Régis Debray’s Revolution in the Revolution? had an enormous impact when it was published in 1967. The present volume is a symposium on the basic idea in Debray’s book—that of the establishment and uninterrupted development of a guerrilla foco as the key to the revolutionary process. The nine essays were originally published in the July-August 1968 issue of Monthly Review and the four reviews appeared first in the New York Review of Books, New Politics, and Caribbean Studies and in a lecture at the University of Manchester. The contributors include the late Leo Huberman and Paul M. Sweezy, editors of Monthly Review, Andre Gunder Frank and S. A. Shah, visiting professors at Sir George Williams University (Montreal), Clea Silva, the pen name of a radical Brazilian sociologist, William Pomeroy, who played an active role in the Philippine Huk movement, Simón Torres and Julio Aronde, Cuban revolutionaries, Robin Blackburn and Perry Anderson, editors of New Left Review (London), Eqbal Ahmad, a Pakistani who teaches at Cornell University, William A. Williams of Oregon State University, Donald McKelvey, a member of the Radical Education Project, Juan Bosch, former president of the Dominican Republic, James Petras of Pennsylvania State University, Gordon Lewis of the University of Puerto Rico, and Peter Worsley of the University of Manchester.
Most of the contributors are critical of Debray and some highly critical. However, most of them also agree with Debray’s charge that Communist parties in Latin America lack the tradition, courage, and leadership to consider seizing power, and that they suffer from bureaucratization, obsessive pursuit of alliances, political bargaining, and electoral maneuvers. Nearly all of the contributors pay tribute to the importance of Debray’s book in focusing attention on the need for a new revolutionary program in Latin America.
The book suffers from repetition since quite a few of the contributors make much the same criticism of the Debray thesis. Essentially, this criticism can be summarized as follows:
Debray offers no convincing evidence to prove his thesis that all of Latin America, or a considerable number of the Latin American countries, are ripe for revolution. His book particularly fails to present any meaningful economic, political, or social analysis of Latin America.
Debray’s analysis of the forces and events leading up to the Cuban Revolution is faulty. His account is a distortion of Cuban revolutionary experience, and he shows no understanding of the social forces which enabled the Cuban Revolution to succeed.
Debray fails to understand that armed struggle is not enough to forge revolutionary consciousness and that only a strong base of urban support (from both the military-logistical and the political points of view) can progress and triumph.
Debray fails to grasp the fact that after the Cuban Revolution the United States determined not to be taken by surprise again, and that the revolutionary struggle elsewhere in Latin America will be more difficult than it was in Cuba.
By advocating the same revolutionary tactics for all Latin American countries, Debray ignores the varying possibilities of revolutionary action within each individual country.
Debray fails to understand or underestimates the role of the ideological and political struggles, and he does not understand that there can be no separation between the political and military cadres.
Debray commits a fundamental error in attempting to define a sole form of struggle—i.e., guerrilla warfare—since the experience of successful revolutions indicates that all forms of struggle must be utilized and combined.
Debray fails to understand that to succeed the revolutionary movement must build and organize a politically conscious mass base along with an armed force. It is essential that political cadres function as part of the guerrilla movement. Debray’s position that a guerrilla foco is the “small motor” of the masses is rejected by the majority of the contributors.
Debray errs in condemning all alliances and pacts between classes and political organizations and errs doubly in citing the Cuban experience to prove the validity of his thesis. The point is not to condemn all alliances but only certain forms of unity that lead to betrayal of fundamental principles.
Debray’s book was published before the death of Che Guevara in Bolivia, where Debray himself is unjustly imprisoned for revolutionary activities. In the wake of Che’s tragic death, criticism of the Debray thesis has increased. No doubt Revolution in the Revolution? will continue to be read, especially by the younger generation. But in the light of the sharp and meaningful criticism to which it has been subjected, it will probably not be regarded as a guide for solving the problems faced by Latin American revolution.
