Basically the question I was preoccupied with was why nearly all anti-feudal revolutions to proletarianise the peasantry took on (to various degrees) a marxist-leninist character of sorts. I found the aforementioned tradition unsatisfying, ditto trotskyism, and anarchism and Council Com tradition (albeit the latter two had some more correct observations.) And yet I thought it was wrong that most of the non-leninist traditions just through the baby out with the bathwater. I'm not an idolator of Lenin and the bolsheviks, for that matter, but to condemn Lenin as totalitarian mastermind seemed to be reverting back to the great man history condemned. The fact is Lenin and the bolsheviks had to deal with a highly agrarian society and in the countryside and outside of the proletarianised metropoles, forms that were still feudal and patriarchal. Needless to say in this sense, being Turkish-Kurd, we had a similar dynamic in our part of our world (in that sense Russia was always more asiatic than European.)
It was actually an American writer who peaked my interest in the Italian tradition, albeit I think he would probably consider me as too orthodox today. That is to say, if he wasn't very sick and hadn't disengaged from politics.
Break Their Haughty Power » Communism is the Material Human Community: Amadeo Bordiga Today
<p>Bordiga was the last Western revolutionary who told off Stalin to his face as the gravedigger of the revolution, and lived to tell the tale. He is one of the most original, brilliant and utterly neglected Marxists of the century. </p>
web.archive.org
His website is down (as mentioned he is very sick and old) but I think it has been comprehensively archived on the wayback machine. there's a lot of good stuff on there.
