Course on
Anti-Imperialism, War and Peace, Part 4b
Hegemony and the
NDR
Update for this
part of the Course
This, the fourth part of the Course (which was first done in
this form in 2009) containing three documents and three introductions, needs to
be re-written. This is apparent as we come to the point of posting the third Introduction,
called “Hegemony and the NDR”, which was originally based on the draft
documents for the SACP Special National Congress of December, 2009.
The solution appears now to be as follows:
- Take the (previously) second post, called “Hegemony up to Date”, and use it as the main post (i.e. put it first).
- PrĂ©cis, sub-edit, redact or generally shorten Perry Anderson’s article to a short text of about 5,000 words (from about 36,000 words) and use it as the second, or alternative text.
- For the third post, either omit it altogether, or use another document such as Lenin’s “Petty-Bourgeois and Proletarian Socialism”, or something from Gramsci himself, provided that it will add to the focus of this part, which is to probe the meaning of the word “hegemony”.
Shortened post for
part three
[The following is a
shortened version of the previous version’s post]
Hegemony is mentioned in the first discussion document
prepared by the SACP for the Special National Congress held in December, 2009,
and particularly the following section, taken from the last page of the
document.
“… it is important
that as communists we are clear that working class HEGEMONY doesn’t mean
working class exclusivity (still less party chauvinism). Working class hegemony
means the ability of the working class to provide a consistent strategic
leadership (politically, economically, socially, organisationally, morally –
even culturally) to the widest range of social forces – in particular, to the
wider working class itself, to the broader mass of urban and rural poor, to a
wide range of middle strata, and in South African conditions, to many sectors
of non-monopoly capital. Where it is not possible to win over individuals on
the narrow basis of class interest, it can still be possible to win influence
on the basis of intellectual and moral integrity (compare, for instance, our
consistent ability, particularly as the Party, to mobilise over many decades a
small minority of whites during the struggle against white minority rule).”
In “Petty-Bourgeois
and Proletarian Socialism” (1905), Lenin wrote:
“Can a class-conscious
worker forget the democratic struggle for the sake of the socialist struggle,
or forget the latter for the sake of the former? No, a class-conscious worker
calls himself a Social-Democrat for the reason that he understands the relation
between the two struggles. He knows that there is no other road to socialism
save the road through democracy, through political liberty. He therefore
strives to achieve democratism completely and consistently in order to attain
the ultimate goal - socialism. Why are the conditions for the democratic
struggle not the same as those for the socialist struggle? Because the workers
will certainly have different allies in each of those two struggles. The
democratic struggle is waged by the workers together with a section of the
bourgeoisie, especially the petty bourgeoisie. On the other hand, the socialist
struggle is waged by the workers against the whole of the bourgeoisie. The
struggle against the bureaucrat and the landlord can and must be waged together
with all the peasants, even the well-to-do and the middle peasants. On the
other hand, it is only together with the rural proletariat that the struggle
against the bourgeoisie, and therefore against the well-to-do peasants too, can
be properly waged.”
Joe Slovo wrote (in the SA Working
Class and the NDR, 1988):
“There is, however,
both a distinction and a continuity between the national democratic and
socialist revolutions; they can neither be completely telescoped nor completely
compartmentalised. The vulgar Marxists are unable to understand this. They
claim that our immediate emphasis on the objectives of the national democratic
revolution implies that we are unnecessarily postponing or even abandoning the
socialist revolution, as if the two revolutions have no connection with one
another.”
Please download and read the text via the following
link:
Further
reading:
The Antinomies
of Antonio Gramsci, 1976, Perry Anderson (36070 words)
Gramsci and Hegemony, 2009,
Trent Brown (3949 words)
No comments:
Post a Comment