Further Comments on the Affluent and Proletarian Nations

Iam glad to have the opportunity of commenting on Michael Barratt Brown’s paper Third World or Third Force? which criticizes some aspects of my essay in N.L.R. No. 18. His major criticism is that my “talk of a ‘Third World’ that is inevitably at odds with the European workers is utterly wrong-headed and may be fatally dangerous”. Before I comment on the major criticism, however, I should perhaps deal with some of the points of detail.

I don’t, as far as I can see, bring any sheikhs into my analysis and your contributor’s repetitive listing of what I am supposed to regard as the “bourgeoisie”: “princes, sheikhs, chiefs, comprador merchants and middlemen . . . ” diverts attention from the main point I wished to stress: that there exist in the societies of the Third World powerful groupings opposed to that restructuring of society without which development is impossible and aid wasted.footnote1 These groups may, in detail, range in character from the industrial bourgeoisie of Latin America, to the administrative bourgeoisie of many African and Asian states, or the traditional authorities of tribalism in Africa. Yet, while the composition of this group may be highly diverse from one region to another, it has in almost every territory played the same role—it has been, and still is, a barrier to progress, a point of entry or of support for the forces of neocolonialism, a group largely preoccupied with the exploitation of the peasant masses. As such, it is uncompromisingly rejected by writers such as Fanon or Césaire, by peasant spokesmen such as Juliao in Brazil, by the leaders of the national struggle in South Africa, the West Indies, by an increasing proportion of the Negro population struggling for emancipation in the USA. . . .

The “growing points” of a new world to which I refer (and I use the plural deliberately for the developments of recent years and the differing needs and conditions of the Third World countries suggest we shall see emerging a wide range of socialisms) are precisely those countries in which the structural changes I referred to above have been, or are being, made—and often in the face of very real resistance by privileged groups old and new.footnote2 The countries I list show inevitably a great diversity—for their socio-economic problems, their cultural heritages, the types of pressure they have been exposed to, vary greatly and no magic political formula exists which will solve all of their problems. And I follow the practice of many French students of the Third World and include People’s China and the Democratic Republics of North Vietnam and North Korea within the Third World. Their problems of underdevelopmentfootnote3 and their socio-geographic conditions link them much more closely with the emergent countries of Africa, Asia or Latin America than with the older European socialisms and their experience may be much more relevant to the emergent countries than the rather specialized experience of the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe.

And, to clarify the record, I am indeed not unaware of the “long tradition of anti-imperialist writing and action in the British Labour Movement”. I was not in any way undervaluing the contributions of Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, Palme Dutt and other pillars of the “British Labour Movement”; I might, in fact, add that year after year I have recommended Basil Davidson’s volumes on Africa as fundamental background reading for the course on the geography of Africa I taught. But I referred specifically in my essay to “the left wing politicians” and “the political leaders of the left in Europe” and, even though your contributor confines his attention to the British Left, the wide historical sweep and the extreme catholicity of definition which he must adopt to make up his list (an even more varied list than my list of “growing points” of the Third World . . .!) underlines how real has been the defection of the political leaders of the Left in the last couple of decades. The only relatively recent Labour Party spokesman he quotes is Ernest Bevin—and Bevin’s views on the “Empire” show no very great feeling of socialist solidarity. . . .