"Controversial" opinion incoming, apparently:
Both Mao and Bordiga were mostly correct in their views and positions, but for their respective material and social conditions they were working within. Semi-feudal conditions for Mao, capitalist-imperialist conditions for Bordiga.
Dogmatic ML: "We need a vote for progress and safeguard our democracy" (Togliatti? Starmer? Mélenchon? Harris?) Jump through hoops to safeguard bourgeois dictatorship in the west some more, ML. That is the role which you have picked for yourself. Really give it a bright red, bleeding heart radical liberal veneer!
Trend victim MLs have tried to mechanically copy-pasting semi-feudal tactics to industrialized, proletarian-majority, imperialist-capitalist countries for a century. "Too bad" their demise always has some self-defeating aspect to it, predicted by the Italian Left (or more descriptively: internationalist Leninists) decades in advance.
>But they were said to be irrelevant! At least that's what our "ML", then "Soviet-alligned", then "eurocom" leaders told us, and they headed a parliamentary party with a lot of members and voters, so they must've known what they were talking about!…right?…
There, there!
Hence internationalist Leninist tactics are not applied! Hence Lenin's revolutionary tactical invariance leading up to the key lesson for success is obscured, papered over – all to focus on the set of retreats, mistakes, fallacious tactics that led in a circle or self-obliteration. That is the "Leninism" of the western ML.
The stinky successful early stuff? It is your duty to slander and castigate the Evil "UlTrAs" for re-centering…
Now tell me: Are you finding yourselves amid semi-feudal or capitalist-imperialist conditions as you're browsing this post, anons?
If Bordiga was correct, Italy would be socialist, it’s not so he isn’t
>>2835005
Because italy, like all the NATOsphere needs to be destroyed and its people and languages dismantled, like Israel, not socialized or revolutionized
>>2834988https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch05.htmThe no-confidence vote of January 18 hit the ministers and not the President. But it was not the ministry, it was the President who had dismissed Changarnier. Should the party of Order impeach Bonaparte himself? Because of his restoration desires? The latter merely supplemented their own. Because of his conspiracy in connection with the military reviews and the Society of December 10? They had buried these themes long since under routine orders of the day. Because of the dismissal of the hero of January 29 and June 13, the man who in May, 1850, threatened to set fire to all four corners of Paris in the event of a rising? Their allies of the Montagne and Cavaignac did not even allow them to raise the fallen bulwark of society by means of an official attestation of sympathy. They themselves could not deny the President the constitutional authority to dismiss a general. They only raged because he made an unparliamentary use of his constitutional right. Had they not continually made an unconstitutional use of their parliamentary prerogative, particularly in regard to the abolition of universal suffrage? They were therefore reduced to moving within strictly parliamentary limits. And
it took that peculiar malady which since 1848 has raged all over the Continent, parliamentary cretinism, which holds those infected by it fast in an imaginary world and robs them of all sense, all memory, all understanding of the rude external world — it took this parliamentary cretinism for those who had destroyed all the conditions of parliamentary power with their own hands, and were bound to destroy them in their struggle with the other classes, still to regard their parliamentary victories as victories and to believe they hit the President by striking at his ministers. They merely gave him the opportunity to humiliate the National Assembly afresh in the eyes of the nation. On January 20 the Moniteur announced that the resignation of the entire ministry had been accepted. On the pretext that no parliamentary party any longer had a majority — as the vote of January 18, this fruit of the coalition between Montagne and royalists, proved — and pending the formation of a new ministry, of which not one member was an Assembly representative, all being absolutely unknown and insignificant individuals; a ministry of mere clerks and copyists. The party of Order could now work to exhaustion playing with these marionettes; the executive power no longer thought it worth while to be seriously represented in the National Assembly. The more his ministers were pure dummies, the more obviously Bonaparte concentrated the whole executive power in his own person and the more scope he had to exploit it for his own ends. - The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Marx, 1852
Tell me, which parliamentary election did Lenin and the RSDLP(b) win, anon?
>>2835012Marx never win anything and Russia isn’t socialist either
>>2835104You seem confused.
>>2835112I’m not confused, marx and engels are not worth taking seriously, lenin and mao are because they led armies that won
>>2835186what did you win? why should we take you seriously?
>>2835194I win every time I wake up alive
>>2835186Lenin was a die-hard Marxist. That is your first confusion. That is why he is not included in the OP, since Lenin was not a Leninist.
Two. Mao was a Marxist-Leninist and greatly inspired by Marxism and the Bolshevik revolution.
Three. The fact that the revolutions were of a different character in terms of class mobilization, organization and program, is important.
Four. You are a moron.
>>2835227Unless you can become a head of state, your ideology is unworkable dogshit no matter what it is
The only thing that matters is power
>>2835231You have officially contradicted yourself. Congrats.
>marx and engels are not worth taking seriously<Lenin the Marxist followed the teachings of Marx and Engels to a tee, succeeded in leading a proletarian revolution to victory. >Unless you can become a head of state, your ideology is unworkable dogshit no matter what it is >>2835245They weren’t the teachings of marx and Englands, if they were, he would be a loser nobody bourgeois academics like they are
Lemon and melon weren’t marxisrs no matter hiw you slice it
>>2835275Your libraries and unis will burn when actual working people take over
>>2835296Im already a factory worker, I’ve lain more of the groundwork for socialism than marx or angles ever did
>>2835297>Im already a factory workerwe all know your capping no pics no truths
If marx was actually subversive his work wouldn’t be held in and taught in bourgeois universities where the bourgeois reproduce themselves
>>2835301clearly AI no timestamps no SSN no truths
>>2835302Typical marxist sophistry
>>2835306ah ha u mad n lying abt being unemployed
>>2835308Every marxist needs to die so we can actually have communism
>>2835312You're supposed to wash with the soap not eat it
>>2835316Soap is for clean faggot marxists cuz their aristo families get mad if the champagne glasses get dirty
>>2835317How about gayi and it puts its cock in your mouth and shuts you up
>>2835345More callouses and burns than you’ll ever have
Unique IPs: 4