Bordiga, democracy, and the relationship between the Vanguard and the masses

That may be, but that seems to me a problem among different kinds of left-communists. What relevant theoretical contribution may we find in Bordiga? (and is there any Bordiguist here in revleft?)

Supporting the creation of an international, centralized communist party, and the critique of democracy.

Bordiga's critique of democracy and its liberal apriorism is brilliant. Communists dont operate on "the will of the masses", we operate on communistic principles.

^^^ Perhaps you should have clarified your position against bourgeois democracy.

We critique bourgeois/liberal democracy. It is true that revolutionaries operate on revolutionary principles (as opposed to cheap "populism" like the one Lenin attacked), but principles are nothing without organization (the "merger" above would be a major organizational as well as political victory).

Oh yeah, I agree with you there on the "will of the masses," especially given the uncanny ability of even neo-fascists to merge with the "workers' movement":

Fascist Trade Unions

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=67967

I was inspired by Rosa's thread in Workers' Actions on workers' activity in China and by one of the key points of Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered regarding the original "social democracy":

Originally posted by Me
Remember, the original idea behind "social democracy" was the merger of scientific socialism (then in its "Marxist" form) and the workers' movement!

This premise implies the separate origins of the socialist movement and the workers' movement, and since I read the review above several months ago, this caused me to ask my old question regarding the startling class demographics of neo-fascist parties in a Learning thread:

Is neo-fascism now a faux "workers' movement"?

I'd like to revise that question slightly (different places for quotation marks): Is neo-fascism now a "faux" workers' movement (ie, genuine but self-defeating)?

What about, for another example (two links), the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?



Given the further implications posed by the questions above, I'd like to ask overall: what is a workers' movement?

I think the question above needs answers if we are to properly confront fascist trade unions.

And given my repetitive statement in that thread, I have come to a basic understanding of why I should reject the ICC's rejection of Lenin's theory of consciousness. When I first posted on this board, I thought that Luxemburg's "dialectic" of spontaneity and organization was more than enough to justify the vanguard party, but I didn't know about the preceding "merger" ("Kautskyist") precedent that was the fundamental basis of Lenin's argument.



P.S. - I do agree with you on the creation of one proper communist party for workers all over the world (as opposed to mere "internationals"), however.

^^^ Perhaps you should have clarified your position against bourgeois democracy.

We critique bourgeois/liberal democracy. It is true that revolutionaries operate on revolutionary principles (as opposed to cheap "populism" like the one Lenin attacked), but principles are nothing without organization (the "merger" above would be a major organizational as well as political victory).

Oh yeah, I agree with you there on the "will of the masses," especially given the uncanny ability of even neo-fascists to merge with the "workers' movement":

Fascist Trade Unions

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=67967

I was inspired by Rosa's thread in Workers' Actions on workers' activity in China and by one of the key points of Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered regarding the original "social democracy":

Originally posted by Me
Remember, the original idea behind "social democracy" was the merger of scientific socialism (then in its "Marxist" form) and the workers' movement!

This premise implies the separate origins of the socialist movement and the workers' movement, and since I read the review above several months ago, this caused me to ask my old question regarding the startling class demographics of neo-fascist parties in a Learning thread:

Is neo-fascism now a faux "workers' movement"?

I'd like to revise that question slightly (different places for quotation marks): Is neo-fascism now a "faux" workers' movement (ie, genuine but self-defeating)?

What about, for another example (two links), the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?



Given the further implications posed by the questions above, I'd like to ask overall: what is a workers' movement?

I think the question above needs answers if we are to properly confront fascist trade unions.

And given my repetitive statement in that thread, I have come to a basic understanding of why I should reject the ICC's rejection of Lenin's theory of consciousness. When I first posted on this board, I thought that Luxemburg's "dialectic" of spontaneity and organization was more than enough to justify the vanguard party, but I didn't know about the preceding "merger" ("Kautskyist") precedent that was the fundamental basis of Lenin's argument.



P.S. - I do agree with you on the creation of one proper communist party for workers all over the world (as opposed to mere "internationals"), however.

Supporting the creation of an international, centralized communist party, and the critique of democracy.

Bordiga's critique of democracy and its liberal apriorism is brilliant. Communists dont operate on "the will of the masses", we operate on communistic principles.

In this case, I don't think we should have Bordiguists here. I stand for workers' democracy, and I operate on the will of the masses, not on aprioristic principles. Anti-democrats are anti-working class by definition.

LuÃ*s Henrique

Supporting the creation of an international, centralized communist party, and the critique of democracy.

