Bordigism

I had some questions about Bordiga, his theories, and the tendency that was formed after them.

I haven't read much of his work, but from my understanding there isn't that much available in English. I've checked the marxists archive, but there wasn't much. I'm hoping one of you will have some more resources to provide me on the matter of Bordiga.

From my understanding, Bordiga was very against having the party or the lower phase of communism be democratic. I think he was correct that more emphasis should be put on having a functional DOTP rather than having democracy for democracy's sake, but it seems like the dogmatic rejection of democracy is just as idealist as the unconditional requisite of it. In this sense, Bordigism almost seems like the inverse of Councilism and falls prey to the same problem, in essence. Am I right here?

Also, the concept of organic centralism seems quite nebulous. The actual mechanics of how the upper echelons of the party are to be "responsive to the base" seem vague. Can someone elaborate on the concept and give me their opinion on it?

Someone asked also asked me whether Bordiga believed the workers could not become socialist until after the revolution and that this warrants the undemocratic nature of his imagined revolution, but I was unable to answer; so I was hoping one of you might also know the answer to that.

Bordiga seems like a very interesting figure in the 20th century communist movement, albeit one who gets very little attention.

he doesnt dogmatically reject democracy. his critique of democracy wasn't against democracy itself but against the idea of turning it into a principle. his point was basically that talk of so called true democracy was bullshit and that the best form of organisation was based on the situation and context.

besides whats on marxists.org theres some more stuff from bordiga on libcom if your interested. here http://libcom.org/tags/amadeo-bordiga

Thanks, they do seem to have a bit more material.

Many of the early texts of the Communist Party of Italy were written by Bordiga and can be found here: http://www.sinistra.net/lib/index.html.
There is a lot of depth in Bordiga's critique of democracy as a variety of bourgeois ideology, which he sees as the perfect reflection of a world of competing atomised egos (one man one vote and all that). Bordiga was right to say that communist principles as such cannot be the product of majority votes. But the answer to bourgeois democracy is a real proletarian collectivity in discussion and decision making (which may make use of majority decisions), not a new kind of hierarchy.

It depends on which Bordiga one reads. The early Bordiga was right to criticize "democracy" in class-neutral terms being used as some sort of principle. The late Bordiga, with his more authoritarian bend and Mussolini's lingering influence on the man's own vocabulary (embracing "totalitarian," for example), is more questionable.

How did Bordiga use the word totalitarian?

^^^ I think comrade Cockshott might have more info on the subject.

It depends on which Bordiga one reads. The early Bordiga was right to criticize "democracy" in class-neutral terms being used as some sort of principle. The late Bordiga, with his more authoritarian bend and Mussolini's lingering influence on the man's own vocabulary (embracing "totalitarian," for example), is more questionable.

These are my feelings on Bordiga as well. I think Grenzer may have already mentioned this (I am not sure) but I also have a problem with his "organic centralism" idea because it is so vague. I read Bordiga, but I don't really associate with his ideas too much.

Haha.

Savage over from the.. other forum dropped me a note about Bordiga, but I'm still eager to learn more.

As for dr. doom's claim that he didn't "dogmatically reject democracy", wikipedia seems to claim that he proudly called himself anti-democratic, but I don't know if there is any truth to that. Still, I have to say I'm impressed by Bordiga from what I've read so far.

It is truth, but then again it's you who have to drop certain bourgeuis ideological frames when it's comes to democracy. The best way, of course, is to read the Man himself: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bord...-principle.htm

Well I don't necessarily disagree, I was only wondering if it was true whether he considered himself anti-democratic. The most important thing is that the workers' class interests are being carried out, that is not always necessarily going to be democratic. There are many who insist that there needs to be absolute democracy at all times, which does seem a tad unrealistic. Democracy is good and all, but isn't it also a danger to fetishize it?

There are many who insist that there needs to be absolute democracy at all times, which does seem a tad unrealistic. Democracy is good and all, but isn't it also a danger to fetishize it?

that was pretty much what bordiga was saying

My point is that he has different view on democracy that you. He is "anti-democratic" as in opposition to brougeuise principle of democracy and voting. The best way, as I said, to understand him is to read that article

I just got done reading it. First of all, I have to say that I particularly enjoy his writing style, even if it is a bit laborious to read. I think I understand your meaning now, this seemed particularly salient:

"It is already evident that this conception is unrealistic and unmaterialist because it considers each individual to be a perfect "unit" within a system made up of many potentially equivalent units, and instead of appraising the value of the individual's opinion in the light of his manifold conditions of existence, that is, his relations with others, it postulates this value a priori with the hypothesis of the "sovereignty" of the individual. Again this amounts to denying that the consciousness of men is a concrete reflection of the facts and material conditions of their existence, to viewing it as a spark ignited with the same providential fairness in each organism, healthy or impaired, tormented or harmoniously satisfied in all its needs, by some undefinable supreme bestower of life. In the democratic theory, this supreme being no longer designates a monarch, but confers on everyone the equal capacity to do so!"

I think Bordiga's ideas deserve a new comprehensive treatment; Aside from cursory reading of his work after first coming to left communist positions, I recently started reading as much as I can find, and have found myself shocked at how 'relevant' some of his ideas are (especially when reading multiple books or articles from different groups concurrently). Very eager for the forthcoming English translations from the Historical Materialism journal- I hope they include a lot of material spanning his political life.