In March 1902, Lenin published a book entitled What Is to Be Done? Burning Questions of Our Movement, proposing a model of party organization for the nascent Russian social democratic movement, which had to be organized nationally. The book has historically raised a number of questions, of which the most important are: Was Lenin proposing a new model of party organization (a "cadre party" as opposed to a "mass party") or simply adapting the example of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD, the backbone of the Second International) to the conditions of Russian autocracy and to the factional struggle against the "economists", the Jewish Bund and a series of local organizations? Did that model of party organization represent an individual initiative of Lenin, or was it the joint project of the group that published the newspaper Iskra (Spark), which had been appearing since the first of December 1900 and which would organize the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) in July-August 1903? Finally, what was the connection between the model of party organization proposed in Lenin's book and the subsequent split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks at the Second Congress of the RSDLP? In this article we will try to answer these questions in the light of a number of primary documents recently translated from Russian as well as of the criticism by Vera Zasulich, one of the most prominent representatives of the Iskra editorial board, of the tactics of individual terrorism employed by the newly created Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party, a criticism published in the theoretical organ of the German Social Democracy, Die neue Zeit, in December 1902.

Agenesia de vesícula biliar y coledocolitiasis. Reporte de un caso Palabras clave: Coledocolitiais. Agenesia de vesícula biliar.

The June 1967 war between Israel and the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan had an important impact on the Argentine left, which sided with the Arab countries. The Communist Party of Argentina (PCA), which had a significant influence on the Jewish community, defended the policy of the Soviet Union, while Política Obrera (PO) and the Revolutionary Workers’ Party (PRT), two Trotskyist currents, were critical of the Soviet policy and saw in the political process of the Middle East an ongoing national revolution that could develop into a socialist revolution. Even though the three parties openly repudiated anti-Semitism and denounced the calls to expel the Jewish population from Israel/Palestine, they were not exempt of the use of anti-Semitic (and Orientalist) tropes. They described Israel as a mere ‘pawn of US Imperialism’ devoid of agency and, with the exception of the PCA, ignored the existence of the Palestinians as a distinct national group. The debate of the Israel/Palestine question at the Tricontinental Conference held in Havana in 1966 influenced the left as a whole, and seems to have informed the positions of PO, organization that became the first Marxist party in the world to have called for the political destruction of the State of Israel, which was to have been carried out by the revolutionary alliance of the Arab and Jewish masses of the Middle East. Both the PCA and PRT defended Israel’s right to exist instead.