Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] An anti-imperialist perspective
The comment is by a comrade from another list. I'll ask him On 6/25/09, steiger2...@centrum.cz wrote: > Being not of the old list members I would very much appreciate being told the > source of this extremely interesting document. Thanks in advance. > Stephen Steiger steger2...@centrum.cz > __ > > Od: cdb1...@prodigy.net > > Komu: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu, a-l...@lists.econ.utah.edu > > Datum: 25.06.2009 17:29 > > Předmět: [Marxism-Thaxis] An anti-imperialist perspective > > > > Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 12:45 pm by Julio > > The passages below are from an old (mid 1970s) document. Some list > members will recognize the author. If you don't and are interested in > locating the source, please e-mail me off-list. (Between * designates > Italics from the author. Between _ designates my emphasis. > Unbracketed ellipsis ... indicating quote discontinuity are the > author's while bracketed ones [...] are mine.) > > IMHO, this is one of the most thought-provoking works in the classical > Marxist tradition ever written. In the best intellectual tradition of > Marx and Engels, the author grappled deeply and seriously with the > existing conditions and ideologies, acknowledging their rationales, > following their logic to the point where they forced him to a deeper > and broader understanding of the issues. Like Marx's best works, it > shows readers how a an engaged mind, committed to the struggle, sorts > things out. > > I read it fresh in 1979, almost as soon as its Spanish version became > available in Mexico. The first few chapters were divulged first in a > short-lived Marxist journal named Teoría y Política published by a > group of South American exiles. The entire work followed under > Alfaguara. I re-read it a few times as an undergrad student in Cuba > and discussed it at length with friends from -- I believe -- at least > four continents, although I can now see how one-sided my concerns > were. While some friends got really agitated about some of the -- IMO > rather subsidiary -- propositions advanced in the work, some rendered > irrelevant by subsequent developments (the bulk of the work is devoted > to a critique of the Soviet socialist formation), the passages below > taken on their own have maintained a large measure of relevance (not > necessarily validity) all along. > > The tension at the center of the quoted section below has been > splitting Marxists since Marx & Engels's times (e.g. the Irish and > Slavic question). On a formal level, the issue reappeared in the late > 19th century/early 20th century chasm between the early > social-democrats (Lenin, Plekhanov, etc.) and the narodniki. (As > shown below, on this matter, Lenin himself experienced a 180 degree > turn over his political life. Just keep in mind the early concerns > Lenin had about proving the political relevance of the social > democracy in Russia in the light of Russia's backwardness. The young > Lenin wasn't emphasizing the lack of capitalist development in Russia, > but precisely the opposite. Naturally, with his responsibilities as > head of the Soviet state, in the middle of a civil war, after a > devastating world war, things looked quite differently.) At a deeper > level, though, the controversy had intrinsic intellectual roots in > Russian history (and other "backward" places), dating back to the > conflict between the liberal modernizers and the ancestors of the > populists. In their historical essays, E.H. Carr and Isaac Deutscher > discussed the matter in some detail. Rosa Luxemburg clashed with the > Polish, Galician, and Baltic nationalists on this very issue. Etc. > > My decision to post these passages in extenso is, of course, prompted > by the current debate re. the Mousavi-Ahmedinajad conflict. > > IMO, the ideological cloak of the anti-imperialist struggle is > secondary. The key thing is the social character of the movement and > its *objective logic* (if I'm allowed to use that old Hegelian > formula). It is of course twisted, ironic and shameful, historically > speaking, that the global discredit of Marxism and -- more tragically > and decisively -- the mechanical suppression of Marxists and > socialists in central Asia and the Middle East (including here > repression conducted by the very forces that now appear to lead the > anti-imperialist resistance, blemishes and all) have limited its role > in the local anti-imperialist struggles, which have turned instead to > the ideological straight-jacketed form of political Islam. > > However, secondary doesn't mean unimportant. If the strictures of the > religious i
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] An anti-imperialist perspective
