> Christopher Cutrone wrote:
>
>> More than 50 years of "Third World" so-called "revolutionary"
>> movements have failed to produce any emancipatory results
>> whatsoever.
>
> Wow. "Revolutionary" (in quotes) and no "emancipatory results whatsoever."
>
> Seriously, I applaud your ambitious effort to sort out the totality of
> the experience of the left in world history. Just beware of
> overstating your conclusions before you truly (critically) digest such
> a vast amount of factual material.
With all due respect Chris, although the emergence of your group appears to echo young Marx's battles against the neo-Hegelians (you cite his note to Ruge on "ruthless criticism" etc.), it seems to me that your point of departure is fundamentally at odds with the one Marx advocates. Let me be a bit more explicit.
Your emphasis is on self understanding, instigating or advancing debate, which you view as "the very essence of politics." If you are serious about it, something interesting should come out of it. But something not necessarily emancipatory.
Of course, the "critic" -- as Marx wrote -- can start by engaging with any form of consciousness, parse it, deconstruct it, reassemble it together, etc. But the real essence of politics is not debate or some other critical sport, but the conflicting material interests that split 7 billion people and pit them against one another. The struggles of the left since the mid 19th century (and even before that) are the superficial political expression of those conflicts of interest. You just categorically dismissed the still ongoing history of the revolutionary left in the Third World (revolutionary in quotes). Sure, there's ambivalence in every damn thing that happens -- but which side are you guys on?