Liberalism has marked its role as the rightful heir of God when it declared the sacredness of the individual--an individual who is a complete autonomous ghost that hovers over the world. All these ghosts, granted with divine equality, are treated the same by the beautiful phantom of Liberal Democracy!
The bourgeosie demonstrated its own inability to kill God when Robespierre declared Thérèse Momoro as the Goddess of Reason. The new "secular priests", with their constitutional bibles, preach the cult of the mutliated God of "Liberalism". Everywhere these stupid secular evangelicals declare that the opinion of the majority--a majority composed of ghastly entitities divorced of the material world--is the absolute truth.
The Democratic lie is based on the misconception that a society conformed by antagonistic classes is conformed by one, supreme interest. To the Liberal democrat the vote of the exhausted worker, the rich capitalist, and the homeless lumpen is the same: everybody is a spook divorced from material realities, everybody enjoys the same intellectual faculties--and most importantly, everybody's interests are similar.
It is no surprise to anyone that economic power equals to ideological power. Since the beginning of civilization, mainstream ideology has served the ruling class. God served the monarchy with the "divine rights of kings", and today ideology serves the "divine right of capitalists". Societies always try to justfy their modes of of being, and their modes of being always lay founded on those who have the economic power. It is laughable to consider that the people raised by the television, school, work ethic, church, and family will offer autonomous, independent opinions. They will only offer, at least generally, the dominant opinion, which is deeply rooted to the way society is structured.
I recur to the "ghost metaphor" because the naive liberal democrat argues for an idealized man, separated from the world. An idealized man that is not subject to the dominant opinion, which, unless the process of societal decomposition sparks, the dominant opinion will always be serving the dominant class.
The vicious cycle of ideological domination is broken when society is unable to justify itself anymore. It is when decomposition kicks in, when warfare is openly declared. When society is unable to justify itself anymore, the ruling class always resorts to the most horrible methods to secure its rule. When the Democratic lie loses its credibility, it is when we see the bullets flying to the heart of Ferrer. The spectres of Porfirio Diaz and Francisco Franco are my witnesses.
People who hold a "new word in their hearts" cannot always depend on the opinions of the mayority. We should not measure our ideas based on the crude arithmetic of the democratic farse--we only measure their merit based on the metric of human emancipation. Just because slavery was an accepted idea in 1850 it doesn't means we should accept it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Bordiga was an authoritarian (if principled) nutjob. What does this have to do with democratic socialist politics?
If you speak about the whole deal of Bordiga and Gramsci, I am afraid to tell you that Gramsci was Stalin's man. It was Gramsci's faction who solidified the relation with Moscow of the Italian Communist Party, and who ejected the "ultraleft" bordigist wing. Bordiga and his crowd where the ones arguing against the whole "united front" strategy that placed the Italian Communist Party under the heel of Moscow.
I dont think Bordiga was an "authoritarian" in the sense you meant it, because he argued for a future democratic society, and for democracy inside political organizations. He rejected the "inherent apriori" value of the democratic principle, which is a healthy thing for a materialist to do.
what comment got deleted =(
what comment got deleted =(
Comrad Marmot:
I admit that I have never heard Gramsci assocated with Stalin. Please clarify with details. While Gramsci received the support of Lenin against Bordiga, Gramsci spent much of his short life outside of prison fighting against fascism. In fact, he openly opposed Stalin's rise in the first place. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Please clarify your statement "Gramsci was Stalin's man" with supporting evidence.
Gramsci made great mistakes re: the Stalin/Left Opposition struggle in the USSR, which I think he didn't really understand. But Gramsci certainly has more contemporary relevance than Bordiga. Bordiga claimed there was no difference whatsoever between fascism and bourgeois democracy, claiming there was an alternation/rotation between these two forms of government.
Furthermore, Bordiga was an ultra-vanguardist. For Bordiga the party was "the social brain" of the working class whose task was not to seek majority support, but to concentrate on working for an armed insurrection, in the course of which it would seize power and then use it to abolish capitalism and impose a communist society by force. Bordiga identified "dictatorship of the proletariat" with dictatorship of the party and argued that establishing its own dictatorship should be the party's immediate and direct aim.