Being not of the old list members I would very much appreciate being told the source of this extremely interesting document. Thanks in advance. Stephen Steiger steger2...@centrum.cz __ > Od: cdb1...@prodigy.net > Komu: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu, a-l...@lists.econ.utah.edu > Datum: 25.06.2009 17:29 > Předmět: [Marxism-Thaxis] An anti-imperialist perspective > Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 12:45 pm by Julio The passages below are from an old (mid 1970s) document. Some list members will recognize the author. If you don't and are interested in locating the source, please e-mail me off-list. (Between * designates Italics from the author. Between _ designates my emphasis. Unbracketed ellipsis ... indicating quote discontinuity are the author's while bracketed ones [...] are mine.) IMHO, this is one of the most thought-provoking works in the classical Marxist tradition ever written. In the best intellectual tradition of Marx and Engels, the author grappled deeply and seriously with the existing conditions and ideologies, acknowledging their rationales, following their logic to the point where they forced him to a deeper and broader understanding of the issues. Like Marx's best works, it shows readers how a an engaged mind, committed to the struggle, sorts things out. I read it fresh in 1979, almost as soon as its Spanish version became available in Mexico. The first few chapters were divulged first in a short-lived Marxist journal named Teoría y Política published by a group of South American exiles. The entire work followed under Alfaguara. I re-read it a few times as an undergrad student in Cuba and discussed it at length with friends from -- I believe -- at least four continents, although I can now see how one-sided my concerns were. While some friends got really agitated about some of the -- IMO rather subsidiary -- propositions advanced in the work, some rendered irrelevant by subsequent developments (the bulk of the work is devoted to a critique of the Soviet socialist formation), the passages below taken on their own have maintained a large measure of relevance (not necessarily validity) all along. The tension at the center of the quoted section below has been splitting Marxists since Marx & Engels's times (e.g. the Irish and Slavic question). On a formal level, the issue reappeared in the late 19th century/early 20th century chasm between the early social-democrats (Lenin, Plekhanov, etc.) and the narodniki. (As shown below, on this matter, Lenin himself experienced a 180 degree turn over his political life. Just keep in mind the early concerns Lenin had about proving the political relevance of the social democracy in Russia in the light of Russia's backwardness. The young Lenin wasn't emphasizing the lack of capitalist development in Russia, but precisely the opposite. Naturally, with his responsibilities as head of the Soviet state, in the middle of a civil war, after a devastating world war, things looked quite differently.) At a deeper level, though, the controversy had intrinsic intellectual roots in Russian history (and other "backward" places), dating back to the conflict between the liberal modernizers and the ancestors of the populists. In their historical essays, E.H. Carr and Isaac Deutscher discussed the matter in some detail. Rosa Luxemburg clashed with the Polish, Galician, and Baltic nationalists on this very issue. Etc. My decision to post these passages in extenso is, of course, prompted by the current debate re. the Mousavi-Ahmedinajad conflict. IMO, the ideological cloak of the anti-imperialist struggle is secondary. The key thing is the social character of the movement and its *objective logic* (if I'm allowed to use that old Hegelian formula). It is of course twisted, ironic and shameful, historically speaking, that the global discredit of Marxism and -- more tragically and decisively -- the mechanical suppression of Marxists and socialists in central Asia and the Middle East (including here repression conducted by the very forces that now appear to lead the anti-imperialist resistance, blemishes and all) have limited its role in the local anti-imperialist struggles, which have turned instead to the ideological straight-jacketed form of political Islam. However, secondary doesn't mean unimportant. If the strictures of the religious integument have dulled beyond a point the anti-imperialism it portends, all bets are off. In that case, the triumph of the popular movement excited by Mir Hossein Mousavi or the aftermath may turn out to be the necessary precondition for a better political framework for the anti-imperialist struggle in Iran. I'd think that the risk has diminished with time, but history shows (including the history of Iran!) that even a large nation has difficulty escaping subordination to imperialism. I
[Marxism-Thaxis] An anti-imperialist perspective
