marxism & (under)development

Robert Malecki malecki at
Thu Apr 11 00:07:58 MDT 1996

>At 10:40 AM 4/10/96, Rahul Mahajan wrote:
>>Why? All you first world intellectuals going to tell the huddled masses
>>what to do?
>Of course not. This isn't exactly a new controversy in the Marxist
>tradition - can you have a socialist transformation of a partly
>industrialized society? Or putting it into a global context, can a
>socialist revolution survive in the Third World without any transformation
>of the First; as Lou said, quoting Lenin, the Russian revolution would
>perish without revolutions to the West. It took a while, but Lenin seems to
>have been proved right?
>Teleology is unfashionable these days, but Marx's point about socialism
>emerging from developed capitalism is worth reconsidering after the
>collapse of the USSR and the transformation of China into a giant export
>processing zone.
>>What would you suggest people living in places full of injustice and misery
>>do, if it gets shown conclusively that attempts at building socialism are
>>doomed from the start?
>I don't know the answer to this, which is why I brought it up. Kerala is an
>inspiring example, but hasn't it run into limits imposed by India's

I also beleive that one can not ignore this question. Although many times in
my polemics against the PCP maoists and their bankrupt stalinist ideology it
can sound like one should ignore the real differences that exist between the
third world and the industrial world. That is perpaps why it is neccessary
of building a new revolutionary international. If we are going to understand
the combined and uneven developments internationally, but also work in order
to solve some of these problems.

And on one question i agree with the third worldists veiw. When they say we
should wait around while you people discuss these problems. Our people are
starving to death,  riots and rebellions of desperation and millions of
deaths both in the third world but also in the industrial world while small
groups of marxists discuss theory in their ivory towers.

In much of the maoist rhetoric i at least see a guide to action. This is one
thing i am afraid the leftists in general industrial world take far too
unseriouly. When the maoist say "pick up the gun" and people do, it is not
because of the PCP but that conditions for people are unabearable. I give
credit to the PCP for at least coming with something even if i disagree with
there general ideology. I remember so well the riots in the US in the
sixties., the desperation the hate and no political party which could take
resolute action. When the panthers appeared and tried to give this movement
a militant political face they were ruthlesssly exterminated. Many white
centered organisations critised the panthers politically. But they did not
live in the ghettoes. Albeit the panthers might have been wrong politically,
they did in fact try to organise people and show a way forward. The left at
that time was a fucking student debating club.

And the left, who,s social base certainly can be questioned. Have a tendency
to not take this question seriouly. I think somebody said here something
like well if i was living in those conditions in Peru i would have picked up
the gun also.

So while all you people go on and on about this that and everything,
discussing(!) all the aspects. I want to go out and organise a meat riot!
This is not a joke Our history is a pyramid of skulls, our skulls....

It is my gut reaction to the theroretical question raised in the combined
and unequal development stuff. I get the feeling sometimes they we relate to
politics in the historical sense without doing anything concrete to change
it. The net is also a place that has to be changed because it is part of
this fucking theory..


     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list