Again, I must ask -- what does Bordiga have to do with democratic socialist politics, even a revolutionary democratic socialist politics? Not much.
As someone who's been involved with DSA and YDS for a number of years I am increasingly confused by the content of this blog. Why all the CPUSA-written articles, when that organization still supports Stalinist regimes around the world? Why the Bordiga quote, which can only serve to make those not "in the know" think YDS is authoritarian?
whoa! are you trying to call the CPUSA authoritarian? If so, you're not just a tad out of line, you're WAY out of line. Yes it keeps connections with former Comintern parties worldwide, but no, the Party is not authoritarian.
http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/#question7
Comrad Jason:
I think you're analysis of Bordiga has some truth to it (though calling him a "nutjob" isn't useful, though). However, I'd like you to consider a few points here:
1. On Gramsci: While you may be right in that Gramsci "made mistakes," I think it's important to note that his major writings were composed while in prison -- which means that he lacked access to a full range of theoretical material during that time. Nevertheless, I'm still not sure that you and comrad marmot are correct in your easy classification of Gramsci as a supporter of Stalinism. There's so much evidence supporting the contrary. For example, read here: http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=239.
2. MSU YDS membership is diverse, if not ecclectic. I think you raised this question of CPUSA material in an earlier post. If so, the response is the same. We have a wide range of socialist perspectives here at MSU, and our chapter embraces all, rejects none on the basis of ideology.
MSU YDS members self-identify as social democrats, democratic socialists, anarcho-socialists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, and even a few liberal democrats. We have about 30 members on campus, and growing. A large part of this growth is due to the chapter's resistance to rigid, ideological dogma. Members often "agree to disagree" on theoretical matters, but work in unity towards what counts: building a viable, powerful socialist movement. And your comrades at MSU have been successful thus far...
I provide this explanation out of respect for your honest question and concern. However, if you're question was a rhetorical one, offered here to object to the presence of CPUSA members in our chapter, please know that MSU YDS embraces our dear comrads in CPUSA.
There will be no purging of communists from the chapter. Our comrads can say whatever they want on this blog, as they see fit.
I'll stop there.
Since when is MSU YDS responsible for what "those not in the know" thinks and believes? I don't understand your point here. For example, to use a little imagination here, if someone "not in the know" saw your chapter's website and assumed that YDS was simply an adjunct of the Democratic Party, who's fault is that?
I really don't understand your point. Please clarify.
First I will adress ADJ:
http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/cd/cd1/Library/archive/gramsci/works/1925/06/internal_situation.htm
This is a text Gramsci wrote on the situation of the Italian Communist Party:
" [Bordiga] had taken up a position on the Trotsky question that was radically opposed not only to that of the International Executive, but also to that adopted in practice by comrade Trotsky himself. It is absurd and deplorable from every point of view that comrade Bordiga should not have been willing to take part personally in the discussion of the Trotsky question. That he should not have been willing to take sight directly of all the relevant material. That he should not have been willing to submit his opinions and information to the test of an international debate."
Gramsci critized Bordiga for taking "Trotsky's side" regarding the question of international revolution. The text was written in 1925, and Stalin had already been declared General Secretary of the Party at 1922.
I don't think Gramsci was an explicit "Stalinist", and he probably gobbled up a lot of the propaganda when he was in prison. However, he objectively did help to solidify the relations of the ICP with Moscow, and thus Stalin.
