewise Pablo's war-revolution thesis constituted a contribution of sorts - but it was, likewise, a one-sided view. I don't think either Bordiga or Pablo represent consistent Marxism, however, so I see your point. In the end, I'm probably ill-equipped to defend Bordiga as I don't actually agree with him.


What was his view of the Soviet Union?

In "Lessons of the Counterrevolutions" he put it like this:

"In order to classify the type of counterrevolution presented by the Russian case, in which, on the surface, its invasion by the capitalist powers failed and resulted in their military defeat, one must examine the economic fabric of Russia and its evolution that “tends” towards capitalism in a dual sense, politically and economically, without totally attaining this goal and without surpassing (since it was only in the cities that this was achieved) the stage that has been correctly called “state industrialism”."

Libcom also contains a foreword to that text from the Spanish El Programa Communista, which recapitulates the Bordigist position as I understand it:

"The proletarian and communist nature of the October revolution had to and must be sought in the nature of its political leadership, in the exercise of the dictatorship on the part of the Bolshevik party that operated as an aspect of the world revolution and, on the domestic front, of the civil war against the vanquished bourgeoisie that was nonetheless sustained in its desperate attempts to survive and to reconquer its old position by the international bourgeoisie, and against the remnants of Czarist feudalism as well. It would be vain to seek its nature in the economic measures which in the years of splendor could be legitimately defined as “socialist” in a dual sense: in particular sectors, due to the demands imposed by and the mere duration of the civil war, they possessed an anti-mercantile character; in other sectors, they subjected big industry and large-scale commerce to the direct control and management of a state that tended to use them for the ends and in the interests of the victory of the proletarian class in all countries. With regard to their real content, however, they were incapable, without the international victory of the proletarian class, of departing from the limits of a capitalism that tended towards the extreme limit of state capitalism, which had to overcome, over the expanse of huge geographical areas of the immense Russian territory not just pre-capitalist economic forms, but directly patriarchal and “natural” forms."Bordiga saw state capitalism as "pure" capitalism, with relatively free competition representing a transitory stage between two periods that he characterised as state capitalist, the one corresponding to the beginnings of capitalism and the other corresponding to the present period. Unlike other members of the PCI like Damen, he refused to characterise the Soviet Union as state-capitalist as he held that it was largely pre-capitalist, particularly in the countryside (which to me seems like a rigid stagist view but, again, I'm not the most sympathetic commentator here). As I understand it, Damen saw this as covert support to the Soviet Union.

Or think that leftish brands of liberalism are a prelude to revolutionary socialist politics.

Well, one needs to ask oneself what sort of "revolutionary socialist politics" these people support. Because what I see on RevLeft is vagueness, sentimentality and opprobrium heaped on anyone who distinguishes sharply between socialism and social-democracy, liberalism and so on. To me it seems that for a lot of posters, "socialist" is simply a nice term they want to call themselves.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Apologies for the mistakes in formatting, by the way, but the edit function isn't working.

[Luís Henrique]

And yes, the general theoretical level of the modern left is abysmal. People seem to either degenerate in the direction of purely academic flea-cracking or express wide-eyed surprise at some fairly basic points of socialist politics. But that's what happens when you live in a reactionary period.

To be honest, the general theoretical level of the left, like, in 1968, wasn't much better.

Luís Henrique.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Much" is vague; I do think it was better, though. Sure there were people into weird stuff even then (Marcus-LaRouche comes to mind), but that was the period when even utter opportunists could write interesting things (Mandel's work on economics comes to mind), and even social-democrats sometimes had interesting ideas (S. Beer for example). Now? Even those organisations I agree with seem to mostly produce work on how horribly confused and demoralised we all are. I'm not blaming them; it's to be expected in this horribly reactionary period. But there is a difference.

[Emmett Till]

....
In "Lessons of the Counterrevolutions" he put it like this:

"In order to classify the type of counterrevolution presented by the Russian case, in which, on the surface, its invasion by the capitalist powers failed and resulted in their military defeat, one must examine the economic fabric of Russia and its evolution that “tends” towards capitalism in a dual sense, politically and economically, without totally attaining this goal and without surpassing (since it was only in the cities that this was achieved) the stage that has been correctly called “state industrialism”."

Libcom also contains a foreword to that text from the Spanish El Programa Communista, which recapitulates the Bordigist position as I understand it:

"The proletarian and communist nature of the October revolution had to and must be sought in the nature of its political leadership, in the exercise of the dictatorship on the part of the Bolshevik party that operated as an aspect of the world revolution and, on the domestic front, of the civil war against the vanquished bourgeoisie that was nonetheless sustained in its desperate attempts to survive and to reconquer its old position by the international bourgeoisie, and against the remnants of Czarist feudalism as well. It would be vain to seek its nature in the economic measures which in the years of splendor could be legitimately defined as “socialist” in a dual sense: in particular sectors, due to the demands imposed by and the mere duration of the civil war, they possessed an anti-mercantile character; in other sectors, they subjected big industry and large-scale commerce to the direct control and management of a state that tended to use them for the ends and in the interests of the victory of the proletarian class in all countries. With regard to their real content, however, they were incapable, without the international victory of the proletarian class, of departing from the limits of a capitalism that tended towards the extreme limit of state capitalism, which had to overcome, over the expanse of huge geographical areas of the immense Russian territory not just pre-capitalist economic forms, but directly patriarchal and “natural” forms."Bordiga saw state capitalism as "pure" capitalism, with relatively free competition representing a transitory stage between two periods that he characterised as state capitalist, the one corresponding to the beginnings of capitalism and the other corresponding to the present period. Unlike other members of the PCI like Damen, he refused to characterise the Soviet Union as state-capitalist as he held that it was largely pre-capitalist, particularly in the countryside (which to me seems like a rigid stagist view but, again, I'm not the most sympathetic commentator here). As I understand it, Damen saw this as covert support to the Soviet Union.



I have never had the pleasure of reading anything by Bordiga, but I have an old friend who did read a lot of Bordiga's works, especially his analysis of the Soviet Union, which he summarized for me as,

that Bordiga, unlike state caps, thought that Soviet capitalism was just like capitalism anywhere else, except that the stock market tickers were hidden in the basement of the Kremlin to fool the workers.

That was probably an oversimplification.

Me, I'll take Gramsci over Bordiga, granted some of Gramsci's ideas were pretty weird, notably his notion that workers loved Prohibition in America and it was only abolished due to an evil bourgeois conspiracy to get the workers drunk.

[Luís Henrique]

some of Gramsci's ideas were pretty weird, notably his notion that workers loved Prohibition in America and it was only abolished due to an evil bourgeois conspiracy to get the workers drunk.

Citation needed...

Luís Henrique

[Emmett Till]

Citation needed...

Luís Henrique

Sorry to get back to this so slowly.

It's in his rather famous riff on "Fordism," in the prison notebooks. In the English International Publishers selected edition, edited and translated by Hoare and Smith, you'll find it on pp. 299-304.

Just had a look at it, some of the stuff he says about sexuality is even worse.

p. 304: "Womanising" demands too much leisure.... The new type of worker will be a repetition... of peasants in the villages.... The peasant who returns home in the evening.... loves his own woman, sure and unfailing, who is free from affectation and doesn't play little games about being seduced or raped in order to be possessed."

I guess fascist prisons can do bad things for your head.