Latest editorial
ROGER MCKENZIE argues that it was correct to ban the notorious Israeli side who were likely to cause trouble in Muslim areas of Birmingham, but asks, given the occupation and slaughter in Palestine, why any Israeli team is being hosted anywhere
With the last bricks of the red wall crumbling in the Caerphilly by-election, Starmer and co cannot count on the spectre of Farageism translating into votes for them come the next general election, argues ANDREW MURRAY
THE centenary of the Russian Revolution has prompted copious, mainly unsympathetic, publications most of which confine themselves to a historical narrative of selected events attempting to describe the revolution.
But for those of us who understand that the October Revolution marks the first time in human history that the majority class (workers and peasants) took and held state power, this centenary holds a special significance and requires an explanation based on historical materialism. This means attempting to answer the question WHY, rather than how, the revolution took place in, demographically the most unlikely country — Russia.
It was improbable for three reasons. Firstly, 80 per cent of the population of the Russian empire were peasants and mostly illiterate. In addition, the Bolsheviks after the first revolution in February were in a minority in the soviets, but within eight months had won a position of leadership leading to the toppling of the Provisional Government and the establishment of a socialist republic.
Corbyn and Sultana’s ‘Your Party’ represents the first attempt at mass socialist organisation since the CPGB’s formation in 1921, argues DYLAN MURPHY
