what is organic centralism
also what is left com and why is it hated

Other urls found in this thread:


Wishful thinking.

read bordiga

this. I don't get why leftcom is treated seriously here though. ML is just so much more a realistic and proven doctrine

Why am I not surprised?

history is our argument.

what in the fuck does "organic centralism" even mean?

Nobody seems to be able to explain it beyond "read bordiga" which is just a meme on many layers and I'm not dumb enough to fall for that.

Yes, which is why the Soviet Union still exists today

Organic centralism and democratic centralism both aim at undermining factionalism. Organic centralism (Italo-LeftCom style) is about integrating every theoretical and practical bent of the base within the party, democratic centralism (Bolshevik style) is about imposing strict discipline when a certain decision has been promulgated.

thats because of revisionists of 70 years of attack. Pretty impressive for a back water at the turn of the century is it not? If a more modern nation goes though an ML style revolution it will last much longer and turn more nations red.


How is that even supposed to work or be coherent in any way?

You're worse than the anarkiddies

Like university faculties.

Okay…and how does that work when you have two groups who severely disagree when it comes to policy implementation?

Organic centralism a shit. Bordiga basically followed the same model of party organization and revolution as the bolsheviks without realizing that the organizational form of the revolutionary party shapes the post-revolutionary society and in case of the leninist conception of the party it leads to despotism.
Councilism is significantly superior in that regard.

A relatively wide range of communist persuasions from DeLeonism and Councilism to Situationism and Communization that usually share the following: uncompromising criticism of the USSR and MLism as state capitalism, wholesale rejection of nationalism as inherently bourgeois, refusal to see elections and unions as anything but co-option devices and eagerness for taking a good hard look at the history of the left. They tend to disagree on a lot of other topics (the Russian Revolution, the role of a party if any, effective praxis, etc).

LeftComs are hated because their better command of Marxist theory tend to arouse insecurity among their less well-read opponents, and also because of le ebin armchair memes. You'll realize soon enough that the people who endlessly whine about LeftComs not only don't even know why they hate them, they're also the same people who accuse everyone else of being a "sectarian".

t. has never read Bordiga

as in, every anti-colonial movement ever because ur racist

What would happen if you were to mix Organic Centralism with Nazbol?

You'd get some cancer unnecessarily injected into it, kind of like what your post is doing.



No idiot, you pretending that everyone who disagrees with you just isn't well read enough to understand your 9000 level theory is one of the main reasons you are hated on this board. The reasons people usually point to are the incoherence of leftcoms, their dogmatic puritanism, their historic lack of revolutionary praxis and indeed their undermining of other revolutionary practice through, for example the breaking up of popular fronts, for an ideology that becomes basically indistinguishable from run of the mill Leninism, for the communisers the critique is that it's basically indistinguishable from anarchist communism but comes in a smug "read Marx" package. None of these critiques point to a lack of Marx reading, more a historical look at actually existing praxis. In my opinion anyway left communism is best described as a school of critique rather than a definite ideology with a rigorous praxis, I could go on


But I have read Bordiga.

The nation-state is a bourgeois invention you mouthbreathing retard.

It is. French Revolution-style nationalism might have played a progressive historical role, but there is absolutely no denying that nationalism is inherently bourgeois no matter how you look at it.

t. insecure anarkiddy

Except from reading just a tiny quote from Bordiga you'd know that he did criticise the leninist model, and that Bordiga's model was not built on suppressing factionalism, which you say leads to despotism, but rather making sure that the party members are already in accord and thus preventing factionalism from happening in the first place.
Now, you can certainly criticise this, but to say that Bordiga=Lenin is a very shallow reading of Bordiga

t. No proper rebuttal of any of the points made, probably a leftcom with a dropped flag

This brought to you by the people who openly oppose left unity. Literal and actually existing autism

Here are a few relevant Debord quotes for you :


t. thinks everyone who criticises him is a leftcom

You sound really butthurt, famalam. I'm not even a leftcom

Where did you critise me I don't not see it, I saw you repeat the early stated point which was already utterly refuted and present no extra information. Is that a real critisism? Nope.

By the way, aren't anarkiddie consensus politics literally this? Except instead of a party of like-minded people you have an entire fucking community who somehow have to agree on everything

I didn't, fam. There are more than two people on Holla Forums


They're both shit.


Yup anarchists present an actual working model of how "organic" consensus might be reached, namely through feedback with the concerned groups. Rather than just asserting that it will and thinking aspects of the party structure can ensure this. I personally think consensus based models are only applicable to the most local of issues, on larger scales some kind of majority vote system should be in place, but still with an emphasis on building consensus and a structured debate process which facilitates this. Opposing parties on the same side of the political divide can only properly come to agreement if there is a real process for this.

This is incredibly circular for the subject matter. If they were already in agreement we would not be discussing this issue.

This fuck about instead of controbuting to the discourse with a real position. Why bother existing?

Seriously, if you've ever been to a town meeting you'd know just how hard it is to get a community of random people to agree on things. If you believe that it is possible to have an unanimous agreement between these people, then it should be even easier to have a unanimous agreement between people who have the same goals and who joined the same party. Your opposition to organic centralism is a contradiction.

