Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:17:33 -0500 (EST) From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu> Subject: M-I: Fire in the Americas, part one A month or so ago in the course of a discussion on the left-unity list I mentioned a book that had a very strong influence on my political thinking: "Fire in the Americas". It is basically an attempt to apply the methodology the FSLN used in reaching and mobilizing the masses of Nicaragua to North American realities. All right, I might as well come clean. Most of my "brilliant" ideas are ripped off from this book. I am like the comedian Milton Berle who was notorious for stealing other people's material. In defense, Berle commented that at least he had the smarts to know which material to steal. The work was co-authored by Roger Burbach and Orlando Nunez in 1986. Burbach is in the Latin American Studies Department of U. California, Berkeley and Nunez was the Director for the Study of Agrarian Reform during the FSLN years in power. This is a pretty short book at 108 pages. It is also out of print. It is divided into 5 chapters: 1) Revolutionary Practice and Theory in the Americas 2) Socialism and the Democratic Banner 3) The Neglected Revolutionary Allies 4) the Internationalization of Struggle in the Americas 5) The Challenge of the 1990s Over the next five days I will post excerpts from each chapter, starting today. I am glad I discovered this book in the Barnard Bookstore. It has great relevance not only to the question of working-class consciousness that is being discussed in the marxism-international cyber-seminar, it also relates to the general question of left unity. One of the great lessons of the Nicaraguan revolution, regardless of the disappointing outcome brought on by a combination of US counter- revolution and Soviet betrayal, is that revolutionaries have to unite around important questions and not split over secondary questions. This theoretical conquest is something that poor, agrarian and miserable Nicaragua can bequeath to the "advanced" nations of the world. 1. Revolutionary Practice and Theory in the Americas "Placed in historical perspective, the political upheaval of the 1960s and the early 1970s had two important effects on US society. On the one hand it nurtured the development of an array of Marxist thinkers and theorists, many of whom were able to secure positions in universities or affiliated research centers from which they continued to develop Marxist thought. Simultaneously, the social discontent and political questioning of the 1960s enabled a number of powerful single issues social movements to arise..." "By the end of the 1970s, however, both the new social movements and Marxist thought were thrown on the defensive. A major problem was that no real symbiosis occurred between the different social movements and Marxism. They each operated in different spheres. While the Marxists were based primarily on campuses or directed small publishing and research centers, the social movements concerned themselves with concrete issues and looked increasingly to the liberal wing of the Democratic party to redress their grievances. None of the old or new Marxist-Leninist parties was able to bridge this gap. Some of them made sustained efforts to organize in the workplace and trade unions. But most Marxist parties were more concerned with debating who had the 'correct political line' of the American revolution (preferably with a franchise from Beijing). None of the parties developed strong social bases to become a force in American political life. To this day the central issue remains that of developing a political strategy to mobilize and unify the different single issue movements so that they pose an alternative, mass pole..." "Precisely because the organized Marxist left failed to develop its own body of native theoreticians in the earlier part of this century, it was >from the universities and small groups of independent Marxian theorists that the most creative Marxist thinking began to emerge in the 1950s. In the Americas the Monthly Review school was in the forefront of this process and played a critical role in preserving Marxist thought at a historic moment when it was under siege=85" "A serious problem for revolutionaries today stems from the fact that since the early part of this century Marxism-Leninism has been identified with the evolution of post-revolutionary society in the Soviet Union. The party and state structures that were implanted in the Soviet Union were generally viewed as the models for other revolutionary societies to follow..." "A related problem stems from the fact that most Marxist-Leninists have defined themselves by their international perspectives rather than by the concrete issues of their own societies. The Third International considered itself to be the ultimate authority on just how Marxism- Leninism should be applied in all revolutionary struggles around the world. But when differences and splits emerged, such as the split between Stalin and Trotsky in the late 1920s, each new revolutionary formation proclaimed that its interpretation of Marxism-Leninism was the correct one. Instead of engaging in a concrete analysis of political, economic and social conditions in each country, many parties and theorists were caught up in the debate over who was really following the 'correct political line'. The debates over Trotskyism, Maoism, Titoism, and even foquismo often divided the revolutionary parties over international issues with each camp proclaiming that it alone was the real guardian of revolutionary thought and practice..." "Another important historical lesson is that theory can distort revolutionary practice rather than guide it. This was the case with foquismo. By focusing on the Cuban revolution and the initial endeavors of the handful of men who led it, the foquistas misled many revolutionaries in the Americas into believing that they too could carry out a revolution with a small but determined group of people. This perspective was reinforced by the obsession of many political activists in the early 1970s, particularly in the United States, with the role played by Lenin in the Bolshevik revolution. They saw him as a solitary figure who, through his iron will and clear vision, was able to persevere and lead the Bolshevik party to power. Regardless of whether or not this view of Lenin is correct, it led many revolutionaries to believe that they could adopt a political strategy and resolutely carry it to completion, no matter what the political realities..." "This leads to a broader problem: once a revolutionary political theory has been developed it often tends to limit the imagination of future leaders rather than to guide them. This is not to deny the importance of theory. But it does mean that we have to be constantly on guard to ensure that theory does not become dogma. Each new revolutionary struggle and movement must rethink its premises and its theoretical approach as well as its practice. This is only possible if we apply the Marxist method in the most creative manner, without relying on dogma or letting preconceptions distort our understanding..." "Che Guevara recognized the role and limit of theory in the Cuban Revolution when he wrote: '...this revolution is different. In the minds of some it is an exception to one of the fundamental tenets of orthodox theory. That tenet, as enunciated by Lenin, holds that without revolutionary theory there can be no revolution. We must recognize, however, that revolutionary theory, in as much as it reflects conditions in a society, transcends any statement of that theory. In other words, a revolution can proceed based on accurate historical analysis and skillful balancing of the forces involved without its theoretical framework every having been enunciated. To be sure, an adequate statement of theory does simplify the process and helps avoid dangerous pitfalls, provided that statement is in fact correct.'" (chapter two "Socialism and the Democratic Banner" continues in my next post) Louis Proyect --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005