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! :)
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! 🙂