Bordiga's critique of democracy and its liberal apriorism is brilliant. Communists dont operate on "the will of the masses", we operate on communistic principles.

In this case, I don't think we should have Bordiguists here. I stand for workers' democracy, and I operate on the will of the masses, not on aprioristic principles. Anti-democrats are anti-working class by definition.

LuÃ*s Henrique

In this case, I don't think we should have Bordiguists here. I stand for workers' democracy, and I operate on the will of the masses, not on aprioristic principles. Anti-democrats are anti-working class by definition.

LuÃ*s Henrique

If you operate by the "will of the masses", they I suppose you are against abortion, religious, and probably a racist.

Bordiga didn't reject workers' democracy, but we are not there yet. The ruling ideas are always the ones of the ruling class.

In this case, I don't think we should have Bordiguists here. I stand for workers' democracy, and I operate on the will of the masses, not on aprioristic principles. Anti-democrats are anti-working class by definition.

LuÃ*s Henrique

If you operate by the "will of the masses", they I suppose you are against abortion, religious, and probably a racist.

Bordiga didn't reject workers' democracy, but we are not there yet. The ruling ideas are always the ones of the ruling class.

If you operate by the "will of the masses", they I suppose you are against abortion, religious, and probably a racist.

As I am part of the masses, "the will of the masses" is not something I am external to. As a revolutionary, it is my duty to help shape the will of the masses.

Bordiga didn't reject workers' democracy, but we are not there yet. The ruling ideas are always the ones of the ruling class.

And so he thought we should have a blanquist strategy: a small party of good revolutionaries, instead of a mass party of the proletariat. This is something we should stand against, not for.

LuÃ*s Henrique

If you operate by the "will of the masses", they I suppose you are against abortion, religious, and probably a racist.

As I am part of the masses, "the will of the masses" is not something I am external to. As a revolutionary, it is my duty to help shape the will of the masses.

Bordiga didn't reject workers' democracy, but we are not there yet. The ruling ideas are always the ones of the ruling class.

And so he thought we should have a blanquist strategy: a small party of good revolutionaries, instead of a mass party of the proletariat. This is something we should stand against, not for.

LuÃ*s Henrique

So what do you make of Lenin's argument regarding his definition of a "militant," then?

[And you've gotten your wish regarding the relationship between vanguard and mass in the "merge" thread.]

So what do you make of Lenin's argument regarding his definition of a "militant," then?

[And you've gotten your wish regarding the relationship between vanguard and mass in the "merge" thread.]

^^^ Alas, I can't do it myself. This thread was already rife with discussion long before you two traded comradely (ie, NOT sectarian) barbs at one another, right from your very first post here.

[Cheers]

^^^ Alas, I can't do it myself. This thread was already rife with discussion long before you two traded comradely (ie, NOT sectarian) barbs at one another, right from your very first post here.

[Cheers]

Now that is just semantic gymnastics.

No, it is not.

Either there is some meaning in the phrase "revolutionary class" or there is not. If the proletariat cannot rise "by itself" above the level of trade-unionist consciousness, then it is not a revolutionary class, and Marxism is bogus.

Let me put an example. There was a thread some days ago about the "Worker-Communist Party of Iraq". Someone said the party should hide real well their line on "free love" to not scare away muslims.

It shouldn't hide its views, of course - but it should believe that its views correspond to the interests of the working class. And, in fact, why wouldn't they? What interest have workers in supporting patriarchy?

This is what I meant. Regardless if "free love" should be part of a party's line or not, the fact that some "communists" think that we should conceal our aims to not scare away other "potential" communists is bullshit and sheer opportunism.

It is. It means, however, that those "communists" don't believe that communism fits the interests of the working class. Otherwise, they would realise that openly and democratically discussing the subject would bring the workers to their position.

This doesn't means communists shouldnt participate with reactionary workers in the sphere of class struggle. However, communists should have a party that unites them on the basis of communist principles.

And which principles would that be, outside of the class struggle against capital and capitalists?

I also think there should be a party of communist militants, rather than the good old social democratic mass parties.

I am for a revolutionary mass party.

LuÃ*s Henrique

Now that is just semantic gymnastics.

No, it is not.

Either there is some meaning in the phrase "revolutionary class" or there is not. If the proletariat cannot rise "by itself" above the level of trade-unionist consciousness, then it is not a revolutionary class, and Marxism is bogus.

Let me put an example. There was a thread some days ago about the "Worker-Communist Party of Iraq". Someone said the party should hide real well their line on "free love" to not scare away muslims.

