third worldism & anarchism

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

[was: RE: [PEN-L:21716] Re: Re: reform and rev]

>>The reason why so many Marxists have difficulty in understanding the
progressive thrust of many third world revolutions has been that they only
study Marx, and do not beyond him. Two people who have tried to go beyond
Marx here are Guglielmo Carchedi and  Enrique Dussel from  whose latest book
(edited by the way by Fred Moseley) I draw in the above.<<

gee, no-one ever read Samir Amin? or a lot of the other stuff that Monthly
Review (or Zed press)publishes? Marxist appreciation of third world
revolutions is really old, going back at least to Paul Baran's POLITICAL
ECONOMY OF GROWTH, if not further. Just because that appreciation was often
based on inadequate political-economic theory -- or turned into apologetics
doesn't mean that these contributions are unimportant or useless.

Alan writes: > I fully agree with the need for progressives to go beyond the
study of Marx. <

Is there _anyone_ who thinks that progressives can find all they need to
understand the world and to guide practice in the study of Marx? I think the
number of folks who treat Marx's work as some sort of Bible that's always
true and applicable is very, very small.

> Personally, I find the Spanish Revolution to be the most inspiring of the
radical revolutions of the 20th century. With all their mistakes and
shortcomings, I find that the Spanish anarchists showed what a really
progressive, radically democratic, socialist society could look like. They
too were inspired by the Paris Commune. It never ceases to amaze me how
little the traditional left (Marxist in all its flavours) knows about this
revolution.<

IMHO, both most anarchists and most Marxists showed incomplete understanding
of the need for democracy (though being attacked by fascists understandably
distracts people from their principles). We should remember that the Spanish
anarchists had a secret organization (the FAI or Federacion Anarquista
Iberica) that many people might label "Leninist."

>(Perhaps it shouldn't amaze me, since the Spanish Revolutiont was snuffed
out by, among others, the Stalinists. Also, Lenin and Trotsky actively
persecuted anarchists and others to the left of the  bolsheviks.) <

I'm no Leninist, but we should also remember that the anarchists were
attacking the Bolsheviks (while the White Army and the imperialists were
attacking, too). Wasn't the guy who shot Lenin (which eventually killed the
latter) an anarchist?

Did you know that one of the Bolshevik's first acts was to abolish capital
punishment? of course, they dropped that when push came to shove, but in a
situation like that after 1917, it's hard to imagine _any_ of the Russian
political parties doing well.

>However, it is interesting and refreshing that many of those who are on the
front lines of the antiglobalization struggles today are well aware of this
history and take a far more eclectic approach to revolution and social
change, not limiting themselves to one particular left ideology.<

I hope that they look not only the good side of the various approaches to
revolution but also at the limitations. For example, is it reasonable to say
(as Bakunin seems to have) that it's enough to smash the state? that is,
it's not necessary to set up a democratic state to defend the revolution,
etc.?

Jim D.