Every minute you don't read Bordiga, world gets a little colder. Like, literally...

Every minute you don't read Bordiga, world gets a little colder. Like, literally, that armchair becomes cold if you don't sit on it and read Bordiga.

Every minute you DO spend reading Bordiga, you fill your brain with supa hot takes to fire str8 at those larping nibbas doing some retarded undialectical kind of praxis again.

Other urls found in this thread:


What if I read Marx and Engels? What happens then?

Kiddie tier agitprop.

Read Bordiga.


So every minute spent on reading Bordiga accelerates global warming?

Well, shouldn't you be an accelerationist?

mah nigga


Makes sense, cow shit does contribute to climate change.


It's cow fart actually.

Tell me what Bordiga wanted. No meme responses. Or just saying "communism".

Every minute you don't read Bookchin, world gets a little warmer.

You already know what he wants, it's no secret. Revolution to a dictatorship of the proletariat which will lead to communism.

Okay, how will Leftcoms get revolution?

What does that even mean? One doesn't merely "get" a revolution. It is not something that is purchased. Revolutions come about when material conditions of society have diminished in such a way that people revolt. For Bordiga it is during this period that the party must then lead and guide the revolution.

What should I read by him?

When the material conditions ripen and spontaneous, organically decentralized proletarian revolution has a window of possibility.

This is one of the main points of leftcom, you can't proselytize a revolution into existence, it can only occur when capitalism is totally on its death bed and socialism can then supersede it.

How did capitalists get revolution? The same way, when feudalism developed to such an advanced level that it could no longer mitigate its own contradictions it made it not just possible but necessary for liberal bourgeois revolutions to take root.

Revolutions are produced by classes not ideologys.

What do we do in the meanwhile?


Roughly speaking:

what about labor vouchers tho? Content and form are changed.

You didn't explain organic centralism very well.

Realistically what can you do?

What does that mean?

When the material conditions ripen and spontaneous, organically decentralized proletarian revolution has a window of possibility.
So what do we do untill then?


You can spread propaganda and organize in a communist party.

The proletariat is what guides the revolution not any ideology.

In the words of Bordiga "Only the party can embody the dynamic revolutionary energies of the class." This means that the party gains the trust of the revolutionary class and leads them and keeps the revolution on a relevant path while avoiding sectionalism.

t. le do nuffin man

So we need to wait untill capitalism is advanced enough?

He did advocate for them, but he had certain objections to using labour time as some kind of an universal equivalent

Serious talk is he worth reading? From what I here he is an autistic Leninist. Sounds like there are better leftcoms to read

Tell me what Bordiga thinks about propoganda? Is the spreading of propoganda a useful or opportunist practice?

Aren't leftcoms autistic by default?

Read this

Sell your labour in order to survive.

No. It has nothing to do with "advancement" of capital. Revolutionary conditions existed in the early 20th century due to a certain set of material and historic contexts. Outside of those conditions Bordiga believes communists should be involved in "constant activity within the ranks of the proletariat wherever it is driven by economic needs and pressure to struggle in defence of its interests".

Bordiga was one of the first people to claim that the USSR was unsuccessful at achieving communist goals due to its organizational structure rather than it's leadership or outside forces, and that makes him worth reading. But this whole "read Bordiga" meme needs to come with a whole lot more facts if leftcoms want to stop being shunned.

Was meant for

No, but you can educate and organise the proletariat so that they are equipped when the time comes. Look at occupy, the whole thing was whipped up in a matter of months and had no real strategy, this was the big after collapse anti capitalist movement and it failed.

Imagine now a disciplined communist network that had built strong links with the communities they reside in through various forms of outreach had done "occupy" but armed and with popular support.

You are suggesting essentially waiting, fine, but that waiting should be filled with nothing but preparation and not just reading Bordiga, that involves forming links of solidarity, training and arming, running programs to help where capitalism is already failing, producing propaganda, all of these things have value and without them, after the collapse, the energy of the working people gets diverted into reactionary nationalism and such

I understand now

Why aren't you spreading propoganda and working with the working class do nuffin man?

I do that every day at my job but in all seriousness I'd like to get involved with labor organizing.

Finally I can help stop Global Warming

ah but which labour organisations will you join?

