I'm not sure of the general consensus of this board on dialectical materialism, but back when 4/pol/ was still uncucked, I remember Cyril Smith and his writings on Marx Myths and Legends being cited several times by seemingly knowledgeable posters on that board. I got his book Marx at the Millennium and so far I've gotten through half of the book. He heavily criticized the concept of dialectical materialism as a creation of Plekhanov, popularized by Kautsky, Lenin, and later abused by the Soviet Union as a mean to justify all of its actions with obscure pseudo-Marxist nonsense.
Naturally as a somewhat superficial left communist, I took this to mean that leftcoms should oppose this concept as well, and with some limited interactions and discussions with leftcoms online, the general consensus seems to be that diamat is a false, non-Marxist concept that should not be adhered to. Here I'm guilty of not being a party member, but I think many here can sympathize with circumstances that prevent one from having direct contact with a leftcom party for discussions.
But I started reading a little more Bordiga, and he seems to mention diamat in a positive manner numerous times throughout his writings. Examples include right at the beginning of the Lyon Theses:
"The key doctrines of the communist party are founded on Marxism, which the struggle against opportunist deviations reinstated and set in place as the cornerstones of the 3rd International. These consist of: Dialectical Materialism as the method of conceiving of the world and human history; the fundamental doctrines contained in Marx’s Capital as method of interpretation of present-day capitalist economy; the programmatic formulations of The Communist Manifesto as the historical and political plan of emancipation of the world working class"
Another example is in The Historical Invariance of Marxism, where Bordiga explains that dialectical materialism doesn't deny that the erroneous theories of the past were necessary for their times, pretty clearly supporting it as a legitimate method of sorts.
"Despite the fact that it obviously recognized the formal contents of the bodies of doctrine of all the major historical eras to be erroneous, dialectical materialism does not thereby deny that they were necessary in their time, and much less does it imagine that their errors could have been avoided if sages or legislators had better ideas, and that this would have enabled them to notice their mistakes and rectify them. Every system possesses its explanation and its reason for existence in its cycle, and the most significant ones are those that have maintained themselves unaltered and retained their organic form over the course of very long struggles."
So should left communists accept Smith's critiques of diamat or Bordiga's application of it? Is diamat just wrongly abused by the Stalinists or is it an illegitimate concept as a whole?