Bordiga

can we stop naming shit after every single author? it's called "leftcom"

people that follow bordiga are much different from those who follow rosa luxemburg I'd prefer not to lump them into the same category

My understanding:
-The communist party arises organically from the class; it represents the interest of the whole class, as opposed to unions which represent particular interests within the class. The dictatorship of the proletariat is therefore identical to the dictatorship of the party.
-Democracy is an organizational form which can be used to various ends, including class collaboration. 'Democracy' as such cannot be upheld by the party.
-1917 was a proletarian revolution. However, the USSR never ended commodity production and never achieved socialism.

Check out and then: left-dis.nl/uk/bordigist.pdf.

Do every leftcom believe this?

Yes, but they disagree about the role of the Bolsheviks. Where Bordiga would endorse their actions, some others (German left) would view them as staging a coup, and the Soviets as the only revolutionary organization.

Nice meme

And in this case the German left, including rosa, would be correct. How could you believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, or for that matter, the working class, and at the same time a party destroying proletarian democracy?

t. Peter Kropotkin

So..what organisational form can be upheld by the party?

Doing stuff with anything but your class personified or more specifically doing stuff with organizations that essentially do not share your interests, yes. This includes all things Marx and Engels opposed already in the Communist Manifesto third chapter, for the same reasons:
>A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.
>To this section belong economists, philanthropists , humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of “socialism” has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.
We may describe such prolongers of the wage-labouring condition activists when they are decidedly bourgeois in nature (organized by bourgeois means, or to be actualized through bourgeois means), as not all reformism is necessarily a bad alleyway for the workers' movement to spend its energy, and we may call those who actively coopt an active workers' movement that aims to go beyond "nice" wage-labour through suicidal alliances and alternative ends as opportunists.

By all means, worker, rebel. Let your discontent rage through the eunuchs of bourgeois society. I will see to it that this rebellion is not hijacked by any interest deviating from the ultimate end of that you essentially fight against: wage-labour, the commodity form, private property and ultimately the State.

As a principle, not if it's the authentic expression of a situation. Communism for example will necessarily be democratic in essence, but not because we want communism to be particularly democratic. Capitalism or any other internally partial and impersonal system however can take on any mode of management given what suits its needs. The ruling class roots of democracy as a concept in Athens, the fact that democracy consequently always came from above, and with the benevolence of a ruling class, show that democracy is always a panacea for certain excesses, and a permissive one. Lenin shared a similar critique of democracy that influenced Bordiga: lacan.com/jambadiou.htm.

For Lenin just like for Bordiga, centralism is the form all insurrections against capital will inevitably and do take. It is good for this very reason.

Bureaucracy implies centralization outside of the proletariat, and more importantly if we can characterize something as centralized but also bureaucratic we are likely already looking at a counter-revolutionary situation consequent of other failures. See that other thread I linked to.

Lenin clearly wanted to see the Russian revolution die because human nature and like, power corrupts bro have your read George Orwell? Similarly, Bordiga wanted nothing more than for the Italian left to get killed by bourgeois democracy and fascism.

That's a new one.

"Bordigism" is not really a thing and Bordiga wouldn't have wanted it to be: quinterna.org/copyright.htm#copyen. Bordiga is just a different type of Leninist, and was also a left communist in the Comintern.

Orthodox (Second International) Marxists are indeed not left communists (by like 5 years and a whole lot of differences).

The Italian left thought it had a dual character that was both bourgeois and proletarian, decisively proletarian after the victory which saw a defacto proletarian dictatorship for a few years. The Dutch-German left thought it was completely bourgeois, however.

Oh yeah it turned out great for the Soviet union.

I'm over here lad.

I'll be back tomorrow if anyone has anything else to add.

If democracy is not your principal then you have no principle. You stand not with the workers but with a God called history and it's saints anointed by the party. Socialism as a movement was born because capitalism could not keep the promises liberalism had made. We stand against capital because it is in our interests, just as it is in our interests to be free and have ownership over society around us. If you do not stand for this freedom and democracy, and this is freedom FOR the workers, and thus freedom TO all with the destruction of the bourgosie, what can you stand for?

Dank post tbqh famalam.

Why can't any of this theory be written by a women, or atleast people who weren't beholden to stereotypical gender roles. Instead it seems to be the opposite, white males who create the majority of leftist ideology, why not give somebody else a try in life for once, every where I look, media, literature, art, all dominated by white males, it really makes you think after a while, huh, maybe there really are constructs around you that are inescapable, it's called "patriarchy", and you're either hated, or treated like your invisible if you try to form any theory if you are somebody that exists outside of it. It's not such a crazy, or outlandish idea that your basically stifling others (also called oppressing) others without knowing it. But gee guess I can't bring that up because MUH IDPOL.

Fuck off bitch

this is getting old now Holla Forums

He pretty much reaffirmed what Marx wrote and at the same time dunked hard on oppoturnists and utopians.

libcom.org/library/fundamentals-revolutionary-communism-amadeo-bordiga

It's a great text, just read it fam. Take a look at Pannekoek as well, he did the same although his revolutionary theory slightly differs from Bordiga's.

Nice.

the only Holla Forums is idpol

t. Stalin

Bordiganisms absolutely BTFO!

1. What do you make of parties that call themselves communist that accept employees and landlords among their ranks (which applies to almost all of them)?
2. There are unions that are not narrow (my union for instance is made of hospital workers as well as warehouse workers, people in retail, programmers, and more).
3. Unions are in confederations. German unions representing agriculture workers, steel workers, miners, construction workers, teachers, railway workers, catering, and other service workers are in the DGB.
Taking all these points together, if any org in Germany is made of and represents the class, it is the DGB, isn't it? As lame as the DGB is. I don't claim that the DGB is communist, of course. If you believe what you say, wouldn't you expect the DGB to be the communist party or at the very least, to be the org with the most potential to become that? Shouldn't you defend ITUC as the highest organ of the working class?

