Radical Minds is a show that airs every Thursday at 2 PM on WHPK 88.5 FM Chicago. Aired November 9th, 2017, this episode features an interview with Jack Ross conducted by your hosts, Erin Hagood, Stephanie Gomez and special guest host Neil Hare.Â
Jack Ross is an independent historian and researcher, author of The Socialist Party of America: A Complete History.
Held November 15, 2017 at the University of California Santa Cruz.
Speakers:
Mike Rotkin, former editor of Socialist Review
Larry Cafiero, Democratic Socialists of America
Keith McHenry, Food Not Bombs
Bruce Thompson, Professor of History at UCSC
Description:
Since the Nazi seizure of power eighty years ago anti-fascism has been integral to left-wing politics. The struggle against fascists and Nazis is morally self-evident, so that political anti-fascism seems to be similarly self-evident. Yet in past periods of history, the politics of anti-fascism was completely different, as was the understanding of what it contributed to leftist politics more generally. Still certain continuity can be discerned in anti-fascism’s retention of anti-capitalist claims. Where does this come from? What was anti-fascism and how has it changed? How do the category and concept of anti-fascism help us to understand both historical and contemporary political realities? What does anti-fascism mean today in the absence of fascism as a mass movement?
Im 20.Jahrhundert tauchte immer wieder die Erinnerung an 1917 auf. Ob die Volksfront der 30er, die Kommunistische Revolution in China 1949 oder die Neue Linke der 60er, die Linke hat versucht, sich
A panel discussion hosted by The Platypus Affiliated Society at the University of Illinois at Chicago on November 6, 2017.
Speakers:
Jonathan Daly (UIC Department of History)
Franklin Dimitryev (News & Letters)
Greg Lucero (Socialist Party USA)
Sam (Black Rose/Rosa Negra)
Description:
The First World War manifested an economic, social and political crisis of global capitalism, – “imperialism” – which sparked reflection in the mass parties of the Second International on the task of socialist politics. The revisionist dispute, the “crisis of Marxism” in which Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky first cut their teeth, shaped their understanding of the unfolding revolution as a necessary expression of self-contradiction within the movement for socialism. Even the most revolutionary party produced its own conservatism, hence the need for self-conscious, revolutionary leadership to avoid “tailing” the movement.
Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky thought that leadership adequate to the revolution of 1917 required historical consciousness. They drew upon Marx’s appraisal of the democratic revolutions of 1848, in which Marx identified the historical contradiction which had developed in bourgeois society and necessitated the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Bolsheviks maintained that a "bourgeois-democratic" revolution could spark a workers' socialist revolution in Europe, subsequently allowing for a struggle for socialism. Lenin held that political forms such as “the state” and “the party” must be transformed in and through revolution. Yet the meaning of 1917 was already contentious in 1924, as Trotsky recognized in his pamphlet, Lessons of October. Trotsky would spend the rest of his life fighting “over the heads of the leaders of the Second and Third International[s]” to maintain socialist consciousness.
Whether in the Popular Fronts of the 1930’s, the Chinese Communists in 1949, or the New Left of the 1960’s, the Left sought to understand itself – both positively and negatively – in relation to the aims and outcomes of 1917. The historical consciousness of its primary actors disintegrated into various oppositions: Lenin the Machiavellian versus Luxemburg the democratic Cassandra; socialism versus liberalism; authoritarianism versus libertarianism. Meanwhile, the futility of the politics shared by Lenin and Luxemburg has been naturalized. It is tacitly accepted that what Lenin and Luxemburg jointly aspired to achieve, if not already impossible a century ago, is certainly impossible today. The premises of the revolution itself have been cast in doubt.
Questions:
- What were the aims of the 1917 Russian Revolution?
- What was the self-understanding of its Marxist leadership?
- How has the memory of 1917 changed in the course of the 20th century?
- Why does the legacy of 1917 appear arrayed in oppositions?
- Are we still tasked by the memory of 1917 today, and if so how?
On this episode:
(0) Democrats are lame. #nuffsaid
(1) A conversation with Philip Cunlife, author of Lenin Lives! Reimagining the Russian Revolution 1917-2017, reviewed by Gregor Baszak on the pages of the Platypus Review November issue.
platypus1917.org/2017/11/01/book-…ution-1917-2017/
(2)A convo about the Platypus panel "1917–2017" with members, Frederik Heinz and Lukas Hedderich, hosted by the Goethe University chapter in Frankfurt (DE). The panel had Frank Ruda (Philosopher, Berlin/Frankfurt am Main); Lars Quadfasel (Hamburger Studienbibliothek); Anton Stortchilov, (Historian, Die LINKE); Rafael Rehm (Der Funke, International Marxist Tendency). Recording of the panel can be found here: archive.org/details/20171103PAS…el19172017Frankfurt
(3) Why should anyone care about 1917?
Hosted by Audrey Crescenti, Pam C. Nogales C., and Laurie Rojas.
