What does it mean to be a “Revolutionary Marxist”?

There are quite a few people that have set it as their tendency, but in what way is it different from every other tendency?
I mean I see people who do not really have quite the same views have it as tendency.
So is it anything specific or just a broad name that can be identified with by multiple groups?

Ok then what does "the merger of [Marxism] and the worker movement" (Kautsky) and solve the crises of theory” mean?

While it is designed for all tendencies, I view it as being a group for Orthodox Marxists first and foremost - that is, Marxists who reject sectarianism and go back to the principles and foundations of what Marx and Engles wrote, and use these as the standard to create a bottom-up, revolutionary Proletarian movement. We strongly embrace Historical and Dialectical Materialism as core tenets within Marxism that should never be revised, as well as Internationalism. We view Marxism as a science and tool necessary for social change - not that other tendencies don't, but they often revise key tenets within orthodox Marxism that ends up defeating the purpose of it. For all other Marxists that followed in his and Engels footsteps, be it Luxumburg, Kautsky, Lenin, or whoever....we take what is good and compatible with orthodox Marxism and build from that. If it isn't compatible, we of course, reject it. That is why we don't subscribe to any particular tendency. I consider myself a very strict adherent to Orthodox Marxism, and I am very skeptical of revising any of its core tenets as groups like Marxist Leninists, Trotskyites, Left Commies, Maoists, and so many others have done; in particular the tenets I mentioned above. I can't speak for the rest of the group but I suspect they more or less feel the same way based on their views.

Ok, thanks for the explanations, including L'Enferme's on my profile, I still want t know what is meant by solving the crisis theory.
Also, what are works that I have to read to understand Orthodox Marxism, since apparently that is what this is, besides Marx and Engels of course.

Orthodox Marxism actually refers to Second International Marxism. "Marx and Engels" is Classical Marxism.

What's the difference?

I'd like to know the same thing as well, what are the theories between the two that distinguish them?

Does Martov count as Classical Marxism?

No, he was a Menshevik.

I looked up Classical Marxism and Orthodox Marxism on Wikipedia, and they said the same thing you guys did pretty much. I guess in a sense I am both a Classical and Orthodox Marxist, since I uphold the principles of Marx and Engels, but also view Marxism as a science and systemic mode of analysis for observing social phenomena. *shrugs*

Martov was an Orthodox Marxist.

Yeah, whatever Martov's later shortcomings, he was within the sphere of Orthodox Marxism. As were most Mensheviks, besides the Bolsheviks.

Condemned? It matters very little that they condemned them. That's just words and empty air. Their(the "Internationalists") actions speak much louder. Even though no one forced them to, they remained in the Menshevik Party even though leading Mensheviks and Menshevik CC members actively participated in the bourgeois Provisional Government. This is not cowardice but outright treason. They abandoned their socialist principles which they supposedly held and they betrayed the working class. Martov did not display any of this "cowardice" when actively opposing the Bolshevik regime, comrade.

Trotsky was an internationalist who had the balls to leave the party and join the bolsheviks, so Martov and the rest of the party were cowards, he was cuddling with the bourgeois and labor aristocracy from day one.

If I have understood the group correctly, it is an attempt at a regroupment of Marxists and the construction of a mass proletarian party based on the classical Marxist principles as codified by Engels and Kautsky before the latter went renegade.

That would be a valid summary, yes

I definitely think the Transitional Programme has a lot of significance, which cannot be overlooked.

Oh ok.

I agree - the transitional programme can be misread as economist, but understood properly, and placed in its proper context (obviously we should adapt the demands to the present situation - e.g. in Croatia the transitional political demands might include reforming the judiciary etc. etc.) I think it is a powerful tool for winning over reformist workers, and those subordinated to some reformist or revisionist bureaucracy.

And Martov was, for all intents and purposes, a member of the centre of the Menshevik Party, with open defencists and social-tsarists like Plekhanov being the extreme right, and "revolutionary" defencists like Chkheidze being the "respectable" right. Martov's group would be the centre, whereas certain elements of the Mezhrayonka (Ezhov, Uritsky and others) and Larin's Menshevik-Internationalist groups would be the left.

Right, ultralefts don't see the value of something like a minimum wage campaign due to their sectarianism.