It shouldn't hide its views, of course - but it should believe that its views correspond to the interests of the working class. And, in fact, why wouldn't they? What interest have workers in supporting patriarchy?

This is what I meant. Regardless if "free love" should be part of a party's line or not, the fact that some "communists" think that we should conceal our aims to not scare away other "potential" communists is bullshit and sheer opportunism.

It is. It means, however, that those "communists" don't believe that communism fits the interests of the working class. Otherwise, they would realise that openly and democratically discussing the subject would bring the workers to their position.

This doesn't means communists shouldnt participate with reactionary workers in the sphere of class struggle. However, communists should have a party that unites them on the basis of communist principles.

And which principles would that be, outside of the class struggle against capital and capitalists?

I also think there should be a party of communist militants, rather than the good old social democratic mass parties.

I am for a revolutionary mass party.

LuÃ*s Henrique

[quote=LuÃ*s Henrique;1071877]No, it is not.

Either there is some meaning in the phrase "revolutionary class" or there is not. If the proletariat cannot rise "by itself" above the level of trade-unionist consciousness, then it is not a revolutionary class, and Marxism is bogus.

Now, thes are just straws you are grasping.

The communist party forms part of mass class struggle, and its not only composed by "intellectuals" or whatever. In countries were workers were a majority, a lot of communist organizations were overwhelmingly working class.

When the bourgeosie destroyed the feudal aristocracies, there where organizations made of "bourgeois ideologues" that were in the forefront of the struggle. This doesn't means that the bourgeosie didn't destroy feudal relations, but not every bourgeois participating in the struggle was part of the "bourgeois ideologue" clubs like the Jacobins.

It shouldn't hide its views, of course - but it should believe that its views correspond to the interests of the working class. And, in fact, why wouldn't they? What interest have workers in supporting patriarchy?

It doesn't matter what interests they have, but what interests they think they have. A lot of workers are ok with patriarchy and think it is in their itnerests to support it.

It is. It means, however, that those "communists" don't believe that communism fits the interests of the working class. Otherwise, they would realise that openly and democratically discussing the subject would bring the workers to their position.

I agree.

And which principles would that be, outside of the class struggle against capital and capitalists?

If you think communism is only about workers against capital you are dead wrong. It is about the complete emancipation of human beings, and I mean this in the fullest sense of the phrase. The working class is the revolutionary class, but communism is not about just working class liberation. There is much more inside the communist project than just crude negation. the crude workerism makes some people disregard vital things as the right to abortion, for example.

Neverthless, even if it were class struggle and capital, not everybody knows or understands who are the real enemies, etc. Just see a lot of maoists who, in my opinoon, are pretty much violent liberals. (I admire some maoist organizations, like the now defunct BPP, but anyway)

I am for a revolutionary mass party.

LuÃ*s Henrique

I am for a revolutioanry communist party. if the masses happen to turn communist, then by all means they can be in the party.

[quote=LuÃ*s Henrique;1071877]No, it is not.

Either there is some meaning in the phrase "revolutionary class" or there is not. If the proletariat cannot rise "by itself" above the level of trade-unionist consciousness, then it is not a revolutionary class, and Marxism is bogus.

Now, thes are just straws you are grasping.

The communist party forms part of mass class struggle, and its not only composed by "intellectuals" or whatever. In countries were workers were a majority, a lot of communist organizations were overwhelmingly working class.

When the bourgeosie destroyed the feudal aristocracies, there where organizations made of "bourgeois ideologues" that were in the forefront of the struggle. This doesn't means that the bourgeosie didn't destroy feudal relations, but not every bourgeois participating in the struggle was part of the "bourgeois ideologue" clubs like the Jacobins.

It shouldn't hide its views, of course - but it should believe that its views correspond to the interests of the working class. And, in fact, why wouldn't they? What interest have workers in supporting patriarchy?

It doesn't matter what interests they have, but what interests they think they have. A lot of workers are ok with patriarchy and think it is in their itnerests to support it.

It is. It means, however, that those "communists" don't believe that communism fits the interests of the working class. Otherwise, they would realise that openly and democratically discussing the subject would bring the workers to their position.

I agree.

And which principles would that be, outside of the class struggle against capital and capitalists?

If you think communism is only about workers against capital you are dead wrong. It is about the complete emancipation of human beings, and I mean this in the fullest sense of the phrase. The working class is the revolutionary class, but communism is not about just working class liberation. There is much more inside the communist project than just crude negation. the crude workerism makes some people disregard vital things as the right to abortion, for example.

