- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
debatable if it’s slop or theory, but probably comrades will soon meet these arguments in the wild, and not that one has to abandon all theoretical considerations over geopolitical realism of the 20th century.
although it’s all rather useless, treatlerism stays undefeated whether one thinks stalin was correct or not, got money from cia or not, decided to become culture critic or not
Because they quote Bordiga and are attacking AES. and those who uphold them.
So if someone quotes Bordiga and attacks so-called “socialist” states, they are a Bordigist?
Pretty damn likely, at minimum ultraleftist of some stripe. Most Marxists dislike Bordiga, choosing Bordiga of all people as the sole Marxist to represent your views in your short about blurb is pretty damning evidence to supporting Bordiga.
If you read the editorial you would see that there is also a quote by Jean Jaurès. Would you call him an ultraleftist too?
Ultras quote Marx as well, the difference is that non-ultras typically avoid Bordiga while ultras love him. What’s your point? Are you trying to say this isn’t an ultraleftist take, despite upholding Bordiga and attacking socialism as it exists in real life?
I don’t think you know what you are talking about. It’s a huge leap to go from “they quote Bordiga” to “this is a Bordigist project”.
Who upholds Bordiga, except Bordigists and other closely-related ultraleftists? What label do you think best fits the views of the authors, when they attack socialism as it exists in real life?
So if I quote Aristotle I am an Aristotelian, and “upholding” the Peripatetic?
You’re incredibly evasive. What label do you think best fits the views of the authors, when they attack socialism as it exists in real life?