Because annoying you pleases me

Correction: Leninism is the proven doctrine. "ML" is a corruption of Leninism that has failed by and at large, squandering the momentum created by the Russian Revolution. It failed so badly, we've basically gotten a reset on the 20th century and now, in the 21st century, we have to do it all over again from scratch.

That's about all you need to know with leftcoms


I've read Capital Vol. 1 and 2, Value, Price and Profit, Poverty of Philosophy, Polticial Economy, Communist Manifesto, Grundrisse and Critique of the Gotha Program. I've read the majority of Engels, bourgeois reviews of Marx, Marxist-Leninist reviews of Marx and even ultra-left reviews of Marx. Yet I come to vastly different conclusion than you guys, and so do many communist thinkers. How is that?

I believe on several occasions you revise Marx (on some, such as the national question you outright contradict him), you often put ideological dogmatism over empiricism which is anti-marxist (but will unironically use that argument yourself), and you reject any contribution to Marxist theory that was later done by Lenin, Stalin and Mao as if they are the devils work. What annoys me most about Leftcoms is that the last 100 years didn't exist and is not worth analyzing.

Also why I think Leftcoms are infantile, I like Debord as a philosopher but he isn't an expert on Russian history. Leftcoms often treat ideological or philosophical texts as an historical account. At least Trots haven't given up the notion that they review the history of socialism.

But it never is a collection of random people, it would be people connected by their work or their part in a community on the local level. There is no contradiction at all, consensus models accept that people do not agree, and attempt to create a system which rectifies that with an actual physical process. Consensus models do not work on the assumption that unanimous decisions will be made in the end, but that decisions will be made which are favourable to most parties as far as possible, thus allowing the most "organic" centralism possible. It may well be that people in the same party are likely to agree. It is completely irrelevant to me really, if what hey agree to is not representative of the actual proletariat, which it can never really be with party centralism, unless the broken clock just happens to strike right occasionally

Oh also
A truly epic troll you are.

Why ever would that be?

Your original point was that organic centralism is impossible, now you're saying organic centralism is possible but parties are bad. Something tells me you're a brainlet.

this is just completely dishonest. Read the post again, "organic" has been bracketed to show pinches of salt that come with the word. Also key phrases "favourable to most parties as far as possible" "consensus models do not claim that unanimous decisions will be reached" "the MOST "organic" centralism possible". This language was specifically chosen and clearly expressed. Clearly, the point was that actual centralism is impossible, but an approximation can be reached with the right process. You call me a brainlet, yet I don't see a proper rebuttal

Leftcommunism is not to be taken seriously unless put into practice. The honest to big other reason they are hated is because they're literally the armchair bucktooth fuck that sits at the back of class and snickers whenever someone else goes to the front to talk, but makes excuses or meander whenever it's their turn.

Tl;dr Leftcoms talk the talk but can't walk the walk, (because they're paraplegic).

Haha outed my own samefagging op, all the points still stand tho

Two cancer flags. Like clockwork
You haven't actually given me a proper rebuttal. You claim consensus is possible in a community, but not in a party. I say this is ridiculous, because individual party members would ideologically have more in common than random community members, and would not have the same personal and material conflicts that are rampant in any community (good luck getting a consensus in a feud between two families). The party is a flexible unit, and it can be built i such a way that forming a consensus is much easier than in a neighbourhood. You cannot reject the possibility of consensus in a party without also rejecting the possiblity of a consensus in a community

Why are tankies so pathologically incapable of treating Marxism like an actual living science?

Yet again a misrepresentation of what I have said instead of a rebuttal. I didn't say party consensus was impossible. I also again said that it would never b random people, but communities. I also did not say that everyone would agree, but that with a concensus process the disagreement/agreement is at least facilitated in formal process designed to turn it into the most agreeable solution for all parties. Stop arguing with what you wish I was saying and argue with what I am actually saying. What I did say was tha party centralism is not a good process for either interpreting the will of the proletariat OR reconciling opposing factions, because it actually presents no strategy for either of these things, or at least the first thing. Traditional leninists solution is democratic centralism, leftcom say the solution is organic centralism which is at best a vague and weak parenthesis on the democratic centralist model

So again, instead of answering my actual points, you have just repeated the points I already answered and offered nothing further

Because they're retarded and scientific socialism was a bad translation to begin with.


Communities are made up of random people with wildly different opinions. Sharing geographic proximity doesn't turn people into a monolith.

Your both autists, consensus shouldn't be a goal. He's right in that organic centralism could easily come to a consensus as you'd just kick out everyone who disagrees. But its precisely this which makes parties so open to tyranny and consolidation around strongmen.

