Articles

Iran can offer lessons on both colonial patricide and anti-colonial resistance, self-harm and healing. In the coming wars, we need strategies rooted in concepts and faith that can offer not only perspective into an increasingly more elusive totality ruling over our fragmented worlds, but also a feeling of the self as a non-split subjectivity living in real ecologies and in bodies with real organs.

In memory of Carlo Ginzburg, Historical Materialism returns to this remarkable reception of his work and, in particular, his ‘evidential paradigm’. These letters exchanged between Subcomandante Marcos and Adolfo Gilly, originally published in the Mexican journal Viento del Sur1 and translated here into English for the first time, show how Ginzburg’s work resonated well beyond microhistory and historiography, inspiring wider debates on Marxism, knowledge ‘from below’, revolution, class struggle, and armed struggle.

The commercialisation of the bicentennial a half-century ago pales in comparison to what’s already underway for the Trump administration’s semiquincentennial celebration. Self-interest on steroids, unapologetically—embarrassingly, perhaps, for those who subscribe to capitalism’s dog-eat-dog/I-got-mine-you-get-your ethic. The capitalist chicken now roosting in the White House itself.

During his years as an underground Marxist guerilla, Rabha produced an impressive and original analyses of the potential Indian revolution from a Marxist perspective, which often remains unappreciated not only globally, but also in India.

The question of Palestine in Myanmar is overdetermined by religious affiliation and communal ties. But it doesn’t have to be. There is another way of plotting the links, connections, parallels, and, indeed, solidarities that can and should bridge these two places so rarely brought together—by way of a clear set of ties that follow historical and material relations.

 If we wish to thoroughly criticise Rockhill’s approach, we must confront the historical legacy of Stalinism. Throughout Rockhill’s work, there is an uncritical adulation of “AES”, past and present alike. He presents the Soviet Union, China, and similar states as principled opponents of imperialism and steadfast champions of world revolution. For Rockhill, criticism of AES is not merely mistaken but practically verboten – tantamount to treason against the revolution, and, at times, indistinguishable from a CIA psyop. But this rose-coloured view of the Soviet Union, China, and related regimes obscures the repeated double-crossing of anti-imperialist and workers’ struggles by Stalinism itself. These historical facts cast serious doubt on the revolutionary credentials of “Marxism-Leninism”.

To properly address Rockhill’s claims requires not only a direct engagement with his book, but also the development of independent criticism of both Stalinism and the Frankfurt School from a standpoint distinct from these currents. This means analysing how the pessimism of the Frankfurt School emerged in relation to Stalinism, rather than in isolation from it.