[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.The question of whether it is possible to reconcile thecontradictory forces of power and intellect into the single figure of thecommitted intellectual is no longer a relevant issue.Why this is the caseremains unanswered.What we know is that today s main challenges to globalization are aslikely to come from global forms of civil society as they are from rebel states like Cuba or Venezuela.But, although the purpose of the politics ofthe past was to conquer the power of the state, today s World SocialForum, as an example of global civil society s contribution to an alterna-tive vision of the future, responds more to a new form of politics thatchallenges the very nature of the nation state as well as traditional politics.Instead of encouraging a set of vertical relations, the World Social Forumhas been described as an open space of ideas that takes on a self-organized,emergent form of politics based on principles of horizontality, equality,and open-endedness (Sen, 2007).Not surprisingly, the participation of 188 Cuba and Western Intellectuals since 1959state representatives in Porto Alegre has raised mixed feelings, as was thecase with the Cuban delegation in 2001 (Teivanen, 2002).As a result,whereas the politics of the past relied on the effectiveness of politicalactors the intellectuals in a top-down and elitist fashion, currentdominant political processes emphasize democratic, collectivist, andbottom-up ideals.In this regard, the fifty years of separation between theNew Left and the current new social movements represent a much greaterdistance represented in the transition from the twentieth to the twenty-first centuries.If a type of globalization so closely related to the form of imperialismthat both Cuba and the New Left warned against in the 1960s has todaybecome the target of the new generation of activists and latter-day fire-brands, future studies will hopefully concentrate on the analysis of thepart Cuba is playing in this new, post-Cold war global period of dissent.In particular, it is important to note the similarities and differencesbetween the Cuban unorthodoxy of the 1960s and those that, beginningwith the native process of rectification of the mid-1980s, culminated inthe necessary questioning of orthodoxy that characterized the 1990s.Some Cuban authors, notably Juan Antonio Blanco, have argued that theunorthodoxy characteristic of the 1960s returned to Cuba at the begin-ning of the last decade, both in the set of circumstances that saw it arisea critical need for alternative forms of development that made everyaspect of society open to challenge and in the names of individuals wholed this resurrection (Benjamin, 1997).Even though it appears that theCentro de Estudios Sobre América (CEA) affair might have dampenedthe original buoyant mood that resulted from the renewed lease of lifeintellectuals were given before 1995 (Giuliano, 1998; Hoffmann, 1997),a new sense of urgency is necessary to examine the role that intellectualswill continue to perform, informing the Cuban and global politicalprocesses.Success is imperative, for if we refuse to accept the inevitabilityof the current processes of globalization, it will always be necessary toresort to individuals who, as Ambrosio Fornet argues (1977), are capableof dreaming of a future that is both possible and desirable, and to inventthe paths that lead directly to this end. Notes1 A New Political Dawn: The CubanRevolution in the 1960s1.For an outline of the events surrounding the Padilla Affair, see chaptertwo.2.Kenner and Petras limited themselves to mentioning the enormousimportance of a Cuban Revolution with which a great number of theNorth American New Left identified.They also dedicated their book tothe Cuban and Vietnamese people for giving North Americans thepossibility of making a revolution (1972: 5).3.For an explanation of the term gauchiste and of its relevance to the NewLeft, see chapter six.4.However, this consideration has been rather critical in the case ofMinogue (1970).5.The general consensus seems to be that, as the Revolution entered aperiod of rapid Sovietization following the failure of the ten million tonsugar harvest of 1970, Western intellectuals, who until then had showedsupport, sought to distance themselves from the Revolution.The singleincident that seemingly sparked this reaction, in particular from someFrench intellectuals, was the Padilla Affair.6.Here a clear distinction must be made mainly between the CommunistParty of the pre-Revolutionary period, the Partido Socialista Popular(Popular Socialist Party) and the 26 July Movement (MR26).The formerhad a legacy of Popular Frontism, collaboration with Batista in the post-War period and a general distrust of middle class adventurers as itreferred to the leadership of MR26 until 1958 (Karol, 1971: 150).Thelatter, led by Castro, had a radical though incoherently articulated ideo-logical basis.The process of unification of revolutionary organizationscarried out between 1961 and 1965 did not completely obliterate theindividuality of these competing discourses and it was in their struggle forsupremacy that the New Left s contribution was made.7.This was notably the case in Venezuela, where revolutionary leaderDouglas Bravo voiced his disappointment over Cuba s abandonment ofthe revolutionary effort on a continental scale in 1970 (Karol, 1971). 190 Notes8.The assumption is that all socialist societies in the twentieth century wereideologically identical and that these could be equated to their individualleaders (i.e [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl przylepto3.keep.pl
