Book Review: The Marxism of Regis Debray: Between Lenin and Guevara

• Author: Robert L. Delorme
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/106591297903200229
• Published date: 01 June 1979
• Date: 01 June 1979
• Subject Matter: Book Review

Book

Reviews

and

Notes

241

mobility sufficient to fragment various elements of the urban poor and undermine

the class basis for community cohesion and solidarity.

While part

of

Eckstein’s work resembles more conventional Marxist analysis

of the Mexican polity, her synthesis and integration

of

the relevant literature is

erudite and unimpeachable. Likewise, her

own

research, employing interviews and

survey analysis supplemented by the facilities

of

the Instituto hlexicano de Estudios

Sociales (IMES)

,

provides solid and original empirical grounding for her findings

and adds substantially to the knowledge of the urban poor in the Mexican context.

Eckstein’s work will be profitably read for its contributions to Latin American

urbanization theory and Mexican political studies for

a

long time to come.

STEPHEN

P.

MUMAIE

University

of

Ariroiin

The

Marxism

of

Regis Debray: Between Lenin and Guevara.

By

HARTAIUT

RAnrnr.

(Lawrence: The Regents Press of Kansas,

1978.

Pp.

196.

$13.50.)

The

principal focus of this study is “the nature of the Guevarist theory of

revolution and its similarities and differences with the Leninist theory; the principal

vehicle for this investigation is Regs Debray.” This stated purpose seems somewhat

inconsistent with the title

of

the book. It is at least confusing in that Debray

is

not

consistently “Guevarist” in his writings. Similar terminological problems are found

in the author’s

loose

usage of such terms as Guevarism, Castroism, Marxism and

Debrayism. Othenvise, this is an interesting and worthwhile study.

A

major part of Ramm’s analysis centers around what are called Guevara’s

three Iessons of the Cuban Revolution:

(1)

popular forccs can defeat

the

traditional

military and capture political power;

(2)

revolutionary activity need not wait until

all the pre-conditions are present because the revolutionaries can themselves create

these; and

(3)

the main locale for armed struggle in Latin America is the country-

side. One may identify several phases in Debray’s attempts to reconcile thcse lessons

with Leninism and with events

as

they unfolded in Latin America.

During the first phase, Debray accepts the first and third of the above lessons

and modifies the second

by

relating the theory of the

foco

to that of the weakest

link, which he, apparently inaccurately, ascribes

to

Lenin. Thus, he concludes that

in Latin America the

foco

must be established in the countryside. Debray further

emphasizes political-military organization

as

the first task of the

foco

and also af-

firms that the armed struggle must be subordinate to political direction of

a

national

organization.

He

deviates from Leninism by shunting aside the vanpard party

with its ties to the working class and argues that the struggle can accommodate

a

large measure of ideological diversity.

In the second phase Debray moves closer to the Guevarist position in that he

gives only formal recognition to the need for theory while advocating an immediate

revolutionary call to arms.

He

still stresses the primacy of the countryside in the

revolutionary struggle but he noiv reduces the importance of political organization;

values military action as

a

necessary and sufficient form of propaganda; and, very

significantly, portrays the traditional communist parties

as

obstacles to the

movement.

After the failure

of

Che in Bolivia and his own imprisonment, Debray’s writ-

ing indicate

a

retreat from Guevarism to more traditional Leninism. Predictably,

he affirms the need for

a

thorough class analysis. More specifically, he has second

thoughts about the advisability of immediate armed conflict without first organiz-

ing support among the peasantry, and he noiv believes that revolutionaries may

gain significant support among defectors from the traditional military.

He

also

asserts

that the

foco

must give the city its rightful place

as

the all-important rear

guard

of

the guerrilla army.

IVhen Debray was released from prison in December

1970,

AlIende

was

in

the

process

of

assuming political power in Chile and the Tupamaros were achieving

stunning successes in Uruguay. While Debray was sympathetic

to

Allende’s objec-

tives and asserted that only

a

government such

as

Allende’s could set in motion

a