Neverthless, even if it were class struggle and capital, not everybody knows or understands who are the real enemies, etc. Just see a lot of maoists who, in my opinoon, are pretty much violent liberals. (I admire some maoist organizations, like the now defunct BPP, but anyway)

I am for a revolutionary mass party.

LuÃ*s Henrique

I am for a revolutioanry communist party. if the masses happen to turn communist, then by all means they can be in the party.

And which principles would that be, outside of the class struggle against capital and capitalists?

What about nationalist values that act as a barrier to international class struggle? It certainly is a principle that has attached itself to mass movements countless times in the past.

It seems that Marmot just wants to suggest that there are distinctions to any historical epoch that take on a cultural tone. Values that preserve the dominant class are inevitably going to have a part in the cultural makeup of the mass. Do you think it is a role of any vanguard organization to criticize or attack conservative values, or should these value systems naturally deteriorate within the process of class struggle? There seem to be potentially significant consequences either way.

And which principles would that be, outside of the class struggle against capital and capitalists?

What about nationalist values that act as a barrier to international class struggle? It certainly is a principle that has attached itself to mass movements countless times in the past.

It seems that Marmot just wants to suggest that there are distinctions to any historical epoch that take on a cultural tone. Values that preserve the dominant class are inevitably going to have a part in the cultural makeup of the mass. Do you think it is a role of any vanguard organization to criticize or attack conservative values, or should these value systems naturally deteriorate within the process of class struggle? There seem to be potentially significant consequences either way.

When the bourgeosie destroyed the feudal aristocracies, there where organizations made of "bourgeois ideologues" that were in the forefront of the struggle. This doesn't means that the bourgeosie didn't destroy feudal relations, but not every bourgeois participating in the struggle was part of the "bourgeois ideologue" clubs like the Jacobins.

To go over to Luis' perspective, the Jacobin attacks on the masses religious values was one of the leading reasons they fell from grace. Peasants revolted against the Jacobins because of their anti-Catholicism, which in turn resulted in the Reign of Terror.

If you think communism is only about workers against capital you are dead wrong. It is about the complete emancipation of human beings, and I mean this in the fullest sense of the phrase.

But for Marx at least, complete emancipation and the undoing of man's alienation from himself was the consequence of our emancipation from class society. Communism may not just be about the destruction of capital, but that production relationship is the pedestal on which everything else sits.

When the bourgeosie destroyed the feudal aristocracies, there where organizations made of "bourgeois ideologues" that were in the forefront of the struggle. This doesn't means that the bourgeosie didn't destroy feudal relations, but not every bourgeois participating in the struggle was part of the "bourgeois ideologue" clubs like the Jacobins.

To go over to Luis' perspective, the Jacobin attacks on the masses religious values was one of the leading reasons they fell from grace. Peasants revolted against the Jacobins because of their anti-Catholicism, which in turn resulted in the Reign of Terror.

If you think communism is only about workers against capital you are dead wrong. It is about the complete emancipation of human beings, and I mean this in the fullest sense of the phrase.

But for Marx at least, complete emancipation and the undoing of man's alienation from himself was the consequence of our emancipation from class society. Communism may not just be about the destruction of capital, but that production relationship is the pedestal on which everything else sits.

To go over to Luis' perspective, the Jacobin attacks on the masses religious values was one of the leading reasons they fell from grace. Peasants revolted against the Jacobins because of their anti-Catholicism, which in turn resulted in the Reign of Terror.

It was just an example. There where other groups.

The capitalist project had inside it the seed for the destruction of religion, anyway. An economic system based on accumulation of commodities has nothing mystical in it.

But for Marx at least, complete emancipation and the undoing of man's alienation from himself was the consequence of our emancipation from class society. Communism may not just be about the destruction of capital, but that production relationship is the pedestal on which everything else sits.

Yeah, and that is why I said the working class is the revolutionary class.

However, Marx and Engels wouldn't have spent time writing about alienation, the family, children, education etc, if they didnt find the complete emancipation of people, not only as a class, but as human beings, important.

To go over to Luis' perspective, the Jacobin attacks on the masses religious values was one of the leading reasons they fell from grace. Peasants revolted against the Jacobins because of their anti-Catholicism, which in turn resulted in the Reign of Terror.

It was just an example. There where other groups.

The capitalist project had inside it the seed for the destruction of religion, anyway. An economic system based on accumulation of commodities has nothing mystical in it.

