Bordiga, and the contemporary Italian communists in general, had this very slimy crypto-religious notion of communism that is painful to read. You can see exactly why their group, once detached from practical work owing to the Russian degeneration, became so semi-cultish. 1919: (first pic)
The whole stuff and nonsense about carrying the "legacy" of Marx and Lenin and the associated autist baggage that comes with it is closer to theology than science. I am reminded of Marx's comments on political sects and their religious character:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_10_13-abs.htm>>2497065Also
>The sect sees the justification for its existence and its "point of honour"–not in what it has in common with the CLASS MOVEMENTYoure destroying all the parties and organization you support with the same quote you're claiming can be used against us
>>2497065There's only a single mention of the vanguard party by Marx and that was in the manifesto, which specifically stated that it was an internal segment of the working class, not an intellectual class lording over it. The professional revolutionary is Leninism. Lenin's theory has its roots in the anarchist, Sergei Nechayev, who theorized the "professional revolutionary" who lords over the working class as a grand act of self-sacrifice.
Marx specifically ridiculed this as "barracks-styled communism" noting the hypocrisy of commanding when the proletariat can work, eat and sleep while claiming it's for the liberation of the working class. It's in Marx's argument during his debate for the expulsion of Bakunin from the 1st International which is archived in one of the collected works of Marx and Engels.
As for "many practical organizational methods by Marx and Engels" uhhhh no? Marx emphasized the organic, natural expressions of working-class consciousness rather than being a dogmatist. This anti-dogmatism on the activity of the working class is why he has that famous quote about considering himself "not a Marxist." He periodically would make small statements about what could be done, like how he (in)famously claimed that the USA could vote in socialism, in direct contradiction to his criticisms of Lassalle. That said, the idea that Marx's work is just a how-to for organization and revolution is ridiculously untrue. His thing was ruthless critique, not militaristic manuals.
The foundation of "organizational methods" can be traced to Engels making Kautsky his disciple, and Kautsky became a strong influence on Lenin and the divorce happened with Kautsky's stance on the war. The title "Renegade Kautsky" means that Lenin considered him at one point to be a true follower of Marxism, and thus social democracy with it (which I'm not defending). This is one thing the Bordigist constantly get wrong because they follow the "legend" of Lenin, not the actual person so they think he was this savant who had the golden tablets and not a guy who winged it up to becoming a Kautskyite again in his "Infantile Disorder" which called for supporting bourgeois parties in elections in the UK and Germany.
When people are talking about "Marx's organizational methods" they're just talking about Leninism.
>>2497175>Lenin's theory has its roots in the anarchist, Sergei Nechayev, who theorized the "professional revolutionary" who lords over the working class as a grand act of self-sacrifice. >Marx specifically ridiculed this as "barracks-styled communism" Good for Marx, but this is a misunderstanding of what is meant with the working class vanguard, and in particular I mean the moralistic description of what a professional revolutionary is. You've not read Lenin. Let me help you.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/sep/00.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/may/04.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/Lenin's idea of intellectuals introducing revolutionary class consciousness into the movement is correct and history proves it. This does not, however, as you seem to interpert it, imply that the vanguard is a subsection of the intellectuals (btw, the inteligensia is not a class, as there are proletarian as well as bourgeois intellectuals; it's a description of your place in the general division between mental and physical labor). No, there is clear proof Lenin was in favor of quickly abolishing this arbitrary division between a communist petty-bourgeois inteligensia and the working class, i.e.
<I think we should look at the matter more broadly. To place workers on the committees is a political, not only a pedagogical, task. Workers have the class instinct, and, given some political experience, they pretty soon become staunch Social-Democrats. I should be strongly in favour of having eight workers to every two intellectuals on our committees. Should the advice given in our Party literature—to place as many workers as possible on the committees—be insufficient, it would be advisable for this recommendation to be given in the name of the Congress. A clear and definite directive from the Congress will give you a radical means of fighting demagogy; this is the express will of the Congress. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/3rdcong/18.htm
>Marx emphasized the organic, natural expressions of working-class consciousness rather than being a dogmatist.Are you sure?