Condorcet made the probalistic argument for bigger groups getting better at finding the truth over 200 years ago (jury theorem). His intuition has been verified in guessing competitions. Pirates have the practical sense that, when in disagreement to figure out which side is more likely to win if they bash each others' heads in and so they avoid actually doing that.

What wisdom do you have to offer here? What you say is like saying you are against playing Tetris since playing Tetris is compatible with being a puppy torturer. If you have an actual argument to make, then say it.

This is absolutely essential though and does not get stressed enough, even when talking about Bordiga.

Everything is bad and there's nothing to do about it
Read more theory

So bordigists would like what in the place or the firm?

Well, communism.

The free association of individuals (communism), rather than the "free" association of isolated producers (private property) which produces a relationship from man to object to man.

"Bordigists", read the Quinterna link as well as what I wrote before it in , want the very same communist society any Marxist (or anarchist, really) ultimately wants, but since they are Leninists they see the best or even necessary and ultimately invariant means towards this end as radically different from non-Leninists.

Bordiga's conception of the party is actually kind of different from Lenin's though, even if he himself didn't realise it.

Of course. There wouldn't be an interest in Bordiga for his take on Leninism if it weren't actually unique or different enough, but what remains is the vanguardist (Leninist) conception of workers' organization. Similarly, there is for a reason no such thing as "Kropotkinism": there is anarchist communism as per Kropotkin, or anarchist communism as per Malatesta, Bakunin, et cetera. These theories are not personalized things, they are bodies of theory, methods of sensuous interpretation.

Of course, so what organizational structure would take us to communism and/or oversee communisation?

The free association of individuals (communism), rather than the "free" association of isolated producers (private property) which produces a relationship from man to object to man.

…and how would this be organised?

By organising society in such a way that the products of labour do not become commodities. How would this be achieved? By centralising the means of production under the whole of society. If the means of production are held in common without isolation, then there are no independent producers, or at least no independent producers labouring to produce value.

First of all, and this is not pedantry, "Bordigist" or left communist or not, communists want the exact same economy. Communism is in the first instance as I said the free association of individuals, and by consequence does not know an economy in the same way capitalism does: some summation of impersonally-upheld forces that dictate human activity and by themselves produce (by necessity) all the horrors of capitalism, but rather an entirely sensuous economy. In the second instance, communism (the mode of production) was for both the Dutch-German as well as the Italian left hypothesized as more or less essentially the same, and it is in the means towards that end that they disagreed. Finally, for both of them any eventual communist mode of production is not to be blueprinted, but merely hypothesized, and communism (as movement) is to be emphasized as most important as it is from this movement that can spring forth a new type of society.

With this in mind, associated left communists had some of the people doing the earliest ever extensive hypothesizing of what the communist movement could look like as it transforms society as well as what a lower phase may resemble once the essence of the capitalist mode of production is finally done away with, see here: marxists.org/subject/left-wing/gik/1930/index.htm. The end metric, the very basis upon which the mode of production needs to stand upon the qualify as communistic, is as shown in the epilogue and author's use of Gothakritik as the following:
>'The characteristics of the communist economy are stated as being that it has no market, no prices and no money. In other words, everything is negatively defined.
"Negatively defined" meaning that the communist movement births in the communist mode of production by successfully and fully removing all the structures of behavioral interpellation while it still exists in the capitalist mode of production: wage-labour, private property, (money-)capital, and so forth, and ultimately also the State, because the State is the total representative of a (regional) capital and is the structure called forth to accompany class society.

and who decides what is produced and working conditions etc?

and I know what communism is.

I'm asking you specifically what organisational structures you would implement to get there/maintain it

so what is your hypothesis, how will it look?

First of all, not all labour under communism will qualifty as work (labour necessitated by more than directly demanded utility), and with the absence of commodity production (objects that are produced for exchange), the primary character of what will remain describable as work will decidedly also have a utility-driven motive, just society wide: people will cooperate, likely entirely directly democratically (where democracy is no longer a particular method of management, but the direct expression of communism) to decide how to better organize production for use, to meet properly calculated quotas, and so forth.

Then why do you ask me what I personally dream of, instead of understanding communism as free association of individuals?

I heavily lean upon the lower phase's likely need to not just be democratic, but already nonetheless have a very free and individualistic expression with labour vouchers. Labour vouchers, representative of a quantity of labour time and consumed as such, imply the existence of a deposited surplus that your or others may then access with a labour voucher of their own. The entire point of labour vouchers is to help in a period of rationing, where the communist mode of production is not yet fully centralized in society, where the inevitable surpluses produced by labour are properly redistributed in accordance to the value of labour time one has on a voucher. Working longer would just mean more goods on the surplus pile for all to take with a voucher, meaning the necessity of interacting with the otherwise directly democratic collectivist facet.

Again, the left commmunist text I previously mentioned meticulously points out some of the first in-depth examples of this hypothesis of labour vouchers likely being the most practical and likely.

Do you see the inherent tension in being both centralist and directly democratic? How are disagreements in the direction of production say, within or between certain industries or professions dealt with?

Because its all very well and good to say communism is a free association of individuals, what we do here, on leftypol, and in leftist spaces everywhere, is imagine, critique and discover exactly what we mean by that phrase, and how we will achieve it. Don't be reductive. Its unbecoming of somebody who supposedly is pelvic bone deep in theory every day, grinding away.