So it says consensus is impossible here somewhere? Show me where? No, I am stating that the organic centralist positions is basically that, and, as the rest of my posts show, anarchists also posit this, but, also presenting a mechanism by which agreement can be reached, which which bordigists do not do. Nuance, get some

Random people whose living conditions are more similar by proximity than those they have no proximity to, and a more direct investment in the issues presented. My other example was people working together, who do tend to have a fair amount in common in comparison to other sections of the population. Their interests align further with the abolition of private property also. I'm not saying they are monolithic by they are by no means a random selection of people

Well yes, by the fact that your quote mocks the idea of a party consensus with "the party will just agree, bro". If you want to make a nuanced point, try making one instead of flailing at random. Did a leftcom touch you as a kid?
Like I said to begin with, there are certainly criticisms to be made of organic centralism. Mocking the idea of a party forming a consensus without coercion while simultaneously arguing that communities (which are geographical groupings rather than ideological) should be governed by consensus isn't a criticism, it's a contradiction.
All I described was the fundamental divide between democratic- and organic centralism (basically paraphrasing a quote from a speech by Bordiga that was posted here a few days ago). I made no claim that it was literally all there was to say on the subject.
Were you also samefagging as the ancom guy? Is there any post in this thread that isn't you samefagging?

Perhaps, but in the least Marx and Engels always encouraged Communists to base their ideas in historical and material realities, Historical Materialism is supposed to be an organic science with lots of room for creative interpretation, but everytime a tankie gets into an arguement they basically say "Marxism-Leninism already worked, so I don't have to argue it's validity", then if you point out that the USSR failed they'll mindlessly screech about revisionists, without explaining why their perfect ideology always seems to lead to revisionism. It's insanely dogmatic, and far more Idealist then any Leftcom's supposed purism.

Leftcoms don't put things into practice because that line of thinking is in direct opposition to leftcom ideals. There is no leftcom revolution.

Specifically in the context of organic centralism, because it offers no solution for getting people to agree. Which I have now repeated over and over again. I can see I'm probably going to have to that several more times because you simply don't have an actual response to the point I made, or have 0 reading comprehension, which is NOT, that consensus is impossible, but that Bordiga does not present a viable solution to making it happen, or a close approximation of it happen, if you think "suppressing factions" is a sensible solution, or any different than democratic centralism in practice you really lack any kind of critical faculty. "yeh bro just like, kill/expel the dissenters, then everyone will agree" So yes, I'm sure consensus is possible within centralism, what exactly is organic about it though? I give an actual mechanism for trying to reach "organic centralism" i.e consensus, and you have yet to actually come up with a reason as to why it is bad, instead just pretending I said consensus is impossible and this somehow is a contraction to a consensus model, when Consensus models work specifically around the idea that consensus is extremely difficult to reach and probably never will be, but we should nonetheless provide a mechanism for getting as close as we can.

No, mocking the idea of organic centralism, specifically..I did not even mention coersion ARGUE WITH WHAT I SAID, NOT WHAT YOU WISH I HAD SAID.


didn't say you did. Again, ARGUE WITH WHAT I SAID, NOT WHAT I DID NO T SAY, which is a completely ludicrous approach to discussion.

Left communism really isn't something you put into practice tho.

making it entirely redundant and useless to the left.

I have noticed a huge problem with leftcoms in general and nuance, which is funny considering its position as the in-between ideology and as the supposed masters of critique. They will tell you that worker democracy is exactly the same as Athenian democracy, they will tell you that there is no difference between social democracy and fascism, etc etc etc. Sure, there are similarities, but it is never presented this way by leftcoms, they are extremely black and white in terminology, always. It reflects their relegious approach to Marx and other theorists like Dauve

Leftcoms don't want to be useful to the left.

yeah they're the opposite of useful idiots. Useless pseuds

Hmmm leftcoms are 'real marxists' whilst simultaneously do not advocate for a proletarian revolution.

Really uh really mks u tik a tink

But that's not true.

How don't Leftcoms advocate for proletarian revolution?

They view revolutionary activity through a purely Marxian lens. There's no "leftcom" revolution, not because leftcoms don't want revolution but because they view revolution explicitly through the lens of class struggle. Ideas don't shape the mode of production, one class exuberating it's interests against the other does.

ITT leftcom pretending not to be a leftcom beat out severely and repeatedly and being unable to handle it so repeating his same weak ass point and then leaving the thread LMAO so much for the well read leftcom

bump for leftcom tears

Left communists tend to be picky about semantics, so I'm sure someone will take offense to this post, but here goes nothing.

Left communism is a label attached to a group of tendencies within the communist movement. It is most commonly understood to include the German-Dutch current (council communism and related trends), the Italian current (Bordigism, Operaismo and related trends) and contemporary currents such as Ultra-Leftism, Situationism, and Communization Theory. Some use it very liberally, to include everyone left of Lenin: from Trotsky, to Luxemburg, to De Leon, but such theorists generally do not consider themselves to be left communists.

Organic centralism is a theory laid out by Amadeo Bordiga in the Lyons Theses, and Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party, which I will link at the bottom (and maybe other works, but this is where I've seen it).

It can be a bit hard to pin down what exactly it means, because left communists often only talk about their ideas in the abstract as a way of avoiding criticism (this isn't meant to be a dismissal of all left communist arguments,– I myself am a communist left of center– it is just an honest statement about how you left communists tend to conduct themselves), but from what I can decipher it mostly boils down to this:

>The party must be completely united its actions. Unity cannot be achieved through violence against party members, for such actions would be indicative of the fact that the struggle for unity has already been lost. In order for unity to be achieved, the party must have correct theory. It must address the theoretical concerns of dissenters when they have legitimate theoretical concerns, and if can do this effectively, then the only dissenters left can be dismissed as opportunists and promptly expelled from the party. This is not authoritarian, because part membership is entirely voluntary.

