The Nepali revolution has not won, but neither has it lost. Historical materialism can explain and shed light on all periods of human history. Historical materialism does not seem able, however, to explain itself. Trotsky’s criticisms against Stalin seem correct, but Stalin’s criticisms of Trotsky also seem correct. They both seem correct and both seem incorrect. International revolution was impossible and socialism in one country was impossible. Otto Ruhle, a German Marxist of the early 20th century, in a provocative essay entitled ‘The struggle against Fascism begins with the struggle against Bolshevism’, argued that Hitler and Mussolini only copied the Bolshevik model for their Fascist ideology, because the party and state structure of Fascism bears remarkable similarities, in form, to the Bolshevik party and state. When the Peruvian state captured Chairman Gonzalo and other central committee leaders of the PCP (Communist Party of Peru), their entire struggle collapsed. Even now, the remnants of the Shining Path go on and on about the great leader Chairman Gonzalo, even though Gonzalo now resides in a top security prison and cannot even lead himself to the toilet. From tragedy we move to farce, and the strange behaviour of Chairman Bob Avakian, the leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA. Even though Chairman Avakian has not led any kind of Peoples War or any major revolutionary struggle, he has declared a ‘new synthesis’ that goes beyond Marx, Lenin and Mao. RCP USA comrades describe Chairman Avakian as ‘the American Lenin’ (which, I presume, would make Lenin the Russian Avakian). An unquestioned assumption behind this kind of argumentation in the Communist movement is the belief that Marx and Lenin were unquestionably right, simply because Marx is Marx and Lenin is Lenin, and the Russian revolution ‘succeeded’. Frankly speaking, the longer and longer the Bolshevik revolution fades into the past, the less and less convincing the tales and legends of the great Lenin will seem. Now, in the 21st century, we can see that Marx’s criticisms of Bakunin were correct, but Bakunin’s criticisms of Marx were also correct. Both are correct and both are incorrect.
Roshan Kissoon is both correct, and incorrect.
Hi @ndy, why did you retitle this piece?
rebel love
Dave
For more or less the same reasons I butchered the contents. Also: I’m very, very tired.
Oh yeah. Also ‘cos I could’ve sworn it was the title of an essay by Paul Mattick… or someone. Buggered if I can remember…
I guess you might say that my decision was both correct, and incorrect.
I haven’t read it yet @ndy but I love the title. And if you read Marx and friends in their own words you don’t even need the question mark. This is about as concretely historically-materialist as you can possibly get.
I’d say yr blog is improving remarkably mate and hope you avoid burnout with a nice refreshing interface with a cold Bloody Mary and a warm beach.
BTW Paul Mattick is a fag.
Yeah it is the title of a Paul Mattick essay…maybe even his last one?
Actually Professor I think you will find that Paul Mattick was a ‘Marxist’ making an internal critique of ‘Marxism’.
love and uncle Karl
Dave
“both correct, and incorrect.”
Very profound, whatever the f**k you are on about.
But you’re missing the main action with me old cobber Paul Howes –
http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=5196
April 3, 2008?
“Our union cannot understand those union leaders here in Australia, and Labor MPs such as Julia Irwin, who line up in support of Hamas…”
Not quite sure what Paul’s referring to here. Irwin supports Hamas? In March 2008, Irwin refused to support a Parliamentary motion congratulating Israel on its 60th birthday. (Irwin is “a Labor backbencher whose Sydney seat includes the diverse areas of Liverpool and Cabramatta”.)
To interpret Irwin’s refusal to support whatever the fuck motion KRudd sponsored as meaning ‘I support Hamas’ would be stoopid if it weren’t transparently driven by other, factional concerns.
More recently, Irwin threw her hat into the ring with the following:
Getting away with murder, Julia Irwin, SMH, January 11, 2009: “YOU’VE got to hand it to the Israeli public relations flacks: only they could convince you that killing children was an act of self-defence…”
Howe again:
This is correct: Hamas and Islamic Jihad are hostile to trade unions — or at least those unions that don’t follow orders. Histadrut, on the other hand, has been an integral part of the Zionist movement, and then the Israeli state, since its establishment. Until 1959, it was for Jews only.
Uh-huh. Of course, the PGFTU isn’t exactly over the moon about the Israeli state either…
Not exactly AWU policy, really.
More generally, see:
“Sometimes we shoot the same way” – the attack on Gaza, internationalism and the Left
Django
libcom
January 19, 2009
Israel’s brutal attack on the Gaza strip has elicited widespread revulsion, and has led to protests across Britain and the world. It is clear that the Israeli state has committed atrocities which anyone with an ounce of humanity would seek an end to. Its savage bombing of one of the most densely populated places on earth has resulted in over a thousand deaths. Nowhere is safe – Mosques, schools and UN sites have been attacked by the IDF. Even by the “civilised” standards of warfare between nation-states, which allow for a reasonable degree of “collateral damage”, several incidents stand out for their brutality. There is mounting evidence that the IDF is following its senior partner, the US, in using white phosphorous as an offensive weapon in civilian areas. Banned under international law, white phosphorous munitions are chemical weapons with a pattern of splash damage similar to cluster bombs, but which spread blazing chunks of phosphorous and smoke laced with burning particles. The result is either death from suffocation or from severe burns, sometimes down to the bone. The IDF is responsible for herding civilians into a building before shelling it, killing scores of civilians in attacks on UN schools, shelling aid convoys, and destroying aid stockpiles during an attack on the UN headquarters in Gaza. The attack has displaced over 90,000 people, and combined with the crippling blockade of Gaza which preceded it, utterly destroyed Gaza’s economy and infrastructure…
Grumpy, I knew Vladimir Lenin. Vladimir Lenin was a Marxist. Grumpy, Paul Mattick is no Marxist.
What I mean by ‘ fag’ ( See site hirstory )
He’s just another wannabe anarcho-syndicalist, whose $50 short and 50 years late.
That’s terminally lame – bit like Karl and his bff Friedrich really.
Oh and if @ndy doesn’t want to host cat-and-rat-spats then why not say anything you have to say to me at my blog?
‘ Butt darling ‘ @ blurty…I’m on their front page. Bell you later.
Professor: Can you you please give us the URL of your blog?