The article proposes a historical materialist reading of the European Union, placing the class struggle at the heart of the analysis of the EU project. A central idea is that historical development is the result of social conflict, a ubiquitous force which materialises unevenly at multiple levels, nationally and internationally. As far as the European Union is concerned, it is argued that class struggle occurs predominantly at the level of Member States rather than transnationally at the level of the Union. This reading has several repercussions. An important repercussion is that by anchoring the understanding of the EU to the struggle born out of the material clash between interests of national collective forces, this contribution distances itself from liberal idealistic readings of the Union that see the EU as an example of Kantian cosmopolitan right. Where the latter approach sees the European Union as a real-life example of universal hospitality, historical materialism sees a Union divided along class- and national lines. The article supports that the latter understanding is in a better place to describe the nature of the EU project.

The relationship between Zapatismo and women’s liberation has sparked heated debates between academics and activists alike. Although the Zapatistas’ official communiqués have promoted gender parity, criticism has been aimed at Zapatista fiction for accentuating gender stereotypes and for contradictions regarding women’s rights. This article discusses the children’s books Habrá una vez (2016) and Hablar colores (2018), encountered during archival and ethnographic research in Zapatista territory, and examines how “Zapafiction” embraces contradiction as constructive revolutionary politics. The children’s books analyzed here depict ecofeminist characters, including Defensa Zapatista (an approximately eight-year-old schoolgirl), Gato-Perro (a cat-dog symbolizing nonbinary identities), a disabled horse, and Loa Otroa (embodying queer identities). Instead of solving contradictions, I argue that these characters reject the romanticization of progressive political movements while viewing Zapatismo as the venue for advancing dignity as a way of life (jch’uleltik). Through the concept of imperfect politics, Zapafiction leverages the principle of caminando y preguntando, “walking, we ask questions,” to reimagine the governing structures of the organization through fiction, moving beyond theoretical doctrines on how politics should be.

This paper enquires into the relationship between democracy, law, and revolution in the Marxist works of Harold J. Laski (1893-1950). It is a helpful study to sketch the way in which British Socialists interpreted Marxian categories in the early twentieth century. Laski’s theses on legal pluralism, the opposition of ‘revolution’ and ‘counter-revolution’, and the incompatibility between capitalism and democracy will be discussed by emphasising their interaction with his notion of ‘revolution by consent’. I will also show that Laski’s conception of law and revolution might shed light on his interpretation of the relationship between the economic structure and the politico-legal superstructure, and particularly on his thesis of the reciprocal influence of those two layers of society as giving crucial importance to democratic methods. These conclusions, in the end, might be profitably compared with some conventional readings of Marx’s ideas about revolution, in order to examine and discuss their interpretive validity and stress their implications concerning the transformation of legal systems.

I argue that alienation objections to housing markets face a dilemma. Either they purport to explain distributive injustices, or they hold that markets are objectionable on intrinsic grounds. The first disjunct is empirically dubious. The second undermines the motivation for objecting to housing markets, and overgeneralizes: if markets are objectionable due to alienation, so is all large-scale social cooperation.

This article examines the writings of late 19th and early 20th-century Marxist theorists and political leaders from the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires and their influence on the chief Bolshevik theorist of Soviet nationality policies, Joseph Stalin. It argues that although many early Marxist theorists held divergent views on managing nationalism, they uniformly rejected biological or romantic spiritual conceptions of the nation and instead posited that nationalism and contemporary nations are relatively new, socially constructed phenomena arising from processes linked to economic and political modernization. These perspectives align with what contemporary academia labels as “modernist” theories of nationality and this analysis therefore challenges prevailing views on the genesis of these theories, tracing them back to early Marxist thinkers rather than late 20th-century Western European theorists such as Benedict Anderson and Ernest Gellner. This modernist understanding of nations as products of material forces and processes enabled socialists to envision steering nation formation. For the Bolsheviks and some of the later international revolutionaries they inspired, this meant that just as they believed they could accelerate the transition to a socialist future through active class management, so too they believed they could control and expedite the construction of national identities through carefully designed policies.

Hermann Cohen, the founding father of Marburg neo-Kantianism, is known for criticising capitalism from a Kantian ethical perspective. Thus far, the role of the notion of humanity in this critique has been viewed as grounding what I shall call the ‘purposive labour reading’. This reading takes Cohen’s primary interest to lie in a reorganisation of work so that our humanity, which requires us to be treated as ends, remains intact. With the aim to better understand the relevant notion of humanity, I contextualise the discussion within the overall framework of Cohens’ neo-Kantian account of ethical cognition and situate his ideas in the context of his contemporary interlocutors. Revisiting Cohen’s remarks on socialism and capitalism against this backdrop reveals that his discussion of labour serves as an exemplar, showcasing how ethical rationality manifests in the liberal socialists’ demands. I argue that his primary aim was not to prepare the ground for a prescriptive labour theory – though this is likely to follow – but to argue for a framework alternative to historical materialism, allowing us to perceive and interpret social practices in an ethical light.

This paper looks not at workers’ struggles, which had their ups and downs over the last two hundred years, but specifically at the revolutionary socialist movement, which aims to eliminate capitalism. While there have been contributions to the vision of a classless, stateless society by utopian socialists and anarchists, the paper concentrates on Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and their legacy. It identifies three bifurcation points in this particular revolutionary socialist tradition where a substantial part of the movement abandoned democracy, internationalism, or both, and argues that this has had a disastrous effect on the movement and needs to be reversed.

In the history of the left, the conjuncture 1914–1917 is the “bifurcation point” per definition. Leaving an enduring mark on the labor movement, it also shaped subsequent historiographies. For the pro-Bolshevik left, 1914 epitomized the betrayal of a group of reformist leaders. Conversely, anti-communist social democrats regarded the Second International as an uncomfortable political heritage. Despite irreconcilable disputes, both traditions shared a lack of interest in defending the period 1889–1914, let alone delving into its history. The real take-off of Second International historiography came later and coincided with the outset of the Cold War, experiencing a “golden age” in the 1960s and 1970s. Studies of socialism lost momentum from the 1980s onwards, but the last 15 years have seen a resurgence of interest in the Second International and even a popular reappraisal of Karl Kautsky. Linking historiography to wider social and political phenomena, this article reflects on this new interest in the Second International in both activist and academic circles. The first section summarizes the historical significance of the International and examines how the crisis of 1914 became a crucial “bifurcation point” with significant political and historiographical impact. The second section explores recent trends in scholarly research on the subject. The third section provides an analysis of the vindication of Karl Kautsky among radicals and socialists in the United States over the past 10 years. The conclusion summarizes the main arguments and reflects on the contribution this analysis can make to a discussion about the “long cycle” of socialism.

This essay identifies and explores three dominant intellectual traditions that critique and theorize about ideology: Marxist, prudentialist, and social scientific. For these traditions, the word ‘ideology’ names interest-serving rationalizations, pseudoscientific totalitarian zealotry, or political outlooks. The blending of these three specialized meanings has generated a colloquial sense of ideology that is philosophically untenable and damaging to political discourse. According to this colloquial sense, all thinking is ideological and we are all ideologues. In response, I instead offer in this essay an adverbial account of ideology. In this account, “ideology” names a kind of epistemic vice. Admitting that this is something we all may do sometimes, I describe how we think when we think ideologically. Finally, I conclude with some suggestions about how education might help us avoid the epistemic vice of ideological thinking.