Help with understanding leftcom

I decided to read Force, Violence and Dictatorship in the Class Struggle, since I couldn't find any good summary on Leftcom tendencies, specifically Bordiga. So can any Leftcom here tell me if I understood the key principles.

Before the revolution:
One must try to remain calm and not stage a small-scale attempt to seize the local means of production. This is because security, police, and military will easily be able to crush the attempt, removing crucial revolutionary potential. There can be no class collaboration. Communism can only be achieved by communists. The bourgeoisie, the petite-bourgeoisie, and lumpen can not and will not be allies in the revolution. They will try to co-opt the movement, change the goal of the revolution or crush the proletariat in favor of some degree of reformed capitalism when the final attempt is carried out. Much like we saw with the SPD, Hitler, and Stalin. The proletariat must combine their revolutionary potential in a single party which is willing to establish communism. Not SocDem (reformed capitalism) and not Stalinist (socialist state). Even if revolution seems far away, one must not fall back to reformism. Reform won't work, because of the inherent problems even with reformed capitalism and the tendency for reforms to be reversible by bourgeois influence. The party must be internationalist, and therefore deny any claims for full democracy (which would include lumpen and bourgeoisie) or nationalism (which would exclude the proletariat from other countries). One must openly claim once stances instead of hiding them. Be clear that one is for extreme measures to establish communism, and don't become a hypocrite and compromise in the face of democrats or nationalists.

The revolution:
Once the proletariat has combined their revolutionary potential under the communist party, they must create a violent revolution, much akin the what Lenin did. It is crucial to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, and not be swayed with moralists claiming it will lead to despotism and dictatorship. If everyone in the communist party understands the revolutionary principles and is convinced in communism as the ultimate and only goal (as is the case if one followed the principles mentioned before the revolution), there shouldn't be any infighting as to what must be done, and thereby no one who will change the end goal of the revolution. Hereby the DotP will not become a true dictator, but always remain nothing more than a symbol of absolute power for the entire working class and its combined ambitions. The DotP is required to create a central order within the proletariat. This is necessary to destroy any opposition from capitalist forces, who will resist, to protect the means of production and its largest adversary, the state.

End of the revolution:
The quasi-state consisting of the DotP must be destroyed once the antagonism from capitalist forces resides. It is crucial that it doesn't take over the state which existed before it. The state must under all costs be destroyed. This direct leap from capitalism to communism, through the use of the DotP, skips the socialist mode of production altogether. And thereby circumvents the antagonisms created in a socialist state, between the state bureaucrats and the proletariat. Although some might claim that power hungry elements will claim the state. If the revolution was led by communists, who were well versed in communist theory, it should not be an issue. Because all of them understand that socialism isn't the final stage, or the desired result o the revolution.

Extra:
The armchair meme is nothing but SocDems and wannabe anarchists complaining about having to read theory, instead of feeling smug about being part of a party or movement.

Is this correct or did I misunderstand or miss some key points?

Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/library/eclipse-re-emergence-communist-movement),
youtube.com/watch?v=qyFMKiHFZXg),
libcom.org/library/when-insurrections-die
podomatic.com/podcasts/dietsoap/episodes/2017-03-15T20_51_05-07_00).
libcom.org/library/bordiga-versus-pannekoek.
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Laughable. Reading theory and taking action is not exclusive to each other. It's more like that Leftcoms set up some ridiculous standards which nobody will ever be able to meet and expect people to buy into this by some prophetic idea of a spontaneous workers uprising which may never occur (history would imply that it doesn't). So they don't sit in their armchairs voluntarily but their retarded ideology forces them to.

It's like me saying "I want to build a starship which travels faster than light!", and when people respond by saying that this is probably going to be impossible for a long time from now on, I'd answer "Then I'll wait until we can actually do that. Sure I don't know if that's ever going to be possible considering a lot of what we know about physics would indicate otherwise, but please don't say I'm sitting in an armchair, because I really do want to build that starship!"

I still think the best summary of Bordiga can be found in Eclipse and Re-emergence of the Communist Movement by Gilles Dauvé (libcom.org/library/eclipse-re-emergence-communist-movement), as it very well explains his positions and compares them with his contemporaries.

If by "communists" you mean the proletariat itself as part of the communist movement and not some body of separate communists substituting the proletariat as such, yes.

Bordiga (you read a Bordiga text) would not differentiate between the two at all. In fact he was the only one to go as far as thinking the term "state capitalism" is redundant for the USSR: it's plain capitalism and little more, especially with the complete absence of genuine proletarian influence on the state of things.

This is also ambiguous and there is a difference between reform by voting for your favorite social democrat to pass it for you and direct, working class action. The former is something communists should not glorify, while the latter is something they should do everything to empower.

This is false, at least from a historical perspective. Lenin did not "create" the revolution at all. In his (Lenin's) own words, the Bolsheviks "found power lying in the street and simply picked it up" during a time of popular insurrection instigated by nothing more than mass discontent with the present state of things. Lenin's party acted as a catalyst, not instigator or even motivator.

Bordiga here merely abides by Marx, to whom the concept of a "transitional society" distinguishable from and towards communism was alien (youtube.com/watch?v=qyFMKiHFZXg), and who used the terms "socialism" and "communism" for the exact same purpose: as descriptor for the only truly distinguishable type of post-capitalist mode of production there can be.

Despite not being a "Bordigist" (not really a thing, but eh) the best intro texts for Bordiga by Bordiga himself I would say are Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism, Party and Class, Democratic Principle and Lessons of the Counter Revolutions.

vs

Pick one and only one

I'll pick both, because the USSR was formed 5 years after the October revolution, and the time between '17 and '21 was absolutely of authentic proletarian character, following an authentically proletarian revolution.

Mind you this is a more or less left communism-wide, Italian or Dutch-German position (that the revolution had essentially died around '21 with the Comintern's shift to the right), and if anyone wants to further understand it read this: libcom.org/library/when-insurrections-die (it was recently discussed on this podcast, also recommended: podomatic.com/podcasts/dietsoap/episodes/2017-03-15T20_51_05-07_00).

Before I gotta go I'll also drop this article which should help OP: libcom.org/library/bordiga-versus-pannekoek.

And then what, once the NEP dropped the Bolshevik movement suddenly lost its proletarian character? It's a ridiculous assertion that the USSR between 1921 and 1953 wasn't under some DotP in one form or another, I'd like to remind you that Stalin once didn't receive reports from outside of Moscow for over 3 months. Your statement which implies that everything was top-down bureaucratic driven by a few guys in the Politburo is historical nonsense and you are putting ideology over historical truth.

I'm not arguing about wether or not the USSR was socialist, but to claim it wasn't a dictatorship of the proletariat at least up until the mid-50s is straight up right-wing historical revisionism. Even John Scott writes about his experience in Magnitogorsk that most workers were truly believing that they collectively build a better future for humanity.

so leftcoms are war communism apologists huh

is hotaru an anarcho-socdem?

whatever you think of the concept, there still will be a transitional stage with a transitional society
it's basic logic
processes are not discrete

and so you need to have some basic idea of how this transitional society would look like
wage labor relations were theorized on when feudalism was still in place