The Russian Revolution was an historic event of lasting importance for humanity.  It inspired the peoples of the world, who saw in it the real possibility for ordinary people to develop structures of political action and to seize power.  It would henceforth be known that the world need not be ruled by the rich. 

       There is much disagreement concerning the development of the Soviet Union after the death of Lenin.  I am influenced by Trotsky’s writings on the Russian Revolution, and I am persuaded by the Trotskyite Ted Grant on the Soviet Union.  On the other hand, I am not sympathetic with the historic tendency of Trotskyite parties to rigidly apply the concepts of Lenin and Trotsky in other lands, regardless of particular conditions.

     In Ted Grant’s view, the Russian Revolution suffered within seven years a major reversal, victim of a petty bourgeois and bureaucratic counterrevolution represented by the emergence of Stalin, a counterrevolution that nonetheless invoked the legacy of Lenin, sometimes distorting his intellectual work for purposes of ideological justification.  Accordingly, the Soviet Union after Lenin can be understood as a system of petit bourgeois bureaucratic control from above sustained through political repression and ideological distortion.  In spite of reforms introduced by Khrushchev, the system was not able to return to its Leninist foundation, and it ultimately collapsed under the weight of its contradictions, making possible a bourgeois counterrevolution that dismantled the structures of the petty bourgeois bureaucratic state.  But even that “deformed worker state” of 1924 to 1990 was able to register impressive gains in economic and industrial development, as a consequence of state planning and state ownership of the means of production, legacies of the era of Lenin and Trotsky (Grant 1997).

      The universal significance of the Russian Revolution, however, lies above all with the contributions of the October Revolution to human understanding.  All knowledge emerges in social context, and the most advanced understandings of society emerge in connection with the social movements formed by the dominated (see “What is cross-horizon encounter” 7/26/2013; “Overcoming the colonial denial” 7/29/2013).  Marx, as we have seen, developed new understandings on the basis of his observations of the Western European proletarian movements of the nineteenth century (see various posts on Marx from 1/6/2013 to 1/15/2013).   Similarly, Lenin arrived at new insights, forged in practice as he sought to understand what ought to be done.  Appropriating the insights of Marx, Lenin further developed Marxism through practical reflection on the Russian Revolution, thus establishing the perspective that came to be known as Marxism-Leninism.  Subsequently, Marxism-Leninism would influence charismatic leaders in the Third World, such as Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro, who would appropriate its insights and at the same time further develop them through reflection on the revolutionary processes in their particular national conditions. 

      Therefore, we today are able to understand Marxism-Leninism as a constantly evolving theory and practice that began with Marx and continued with Lenin and that has been developed further by Third World national liberation movements of the twentieth century as well as by the renewed popular movements of the twenty-first century that proclaim socialism for the twenty-first century.  In reflecting on the possibilities of the present historic moment for renewed popular revolutionary movements in the countries of the North, an important task is the intellectual work of studying these revolutionary processes, examining the speeches and writings of their leaders, in order to arrive at an understanding of the essential characteristics of popular revolution, a necessary component of effective revolutionary political action.

      In the case of the Russian Revolution, important insights learned include: (1) the necessity of structures of popular power, in which the people form local councils to debate and discuss and to elect delegates to represent them, who in turn elect delegates at the higher levels that function as the highest political authority, thus substituting popular democracy for representative democracy and parliamentarianism;  and (2) the role of a vanguard party, which functions to politically educate the people, overcoming ideological distortions.  In addition, with respect to the Russian Revolution, we see the unusual capacity of Lenin to understand national and international dynamics from the perspective of the exploited workers and peasants.  The people were able to recognize these characteristics, and they lifted him up to speak on their behalf, thus establishing him a charismatic leader.  This phenomenon of a charismatic leader with unusual gifts and with a special relation with the people would occur later in Third World popular revolutions.  It is a necessary dimension of the revolutionary process, because the charismatic leader has the capacity: to discern insight from confusion in the various contradictory tendencies within the movement; to formulate a coherent comprehensive vision that unites the insightful components; and on this foundation, to forge the political unity of the people, an indispensable prerequisite for success.  We will discuss this phenomenon of Third World charismatic leaders in future posts.

 
References

Grant, Ted.  1997.  Rusia—De la revolución a la contrarrevolución: Un análisis marxista.  Prólogo de Alan Woods.  Traducción de Jordi Martorell.  Madrid: Fundación Federico Engels.  [Originally published in English as: RUSSIA—From Revolution to Counterrevolution].


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Russian Revolution, Lenin

     Lenin maintained that bourgeois revolutions have expanded bureaucracies, as a consequence of the fact that bureaucracy functions as a mechanism for increasing the size of the petit bourgeoisie and bringing it to the side of the bourgeoisie.  The bureaucracy provides positions to the upper levels of the peasantry and artisans as well as merchants, positions which are relatively tranquil, comfortable, and honorable, placing the holders of these posts above the people.  This establishes a situation in which an expanding petty bourgeoisie has an objective interest in the expansion and strengthening of bureaucracy (Lenin 1997:52).

      In the context of this prevailing petit bourgeois interest in the expansion of bureaucracy, there emerges, in Lenin’s view, a competition for power among different bourgeois and petit bourgeois political parties, which share and redistribute bureaucratic posts in accordance with wins and losses in political competition.  This dynamic establishes the phenomenon of petit bourgeois socialism, in which political parties under petty bourgeois leadership proclaim an idealist form of socialism in order to attract the workers and peasants to their side, giving these “socialist” political parties an advantage in the competition for bureaucratic posts.  But petit bourgeois socialism does not have an objective interest in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the taking of power by the proletariat, inasmuch as the proletariat has an interest in the gradual elimination of the bureaucracy, with necessary administrative functions carried out by workers themselves.  Therefore, the petit bourgeois socialists, to the extent that they are successful in the competition with the other bourgeois and petit bourgeois parties, will seek to mediate an arrangement between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, according to which there is an improvement in the economic and social level of the workers, thus promoting a degree of social stability within the structures of capitalism, and at the same time making necessary the further expansion and strengthening of the bureaucratic apparatus.  Thus the petit bourgeois socialists ultimately betray the proletarian revolution, promoting their interest in political stability and bureaucratic expansion (Lenin 1997:47-48, 54). 

