I think New International is very clearly a big-tent radical leftist journal. Most people on the left, including most self-described Marxists, do not agree with Losurdo. Nor are they as supportive as Losurdo is of what you call “socialism as it exists in real life”.

There’s only one author.

So if I quote Aristotle I am an Aristotelian, and “upholding” the Peripatetic?

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”.

Smells like bullshit to me.

Which ultraleft tendencies support working within bourgeois parliaments, winning elections, etc?

QED

If you read the editorial you would see that there is also a quote by Jean Jaurès. Would you call him an ultraleftist too?

So if someone quotes Bordiga and attacks so-called “socialist” states, they are a Bordigist?

if you really insist you weren’t using it as an argument then you are just posioning the well because it’s too difficult to read and refute the piece

Why do you think it’s an ultra-leftist sect?

What does the ultraleft think about left political parties being involved in bourgeois democracy, e.g., parliament?

Why do you claim that “It’s a Bordigist site”?

Why do you call Wolfe, et al., Bordigists?

Genetic fallacy

How is New International Bordigist?

Borders physically exist. There are police who will arrest or even shoot at those who cross them in the wrong way. “After a socialist revolution” is so vague as to be meaningless. Yeah, if you establish Utopia tomorrow there will be no borders. Can we get back to talking about the real world?

borders objectively exist. saying “it’s good for people over that border to organize” is sensible for those in touch with objective material conditions

It’s not a shit title. If you go outside and talk to people, they generally can understand that “American socialism” is equivalent to “socialism in America”.