<We are in full agreement with your view that the German Communists must emerge from the isolation in which they have hitherto existed and establish durable mutual contacts with one another; similarly, that associations for the purpose of reading and discussion are necessary. For Communists must first of all clear things up among themselves, and this cannot be done satisfactorily without regular meetings to discuss questions concerning communism. We therefore also agree with you completely that cheap, easily understandable books and pamphlets with a communist content must be widely circulated. Both of these things, the former as well as the latter, should be taken up soon and energetically. You recognise the necessity of establishing regular money contributions; but your suggestion to support the authors by means of these contributions, to provide a comfortable life for them we must for our part reject. In our view the contributions should be used only for the printing of cheap communist leaflets and pamphlets and to cover the costs of correspondence, including that from here abroad. It will be necessary to fix a minimum sum for the monthly contributions, so that the amount of money that can be used for common purposes can be accurately determined at any moment. It is furthermore necessary that you should communicate to us the names of the members of your communist association — since we have to know, as you know of us, who it is we are dealing with. Finally, we await your statement of the size of the monthly contributions earmarked for common purposes, since the printing of several popular pamphlets ought to be proceeded with as soon as possible. That these pamphlets cannot be published in Germany is evident and needs no proof .https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1846/06/15.htm<We are at present holding public meetings all over the place to set up societies for the advancement of the workers [4] ; this causes a fine stir among the Teutons and draws the philistines' attention to social problems. These meetings are arranged on the spur of the moment and without asking the police. https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_11_19.htm
>This anti-dogmatism on the activity of the working class is why [Marx] has that famous quote about considering himself "not a Marxist.">The foundation of "organizational methods" can be traced to Engels making Kautsky his discipleSo, now you're using quotes about
particular historical events, at
particular historical time and place to conclude
in general there is no 'Marxism'? I mean, this is the only thing you can deduce from your 'stance' since you've just introducing a new name for 'Marxism' i.e. calling it 'organizational methods' and the only way it does not contradict your position on the non-existance of Marxism is that 'Marx' is the organic center of a working class movement and 'Marxism' the self-reflection of this movement, but this retarded since it is true in its most general terms, but the conclusions have no practical application.
>This is one thing the Bordigist constantly get wrong because they follow the "legend" of Lenin, not the actual person so they think he was this savant who had the golden tablets and not a guy who winged it up to becoming a Kautskyite again in his "Infantile Disorder" which called for supporting bourgeois parties in elections in the UK and Germany.:( I'm afraid you don't understand that historic conditions change and there is a difference when there is a proletarian dictatorship on 1/6 of the Earth's surface and when there's no such state of affairs established.
>>2497217Im always surprised by the fact that you are British AND gonzaloite
you must have a fascinating life
>>2497224>Lenin's idea of intellectuals introducing revolutionary class consciousness into the movement is correct and history proves it. is that why the workers in the USSR voted away AES? more than half a century of the vanguard party ruling over the USSR didn't lead to class consciousness or even an understanding that socialism is the best for the workers
>You recognise the necessity of establishing regular money contributions; but your suggestion to support the authors by means of these contributions, to provide a comfortable life for them we must for our part reject.didn't Lenin literally pay party members a wage for revolutionary activity?
>>2497135muh material conditions = socialist markets
epic own of the Digga, Agent Kochinski would be proud
>>2497325>to provide a comfortable life for themBolsheviks were known for living a comfortable life. I'm sure having some minimum wage for revolutionary work that might kill you is the same as paying large amounts of money to already well of intellectuals, which Marx was speaking of.
>is that why the workers in the USSR voted away AES?pic related. Now I hope you realize there was a counterrevolution in the USSR :)
>>2497114Yes, we are dogmatists.
Woof woof!
