racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
>No. Western Marxism has been full of Euro-centrism. Two of the greatest >champions and fighters for socialist internationalism and against >imperialism and racism--Lenin and Trotsky-- were Euro-centrists. In so far as Lenin goes, he was a true internationalist and universalist socialist. i would not, however, terribly charecterize him banal eurocentric simply because Lenin made us believe that Russia could make a revolution by challenging the eurocentric orthodoxy and classical theory of stages: if you don't have the necessary economic pre-conditions and bourgeois democracy, you can not have socialism. Lenin analyisis of imperialism, agrarian question in Russia, oppresion of peasentry, 1896 St Petersburg strikes, showed that Russia was ready for a revolution, and hence would provide a role mother for international revolutions world wide. the fact that it did not happen that way everywhere does not falsify the original idea. on the contrary, it shows socialists can learn from their past not the repeat the same mistakes in the present. On top of all, changing nature of capitalism and growing anti-imperialist rivalary reiterates Lenin's point: You need to settle accounts with your own bourgeoisie _as well as_ the international bourgeoisie. otherwise, working classes are constantly pit against each other.. In my view both Marx and Lenin are exteremely useful to understand the development of world history. Proving their eurocentricism does not seem to me a terribly fair interpretation of them. Marx was concencrened with horrible conditions of the working class in Britian (Remeber the "bloody legislation against the expropriated" chapter in Capital) _as well as_ the conditions of the working classes in India..he was a critic of capitalism regardless of nationality..that is why he said "settle account with your own bourgeoisie" in the Manifesto. he did not say "ally with them", he meant "trash them" but i agree with the rest of your post.. Mine
racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
>The Comintern supported the national bourgeoise >instead of the indigenous communists. this is interesting, and I agree with your historical evidences. but one more point. Turkish Communist Party was a member of the Comintern backed by Turkish Communists like Mustapha Suphi. the relation between turkish Communists and the national bourgeois regime was full of tensions because of this comintern membership. It was also because TKP was offically recognized in the begining, but then closed when nationalists began to think TKP exceeded the limits, and moved to the left. .Turkish nationalists were not Marxists, so they hated Soviet regime from the begining, oppressing the indigenous communists having connections with soviets. >The end >result was things like the >support of the >KMT in China leading to the 1927-8 massacres and the support of Mustafa >Kemal in Turkey _after_ he had murdered all of the top communists there. Kemal killed communists because they were members of the Comintern. Famous socialist author Nazim Hikmet, who was accepted as a refugee to Soviet Russia and protected by Soviet communists, was denied Turkish Citizenship because he was a communist. Nazim could not enter Turkey for this reason, not his death even.. >Kemal murdered Turkish Marxists with weapons given to him by the >Comintern. It is true. yes, Lenin, during the national struggle against the British, gave arms to Kemal (1918-1920).If Kemal went out of his way and killed communists, which he DID because he was a nationalist bourgeois, I don't think that Comintern should be blamed for this. Do you have historical documents of Comintern somewhere?, do they state anywhere "kill your communists with those guns?". It was obvious that Comintern gave support to national liberationist movements since they thought that they could convert them to communism. the same thing happened with soviet support to Nasser too.They were stupid and naive, it did NOT happen like this...Bourgeois nationalists killed their communists with those guns.. in any case, if i were living around those times I would give my support to Soviet regime and its struggle to block US imperialism and enlargenment. In the cold war period, i am definetly on the side of Soviets in principle because they had no other choice but to set off US agression. If they did mistakes, it should be criticized, but the idea of offsetting agression forming hegemonic alliences by possible means available does not seem terribly problematic to me.Somebody previously mentioned in this list catholic-socialist allience for strategic reasons, then what happens if soviets allied with nationalist liberationists on the condition that the purpose must be 1)conversion 2) internationalist socialist revolution 3)socialism and anti-imperialism.. I am not of course talking about the present situation, I am talking about the decolonization period.. Kurdish socialist Party killed its own militants who left the party. so what? does it mean that it does not have the right to exist? Mine >Sam Pawlett
racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
Sam Pawlet:
> The alliances were disastrous and it was partly because of
>eurocentrism-- socialism wasn't possible in such backward places
>independent of European revolution.
