دانلود کتاب رسیده برای انقلاب – ساخت سوسیالیسم در جهان سوم

On February 3, 1964, standing in front of a large crowd in Mogadishu, Somalia, at the end of a groundbreaking tour of ten newly independent African states, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai declared, “Revolutionary prospects are excellent throughout the African continent.” Sixteen months later, before twenty thousand at the National Stadium in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Zhou proclaimed, “An exceedingly favorable situation for revolution prevails today not only in Africa, but also in Asia and Latin America.” Zhou’s remarks, condensed by some in the Western press into a declaration that Africa, Asia, and Latin America were “ripe for revolution,” sent shockwaves around the world: dedicated Cold Warriors feared that Red China was attempting to subvert the fragile new states of the developing world.1 The furor reached such a high pitch that Tanzania’s exasperated president, Julius Nyerere, told visiting senator Robert Kennedy that “Africa is very much ripe for revolution and I can assure you Chou En Lai is not responsible.”2 Nyerere was undoubtedly right that revolutionary energies did not need to be artificially implanted by nefarious outsiders. As the imperialist system crumbled, fledgling postcolonial governments faced millennial hopes for prosperity in the face of desperate poverty and political instability throughout the Third World.3 Revolutionary transformation was on the agenda of many in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but what sort of revolution? There was no proletariat to seize the means of production, and not much means of production to seize. Marxist models of revolution, whether in Maoist, Stalinist, Titoist, or other variants, had taken form in very different political and economic contexts—and with much blood spilled. Development through capitalism was seen as a long, difficult slog—not to mention that it was one of the driving forces of the imperialism that had oppressed these regions. Socialism was another possible way forward. But how could it be adapted to Third World conditions? There were as many answers as there were countries and leaders willing to try some version of socialism. In the first decades after World War II, as Asian and then African countries gained their independence, no one—whether in Beijing, Cairo, Jakarta, Moscow, New Delhi, or elsewhere—knew exactly how to build socialism in the newly independent states. There were precedents: neither China nor Russia had been highly industrialized countries at the time of their revolutions, and the Soviets in particular saw the experience of their Central Asian republics as relevant to the postcolonial world.4 As Fred Halliday has pointed out, while Marxism had envisioned socialist revolution as taking place in the most advanced capitalist economies, Marxism-Leninism became instead a method for “catching up” with them.5 But China and Russia were also enormous countries with large internal markets and vast natural resources, at least some industry, and, perhaps most important, powerful communist regimes that had established themselves militarily in the crucible of civil war. Most African and Asian states were predominantly peasant countries with little industry and tiny working classes, where it was less a matter of socializing the means of production than creating them. But political systems—and, in some cases, a coherent national identity—also needed to be constructed. All of this had to happen in societies riven by ethnic divisions in which the liberation struggle had often been centered on identities other than class, and where religious institutions were pervasive and politically influential. Additionally, while some of the leaders of the newly independent states were sympathetic to Marxism, most were not, and very few were anxious either to copy the Chinese or Soviet models or to allow another outside power to infringe upon their hard-won sovereignty.