Ostrinski

What do you mean by centralism and why do you support a one-party state?

Apology accepted.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jac...historian-6105

He's not an apologist for imperialism, he's actually an advocate of it! He writes history books going into detail about how great British imperialism was for the world and that the problem with the United States is that it hasn't asserted itself through imperialism enough.

I see you are also a left-communist. Why are you a left-com?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/converse.php?u=18084&u2=61895

Oh, that differs from the line of "moderate" Left communists like the ICC who I believe hold that the party shouldn't take power. They aren't councilists, but I think they tend more towards councilism than bordigism. I'm definitely seeing things more with the latter than the former.

To totalitarian partyism indeed!

Then aren't we all partyists except the Anarchists? Or does it entail actual mobilization and active organization of the proletariat as a whole? I don't see much point in a party unless it's prepared to take power or mobilize the working class to do so.. for the most part only the Leninists and some obscure other tendencies are willing to do that.

What do you mean by Partyism?

I'm starting to get over my Lenin-phobia and into Bordiga more. I think the dogmatic hysteria that some left communists have over the party getting involved with the state is unsound. Ideally, the party won't have to run society; but I think it would be a mistake to refuse to rise to the occasional if the circumstances call for it. I have reached this conclusion through study of the Bolshevik revolution, and I don't see much evidence for the statement that party seizure of state power was partially responsible or reflective of the revolution's degeneration.

Are you moving away from left communism? "Mass central party" isn't anything like what the Bordigists and the ultra-lefts support.

How is it that Roosterism, born of my quote, is an organisation void of my membership?