I mean it's just random. Contesting something takes a lot of effort though. For example this

The meaning of state property in relation to the entire economy is probably bigger in some bourgeois states.

Is simply factually wrong. But you can see Bordiga is redefining the concept of state property so that being produced under am economic plan is not a sufficient condition and rather the state has to directly "seize" products. I have no idea how one measures that or where Bordiga gets his information in the last sentence but it doesn't matter because of sounds radical. The basic point, that small and medium production and collective agriculture function as commodities of a specific type, is already well covered by Stalin. Ultimately, the basic disagreement is that the definition of socialism is arbirtary if you ignore everything after Marx (including Engels which requires basically a conspiracy theory) and stick to the concept of the "lower" and higher phase of communism. You can simply redefine socialism to be closer to communism than any state has ever reached. Who cares though? The argument Bordiga eventually makes, that they were merely capitalist, is absurd on its face and contradicts everything Marx ever said. So we'll keep calling the USSR socialist and they can believe whatever they want, it has no impact on reality. When they call it capitalist though that is reactionary and serves the CIA. If they insist on that I will continue to exclude them from socialist politics and discussion which isn't particularly hard to do.