Bordiga catgirl when?


I have no clue my dude. I obviously have theoretical differences with all the major left parties, groups, and unions that are active in the US. So I'm currently asking myself whether I should, in order to be theoretically consistent with my beliefs, start from scratch by building a party from the ground up with no experience in organizing or should I take a practical approach by meeting the masses where they currently are in order to build a better left while helping the working class improve their own conditions. Should I be the left that I want to see?

I'm a boring socdem but tbh leftcom cat girl seems like the type of woman I'd actually wind up settling down with in boring but content matrimony

he wanted communism but he was a coward

I've just spent the evening reading a bunch of leftcom shit and leftcom forums and subreddits.

Ok, I accept that they're right but jesus christ are they so insufferable about it. They're the most pedantic people I've ever come across. And their opposition to reforms is totally unjustified. They have the same obsession for ascetic purity as the idpolers.


How can I tell when the material conditions are just right?

Good, it's not like we're doing anything to lower co2 emissions

Is Bordiga even relevant anymore? Specific economic critiques of the Soviet Union feel pointless now. Just don't be a ☭TANKIE☭ and don't do Stalin apologia all the time and you're good.

he's never been relevant

You can do both (that's actually what Bordiga advocated for).

What opposition to reforms?

The world may be cold but the cum in the back of your leader's throat will always be warm. Stay strong lefties


Bordigism is literally the most retarded branch of left communism and is close to the top in genral. How the fuck did it become popular recently? Is it because that imbecile Dauvé can't stop sucking his dick?

Because we are entering a revolutionary period, which makes revolutionary theory a thing again?

Why is that?

There's nothing revolutionary about Bordiga.


but i'm a chair.
i'm always cold.

You are absolutely right, Marxism is an intellectual abomination and the biggest obstacle to clarifying the revolutionary theory of our era.

Well good luck with your "clarifying" then.


t. brainlet. this is the peak "analysis" you'll produce in your life.

There are no brainlets, all intelligences are equal.


Why aren't leftcoms also socdems?

If you think the revolution is inevitable but can only happen when the conditions are right then why not vociferously support humane reforms to reduce immediate suffering in the meantime? If it's because it prolongs capitalism well … why's that bad?

Because it's not our state, it's the bourgeoisie's state. The only time they're ever going to allow reforms is if it's going to help preserve their wealth, and if that is necessary it doesn't matter if we support it or not because they will do it anyway.

Because they're communists.

What about all these? they weren't "done anyway"

When did I say reforms don't happen? I didn't.
I said reforms only happen when the bourgeoisie stands to benefit from them.

You said it doesn't matter if we support them or not because they will do it anyway. Those reforms quite obviously weren't "done anyway" and needed quite a lot of support.
I also don't how the bourgeoisie benefited from them; they just adjusted to them. Still worth it.

Organize, propagandize, help people. Get in touch with local communists. Build something that helps people or the cause. Any number of things really.

The bourgeoisie benefited from them because if they did not happen the bourgeoisie would be dead. The bourgeoisie want to juice as much money as possible from their workers, this is true, but they can't do that if workers refuse to work for them and start shooting them instead. Thus it is necessary to make concessions to the proletariat in order to secure your wealth.

If the bourgeoisie really wanted to crush unions for instance they would wheel out the police and beat strikers into submission. As they did in England in the 1980s when their position was no longer in the delicate state it was following WW2. As they did in earlier history. Strong unions were no longer something they had to tolerate if they wanted to keep the capitalist system alive.

This is what truly drives reforms, it's not the proletariat's social democratic support for reforms, it's the bourgeoisie's fear of the real movement.

I don't see why social democratic reforms can't count as helping people tho

It's quite obviously both unless you attach some metaphysical quality to capital. But again, I don't see why I or leftcoms shouldn't support humane reforms that quite obviously reduce suffering and increase freedom and happiness, regardless of if the bourgeoisie also get something out of it.

I'm not saying you shouldn't, I'm saying it doesn't matter and that's why I'm not a reformist.

I means sure it can help people, i dont think anyone denies that. go out and vote to get some reforms and make your life and others a little better. just don't fool yourself into thinking its revolutionary strategy or will ever bring us socialism. the whole point of not be a reformist is that you know reforms will not bring socialism, that doesn't mean you can't go out and vote or do whatever to get some reforms. just don't be disillusioned to what it is.