>on labour vouchers

Sounds a lot like there will be firms. Directly democratic (meaning, managed by those who work there and by nobody else)businesses paying with bits of paper

Sounds a lot like Bakunin's collectivism only with more centralisation, which again, has inherent problems.

How do you see the labour voucher society progressing into communism over time?

If there is a period of rationing, then what good is the labour voucher, if things are being rationed anyway why not move directly to free distribution?

And I know you guys endlessly spam links, I'm asking you what you believe, not what you can regurgitate by pressing ctrl V.

Also,

are… are you 8 years old?

No, because centralization here means not under the whims of a particularity, but under the universality of society as a whole. Society will by its very new mode of production assume a wholly directly democratic role. This is what centralization and central planning originally meant in Marxism before such notions as central planning under capital accumulation being "socialism" emerged with the turn of the counter-revolution. Centralization, the tight knitting of society, will be the reality of communism rather than a particular method we need to consciously reapply and maintain on top of it. In the words of Marx, communism is "the riddle of democracy solved; the final expression of true democracy".

If only Holla Forums were actually a place where critical utopianism was the main activity, hah. No, this place is only on rare occasions such as this actually going into the meat of more serious questions, and even then it seems stuck merely on the post-revolutionary conundrum, rather than the most pressing first question: where is our revolutionary subject, why is (not) acting, why and where does he fail or succeed? It seems like even when we discipline ourselves towards actually being leftists and not just memers, we instinctively look for the B to the A. I am again more than ready for either, but wish the debate would shift to the first logical thing in order, as I remain a Marxist for whom communism is first a true operation born from capital, rather than expressly that which is to hypothetically succeed capital from this operation.

Here is where the reason why I picked the prior reaction image becomes evident: you are thick. But you are not just thick (refusing to accept a premise and the theoretical arguments upon which it is based), but fail to provide anything that actually challenges the premise seriously. You're always approaching the questions of communism standpoint-epistemologically, rather than adopting the universal language in order to critique its meanings.
(Cont.)

No, there will be no firms under communism, vouchers will not be "paid" and directly democratic does not imply the existence of isolated producers producing as such in a market relationship with the necessary other isolated producer (the market relationship):
>This circumstance, then, arises from the material character of the particular labour-process, not from its social form. In the case of socialised production the money-capital is eliminated. Society distributes labour-power and means of production to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour-time. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate.
(Capital volume 2, chapter 18, section 2: role of money-capital)

Marx comes to this conclusion because the distinct property of labour and social relationship to it changes because other categories are done away with. The apparition of the firm is only expressed if they are not, hence we remain with a managerial-rationing based type of object that is for example the labour voucher.

Here I want you to challenge this argunment by Marx by theoretically adopting his premises, and critiquing them from their own logic. In short: I want you to escape standpoint-epistemological realism (yours resemble many bourgeois types with its many depictions) and enter the discourse of a potential theory of its negation, and see if its logic internally holds water as such.

Virtually all other questions you will be able to better formulate to me if you follow the above pattern of inquiring the question. I want questions that show themselves to understand the problem, not questions that show themselves to not even understand it at all. I think, again, that the text I linked will prove very useful for this endeavor, because it gives you precisely what you appear to ask for but also provides an understanding of the Marxist argument using the primitive hypothesises upon which Marx worked, and thus the whole of Marx. You cannot fail to give me something worthwhile if you do this, and I will be much obliged to discuss things if, you dense fucking black flag-pirate flag alternating reddit-spacing faggot, would be so kind. I am going to be your best partner in the rare theoretical discussion if you stop purposefully lowering yourself to childish posturing and end the perpetual cycle of interpellated hand-feeding, correcting and contextualizing concepts in what should be a universal understanding.

It's really interesting reading through this thread, Leftcoms spend so much time spitting on "tankies" but essentially their views are indistinguishable from what Stalin wrote and did, once they are asked about their beliefs and proposals.

Really activates my almonds. I guess being Leftcom is more of an identity of being in opposition, once you actually take power you cease to be a Leftcom

Really, if you didn't make the even more ridiculous second implication I could at least make the first attempt at taking you seriously. Verily does make the noggin jog. quinterna.org/copyright.htm#copyen.

Make an argument that's not an ad-hominem or fuck off buddy. If you want to whine about Maoism make your own thread and post pictures of sparrows. My post was implying that you guys excel at making attacks (just read the post above me where you spend an entire paragraph making fun of the poster you are addressing) but are obsfucating and limp-wristed when you are arsed to explain your own position - which you just demonstrated, thinking that Stalin is some evil spirit I just summoned while Lenin dindu nothing. Where have I heard that before, I wonder.

Daily reminder that this exact same shitposter was found out to be bullshitting 100% about left communism in another thread and is not worth another response on any other topic.

which posts are by the fake leftcom

I have no idea what you are talking about, and my point remains unaddressed. One cannot help but point out your hypocrisy, what you are doing is constantly shitposting and strawmanning other tendencies but complain about being shittalked or strawmanned when someone dares to question wether or not you are entirely coherent in your beliefsystem. If you have a concept of Historical Materialism that cannot be falsified and is in practice indistinguishable from magic but still expect other people to approach you like the Shah of Persia when they have critical remarks, you consider finding other means in life instead of acting like an Inquisitor on an imageboard.

Speaking of unaddressed points:

Don't forget

Because you say so? Because Marx says so? Describe to somebody who is painfully thick, how this will look in actuality, will there be, for instance, federations of councils? In which case, what would the structure of these councils be? Could any councils over-rule any other? If they can, then how do you achieve centralisation? If they cannot, then how do you achieve direct democracy?

and perhaps, you might offer some examples from history of a development that looks somewhat like you imagine will look?