But for Marx at least, complete emancipation and the undoing of man's alienation from himself was the consequence of our emancipation from class society. Communism may not just be about the destruction of capital, but that production relationship is the pedestal on which everything else sits.

Yeah, and that is why I said the working class is the revolutionary class.

However, Marx and Engels wouldn't have spent time writing about alienation, the family, children, education etc, if they didnt find the complete emancipation of people, not only as a class, but as human beings, important.

It was just an example. There where other groups.

Well I certainly think it is a good example of a political vanguard missing the their target in terms of guiding the masses values. religious institutions didn't have to be abolished for liberalism to shine, politics just had to be secularized. Because of that error in judgement, that vanguard stopped being the head of the masses long before they lost their own. (pun, lol?)

However, Marx and Engels wouldn't have spent time writing about alienation, the family, children, education etc, if they didnt find the complete emancipation of people, not only as a class, but as human beings, important.

I think they found them important, but they wrote about them to emphasize the totality of human bonds to production, and therefore the importance of dismantling class society.

It was just an example. There where other groups.

Well I certainly think it is a good example of a political vanguard missing the their target in terms of guiding the masses values. religious institutions didn't have to be abolished for liberalism to shine, politics just had to be secularized. Because of that error in judgement, that vanguard stopped being the head of the masses long before they lost their own. (pun, lol?)

However, Marx and Engels wouldn't have spent time writing about alienation, the family, children, education etc, if they didnt find the complete emancipation of people, not only as a class, but as human beings, important.

I think they found them important, but they wrote about them to emphasize the totality of human bonds to production, and therefore the importance of dismantling class society.

If you think communism is only about workers against capital you are dead wrong. It is about the complete emancipation of human beings, and I mean this in the fullest sense of the phrase. The working class is the revolutionary class, but communism is not about just working class liberation. There is much more inside the communist project than just crude negation. the crude workerism makes some people disregard vital things as the right to abortion, for example.

Not only have truer words been spoken, but you've tempted me to call the "Karaite" ComradeRed (with his "anti-Leninist, Marx-and-Engels-only" material in the Theory forum) an "economist" for his mere attacks on wage slavery.

Because of that error in judgement, that vanguard stopped being the head of the masses long before they lost their own. (pun, lol?)

If you think communism is only about workers against capital you are dead wrong. It is about the complete emancipation of human beings, and I mean this in the fullest sense of the phrase. The working class is the revolutionary class, but communism is not about just working class liberation. There is much more inside the communist project than just crude negation. the crude workerism makes some people disregard vital things as the right to abortion, for example.

Not only have truer words been spoken, but you've tempted me to call the "Karaite" ComradeRed (with his "anti-Leninist, Marx-and-Engels-only" material in the Theory forum) an "economist" for his mere attacks on wage slavery.

Because of that error in judgement, that vanguard stopped being the head of the masses long before they lost their own. (pun, lol?)

Because of that error in judgement, that vanguard stopped being the head of the masses long before they lost their own. (pun, lol?)

I normally don't laugh at the such, but-

The major role of the vanguard during the pre-revolutionary period is to enrage the proletariat into class-consciousness [newspapers, propaganda, i.e. Pravda] and unites the working people under one movement [rather than separate].

Of course that still goes on afterwards, but at that point its role strengthens.

It will seize all former bourgeois property, assume control of the state apparatus, provide defense [remember the Red Army?] etc

Of course there is the role of eliminating threats, which cannot be avoided. There must be ways of "cleaning up" counterrevolution and reactionary bourgeois tendency...[because we can't have SRs running around shooting revolutionaries and kulaks keeping all the grain for themselves].

The money-bags must be crushed.

Because of that error in judgement, that vanguard stopped being the head of the masses long before they lost their own. (pun, lol?)

I normally don't laugh at the such, but-

The major role of the vanguard during the pre-revolutionary period is to enrage the proletariat into class-consciousness [newspapers, propaganda, i.e. Pravda] and unites the working people under one movement [rather than separate].

Of course that still goes on afterwards, but at that point its role strengthens.

It will seize all former bourgeois property, assume control of the state apparatus, provide defense [remember the Red Army?] etc

Of course there is the role of eliminating threats, which cannot be avoided. There must be ways of "cleaning up" counterrevolution and reactionary bourgeois tendency...[because we can't have SRs running around shooting revolutionaries and kulaks keeping all the grain for themselves].

The money-bags must be crushed.

^^^ You might want to read up on my proposal for the relationship between the party and the state (if so, in detail, please) here and here.