Hi folks,
Today we’ll be discussing:
Revolution in the Revolution - Régis Debray
Today’s discussion is:
- 1/18 - Discussion 2 - “The Principle Lesson for the Present”, “Some Consequences for the Future”, summary discussion on the whole book.
I’m reading the Grove press edition translated by Bobbye Ortiz. These seem to be some digital copies, but please share if you find a better one!
https://archive.org/details/revolutioninrevo0000regi_p5g2/page/n5/mode/2up
http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=CA5F03D21F0EED6587F9663A5FDA5D8D
Discussion Prompts
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?
-
What has he missed? Is he wrong about anything?
-
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?
Next Discussion
Next week will be:
- 1/25 - “Make Way for Winged Eros” - Alexandra Kollontai
https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1923/winged-eros.htm
Next Title
If you would like to suggest the title for 2/1 , 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?).
- readily available.
Thanks for your time! :)
I thought this last section was very interesting, with a very persuasive argument for Debray’s vision for future revolution.
II. The principal lesson for the future:
He spends quite a bit of time arguing against making revolution through current parties, and for developing separate socialist guerilla movements. I thought this was a key quote:
He talks a bit about how vital a worker-peasant alliance is to making a revolution, and leaves me wondering what that looks like in the modern imperial core.
He talks about remaking the party into an “effective directive organism” involves putting an end to endless meetings and bureaucracy, but also says that will involve “suspending democratic centralism”. Which gives me pause. I understand the need for defined hierarchy in battle, but it feels like a core component.
He adds a rad quote from Che: “you are capable of creating cadres who can endure imprisonment and torture with silence, but not of training cadres who can capture a machine-gun nest”. (p. 103)
I liked another quote on party work from Debray: "Let us speak clearly. The time has passed for believing that it suffices to be “in the Party " to be a revolutionary. But the time has also come for putting to an end the acrimonious, obsessive, and sterile attitudes of those who think that in order to be a revolutionary one must only be “anti-party”…the value of a revolutionary, like that of a party, depends on his activity” (p. 104).
He calls the guerilla force “the party in embryo” and mentions that guerillas don’t want political commissars because their leaders hold that role. There’s quite a lot that I found thought provoking and interesting in this chapter, and I think a lot of use could be found here for revolution in the Americas still.
Consequences for the Future:
I’ll let the quotes speak for themselves in this section. I really think it’s a good read entirely:
sounds like a scathing critique of western parties
Summary on the work:
Debray has a lot of really great critiques of existing (at the time) forms of organization, and of making revolution. He does seem to suggest that to start a revolution, you just need to start “waging war against whichever agents of imperialism are closest to you”. I’m not sure I find that convincing, and I’m not sure that’s been born out as a fully successful strategy in the areas he’s speaking for either.
I thought this was a great work, and I’m happy I read it. I think any communist would do well to read it, and any communist in the Americas could find a lot of worth in it.
I’m glad I own a paper copy.
Great analysis! Debray writes so succinctly that it’s hard to pick out the most important parts. You’ve done that and highlighted something that I didn’t quite see, about the modern application in the imperial core. There’s definitely something in here for Marxist parties to think about. From Debray’s text, I suspect he would not be too impressed by many modern parties. Or rather, he might ask why they are claiming to be vanguard parties without doing what he deems to be the vanguard’s work (which may not even require strict adherence to theory).
Looks like that Castro quote stood out to us both (p. 98). It’s a good one. Seems a little outrageous at first, but it makes sense. I’ve heard people say that Castro (i) pretended not to be a Marxist to keep the CIA off his back long enough to have a revolution and (ii) eventually pretended to be a Marxist to lure in other Marxists to the Cuban cause. Debray’s analysis persuasively disputes both these options. He gives a whole new framing to the Cuban revolution, of its form and its leadership.
I agree with your assessment. It’s not the most essential work, theoretically. It may not all be relevant today, as technology has changed things and, at least in the imperial core, armed struggle does not seem to be on anyone’s mind (although it’s probably not the kind of thing that political parties will publicly state), but there are important lessons here.
He demonstrates the type of criticism that is required, showing (as we saw last week) that he’s not afraid to criticise those who don’t live up to his standards e.g. Trotskyists, but also that he would support even non-Marxists if they successfully organised.
I can’t believe I’ve had this gem on my shelf for so long and not read it yet. Thanks for arranging this reading group.
Thanks for reading with me! You’ve helped me understand it quite a bit better! 🙂