I generally agree with Bordiga on this issue, but I would not identify myself as a left communist: mostly because I am more interested in practical application then I am in theory, and I do not like the kind of vulgar "materialism," that is rampant in many left communist circles. (See , like wtf nigga).

If I got any of this wrong, please let me know. Like I said before, the only Bordiga I have read are the two short pieces I have linked below.



Who /Nazbord/ here?

I figured I should clarify why I called
a vulgar materialist. The idea that ideas don't shape the course of the historical struggle nonsense, and is a misrepresentation of Marx and Engels that I see quite often.

Please read the following two works by Engels.
An excerpt from a 1890 letter to J. Bloch which can be found here:

…and the attached PDF of Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg. If you don't have time to read the whole book, (it's only 100 or so pages but whatevs) then just read the Addendum to the Preface (p. 11-15).

If you don't read these, please abstain from discussing real class struggle, as you will only make a fool of yourself.

Organic centralism is just the Leninist democratic centralism, but without holding democracy up to a principle. Also, Bordiga's vanguardism is distinct from Lenin's in the way he proclaims the need for a sort of technocracy, while Lenin was more pro-democracy.

I personally don't hate many people in the tendency, they are quite right about a lot of things, but I just think that they represent a sort of an orthodox vulgarization of Marxism, to quote comrade Hyperion, *pic related*

So eh.. Who decides which theory is correct?

read rafiq too

No one decides. If the parties theory is correct, and it is able to communicate it effectively to the base, then its actions will be successful and its base will follow the party line without having to be coerced. The way that the party base will receive theory, is itself a theoretical concern.

He's actually Ben Garrison

Ahahahahahaahha. This is supposed to be an actual strategy? AhahahahAHAHAHA
Ahahahahahahahahahahjaa leftcoms are a literal fucking joke. Your party organisational method is

…and there was me being told by leftcoms ideology doesn't make revolution. Really makes your tete fret

Natural selection isn't a fucking strategy you cultists. It is something every fucking movement has to deal with. You are all pseuds, priests masked as philosophers.(t. pseud)

Love how mods banned me for legitimate criticism against leftcoms. Leftcoms are merely secular Calvinists and no amount of trickery will change that. This board is completely infested with Ultras and needs to be burned to the ground.

What the fuck does natural selection have to do with anything?

Clearly this is over your head. Natural selection as in natural selection of ideas. Ideas that are correct survive and are communicated to the base, while ideas that are not lead to unsuccessful actions according to the pseud I was responding to.


We hate left"""coms""" because they're fags

A lot of this work is good, "Left-Wing” Communism in Germany. The Leaders, the Party, the Class, the Masses" is the part he's wrong about

You can't be serious m8

Oh right well, you didn't say you are communicating ideas to the base, obviously they will just go along with that, because when people see the right idea they will just all agree on it, because it's the right idea, and it's the right idea because everyone agrees on it, obviously, marvellous

Yeh you're right, detailed analysis of different positions on history and the interpretation of anarchist and Marxist theory is basically just the same as calling someone a fag

Haven't seen any tbh

Not an argument. Don't impose arbitrary moral definitions on me. An idea's lifespan has nothing to do with its moral character, but only with its ability to produce results and lead to new expressions of power. Good and bad is the wrong dichotomy to use here and shows how much of a brainlet you are.

Pluralism theory was a mistake

You can replace good/bad with correct/incorrect and your opinion is equally as moronic.

There is. It is called power. Ideas that produce power survive. Ideas that do not die and become obscure theory cults like left communism. If you people put half of the energy you spend defending your impotence into something useful, you would be gods now. But you don't. It is against your individual natures to do something like that.

Your education system has failed you.

Is De Leon leftcom?

Why don't you just become a neoliberal?


wtf i'm with HER now

So we can all agree this thread demolishes the leftcom. They were doing okay till this last section, I had some sympathies for them, but dear god this is all lunacy. They have some good thoughts, but this organic centralism is pretty ridiculous I can see why it was never a particularly popular position

Simply undialectical.

Pretty much this.


Ah yes the other leftcom tendency, anarcho-communism


Council com is cool. I dig it

Left"""coms""", the people, are invariably fags, this is nothing to do with theory etc, just the left""coms""" themselves are fucking faggpts


How is that a bad thing?

He literally is though. Just different semantics.

Bordiga was a Leninist. Organic centralism was meant to fit within the framework of Lenin's theories of party organization and movement building. It obviously isn't supposed to represent our entire theoretical understanding.

they're not real communists
it's not necessarily, I'm just observing
Also you may not have heard but the leftcom flag is now the anprag flag since I haven't made one I've decided I'll use someone else's for now

bumping for later

are pirates organic centralists?

This time when it does happen all power will actually go to the soviets right?

you know nothing of the october revolution and why it went the way it did with the soviet councils.

