An American Leftist on 'revolution'

[Philip L Ferguson <PLF13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I recently received this from David Stevens, a long-time left-wing activist
in the United States.  It sounds like it was posted somewhere else,
although he didn't say where.  It's a very generous review of the magazine
'revolution', with which I am involved.


DAVID STEVENS:
This is my favorite -- oops, again it's 'favourite' --
magazine in the world: an irreverently non-partyish
Marxist magazine from New Zealand.  I have sharp
disagreements with the RMC about their celebration of
the Fall of Communism, which were pretty well articulated
by a letter Fred Ferguson wrote a few issues ago in _revo_.

 But now that I have read eleven issues, I have to say that
_revo_ kept their promise to me when they quoted Mark Twain,
to the effect that sacred cows are only good for hamburger.
They promised to be hard-hitting, and _fresh_.  And they
have kept the promise.  Every issue has been rich in content
and presented me with unique treasures.

 I believe the editorial policy and political perspective
are consistent -- but it sure as heck isn't a party line.

 Better still, _revo_ offers an entirely Marxist perspective
without presenting any claim whatsoever to Unique Historically
Manifest Continuity -- which as old Trots like myself should
immediately recognize, does indeed set this magazine apart.
IIRC, they even have an editorial guideline that says things
written recently have to outweigh things written in the era
of our Marxist forebears, by a certain ratio.

 (Of purely local interest: several apst cadre have written
for _revolution_ over the years).

 Someone -- I forget who -- flamed Louis Proyect for writing
in a recent issue of _revo_.  Zie seemed to argue that _revo_
was really an 'LM Lite' or something, and that therefore Louis
had "sold out" his own views to get published.  Sheesh.  Zie
never considered that _revolution_ might have sold itself out
to Proyect.  Or ... <gasp> ... that _revo_ might not even have
a _party line_ to adhere to, but "only" a sharp perspective.

 Personally, I _like_ having a magazine where Louis Proyect
and James Heartfield can both appear.  It gives me a gleam
of hope that OUR SIDE might get it together someday.

 I have seen several LM writers (James Heartfield, Mick
Hume, and the delightful Ann Bradley) appear in the pages
of _revolution_, but _revo_ certainly is not an 'LM Lite'.
In every issue, there is a hard-hitting class-struggle
perspective, something which has been dead (or else in
a "very deep sleep" <grin>) in the pages of LM for some
years.  The class line provides a consistent underpinning
for _revolution_.  It doesn't feel like it was grafted on
as an afterthought, it infuses all the voices in the forum ...
yet all those voices are NOT saying the same old thing,
nor the same thing as each other.  That's an amazing
editorial feat.

 I've learned a lot about New Zealand.  Living in the US,
the very notion that there might be such an animal as
"New Zealand imperialism" took me aback at first.  (When
you live inside the belly of the world's largest killer
whale, it's not obvious that something as tiny as a
barracuda can be a vicious beast on its own right).

 _revolution_ has helped me understand the role of New
Zealand imperialism in the Pacific islands.  It's taught
me about the political questions involving the Maori.
And although _revo_ offered me far more information than
I may ever need or want on the sorry state of electoral
politics inside this junior partner of world imperialism,
it was in a format intelligent and entertaining enough
to hold my interest anyway.

 Every issue has a cultural section -- Ken MacLeod and
Louis Proyect have written delicious reviews, and this
part of the magazine has always been fresh ... exactly
like promised.

 My favorite/favourite section is usually "Backtalk,"
a back page editorial which tends to display a bit of
humor -- and utterly no mercy for the poor sacred cow.