>If only Holla Forums were actually a place where critical utopianism was the main activity, hah. No, this place is only on rare occasions such as this actually going into the meat of more serious questions,

I write fiction and you just really do love the look of your own words on the page don't you. Fuck how can you say so much and mean so little? This all as a cover for your puerile and dishonest lines of argumentation.

If you don't think leftypol is a good discussion space, maybe you should engage in better discursive practice.

Doubles down, throws in another ad hominem, only this time riddled with jargon for that maximum pretentious cunt effect.

Again, discursive practice.

hilarious of you to say

when answering precisely 0 of the easily defined and fairly simple and direct questions asked.

which were:

How do you see the labour voucher society progressing into communism over time?

If there is a period of rationing, then what good is the labour voucher, if things are being rationed anyway why not move directly to free distribution?

and less directly, but still pretty overtly:

How do you distinguish your lower stage system from Bakunins?

and again although I have already outlined my postion:

How do you resolve the direct, real, and to be frank, almost universally accepted premise that you cannot have direct democracy and centralism at the same time, because the directly governed facets will at some point clash with the centre and then you will go one way or the other.

and for more on this,

I didn't say any of that and it isn't even implied.

Lets say they are not isolated producers, but producers working in solidarity as a federation, what can hardly be called isolated production, what happens when one of the component parts of this federation has a slightly different management idea to the rest, but one which will effect the rest, and is not just a functionary internal decision and does not involve them making their property private, or otherwise liberalising?

I was asking specifically about your lower stage. And you know that.

okay okay so they "receive" the vouchers instead of being paid…

Didn't say they were money either so I'm not sure why you have highlighted that.

Here I want you to challenge this argunment by Marx by theoretically adopting his premises, and critiquing them from their own logic.

why? I accept what he says on the subject in that regard, but it doesn't really answer any of my questions.

I don't give a fuck what questions you want. What do you think this is? A fox news interview with Steve Bannon? You don't get to decide the questions

I have never posted with a pirate flag and you mad as fuck fam. Y 4?

I'm just trying to have a back a forth on some points of theory. No need for all that salt you're bringing to the table.

Indeed everyone should be just like you, think just like you, because you're basically fucking infallible man, and everyone else is just painfully thick.

should be other way around

Don't bother, they are going to ignore that again. The best way to destroy Leftcoms is by pointing out that the transitional stage from feudalism to capitalism was almost 400 years.

I feel like I'm a sorta leftcom because I know activism is pointless and communism will just happen. I also believe that democracy isn't always the best way to make a decision and its not the boss its the firm but I still believe that communist party's can't rule the state on their own without becoming corrupt or state capitalist. Am I leftcom or some sort of libertarian marxist?

The party is the most advanced part of the class, unions exist to promote the workers only within the context of capitalism, yada yada. You can get this from Lenin as much as the turtle guy.
You bring up an interesting point in the second part of your post, but the argument against democracy was never against its use as a mechanism (it may be a fine mechanism, even the best we have), but against it as an ethical principle to which the communists must always conform. Ask yourself: is class collaboration democratic, yes or no? Is the forceful suppression of counter-revolutionaries democratic, yes or no?

If you want to argue with Bordiga I invite you to read him b/c this online argument gets tedious.

Not all leftcoms are vanguardists or even pro-party. It's a pretty diverse school of thought. Check out council communism or communization.

communism wont 'just happen' without active human participation. socialism ou barbarie. the open-ended nature of marxist theory is completed & replenished thru praxis. read mao 'on practice' or ga cohen 'nature of proletarian unfreedom' or mattick on spontaneity and organization or gramsci on determinism as coping-tactic for subaltern in weakened position. you are currently neither leftcom nor libertarian marxist, just lumpenproletariat who may as well return to niggertits and jack off to anime.

What are the similarities between leftcoms and Stalin?

I recommend you to read through this thread but imagine that every Leftcom post is a Stalinstache post. Eventually you'll have a moment of revelation.

You are theoryless. Pick up a book as says rather than waddle in non-materialist determinism.

It's satire, buddy.

I didn't mean "just happen" I mean its inevitable. Capitalism will collapse based on its own inherent contradictions and the proletariat will revolt.

Actually, nevermind lmao

Guy is for real

Yeah. I'm not seeing it, dude. Why don't you explain what you mean?

Vanguard party = proletariat, most "advanced" part of the proletariat, dissent needs to be crushed, dialectical materialism but we don't call it that way, etc.

If you put these ideas into practice, they are indistinguishable from orthodox Marxism-Leninism. The whole thing is an elaborated ruse, total hypocrisy. If you actually read Stalins "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" it's pretty much ultraleft.

Here it is, the worst possible take.

t. Stalin

Boring answer: Too each according to needs will probably happen gradually. When it's hard to figure out how much a person wants this particular thing or service and it also takes a lot of time and resources to produce (unlike say, with high-tech prosthetics which can be provided for free even though it isn't trivial to produce), it's probably going to be allocated via the voucher system. Since I don't know in advance how much automatizing will happen in producing this or that thing, I can't tell which stuff will become free at which point in time if at all. I also don't think that the social mores exactly and immediately mirror what is technically possible at a given point in time, maybe people will to a great extent work for free because of social recognition. Starting with labour vouchers means you aren't counting on a universal technical marvel to happen soon.