You're right, can't exactly have revolutionary working democracy when the revolutionary proletariat were all wiped out in the civil war, the world revolution didn't come, and you have to save the few gains that were made so reactionaries can't come back.

That stings more than it should

Anti-leftcom posters are the worst posters on this board. It's just angry tankies who are mad that leftcoms admit that the USSR failed. Organic centralism only makes sense in criticism of democratic centralism, just like leftcommunism as a whole only makes sense as a criticism of Marxism-Leninism.

If you have the correct theory, you will know how they will respond to what you tell them, because the way that the base will respond to party articulations, is itself a theoretical concern. Hence, this concern must be factored into the drafting of the articulations.

I'm no tanky. Leftcoms are crypto tankies. Or crypto ancoms, depends who you ask. Leftcoms are the worst posters, as this thread demonstrates

The word has really lost all meaning at this point

Shitpost flag

wtf is anprag ? anarcho-pragmatic ? care to develop ?

I guess it's basically anarchism except not anarchism. Pragmatism is not an ideology.

And you were calling leftcoms faggots. kys

Lmao, they're anti-tankie by definition tho
Lmao they can't be both a crypto tankies and a crypto ancoms you fucking retard. The fact that people can't agree on what exactly they are shows that leftcoms are just a vague punching bag for people who are assblasted over being criticized.

ahaha you don't realize this is what makes them retarded. Half are crypto tankies i.e. the """""""""organic"""""""centralists, the other half are crypto ancoms i.e the communisers. Its not that we can't agree on what they are, its that their position is vague and wishy washy, so when they get uppity and high horsey they have nothing to really defend in the end. Your comment is the most ignorant in this whole thread

Yes and who drafts the articulations and by what means are they decided?

Yes and who drafts the articulations and by what means are they decided?

The fact that you think organic centralism is """crypto-tankie""" and that Communization is """cytpto-ancom""" shows how little you know about either topic.
Nope, that's wrong. What actually happens is anti-leftcoms willfully misinterpret what leftcoms say and whine about how leftcommunism is impractical without ever delineating what particular form or leftcom they're bitching about. They only seem vague and wishy washy because you've framed leftcommunism in vague, wishy washy terms.

The positions in each current aren't vague. The term leftcom itself is vague because it's an umbrella term for multiple schools of thought. That's not really the fault of left communists as it was a term applied to them by communists to their right.

nice that you have brought the level of discourse down to bald assertion.
if you read through the thread that simply isn't the case, there is clearly an understanding from the anti leftcom crowd of the two different types. They are vague and wishy washy because of comments like this one:

Seriously you think that is a definite and clear answer?

Distinguish communisation from anarchist communism. Kropotkin literally uses the phrase communisation the conquest of bread.

"organic centralism" so, run of the mill centralism with some hilarious shit about "correct theory" just occurring because reasons, with no mechanism for developing correct theory presented. k.

Organic centralism is a vague ass concept and the communisers have never before my eyes described how the communisation might be carried out

Left communism isn't just Italian communism and communization theory. Council communism, situationism, and autonomism are all leftcom currents. There are also a lot of ancoms who make up a portion of communization theorists, like Tiqqun, so it's not really a surprise that it has a lot in common with anarchists as it's written by anarchists. You have the vaguest understanding of what you're talking about because your knowledge of it comes from shitposts in the lower intestine of the internet.

You literally followed this up by making your own assertion about this thread, you utter moron.
What was unclear about it? Organic centralism is party oriented, but against the top-down, unquestionable authority of the party that characterizes democratic centralism. Having a good theory that the people in the party can get behind seems like a good way to fight against sectarianism tbh.
I would play the "not my job to educate you" card here because you clearly haven't looked into the topic yourself before forming positions on it, but because I'm benevolent I'll explain it to you as long as you promise to not be a uncharitable retard about this.
Communization has more of insurrectionist focus, meaning that it's focused on immediate and practical ways to implement communism, whereas anarcho-communsists are focused on directly implementing communism after a revolution has taken place. Communization is the communist revolution, it's the direct application of communist ideas in society.

Like I've already said in this thread, I dig council communism. I also dig situationism for what its worth, Debord, Specifically Society of The Spectacle got me into Marxism when I had to study it for a university course. I am also aware of Tiqqun and his theory of the young girl. I have a good idea of what I'm talking about because my knowledge comes from books.
This is, yet another instance of, just saying I'm not well read instead of actually addressing the points I made.

Because as you've just demonstrated you're dishonest and I don't feel like banging my head against a wall.

Lmao, but Tiqquin isn't one person, and their "theory of the young girl" is hardly their most significant theoretical contribution to left. The person replying to you probably made the assumption that you aren't well read because you've been making broad, un-nuanced generalizations and lazy characterizations of leftcoms that don't suggest that you're well read.

Let me break it down for you like this. What you are telliing me is that organic system is " party oriented, but against the top-down, unquestionable authority of the party that characterizes democratic centralism." So, this is telling me what it isn't,or what it would not like to be, rather than telling me what it actually is.