Now on jason:
I think you are being dishonest with Bordiga's politics. He had many faulty ideas like the future workers' state being controlled by the party, however if you read what he wrote, without relying on wikipedia (you are saying exactly what wikipedia said) you will understand his criticism on democracy much better:
"The use of certain terms in the exposition of the problems of communism very often engenders ambiguities because of the different meanings these terms may be given. Such is the case with the words democracy and democratic. In its statements of principle, Marxist communism presents itself as a critique and a negation of democracy; yet communists often defend the democratic character of proletarian organizations (the state system of workers' councils, trade unions and the party) and the application of democracy within them. There is certainly no contradiction in this, and no objection can be made to the use of the dilemma, "either bourgeois democracy or proletarian democracy" as a perfect equivalent to the formula "bourgeois democracy or proletarian dictatorship". "
This is from the first paragraph of the Democratic Principle, which i suggest you to read.
I think you dont understand Bordiga's criticism on the "fascism/liberal democracy" dilemma. It wasn't only Bordiga who had that analysis, it was all of the Communist left, including the more anarchic " German Council Communists", who were the theoretical succesors of Luxembourg's Spartacus League. The left communists essentially argued that socialists shouldnt support workers being sent to die by different factions of the bourgeosie, whether it was the antifascist or the fascist faction. This analysis actually stems from Luxembourg herself, which the DSA coincidentally upholds, when she argued against the question of "national self-determination" as she thought it was a slogan the bourgeosie used to send workers to die for their interests.
Bordiga thought that antifascist fronts would subordinate the proletariat's interests to that of the bourgeosie, and that the bourgeosie was no longer progressive. He didn't like the idea of seeing millions and millions of german, american, french, italian, british, etc soldiers to die just to protect the hides of their masters. I think his analysis is very sound, even today, when a lot of "leftists" cheerlead the slaughtering of workers in the name of "national liberation" or "anti-imperialism".
About Gramsci being more "relevant" today, i think it has more to do with how eurocommunists and social democrats uphold him because he justifies their liberalism. i think bordiga is more relevant today, when you have "leftists" enthusiastically calling for imperialist intervention and paradoxically, upholding everything that is "anti-america".
MSU-YDS has socialists of all stripes and if you have a problem with that i am sorry
I've read Bordiga, thanks. I didn't rely on Wikipedia. I was modifying something written by Adam Buick (with whom I disagree on other matters) because it was short and accurate.
Traditionally cross-membership between DSA and CPUSA has not been allowed. Article I, Section 3 of the DSA constitution states:
"Members can be expelled if they are found to be in substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of the organization or if they consistently engage in undemocratic, disruptive behavior or if they are under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization." (Self-defined "liberal Democrats" who don't have an anti-capitalist politics don't belong in DSA/YDS either, of course -- but why would they join in the first place?)
And the answer is yes, I have a problem with people being in the organization who would uphold Stalin or Mao or Khrushchev as socialists worthy of praise or emulation. That's not DSA's socialism. Working in tandem with the CPUSA or whomever in, say, the antiwar movement is one thing, but ultimately our political perspectives are not compatible and I think that MSU YDS comrades who attempt to blur the distinctions are going to have to make a choice one way or the other as to where their loyalties really lie.
"Since when is MSU YDS responsible for what 'those not in the know' thinks and believes?," you ask? Imagine a progressive activist at your campus who might be interested in joining YDS reading the Bordiga quote, which on its face attacks not just the incomplete democracy of bourgeois democracy, but democracy tout court. That activist will run away from YDS quite quickly, I think.
Regarding Bordiga's opposition to antifascist fronts -- opposition to cross-class electoral Popular Fronts is one thing -- that much I agree with -- but opposition to united antifascist fronts of workers' parties is another matter. Imagine if the German Social Democrats and Communists had united in the streets against the Nazis. The course of the 20th century would have been rather different.
Regarding national liberation movements -- there's not enough space here for a real debate on that. I think Luxemburg had some valid points and Lenin failed to see just how dangerous a left "embrace" of nationalism -- even the nationalism of the oppressed -- could be, but again, a real discussion would go beyond what we could really fit into blogspot comments.
at Marmot: The post that was deleted was one I accidentally let slip through for a minute. Someone posted under the name Democracy Now! and posted a YouTube link. The name was obviously to fool me into not checking the link. The link was to a music video of some white nationalist heavy metal band, so I deleted the post. I believe the post was probably from one of our good friends at YAF.
