Shouldn't we support any organ of proletarian power wether it be a vangaurd party, trade union or workers council...

Read Bordiga

Nobody so far has managed to demonstrate why reading Bordiga is not a waste of time. I know that all the trendy "leftcom" text mention him but they never actually seem to engage with his ideas, they only drop his name to look hip and trendy. Every time they "criticize" someone it can be boiled down to "he wasn't bad but needed to read Bordiga lmao." At this point I'm pretty convinced that it is just a prank.

...

What are you going on about exactly? If you don't want to read a leftcom text that mentions Bordiga then just read the man himself if you want to directly engage with his ideas.

Would you mind briefly describing Bordiga's relevant ideas here, or else quoting him?

He is relevant to the idea of the vanguard being an organ of the proletariat. Hence the initial reply. This would have been obvious to anyone who has actually read him instead of blindly criticizing.

I'm not going to read him unless you can demonstrate that there's something useful in his texts. Unfortunately I'm not a NEET, I have to prioritize my studies. I was complaining that everyone endlessly mentions Bordiga like simply mentioning him makes you right, but nobody seems to be able to actually talk about his theories.

If it is so obvious, why don't you explain how it works? I'm not criticising Bordiga, I'm criticising the behaviour of Bordigists on the Internet.

Not that user, but Bordiga is a meme. People who tell you to read him usually haven't read him. Anyways, Bordiga had two major points to make. The first is that cities are unstable, bad, and that the distinction between urban and rural life should be abolished. The second is that political parties on a macro scale are bullshit, and that democracy is a way to legitimize this bullshit. These two ideas work together in what he called "organic centralism" which posited that there would be just one centralized vanguard party like in Leninism, but that party would function mostly locally, and it would be organized organically, rather than democratically. The tension between cities and rural areas is what prevents this from being viable in the status quo, so it's clear why Bordiga thought the city/rural distinction needed to be abolished.

Stop being autistic and make an argument.

We should only support groups that have a winning information war strategy.

What does organic organization means?

It means that fractionism would be prevented in a non-repressive way. Organic centralism would prevent fractionism through conscious political and theoretical elaboration. Obviously not everyone is going to be happy with the direction the party goes in, and you'd have to suppress people trying to sabotage things. But Bordiga's model is much more "organic" than the Bolsheviks' model, which suppressed all dissent against the official party line, because they valued political unity for it's own sake.

It's up for you to decide what's useful or not. Obviously if you are asking questions about him then it would probably be easiest to read him first hand.
That's not what was happening here. Bordiga was relevant to the idea of class organs.
I have seen several threads on organic centralism and Bordiga. It isn't my fault that these threads turn into people making armchair jokes or complaining about "lazy leftcoms"
For Bordiga, the party is not composed of people who exist outside the class. Instead the party is made out of the minority of proletariat who are conscious of the goal meaning that this class would instead be an organ of the proletariat. The works Party and Class and others are easily available.

An argument against what? He asked why Bordiga was relevant for that specific reply and i told him the reason.

Telling someone to read Bordiga isn't the same as actually describing how Bordiga's ideas are relevant to the topic at hand. Stop being a faggot, if you've actually read Bordiga it wouldn't be hard at all to summarize his ideas for someone interested in him. Your autistic
bullshit isn't helpful, and furthermore it makes people infinitely less receptive to the ideas you're trying to put forward

I did describe. I mentioned Bordiga's idea of the party being an organ of the class and then later I briefly went into it further and mentioned some text by Bordiga to help further explain if one wanted to read it. Have you not been paying attention to the thread?

You spent literally 2 sentences out of your post to explain Bordigism, which were not exactly laden with details. A majority of your one post that mentioned any details was bitching about how leftcoms get treated and telling them to read Bordiga.

Be like this poster.