>>2497175>become Kautskyiite againWhat Lenin kept saying as ‘gotta be dialectical maaan’ is simply the strategy and tactics are time-dependent systems of coupled variables. They do not exist in isolation, unchanging with the realities of the moment. Lenin was never a ‘anti-election full stop’ or ‘pro-election full stop’ kinda guy. Depending on the conditions within a country, depending on the conditions of he country wih respect to other countries, depending on the chronology, what is before and what is likely to come next, one decides whether it is wise to engage im elections or not. It is a question of strategic understanding, not religious obediance. Funnily, imperialists understand this better than communists, which is why they at times support ‘free and fair multi party elections’ in country A, at times support a monarch in country B, or a military junta in country C: the point is to furher the interest, whether it is done by the People’s Secretary General or by the Tribe Leader does not matter.
>>2497987remember when stalin praised the axis for their fight against london and washington
keeeek epic fail
>>2497991Organic centralism is when the party has the right line and because it's the right line there is no factionalism, debate or voting. It's the right line, why would anyone disagree? It never changes because it just doesn't and the correct line in response to new conditions "emerges organically" rather than being arrived at through debate. There is no actual organizational mechanism to ensure any of that, I guess the holy spirit of Marx and Lenin help out or something.
The one non-schizo aspect of it is that they say the Bolshies fucked up and created a problem of opportunists for themselves by not restricting party membership much more heavily.
>>2497175You're just doing the classic "marx-whisperer" ultroid trick where you take something that marx said but didn't elaborate on, and interpret it in the most christian-brained, millenarian, anarchistic way possible, where everyone's just singing kumbaya in a hypothetical spherical cow society. Meanwhile lenin interprets it in the way it would be applicable in the real world, concretely.
But maybe it's even too much to say that you "interpret" this or that text, interpretation would itself have to mean thinking about how to feasibly apply this or that, you stop short of interpretation, you dwell entirely in abstraction, without ever stepping into a concrete situation, as stepping into concrete reality is itself seen by you as a "betrayal" or "distortion". That's because you are an idealist.
>>2498075super-whoring? commemorate?
only 7 belgian girls and 12 italian boys know bordiga in this world
>>2497175>There's only a single mention of the vanguard party by Marx and that was in the manifestoHorseshit. Plenty of times he mentions it in other works, his letters are littered with it. Add Engels to the mix and to claim that they were against the vanguard is ridiculous.
Simply put, you have put no effort into your research and project your ready made anarcho-conclusions on Marx.
>>2499320they are rich, they spend a lot on vanity projects
A vietnamese indigenous forest died for this
>>2500361>blackshirtHe wore a white shirt and had a black coat.
>into ruinNo that was Gramsci's achievement.
>to kill themselvesI don't think that's what was meant by the self abolition of the proletariat as an end to class society, read Bordiga maybe.
>>2500372>read Bordiga maybe.Ok:
<Therefore, June 10 (the date of ᴉuᴉlossnW's declaration of war) was for me what you call a great day. But now that Hitler has grown soft, I begin to lose the trust I had placed in the Axis to strangle and pull down the so-called British colossus, that is, the greatest exponent of capitalism. They are afraid of bringing down England, they are afraid because they know that with it, the whole capitalist system will collapse. […] I still hope that Hitler will not renounce the struggle, and will go all the way, to the extreme consequences.>The great and authentic revolutionaries of the world are two: ᴉuᴉlossnW and Hitler. But ᴉuᴉlossnW's past shows that Il Duce has always been against the plutocracy and against the democracies, which paralyze the life of nations.<Stalin, allying himself with London and Washington, has betrayed the cause of the proletariat. Moreover, I can say that on this I agree with Il Duce, when he says, as he did in his speech from last November, that if there is a man who desperately wanted the war, who first prepared it and then instigated it, it is the American president. From my point of view, however, I clarify that Roosevelt is nothing but the exponent of supercapitalism that aims at the conquest of a totalitarian imperialism. >>2500451from the gutter of fascism
bordigism is accelerationism for hypercapitalist fascist ethnostatism, just without the accelerationism
>>2500451United front from below is the trade union united front.