The thing that confuses the hell out of me is why some national YDS members are making a huge deal over the fact that I posted a draft pamphlet on immigration (that was quite good by the way), a couple other things from the CPUSA, and the fact that I’m a Party member, yet these YDS members don’t seem to care that we have the 1st ever student hate group, MSU YAF, on our campus.
"..if they are under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization."
That sectarian line was removed from the constitution of the Detroit DSA back on in early August '07. I joined the CPUSA later that month. Don't fret though, my DSA membership expired in December, and after seeing how some DSA/YDS members react to the CPUSA over the last 2 months, I will not be rejoining. I am strictly an MSU YDS dues paying member, I am no longer a national DSA/YDS member.
lol the funny thing is that the article wasn't "bordiga's quote" it was written by me. I was just inspired by the "anti-democratic spirit" of Bordiga. so that says a lot about "you having read him".
there where serious differences between the social democrats and comintern parties, and the communist left itself. the social democrats destroyed the second international with their national jingoism, were part of the government that executed Spartacus League, etc. It wasnt just mindless "sectarianism" that separated these organizations.
Antifascist action in the 20s was almost exclusively a proletarian affair, and I agree the Bordigist wing of the ICP had it wrong about condemning the Arditi of Popolo in their streetfights against the black shirts (funny thing you criticize Bordiga for being "antidemocracy" but are enthusiastic about antifascism, which in the 20s was only led by a minority). But after a decade, it was already completely subordinated into the ranks of "antifascist bourgeosie", inlcuding stalinist state-capitalism, which was already playing its part in the imperialist arena. By that time antifascism was completely a bourgeois affair. It wasnt a led by workers, it was a class collaborationist affair. Now antifascism seems very heroic etc, but i am sure many of the soldiers fighting in those fronts would have rather ran away with their families than stayed there. i dont think the hundreds of thousands of russians that died in the bloody week of Stalingrad were there completely voluntarily.
you never argued against the article or why the liberal apriorism of "democracy" is corect btw. your posts were mostly slinging mud at people.
Marmot -- I'm aware of the history.
I don't know why you conflate the actions of minorities with "antidemocracy." It's Bordiga's theoretical constructs that are antidemocratic. And certainly your writing on this blog reads like Bordiga. And I am not slinging mud.
RedLenin: As for YDSers outside MSU not caring about YAF -- that seems like a complete non sequitor. It reminds me of the old joke about the man who is being shown the wonderful new Moscow subway, and after a while asks, "But where are the trains?" The Russian answers, "But what about lynching in the South?"
Why did you join the CPUSA in the first place, I'm genuinely curious.
A few quick things:
1. I want to come back to the Gramsci question; I have a lot to say here, but I have a lot on my hands this evening. I want to continue discussion of Gramsci because, in my opinion, Gramscian theory is needed now more than ever. More on that later (I'll repost sometime Tuesday evening)
2. Jason, I'd like to talk to you one-on-one. If you could, email me a number and a time to call: ajax381@gmail.com.
Before we talk, however, please know that this web blog is not the place to vent your intolerance towards communists.
I'll say more when I talk to you, but for now, just know that it's very unproductive for an obviously intelligent socialist such as yourself to live socialism in your head instead of material reality.
Your hypothetical is foolishness, since the reality of MSU YDS is a chapter that has grown from 5 active members to 30 in less than two years since its founding.
This, in spite of the supposedly ideological schisms you imagine frightening people away.
What's also foolish is your claim that the chapter should not have liberal democrats because they are not "anti-capitalist." Are you familiar YDS/DSA's work within and support of the Democratic Party? Are you familiar with Bernie Sanders or Ron Dellemus? Liberal democrats are many in the national organization, so I'm not sure why you would say otherwise.