I understand your reasoning, but why is it Eurocentric to expect a
socialist revolution world wide? The main reason behind the establishment
of the Comintern (Lenin, 1919) was to export revolutions to "colonized
countries", or to "promote communism world wide". Lenin's speech submitted
to the second congress of the Third International (1920) proves this
point. so the idea was internationalist, not eurocentric, not even
Russian centric. If you mean by European revolution _Russian revolution_,
Lenin thought Russia could provide a role mother to other revolutions
since it was Russia, historically speaking, outside the west (germany),
that did the revolution. The Comintern became Russian centric under Stalin
(1935), I think, in the seventh or fifth congress of the Third
International, which Trot called "the liquidation of the comintern". Trot
resisted this domestification of communism, and criticized the idea of
"socialism in one country" without having socialism world wide. I am not
after Trot here, but he was right at this point.
>It was a conundrum. The bourgeosie
>in said countries was acting
>in important anti-imperialist ways but at the same time repressing
>(usually savagely) domestic revolutionaries. Kemal asked Lenin for aid
>to kick out the Greeks and got it, despite the situation in Russia in
>1918-1920.
Very True. I don't see the _connection_ however.Lenin's approach to
nationalist liberation movements were strategic and pragmatic. Just as
bourgeois democratic reforms are instrumental in leninist jargon, national
liberationist movements are instrumental too. Marx saw this before.Without
fully consummating bourgeois reforms (minumun wage, right to organize,
right to strike, etc..), you can not have a democratic socialist society
in the future. Whether or not bourgeois democratic rights were existing in
colonized countries is another subject matter of discussion (obviously it
did not exist in Turkey even under the new regime). So one may think
extrapolating bourgeois conditions to societies with entirely different
structures is Eurocentric. but so what? in so far as Kemal was pro-western
("not" pro-Soviet) and commited to capitalism. It was not unexpected that
he ousted the leftist opposition. Kemalist regime was anti-marxist. In my
view, Lenin's approach to national bourgeois regimes was straight forward
as he said in the speech to the communists "strategically ally with them
when necessary but DO NOT MERGE with them". This allience meant "push for
certain reforms". Thus, Lenin was on the side of Turkish Communists
not on the side of Kemal.
Moreover, in 1918-1920 period, new regime in Turkey was not established
yet (1923). The regime was officially ottoman empire backed by British
imperialists, although the natioanalists formed their de facto government
in Ankara (1918). Around those times it was very difficult to pin down who
is what since the Ottoman empire nearly lost its legitimacy and was under
attack from different people. Communists,socialists, liberals allied in
their support to nationalists, while some did not and some were killed;
some changed sides and conspired with ottomans;some came closer to soviets
organized under the name Anatolian socialists. the anti-imperialist
struggle was constituted from a field of ideological struggles.so it is
very difficult to judge retrospectively. In a nut shell, what i can say
is that Lenin wanted to exploit this opportunity by giving guns to
Kemal.He thought he could gain the support of the leftist party line in
the nationalist front. He made a strategic mistake;it did not happene
that way, partly because (and this is important) turkish communists could
_not_ transcend their nationalism yet. but Lenin had no intention of
killing communists or allying with nationalists. If Kemal killed these
people, this is the mistake of Kemal, not Lenin!