     Rosa Luxemburg also writes of the pernicious influence of petit bourgeois social democracy, which distorts the concepts of Marx in order to formulate a theory advocating the improvement of the conditions of the working class within the structures of the capitalist system, abandoning the perspective of the taking of power by the proletariat.  The social democratic parties were able to attain parliamentary majorities in the competition among competing bourgeois and petit bourgeois political parties, thus giving these socialist parties control of the bureaucratic apparatus of the state.  But the bourgeoisie was not dislodged from power, and the bureaucracy continued to serve its interests, although it did function as a mechanism for the improvement of the social and economic conditions of the working class, a necessary precondition for the maintenance of control of the bureaucratic apparatus by the petit bourgeois socialist parties.  The true character of petty bourgeois socialism in Europe was revealed by the break-out of World War I, when the leaders of the social democratic parties in the various nations supported their respective national bourgeoisies, thus contributing to the slaughter of workers in the trenches of Europe in a war caused by the quest for domination of the planet by competing imperialist powers (Luxemburgo 2002:19-20, 27-28).

     Thus, classical Marxist theory viewed the petit bourgeoisie as a class with a tendency to appear to be taking the side of the workers in opposition to the interests of the bourgeoisie, but in reality the petit bourgeoisie did not have an interest in creating a worker-controlled socialist state.  The objective interest of the petit bourgeoisie was in the reform of the capitalist system, improving the standard of living of the workers and peasants, and thus providing the foundation for political stability.  A less conflictive and more stable capitalist system, with a higher standard of living that would include increased access to petit bourgeois commercial and professional services administered by ever growing public and private bureaucracies, would expand and empower the petty bourgeoisie.  Thus, according to classical Marxist theory, the petit bourgeoisie proclaimed its support for the worker-led socialist revolution, but in actuality it tried to serve as a mediator between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, directing the revolution toward reform and thus undermining the possibility of socialist transformation. Classical Marxists saw this dynamic, which they viewed as a petit bourgeois betrayal of the workers’ revolution, unfolding in both Russia as well as Western Europe in the early decades of the twentieth century.  In Western Europe, petit bourgeois socialism rescued the bourgeoisie from the proletarian revolution following World War I.  In the Soviet Union, during the 1920s a petit bourgeois counterrevolution took control of and redirected the proletarian revolution, facilitating a transition from soviets and popular power to a system controlled from above by the state bureaucracy (Lenin 1997:27-30, 47-48; Trotsky 2008:742; Trotsky 1972:31, 68; Luxemburgo 2002; Grant 1997).

     Observing the role of the petit bourgeois socialist or social democratic parties, Trotsky formulated a distinction between a reformist political party and a revolutionary political party.  “In practice a reformist party considers unshakable the foundations of that which it intends to reform.  It thus inevitably submits to the ideas and morals of the ruling class.”  In contrast, a revolutionary political party formulates an intellectual and moral perspective that is an alternative to the assumptions, concepts, and values that are integral to the functioning of the political-economic system of capitalism.  The reformist political parties rise on the backs of the workers and peasants, but they are in essence bourgeois parties.  A revolutionary party is authentic, faithful to its commitment to workers and peasants to lead the masses in the development of a political-economic system that is an alternative to the political economy of capitalism (Trotsky 2008:739).  In a similar vein, Rosa Luxemburg, on the basis of her observations of the pernicious role of social democracy, made a sharp distinction between reform and revolution.  She maintains that reform is the improvement of the situation of the workers within the existing order, whereas revolution is the conquest of political power by the workers (Luxemburgo 2002:23).

     The distinction between reform and revolution by Trotsky and Luxemburg remains valid.  It makes clear that a revolution requires the formulation of fundamental assumptions, concepts and values that are alternatives to the capitalist world-economy, and that provide the foundation for the popular taking of power in order to develop a world-system that responds to popular interests and needs.

      But the betrayal of the revolution by the petit bourgeoisie pertains more to Europe than to the colonial situation.  In the neocolonized nations of the world-system, where the middle class does not benefit from the superexploitation of other lands and thus lives in a more precarious material situation, the petit bourgeoisie has an interest in the autonomous development of the nation and thus in the fundamental structural transformation of the neocolonial system.  For this reason, although ideologies significantly penetrate the middle class of the neocolonized nation, members of the petit bourgeoisie play a significant role, including a leadership role, in the revolutionary process and in the development of a socialist alternative in theory and in practice.

      Moreover, in the context of the present structural crisis of the world-system, the petit bourgeoisie of the core nations no longer has the same possibility for protecting its interests in the context of the capitalist world-economy.  During the twentieth century, material benefits to the core middle class were made possible through the conquest and superexploitation of vast regions of the planet and through government deficit spending.  But in the twenty-first century, the conquest of new lands and peoples has been overextended, and government borrowing has exceeded reasonable limits.  The providing of a secure and comfortable middle class life to members of private and governmental bureaucracies is no longer possible, and the core middle class will increasingly find itself in precarious material conditions. Therefore, like its colonized and neocolonized counterparts of the twentieth century, the core middle class of the twenty-first century will increasingly cast its lot with the popular sectors and will play an important role in the popular revolutions of the twenty-first century.  No doubt many of its members will participate in resistance and reaction, but many of its members also will play leadership roles in the coming socialist popular revolutions of the core.  Like their counterparts in the colonized and neocolonized regions of the twentieth century, they will dedicate and even sacrifice their lives for the sake of the revolution and for the good of humanity.


References

Grant, Ted.  1997.  Rusia—De la revolución a la contrarrevolución: Un análisis marxista.  Prólogo de Alan Woods.  Traducción de Jordi Martorell.  Madrid: Fundación Federico Engels.  [Originally published in English as: RUSSIA—From Revolution to Counterrevolution].

