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
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. . . .