.The question of whether it is possible to reconcile thecontradictory forces of power and intellect into the single figure of thecommitted intellectual is no longer a relevant issue.Why this is the caseremains unanswered.What we know is that today s main challenges to globalization are aslikely to come from global forms of civil society as they are from rebel states like Cuba or Venezuela.But, although the purpose of the politics ofthe past was to conquer the power of the state, today s World SocialForum, as an example of global civil society s contribution to an alterna-tive vision of the future, responds more to a new form of politics thatchallenges the very nature of the nation state as well as traditional politics.Instead of encouraging a set of vertical relations, the World Social Forumhas been described as an open space of ideas that takes on a self-organized,emergent form of politics based on principles of horizontality, equality,and open-endedness (Sen, 2007).Not surprisingly, the participation of 188 Cuba and Western Intellectuals since 1959state representatives in Porto Alegre has raised mixed feelings, as was thecase with the Cuban delegation in 2001 (Teivanen, 2002).As a result,whereas the politics of the past relied on the effectiveness of politicalactors the intellectuals in a top-down and elitist fashion, currentdominant political processes emphasize democratic, collectivist, andbottom-up ideals.In this regard, the fifty years of separation between theNew Left and the current new social movements represent a much greaterdistance represented in the transition from the twentieth to the twenty-first centuries.If a type of globalization so closely related to the form of imperialismthat both Cuba and the New Left warned against in the 1960s has todaybecome the target of the new generation of activists and latter-day fire-brands, future studies will hopefully concentrate on the analysis of thepart Cuba is playing in this new, post-Cold war global period of dissent.In particular, it is important to note the similarities and differencesbetween the Cuban unorthodoxy of the 1960s and those that, beginningwith the native process of rectification of the mid-1980s, culminated inthe necessary questioning of orthodoxy that characterized the 1990s.Some Cuban authors, notably Juan Antonio Blanco, have argued that theunorthodoxy characteristic of the 1960s returned to Cuba at the begin-ning of the last decade, both in the set of circumstances that saw it arisea critical need for alternative forms of development that made everyaspect of society open to challenge and in the names of individuals wholed this resurrection (Benjamin, 1997).Even though it appears that theCentro de Estudios Sobre América (CEA) affair might have dampenedthe original buoyant mood that resulted from the renewed lease of lifeintellectuals were given before 1995 (Giuliano, 1998; Hoffmann, 1997),a new sense of urgency is necessary to examine the role that intellectualswill continue to perform, informing the Cuban and global politicalprocesses.Success is imperative, for if we refuse to accept the inevitabilityof the current processes of globalization, it will always be necessary toresort to individuals who, as Ambrosio Fornet argues (1977), are capableof dreaming of a future that is both possible and desirable, and to inventthe paths that lead directly to this end. Notes1 A New Political Dawn: The CubanRevolution in the 1960s1.For an outline of the events surrounding the Padilla Affair, see chaptertwo.2.Kenner and Petras limited themselves to mentioning the enormousimportance of a Cuban Revolution with which a great number of theNorth American New Left identified.They also dedicated their book tothe Cuban and Vietnamese people for giving North Americans thepossibility of making a revolution (1972: 5).3.For an explanation of the term gauchiste and of its relevance to the NewLeft, see chapter six.4.However, this consideration has been rather critical in the case ofMinogue (1970).5.The general consensus seems to be that, as the Revolution entered aperiod of rapid Sovietization following the failure of the ten million tonsugar harvest of 1970, Western intellectuals, who until then had showedsupport, sought to distance themselves from the Revolution.The singleincident that seemingly sparked this reaction, in particular from someFrench intellectuals, was the Padilla Affair.6.Here a clear distinction must be made mainly between the CommunistParty of the pre-Revolutionary period, the Partido Socialista Popular(Popular Socialist Party) and the 26 July Movement (MR26).The formerhad a legacy of Popular Frontism, collaboration with Batista in the post-War period and a general distrust of middle class adventurers as itreferred to the leadership of MR26 until 1958 (Karol, 1971: 150).Thelatter, led by Castro, had a radical though incoherently articulated ideo-logical basis.The process of unification of revolutionary organizationscarried out between 1961 and 1965 did not completely obliterate theindividuality of these competing discourses and it was in their struggle forsupremacy that the New Left s contribution was made.7.This was notably the case in Venezuela, where revolutionary leaderDouglas Bravo voiced his disappointment over Cuba s abandonment ofthe revolutionary effort on a continental scale in 1970 (Karol, 1971). 190 Notes8.The assumption is that all socialist societies in the twentieth century wereideologically identical and that these could be equated to their individualleaders (i.e [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]