Lenin, V.I.  1997.  El Estado y La Revolución.  Madrid: Fundación Federico Engels.

Luxemburgo, Rosa.  2002.  Reforma o revolución.  Madrid: Fundación Federico Engels. 

Trotsky, Leon.  1972.  The Revolution Betrayed: What is the Soviet Union and where is it going?  New York: Pathfinder Press. 

__________.  2008.  History of the Russian Revolution.  Translated by Max Eastman.  Chicago: Haymarket Books.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Russian Revolution, Lenin, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, petit bourgeoisie, reform or revolution

     Lenin and Trotsky believed that the ultimate success of the Russian Revolution depended upon the triumph of the proletarian revolution in Western Europe.  In 1905, Lenin wrote that the proletarian struggle for socialism in Russia “would be almost hopeless for the Russian proletariat alone, and its defeat would be inevitable . . . if the European socialist proletariat did not come to the help of the Russian proletariat” (quoted in Trotsky 2008:894).  At the same time and in a similar vein, Trotsky wrote, “The contradiction in the situation of a workers’ government in a backward country with the peasant population an overwhelming majority can find its solution only on an international scale, in the arena of the world revolution of the proletariat” (Trotsky 2008:894).  In 1918, Lenin evaluated the situation as follows: “If we examine the situation on a world historical level, there is not the least doubt that if our revolution remains alone, if there did not exist revolutionary movements in other countries, there would not be any hope that it would be able to attain the final triumph” (quoted in Grant 1997:76).

     Lenin and Trotsky considered the necessity of a triumph of the proletarian revolution in the West to be a consequence of several factors.  Without proletarian control of the governments of the West, the political isolation of Russia, along with its limited industrial capacity, would create conditions favorable for a counterrevolution by the bourgeoisie and upper and middle peasants.  However, if the revolution in the West were to triumph, the Western proletarian-controlled states could provide technical and economic support to the Russian Revolution, enabling it to develop, thus bringing the peasantry to the support of the proletarian revolution and undermining the counterrevolution.  But in the absence of a proletarian triumph in the West, such assistance would not be available, and the imperialist powers would mobilize their considerable resources to engage in armed intervention in Russia (Trotsky 2008:894, 901). 

      Lenin believed that the victory of the proletarian revolution in the West was imminent.  From underground in 1917, he wrote to Bolshevik Party leaders that “we stand in the vestibule of the worldwide proletarian revolution” (quoted in Trotsky 2008:711).  For this reason, during September and October of 1917, he was exhorting party leaders to give greater emphasis to plans for an armed insurrection to take power.  Lenin believed that the taking of power by the Russian proletariat would be a stimulus to the proletarian revolution in Western Europe (Trotsky 2008:230).

     In his report to the eighth congress of the party in 1919, Lenin continued to express the need for a proletarian victory in the West.  “We live not only in a state, but in a system of states, and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with the imperialist states for an extended period is unthinkable.  In the end either one or the other will conquer” (quoted in Trotsky 2008:900).  In 1920, he expressed the view that capitalism and socialism cannot live in peace, and that “either the one or the other in the long run will conquer” (quoted in Trotsky 2008:900).

      Although the proletarian revolution in Western Europe did not triumph, it was able to constrain imperialist intentions.  Trotsky notes that the proletarian revolution in Germany compelled the German government to abandon its military adventures on the Russian frontier, and the spirit of revolt among the troops compelled the English, French, and U.S. governments to withdraw from the shores of Russia.  This constraint on imperialist interventionism gave the Soviet Union the possibility to establish an “unstable equilibrium” (Trotksy 2008:901).

     But the imperialist supported civil war in Russia was costly, establishing conditions that undermined peasant support for the revolution and exhausted the proletarian class, facilitating the victory of the petty bourgeois and bureaucratic counterrevolution (see Grant 1997).  Subsequently, the Soviet Union proclaimed the notion of “socialism in a separate country,” and in Trotsky’s view, distorted Lenin’s concepts and the history of the Bolshevik Party in order to legitimate this claim.  Trotsky maintains that the consistent view of Lenin and the consensus of the Bolshevik Party prior to 1924 was that the socialist revolution is permanent and international, and that socialism in a single country would not be possible (Trotsky 2008:890-913). 

     Thus, “peaceful co-existence” with imperialist powers by a “socialist state” is not consistent with the understanding of Lenin.  There may be good reasons, in a particular historical and international context, to depart from the teachings of Lenin and to adopt such concepts and strategies.  But neither the history of the struggle nor the views of the charismatic leader should be distorted.  Rather, the unanticipated international situation should be explained, thus making necessary the departure from the teachings of the leader.

     Although the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union are no longer at the forefront of the global revolution, humanity still confronts the choice between two systems with different foundational structures: the world capitalist economy, on the one hand, and the alternative socialist and post-capitalist structures being developed by the Third World, on the other.  From the perspective of the Third World revolution, if the world system manages to contain the global revolution from below and sustain the basic structures of the world-system, humanity will continue to experience global poverty, insecurity, wars, chaos, and threats to the ecological balance of the earth, dynamics that put the survival of the human species at risk.  On the other hand, the Third World revolution is developing in practice alternative structures that are designed to protect the social and economic rights of all persons, defend the sovereignty of nations and peoples, and conserve the ecological balance of the planet.  It is a choice that Rosa Luxemburg understood as the option of “socialism or barbarism” (Kohan, ed. 2006:98-101). 

      As Lenin and Trotsky understood, since all nations live in the capitalist world economy, in the development of alternative structures to capitalism, no nation can stand alone.  But today there are eight nations with alternative projects, with others coming to their support.  The foundational structures for alternative world-system are emerging.  Meanwhile, the world-system itself confronts a structural crisis that its leaders are unable and unprepared to resolve.


References

Grant, Ted.  1997.  Rusia—De la revolución a la contrarrevolución: Un análisis marxista.  Prólogo de Alan Woods.  Traducción de Jordi Martorell.  Madrid: Fundación Federico Engels.  [Originally published in English as: RUSSIA—From Revolution to Counterrevolution].

Kohan, Néstor, ed.  2006.  Rosa Luxemburgo.  Melbourne: Ocean Press. 

Trotsky, Leon.  2008.  History of the Russian Revolution.  Translated by Max Eastman.  Chicago: Haymarket Books.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Russian Revolution, Lenin, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, permanent revolution, socialism or barbarism

     In calling the proletariat to the vanguard of the revolution, the formulators of classical Marxism were using the term “vanguard” in a broad sense.  But they also used the term in a more strict sense, as composed of persons who possess exceptional leadership qualities, who lead, exhort, and educate the workers during the revolutionary process.

     The vanguard in this more strict sense was expressed by Trotsky when he wrote:  “The proletariat can become imbued with the confidence necessary for a governmental overthrow only if . . . it feels above it a farsighted, firm, and confident leadership.  This brings us to the last premise—by no means the last in importance—of the conquest of power: the revolutionary party as a tightly welded and tempered vanguard of the class” (Trotsky 2008:745-46).

     The taking of power occurs as a single historic event, such as the insurrection of October 25 and the assumption of power by the Congress of Soviets on October 26.  But the revolution is a continuing process, involving the development of the revolutionary project and the protection of the revolution against counterrevolutionary attacks, which assume a variety of forms.  In Trotsky’s conception, the revolutionary party, as the vanguard of the revolutionary class, has an important role to play in this on-going revolutionary process: formulating a clear direction that can provide the basis for unity and that can give the revolutionary class confidence that it can overcome all challenges and obstacles.

     The revolutionary party seeks to formulate its own political, intellectual, and moral perspective that is different from and opposed to bourgeois assumptions and opinions and is based on the thoughts and desires of the revolutionary class.  “Lenin taught the party to create its own social opinion, resting upon the thoughts and feelings of the rising class.  Thus by a process of selection and education, and in continual struggle, the Bolshevik Party created not only a political but a moral medium of its own, independent of bourgeois social opinion and implacably opposed to it” (Trotsky 2008:739).

    The Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Trotsky functioned as a revolutionary vanguard party from the end of April 1917 until it was undermined by bureaucratization and by a petty bourgeois counterrevolution, the signs of which were evident by 1924, according to the Ted Grant (1997).  There are other important examples of revolutionary parties that defined direction, unified the people, and inspired hope and confidence: the Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong, the Vietnam Workers’ Party under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh; and the Cuban Communist Party under the leadership of Fidel Castro.  These cases represent the most enduring and significant revolutions of the twentieth century, indicating the importance of the development of a revolutionary party that functions as a vanguard in the strict sense. 

       In my experiences in Cuba, I have found that there is a clear difference between the vanguard and the people, not with respect to privileges or material conditions, but in relation to understanding.  The members of the vanguard, which consists of perhaps 25% of the population, have an informed global and historical understanding of national and international dynamics, and they are committed to revolutionary values.  Most are members of the Party, but not all are; many have developed leadership qualities through the assuming of leadership roles in the various mass organizations of workers, farmers, students, women, and neighborhoods at the national, provincial, and local levels.  The vanguard has been formed through fifty-four years of revolution, and its formation is a significant achievement of the revolution. 

     The majority of people, on the other hand, tend to think much more concretely, concerned with issues such as the price of food or the quality of public transportation.  They have less of a grasp of national and international issues, although there is a general orientation of support for and appreciation of the revolution and its leaders.

      In light of this distinction between the vanguard and the people, it makes sense to speak of the necessity in the revolutionary process for a vanguard party that explains to the people, reminding them of fundamental facts and values, and that plays a leadership role in the revolutionary process.  The vanguard cannot lead, of course, without the support of the people, so the vanguard must be part of the people and must understand their concerns and needs, as the Cuban revolutionary leadership understands.

       Revolutionary processes lift up charismatic leaders, and there is an intimate relation between the charismatic leader and the vanguard.  The vanguard is formed by the charismatic leader, and as it develops, it seeks to become the institutionalization of charismatic authority, so that when the charismatic leader is no longer present, the vanguard is able to lead with legitimate authority, basing its decisions on the teachings of the charismatic leader. 

       As we reflect on the possibilities for popular revolution in the countries of the North, one of the issues that we must address is the question of how to form a vanguard, a sector of the people that has an informed understanding of fundamental historical and social facts and a commitment to universal human values; a vanguard that would be able to educate the people concerning the concrete steps that must be taken to advance toward a more just, democratic, and sustainable world; a vanguard that earns the respect of the people through its example and through its capacity to respectfully explain understandings that are alternatives to the ideological distortions that the people have internalized.  As I have indicated in previous posts, an important dimension of this process is encounter with the revolutionary movements formed by the Third World, which offer critical analyses of the world-system from below.


References

Grant, Ted.  1997.  Rusia—De la revolución a la contrarrevolución: Un análisis marxista.  Prólogo de Alan Woods.  Traducción de Jordi Martorell.  Madrid: Fundación Federico Engels.  [Originally published in English as: RUSSIA—From Revolution to Counterrevolution].

Trotsky, Leon.  2008.  History of the Russian Revolution.  Translated by Max Eastman.  Chicago: Haymarket Books.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Russian Revolution, Lenin, Trotsky, vanguard

     Classical Marxist theory viewed the proletariat as the revolutionary class, as the vanguard that would lead the revolution.  In the view of classical Marxist theory, factory workers had the most advanced revolutionary consciousness for several reasons: they worked in the most productively advanced sector of the economy; they had an objective interest in seizing the possibilities provided by technological development, creating a society more technologically advanced and at the same time more just; and they lived and worked in concentrated conditions, making possible ample communication and growing awareness among them of the objective possibilities that lay in their hands (Lenin 1997:47-48, 67; Trotsky 2008:10, 38, 673, 916).

