Help regarding Bordiga

  1. Anti-Traditional
    Anti-Traditional
    Was wondering if you could help me regarding Bordiga? Ive read conflicting claims regarding his views of party dictatorship and soviet democracy. He seems to suggest that he supports party dictatorship AND soviet democracy but Im not sure if ive interpreted this correctly because surely any soviet where only one party could run would be rendered impotent? Other conflicting claims include Bordiga viewing the Soviets useful only insofar as they enabled the Bolsheviks to get to power. What exactly is his position regarding the role of the party, the soviets and the relationship between them in a proleterian dictatorship?

    Also, I had a thought the other day. I think one of the problems is how we conceive of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (I think in this day and age 'Workers democracy' would be a better term). I think instead of viewing it as something to be constructed, i.e an end in itself, we should view it as a particular PERIOD
  2. Red Enemy
    He supported a one party system within the soviets. This, I think, is great. However, there must be an ensured presence and defense of factionalism.
  3. subcp
    subcp
    I think one of the problems is how we conceive of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (I think in this day and age 'Workers democracy' would be a better term)
    I know that the view of the DotP is popular, I don't agree with it. Different historical figures involved in communist politics also defined it differently from one another.

    ‘[T]he formulae ‘workers’ control’ and ‘workers’ management’ are lacking in any content. … The ‘content’ [of socialism] won't be proletarian autonomy, control, and management of production, but the disappearance of the proletarian class; of the wage system; of exchange — even in its last surviving form as the exchange of money for labour-power; and, finally, the individual enterprise will disappear as well. There will be nothing to control and manage, and nobody to demand autonomy from.’ Amadeo Bordiga, The Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism (1957) (ICP, 1972).
    I think that if you go through his work you find different periods where his thought differed (such as during the revolutionary crisis, after the counter-revolution, after WWII, etc.). That's been my reading of what is available in English.
  4. Anti-Traditional
    Anti-Traditional
    He supported a one party system within the soviets. This, I think, is great. However, there must be an ensured presence and defense of factionalism.
    Wouldn't this make the existence of the Soviets pointless by essentially relegating them to the role of local party branches?
  5. Anti-Traditional
    Anti-Traditional
    He supported a one party system within the soviets. This, I think, is great. However, there must be an ensured presence and defense of factionalism.
    Wouldn't this make the existence of the Soviets pointless by essentially relegating them to the role of local party branches?
  6. Alf
    Alf
    A good text to read is Bordiga's Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party (1951). It's a clear critique of the hypocrisy of bourgeois democratic ideology but - in contrast to the Italian Fraction in exile during the 1930s - he draws no lessons from the experience of the Russian revolution, where the error of the party 'ruling' the transitional state destroyed the party and helped to undermine the soviets. http://www.marxists.org/archive/bord...lass-party.htm
  7. Caj
    Caj
    Here's something I wrote not too long ago responding to a user's claims about Bordiga. I hope it can help clarify "his position regarding the role of the party, the soviets and the relationship between them in a proleterian dictatorship" for you. Also, it's critical to point out that Bordiga's works I cite below are almost exclusively from the 1920s, as most of the works that have been translated into English on the subject are from that period. Consequently, the characterization of Bordiga's views presented below is not necessarily applicable to his views in later periods. Nonetheless, Bordiga held that the party without the class was impotent (and vice versa) up until at least 1951 (see "Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party," 1951). Although few of Bordiga's later works have been translated into English, I do not doubt that Bordiga began to fetishize and overemphasize the role of the party in his later years. Although I highly doubt that he ever said anything along the lines of "the Party is the class" (a quotation sometimes attributed to him), I do not, from the little I've read by the late Bordiga, think it unreasonable to characterize him as a substitutionist. One can even see the beginning of this in some of his works from the late 1950s (e.g. "Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism," 1957).

    Where did Bordiga emphasize that a party shouldn't become attached to the state machinery?
    Bordiga believed that the “proletarian state can only be ‘animated’ by a single party[,]” but he did not believe that the party would be the only, or even the primary, organ of proletarian class rule and certainly did not advocate a fusion of the party and the state such as that which existed under Stalin (“Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party”). In fact, Bordiga argued that the party could only be considered the representative organ of the proletariat prior to the latter’s seizure of power, after which, the soviets became the representative organs of the class. The following quotations from Bordiga demonstrate this fact:
    What is important to establish is that the communist revolution will be led and conducted by an organ representing the working class politically; prior to the smashing of bourgeois power, this is a political party. Subsequently, it is the system of political Soviets elected directly by the masses
    (from “Towards the Establishment of Workers' Councils in Italy”)
    [A]s long as bourgeois power exists, the organ of revolution is the class party; after the smashing of bourgeois power, it is the network of workers' councils.
    (from “Is This the Time to Form Soviets?”)