The other thing you are telling me is "Having a good theory that the people in the party can get behind seems like a good way to fight against sectarianism tbh."

Well… no fucking shit. Your theory of revolution is "have a good theory of revolution"

And this is the problem, basically the cut and thrust of The Coming Insurrection. You can't have the communisation w

ithout having the revolution first

I'm not the one being dishonest when all you've got is "you just can't read bro" when I literally studied literature in an academic setting and now spend most of my free time reading. You forget you're on a chan and this place is a free for all.

and again "disagreeing with me means you aren't well read". It funny that you say I'm not nuanced, maybe you should go back and read the whole thread

what this sounds like to me is that anarcho cummunism is revolutionary anarchism and cummunization theory is a bunch of hippies in a field somewhere. You have to seize the property comrade

No, you just don't know how to read. It's a single central party that opposed to the top-down authority of democratic centralism. The structure of such a party would need to be such that it's positions can be arrived at organically. I'm not going to go into the specifics here because debating the finer points of a theory I don't even subscribe to, with a person as dishonest as you sounds utterly exhausting.
Nope, organic centralism isn't a "theory of revolution", it's a theory about how to run a good, cohesive party.
Honestly, I said that I was only going to try to educate you if you weren't going to be an uncharitable retard, user. Way to break your end of the bargain, you dick.

Communization is focused on concrete revolutionary actions that lead directly to communism. The entire point is that communization is the revolution.

You're the one who thought Tiqqun was a person and that "theory of the young girl" was what they were notable for, lmao. You haven't read, stop pretending.

Seizing property is one of the immediate and practical ways to implement communism.

so yeh got that, it ISN'T democratic centralism.
okay… so what might that look like?
so you don't have a clue what you are talking about
yeh, and what theory is that, what does that theory contain
oh cos it was all polite and nice until this moment, enough of the water works
what do you mean by direct? Direct as in instant? Or direct as in with no intermediary stages? In either case how can you abolish value only over a small area, particularly in the modern age where the things we need rely on complex technologies whose ingredients are spread all over the world?

Didn't think it was one person just typing fast, I also made no claim that that was all they are notable for, just thats what I am familiar with.
Will you tell me I am not well read in every single comment?

Well there's actually a lot of different takes on this, but they all generally agree on democratic centralism being bad.
I wouldn't call myself an expert on this topic, but I know enough to say that you're being more than a little uncharitable here.
I was trying to educate you, user. I spent effort trying to teach you and you just misrepresented what I said in a very rude way. I was only trying to help you understand fam :^)
"If Zeno's arrow only travels in discrete increments how will it ever reach the target!!!1!" -you, a retard who doesn't understand how change works.
Yes. You're not very well read on this subject, user. Please don't forget it.

I like this guy

Adding to this because I know you're gonna be a sperg on this. Bordiga's take is what most people think of as organic centralism, so even though I'm not very familiar with Bordiga, I'll try to explain it to you as far as I understand it. To get organic centralism you reject the democratic aspects of democratic centralism and replace it with authority based on one's abilities and then restrict all authority to only the areas that authority is actually relevant in. I don't really know the particulars on how this would work in practice though, so I can't tell you exactly what a organic centralist party would look like, but it'd be anti-bureaucratic and anti-legalistic. "Organic" seems like a good way to describe it :^]

so so far your description organic centralism is basically that democratic centralism is bad. Remember up there when I was called vague,,, funny that.
That has nothing to do with what I asked, talk about rude misrepresentation indeed. I asked, unless you intend to instantaneously abolish value globally at one stroke, or at least, over a very large portion of the globe, it will be impossible to abolish value even over a small area, unless you intend to go anprim.
abilities according to whom and what
according to who or what
how can you be so sure if you don't know what form it would take?

How exactly is that vague? "Democratic centralism is bad" seems to be a pretty concrete point fam.
It does, you just didn't connect the dots I laid out for you. You'll never be able to instantaneously abolish value globally, so the claim that you have to wait for a revolution before taking action to implement communism is actually a kind of defeatism. Just like a discrete movement cannot immediately bring the arrow to the target, a discrete revolutionary action cannot immediately bring about communism.
According to their knowledge and abilities. Someone with a background in city planning necessarily has more authority in that area than someone who doesn't. Conversely a person with such a background likely has little authority in politics or ecology, so their authority in city planning is irrelevant in those areas. I would imagine that ow authority would be determined similarly to the way is determined in academia.
If this sounds elitist to you then you'd be right, but only in the limited sense that material conditions currently determine the degree to which a person can realize their latent abilities. The entire goal of communism is to create the material conditions that make it possible for everyone to realize their potential as they see fit.
Because as I understand it, the logic behind Bordiga's anti-democratic position is based on Marxian universalism. Bordiga views democracy as incompatible with communism because it has the potential to allow illegitimate authority to exist as long as the majority approves of it. Additionally he thinks democracy is bad because it's competitive nature sets factions against one another and makes them compete to further their own interests. A non-democratic party that is also universalist cannot, by definition, be bureaucratic and legalistic.

