October 14, 2024
https://imhojournal.org/
Summary: A student reflects on the possibilities and pitfalls of today’s revolutionary movements around the world — Editors
In this essay, I will focus on the parts of Kevin B. Anderson’s new book that resonate most with me and my generation.
One striking feature of this book, as highlighted in its title, is the notion of 21st-century revolutions. These revolutions have, to a significant extent, distinctive features, which are thoroughly explained, compared, and summarized in the book. This allows us to better understand them from a perspective of totality.
In today’s world, whether it is about understanding events themselves or forming our own positions, it seems to be increasingly challenging. Both require rigorous analysis, a critical approach, and steadfast principles, along with sufficient knowledge to grasp events that appear chaotic and complex. They also demand that a consistent humanistic attitude be maintained toward all involved parties.
I’ve often noticed that in nearly every revolution discussed, there’s a common issue that mirrors the present challenge we face. For instance, even the most controversial figures like Qaddafi in Libya can have the global left offering a more relaxed justification for their legitimacy—anti-imperialism being a prevalent one. We even see this, for example, in France, where there are excuses made for Macron’s government in the face of rising fascism. The indecision or ambiguity across certain regimes is something that has run through many revolutions of the 21st century. Therefore, we need enough wisdom and insight to avoid falling into these narratives, so we can see the conditions that truly serve the interests of the masses and the working class, as this is the core of humanism.
We are not drawn to the postmodernist framework of fragmentation, which can easily lead to frustration and thus reactionary tendencies. Indeed, from the chaotic “triangular conflict” (page 107), one of the main themes of 21st-century revolutions emerges a struggle for survival on the part of genuine revolutionaries caught between two reactionary forms of counter-revolution—the military-nationalist authoritarian regime and its reactionary theocratic antagonists.
These complex and rapidly changing situations, along with internal revolutionary conflicts, can create confusion, leading people to more easily revert to supporting the status quo. On the contrary, I believe this aligns with the second dialectical point: in an age of absolutes, where contradictions are so total that counter-revolution lies not just in among the supporters of the old system, but in the very innards of revolution itself.
To view things through a truly dialectical lens, identity politics can indeed present an obstacle to recognizing class contradictions. However, we must approach this with a fully dialectical method. In reality, identity politics is a visible trend brought about by the current stage of capitalism, and there is undeniable unity within it.
As to the new movements against oppression that have emerged in the wake of state-capitalism, we should acknowledge and theorize them in all their variety, and sometimes even in their contradictions with each another.
Furthermore, the book emphasizes throughout the need for reflection on the campist political positions held by many on the global and intellectual left. We should avoid the easy path of justification, such as basing it solely on anti-imperialism—especially in Third World countries facing diverse challenges. Escaping this dilemma is also dialectical: as Lenin once said, “all-round consideration of relationships in their concrete development, rather than a patchwork of bits and pieces.”
At the heart of all this is a rigorous reassessment of our stance. Hegel made it clear at the start of modern dialectics: we should not turn away from difficulties but instead engage in the seriousness, suffering, patience, and labor of the negative.
When discussing revolution, we gain important insights for organizations and updated tactics for revolution. For example, in the case of Iran, we see among the youthful opposition a move away from Marxist principles and a denial of revolution itself. This is deeply connected to the detachment observed in academia and intellectual circles, which again highlights the importance of discourse. Additionally, we’ve learned painful lessons about horizontalism and the over-reliance on spontaneity, pushing us to explore new paths between top-down vanguardism and the former.
When we talk about alternatives, it’s not just about a systemic overhaul or a replacement of orthodox Marxist theories. Instead, we need a more complete refinement of theory. Additionally, we must have knowledge from, for example, political science and economics, especially in considering concrete geopolitical situations across different regions. Given the current levels of the productive forces, we should also envision alternatives for governance and leadership that can hold power perhaps in the short term, and sufficiently armed against reactionary attacks from state-capitalism and inner contradictions that could also lead the revolution astray.
In the chapter on the French social movements and uprisings, another crucial point that Anderson drew on is that the younger generation needs to obtain a comprehensive vision of an alternative to capitalism and thus develop an ambition to set up fundamental aims to abolish the system.
As Anderson emphasizes, we have moved far from Marx’s early vision of capitalism. As our theories need updating, works like this are vital in helping us analyze contemporary events and point out the direction we need to strive toward.
https://imhojournal.org/
Summary: A student reflects on the possibilities and pitfalls of today’s revolutionary movements around the world — Editors
In this essay, I will focus on the parts of Kevin B. Anderson’s new book that resonate most with me and my generation.