     The peasants, in contrast, were viewed by classical Marxist theory as not yet prepared to lead a socialist revolution, a consequence of the isolated conditions in which they worked and lived.  Moreover, the peasants had an objective interest in obtaining ownership of the land on which they worked, and this was understood in classical Marxist theory as a bourgeois interest in private ownership.  However, classical Marxist theory viewed the peasant as prepared to support a worker-led socialist revolution, if the socialist revolution unequivocally supported peasant interests in obtaining land from large-scale landholders.  And classical Marxist theory believed that that the socialization of the land and the voluntary collectivization of the peasants would establish the conditions for the emergence of socialist consciousness among peasants (Trotsky 2008:294-95, 625-40, 916-18; Lenin 1997:67).

     Trotsky viewed the necessity of proletarian leadership of the peasantry as unique to the Russian Revolution, a consequence of the particular economic and social conditions of Russia.  He viewed these conditions as fundamentally different from those that had shaped revolutions in England from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries, in France during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and in Germany during the nineteenth century (Trotsky 2008:38-39). 

     However, with reference to the colonized region, Trotsky believed that proletarian leadership of the revolution is necessary.  He writes:  “This appraisal of national wars and revolutions does not by any means imply, however, that the bourgeoisie of the colonial and semicolonial nations have a revolutionary mission.  On the contrary, this bourgeoisie of backward countries from the days of its milk teeth grows up as agentry of foreign capital, and notwithstanding its envious hatred of foreign capital, always does and always will in every decisive situation turn up in the same camp with it. . . .  The upper circles of the petty bourgeoisie, including the intelligentsia, may take an active and occasionally very noisy part in the national struggles, but they are totally incapable of playing an independent role.  Only the working class standing at the head of the nation can carry either a national or an agrarian revolution clear through” (Trotsky 2008:656).  Accordingly, Trotsky believed that oppressed nationalities must link their fate with that of the working class by freeing themselves from the leadership of the national bourgeoisie and national petty bourgeoisie, thus subordinating the national revolution to proletarian revolution (Trotsky 2008:655).

      Trotsky, however, writing before the emergence of Third World national liberation movements, could not discern the important role played by the petit bourgeoisie in anti-colonial and anti-neocolonial movements, casting its lot with workers and peasants in a revolutionary movement that sought the transformation of the structures of the neocolonial world-system.  We will see the important role of petty bourgeois leaders in Third World anti-colonial and anti-neocolonial revolutions in future posts.

     Observing the characteristics of Third World revolutions that have emerged since the days of Lenin and Trotsky, we are able to see that the global revolution has passed from a proletarian revolution to a popular revolution, characterized by the active participation and leadership of multiple popular classes and sectors, including the petty bourgeoisie, workers, students, peasants, women, and indigenous/ethnic groups.


References

Lenin, V.I.  1997.  El Estado y La Revolución.  Madrid: Fundación Federico Engels.

Trotsky, Leon.  2008.  History of the Russian Revolution.  Translated by Max Eastman.  Chicago: Haymarket Books.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Russian Revolution, Lenin, Trotsky, proletariat, proletarian, vanguard

     The events of the February Revolution led Lenin to believe that the time had come for the development of a proletarian-controlled state, with the support and alliance of the peasants.  Lenin interpreted the development of soviets by workers and soldiers during the February Revolution as the initial steps in the process of socialist transformation, inasmuch as the soviets were socialist structures of government that constituted an alternative to bourgeois structures (see “The Russian Revolution (February)” 1/22/2014).  Lenin believed that the formation of socialist political structures meant that the bourgeoisie could not carry forward with the bourgeois revolution.  The organization of workers and peasants into soviets provided them with a tool to establish a form of democracy that went beyond bourgeois constraints, thus pushing the bourgeoisie to defend its interests through alliance with the landholders and other sectors of the old order, an alliance that would reinforce structures of the old order and would restrain forward movement toward the fulfillment of the bourgeois revolution.  Lenin concluded that these conditions required the immediate implementation of a socialist revolution, led by the working class, which implied that the soviets should take power and fully assume all governmental functions.  This proletarian state, from which the bourgeoisie would be excluded, would carry out the bourgeois democratic revolution, and it would adopt the first socialist measures.  For Lenin, the Russian proletarian state would be the first step in the global socialist revolution which would be carried forward by the proletarian revolution in the advanced countries of the West (Trotsky 2008:227-31, 748, 909-10; Lenin 1997:59-78, 108-9).

     When Lenin arrived from exile on April 3, his interpretation of the February Revolution was opposed by the leaders of the Bolshevik Party.  But Lenin’s view was supported by Bolshevik workers, who “thought it self-evident that the class which had won the victory should seize the power” (Trotsky 2008:235).  With patience toward the Bolshevik leaders who opposed the new direction, and utilizing the support of rank-and-file Bolsheviks, Lenin was able to establish a new direction for the party by the end of the month, and official confirmation of Lenin’s approach was overwhelmingly obtained at a party conference in Petrograd from April 24 to April 29.  This new direction involved breaking with the Mensheviks and advocating the direct seizing of power by the proletariat, establishing the soviets as the government.   The Bolsheviks put forth the slogan, “All power to the soviets”  The February Revolution was only two months old, but the October Revolution had begun (Trotsky 2008: 224-26, 232-39).

     The influence of the Bolshevik Party among workers, soldiers, and peasants expanded rapidly between April and October by virtue of its capacity to discern and defend the interests of the masses, distinguishing itself from the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries, whose popular support declined during this period.  The Bolshevik platform focused on three issues that invoked a favorable response among the people: power to the soviets, the distribution of land to peasants, and bringing an end to the war.  Soviets, land, and peace were the issues that brought Lenin and the Bolsheviks to the vanguard of the Russian Revolution by October (Trotsky 2008:308, 566-67).

     During September and October, the soviets were increasingly assuming governmental functions, and they were increasingly controlled by delegates who were Bolshevik Party members or sympathizers.  In the capital city of Petrograd, Bolshevik-controlled soviets had de facto power, including a considerable armed force composed of soldiers’ garrisons that had committed to following orders from the Petrograd soviet as well as workers’ militias organized by workers’ soviets.   The armed insurrection of October 25 was necessary only to seize control of strategic points not under the control of the soviets, and although the insurrection was supported by a considerable armed force, the application of force was not necessary, as government officials surrendered their posts without resistance (Trotsky 2008:662-837). 

