☭⚑✭The Soviet Broadcast✭⚑☭

Gramsci himself best articulated the issues with Bordiga and the practical impotence of his political thoughts:

“Comrade Bordiga limits himself to upholding a cautious position on all the questions raised by the Left. He doesn’t say: the International poses and resolves such and such a question in this way, but the Left will instead pose and resolve it this other way. He instead says: the way the International poses and resolves problems doesn’t convince me; I fear it falls into opportunism, there are insufficient guarantees against this, etc.”His position, then, is one of permanent suspicion and doubt. In this way the position of the “Left” is purely negative; they express reservations without specifying them in a concrete form, and above all without indicating in concrete form their point of view, their solutions. They end by spreading doubt and distrust, without constructing anything.

“Concerning his disagreement with Lenin, Comrade Bordiga remains skillfully on the general, while not being specific.”

“Comrade Bordiga not only fails to draw the logical consequences of his negations, he above all fails to counter-propose new directives to the criticized directives in a clear and complete form.”

- Antonio Gramsci, “Sterile and Negative Criticism“, L’Unità September 30, 1925.

In other words, Bordiga’s hyper-vigilance against opportunism made him ineffective in practice. One feature of his writings that we find correct is organic centralism since it grasped the necessary relationship between the party and the base without the pretence of party democracy. He managed to reproduce the basis of the stereotypical interpretation of Stalinism, arguing favourably of a more authoritarian society beyond what Lenin or Stalin believed in. This in turn has been turned into a meme of sorts among left-communists, which is expected from all euro-amerikan centred ideologies which amount to nothing in practice beyond debate echo chambers.

Bordiga also displayed a principled stance when denouncing opponents of decolonisation as “racists” (as what happened with Onorato Damen) while pointing out that the ‘democratic’ struggles in core countries inevitably led to fascism as without the aim towards socialism bourgeois dictatorship takes over.

Even though it raises some valid criticisms on certain elements of capitalism such as the modernist optimism in the capacity of technology to alleviate ecological crisis without diminishing productivity, it fundamentally ignores the root cause, downplays the role played by colonialism, and the alternative it provides is returning to old social orders which is outright impossible.

In other words, primitivism - as an ideology - is what happens when first world anti-capitalists see the immense, unsustainable excess of value transferred to their countries, and the resources they have open access to but fail to conjure a materialist framework to analyse it and provide a proper answer. Not to mention much of the ‘historical’ basis for primitivism has been rendered obsolete thanks to new insights in anthropology and the existence of ‘communistic’ agricultural societies (which contradicts the crackpot theory that settlements and the development of agriculture doomed humanity). It is a profound manifestation of euro-amerikan centric thought with a lot of racist baggage as expected.

We are not familiar 100% with the socio-economic conditions of Honduras so it would be impossible on our part to deliver an objective answer to your question.

However, the issues Honduras faces bear similarities to the rest of third world countries: import substitution industrialisation is outright impossible due to the obvious absence of labourers, resources, and access to technology.

Even if the 10 million strong Hondurans awoke one day with high class consciousness and overthrew the comprador bourgeoisie installed by U.S. imperialism it would find itself in an impossibly difficult situation where there is no great socialist power to provide assistance in defending national sovereignty or in developing economically.

This does not mean that a better future is impossible, but a new Honduran society will not be able to "build socialism" in the style of the USSR or Maoist China but a mixed system of sorts to ensure proper development without being alienated from the global market by sanctions and other imperialist machinations. Some concessions will be necessary until the country is in a position of strength or a new great socialist power comes into the playing field.

It is outright impossible for small and medium size countries to build 'socialism in one country' and being a third world country that has been systematically victimised by U.S. imperialism only increases the challenge.

Despite the magnitude of these problems, the tensions between the oppressors and the oppressed are intensifying once again as U.S. imperialism and its lackeys face terminal decline, opening new avenues and opportunities for those who have worked hard among the masses to rally their enthusiasm for a better, new world.