Colonial Revolution and Liberatory War: from Communist to Post-Colonial Theory (Georgy Safarov, Mao Zedong and Frantz Fanon)

The article investigates the intellectual roots of the concept of colonial revolution, which goes back to the 2nd congress of the Communist International, examines its importance in shaping the Communist political thought and outlines its subsequent transformation in the wake of post-colonial theory. The author starts with analyzing the political ideas of Georgi Safarov—Comintern [the Communist International] theorist. He was among the most original thinkers who elaborated the concept of colonial revolution. Safarov, drawing from his own experience in Central Asia, insisted that global capitalism is “retreating to the positions of feudalism” while operating in colonies, treating them as collective “serfs” and lacking any proper social basis save for its own enormous military force. Such analogy led Safarov to envisage the colonial revolution as a “plebeian” revolt and liberatory war against the inhumane and stagnant colonial order, opening the way for a non-capitalist development with certain assistance from the Soviet Union. Similar ideas were independently formulated by Mao Zedong in the 1930s. He saw colonial revolution in China as a “protracted war” of liberation and listed the conditions under which victory was possible. However, the subsequent development of a former colony was seen by Mao as a transitory period of “democratic dictatorship”. Similar ideas of colonial revolution as a liberatory peasant war and “plebeian” movement were developed by Franz Fanon in the context of his own war experience in Algeria. Developing the idea of “plebeian”, peasant revolt and justifying the violence as the sole means of ending the rule of colonial power, Fanon at the same time differed from the tradition of the 2nd Comintern Congress (represented by Safarov, Mao and the others) while describing the independent existence of former colonies. For Fanon, the worst consequence of colonial rule is not permanent backwardness but psychological trauma, an inevitable result of a brutal conquest which requires therapy. The author concludes that such conceptual transformation was stimulated not merely by the disappointment in Soviet and Chinese economic strategies, but also in the geographical and cultural factor which made the reintegration with the former colonial powers preferable to the direct “escape” into the socialist camp.

Malthus Goes to China: The Effect of “Positive Checks” on Grain Market Development, 1736–1910

After peaking around the mid-eighteenth century, grain market integration in China declined by a colossal 80 percent amid a twofold increase in population and remained at low levels for well over a century. Markets only resumed their growth momentum after the largest peasant revolt—the Taiping Rebellion—wiped out roughly one-sixth of the Chinese population starting 1851. This U-shaped pattern of grain market integration distinguished China from Europe in their trajectories of market development. Using grain prices to divide China into grain-deficit and grainsurplus regions, we find that the negative relationship between population growth and market integration originated from the grain-surplus-cum-exporting regions.

Democracy

This chapter deals with democracy and Rousseau's participative polity. The demands of positive freedom are also those of the political body, constituted of citizens, to organize itself. The chapter explores this ever-important notion. No freedom can be complete without a fully democratized state — and this includes the subjection of the economy to public rule. The national dimension of the movement is clearly established. Although it is largely working class, it has involved many other segments of society and can best be described as a movement of the small-middle stratum of citizens — either lower-middle class or upper-working class — what is described as 'the small-mean class'. It has been foreshadowed by police tactics against the banlieues; it has involved the most modest parts of French society directly, who have largely contributed to the movement, the middle classes, who have been commenting on it and trying to portray it as a jacquerie, or peasant revolt, and the upper classes, who have seen their iconic boulevards closed off and vandalized.

Anti-theodicy narrative in the novel “Vadim” of M.Yu. Lermontovова

“Vadim” is the first experience of Mikhail Lermontov in prose. Some Russian scholars define it as ahistorical novel. The combination of themes of individual revenge with the theme of peasant revolt is a peculiar feature of “Vadim”. The author of the novel raises the question of the origin of evil, presupposed by “heocracy”, and by analyzing the hero Vadim’s revenge motive, the anti-theodicy’s narrative mechanism of the novel can be explained. The scene in which the hero abets his companion to hang the captured old man is a direct experiment of anti- theodicy and a powerful testimony of the writer's anti- theodicy standpoint. According to Leibniz’s theory, Vadim's evil belongs to moral evil. Lermontov’s view of good and evil echoes Leibniz’s theory. Leibniz believes that evil exists to show good and make it the object of opposition, and that man can achieve perfection in the process of winning good over evil. From the novel two righteous images — the nameless old man and the wife of a soldier, persisted in their beliefs in times of crisis, which showed the writer’s inheritance of theodicy’s standpoint. Before hanging, the nameless old man recalls the death of Jesus Christ and at the last moment of his life still believed that Jesus had conquered death. The scene of the torture of a soldier’s wife resembles the “martyrdom of the righteous”. For the truth, for what she believes, she is willing to sacrifice herself. This is the proof of the two repeated verses in the novel: “Come to me all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest”. Lermontov’s theological view in “Vadim” is paradoxical.

The Romance of Thebes (Roman de Thèbes), trans. by Joan M. Ferrante and Robert W. Hanning. The French of England Translation Series (FRETS), 11. Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2018, ix, 365.