     Coinciding with the insurrection, a Congress of Soviets was held.  The delegates to the Congress were elected delegates of soviets throughout the country.  Since the election of the delegates occurred in October, a majority was Bolshevik.  Unlike the petty bourgeois socialist intellectuals who had been elected to many soviets in February, the October Congress consisted overwhelmingly of workers, soldiers and peasants.  Taking the step that the petty bourgeois socialists would not take in February, the workers, soldiers and peasants of the October Congress of Soviets sanctioned the establishment of an alternative system of government, with ultimate authority in the hands of delegates elected by councils of workers, soldiers and peasants.  The newly constituted government immediately issued decrees concerning peace negotiations and the distribution of land to peasants (Trotsky 2008:674-80, 838-68).

    We see here the most important legacy of the October Revolution: the development of workers’, solders’ and peasants’ councils as the foundation for an alternative structure of government based on popular democracy, an alternative to parliamentarianism and bourgeois representative democracy. 


References

Lenin, V.I.  1997.  El Estado y La Revolución.  Madrid: Fundación Federico Engels.

Trotsky, Leon.  2008.  History of the Russian Revolution.  Translated by Max Eastman.  Chicago: Haymarket Books.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Russian Revolution, October Revolution, soviets, Lenin, Trotsky

       Beginning on February 23, 1917, two-thirds of the industrial workers, some 240,000 in number, participated in strikes and mass demonstrations in Petrograd, then the capital of Russia.  They began to win the soldiers, most of whom were peasants, to their side, with the result that by February 27 the Petrograd garrison of 150,000 troops disintegrated and disappeared.  During the evening of February 27, soldiers, workers, students, and miscellaneous people streamed to the Tauride Palace, which became a temporary field headquarters, governmental center, arsenal, and prison of the revolution.  From these headquarters orders were issued for the guarding of railway stations and the arrest of government officials and policemen.  These orders were carried out by the soldiers without hesitation.  With a minimum of bloodshed, authority had been transferred from the government of the tsar to the February Revolution.  This scenario was repeated in Moscow and in the rest of the country (Trotsky 2008:75-102).

     On February 27, the revolutionary leaders formed a “Provisional Executive Committee of the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies,” summoning the workers to elect delegates to this Executive Committee.  The Soviet Executive Committee immediately began to function as a government, emitting orders to occupy the state bank, the treasury, the mint, and the printing press with a revolutionary guard (Trotksy 2008:115-16). 

     The formation of soviets represented the initial step in the formation of a structure of government that is an alternative to the feudal monarchy or the bourgeois democratic parliament.   The soviets were workers’ and soldiers’ councils, composed of workers’ and soldiers’ delegates elected in the factories, shops, and garrisons.  The need for the formation of soviets as an alternative structure of power had been ingrained in workers’ consciousness since the earlier formation of soviets during the Russian Revolution of 1905.  And the Russian soviets were following the example of the Paris Commune of 1871, which, as described by Marx, consisted of municipal councils elected by universal suffrage in the various districts of the city (Trotsky 2008:10, 115-16; Lenin 1997:64).

     However, the Soviet Executive Committee surrendered power to the bourgeoisie, rather than proceeding to govern the country with the power that it held in its hands.  In a March 1 meeting, representatives of the Executive Committee of the Soviet met with representatives of a Provisional Committee of the Duma (or Parliament) that had been formed on February 27.  It was agreed that a government should be formed by the Provisional Committee of the Duma; and a Provisional Government, consisting of ministers who were members of the bourgeoisie and the landowning class, was formed (Trotsky 2008:116-20, 125-26, 132-33, 138-41). 

      The leaders who turned power over to the bourgeoisie were from two socialist parties: the Social Revolutionary Party, a party led by urban intellectuals with a social base among peasants, which advocated the redistribution of the land and the formation of peasant cooperatives; and the Menshevik party, an urban based party supported by the left wing of the bourgeois intelligentsia and the middle class and by the moderate upper strata of workers.  They were driven toward accommodation with the bourgeoisie because they believed that the February Revolution was a bourgeois revolution and that the time of the proletarian revolution had not yet come (Trotsky 2008:160-67).

     In spite of the surrender of power by the Soviet Executive Committee, workers, soldiers, and soon peasants, continued to identify with and place their hopes in the alternative soviet structure of power.  Soviet structures spread rapidly among workers, soldiers, and peasants.  Soviets were formed in the principal cities and towns in early March, throughout the country in the next few weeks, and in the villages and towns in April and May.  Layers of soviets were developed, as neighborhood soviets in large cities elected delegates to a city-wide soviet; localities, towns, and cities elected delegates to provincial soviets; and a central soviet representing the workers, soldiers, and peasants from many regions of the country was elected.  This formation of a system of soviets by workers, soldiers, and peasants established a situation of dual power: soviet structures of popular democracy alongside bourgeois government (Trotsky 2008:116-18,159). 

      The leaders of the Bolshevik Party had been in exile, and they began to arrive in Petrograd in March.  Most supported the cooperative relation of the Social Revolutionary-Menshevik bloc with the bourgeoisie.  But when Lenin, the principal leader of the Bolshevik Party and a symbol of the revolution in the minds of many workers, arrived on April 3, he took the party and the revolution in a different direction (Trotsky 2008:163, 206-17).


References

Lenin, V.I.  1997.  El Estado y La Revolución.  Madrid: Fundación Federico Engels.

Trotsky, Leon.  2008.  History of the Russian Revolution.  Translated by Max Eastman.  Chicago: Haymarket Books.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Russian Revolution, February Revolution, Lenin, Trotsky

      With Paris threatened during the Franco-Prussian War, Paris deputies constituted themselves into a Government of National Defense.  Those capable of bearing arms were enrolled in the National Guard and were given arms, and the majority of guard members were workers.  When peace terms were negotiated, the government attempted to disarm the people, but the workers refused to surrender their arms.  They established an alternative workers’ government, declaring the Paris Commune on March 28, 1871.  During April and May, French government troops advanced on the city, and the last of the defenders of the Commune were overcome on May 28.

