Heretek

Regarding Orthodox Marxism, it means that a new Marxist orthodoxy is necessary, as was done by the Second international (before its renege). An orthodoxy that can directly confront and challenge ruling political discourse, actually mean something in a political context, and so on. A Marxist orthodoxy that basically makes being a Marxist meaningful again in a concrete way. This doesn't mean Marxism becomes formalized, but that a consistent application of Marxism to assess concrete circumstances can be integrated with the prerogative towards movement building. As of now, to call oneself a Marxist doesn't really say much. Not so in the early 20th century.

I question their ability to constitute real political positions as they pertain to concrete circumstances. I do not think that such positions, which are purely abstract, hollow ones are prepared to deal with what is coming. We see organizations that talk about the necessity of taking a side, or abstaining from taking one, but who are they mobilizing, for example? We see calls to action or un-action that are made without any pretense to knowing how to do this. The notion that, for example, the class struggle is an external force, that our predicament is an inevitable one as a result of 'material conditions' and so on.

It is not so much the organizations but certain writers that inform my posts - and by certain writers I mean Bordiga (i.e. how he qualifies the Soviet Union). My criticism of Left-Communist organizations, and revolutionary strategy, even as it pertains to Bordiga is quite known, however. I try to avoid tendency-mongering in general, though.