I wasn't trying to explain Bordigism. I was explaining a brief outline on the partys relationship with the class which is all i was asked to do. Earlier you said "it wouldn't be hard at all to summarize his ideas for someone interested in him." which is what I did. But now a summary isn't good enough and I have to explain the whole of Bordiga thought? It's almsot as if you didn't read the thread. Someone mentioned the party and its relation to class, I mentioned Bordiga because this was a theme whow rites about, someone asked how that was relevant and I told them and then did a brief summary. I don't see the problem here.

Ignore typos

Fair enough, I guess I just interpreted the user you're replying to differently. When they said
I took that to mean they wanted an in depth summary that demonstrated why his ideas are worthwhile. You kinda gave an aggressive response that only showed that Bordiga is relevant to the topic at hand, and you kinda fed into the whole "standoffish/trendy leftcom" thing they were complaining about. Idk, shit's not that big of a deal tho, lmao.

And for liberals, the proletariat is not exploited. Both positions are obviously bullshit and simply dropping names won't convince anyone otherwise.

Explain why you think Bordiga's idea that the party should be made up of people from within the class they represent is bullshit. I'm critical of the party as an organizational form tbh, but I hardly think that a party made up of proletarians representing their own interests is an impossibility, fam.

No matter who the party is made up of, it is always the rule of a privileged few over the others and inevitably end up serving their own interest as such and their claim to rulership.

yes

While I think that restricting decision-making to a minority that hasn't been democratically elected can be a bit problematic in this way, there's ways to mitigate them (although afaik Bordiga doesn't directly address this). At the very least Bordiga presents a less shitty Leninism imo, which makes him worthy of being studied.

Yes, these things all have value because of how they agitate and radicalise the proletariat, when a union or workers council pushes for reform, the capitalist state pushes back, thus exposing porky for what he truly is, when gains are made, it shows the worker his power, when they are not, it only serves to harden his resolve

Good thing Bordiga was proudly anti-democratic. Thanks for wasting my time with your stupid "read Bordiga" meme just to later reinforce that there's no point in reading him.

I added the "hasn't been democratically elected" specifically because that's a trait shared by Organic and Democratic Centralism. The difference between the two is that Organic Centralism rejects democracy entirely while Democratic centralism uses a completely neutered form of democracy to legitimize it's authority. Bordiga's rejection of democracy actually makes his proposed system more accountable than MLism, not less. Also, Bordiga's rejection of democracy is a hell of a lot more nuanced than "lol, let's just be technocratic authoritarians".

I'm not even a Bordigist, retard. Stop being such an overly dramatic sperg and accept that Bordiga is a valuable theorist even if he has some (admittedly big) flaws.

I'm confused. You already knew Bordiga's position on democracy and then got upset when someone mentions it? Why does this reinforce your belief in not reading him?

Some user said we need to read Bordiga to understand how the vanguard party could be an organ of proletarian power but can't articulate how so.

What? The last 5 or so posts in this thread weren't about the party being an organ but instead democracy. Let's not wildly change subjects.

Are you unable to follow the conversation?

Are you? I wasn't the user who claimed that the party was an organ of the proletarian class, I was (i.e. the person you replied to.)
You never even mentioned the party not being an organ in your post. I can't read your mind and predict the arguments you're making, so I'd appreciate it if you'd explicitly make them in your posts, fam :^)

You don't have to read my mind, read the thread instead. It's the whole context of the discussion.

And what part of this post: had to do with whatever context you are speaking of. The conversation had shifted when you brought that out. If you have the reading comprehension of a 7 year old then you shouldn't ask to be explained to.

You're asking me to defend positions I don't hold you fucking idiot. You either have no idea what "context" means or you think that people who read Bordiga are a hivemind. In either case you're a complete retard.

Look, I get it, that video helped you come out of the closet and get in touch with your inner trap and you're really excited and wanna show it to everybody, but please, moderation in all things.

All organizational mediation dissipates the revolutionary spontaneity of the proletariat.

Find friends, affinity groups and start treating the world as your commune. All is yours.

Fuck B.O.