Because it doesn't actually say what organic centralism is, it just says what it is not, it is also, im assuming, not liberalism or bhuddism, but that doesn't really help either.
No, just you have to have to build up to revolution and it will hapoen in different places at different times, so you can't go straight to the abolition of value, so just creating instant communism won't work. Again with the misrepresentaionts.
yes and what if two highly qualified people disagree, which is my question for your bottom point as well. If anything, this sounds like it has even less checks on power than democratic centralism

Left Communists are the variety of utopians who are farthest up their own asshole.

Your point here is moot regardless given that I later went on to explain what democratic centralism is more fully.
Right, you can't abolish value globally instantly. I never claimed otherwise. My claim was just that abolishing value globally requires steps towards that goal. The only pragmatic way to establish communism is to take concrete actions that push the world closer towards communism. Obviously one can claim that almost every action pushes society closer to communism, which is why theory is so important. Theory allows you to (more or less) concretely determine whether an action helps or hurts progress towards your goals.
Tbh this is why I see anti-leftcoms as fundamentally infantile; they generally claim that theory is opposed to pragmatism, which couldn't be further from the truth. Theory allows you to understand the world better and make more sound decisions, it's pragmatic as fuck.
Then they work it out among themselves and their colleagues. And if their theoretical differences are irreconcilable and there also happens to be a policy decision that needs to be made then it can be sorted out through a compromise. If no compromise is reached then it could be voted upon. There's loads of ways to resolve disagreements, user.
The checks on authority in organic centralism are a result of the "organic" nature of the party. Basically Bordiga's argument to this is that authority can't and won't be abused if that authority is dependent on it's recognition by one's peers.
An accusation that often gets leveled at Bordiga is that he's a "technocrat" or an "elitist", and while these accusations aren't entirely unfounded, they do miss almost all of the nuance in Bordiga's work. The dude wasn't an authoritarian like many infantile anti-leftcoms have claimed.

*explain what organic centralism is more fully.


so its just democratic centralism? You just said Bordiga is anti democracy.
and you would formalise that through a vote or some such thing.

stop trying to re appropriate infantile also, its an obvious force

Voting isn't necessarily democratic though, especially when used outside of a legalistic and/or hierarchical context.
No, that would be democratic and unorganic. Democratic centralism is what you get when you formalize authority through voting.
I was using the term somewhat ironically, but what I said wasn't untrue. Anti-leftcoms are pretty infantile.

The party center–ie. the most advanced and resolute sections of the working class! How many times do people have to tell you that Bordiga was a Leninist?

Um yeah basically. Like I said above, Bordiga was a Leninist, so I'm not sure what you where expecting…
It is partially based on anarchism. Communization oriented Ultra-Leftism is a synthesis of insurrectionist anarchist and anarcho-communist ideas, situationist ideas, Italian left-communist ideas, and Dutch-German left communist ideas.

See attached pdf.

so i suggest you should vote but then…
You contradict yourself at every single turn…."organic" here seems to mean just whatever you feel like it does, and it still doesn't answer the question of what organic centralism is, it just stipulates that it isn't democratic centralism, which we know already. Its all you have actually said about it.
ha, i literally call him a leninist multiple times in this thread what are you talking about?

None of the rest of what you have said rebuts any single one of my points at all

A dictatorship masked as a democracy
Basically the same as democratic centrism (Leninist)

No, just a dictatorship. That's the whole point. As communists, we do not seek a proletarian democracy, we seek a dictatorship of the the proletariat. In other words, we seek absolute domination of society by the workers, in interpersonal, economic, and political spheres.

Did you really expect us to be anti-authoritarian? Bordiga literally spends half of his writing shitting on Bakunin and Proudhon.


This the reason I am not a leftcom

Bureaucracy, like a factionalism, is a symptom of the parties theoretical degeneration. The party will not be lead by bureaucrats, it will be lead by the most advances and resolute section of the working class. Who decides who is the most advanced and resolute section of the working class you ask? Well, if they are not the most advanced and resolute, they wont have much success organizing a party will they?

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

Why make such a sweeping generalization? The Dutch-German left, and Ultra-Leftists are usually anti-authoritarian. Democratic centralism is a concept confined to party oriented left communists like Bordiga and the rest of the Italian left. Like I said before, left communism represents a range of tendencies, some of which are anti-democratic versions of Leninism, and some of which border on anarchism.

I never contradicted myself, you're just too stupid and infantile to see that. Yes, voting to come to a conclusion on an issue is a form of democratic decision making, but that doesn't mean that the party is democratic. Democracy is rule by the majority, and occasionally voting on things doesn't entail majority rule. Conversely a lack of a democracy doesn't entail rule by the minority either, and organic centralism's antipathy towards bureaucratic and legalistic structures makes rule by an illegitimate minority improbable.

This thread is a mess.

"Left-communism" or "Ultra-leftism" are slurs, for the most part used by those opposed to it, and it's criticism during the third international. It's not an political-"ideology" in the sense in which Holla Forums uses the term, neatly sorting and comparing positions and tendencies by flags.

