bayano
7th June 2006, 14:10
My primary interest in the study of influential revolutonaries, from ho chi minh to amilcar cabral to fanon trotsky to mao to sukarno to garibaldi to bakunin, and yes, Marx and Lenin as well, is to find what i think is the most important and useful of their writings or practical contributions. defining marxism and leninism for me is both about agreeing with general views of them, but also about personally picking them apart, and saying there are components to each that i oppose and do not think are useful.
Lenin was one of the early major contributors to the discourse against imperialism as far as the 20th century goes. writers came before him, but he laid down some pretty good fundamentals that were more than developed upon by great third world revolutionaries later on. marx, well, lets be honest, the guy was pretty fucked up on colonialism sometimes.
read, for instance, his view of british hindustan (india/south asia). here he decries british injustices, argues that the crimes of the british corporate imperialists are the worst the sub-continent has ever seen by rulers, that imperialism (in this case through colonialism) is essentially economic, laying some of the many influences for lenin to put together a more systemic analysis. but then he ends with a conclusion that british colonialism's coercive social revolution will in the end be progressive for south asia, and that globalization (im not sure that he ever uses the word but he defines it perfectly) and industrialization will present some formulaic liberation for south asia along the lines of what marx hoped for in europe.
he didnt so much dabble in the first world/third world quandry, of whose (socialist) revolution will occur first and thusly affect the other, tho he passes this dilemma with a mention. but he apparently (in how ive always read his articles) breaks his own rule of focusing his interpretations and analysis of the europe of his era and takes an almost formulaic approach to revolution in india.
granted, ive never read everything he ever wrote on south asia. but these were some of his basic writings on the sub-continent. i am also curious to read more of the indian marxists of the 20th century's responses to his writings.
Lenin was one of the early major contributors to the discourse against imperialism as far as the 20th century goes. writers came before him, but he laid down some pretty good fundamentals that were more than developed upon by great third world revolutionaries later on. marx, well, lets be honest, the guy was pretty fucked up on colonialism sometimes.
read, for instance, his view of british hindustan (india/south asia). here he decries british injustices, argues that the crimes of the british corporate imperialists are the worst the sub-continent has ever seen by rulers, that imperialism (in this case through colonialism) is essentially economic, laying some of the many influences for lenin to put together a more systemic analysis. but then he ends with a conclusion that british colonialism's coercive social revolution will in the end be progressive for south asia, and that globalization (im not sure that he ever uses the word but he defines it perfectly) and industrialization will present some formulaic liberation for south asia along the lines of what marx hoped for in europe.
he didnt so much dabble in the first world/third world quandry, of whose (socialist) revolution will occur first and thusly affect the other, tho he passes this dilemma with a mention. but he apparently (in how ive always read his articles) breaks his own rule of focusing his interpretations and analysis of the europe of his era and takes an almost formulaic approach to revolution in india.
granted, ive never read everything he ever wrote on south asia. but these were some of his basic writings on the sub-continent. i am also curious to read more of the indian marxists of the 20th century's responses to his writings.