Actually I care more about whether a statement about reality corresponds to reality than whether it corresponds to what Lenin said. I tell you that most parties that call themselves communist do accept bosses and landlords as members, and these have an easier time attending all sorts of meetings than people from the working class and their money helps them easily getting a disproportionate influence in many additional ways. So unless you believe that bosses and landlords are the most advanced part of the working class, you should either work in the unions or in a party that does not admit bosses and landlords as members.

I have some experience in a party, I have some experience in a union, and I can tell you that it is the union that is better at networking across the borders of the country and that the media produced by the union covers issues like water privatization on another continent. So, what do I do when I see that? Close my eyes since Our Lord Lenin doesn't want me to see that?

OP asked a question about Bordiga; I summarized his position. I'm not going to defend his position as absolute truth. So if you want to argue with Bordiga, take it up with him rather than a 21st century leftcom.

What's wrong with making an observation? Taking one quote out of context is truly dishonest. You know, nobody actually gives a fuck about how you call the transitional phase, if you refuse to call it socialism based on something so transhistorical like the law of value, fine, have it your way. You don't actually have a substantial proposal on how to do things differently, and that was what I asked for, and that has never been answered, by any Leftcom, ever.

Hey leftcom CUCKS do you even know why Bordiga opposed democracy?

it was because he (Bordiga) believed in some wierd magic conspiracy that the freemasons were making some kind of new world order.

>We would, however, be entirely opposed to his (Bordiga's) advocacy of insurrectionary violence, his aversion for democracy (which was determined by his identification of it with the freemasonry of his day), and his support for a centralist control model.

"According to Bordiga’s own later account, his enrolment in the PSI was a reaction to pressure being put on him to join the freemasons, whom he despised."

from: Bordiga: Early political views, libcom.org/history/bordiga-early-political-views

wew good scientific socialism comrade Bordiga! nice CLASS ANALYSIS!!

leftcoms why don't you embrace the true NAZBOL in yourselves, and join the doctrine of the FOURTH POLITICAL THEORY by comrade Dugin?

Suit yourself bub.

If you want to be flaming faggot make your own thread for it. Nobody was interested in personifying political positions and having a cultural dickmeasuring contest over them before you cam in.

This thread features an entire section of me exaplaining just that, plus a link to another thread in which I explain my position in detail (here it is again, since you're blind: ), and if you had read my position you would actually see addressed in detail that
is an utterly nonsensical and idealistic notion of the counter-revolution and Stalin's influence.

Probably from some basic anarkiddie >muh authority whimp or a Trotskyite >muh degewated worker's state, muh Trotsky would have done everything better wrecker, but not me or anyone else on the communist left.

I'ma namefag ITT since all these PCd'I flag posts aren't me so solve your grievances with them separately, tyvm.

Where does it talk about it being a "magical conspiracy"? Is it possible he didn't like the freemasons because it was a bourgeois organization with undue influence in Italian politics?

No, for the reasons (arguments) I just supplied. Look back at the posts.

I've tried myself, as well as by giving you the means necessary to actually obtain your own understanding of things so we can level and get somewhere, but you refuse.

Councils will not survive the revolution by remaining councils. Councils function to organize the workers' movement in a way alternative to the trade union or party form. They cease to be councils, just like States cease to be States or unions cease to be unions, when their carried subject is negated and no longer finds meaningful representation. Similarly, federations traditionally imply the association of any type of organization, usually a State (but possibily also trade unions) into one one whole horizontally. Communist society may be describable as "federated" into various communist societies, but this is an instance where this is entirely dependent on how centralized capital may at a point be into a particular locality, because out of these localities will a roughly similar communist society in centrality emerge. We may hit the point in late capitalism where there are even less separate States than there are today, or maybe even barely any, which would reflect itself in the birthmarks of a new communist society's alloting of surface; where and what is considered a more distinct society.

The nominal organizational form could not act as an embolder of divisions. It would merely be nominal. Since the mode of production compels only individual association, in a very democratic form unlimited by the law of value and the existence of isolated entitities, the biggest being the state, the only types of "divisions" as such into one locality or the other would indeed only remain nominal, or else something else would be compelling isolation not found in the mode of production (hitherto unheard of). And again, as Marx said, communism is inherently democratic in the way it works, it "solves" the riddle of democracy by for once making it the reality of communism, rather than an imposed mode of management.

Man has hitherto only been able to obtain various types of proletarian dictatorship, i.e. the revolutionary transformation of society, still within capitalism until all "germs" of the capitalist mode are abolished. These would for example and most notoriously be the 3-4 years following the Russian revolution. During this time, workers were actively breaking down capital relations, assimilating the various Soviets into a general, "supreme" Soviet, autonomously establish direct productive relations, and so forth. This is sadly the furthest we have gotten into the process of a general breakdown of capitalism within proletarian dictatorship, as things went south due to Russia's isolation and the various failed revolutions in Europe, notably England, Germany, Italy and Poland, but also notably in China. This forced the Comintern to turn to the right to safekeep a future for the Russian workers, which consequently eclipsed it almost entirely. One of the best texts for this process which elaborates on my view on these things is here: endnotes.org.uk/issues/1/en/gilles-dauve-when-insurrections-die.
(Cont.)

You do, and I don't particularly like to repeat myself, no.

By talking to a species made of thick.

If I were still here talking to people it would mean that behind all my efforts, some of it might not be in vain. That I might get something stimulating, a new look, a grounded critique, or anything out of me sharing my position. I still believe in you, you know.

Like I just said, the rare times make it worth the while. For example, the thread I linked to here, or a thread on neoliberalism live right now is really great. I'm learning new things, getting people to incorporate my position into theirs and so on. I'm reading Lukacs and the history of Keynesianism right now because of this, and some other guy changed his view on the dialectical method. It's wonderful, even if rare, especially because all the non-stimulating shitposting is fun regardless.

All you did here was slip in the fact that you legitimately do not have the most basic clue about theory or even how to engage fruitfully in discourse.

I answered this:

(With no retort afterwards, but then you forgot it seems.)

The same posts explain why labour vouchers themselves serve to deal with rationing, and that the lower phase of communism is going to be more principally rationing-oriented because direct distribution is not yet entirely planned and actualized (you use the term "free" here to refer to "free of charge" I assume, but in a world where objects no longer exchange at a value-ratio but are instead distributed according to effort, the point is that only really efficient automation will yield directly free things, otherwise "free" will always require effort, and effort needs to be allocated according to what is possible).

I'm not confident to make any comments on his hypothetical lower stage because I don't know anything about his view on this. I've only read God and the State and various transcripts of the IWA debates between him and Marx from marxists.org and anarchists library. If you could give me a text that fully goes into his hypothesis that would be swell.

This premise rests again on "centralism", or, society centralized, as being centralized into a body that isn't society. What centralization here means is that there is no more isolation between individuals because there is isolation on the means of production (private property). Society is centralized because the means of production are centralized into society: they belong to nobody at all but everyone. This compels the expression of direct democracy: people now freely associate without isolating themselves where they need to produce.

Here you need to prove, or at least provide a reason why, the expression of direct democracy as the essence of mode of production, would necessarily produce individual governates, then you would need to explain why these governates would, from a non-dialectical origin, be necessary for consciously rational reasons, and then tell me exactly where, if all of these confirm the notion of isolated governates under the free association of individuals, would compel them to feud and/or be incapable of resolving themselves through the directly democratic expression of the mode of production.
(Cont.)

ive read his work in italian, hes constantly talking about the lizardpeople freemasons controlling everything.

funny thing is that only these traditions such as the freemasonry, the hermetic tradition, the taoist tradition, tantra, mantra, shakti etc. can save the west. Only these traditions can truely make a REVOLT AGAINST THE MODERN WORLD as Evola would put it.

You are implied, by saying
with a firm being an isolated producer as per private property, without clarifying why, so I addressed it. I would now like to know what you think constitutes a firm in the Marxist sense (an isolated producer, as per private property), what you think constitutes a firm and why, what the epistemology of a firm is, and so forth, so we can meaningfully engage in discourse the next time one of us uses the term "fim". This is another instance highlighting the importance of adopting the universal language: so we can meaningfully discuss or attack meaning rather than name.

Idem. The communist lower phase is already characterized negatively as no market, no prices and no money. No market, with market signifying the relationship between (at least two) isolated producers (firms)!

You didn't just say "pay", signifying the passing around of a resource (vouchers are not exchanged!), but described a means of production as "businesses" (sic) (also, these function on circulating value, and are thus by definition isolatory), doubly indicating an understanding of the communist mode of production as capitalism. And as Marx argued and I have meticulously described to you why, there cannot be a society that is at once mercantile but isn't capitalistic anymore.

You don't. The proof here is that I'm correcting you on major theoretical unnderstandings, by using Marx as well as my own wordings and inferrences into what he meant, how and why.

So you're just here to
or something? Do you hope to achieve anything here but reaffirm your ignorance gleefully while insisting everyone else is out to get you?

Does this look like a discussion on whether or not people should be allowed to live or die?

I, as well as anyone arguing in good faith, gets to decide the value of their time in a discussion, and if that discussion does not value our time meaningfully, then it's pointless. But I'm still here, mind you. I'm already seeing some improvements in this second post and parts of the first, so we are getting there.

You must have a redditspacing doppelganger that argues almost exactly lilke you.

I'm "salty" because we never get to anything meaningful, just utter misunderstandings caused by your ignorance and reluctance to supply yourself with the means to make this fruitful.

Fuck no. "Universal understanding" implies that we speak the same language: that when you say "labour voucher" you understand what is meant by it and that your problem with it is clear, instead of you not understanding what it is because you don't understand 90% of the rest either.

If only I were. I wouldn't have to spend my energy here looking for other views, but I'm not fucking perfect. I just have the most basic of disciplines, that's all.

Only you fam.

The critique of activism is left communist, "communism will just happen" reeks of vulgar materialism and telelogical determinism. This sounds almost exactly like insurrectionary anarchism, which is at best slightly influenced by councilism, which is not necessarily left communist either (there were councilist left communists, but not all left communists are councilists, and not all councilists are left communist either).

Communism "just happens" in the sense that it is always there in all of labour, and that this labour can and will self-organize against capital in times where it is antagonized enough, but this does not mean it will "just happen". The task of organized labour to overthrow capitalism is immense, and complicated, forever changes in how it must be carried on, and so forth, so no, communism the mode of production cannot "just happen" and will not.

The Italian left's argument against democracy was that democracy as an applied mode of management is a ruling class ideology with ruling class origins and application, and that since the ruling ideas of a society are always that of the mode of production, democracy, or at least the fetishization and principalization, could never be of use to a movement like communism which necessarily starts out minoritarian when it is militant and active, and will either need to assert itself with full force against its enemies or will succumb to the inherently reactionary (vis a vis revolution) position of the greater mass of people, working class included. The Italian left otherwise envisions the communist mode of production as inherently and meaningfully democratic by its very nature.

This is left communist, but only really emphasized there (that capitalism is a mode of production, not management). All communists oppose private property, and as such oppose the firm as isolated production unit that exists only as such to produce value.

This is a position that left ommunism will either agree or disagree wtih depending on whether we are speaking of the Italian or Dutch-German left, and more specifically this is a point of attention for all Marxists on the nature of organization and what and when organization qualifies as separate from the interests of revolution or not. I recommend reading Lenin's State and Revolution for this as it still offers the best arguments.

Because he read Lenin and his critique of democracy (noted in The Democratic Principle and he refers to Lenin frequently overall on this) and in his own time saw the consequences of democracy fetishism.

There were actual, literal Freemasons in Italy at the time, the non-Illuminati conspiracy type. People like Garibaldi and his Italan Freemason movement were active as fuck. They were non-principled utopians who believed in only one thing: democracy as a principle onto everything and everywhere, and some of their members ended up assimilated into the various liberal parties and even the PNF

Will someone slap some sense into me?

It is more that the magical freemasons will create a new freemasons class and that will have a dictatorship over the bourgeois. thats why whe can't have democracy, democracy can never truely be proletarian because the freemasons secretly rule over all democratic processes

This is all me BTW.

>marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm
The fuck do I care about conspiracy theories he supposedly and without evidence believed in almost 20 years before? Am I to dismiss Marx and Engels because they thought Slavs were inferior beings? Am I supposed to not take anything Proudhon or Bakunin have said ever just because they were gigantic antisemites who (literally) opposed Marxism because they thought it was a Jewish conspriacy theory? End yourself.

If Bordiga would happen to be alive today, he would be making Illuminati-conspiracy videos on Youtube. YOU KNOW ITS TRUE

c'mon leftcoms why dont you embrace the inner NAZBOL in yourselves??

Will someone slap some sense into me?

IDIOT have you even read MARX? READ PIC RELATED, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THEORETICAL WORKS within MARXISM.

we dont need liberalism aka the first political theory, socialism the second political theory or fascism (turd position)we go beyond them, and embrace the FOURTH political theory.

wtf i love nazbol now

The expanding brain meme is basically writing itself

Well not implementing capitalism does come to mind, you see, that's the entire mistake your making here:

Marx, and those who've actually properly read him, does not want any transitional mode of production in the first place.

The rest of your critique has been answered by the leftcom in the thread, and actually reading what they've said is a good way to start, then you can move on to Gothakritik and Capital.

Good thread.

You don't "implement" capitalism you dunce. Capitalism arises out of the material conditions that presuppose it.

And by those I guess you mean ultraleft Bordigaist-Dauvists that shill communization theory on imageboards? Both the communist manifesto as well as the CotGP and his critiques of Anarchism implies that Marx was indeed aware that you need a transitional phase. I don't know how you can be this utopian. Again, capitalism took 300 years to transcend feudalism in a revolution. Besides that, CotGP was tailored to the specific conditions at the time, and some aspects of it, for example labor vouchers, are outdated. That doesn't make Marxism as an analysis wrong. Remember that Marx in his analysis is mostly descriptive and not prescriptive, and his work is unfinished.

He linked me to another thread and called me an idealist, that's a poor answer. And even the post he was linking to was vague and full of platitudes. As long as you don't give me juicy details about concrete polticial organization, I stick to MLM which actually has a praxis that makes sense and is shaped by historical experience. It's just fucking funny how you guys keep talking about the real movement by cherrypicking proletarian expressions against capital, but once communists are in control they become state capitalists? Bordiga would have faced the same dilemmas Lenin and Stalin would.

Why would I read something that I've already read in its original language?

It's even worse! Marx thought capitalism was the transition to communism. The dotp was capitalism and it was capitalism carried to it's logical conclusion, not suppressed.

It's not something you "implement" you silly goose.

The idea behind communization theory is that the confluence of automization and separation of the class into isolated forms of work (rather than unity in the factory), has made affirmation of the proletariat within capitalism an impossibility. Increasingly the working class is irrelevant to the reproduction of capital and has no power to bargain with it. All that is left for us to do is to destroy the whole society at once, proletariat and all. If you don’t know how one can be this “utopian”, you must not be paying attention. Maybe we need to shill it more.
Agreed.
I guess you would have been a liberal in the time of Marx, when no proletarian revolution had yet happened. The point of revolution is that it breaks with the experience of the past. “Let the dead bury their dead”.
Agreed. I think the point is not to blame the bolsheviks for the failure of the revolution, but to see their actions as symptomatic of that failure.

I wonder what you think of this material, given your interest in the China: chuangcn.org/journal/one/

is not a text that gives you afree pass for vulgar anti-semitism and does nothing but reaffirm that the worst expression of Judaism's essence is a product of capitalism and cannot only be expressed through it. It does not elevate the Jew to a category similar to that of the bourgeoisie, which in itself can or cannot be Jewish.

Correct, we go to communism.

Capitalism cannot be "implemented". Why post a GMiL comic if you don't have the basic understanding of Marx necessary to smugpost with it?

Correct. For Marx there is only the revolutionary transformation, which is still fully lodged within capitalism. The communist mode of production appears through capitalism's subsumption, as every last germinal element of capital is negated. How you can acknowledge this and not consequently see that your previous sentence is complete bollocks is beyond me.

pretty sure he's making fun of you because you're saying that democracy leads to class collaborationism when we don't even have real democracy when the state is an instrument of the bourgeoisie

No, he's using a text cited in that shows Bordiga mentioning the Italian Freemason movement.

I'm not saying such simplistic nonsense at all. I'm saying that democracy, even within merely personfied labour, cannot overcome capitalism. If you ask the proletariat and only the proletariat today what they think of banding together to suppress their managerial class and tackle their conditions of existence, they will by a crushing majority say no, and rush to the polls for Trump or Macron. Now imagine the emergence of an authentically militant proletariat itself starting a charge against capital. Does the world proletariat now magically approve of this activity? No. Because the ruling ideas of a society are the ideas of the mode of production. In order to transcend capitalism the communist movement must as such press the issue. If this proletariat puts its immediate interests behind in favour of a majoritarian start sign, it doesn't even need to do so while collaborating with other classes: it can simply ask the world proletariat what it thinks of its show of power and find out that it is universally feared or even resisted and finds solace in other politics that oppose them. Take the Russian revolution and the temporary government with the Bolsheviks for example: they consistently gained a tiny minority of the vote every time. The only percentage of the vote they valued was that of the Russian workers in their own vicinity already (Petrograd/St. Petersburg), and with this overall minoritarian working class ushered in a successful takeover for the workers' movement. This is why Zizek likes Lenin so much, and he identified the Leninism in even bourgeois politicians like Merkel who went against her people's desire and accepted millions of refugees because it stood on her principles, these principles being vindicated after the fact (of course that doesn't make him a fan of Merkel at all, but it shows what it is Leninism he sees as the successful spark, the wit to force the issue in spite of external consciousness opposing you). This is also why Bordiga liked Lenin, and why I like Bordiga's take on Leninism.

Oh, I'm sorry. the /principle/ of democracy.

Gee, ever heard of manufacturing consent? Not to mention, in a representative democracy, we are forced to vote for people, not policies. And the people who are forced onto us deliberately give us a set of false choices. We do not even have a democracy so long as the bourgeoisie own the industry which at once gives us all our information, have the wealth to buy off our politicians and academics as well as the advertisement for its politicians of choice. The first step to achieving proletarian democracy is to eliminate the bourgeoisie. I am not here to defend bourgeoisie democracy, for it is not democracy at all. I am here to defend the principle of democracy.

Yes, Lenin was right to take control to overthrow the bourgeoisie, but as soon as he did so he simply replaced them with the dictatorship of a party and bureaucrats, destroying the power of the soviets and proletarian democracy. This is exactly why democracy must be a principle. It is not a principle that impedes revolution in the slightest, but it is a principle with is absolutely necessary to create a dictatorship of the proletariat!

Oh, and one other thing
And neither will a small minority of very determined leninists or bordigists! Capitalism overcomes capitalism, read marx faggot.

this

So he was Hillary Clinton?

pretty much

I love how there's no post addressing this

You are welcome to contribute anytime, friendo.

This is less a joke than you think it is.

except, you didn't actually state any arguments, you just asserted it like it was fact.

why?

You haven't even tried a little bit, and its you who is refusing to answer very simple questions.

still not answering the extremely basic question of what will there be? How will it look. You've said a lot, without saying anything again. Its like you deliberately filibuster to avoid specificity

But in the lower stage you mean to have labour vouchers, so the law of values still applies.

so you are basically pretending that people will just get along, because reasons…. there just won't be conflict, so it will all be okay. (or if there is conflict it will be because of some big other outside the machine) Not a good answer at all.

They never even came close to abolishing the law of value.

>and I don't particularly like to repeat myself, no

why repeat yourself when you can waffle on and on and not answer the question?

Seriously, its no longer a question, you are 8 years old.

Man just admit that you got salty and threw out some ad hominems, its okay, you don't have to keep doubling and tripling down.

why can't you be like those other nice people who suck up my bullshit and don't ask tough questions :🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧( AND dares to use "abloo bloo" in his next post.

Nothing wrong with using big words if you actually understand what you are saying, rather than just regurgitating them in order to seem clever, considering you can't actually explain any of the shit you believe, shown by your inability to answer direct questions,that is evidently what you are doing

No…you didn't.

they don't

so you only have a vague notion that at some point in the future the law of value will be abolished, yet somehow it is a cornerstone of your belief.

Right, so do the people working the factory decide how it is run or do they receive instructions from else where?

I think my above questions gets the jist of it. Will the workers be allowed to work as they wish or will they be expected to take instructions from elsewhere? In the case of the latter, clearly then this is not the expression of direct democracy.

Lets look at Chile, for example, there was significant unrest between the various unions, and this ultimately lead to the collapse of Allendes government, or was one of the factors allowing this.

specifically about the lower stage, not communism, like you pretend I said. Obviously there are no firms in communism.

Because directly democratic businesses paying out abstract value tokens on bits of paper(labour vouchers) sounds a lot like a firm to me.

why do you keep saying things that have not been refuted like they have been?

no, I do, it just isn't relevant to the question I asked. Neither have you actually linked the question to what you posted in any meaningful way.

no I'm here to grill you, so I can find out more and add to my own beliefs, you don't get to decide in what manner I question yours, obviously.

Avoiding the question entirely, again. You are getting good at this.

How can you be arguing in good faith when you flat out refuse to answer basic questions and actually don't believe that you should have to? Joke ting. Who are you? Theresa May?

Mate you have to show up.

fuck man, spaces between lines, how will the world cope.

And of course, calling someone painfully thick because they disagree with you is definitely a way to make things fruitful. I'm a councillor, a social worker, mainly I deal with domestic abuse.

What I see day in and day out from abusive guys is a total inability to lay any kind of personal fault at their own door, for various reasons.

Your loaded language "this is all because you are ignorant and for no other reason" is yeh.. the same shit I see every day.

Total lack of self awareness of self critisism, always leads you to act like a tool. Thats why direct democracy is good, because it forces you to question yourself. Thats why selecting your own questions is bad, because it doesn't.

same again

then why do you talk like you think you are?

still eight years old.

...

BOODEGA READERS BTFO