    Although Bordiga believed the party would still exist after the proletariat's seizure of power, its role would be to influence and direct the power of the soviets, not to rule over them or on their behalf.

    Where did he talk about folly of trying to rule in the absence of support of the working class? Where did he ever emphasize the fact that the party cannot be a substitute for the class itself and exercise state power while it is only a minority of the class?
    I believe I have read everything by Bordiga available in English (admittedly not much), and I do not recall ever coming across a passage in which he argues that the party can substitute itself for the working class and establish a functioning proletarian dictatorship without the latter’s support. Incidentally, Bordiga explicitly stated that the “delegation of [proletarian] power . . . [to] a party” means “in effect the renunciation [of] the possibility of direct action” by the working class (“Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party”). According to Bordiga, the role of the party is not to rule on behalf of the proletariat but “to awaken the revolutionary spirit of the class[,]” “put itself at the head of the masses[,]” and “direct th[e] violent reaction . . . of the masses and give it greater efficiency” (“Party and Class”; “Party and Class Action”; “Towards the Establishment of Workers’ Councils in Italy”). The party, then, “inspires, unites and heads” the class; it does not replace or substitute it (“Party and Class”). Bordiga, in fact, denounced the idea that the party could substitute itself for the class as a “voluntarist error” and an “’opportunistic’ deviation from the correct path” (“Party and Class Action”):
    There are in our opinion two “opportunistic” deviations from the correct path. [. . .] The second deviation consists of believing that a party, provided it is numerically large and has achieved a military preparation, can provoke revolutionary situations by giving an order to attack: this amounts to asserting that historical situations can be created by the will of the party. [. . .] Th[is] second deviation attributes an excessive and unreal importance to the will of the minorities, which results in the risk of leading to disastrous defeats.
    (from “Party and Class Action”).
    It would be a mistake, however, to deduce from all these preceding considerations that the action of the political class party is merely that of a general staff which could by its mere will, determine the movement of the armed forces and their utilisation. And it would be an imaginary tactical perspective to believe that the party, after having created a military organisation, could launch an attack at a given moment when it would judge its strength to be sufficient to defeat the forces of bourgeois defence.

    The offensive action of the party is conceivable only when the reality of the economic and social situation throws the masses into a movement aimed at solving the problems directly related, on the widest scale, to their conditions in life
    (from “Party and Class Action”)
    [I]t would be another voluntarist error – for which there cannot and must not be any room in the methods of the Marxist International – to believe that by utilising such military forces, even though they may be extremely well organised on a broad scale, it is possible to change the situations and to provoke the starting of the general revolutionary struggle in the midst of a stagnating situation.
    (from “Party and Class Action”)

    Bordiga, far from believing that a revolution could be artificially created by the party, argued that only the mass action of the workers could lead to a revolution. Without the will of the masses, a revolution was impossible. Hence, Bordiga identified “keep[ing] always in closest touch with the broadest masses of the proletariat” as the “most important task of a genuine communist party” (“Theses on the Role of the Communist Party in the Proletarian Revolution”). The party, though composed of only the most advanced, class conscious section of the working class (a minority in most historical situations), was to maintain close ties with the class as a whole:
    [I]t is preferable that the parties should be numerically as large as possible and that they should succeed in attracting around them the largest possible strata of the masses. No one among the communists ever laid down as a principle that the communist party should be composed of a small number of people shut up in an ivory tower of political purity. It is indisputable that the numerical force of the party and the enthusiasm of the proletariat to gather around the party are favourable revolutionary conditions; they are unmistakable signs of the maturity of the development of proletarian energies and nobody would ever wish that the communist parties should not progress in that way.
    (from “Party and Class Action”)

