You have to be careful if it's not a further revision of Marxism, with a right-wing critique towards it, because there are plenty of those. I will read into TPM-L to see if I will include them in the group's description.
Agreed, although as Rafiq says the material conditions are pretty different from XX century. So the strategy would need to be quite different. There is not much mobilzation in unions and workplaces, for example, because of decentralization of factories, and as the anarchists in my nation shows, direct action is very popular, albeit not too much effective. We need to update our tactics and generate new discussions. I agree about the Fifth International, but what would be the point? We need first to make some sort of [Con]Federations at national levels, with all real communists, only then can we proceed forward. Otherwise we will have another 4th International with the wrong number. And the though thing would be cleansing the bourgeois ideologues. What is a bourgeois ideologue? Are Sparts BI for example? Morenists, Bernieists and most ML's I doubt too many will disagree, but and what then? What do you mean by Third Period M-Ls? I'm quite ignorant in the history of M-L.
I think some kind of heterodox Leninism inspired by Bordiga's analysis would be the best course of action today, though the various splits in the communist movement can actually be beneficial in that each "tendency" tends to focus on a specific area, e.g. unions, party promotion, direct action, etc. I still think a mass organised Fifth International is needed for all these tendencies to unify however (I wouldn't allow any M-Ls except Third Period M-Ls though!), otherwise we'll just remain an irrelevant sect that exists on the fringes of the internet and even further in the fringes of the real world.
Well, I have been stalking Bordigists too recently! I'm very interested in their theory, but apparently "Bourgeois Romantic Revolutionaries" is nowhere to be found in Bordiga's works. Some Bordigists in a LibCom said that one of the Bordigists wrote that later on. Exactly my problem with Bordigism too (AND the Fascism=Democracy AND "Fuck elections and unions" (Because they can be useful, trust me)). Organic Centralism resulted in the death of Bordigism. Just google for Devrim's opinion on one of those parties, in LibCom. It is totally bureaucratic and disfunctional... and does not allow advances in theory, which are greatly needed today. We need a new Lenin, a new Imperialism...
Thanks. I've been getting into Bordiga's interesting work recently, especially his scathing indictments into the USSR, PRC, etc., as state capitalist bourgeois nations lead by bourgeois romantic revolutionaries (similar to Trotsky's "messianic revolutionary" accusation of Mao). I'm not sure I'd call myself a Bordigist currently, as Organic Centralism seems thoroughly anti-Marxist as Marx put an emphasis on self-criticism, which Organic Centralism seemingly does not allow for.
If you want anything extremely good of Bordiga and that is useful to anyone, read this: http://www.sinistra.net/lib/pro/whyrusnsoc.html He exposes the theory of Russia being a state-capitalist nation.
I suppose over here it wouldn't be so bad for me to be a Marxist-Leninist, since they're generally no less progressive than any other types of Marxists other here. I'd go as far as saying Trotskyists are actually more rabid and anti-Marxist (some of them being "brocialists", i.e. sexist socialists). I guess the reason I'm taking Marxism-Leninism more seriously is twofold; some guy on eRegime seems to have an extremely good defense of all my qualms with it, including the notion that it is against Marx's writings (which in some cases it isn't seemingly), but also because it seems somewhat fruitless to be one of the more esoteric types of Marxist like a Left Com. or an Ortho. Marxist. Marxism-Leninism does also seem to have been more able to be the ideology of proletarian-ish revolutions across the world, ranging from Africa to South America to a hell of a lot of Europe. I feel like a sell-out for even considering it though.
Well, I was ever somewhat anti-stalinist because in Brazil, Stalin is almost a synonymous of "Genocide". But I was indeed a Titoist (Or, more correctly, a Pro-Tito "Democratic Socialist", a pinko in red). What really put me against Stalinism and all Marxist-Leninist ideologies was simultaneously my reading of Marx and after I heard of Bordiga's analysis of the Soviet Union. The anti-statist ideology of Marxism is incompatible with Stalinism, which is the Ideology of the State-Capitalist bureaucracy. I do not know, however, if Stalinism in other parts of the world are so reactionary as in Brazil, but it is clear to me, as an outsider of the movement that there are Neo-Strasserists everywhere in there. Religious people, nationalists, homophobes, outright fascist scum advocating killing "All the bourgeois, the Jews, the hippies and homos", etc...
What made you stop being a so-called "tankie"?
Well, you had gone full anarchist, and now your tendency is Freudo-Marxism again. And I'm answering the "comrade" down below, who thinks that because some bourgeois idiots says something is pseudo-scientific and he can't understand it, that it must be pseudo-scientific (Like Dia-Mat or His-Mat, totally pseudo-scientific tools)