United front from above is the front between communist, social democratic and anarchist organizations.
Popular front is the front between communist, social democratic, anarchist, republican and liberal organizations.
The Italian Left developed the concept of the united front and presented it to the Third International as "United Front from Below". The concept was presented as an economic struggle method unifying workers of all politics to better their conditions. To work with other political tendencies on economic struggles in the working class - eg ICP works with other tendencies in workers' coordinations. The strategy was proposed to undermine the fascist regime but never implemented.
As for political united fronts, our perspective is the importance of the party is maintaining the invariance of the marxist perspective. Political united fronts would undermine that.
>>2500882Whiteness is just being white and that's what jews are. If you go by genetic composition, they all have significantly more ancestral EVROPEANISCH genes than YAHUD ones. That's why the Ashkenazi look European: they are European. If among the 8 great-grandparents of a dude, 7 are white and 1 is black, you dont call that dude black. He is white. Unless he tells you he had one black great grandfather, you would never know.
Which is also why Elizabeth Warren types who claim to be native Americans are cringe af.
100 years later the fake """communists""" and /r/ultraleft memers are still talking about Bordiga and seething about him. Even actual "leftcoms" (not the online /r/ultraleft meme brigade who only learn about him from memes) dont give this much of a shit about him. All "Bordigist" texts are just the collective work of a party that merely maintained the original communist program and original Marxist theory.
So in order to elevate this discussion, I suggest both the fake "communists" (MLs, anarchos, Dengs etc) and the /r/ultraleft meme brigade to stop talking about Bordiga and simply discuss the actual content of the communist program.
So let me begin with a simple question. I want to ask the fake "communists", why do so few of you ever talk about "stateless, moneyless, classless" society in first-world countries? Let's say I agree with your false analysis that third-world and even advanced countries like Russia or China are not developed enough to begin real communism, why are you either opposed to, or never talk about abolishing money and commodity production in first world?
So when I go talk to leftists IRL in coffee houses or if I go to Reddit and read /r/CapitalismvsSocialism for example, its 99% of the time talking about planned capitalism, Soviet Style, or some other milquetoast Social Democratic nonsense, rather than actual communism.
Why don't the fake "communists" shout out from the rooftops about abolishing money, abolishing commodity production? That way non-communists will stop being confused about what communisms end goal is about.
>>2500973You are either illiterate or pretending to be retarded. The question is simple :
So let me begin with a simple question. I want to ask the fake "communists", why do so few of you ever talk about "stateless, moneyless, classless" society in first-world countries? Let's say I agree with your false analysis that third-world and even advanced countries like Russia or China are not developed enough to begin real communism, why are you either opposed to, or never talk about abolishing money and commodity production in first world?
So when I go talk to leftists IRL in coffee houses or if I go to Reddit and read /r/CapitalismvsSocialism for example, its 99% of the time talking about planned capitalism, Soviet Style, or some other milquetoast Social Democratic nonsense, rather than actual communism.
Why don't the fake "communists" shout out from the rooftops about abolishing money, abolishing commodity production? That way non-communists will stop being confused about what communisms end goal is about.
>>2500979The question is simple :
So let me begin with a simple question. I want to ask the fake "communists", why do so few of you ever talk about "stateless, moneyless, classless" society in first-world countries? Let's say I agree with your false analysis that third-world and even advanced countries like Russia or China are not developed enough to begin real communism, why are you either opposed to, or never talk about abolishing money and commodity production in first world?
So when I go talk to leftists IRL in coffee houses or if I go to Reddit and read /r/CapitalismvsSocialism for example, its 99% of the time talking about planned capitalism, Soviet Style, or some other milquetoast Social Democratic nonsense, rather than actual communism.
Why don't the fake "communists" shout out from the rooftops about abolishing money, abolishing commodity production? That way non-communists will stop being confused about what communisms end goal is about.