     The alternative structures established by the short-lived Paris Commune illustrated for Marx, Engels, and Lenin the possibilities of the proletarian revolution.  Marx and Engels wrote that the Commune demonstrates that the revolutionary working class, instead of taking control of the state, will abolish it, that is, will destroy the bureaucratic machinery of the state.  The Commune, for example, replaced the professional army with popular militias of workers and peasants; and it eliminated bureaucratic functionaries of the state, and necessary administrative functions were carried out by the workers.  Furthermore, Marx and Engels observed that the institutional transformation pertained to the economic sphere as well, taking into account the efforts of the Commune to establish cooperative manufacturing.  In addition, they observed the emergence of structures of workers’ democracy, as the Commune replaced parliamentarianism with an alternative form of representation, characterized by election to popular councils that in turn elected representatives to higher levels of authority.  These new understandings formulated by Marx and Engels on the basis of the Paris Commune were subsequently appropriated by Lenin, who observed as well the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, in his reflections on the state under conditions of worker control

    Thus, on a foundation of observation of the continually developing proletarian movement, the Marxist-Leninist understanding of the characteristics of socialism emerged: workers’ cooperatives, popular militias, administrative functions carried out by workers, and popular democracy as an alternative to parliamentarianism.  In practice, as socialist projects developed in various nations during the twentieth century, they found that bureaucratic structures of government were difficult to eliminate, because of the need to organize persons with technical and administrative skills.  In addition, in some contexts, it was more workable to develop structures of state ownership in addition to cooperatives; and to some extent it was necessary to leave space for private property.  Nevertheless, workers’ cooperatives, popular militias, and popular democracy and structures of popular power emerged in practice as integral components of socialist projects.  They were understood as structures developed by the people and in response to the interests and needs of the people, in contrast to capitalism, which develops structures in accordance with the interests of the bourgeoisie.


Bibliography

Engels, Frederick.  1988.  “Introduction” in (Marx and Lenin:1988).

Lenin, V.I.  1997.  El Estado y La Revolución.  Madrid: Fundación Federico Engels.

Marx, Karl and V.I. Lenin.  1988.  The Civil War in France: The Paris Commune, 2nd edition.  New York: International Publishers.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Marx, Lenin, Paris Commune

Posted January 6, 2014

     We have seen that the Spanish conquest of America established the conditions for the emergence of the modern world-economy and the modernization of agriculture in Western Europe, involving commercialization, consolidation, and conversion to pasture (“The origin of the modern world-economy” 8/06/2013; “Modernization of the West” 8/07/2013).  And we have seen that from 1750 to 1850, there occurred a new peripheralization of vast regions of the world (“New peripheralization, 1750-1850” 8/20/2013).   The new peripheralization stimulated a second wave of consolidation, conversion to tenant farming, and conversion to pasture in Western Europe.  The displacement of peasants from land created the phenomenon of “pauperism,” in which there emerged “a large, mainly rural lower class only just capable of keeping itself alive” (Miller and Potthoff 1986:8).  By the middle of the nineteenth century, nearly half the population was paupers.

     The new peripheralization of 1750-1850 was integrally tied to the modernization of Western industry, for the peripheralization of vast regions of the world established greater access to the raw materials of the planet, and it provided world-wide markets for the manufactured goods of the expanding and modernizing industries of the West.  The new factories of the West utilized the surplus labor produced by the consolidations of the countryside, converting displaced peasants into low-waged factory workers.  The conditions of life and work were harsh.  “Thirteen-, fourteen-, and in the 1840s seventeen-hour working days under the harshest condition, falling wages that families sought to bolster with the even lower-paid labor of women and children, appalling living conditions, and the absence of any provision against accident, illness, and old age were typical of this period” (Miller and Potthoff 1986:9).

     We have seen that industrial workers were among the popular sectors that played an active role in the French Revolution, interpreting the concept of democracy in a radical form that proclaimed the social and economic rights of all citizens (“Bourgeois revolution in France, 1787-1799” 11/25/2013; “The French Revolution in Global Context” 11/26/2013; “Class and the French Revolution” 11/27/2013).  After the consolidation of bourgeois control of the French Revolution, the popular sectors continued to be active, seeking to expand the scope of democratic rights to include the right to the social and economic conditions that are necessary for a decent human life.  The popular movement attained a renewed height during the 1840s, and it particularly was advanced in France and Germany.  A worker’s organization commissioned Karl Marx to write a pamphlet for the workers in order to help them to understand the events that were unfolding, and thus emerged The Communist Manifesto.  It began with reference to the worker’s movement:  “A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism.”  It concluded by calling upon workers to play the role that history had conferred upon them:  “Workers of the world, unite!  You have nothing to lose but your chains.”

     Karl Marx was born in 1818 in Trier in what is now Germany.  Marx’s father was a lawyer, and Marx grew up in a middle class family that was not religious but Jewish by ethnic identity.  In 1836 Marx entered the University of Berlin, where he studied German philosophy, which at that time was dominated by the thinking of the great philosopher Hegel, whose work analyzed the development of ideas throughout human history.  At the University, Marx studied Hegel, and he fell under the influence of a group of intellectual rebels known as the Young Hegelians, who were anti-religious and atheistic.  Marx had intended at this point to pursue a career in college teaching.  However, a wave of reaction against the Young Hegelians emerged.  Many were dismissed from their teaching posts, including Marx’s mentor, Bruno Bauer.  This meant that Marx was not able to submit his dissertation at the University of Berlin.  So he submitted it to the University of Jena, from which he was granted a Doctor of Philosophy in 1841.  But a teaching career was closed to him.

