The first is a direct commentary on the limitations of Lenin's critique of the state in State and Revolution and why it is insufficient as a Marxian conception of the state and the political. I am linking to the appendix to the article which argued that Lenin was not a "Red Fascist" as the anarchist milieu contends. The review was published by an left communist/anarcho-communist group in Czechoslovakia where it apparently drew the ire of some prominent ex-Stalinist academic.
Contra State and Revolution and Why Leninism is Not Red Fascism
Lastly, this is a link to an article I wrote for Historical Materialism. They might sue me to take the article down. It would not be the first time they have threatened the someone for the dissemination of pieces they have published in the public domain, even with the author's approval.
This review took up a collection of articles edited by Werner Bonefeld and Sergio Tischler. Werner Bonefeld has had a profound impact on what I understand Marxism and being a Marxian thinker to be. I owe Werner and John Holloway, in fact the entire Open Marxism group, a deep debt for introducing me to a Marx steeped in Hegel, to the German Left influenced by the Frankfurt School. Whatever my criticisms (obviously the review of Holloway, et al on Adorno is not forgiving), I gratefully acknowledge their profound influence. That influence is all over my review of State and Revolution and I could not have written it without their inspiration and theoretical insights. The reviews also owes a debt to Paresh Chattopadhyay, who has written some of the finest essays on the meaning of Marx's work and the class nature of the Soviet Union.
Review of "What Is To Be Done? New Times and the Anniversary of a Question"
This review, more than most, reflects the last gasps of my own interest in organizations of communists and the fact that I had not yet worked through my own critique of capital fully, which can be found in the earlier essays on this blog.