Mine
racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
>>> Rod Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/18/00 06:43PM >>> This is closer to what I believe, Charles. But even so. It is likely that a revolution that starts anywhere but the US or Western Europe would quickly be bombed to oblivion. _ CB: Yes, this is part of the Neo-liberal triumph. It is a true triumph in the military sense. We are living in the days of the Evil Empire. Life imitates art. However, I think that low level revolutionary advances may be made as in liberated territories within the global empire, as in Cuba, China, etc. These can be expanded. It may become possible to avert military attack and take over, as Cuba has. __ Even in US or Western Europe, it must be a mass democratic upheaval, rather than a small group coup d'etat. __ CB: If it is not a mass democratic upheaval, it is not communism (Marxism). The masses will likely have leaders. This is basic, and it would be sabotaging the working masses movement and strategy to try to deny it leaders, as the bourgeoisie itself has leaders, and will in such a sharp class war as a revolutionary upheaval or insurrection. Unity is critical at the moment of insurrection. At the same time, even in the insurrection, the working class must strive to have leaders in its ranks. With the top leaders interchangeable with members from the ranks. This is the contradiction of democratic centralism taken beyond bourgeois conceptions of it, and the working class masses must always strive for better democracy and better centralism than the bourgeoisie. CB Charles Brown wrote: > I'd say it more this way, Rod. There is no successful socialism without it >eventually being a world revolution. But that doesn't mean that the world revolution >starts everywhere at the same time. > -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
very true. plus Luxemburg.. >Lenin and Trotsky were both champions of arguments against the Second >Interntional-Menshevic claim that socialism couldn't take root in >'backward' places. >Bill Burgess
Re: racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
Please, can we drop this, and move on to something new. We have only a couple of people involved. And, also, please don't bother with a "this is my last comment on " because others will answer and then you will I am not singling out anyone, but just want the thread to drop. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/14/00 05:59PM >>> very true. plus Luxemburg.. >Lenin and Trotsky were both champions of arguments against the Second >Interntional-Menshevic claim that socialism couldn't take root in >'backward' places. CB: Also, Lenin predicted the revolution in the "East" would be bigger than the revolution in Russia. Today this prediction is valid. CB
Re: Re: racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
>very true. plus Luxemburg.. > >>Lenin and Trotsky were both champions of arguments against the Second > >International-Menshevik claim that socialism couldn't take root in > >'backward' places. > > >>Bill Burgess And on all the evidence, all three of them were wrong, and Martov and company were right... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
True, Charles, but surely the important thing for a Marxist is a revolution that leads to socialism. And there Marx's contention that it could only occur in an advance capitalist country still holds. Rod Charles Brown wrote: > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/14/00 05:59PM >>> > > very true. plus Luxemburg.. > > >Lenin and Trotsky were both champions of arguments against the Second > >Interntional-Menshevic claim that socialism couldn't take root in > >'backward' places. > > > > CB: Also, Lenin predicted the revolution in the "East" would be bigger than the >revolution in Russia. Today this prediction is valid. > > CB -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
Revolution can "only occur in an advance capitalist country?". Which Marxists subscribe to this notion besides vulgar orthodoxs nowadays? This was *not* Marx's contention. Marx's circumstances were entirely different when he came closer to this idea, but he never explicitly put it. History *falsified* this distortion of Marx when Lenin corrected it in 1917. Both were true internationalists, and they were concerned with extending socialist revolution beyond Europe.. i don't see any eurocentricism with this. I agree with Charles, btw.. Mine >True, Charles, but surely the important thing for a Marxist is a >revolution that leads to socialism. And there Marx's contention that it >could only occur in an advance capitalist country still holds. >Rod >Charles Brown wrote: > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/14/00 05:59PM >>> > >> very true. plus Luxemburg.. > > >Lenin and Trotsky were both champions of arguments against the Second > >Interntional-Menshevic claim that socialism couldn't take root in > >'backward' places. > > > > CB: Also, Lenin predicted the revolution in the "East" would be bigger than the revolution in Russia. Today this prediction is valid. > > CB -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
