Fanon's Wretched of the Earth: A Marxist critique | Revolution Festival 2023
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 ноя 2023
- Fanon has been used by academics as a basis for a whole series of confused and reactionary ideas about “de-colonisation of the mind”. However, “Wretched of the Earth” is a book about revolutionary struggle against colonialism, arms in hand.
In the book, Fanon issues very sharp and prescient warnings about the treacherous role of the bourgeoisie after independence, but at the same time he argues that the only revolutionary classes in colonial countries are the peasantry and the lumpen-proletariat, as opposed to the working class.
In this talk, Jorge Martin will discuss how Fanon reached these conclusions, what role he played in the Algerian revolution, and why the strategy he advocated was wrong.
Thanks a lot but the volume in most of your videos are low, I hope you look at it and thanks again
It's so your boss can't hear. 😜
it's so bad I'm straining to hear, it's such a shame :(
If you don't have speakers available, use a chrome extension to boost the volume
I have to disagree about Sartre’s foreword; I think it’s very good whatever his other faults might have been.
YOUR'RE WRETCHED IM NOT WRETCHED
wrenched
This is what you interpret from Fanon when you are born and raised in a KKKauKKKasian society, even if you claim to be a communist. Communism is as strange to third world countries in Africa and Asia as Capitalism. Nothing wrong with finding unique local solutions which work for those regions, communists want one size fit for all and this is not how the world work.
A Marxist would ask: What class did Fanon's work serve? The lecture doesn't say.
Fanon said "national bourgeoisie will be quite content with the role of the Western bourgeoisie’s business agent". Could he or couldn't he recognise the FLN in Algeria was a bourgeois movement?
What did the IMT say about the FLN at the time? The lecture doesn't say.
In 1964 Ted Grant wrote "Ben Bella and the FLN (National Liberation Front) are being pushed in the direction of a 'socialist solution'." (The Unbroken Thread, "The Colonial Revolution and the Sino-Soviet Dispute" Ted Grant. available online).
"pushed in the direction of socialism" is not Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution. The reference to "Permanent Revolution" at the end of the lecture is thus not clear.
at 33:12 we are told that Fanon on Algeria choose "the wrong group". The implication is the IMT chose the other group or wished they had. Is that right? Is that what Trotsky would have done?
--
What did the genuine Trotskyists say?
On the 1962 Evian agreement for Algerian “independence” between the French government and Front de Liberation Nationale (FLN) leadership, the Socialist Labour League (of the ICFI) explained: “The Algerian petty bourgeoisie seeks to fill the place vacated by French colonialism, while continuing to be a loyal guarantor of the fundamental interests of French capital in North Africa. We see the Evian agreements as the expression of that willingness, in which the FLN leaders remain true to their nature.”
(Trotskyism Versus Revisionism, Volume Three (London: New Park, 1974), p. 248, available online)
Why does the comment above keep disappearing?
@@johnwilsonwswsI see it. You must select "newest first" instead of "top comments".
@@rfvtgbzhn Thanks. I added the second comment to see if it would keep the first.
Voice is not clear comrde
the voice and articulation is fine; it's the volume from youtube
17:00 weird that Trotskyists are blaming "Stalinism" for the failure to liberate colonies, because among Third-Worldists who make their own Third-Worldist errors it always goes back to Stalin or Mao when they have to justify things based on keeping countries independent from imperialist countries. I don't think you can really blame "Stalinism" for this one.
That isn’t what he said. The Stalinist communist party in Algeria alienated themselves from the struggle of the colonial working class and thus could play no revolutionary role. Class collaborationism is a counterrevolutionary hallmark of Stalinism. As noted by Fanon himself (quoted some 10 mins later in the video), national liberation movements led by the national/petit bourgeois failed to win any meaningful independence or freedom for the masses.
what I am saying at that point is that the French Communist Party had dropped the demand for Algerian independence, this was as a result of the Popular Front policies adopted in the 1930s under the leadership of Stalin. Prior to that the Comintern had insisted that the PCF had to stand for freedom for French colonies. That was under the leadership of Lenin, when Trotsky was responsible for following up the work of the French party.
A Marxist would ask: What class did Fanon's work serve? The lecture doesn't say.
Fanon said "national bourgeoisie will be quite content with the role of the Western bourgeoisie’s business agent". Could he or couldn't he recognise the FLN in Algeria was a bourgeois movement?
What did the IMT say about the FLN at the time? The lecture doesn't say.
In 1964 Ted Grant wrote "Ben Bella and the FLN (National Liberation Front) are being pushed in the direction of a 'socialist solution'." (The Unbroken Thread, "The Colonial Revolution and the Sino-Soviet Dispute" Ted Grant. available online).
"pushed in the direction of socialism" is not Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution. The reference to "Permanent Revolution" at the end of the lecture is thus not clear.
at 33:12 we are told that Fanon on Algeria choose "the wrong group". The implication is the IMT chose the other group or wished they had. Is that right? Is that what Trotsky would have done?
--
What did the genuine Trotskyists say?
On the 1962 Evian agreement for Algerian “independence” between the French government and Front de Liberation Nationale (FLN) leadership, the Socialist Labour League (of the ICFI) explained: “The Algerian petty bourgeoisie seeks to fill the place vacated by French colonialism, while continuing to be a loyal guarantor of the fundamental interests of French capital in North Africa. We see the Evian agreements as the expression of that willingness, in which the FLN leaders remain true to their nature.”
(Trotskyism Versus Revisionism, Volume Three (London: New Park, 1974), p. 248, available online)
I disagree. Belief definitely matters. How can anyone say otherwise? Gramsci points this out; everyone knows of false conciousness. What happened to the typically good analysis?
This sucks sm im sorru
You know what communist parties in different countries did to the people who wore glasses. Your pulling legs of academician shows insecurity on your side and you do this discrimination while talking about Fanon. Very strange.
top cryptologists are working 24/7 to decipher wtf you just said...
@@alep_betI think they want to make a connection between the IMT's criticism of Fanon and the Khmer Rouge killing people who wear classes. Whis is bullshit, as besides it's name and some symbols they used, the Khmer Rouge had nothing to do with communism in any Marxist sense.
Interesting perspective but I do not agree with the presenter
What do you disagree with?
@@fabilovesfutbol I disagree with picking a quote from the thousands of literature reviews on Fanon and just giving a brush pronouncement.
@alokobaju8288 That's not what happened whatsoever. If you want to be disingenuous and lie about what's literally recorded in a video you're going to have a real bad time
thanks, may I ask what's your disagreement?
very insightful... /s