It might not "matter" for the realisation of communism but surely it matters morally, or whatever. That's why I'm wondering, referring back to my first question , why it's not possible to do both, why you can't split your ideology in half as it were and say, yes, reforms can't bring communism but since it's inevitable anyway we may as well squeeze as much humanity out of capitalism while it's here and enjoy as smooth a ride as we can get.

That's fine.



You absolutely could do both. It would just be totally pointless as all reformism is since the actual control over that is firmly in the hands of the bourgeoisie and no one else. Capitalism (and in another sense capitalists) is not moral, it does not give a fuck how much what you think is just. It is organized along what gets the goods for the ruling class. And there is a situation where it is more advantageous for them to lessen the stress on the proletariat than to not, that is the point at which SocDem reforms happen.

If you really want to care about reforms then realize that the best way to get them isn't to support reforms, it's the real movement. Reforms happen as part of capitalism's defences against revolutionary potential and you would be a more successful reformist if you didn't even bother supporting reforms and simply supported revolution instead, since revolution is what reforms are actually trying to respond to from a systematic perspective.

What exactly do you mean by "support reforms"? Concretely, what's your "support"?

So this basically:

Yes I do mean activism, journalism, unions, marches, strikes, direct action, campaigns, and voting.

Well not quite, you can do stuff. But you should also be realistic about what that is, you're just one prole. This system isn't exactly designed to empower you, quite the opposite, obviously you're going to have a less than desireable range of options and that may be demoralizing but it's still the truth. At best you can agitate people in your immediate life and participate in an organization so you're as ready for the revolution as you can be.

Leftcoms do not fuck about with LARPing because it makes us feel better. In fact that kind of behaviour just confuses things even more.

I'm happy with all that except:
That strikes me as pretty LARPy.

I like the cold intellectualism of leftcomism and how they BTFO LARPers but I can't get behind the evangelical intolerance to progressive reforms. I think I'll just call myself a socdem.

Well this is the thing about leftcom. The only thing that can actually do away with capitalism is international, organically centralized, spontaneous revolution. It's what we're all waiting for. From that point of view it's everything else that's a LARP.

I think the first 15 mins of this explains my point well, that the way to get socialism or reforms within capitalism both start in the same way:

What I'm saying is we should embrace organising regardless of it we'll get socialism or mere reforms out of it. Reforms would be good, socialism would be better, but they both require the same approach.


Reforms are a natural consequence of class struggle but the problem with simply being a reformist or a social democrat is that to them the reform is also where the class struggle ends. As a communist you should be struggling with the working class to improve their conditions while pushing the class struggle into increasingly radical territory, ultimately leading to the class struggles logical conclusion of the negation of class society, as the horizons of reform close.

This is what I'm saying. Reforms don't happen as a result of of organizing for reforms. Reforms happen as a result of capitalism being in a dangerous spot that the bourgeoisie are trying to mitigate.

Much like anti-fascism, fascism doesn't happen when you let people say racist things in public. It is also a defence mechanism for capitalism that the bourgeoisie are going to mobilize when necessary.

In many ways I think the big problem leftcoms have with other leftists and vice versa is that leftcoms view the economy and society more as an organism that we're only a very very small component of rather than independent agents that can remove ourselves from this and counter it.

I want to be able to say I support both. I'm not anti-socialist nor anti-reforms. Both are good, one is better than the other.

You can support both, I'm not saying you can't, I'm saying one of those things just doesn't matter.

I don't agree that they don't matter. Reforms, while not as good as socialism, are better than no reforms.

I'm not saying reforms don't matter. I'm saying support for reformism doesn't actually make a difference to whether or not reforms happen.

I could equally say that support for revolution doesn't make a difference to whether or not it happens

Every minute you don't read Branson, the world gets a little heavier

I'd be inclined to agree with you for the most part.


No. Exactly this opposite. Do you English?

Meaning what?

There are and have been lots of Bordigist papers

Bordigists advocate to participate in them.

Yeah why not, if that's where the proletariat is.

See: unions.

Meaning what?

Communists are always on campaign.

For who?

All states are bourgeoisie, no exceptions.