I'd say it more this way, Rod. There is no successful socialism without it eventually being a world revolution. But that doesn't mean that the world revolution starts everywhere at the same time. And directly to your point, and proven by the first efforts to build socialism in the 20th Century, even if the revolution first occurs in a "backward" capitalist country, as it did in Russia, that revolution must soon be followed by a revolution in an "advanced" capitalist country; and for the situation right now we might have to say within the G-7 Group, and maybe even the U.S. (given the world configuration now !). For the advanced capitalist bloc can use horrendous warfare based on its advanced mode of destruction, to thwart socialism in the backward countries. I think it was Engels and Marx's presumption that even in an advanced country, the revolution could not last if it did not become a world wide revolution. Anyway, isn't the current circumstance qualitatively different from the 19th Century and early part of the 20th in that inter-capitalist national and inter-imperialist rivalry has turned in to an effective unity, a unified bloc of the "advanced" capitalist countries ? So, to speculate, it may even be that the whole "advanced" bloc would have to be revolutionized, or rather would be in a revolution in that bloc because of its unity. CB >>> Rod Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/18/00 01:28PM >>> True, Charles, but surely the important thing for a Marxist is a revolution that leads to socialism. And there Marx's contention that it could only occur in an advance capitalist country still holds. Rod Charles Brown wrote: > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/14/00 05:59PM >>> > > very true. plus Luxemburg.. > > >Lenin and Trotsky were both champions of arguments against the Second > >Interntional-Menshevic claim that socialism couldn't take root in > >'backward' places. > > > > CB: Also, Lenin predicted the revolution in the "East" would be bigger than the >revolution in Russia. Today this prediction is valid. > > CB -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
Rod Hay wrote: > True, Charles, but surely the important thing for a Marxist is a revolution that >leads to socialism. NO! This is to pretend that we access to a crystal ball. The important thing for a Marxist is revolution aimed at socialism. Whether it succeeds in maintaing itself to fit some blueprint is entirely irrelevant. There have been many socialist revolutions: nothing that happened in the Soviet Untion after 1917 or in Vietnam after 1946 or in China after 1949 or in Paris after 1871 can change the fact that these were socialist revoluttions -- and only our distant descendants (at a time when it is only of antiquarian interest) can say whether any of these revolutions failed. I was just reading in Eagleton's *Ideology of the Aesthetic," in which he mentions that Trotsky once claimed, "We Marxists have always lived in tradition" -- We *are* those "failed" revolutions (even those that "failed" before anyone ever heard of them -- and if/when a socialist revolution in one or more of the advanced capitalist countries it will have much to owe to those various "failed" struggles. Carrol > And there Marx's contention that it > could only occur in an advance capitalist country still holds. > > Rod > > Charles Brown wrote: > > > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/14/00 05:59PM >>> > > > > very true. plus Luxemburg.. > > > > >Lenin and Trotsky were both champions of arguments against the Second > > >Interntional-Menshevic claim that socialism couldn't take root in > > >'backward' places. > > > > > > > > CB: Also, Lenin predicted the revolution in the "East" would be bigger than the >revolution in Russia. Today this prediction is valid. > > > > CB > > -- > Rod Hay > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > The History of Economic Thought Archive > http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html > Batoche Books > http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ > 52 Eby Street South > Kitchener, Ontario > N2G 3L1 > Canada
Re: Re: Re: racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
This is closer to what I believe, Charles. But even so. It is likely that a revolution that starts anywhere but the US or Western Europe would quickly be bombed to oblivion. Even in US or Western Europe, it must be a mass democratic upheaval, rather than a small group coup d'etat. Rod Charles Brown wrote: > I'd say it more this way, Rod. There is no successful socialism without it >eventually being a world revolution. But that doesn't mean that the world revolution >starts everywhere at the same time. > -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: racism, eurocentrism (fwd)
I can not think of any revolution that was not a mass democratic movement, if the meaning of revolution is not conflated with coup-d'etat, of course! Mine it was written: > mass democratic movement rather than a small group coup d'etat. >Charles Brown wrote: >>There is no successful socialism> >without it eventually being a world revolution. But that doesn't mean >that the world revolution starts everywhere at the same time. >
