>This global rearmament is the defining characteristic of the final phase of the cycle that began with the capitalist recovery after the Second World War, and if we take the data highlighted by the SIPRI reports literally, and plot an unlikely convergence curve of military spending toward a level of parity, the final event could still be years away. Ten? Fifteen? These would be reasonable figures, if other considerations, not military, but economic and financial, did not intervene to likely shorten this interval.https://intcp.org/it/periodicals/comunismo/98/#14530>The debt, however, is too large to be affected by all these small-scale maneuvers. Despite everything, the dollar is, for now, the linchpin of the global payment system, and its hegemony cannot be questioned. It will be defended by all means, under penalty of the collapse of the global financial system, with apocalyptic consequences—for global capitalism, of course! So, before this happens, the bourgeois world is better off with a war that will clear all unfinished business.>Based on these considerations, the war appears somewhat closer than it would appear from the observation of rearmament expenditures. And it is equally clear that without a powerful global social movement to halt it, no prayers from priests, no exhortations from noble souls to peace among men, no rationality from governments can stop it. Social Revolution is the only possible solution to avoid war and end the deadly cycles of capitalism forever.https://intcp.org/it/periodicals/comunismo/98/#14530[
NOTE: This is not THE ICP, this is intcp.org, for the real ICP visit
https://www.international-communist-party.org/ ]
>>2490194It's 12 Intellectual Italian Men.
>>2490197Hey are you from the splitters? Nobody will read your site if you don't translate it to English, how can you call yourself "Internationalist" if you only write it in Italian?
>>2490219The things Marx wrote are in allignment with most of the things MLs wrote after, especially when it comes to organisation.
>>2490222You are too autistic to even be able to get crack, let alone be in a functional party with more than 30 members.
>>2490235>There's like 3 different Italian LeftCom parties that all call themselves the International Communist PartyVery brief organizational differences:
http://leftcom.org/ ICT is federalist, almost to anarchist, with separate organizations in each country. Run on "dialectical" centralism. Intervention in the working class is against unions and organizing party organs in workplaces. Is anti-national revolutions.
http://internationallism.org/ ICC is based on national sections. Runs by Democratic Centralism. Intervention in the working class is anti-union and agitates for independent action. Is anti-National revolution.
http://www.partitocomunistainternazionale.org/index.php/it/ ICP (Communist Program) Is unitary. Runs on Democratic Centralism. Intervention in the working class is anti-union and agitates for independent action. Is more pro national revolution.
http://pcint.org/ ICP (Proletarian) is unitary, structure is ?. Intervention in the working class is anti-union and agitates for independent action. Is more pro national revolution than any of these groups.
http://international-communist-party.org/ ICP (Communist Left) Is unitary. Organic Centralist. Intervention in working class is through "United Front from Below", working in unions not integrated into the state, and/or "outside and against state unions", Anti-nationalist.
https://intcp.org/ ICP (Partito Comunista Internazionale 2024) Is unitary. Organic Centralist. Unknown position on unions, Anti-nationalist.
https://www.psychopathicrecords.com/ ICP (Insane Clown Posse) Is unitary. Organic Centralist. Intervention in working class is through "United Front from Below", working in unions not integrated into the state, and/or "outside and against state unions", Anti-nationalist.
>>2490243>Interventions into the worker class movement by means of destroying unionsYou can't make this shit up. Pic rel.
>>2490245Ethnic deportations. Making companies compete against each other for virtual profit and using those to "plan" the economy. Pushing a line of stageism in the comintern before ww2 despite the whole conception of Leninism being a break with stagist orthodoxy. Given too much power to managers in state industry. Not building a united front in Spain against Franco and attacking the anarchists instead. Telling the communists to not build a united front against Hitler. Too much centralistic domination of the CPSU over the rest of the parties, especially those fighting against capitalists in non socialist countries where the old bolshevik model might have simple been outdated, resulting in parties following CPSU directives completely and blindly rather than seeing if these tactics worked and despite bad results of following them, leading to dogmatism and breaking with the fundamental earlier axioms of "theory of a guide to action and a science, not a dogma to copy blindly".
To name a few.
>>2490263<To define it briefly, we have for a long time preferred the expression “organic centralism”, thus indicating that we are against any autonomist federalism, and that we accept the term centralism for its meaning of synthesis and unity, as opposed to the almost random and “liberal” association of forces arisen from the most varied independent initiatives. As concerns a more thorough development of the above conclusion, we believe it can be derived, far better than from the continuation of this study of which we are giving here a mere preliminary outline, from texts that are likely to be discussed in the fifth world Communist Congress. In part, the problem is also dealt with in the theses on tactics for the fourth Congress.https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1924/discipline.htmThe brain of society: notes on Bordiga, organic centralism, and the limitations of the party form - C. Derrick Varnhttps://libcom.org/article/brain-society-notes-bordiga-organic-centralism-and-limitations-party-form-c-derrick-varnWho’s Afraid of the Big Bad Bordiga?“The communist parties must achieve an organic centralism which, whilst including maximum possible consultation with the base, ensures a spontaneous elimination of any grouping which aims to differentiate itself. This cannot be achieved with, as Lenin put it, the formal and mechanical prescriptions of a hierarchy, but through correct revolutionary politics."
“The repression of fractionism isn’t a fundamental aspect of the evolution of the party, though preventing it is.”