Ancient slaver states?
Feudal kingdoms?


Leftcoms, why can't you have socialism in one country?

Read Basic Left Communism.

why can't you just explain it to me

Socialism involves the abolition of countries and of the value form which arises from independent producers. Shouldn't be too hard to work out the reason.

So the revolution won't work unless it's happening all around the world at the same time?

top fucking kek, why are these memes so fucking funny?

This is surprisingly accurate in my experiences with anarkiddies as a leftcom.

Revolutions can happen in one country only, it just won't be a communist revolution. The revolution needs to be international for it to succeed as a communist revolution. This doesn't mean that a revolution has to happen in every single country on earth all at the same exact time though.

and when the fuck do you think that will happen?

I can't see into the future so i cannot say accurately. It happens whenever conditions drop in such a way that people will naturally revolt whether this be from the falling rate of profit or some unseen future war.

Does this mean socialism is only possible once the United States goes through revolution? Seeing that it controls most of the world's economy. Or does China have the right idea by beating capitalist at their own exploitation game, becoming a world power, and suddenly becoming socialist by 2050 without revolution lol.

read bordiga..

Stop reading Bordiga

Holla Forums I saw someone on this board mention a book about the PCI's incompetence in dealing with the rise of Italian fascism, and in particular Bordiga's personal and ideological failings. Anyone have an idea what it might have been?

Baidu Badiou


We'll have the material conditions for a revolution when the nukes drop like my mixtape.
Read Posadiga

I always have a hard time spelling his name so I came up with the handy dandy mnemonic device. Piece Of Shit Asshole Demands Apocolyptic Scenario.


Bordiga never theorized that we should "do nothing", instead, he basically said that we should prepare the way for the success of the class-party.

Why should I read Bordiga? Was he critical of the USSR or Lenin. If so no then the answer is No.

'did he point out major issues with these things I worship? If yes, then I must avoid it.'

He was a Leninist

I don't recall Bordiga writing badly of Lenin.

Yeah, he actually was. He was critical of most opportunists and state capitalists like USSR.


Revolution happens when conditions are fulfilled. What are you, Muke?


Because communisation takes time and stages, thats why leftcoms are retarded and infantile,

The whole point of the full idea about worker owner ship as I understand it, is that communism, abolition of the value form, as you say, will not come about through some grand revolution, there may be a grand revolution, but the revolution itself will only take it so far, just like other modes of production, it will exist alongside and within the outmoded modes for an extremely long time, modes of production are also never completely distinct in themselves, each has its own stages and progressions within that specific mode of production, for example the difference between capitalism now and capitalism in 1850 or feudalism as it stands today versus feudalism in 1500.
On top of this, total abolition of the value form requires a total system, that is one which dominates if not the whole globe than at least the most significant part of it, considering the demands of modern technology, minerals and such, really to be able to fully distribute goods you need to be in control of the entire thing. No matter what happens, in every eventuality, even after "conquering" this globe from capitalism which will in itself take an extremely long time, the development of the industrial forces in these areas will be an extremely long process.
In short, there will be a lower stage, perhaps (and most likely in my opinion) even a lower lower stage.
I am not saying that muh co-ops are socialism, but a co-operative economy is one in which the work force is more directly engaged with production, much more, they themselves oversee it even if market forces still control it. Further, they are the ones making the decisions which effect their relationship to it, through working standards and practices and so on.
Worker ownership therefore creates conditions by which class consciousness is "organically" imbued on the worker.
These conditions are not communism, but they are conditions from which communism in my opinion is more likely to emerge.
On top of this, when the ownership of the property is literally in their hands, they have much more power, should they have the inclination to Communism. Sure, they would still have the market, but the market can be more easily abolished when production is in the workers hands
It gets workers into the practice of managing themselves, which is necessary are we ever to achieve a stateless, classless society.
On top of that, radical reform agitates the populace and causes reaction, while we have absolutely zero chance of revolution in the west, we need to build reformist structures, if only to agitate with their existence. Agitate directly for revolution in any European country and you will be laughed at. You can't go zero-revolution.

As well as this,the material gain they will have from the private owner no longer existing is a short term benefit that sustain the revolution. Plus such a union could fund other types of agitation and education and organise organically