One striking feature of this book, as highlighted in its title, is the notion of 21st-century revolutions. These revolutions have, to a significant extent, distinctive features, which are thoroughly explained, compared, and summarized in the book. This allows us to better understand them from a perspective of totality.
In today’s world, whether it is about understanding events themselves or forming our own positions, it seems to be increasingly challenging. Both require rigorous analysis, a critical approach, and steadfast principles, along with sufficient knowledge to grasp events that appear chaotic and complex. They also demand that a consistent humanistic attitude be maintained toward all involved parties.
I’ve often noticed that in nearly every revolution discussed, there’s a common issue that mirrors the present challenge we face. For instance, even the most controversial figures like Qaddafi in Libya can have the global left offering a more relaxed justification for their legitimacy—anti-imperialism being a prevalent one. We even see this, for example, in France, where there are excuses made for Macron’s government in the face of rising fascism. The indecision or ambiguity across certain regimes is something that has run through many revolutions of the 21st century. Therefore, we need enough wisdom and insight to avoid falling into these narratives, so we can see the conditions that truly serve the interests of the masses and the working class, as this is the core of humanism.
We are not drawn to the postmodernist framework of fragmentation, which can easily lead to frustration and thus reactionary tendencies. Indeed, from the chaotic “triangular conflict” (page 107), one of the main themes of 21st-century revolutions emerges a struggle for survival on the part of genuine revolutionaries caught between two reactionary forms of counter-revolution—the military-nationalist authoritarian regime and its reactionary theocratic antagonists.
These complex and rapidly changing situations, along with internal revolutionary conflicts, can create confusion, leading people to more easily revert to supporting the status quo. On the contrary, I believe this aligns with the second dialectical point: in an age of absolutes, where contradictions are so total that counter-revolution lies not just in among the supporters of the old system, but in the very innards of revolution itself.
To view things through a truly dialectical lens, identity politics can indeed present an obstacle to recognizing class contradictions. However, we must approach this with a fully dialectical method. In reality, identity politics is a visible trend brought about by the current stage of capitalism, and there is undeniable unity within it.
As to the new movements against oppression that have emerged in the wake of state-capitalism, we should acknowledge and theorize them in all their variety, and sometimes even in their contradictions with each another.
Furthermore, the book emphasizes throughout the need for reflection on the campist political positions held by many on the global and intellectual left. We should avoid the easy path of justification, such as basing it solely on anti-imperialism—especially in Third World countries facing diverse challenges. Escaping this dilemma is also dialectical: as Lenin once said, “all-round consideration of relationships in their concrete development, rather than a patchwork of bits and pieces.”
At the heart of all this is a rigorous reassessment of our stance. Hegel made it clear at the start of modern dialectics: we should not turn away from difficulties but instead engage in the seriousness, suffering, patience, and labor of the negative.
When discussing revolution, we gain important insights for organizations and updated tactics for revolution. For example, in the case of Iran, we see among the youthful opposition a move away from Marxist principles and a denial of revolution itself. This is deeply connected to the detachment observed in academia and intellectual circles, which again highlights the importance of discourse. Additionally, we’ve learned painful lessons about horizontalism and the over-reliance on spontaneity, pushing us to explore new paths between top-down vanguardism and the former.
When we talk about alternatives, it’s not just about a systemic overhaul or a replacement of orthodox Marxist theories. Instead, we need a more complete refinement of theory. Additionally, we must have knowledge from, for example, political science and economics, especially in considering concrete geopolitical situations across different regions. Given the current levels of the productive forces, we should also envision alternatives for governance and leadership that can hold power perhaps in the short term, and sufficiently armed against reactionary attacks from state-capitalism and inner contradictions that could also lead the revolution astray.
In the chapter on the French social movements and uprisings, another crucial point that Anderson drew on is that the younger generation needs to obtain a comprehensive vision of an alternative to capitalism and thus develop an ambition to set up fundamental aims to abolish the system.
As Anderson emphasizes, we have moved far from Marx’s early vision of capitalism. As our theories need updating, works like this are vital in helping us analyze contemporary events and point out the direction we need to strive toward.
The International Marxist-Humanist Organization (IMHO), the publisher of this journal, aims to develop and project a viable vision of an alternative to capitalism - a new, human society - that can give direction to today’s freedom struggles.
No comments:
Post a Comment