Force, Violence, and Dictatorship in the Class Struggle

Here is the writing.

I don't have much time to describe right now all my thoughts on this, but I have time for a few important comments.

When Bordiga talks about Stalin in this, I do not believe that Bordiga would support Stalin's tactics if they were used for the proletariat as it seemed to me at first from this quote from the section.

Our condemnation of the Stalinist orientation is not based on the abstract, scholastic, and constitutionalist accusation that it committed the sinful acts of abusing bureaucratism, state intervention, and despotic authority. It is based instead on quite different evaluations, i.e. the economic, social, and political development of Russia and the world, of which the monstrous swelling of the state machine is not the sinful cause but the inevitable consequence.

After a discussion with Rafiq on this, I think that Bordiga was saying that Stalin shouldn't be morally criticized but criticized for bureaucratic institutions, state intervention, etc. and understand that material conditions and the choices that Stalin made within those conditions made such a "swelling of the state machine...not a sinful cause but the inevitable consequence."

I disagree with Bordiga when he claims to support the censoring of speech to suppress the bourgeoisie's speech and propaganda. While I am against their propaganda and support handing over the media apparatus to the proletariat, I am against censoring speech. This can lead to limited discussion which could cause individuals to overlook solutions or fear proclaiming such solutions for fear of repression of their speech. I do support censoring and forcibly abolishing publications, newspapers, etc. that openly call for the assassination of revolutionary leaders, revolutionary workers, etc. in a time of war, but that is about the extent of it for me.

Anyway, this is a long article, so sit back and relax. There is a lot to discuss in this writing.

I think that part might have to do more with Social Darwinism, but I am not sure. He may be stressing more of the mutual aid factor in evolution, but again I am not sure.

I thought it meant Social Darwinism at first too, but that doesn't really seem to make sense given the context.

What were your guy's thoughts on his critique of anarcho-syndicalism and workerism in the article. I thought they were essentially correct.

Those ideas kind of imply that each worker is a "perfect unit" as he says in another article.

As did I.

When Bordiga talks of the centre and the base as reaching a dialectical agreement I believe he is wrong. From this logic, it could easily follow that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie could reach a dialectical understanding as well.

The modern type of democratic bourgeois society does not joke with the administration of actual (or kinetic) violence through its police and military apparatus – and in reality it exceeds the level of kinetic violence used by the old regimes which are so slandered by bourgeois democracy. But alongside of this, it brings the volume of that application of virtual violence to a level never known before, a level which is comparable to the unprecedented level of production and the concentration of wealth. Due to this, sections of the masses appear which, out of apparently free choices of confessions, opinions, and beliefs, act against their own objective interests and accept the theoretical justifications of social relationships and events which cause their misery and even their destruction.

this is an excellent explanation of the prevalence of right-wing movements such as the tea party and right wing libertarianism among the people

^I don't think that is the only reason, but it is a main one, yes.

When Bordiga talks of the centre and the base as reaching a dialectical agreement I believe he is wrong. From this logic, it could easily follow that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie could reach a dialectical understanding as well.

I was reading on quotations of chairman Mao and he said

It [materialist dialectics] holds that external
causes are the condition of change
and internal causes are the basis of change,
and that external causes become operative
through internal causes. In a suitable temperature
an egg changes into a chicken, but
no temperature can change a stone into a
chicken, because each has a different basis.

Only the communist party has the characteristics to reach dialectal agreement that develops into communism, with the workers.

The bourgeois state or groups(capitalist parties, nativist, religious groups) can reach a dialectal agreements but it will result in nationalism, fascism, theocracy, neoliberalism or any other reactionary movement.

think of the communist party as an egg to be consumed and the bourgeoisie as a stone. an egg is meant to be consumed and if you eat it will provide good results. A stone is not meant to be consumed, but can be consumed and if you eat it will provide bad results.