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 12:45 pm by Julio The passages below are from an old (mid 1970s) document. Some list members will recognize the author. If you don't and are interested in locating the source, please e-mail me off-list. (Between * designates Italics from the author. Between _ designates my emphasis. Unbracketed ellipsis ... indicating quote discontinuity are the author's while bracketed ones [...] are mine.) IMHO, this is one of the most thought-provoking works in the classical Marxist tradition ever written. In the best intellectual tradition of Marx and Engels, the author grappled deeply and seriously with the existing conditions and ideologies, acknowledging their rationales, following their logic to the point where they forced him to a deeper and broader understanding of the issues. Like Marx's best works, it shows readers how a an engaged mind, committed to the struggle, sorts things out. I read it fresh in 1979, almost as soon as its Spanish version became available in Mexico. The first few chapters were divulged first in a short-lived Marxist journal named Teoría y Política published by a group of South American exiles. The entire work followed under Alfaguara. I re-read it a few times as an undergrad student in Cuba and discussed it at length with friends from -- I believe -- at least four continents, although I can now see how one-sided my concerns were. While some friends got really agitated about some of the -- IMO rather subsidiary -- propositions advanced in the work, some rendered irrelevant by subsequent developments (the bulk of the work is devoted to a critique of the Soviet socialist formation), the passages below taken on their own have maintained a large measure of relevance (not necessarily validity) all along. The tension at the center of the quoted section below has been splitting Marxists since Marx & Engels's times (e.g. the Irish and Slavic question). On a formal level, the issue reappeared in the late 19th century/early 20th century chasm between the early social-democrats (Lenin, Plekhanov, etc.) and the narodniki. (As shown below, on this matter, Lenin himself experienced a 180 degree turn over his political life. Just keep in mind the early concerns Lenin had about proving the political relevance of the social democracy in Russia in the light of Russia's backwardness. The young Lenin wasn't emphasizing the lack of capitalist development in Russia, but precisely the opposite. Naturally, with his responsibilities as head of the Soviet state, in the middle of a civil war, after a devastating world war, things looked quite differently.) At a deeper level, though, the controversy had intrinsic intellectual roots in Russian history (and other "backward" places), dating back to the conflict between the liberal modernizers and the ancestors of the populists. In their historical essays, E.H. Carr and Isaac Deutscher discussed the matter in some detail. Rosa Luxemburg clashed with the Polish, Galician, and Baltic nationalists on this very issue. Etc. My decision to post these passages in extenso is, of course, prompted by the current debate re. the Mousavi-Ahmedinajad conflict. IMO, the ideological cloak of the anti-imperialist struggle is secondary. The key thing is the social character of the movement and its *objective logic* (if I'm allowed to use that old Hegelian formula). It is of course twisted, ironic and shameful, historically speaking, that the global discredit of Marxism and -- more tragically and decisively -- the mechanical suppression of Marxists and socialists in central Asia and the Middle East (including here repression conducted by the very forces that now appear to lead the anti-imperialist resistance, blemishes and all) have limited its role in the local anti-imperialist struggles, which have turned instead to the ideological straight-jacketed form of political Islam. However, secondary doesn't mean unimportant. If the strictures of the religious integument have dulled beyond a point the anti-imperialism it portends, all bets are off. In that case, the triumph of the popular movement excited by Mir Hossein Mousavi or the aftermath may turn out to be the necessary precondition for a better political framework for the anti-imperialist struggle in Iran. I'd think that the risk has diminished with time, but history shows (including the history of Iran!) that even a large nation has difficulty escaping subordination to imperialism. It's not clear to me from my distance and ignorance whether this is already the case in Iran. It does disturb me to see the excited support that the Mousavi movement has elicited among the always suspect Western establishment. But that's not decisive. I have no answer to the vexing question. The matter is complex. No kidding. The left in, say, the West doesn't need to settle it as a precondition to unite in the local struggles ahead. Nothing human should be alien to us, but too much rancor in d
