Brosa Luxemburg

At least, I'm sympathetic to Leninism. I try to avoid labeling myself with tendencies.

Yes.

You turned from council communism so sharply I didn't even notice. What happened?

Or: What made you change your views, what are your views now etc.

Of course, Socialism in One Country was just a current of the Revolution's degeneration. I can't really say I have a solution to revolution in third world countries, as I haven't looked into the topic. DNZ may be the one to talk to in regards to this.

But to be honest, I would disagree with Bordiga on his solution to revolution in third world countries, which is Proletarian revolution. I don't buy it. I concur with DNZ in this regards: that this would simply lead to a civil war with the Peasantry.

Essentially, it's a Moralist argument about violations of precious "Democracy". Stalin had good economics, but for who? Certainly not for the proletariat. And yes, Bordiga was a Stalinist in the sense that his criticism of Stalin was not a moral one, i.e. It was not a criticism of the bad dictator who was a totalitarian, but that this was put into service into class external from the Proletariat, and that capitalist relations were retained heavily.

Sorry for the long wait for a reply, but I've been stuck with school, with spending time with friends, and at the same time dealing with about three threads in a shitstorm matter. Perhaps I will disregard those threads and jump into the Blanquism one.

What do you mean by centre? I'm afraid I haven't read that particular piece, but I would classify myself, in the context of the far-left, as a centrist.

Bordiga is one of the more interesting, underrated Marxists of the 20th century. Damn shame more of his shit isn't in English.

In this regard, I would have to most likely agree with Bordiga. Of course, he does criticize the Beurocratic formations that occured in the USSR, though he doesn't oppose it in some kind of abstract way, i.e. He refuses to criticize it in itself, without tracing it to the "Economic, social and political development". That is what he meant. He is, if I am correct, implying that with all of these developments previous at hand, then the monstrous swelling of the state machine in such a way would be of an inevitability, therefore what should be analyzed is what lead to those developments, and not their mere consequences. To me, it's a perfectly valid case and I fully concur in regards. He is making a perfect materialist case: To evaluate the several factors, of which made the swelling of the state machine inevitable.

For some reason, they won't let me in the Ho Chi Minhists group lol