One could say the fundamental principal, of the left communist tradition is that it isn't ideologies, parties or whatever organisation outside of the proletariat that will "lead" a revolution against capitalism, but the proletariat itself, actively, if unconsciously (in the sense that they haven't studied the structure of capital in relation to Grundrisse, etc.), thereby negating it. Looking at this, it should be obvious why arguments like "leftcoms never do stuff" are nonsense - they critique activism (not activity!). Leftcoms are critics or the "left" or "the left of capital" as some say, they aren't the revolutionaries like Che, Mao or Lenin, nor are they agents of social change, the proletariat itself. They are a theoretical tendency. Leftcoms won't "make the revolution", just as little as Maoists or Lenninists.

Classical council-communism and classical "bordigism" (a term I use only to keep it simple, but Bordiga would have strictly opposed, since communists, as materialists, shouldn't believe in great-man-theories) itself, in the sense of a 1:1 application, has practically no use nowadays, which is equally true for Lenninism, Troskyism, Maoism, Anarcho-syndicalism, etc. Our circumstances aren't those of over 100 years ago, our problem isn't overcoming feudalism, what to do with the pesants or how to mobilize the industrial workers under a positive self-identity. As is painfully obvious to anyone with any common sense, this just comes of as LARPing, and if you're honest with yourself, your special sect (and I do use this in a religious sense) probably won't manage to "mobilize the masses". Just maybe.

As you might have seen from what I've written, the left communist perspective has a certain degree of cynicism to it, no doubt partially due to it's surrounding. Seeing Tankies and ancoms holding hands to push, once again for the newest socdem, the one who will actually do it, but this time for real, and won't become a tool of capital, just like everyone before him, frankly becomes depressive over time. Or the constant dogmatism between these "ideologies", accusing one-another of events tied to ones sect (killing of Rosa, killing of Trotsky, Communists in Catalonia, etc.) might be fun way to spend your time on image boards (life-stylism is fun after all) but might not lead to Communism.

And it's due to this attitude, I would want to say "realism", but I have the feeling that black-flag or the tankies in this tread would sperg out over that, that "left com is hated". On the other hand, maybe, hopefully, it's "pessimism".

If you wish to find our more, I always advise taking a look at Eden Sauvage's reading list: edensauvage.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/reading-list-for-aspiring-ultra-lefts/ or red texts: redtexts.org, sub.god.jp/~xat/rt/

Sorry for the (slightly) untidy structure of this comment, It's a bit late here and I'm a bit tired. I'll come back tomorrow to take a look if anyone responded. Hope I didn't trigger anyone.

Only good post in this thread

would like to point at that these are not me, so there are now two black flags in thread from this point. I am the one you have previously been talking to.

What a pity that the thread died just after my comment…

It doesn't actually deal with the argument in question which is largely about the efficacy of organic centralism.

Bordiga: his ideas never caught on and become revolutionary praxis, because his ideas sucked. All you need to know really

Fucking hell just become bourgeois then, advance capitalism until it can no longer survive and then see the real movement. In any case atleast you will be able to provide funding and resources if you are in a position of power

thats is actually the best idea, you'd be surprised to see how many corporatists and bankers agree with Marx's critique of capitalism and use it to keep the boat afloat

what? Are you telling me to pull up my bootstraps?

I have to admit that I don't know to much about the specific ideas of the Italian left, but I did comment on that in general when I said

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

Because some of them try to have a theory of counter-revolution beyond "muh" revisionism

It's fucking retarded. LeftComs are only good for criticism, all their original ideas and praxis are utter trash.


Leftcom is a stupid word. Italian leftcoms are not related to Dutch or German leftcoms, Italian leftcoms are the autistic little brother of the German social democrats, both were enablers of fascism.

Wow, I didn't know Hillary Clinton posts here.
How many levels of idealism are you on, son? If only we had less democracy, that would help against illegitimate authority, trust me… Do you think animals kill each other because they have democracy?

Bordiga was a pretty cool dude even if he wasn't the most inventive. His critique is and should always be what he's best known for. Councilism is the way to go for any still surviving leftcoms, frankly.

As for you, OP, organic centralism is not the most well-defined, at least in what I've read from Bordiga, but he seems to place a lot of stress on its adaptability. For example, in "The Democratic Principle", he says that democracy could be used as a tool for organic centralist parties, but it wouldn't be seen as a fundamental principle. A good analogy I read about this went thus: most people are used to the fact that communists don't want reformists among their ranks, yet we never voted on this. Some things are just inherent to the goals of communism and his ideal party would be aware of this. What he deemed most necessary was consultation with the base to stop factions from forming. His rubric stinks of technocracy, but again, I like his for his critical eye.

Leftcom is a loose term for non-Leninist Marxism, essentially. It encompasses all the councilist traditions and Bordigism. It also excludes itself from anarchism, but there is significant overlap, if you ask me. Situationists were perfectly fine with ancom takeovers in 1968, for example.

I am interested in this concept, but it needs to be substantiated. Please elaborate, and provide examples. Thanks.

The dude just described empiricism, you can cry but you can't call it unscientific.

Bordiga was a Leninist, all his life and vocally so, and the DG left only developed councilism in the mid-30s. It was basically with the regular Third International line before that, but with the genral left peculiarities.