Brosa Luxemburg

They essentially just want to bring back a further left version of current social-democracy. It's a reactionary idea; it failed then, and it will fail again. Electoral tactics had some use when capitalism was still developing as democracy provided a forum for different sections of the bourgeoisie(such as the financial and industrial bourgeoisie), but they are utterly reactionary and useless today as capitalism has reached its decaying, decadent form since around World War 1 and bourgeois democracy is more or less just a formality now, not a serious tool. It's foolish to think that it can be used for our purposes. The Kautskyshite goal now, as it was then, is the capture of the bourgeois state through electoral means. There may be pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric, but electoralism is poison.

lol, no. I was just saying that as a joke. To the Kautskyites, anything that is "maximalist" and "abstentionist" is "nihilism".

How about '54' by Wu Ming? I enjoyed that when I read it a little while ago. Interesting and engaging, but also fictional so ultimately unimportant.

I tend to read history and archaeology books for 'fun' but that may not be everyone's cup of tea. I'm looking right now at a book called 'The Greek Tyrants' by Antony Andrewes and thinking I should re-read it - published in 1956, an interesting account of the political developments in the Greek city-states in the pre-Classical period. Very interesting, if you're interested in such things... or something more modern, Barbera Tuchman's 'A Distant Mirror' looks at the aristocracy of France in the high medieval period - fascinating I thought.

Quantum physics of any interest? John Gribben's 'In Search of Schrodinger's Cat' is the best short introduction I've ever read on it. Well worth a read.

I dunno really, as I have no idea what usually interests you, it's all a bit random. But I can continue to throw titles at you as long you like...

Blimey, dunno, what have you read? And by 'new' do you mean a new book about the Russian revolution, or do you mean something different to read? an interesting counterpoint to almost anything on the revolutions of 1917 is '1905' if you haven't read it though.

I'm trying to get my head around economics at the moment, I'm failing to make any headway with 'The Accumulation of Capital' because you've gotta love Rosa, but I probably don't have to tell you that.

I'll have a think and try to come up with some recommendations. It's late here now though so I have to go to bed (it's 1am, I have to be up in 6 hours). G'night!

Wow, thanks! I know it's not as good as post 52, but I try my best.

Well, I can't say I'm a proper Bordigist (I'm not really close to the Bordigist groups), but Bordiga's theories are definitely among the most influential for me. I figured the group would help me go a bit deeper into his work.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...0&postcount=26

I thought you accepted Ticktin's "non-mode of production" hypothesis. Have your positions changed on the class nature of the USSR?

It's going. He seems like he would be a hard ass in real life.