The upsurge of colonial revolution in recent years has led to a fresh examination of earlier Marxist work on this topic, both by Marx and Engels themselves, and by theorists of the Third International. This bookfootnote1 gives a serious and mainly non-polemical approach to some aspects of this issue. Two central themes are included: the evolution of the theory of colonial revolution among Europen Marxists from Marx, through the Second and Third Internationals, to present Soviet theory; and the growth in China of a theory of revolution and socialist transformation. The body of the book is a selection from relevant documents, which is preceded by an essay discussing matters raised in the texts.

It is precisely because it discusses such a major political question that the book, despite many virtues and a wealth of material, suffers from two crucial defects. The first concerns its thematic and geographical limits. Thematically, the book is confined almost entirely to discussions of revolutionary strategy in the colonial areas and of the way colonial revolution relates to struggle in the industrial capitalist societies. The problem of Marxist analysis of Asian societies is treated in a cursory manner. Any strategy has to presuppose some analysis of class structure in these societies, and of the role of kin, tribe and religion in forming the consciousness and social practice of Asian societies. Such analytical material is also necessary for Marxists outside Asia. Since the Second World War and the world dominance of us imperialism, universities in the usa have evolved a wealth of ideological analysis based on the spurious concept of ‘modernization’ and often vaunting the progressive role of the military in this modernizing process. The Soviets have now evolved analogous theories, of which a few examples can be found in this book. Such theories are wide open to attack and form an important link, and a weak one, in the imperialist idealogical hegemony over universities in the advanced nations; in the few places where such ideologues have not prevailed, power is held by empiricist Fachidioten who jealously guard their departments and subjects against the incursions of any theory. The theme of Marxist analysis of pre-industrial societies and of colonial Asia is thus of vital political importance both for revolutionaries in the third world, and also for an anti-imperialist student movement in the capitalist world. It is an essential component of the problem ‘Marxism and Asia’.

The book also has a serious geographic limit. The only Asian country given serious consideration in the book is China. The Chinese Revolution has been the greatest single revolutionary victory in Asia, but much material has been produced on the important struggles in such other countries as Vietnam, Japan, India, Persia and Indonesia. This is largely ignored. Thus in both its thematic and its geographic content the book falls far short of the title, Marxism and Asia. Either a different title should have been chosen, or the full extent of the problem should have been indicated and discussed, even if a comprehensive treatment would obviously go beyond the confines of any one book.

The second major defect of the book concerns the theory of culture, geography and politics that lies behind the authors’ introductory essay. This affects their general reading of the texts. They argue that Marx was ‘Europocentric’ and regarded European culture as superior to that of Asia. His theory rested on the industrial proletariat, a social force not predominant outside Europe. The Chinese have been determined to preserve their cultural specificity and to modernize while ‘remaining themselves’.footnote2 This has led to an ‘Asiocentric’ approach, and the Chinese have ceased to be Marxists. The Sino-Soviet dispute is thus seen as a conflict between Europocentric and Asiocentric views, and has its origins in cultural differences. The Chinese reject Western values; hence they regard the West as incapable of revolutionary action. ‘Mao is in fact repudiating Marx, Lenin and Soviet experience’footnote3 in the Cultural Revolution; the Chinese are making ‘a revolution that has nothing in common with Marxism’.footnote4

Europocentrism usually implies a conscious or unconscious bias, resulting from the acceptance of European values. It is an effect of imperialist ideology. Such ideological Europocentrism did not distort Marx’s analysis. Marx’s Europocentrism was analytic and strategic, and was based on a fact—the spread of capitalism across the world. Just as Hegel’s Absolute was world-historical, so the proletariat would be world-historical.footnote5 Capitalism was breaking down all the Chinese walls of non-European societies. Marx neither defended nor accepted this process: he analysed it and laid the basis for historically transcending it. Marxism is therefore not ‘an attempt to Europeanize the world’,footnote6 but an analysis of how capitalism was Europeanizing the world, and of how to combat this universal mode of production.