RSS FeedRSS FeedYouTubeYouTubeTwitterTwitterFacebook GroupFacebook Group
You are here: The Platypus Affiliated Society/Archive for category 2026
Dear comrades, we are writing to you from the middle of a war.
History has not treated Frantz Fanon well as of 2025, the 100th anniversary of his birth. The apostle of violent, no-holds-barred revolution, even terrorism against uninvolved civilians, as a necessity for true independence for Africa from the yoke of European colonialism has been belied by the fact that most former African colonies achieved independence by peaceful means. Nor did violent revolution spare the former African colonies from adverse outcomes, as his own Algeria proves.

von Andrés (Klasse gegen Klasse), Dennis Graemer, Georg (Der Sperling) und Ingar Solty (Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung)

Unter den Begriffen des „Imperialismus“ und „Anti-Imperialismus“ hat die Linke in den letzten Jahren um die richtige Position zu den Konflikten um Ukraine-Russland und Israel-Palästina gerungen und sich dabei vielfach gespalten. Der Wechsel der US-Außenpolitik unter Trump und die Aufrüstung der deutschen Regierung haben das Thema wieder auf die Tagesordnung gebracht, weshalb Platypus fragen möchte:

Was versteht ihr unter Imperialismus? Was ist der spezifische Beitrag der Imperialismus-Schrift von Lenin und inwiefern ist diese heute noch relevant? Wie lässt sich aus der Geschichte anti-imperialistischer Kämpfe lernen? Was hat der Kampf gegen den Imperialismus mit dem Kampf für den Sozialismus zu tun?

On June 2, 2023, the Platypus Affiliated Society hosted a panel on decolonization and the Left at Cambridge University. The speakers were James Heartfield (former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party (UK), author of The Aborigines’ Protection Society and Britain’s Empires, Ralph Leonard (writer at unHerd), and Andrew Sanchez (Professor of Social Anthropology at Cambridge, author of Criminal Capital.
The authors of our volume consciously distance themselves from “fake” decolonization and “co-optation” into the status quo. Yet, their arguments exemplify tendencies that have contributed to the Left’s current helplessness. The book offers little beyond a synthesis of writings fashionable within the “academic” Left, and there are significant omissions in a text that seeks to open debate rather than foreclosing it. I shall argue that these follow from a one-sided view of modern history and its contradictions.