Much of high medieval culture was deeply influenced by the reception of classical literature, as best represented by the genre of the romans antiques, the Roman de Thèbes, the Roman d’Enéas, and the Roman de Troie. These were based, in turn, on the Thebaid of Statius (92 C.E.), Vergil’s Aeneid (after 19 B.C.E.), and the story of Troy as retold by Dares Phrygias and Dictys Cretensis (in Greek, first century C.E., lost today; in Latin, fourth century C.E. [Dictys] and sixth century C.E. respectively [Dares]). Two of the most respected medieval French scholars, Joan M. Ferrante and Robert W. Hanning, now provide new access to the Roman de Thèbe through their English translation, which they have based on the personal copy owned by Henry Despenser (1370–1406), Bishop of Norwich, well known especially for his ruthless suppression of the Peasant Revolt in 1381. This manuscript is today housed in the British Library, London, under Add. 34114, fol. 164a-226d, and it was critically edited by Francine Mora-Lebrun with a facing page modern French translation in 1995. Ms. A (Paris, BnF, fr. 375) was recently edited by Luca di Sabatino (2016), which could not be consulted here for obvious reasons. Ms. C (Paris, BnF, fr. 784) was edited by Guy Reynaud de Lage in 1966, 1968, then re-edited along with a facing-page modern French translation by Aimé Petit in 2008).

Obecność Szeli. Trzy przykłady z nowej prozy

Artykuł przynosi omówienie trzech powieści, w których pojawia się postać Jakuba Szeli i wątek rabacji galicyjskiej. Są to Baśń o wężowym sercu albo wtóre słowo o Jakóbie Szeli (2019) Radka Raka, Deutsch dla średnio zaawansowanych (2019) Macieja Hena oraz Galicyanie Stanisława Aleksandra Nowaka (2016). Punktem wyjścia rozważań jest uwaga sformułowana przez Przemysława Czaplińskiego, który bunt chłopski z lutego 1846 roku rozpoznał jako aktualne dziedzictwo, mogące zasilać dzisiejsze formy protestu przeciwko niesprawiedliwości i wyzyskowi. Autor artykułu rozważa, czy rzeczywiście współcześni prozaicy, którzy na kartach swoich powieści ożywili postać Jakuba Szeli, odwołują się do wspomnianej tradycji, czy Szela jest dla nich ikoną buntownika i zarazem wzorem mściciela. Wynik tego sprawdzianu jest negatywny: autor dowodzi, że w grę wchodzi wyłącznie popkulturowa lub quasi-popkulturowa obecność Szeli (w literaturze artystycznej), luźno związana z szerszą debatą na temat „kwestii chłopskiej” czy tak zwanym zwrotem plebejskim w polskiej kulturze, jaki najmocniej uwidocznił się w latach 2015–2016. Autor twierdzi, że omówione przez niego utwory nie mają ambicji „rozrachunkowych”; nie upomniano się w nich o rzekomo wyparte czy niesłusznie zapomniane dziedzictwo chłopskiego oporu i buntu. Tym samym ujawniona została rozbieżność między postulatami historyków i socjologów, którzy w ostatnich latach odnowili namysł nad położeniem chłopów pańszczyźnianych w duchu tak zwanej pedagogiki wstydu, a dzisiejszą praktyką literacką Presence of Szela: Three Examples from the New Prose The article presents three novels in which the person of Jakub Szela and motif of the Galician slaughter appear. These are Fairy Tale about the Snake’s Heart or Another Word about Jakub Szela (2019) by Radek Rak, Deutsch for Intermediates (2019) by Maciej Hen and Galicians (2016) by Stanisław Aleksander Nowak. The starting point for the considerations is the remark of Stanisław Aleksander Nowak who acknowledged the 1846 peasant revolt as a relevant legacy that could support present-day forms of protest against injustice and exploitation. The author of the article examines if the modern prose writers who brought the person of Jakub Szela back to life in their novels truly invoke the aforementioned tradition and if Szela is a rebel icon and an avenger model for them. The result of said examination is negative: the author proves that only pop-cultural or quasi-pop-cultural presence of Szela (in artistic literature) comes into question, which is loosely tied to the broader discussion on “the peasant question” – the so-called plebeian turn in Polish culture, which became most visible in the years of 2015–2016. The author argues that the discussed works of literature do not have the ambitions to deal with the past; the allegedly renounced or unjustly forgotten legacy of peasant resistance and rebellion weren’t claimed. Thereby the difference between the demands of the historians and sociologists who reflected anew on the situation of serfs in spirit of the so-called pedagogy of shame and today’s literary practice was revealed.

Revolutionary tribunals in the anti-peasant terror system (1918–1921)

We reveal the forms, methods and features of the participation of revolutionary tribunals in anti-peasant actions carried out by the authorities in 1918–1921, including against the participants in the Antonov revolt. We analyze the significance and role of tribunals as specific types of special courts in the implementation of the authorities’ policy towards the peasantry. It is argued that the revolutionary tribunals occupied their definite place in the system of anti-peasant terror and carried out their specific functions, fulfilling the task of formally legalizing unstructured violence against peasants. We analyze the process of increasing the repressiveness of the tribunals against the background of a sharp increase in anti-Soviet manifestations on the part of the peasantry, which ultimately resulted in anti-peasant terror. The task of the revolutionary tribunals as an institutional instrument of anti-peasant terror was to judicially legalize repression against the pea-santry. The role of the tribunals in the prosecution of deserters, the bulk of whom were again pea-sants, is revealed. It is argued that the revolutionary tribunals were granted the broadest confisca-tion rights against deserters and the process of their implementation. Considerable attention is paid to the activities of the revolutionary tribunals during the suppression of the peasant revolt in the Tambov region, in particular the Tambov revolutionary military tribunal, which was a parallel structure of the territorial revolutionary tribunal, which was under the jurisdiction of the Revolu-tionary Military Council of the Republic.