Lastly, I'm getting a weary of your attacks on people you don't know. The basis of your attacks is that they're communists. But you don't know how much they've worked for our chapter, sacrificing time and energy, to build socialism at Michigan State. I told you at least twice why we allow a wide range of socialist perspectives into the organization. Instead of alienating people, we discuss, we debate, and while we might disagree about some things, we are committed to developing unifying praxis.
This is the third time this has been explained to you. And the last. I'm sorry if you thought this was subject to debate. It is not. So now it's time for you to talk about something else, or be quiet. Or give me a call.
To marmot: your linking of Gramsci to Stalin is certainly interesting, but problematic in nature. Throughout the Prison Notebooks (and earlier works) he dedicates a lot of time towards an anti-fascist agenda, thus working against the politics of Stalin. Not to mention the expansive theoretical challenge towards vanguardist tendencies and the reification of revolutionary thought as a whole. In a word, Gramsci's contributions to Marxist philosophy and revolutionary thought have not been so concretely defined as you propose. Instead he was a dialectic thinker and strongly opposed to the scientific production of socialism that Stalin so vehemently advocated for.
To be honest, I dislike Gramsci far more as a historical figure than a theoretician. Historically, he did far more damage to the movement than he actually benefited it. He was part of the stalinist counterrevolution that ravaged the Comintern. He and Togliatti were pretty much crucial for the atomization of the Italian communist left, which was one of the strongest, most principled, and most militant faction of the left wing of the Comintern. Anti-fascism fronts terminated with communism as an independent, revolutionary movement, and subordinated the struggle to the antifascist "bourgeosie". Millions of workers were forced to fight for their masters, and the communists were gleefully cheering for that. I think socialists and communists tend to be less dismissive about WWII than WWI because of the USSR and the active participation of the Comintern parties, plus the horrible things that happened in the Holocaust. The left was never able to recover from that counterrevolution.
About the question of fascism, I think the fetish of anti-fascism, both present, and historically, is a problem in the left. I have suffered that problem too; irs very difficult to not celebrate how mussolini was hung from his feet by communist partisans! Also I think it is really dishonest to equate stalinist state-capitalism to fascism (which is also state-capitalism), and I think that has more to do with western liberalism.
to be honest, I am intensely dislike dialectics. It is really vague, and has nothing to do with materialism. Negation of negation, and unity of opposites don't do it for me. Stalin was a big dialectician, he used dialectical gobbidigook to justify the "contradictions" between the DoP and stalinist bureacracy. Gramsci said some useful stuff, but to be honest, I think he did more bad than good.
Double-check your understanding of the French Revolution. Robespierre did NOT start the cult of Reason -- Hebert did. They were all guillotined by Robespierre so he could declare his 'worship of the supreme being.'
Which work of Bordiga contains the above quote about the "democratic farse"?
Gramsci was a Stalinist and supported Stalin over Trotsky. Gramsci's most fruitful period of work was before his famous prison years. Gramsci's pre-prison writings represent the vast majority of his written work. His pre-prison writings in 1924 had Gramsci predicting the imminent downfall of the Mussolini government during the Matteotti affair. His "contribution" was to use the situation of exile of the Italian Party, with his Stalinist partner Togliatti to take over and expel the majority of the party which supported the Italian and had Bordiga as a leader. For Bordiga Democracy was the system that created the fascists. Behind every good democratic liberal and conservative is a fascist that would not hesitate to use genocide in order to snuff out a revolution. Anyone who argues that Gramsci was more important than Bordiga or contributed more in anyway is ignorant and misinformed by Stalinist historians. The Ordine Nuovo group was unimportant, small and composed of middle class intellectuals and not workers. Bordiga's party, on the other hand, was built by workers. Intellectuals love Gramsci, presumably they hope Gramsci can hide their support for Stalinism in its many "marxist-leninist" forms.
Also it was a left-communist that led the Arditi del Popolo in the Battle of Oltretorrente in Parma against Italo Balbo's blackshirts. Not the Stalinists aligned with Gramsci and Togliatti. That's right, a "Bordigist" led the first big fight against fascists and not a Trot, Stalinoid or socialdem.
Post a Comment