    The mere presence of soviets isn't the same thing as having a soviet system. They actually have to be the basis of political power. Nowhere in that quote is it suggested that this is what he means. "Management" is not the same thing as having political power and control, and is entirely compatible with a subordinate role such as in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
    That is a good point. Management is indeed not synonymous with political power, but Bordiga did, in other places, specifically refer to the soviets as the “basic form of the dictatorship of the proletariat[,]” “the foundations of the proletarian state[,]” and “the depositories of proletarian power” (“Theses on the Role of the Communist Party in the Proletarian Revolution”; “Towards the Establishment of Workers’ Councils in Italy"; Ibid.). Here are some quotations from Bordiga that emphasize the central importance of soviets as the basis of the proletarian dictatorship:
    [T]he Soviets, as far as history is concerned, are the system of representation employed by the proletarian class once it has taken power. The Soviets are the organs that take the place of parliament and the bourgeois administrative assemblies and gradually replace all the other ramifications of the State. To put it in the words of the most recent congress of the Russian communists, as quoted by Comrade Zinoviev, "the Soviets are the State organizations of the workers and poor peasants; they exercise the dictatorship of the proletariat during the stage when all previous forms of the State are being extinguished.
    (from “Towards the Establishment of Workers' Councils in Italy”)
    [T]he Soviets — most successfully defined by comrade Zinoviev as the State organizations of the working class — are nothing other than organs of proletarian power, exercising the revolutionary dictatorship of the working class
    (from “Towards the Establishment of Workers' Councils in Italy”)
    [P]roletarian power is formed directly within the municipal Soviets of town and country
    (from “Towards the Establishment of Workers' Councils in Italy”)
    Councils of workers — industrial workers, peasants and, on occasion, soldiers — are, as is clear, the political organs of the proletariat, the foundations of the proletarian State.
    (from “Towards the Establishment of Workers' Councils in Italy”)
    The Soviets, the councils of workers, peasants (and soldiers), are the form adopted by the representative system of the proletariat, in Its [sic] exercise of power after the smashing of the capitalist State.
    (from “Towards the Establishment of Workers' Councils in Italy”)
    [T]he true organs of the proletarian dictatorship are the local and central political Soviets, in which workers are not sub-divided according to their particular trade.
    (from “Is This the Time to Form Soviets?”)

    Notice that there is no mention of the party in any of the above quotations. Again, Bordiga saw the party as the representative organ of the proletariat only prior to the latter’s seizure of power.
  8. Alf
    Alf
    Interesting post Caj but I don't think things are as clear as you say. It may well be the case that the Bordiga of 1921 or so was much more aware of the importance of soviet type organs but by 1951 the emphasis seems to be much more on the idea of the rule of the party (and not even a 'party democratically elected by the soviets', a parliamentarist illusion of many revolutionaries in 1917-18, including the Bolsheviks and Luxemburg). Hence his concluding remark in 'Proletarian dictatorship and class party' that
    "the communist party will rule alone, and will never give up power without a physical struggle. This bold declaration of not yielding to the deception of figures and of not making use of them will aid the struggle against revolutionary degeneration".

    By the same token I can't see much evidence in this text that Bordiga had taken on board the danger of the party identifying with the state: if the party wields state power, it is certainly in danger of becoming a state organ.

    I think that these differences between 1921 and 1951 express a process of degeneration, through which part of the Italian communist left assumed the sclerotic form of 'Bordigism'. Bordigism remained a proletarian current but has shown itself less and less able to develop marxist theory, hampered as it is by the notion of 'invariance'.
  9. Caj
    Caj
    Well, when he said that "the communist party will rule alone," I think he meant more that other parties - "political parties composed in appearance by proletarians, but in reality influenced by counterrevolutionary traditions or by foreign capitalism" - would be excluded, not that the party would be the only organ of proletarian power. He does, in fact, say in the same work that the delegation of power to a party would mean the renunciation of the direct action of the proletariat. Nonetheless, I do agree with you that Bordiga emphasized the rule of the party to far more of an extent in 1951 (and after) than he did in earlier periods, and that this increasing emphasis represented a process of ideological degeneration within the Italian left.
  10. Alf
    Alf
    Glad we agree!
    probably the biggest problem with the actual Bordigists of this day and age is that they to all intents and purposes refuse to engage in debate, internally or externally, and therefore exclude themselves from whatever creative developments are taking place among the revolutionary currents.

    However, I have just joined 'Bordiga Literati'. Is this a split from the Bordigism group, and if so, who will retain the name of the Party?

    Only kidding. The true answer is that all will retain it.