>>2490274<To define it briefly, we have for a long time preferred the expression “organic centralism”, thus indicating that we are against any autonomist federalism, and that we accept the term centralism for its meaning of synthesis and unity, as opposed to the almost random and “liberal” association of forces arisen from the most varied independent initiatives. As concerns a more thorough development of the above conclusion, we believe it can be derived, far better than from the continuation of this study of which we are giving here a mere preliminary outline, from texts that are likely to be discussed in the fifth world Communist Congress. In part, the problem is also dealt with in the theses on tactics for the fourth Congress.Completely unintelligeble wordvomit. Please use your own words. What is organic centralism, and what did stalin tell "them" to falsify, and who is "them"?
Sadly leftcoms are terrible at formulating coherent sentences without jargon, but I think it means the following:
>Organic centralism is when you build unity through polemic and proof, and then from that a natural unity follows. This is opposed to using mechanistic means that just result in majority voting, but not actual unity of opinion.>Also not being allowed to come back on earlier decisions is bad, actuallyIn which case, I agree, though I have no idea what mechanisms leftcoms actually employ. The balance in finding an organic unity in this sense has tension with practical organisations efficiency, and I think it is a matter of political skill to apply mechanical centralism (democratic centralism) only when needed, and especially when applying theoretical unity, which should be enforced even more sparingly.
The contextless quotes you posted as just from wikipedia and are equally incomprehensible to anyone who isn't well versed in bordigist microsect jargon and references.
>>2490343>Democratic centralism can be explained in one sentence, why can't organic centralismOrganic centralism emphasizes a party structure where unity and direction arise naturally from theoretical clarity and shared revolutionary purpose (program and program building), rather than through formal democratic processes based on majority decision.
As you can see your summary was not too far from it, it is built on polemic and proof rather than popular decision.
>>2490353So that is an absolute then? No majority voting?
The problem with communists is that they try to make absolute rules out of best practices at the expense of any nuance. Elevating democratic centralism and theoretical unity to the level of blind mechanistic voting after token discussion is just as idiotic as ashrewing majority voting in favour of eternal debates.
Maybe the problem is that communists are mostly autistic and have trouble functioning without absolute rules.
>>2490358Majority voting might be used procedurally in certain limited, technical, or organizational matters (e.g., scheduling, logistics), as long as they don’t involve political or theoretical principles. In practice, even these uses are rare or approached with suspicion.
Majority voting cannot be used as the basis for determining the party line, program, or theory. Majority voting cannot be used to determine a truth or correctness of a matter by votes. Disagreements cannot be resolved by majority votes as to put a less-popular position at compromise with itself without farther analysis as to why it may arise in the first place and what it entails.
Though don't take it from me, send a message to the
[email protected] if you have any questions for an official response.
>>2490369What you wrote is not neccecarily wrong for matters of truth, but it does highlight very clearly the complete alienation from the practical reality of organising and large scale party work. Many decisions are not a question of truth but merely of tactic, and in some situations uniformity in action may be neccecary for good results. Party line is also very vague, as this line can go from broad strokes to small details.
I appreciate your reply but I am not going to send a tiny sect which splits constantly an email about their ideas on how to maintain unity, when I myself am actively involved in a party of several hundred members, and have already delved into literature which disects the dysfunctional behaviour of Leninist and Trotskyist derived parties.
>>2490344the ussr dissolution was anything but democratic
actually, people voted to keep it
>>2490401In examples within publication:
>On September 15, auto workers from General Motors and Stellantis in the United Auto Workers union (UAW) went on strike. Comrades compiled a lively leaflet applauding the 18,300 UAW workers currently on strike for taking strike action against the auto giants, reminding workers of their militant history, the importance of spreading the strike to other workplaces and sectors, stating the necessity of the International Communist Party in the fight for the emancipation of the working class, and calling for the building of a class unionist current and encouraging workers to join the Class Struggle Action Network. So far Party comrades and sympathizers in 9 states have attended picket lines and distributed Party and sometimes Class Struggle Action Network propaganda.Maybe this could give you an idea of the size.
>>2490881 its laptop \
retarded "super" button and spaec
Wtf
who the fug came up with a "super" button> tarded shit
>>2490943what's all this '(should) know better' stuff?
None of these people are leftists, to my understanding, in that they are not organised, they are not otherwise politically active, they are not partied, etc. etc. etc.
They're content creators who exist in a different world than your average leftist. Given this is it really reasonable to expect of them that they'd 'know better'?
>>2491000Nta but the liberal shithole known as r/thedeprogram had less normie posts than this website
Get over yourself fag
>>2492088Democratic centralism? Ewww no.
So you want typical parliamentary fReE and FaIr eleckshons? Ewww no.
Dictatorship? Uhhm acktually, we prefer the term ORGANIC CENTRALISM.
>>2492088The crazy thing is that this post didn't exaggerate a single thing. Once you get past Bordiga's flowery language with organic centralism, he is arguing that Stalin didn't go hard enough and that if they put a super genius (himself) in as the absolute leader, they will follow use their Saiyan-tier mastery of THEORY to find the perfect line that will have NO DISAGREEMENTS or difference of opinion and the holy spirit of Marx will guide their firm hand.
It's the final form of intellectuals trying to promote themselves to king over the proletariat. You couldn't come up with a more ridiculous, idealistic concept than that.
Unique IPs: 44