These are some ideas to address while considering this work. None of them are essential, and any of your own thoughts are very much welcome! I’ll be adding my own thoughts later today.
What is Debray saying and how is he saying it?
Is he persuasive?
What has he missed?
What would you say the theme of this work is?
Did anything surprise you?
Is this work applicable outside of the conditions of Latin America in the '60s? What parts are universally applicable?
Is this really a “nonessential” or would it be good for any communist to read it?
Does the book seem cool? Would you go camping in the mountains with it and share a wistful glance over the flickering embers of a dimming campfire?
Next Discussion
Next week will be:
1/18 - Discussion 2 - “The Principle Lesson for the Present”, “Some Consequences for the Future”, summary discussion on the whole book.
Next Title
If you would like to suggest the next title, please put in a separate comment with the words “submission suggestion”. I think the highest voted title should win.
Books should be:
not suggested for beginners.
not overly technical or philosophical (I’m just not smart enough to lead those discussions).
relatively short (so as not to lose too much momentum).
regionally or subject specific (like Che’s Guerilla Warfare is topically specific, or Decolonization is Not a Metaphor is regionally specific?).
I’m glad I’ve started to read it. It’s a good one and I’m glad you prompted me to open it.
I’m still a little shocked at how much he criticises the Trotskyists. I know there are some big theoretical differences with Marxism-Leninism, but Debray gets right into the detail and argues that LatAm Trotskyists failed at every hurdle.
In the chapter on self-defence, for example, almost half the chapter is a direct attack on Trotskyists. That was unexpected, but I suppose on reflection it’s not too surprising: if Trotskyism was the main revolutionary thought in LatAm outside Cuba at the time, then it makes sense that Debray would look to the problems of their organising and the theory that underpinned their approach, i.e. Trotskyism.
I wonder whether ML organisers would have had more success, given that Debray starts his critique by saying that nobody had properly studied Cuba. Would MLs have made the same mistakes as the Trotskyists? Or would they have studied Cuba more carefully? Is the lack of study of Cuba the real difference, or is it adherence to the ML line? And why was Trotskyism so dominant? Were LatAm revolutionaries so purist that they rejected MLs after Khrushchev’s Secret Speech?
Generally, it seems strange that so many leftists rejected Marxism-Leninism after that Secret Speech. Even if it was correct, surely the better line was to follow ML praxis to win the revolution, then do something else after succeeding (i.e. avoiding what Stalin was accused of).
I suppose this is missing (so far) from Revolution in the Revolution, unless I’ve missed it. On the one had this extra analysis would make the book (which is pamphlet-sized) bulkier and more academic. But if ML ‘insurgents’ would have made similar mistakes as Trotskyists, I’d have thought that would be quite a significant conclusion. Which makes me think that Debray really did put the blame on Trotskyism, not just a lack of analysis of Cuba. Unless he implies that ML insurgents would have studied Cuba. Lenin probably would have, but would ML activists? If so, why was Debray’s book needed?
Further to the point about the chapter on self-defence, I thought @DankZedong@lemmygrad.ml might be interested in Debray’s argument as it touches on revolutionary violence.
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
If you haven’t already found it, this GitHub page is an excellent collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics, made by @dessalines and others.
I’m glad I’ve started to read it. It’s a good one and I’m glad you prompted me to open it.
I’m still a little shocked at how much he criticises the Trotskyists. I know there are some big theoretical differences with Marxism-Leninism, but Debray gets right into the detail and argues that LatAm Trotskyists failed at every hurdle.
In the chapter on self-defence, for example, almost half the chapter is a direct attack on Trotskyists. That was unexpected, but I suppose on reflection it’s not too surprising: if Trotskyism was the main revolutionary thought in LatAm outside Cuba at the time, then it makes sense that Debray would look to the problems of their organising and the theory that underpinned their approach, i.e. Trotskyism.
I wonder whether ML organisers would have had more success, given that Debray starts his critique by saying that nobody had properly studied Cuba. Would MLs have made the same mistakes as the Trotskyists? Or would they have studied Cuba more carefully? Is the lack of study of Cuba the real difference, or is it adherence to the ML line? And why was Trotskyism so dominant? Were LatAm revolutionaries so purist that they rejected MLs after Khrushchev’s Secret Speech?
Generally, it seems strange that so many leftists rejected Marxism-Leninism after that Secret Speech. Even if it was correct, surely the better line was to follow ML praxis to win the revolution, then do something else after succeeding (i.e. avoiding what Stalin was accused of).
I suppose this is missing (so far) from Revolution in the Revolution, unless I’ve missed it. On the one had this extra analysis would make the book (which is pamphlet-sized) bulkier and more academic. But if ML ‘insurgents’ would have made similar mistakes as Trotskyists, I’d have thought that would be quite a significant conclusion. Which makes me think that Debray really did put the blame on Trotskyism, not just a lack of analysis of Cuba. Unless he implies that ML insurgents would have studied Cuba. Lenin probably would have, but would ML activists? If so, why was Debray’s book needed?
Further to the point about the chapter on self-defence, I thought @DankZedong@lemmygrad.ml might be interested in Debray’s argument as it touches on revolutionary violence.
Thanks for the tip. I’ll add this to my reading list!