>>2500982
So let me begin with a simple question. I want to ask the fake "communists", why do so few of you ever talk about "stateless, moneyless, classless" society in first-world countries? Let's say I agree with your false analysis that third-world and even advanced countries like Russia or China are not developed enough to begin real communism, why are you either opposed to, or never talk about abolishing money and commodity production in first world?
So when I go talk to leftists IRL in coffee houses or if I go to Reddit and read /r/CapitalismvsSocialism for example, its 99% of the time talking about planned capitalism, Soviet Style, or some other milquetoast Social Democratic nonsense, rather than actual communism.
Why don't the fake "communists" shout out from the rooftops about abolishing money, abolishing commodity production? That way non-communists will stop being confused about what communisms end goal is about.
>>2500986>>2500987Your response doesn't answer the question. You are either illiterate or pretending to be retarded.
So let me begin with a simple question. I want to ask the fake "communists", why do so few of you ever talk about "stateless, moneyless, classless" society in first-world countries? Let's say I agree with your false analysis that third-world and even advanced countries like Russia or China are not developed enough to begin real communism, why are you either opposed to, or never talk about abolishing money and commodity production in first world?
So when I go talk to leftists IRL in coffee houses or if I go to Reddit and read /r/CapitalismvsSocialism for example, its 99% of the time talking about planned capitalism, Soviet Style, or some other milquetoast Social Democratic nonsense, rather than actual communism.
Why don't the fake "communists" shout out from the rooftops about abolishing money, abolishing commodity production? That way non-communists will stop being confused about what communisms end goal is about.
>>2500977>So let me begin with a simple question. I want to ask the fake "communists", why do so few of you ever talk about "stateless, moneyless, classless" society in first-world countries? >why are you either opposed to, or never talk about abolishing money and commodity production in first world?Bordigga I literally can't answer this question because I am not the people you made up in your head. A moneyless stateless commodityless society is what most people already know what communism is in the first place which they are adverse to in the first place.
>Let's say I agree with your false analysis that third-world and even advanced countries like Russia or China are not developed enough to begin real communismI am sorry bordigga is actually a complement for you. There literally no country to ever exist to begun real communism because international proletariat revolution is its prerequisite. Nothing anyone could ever do could magically make a post scarcity world possible in one nation. Did you even read Marx?
>>2501006>Bordigga I literally can't answer this question because I am not the people you made up in your head. A moneyless stateless commodityless society is what most people already know what communism is in the first place which they are adverse to in the first place. This is false. Most people think of actual communism as state owned economy or shit like that. This is also the default posiiton of leftoid parties like CCP or whichever scum rule Venezuela. "Stateless, moneyless, classless" is nowhere in their ideology, their roadmap, their goals etc.
And moreover you are again ignoring that in 99% of actual discussions with libs, rightards or other leftiggers, leftardinhos never actually bring up moneyless and abolition of commodity production. You are falsely pretending this isnt true.
> international proletariat revolution is its prerequisiteCorrect, therefore almost everything that leftards do and all the organizations they support are the enemies of communsm.
>>2501022>This is false. Most people think of actual communism as state owned economy or shit like that. This is also the default posiiton of leftoid parties like CCP or whichever scum rule Venezuela. "Stateless, moneyless, classless" is nowhere in their ideology, their roadmap, their goals etc.No Bordigga, people understand that in theory communism is moneyless and classless but think in practice it ends up with the state owning everything 1984 lib fantasy.
>And moreover you are again ignoring that in 99% of actual discussions with libs, rightards or other leftiggers, leftardinhos never actually bring up moneyless and abolition of commodity production. You are falsely pretending this isnt true. I can neither confirm or deny this with objectivity as I usually don't talk about / browse communism on Reddit. But in real life people aren't attracted to perceived idealism so it's often more pragmatic to convince them about landleeches, capitalist competition being bad, neoliberalism failing, efficiency of state driven economies, employee ownership, etc.
>>2501053Did you ever use money in your life?
Yes or no. Answering my question should be simple.
Unique IPs: 44