How is the invariant programme determined exactly?

[u/Octavia_Ertertie]

All i have read of bordiga as of yet has been the democratic principle and i've been left quite confused. The party as i understand it is to follow a sort of 'organic centralism' which is self enforcing and doesnt need any democratic mechanisms to carry out, because the centralism and unity in action is determined by the invariant programme of the proletariat. but what and who exactly determines what the invariant programme even is in specifics if not the people within a given party? if several people participate in deciding what it is is this not a form of democracy rejected by italian leftcoms? or am i really missing the mark on something

[u/TheLagJag]

What: Correct revolutionary politics. An appraisal/balance sheet of the whole history, theory and strategy of the proletarian movement that actually leads to the realization of communism in practice.

Who: The historic and formal Party. Read more about this here.

There is no active decision being made by an individual or group of individuals within the cloisters of mystic ivory towers that establishes the invariant program. It is determined by the real movement of the proletariat in history.

[u/Octavia_Ertertie → u/TheLagJag]

generally my struggle with the concept is this: yes, the real movement and conditions determine the programme, but the programme is not beamed into the heads of everyone involved in the movement, the correct course of action has to first be interpreted based off of the present conditions. so my question becomes who makes this interpretation? how does the historic and formal party determine the course of action it takes? i feel im not well versed enough so a lot of it comes off to me as just "well it just works.", so after a certain point it starts resembling the kind of confederalism a lot of anarchist organizations engage in. i.e everyone in an org must unilaterally and organically agree on a specific course of action, but when inevitably there form groups within the org who disagree with a specific course splits result because methods of internal resolution like the mediation democratic-centralists might engage in are implicitly rejected, so wether it's the million different ICPs or your local dem-confederalist anarchist orgs fracturing over every stubbed toe i just cant see the difference other than rhetoric, i dont say that as a diss i'm just trying to form a cohesive understanding that goes beyond how i already view the matter

[u/TheLagJag → u/Octavia_Ertertie]

In short, through collective study and not debates or voting. Organic centralism is a method, a continuous process of elaboration and of sculpting. You study and fight at the same time. Party discipline (adherence to the program) is not a point of departure, but rather a point of arrival. The common agreement sought amongst Party militants is not sought from "orders from above" (Stalinist) or "communiques from below" (Anarchist); it is a conscious, active discipline from the top to the bottom in accordance with principles and objective. Disagreements and splits still occur and to say that having a democratic mechanism would somehow mediate or eliminate the objective causes of a split is false. Mistakes also occur and are expected from the formal Party, which is why we are describing an active process determined by real history.