     Marx turned to working as an editor and a writer in a newspaper in Cologne.  In October 1843, he moved to Paris in order to assume a position as editor of a new bilingual French and German newspaper.  In late 1843 and 1844, Marx encountered intellectuals, artisans, and industrial workers who were activists in the working class struggle.  He observed that there emerged from the working class movement an understanding of how capitalism works, an understanding rooted in the concrete experience of the worker.  This worker’s point of view constituted a perspective different from that of British political economy, which Marx was simultaneously studying.  Thus Marx came to understand that British political economy, while claiming to be objective and neutral, was actually written from the particular vantage point of the bourgeoisie.  At the same time, Marx understood that the vantage point of the worker also was limited, in that it was rooted in concrete daily experience with insufficient development of an historical and global perspective.  Marx therefore grasped the need to formulate a comprehensive understanding of human history and of the emerging capitalist political economic system, based on a synthesis of British political economy and German philosophy and written from the vantage point of the worker.  This was the project to which Marx devoted his life (McKelvey 1991).

       Marx’s connection to the emerging proletarian movement provided him with the experiential foundation to forge a class analysis that was a significant advance in social scientific understanding.  Marx’s class analysis included two fundamental components:  (1) understanding of the role of class exploitation in human history; and (2) awareness that political conflicts are the expression of struggles of class interests.  In 1885 Engels wrote: “It was precisely Marx who had first discovered the great law of motion of history, the law according to which all historical struggles . . . are in fact only the more or less clear expression of struggles of social classes, and that . . . these classes are in turn conditioned by the degree of development of their economic position [and] by the mode of their production” (Engels 1963:14). 


References

Engels, Frederick.  1963.  “Preface to the Third German Edition” of Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: International Publishers.

McKelvey, Charles.  1991.  Beyond Ethnocentrism:  A Reconstruction of Marx’s Concept of Science.  New York:  Greenwood Press. 

Miller, Susanne, and Heinrich Potthoff.  1986.  A History of German Social Democracy from 1848 to the present.  Translated from the German by J.A. Underwood.  New York:  St. Martin’s Press.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marx, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, proletariat, working class

Posted January 7, 2014​

      During the period of October 1843 to August 1844, Marx experienced a profound intellectual transformation.  The cognitional theory of the twentieth century Canadian Catholic philosopher and theologian Bernard Lonergan enables us to understand what occurred.  Lonergan maintains that culturally-rooted assumptions constitute horizons that block relevant questions from consciousness, thus leading to ethnocentric understandings.  For Lonergan, this problem can be overcome through personal encounter with persons of different horizons, enabling a person to arrive at an understanding that goes beyond the limited, partial, and ethnocentric understanding that is rooted in his or her culture (see “What is personal encounter?” 7/25/2013; “What is cross-horizon encounter?” 7/26/2013).

     Marx experienced this phenomenon of personal encounter with persons of different horizons from October 1843 to August 1844, when Marx relocated to Paris and began listening to and taking seriously the understanding of the artisans, industrial workers, intellectuals (including journalists, writers, university professors, and medical doctors) connected to the workers’ movement.  Marx’s personal encounter with the working class movement occurred as he was studying intensely the British science of political economy, which was fundamentally different from the German philosophy that had formed Marx’s perspective prior to October 1843.  Unlike German philosophy, which focused on the history of ideas, British political economy was an analysis of the modern system of capitalism, and it was based on empirical observation (McKelvey 1991; see “Marx and the working class” 1/6/2014). 

      This simultaneous process of encounter with the working class struggle and with British political economy was the experiential bases for an intellectual transformation that provided the foundation for Marx’s intellectual and moral project: an analysis of human history and of modern capitalism on the basis of a synthesis of German philosophy and British political economy, written from the vantage point of the proletariat.  The basic outlines of the project are evident in the writings that were published after his death as the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, written from April to August.  He would spend the rest of his life further developing its formulation, but its basic outlines were in place by August 1844.  Whereas his writing prior to October 1843 reflected a radical philosophy typical of German intellectuals, his double encounter with the science of political-economy and the working class movement led to what Lonergan calls an intellectual and moral conversion, such that by 1844 he was formulating the basic concepts of the new scientific perspective of historical materialism (McKelvey 1991).

     Lonergan’s cognitional theory enables us to understand that Marx formulated an analysis of the political-economy of modern capitalism that was not merely different from that of Adam Smith but was more precisely a further development of the analyses of Smith and Ricardo and a more advanced formulation, in that Marx’s formulation was a more integral and comprehensive analysis based on relevant questions that emerged from horizons defined by three intellectual and moral traditions: German philosophy, English political economy, and the emerging Western European proletarian movement.  Lonergan’s cognitional theory also enables us to understand how Marx, although a petit bourgeois intellectual, was able to write from a proletarian point of view, for it provides us with the explanation that Marx through encounter with the working class movement had discovered relevant questions that were beyond the horizon of the petty bourgeois cultural context, enabling him to move beyond its limitations.

       Marx’s achievement was to overcome the parameters of nationality and class within the context of nineteenth century Europe.  In our time, the movements that challenge the capitalist world-economy emerge primarily not from the exploited European working class but from the neocolonized and superexploited peoples of the Third World.  Just as Marx delegitimated the notion of a general interest, a concept that obscured class interests at stake in theoretical interpretations, our task today is to overcome the colonial denial, which obscures the role of colonialism and neocolonialism in the origin, development, and reproduction of the modern world-system (see “Overcoming the colonial denial” 7/29/2013).  And just as Marx’s achievement was rooted in encounter with the newly emerging working class movements of his time, our understanding today must be based on encounter with the movements from below in our time, that is, with the anti-neocolonial movements of the Third World.  What is required is a reconstruction of the classical Marxist formulation on the basis of a vantage point rooted in the colonial situation.  And such a reconstruction is underway and has today reached an advanced stage, inasmuch as Marxism-Leninism has been reformulated through adaptation to the colonial situation by charismatic leaders such as Ho Chi Minh and Fidel, and inasmuch as a further reformulation is occurring today in the context of the Chavist revolution in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador.


References

McKelvey, Charles.  1991.  Beyond Ethnocentrism:  A Reconstruction of Marx’s Concept of Science.  New York:  Greenwood Press. 


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marx, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, cross-horizon encounter