Originally posted by RebeldePorLaPAZ+--> (RebeldePorLaPAZ)There is no limit to what the Marxist can achieve...[/b]
No...I'm afraid there are limits and fairly strict ones at that.
A Marxist in a "third world" country is in a very awkward position.
Contrary to the Leninist conceit of the last century, you cannot skip over a lengthy period of capitalist development...which may be done under the auspices of private capital, state capital, or a mixture of both.
So a "third world" Marxist who actually wanted to participate in a communist revolution would really have no reasonable choice but to take up citizenship in an "old" capitalist country and "go from there".
If that's not practical, then one "good thing" that a "third world" Marxist could do is attack all of the pre-capitalist cultural traits of his/her country.
The emerging proletariat in those countries is severely handicapped by superstition, patriarchy, racism, etc. A vigorous ideological attack on those reactionary formations will "help" (in the long run) that new proletariat become sufficiently advanced for communism to "make sense".
I don't think it makes much sense for a "third world" Marxist to get involved in bourgeois revolutions -- even if they manifest themselves under the "red" flag.
It's "demoralizing" work because a Marxist would know that the most that could come from it would be some sort of social welfare system..."easing the birth-pangs" of the modern capitalist system there.
On the other hand, the more damage that can be done to all the reactionary pre-capitalist ideologies, the sooner the time may arrive when proletarian revolution might become a practical possibility.
Better it should happen in 2300 than in 2500!
There has to be a point when you rally support and build a movement and that’s through democracy, vote for the working class party not the bourgeoisie.
This is actually what Marx and Engels advocated during the 19th century European bourgeois revolutions.
But we now know that such parties are incapable of passing beyond the horizons of "bourgeois right"...regardless of their "red" rhetoric.
I can't deny that it makes "a kind of sense" to vote for such parties in the "third world"...but I think it would be, again, demoralizing, to really get involved with them. You can't "make them" into more than what it's materially possible for them to be...except in words, of course.
Originally posted by
[email protected]
I would like to tell you in advance, though, that redstar would surely propose that your country should establish capitalism first before going to socialism.
Close. It's not a matter of "should", it's what will happen. You can no more stop it from happening -- in one way or another -- then you can call forth the Roman Empire by issuing a manifesto.
Neto
What should be the actions of a Marxist in a country like Brazil or Mexico?
Brazil and Mexico are not really "third world" countries any more...call them "second world" if you like.
In my opinion, those countries have already become sufficiently developed as to be entering their "Age of Reform"...where capitalism is modernized in preparation for those countries to become "players" in their own right. In fact, I expect them to become imperialist countries...perhaps by 2050 or even somewhat sooner.
What this means is that a Marxist in those countries will probably get "caught up" in reformist struggles...because it's actually possible to win real reforms. It will "look like" things are leading "in a revolutionary direction"...even though that's not really what's actually happening.
Unfortunately, proletarian revolution remains a century or maybe two centuries in the future there. A Marxist there could talk about communism...but it would sound completely wacko to 99.999% of his/her listeners.
I suspect, in fact, that Marxists in the "third world" and even the "second world" are few in number and brief in duration. A "western education" brings them into contact with Marx...but what Marx really writes about is alien to nearly everything they see around them.
They can borrow some of Marx's ideas and "adapt" them for use in their own countries. The developed part of Russia in Lenin's time bears considerable resemblance to present-day "second world" countries. And the "third world" countries look almost "ideal" for Maoism to "work".
But remember that Lenin's party only came to power in the wake of catastrophic military defeat and the overthrow of a truly hated aristocracy...something that doesn't apply to today's "second world" countries.
Maoism depends on a heavily exploited peasantry...but, slowly and surely, the "third world" peasantry is being urbanized.
So the prospects are not necessarily "bright" for those versions of "Marxism"...no matter how plausible they may look to a "Marxist" in one of those countries.
There's always the possibility that someone will come up with an entirely new version of "Marxism" adapted to "second world" or even "third world" countries.
But I don't see how any conceivable ideology will overcome the historical materialist reality...that real communism is only possible in a "high tech" society...which, by definition, "second world" and "third world" countries are a very long way away from achieving.
So it's a "tough" situation.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif