Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution by Arif Dirlik书评3

7/28/2019 Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution by Arif Dirlik 3

1/10

Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution by Arif DirlikReview by: Viren Murthy

Philosophy East and West, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jan., 1996), pp. 123-131Published by: University of Hawai'i PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1399342 .

Accessed: 06/05/2012 09:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy

East and West.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1399342?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1399342?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhp


2/10

Anarchism n the Chinese Revolution.By ArifDirlik.Berkeleyand LosAngeles:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1991.Arif Dirlik'sAnarchism n the Chinese Revolutionraises some funda-mentalquestionsregardingour understanding f twentieth-centuryChi-nese intellectualhistory. Accordingto Dirlik,the anarchistsplayed acrucial,but largelyneglected, role in shapingmodern Chinesethought.He arguesthat "notonly did the revolutionaryituationcreatedby Chi-na's confrontationwith the modernworldgive birth o a radicalculturethat provided fecund groundsfor anarchism,but also that anarchistsplayedan important art n the fashioningof this radicalculture" pp. 1-2). Dirlik'sbook describesthe developmentof anarchism n China andemphasizesits influenceon Chinese communism.The role of anarchismin Chinese communistthought, in Dirlik'sview, separated tfromRussianBolshevism.Anarchism erved as a con-stant critical orcethat triedto de-construct he hegemonictendencies ofcommunism.Itis importanto note that anarchismwas popular n Chinaalmosttwenty yearsbeforeMarxismwas introduced.Dirlik ells us thathe will tryto show thatthe "anarchistorigins(of ChineseMarxists)maybe importanto an understandingf how they becameMarxists, ndalsoof some features of Chinese Marxism(especially in its Maoistversion)that divergedfromthe Leninist nterpretation f Marxism hat they es-poused formally" pp.3-4).The natureof the anarchist nfluence becomes cleareras one pro-ceeds to read the text. Dirlik races the various factions of the anarchistmovementfromthe early yearsto the time when it was eventuallysup-pressed. The anarchistsbroach many fundamental hemes in politicaland revolutionary heory.In the introduction,Dirlikbrings o our atten-tion the problemof discourseand ideology in anarchistthought:

ReviewedbyVirenMurthyUniversity f Hawai'i

In a crucial sense, then, anarchismextended the frontiersof revolutionarydiscourseby pointingto a social projectthat negatedthe boundariesestab-lishedby a politicalconceptionof society;and itsverypresencein the revo-lutionarydiscourse renderedproblematicany efforttoward an ideologicalclosureof the social by the political. (p.35)Theanarchistmovementconstantly riedto keepthe socialistmove-ments fromachievingclosure.They made activistsawareof the riftbe-tween politicalstructures nd society. Thisrift,which Mao would call acontradiction n his "On the CorrectHandlingof Contradictions mongthe People,"was seen as one of the majorcauses of alienation.Butbe-foreexploring he details of the manner n which the anarchist oughttoovercome humanalienation,Dirlikmakes an epistemologicalpointthatis relevant o the restof the book:

? 1996by University fHawai'iPress

123


3/10

The evaluationof anarchism's ignificancepresupposesa certainconceptionof the problemof ideology-in thiscase a specifically ocialist deology-thatneedsto be spelledoutbrieflybeforewe discussthe concretecontributions fanarchism o revolutionary iscourse in China. Of special importance s adistinctionI should like to draw between ideologyand discourse,"a certainway of talkingabout a specificset of objects."(p.37)

This distinction, Dirlik claims, is essential to an understanding of thepolemic between the anarchists and the communists. Let us look at Dir-lik's analysis of each of these terms. Ideology has been interpreted pre-dominantly in two ways: (1) "as the articulation of class or other socialinterests" and (2) "as the articulation of a broader system of authoritystructured by the interaction of these more narrow interests from whichideology as an 'integrative cultural system' derives its form" (p. 37).The second definition of ideology is termed discourse by Dirlik.Dirlik's notion of discourse is reminiscent of Heidegger's Altaglichkeit orBourdieu's habitus. It is the prereflective realm within which ideologicalconflicts occur. Ideology relates to discourse in terms of containment:"(T)he ideological appropriationof discourse appears as a 'containment'of the discourse in accordance with specific social interests or outlooks.Containment is also primarily a procedure of exclusion, a silencing ofthose elements of the discourse that are inimical to the interests of thegroup" (p. 38). This analysis of ideology is pertinent to our present dis-cussion of anarchism since we must determine whether anarchism inChina functioned as an ideology or as a revolutionary disruptive dis-course. This question is relevant not only on an abstract level, namelythe level of discourse, but also on the concrete level of social trans-formation. As I remarked earlier, one of the key themes of the anarchistmovement was the subversion of revolutionary hegemony. Dirlik com-ments on this point:

While the importance f revolutionary egemonyforrevolutionaryuccess isself-evident, hecriticalquestion orthe futureof revolution s whetherhegem-ony is more desirablebecause it is revolutionary-especiallysince revolutionifsuccessful,establishes tselfa new order.Is it not likely hata revolution hattakes as its premisethe hegemony of revolutionarieswill result in a newstructure f authority, eproducingn itsveryhegemonythathiddenrelation-shipbetween ideologyand powerto overthrowwhich was the goal of revo-lution in the firstplace, againstwhich the only guarantee s the good will ofthe revolutionariesr their claim to a scientificdiscoveryof the pathto lib-eration? s this not the point in revolutionary iscourseat which revolution,which seeks to dispose of ideology, itself becomes ideological because itdissimulatesn its discourse tsrelationshipo power? p. 39)This paragraph adequately expresses Mao's sentiments during theCultural Revolution. Dirlik's claim is that this problem was first brought

PhilosophyEast&West to the Chinese revolution by the anarchists. As we look at the historical

124


4/10

developmentof the CommunistParty n China,we notice that the prob-lem of hegemony, namelythe hegemonyof the Party,has largelybeenexcluded. The relevance of Dirlik'sbook is even more apparentwhenone looks at the contemporaryhegemonyof the CommunistParty.Dirlik'sbook is importantnot only for the light it sheds on a ne-glectedareaof Chineseintellectualhistory,but also for the issues itraisesabout the relationshipbetween governmentand the masses.An exami-nation of this problemcan open a space in which to discuss the possi-bilityof a radicaldemocracy. Democracyunderstood n this anarchisticsense impliesa radicalrestructuringf the apparatushatdefinespowerrelations n contemporary apitalist ociety.Thisdemocracyis not medi-ated through he homogeneousstate but has as its precondition he dis-integration f the state. "Government nd the capitalist ystemwere thetwin objects of revolution;Shifu[ananarchist n Guangzhou]describedsometimesone, sometimes the other,as the greatestenemy of the peo-ple." (p. 130). This shows that the anarchists, ike the communists,sawcapitalismas a majorobstacleto achievingtheirgoal of a "freesociety."The anarchistsbelieved that their conception of a free society had itsroots in ancient Chinese philosophy. Dirlikdescribes two of China'smost prominentanarchists,LiuShipeiand Shifu,as both believingthattheirculture ormeda base fortheir anarchism:

LiuShipei thoughtthat Chinese had an advantageover others in achievinganarchismbecause of their Confucian and Daoist heritage,which favoredrestricted overnment.A seriesof articles n the New Eradescribed he state-ment on utopiain the ancient Chinese work "LiYun" Evolution f rites)as adepictionof anarchist ociety, even if the author read into thatstatementagreatdeal that was notjustifiedby the original.Shifu hared hese idiosyncrasies fChineseanarchism.There s evidence ofBuddhist nfluenceon histhought.His ConscienceSocietywas established nan atmospherepermeatedby Buddhism,and the Covenant of the Societysounded moreBuddhist han anarchist.(p. 132)

Shifu'sacknowledgmentof his indebtedness o the traditionwas notone-sided;he also distanced himself romDaoism:Daoism, he believed, was negative;what he advocatedwas positive.Shifumeantthatwhereas Daoistsmayhave rejectedgovernmentnthe nameof aneremetic existence, he sought to transform xisting society and to revolu-tionize humansociety as a whole. Shifurejectedpolitics,notto escape it butto abolish it. His social revolutionwas informedby a social theorythat hadnothing n common withtraditional oliticalreasoning. p. 133)

The lastsentence in the quote above is perhapsoverstated. am notsure if one can assert that Shifu'sanarchist heory has nothingin com-mon with "traditional oliticalreasoning."Iwould prefer o say thatheradicalizescertainunrealizedpossibilities n traditionalpolitical theory. BookReviews

125


5/10

Traditional oliticaltheorydoes emphasizethat the authoritative erson(junzi) is to play an active role in structuring ociety. However, theConfucian notion of governmenthad historicallybeen interpreted s arigidhierarchicalormation hat led to elitism. Daoism can be seen as aforce that resisted he hegemonyof historicalConfucianism.But Daoismhas often been interpreted s advocatinga life free frompoliticsthat isasocial. Given this interpretationf Daoism, Confucianismmay add asocial element to the revolutionaryDaoistphilosophy.Froma historicalperspective, he anarchistsattackedConfucianismmuch more than any other philosophy.But it is importanto note thatwhattheyattackedwas a hegemonic interpretationf Confucianismhatwas prevalent n the Mingand Qing dynasties:

Wu Yu,the uncompromisingriticof Confucianism, ttackedConfucianismnot because it was "old"(he did not extendthe same attack o DaoismandLegalismbut used them rather o criticizeConfucianism), ut because it up-held the Chinesefamilysystem.His remarkhat "the effectof the idea of filialpietyhas been to turnChina into a big factory or the manufacturingf obe-dient subjects,"is revealingof the material,because social, understanding[sic]of culture hatinfused he call forcultural sic]revolution n these years.It was not abstract ssues or ideas, but the call for the struggleagainstthehegemonyof the old over the young,of men overwomen,of the richover thepoor, of state over society, in short, againstauthority, hat in these yearsfashioneda social movementout of ideas.(p. 165)

The recognitionof the manifoldpower relations hatpervadedsoci-ety made the anarchistscall for a culturalrevolution. This revolutiondealt with both the sphereof ideology and the materialrelationswhichconstitutedsociety. Notice that the metaphorWu uses to describe thenatureof the oppressivehegemonyis that of a big factorymanufacturingobedient subjects.' The anarchistswere concernedthatthe majorityofthe Chinese masseswere beginning o turnintocogs in the machine.Inotherwords,the creativepowerof the "individual"was sacrificed o analien force. AsJiangKanghu,an anarchistic ocialist,notes:

Frombeginning o end, Ihave taken the individual o be the basic unitof theworld. This is my differencefrom socialistswho take society as their onlypremise.Ifsociety is takenas the sole premise, he result s to disdainthe in-dividual: rampledupon [inthis way], the individual oses worthas the unit[ofthe world],which, in turn,obliterates he spiritof independenceand ini-tiative. [This]reduces the individual o the [level of the] scales of fish anddragons,or the cog in a machine.(p. 138)

The goal of the anarchists, namely some type of real democracy inwhich the subjects actively participate in the constitution of society, en-tailed the subversion of the oppressive structures that reduced them toPhilosophyEast&West the status of cogs in the machine. Both the anarchists and the commu-

126


6/10

nists constantly searched for methods by which a balance betweenstructureand agency or individualand society could be attained.Herewe see that the anarchistswere the first o pose these types of questions.Moreover,Dirlikargues, the anarchistscould be used to criticize theshortcomings f the Chinese CommunistParty,which he saysdid notdoenough to overcome its own hegemonyover the masses,despite Mao'sconstantattempts.According o Dirlik,Maohimselfwas notconsistent nhis attackon hegemonyand sometimesgave in to the Partyand thus re-mained too much of a Leninist.But before proceedingfurther nto Dirlik'scritique,I shall quicklynote the relevanceof this anarchistdiscourseto Marxismn general.Theprecedingdebate over how anarchisticMaoactuallywas or shouldhavebeen hinges, in many ways, on the auseinandersetzung etween Marxand the anarchists.This is especially relevant n the Chinese case sincethe Bolshevik revolutionwas interpretedby Chinese intellectualsas ananarchistrather han a Marxistrevolution.2Thus, in the eyes of manyradicalChinese, the distinctionbetween Marxismand anarchismwasnot drawnas distinctlyas itwas in muchof the West.Of course,historyhas made this distinctionin a way such that Marxismhas come to beassociatedwith the hegemonic party tructureshatrecentlycollapsedinthe SovietUnion and EasternEurope.Here, we have a problemsimilarto the one that we encounteredwith Confucius.Anarchistswould be correctin criticizing he historicalstructureswith which Marxism s associated,but, at the same time, theone structureo which almost all anarchists,Chinese or Western,refer sthe one to which Marxhimselfpointed as an ideal, namely the ParisCommune.3Moreover,the anarchists'constantconcern with politicalstructures s alienating s analyzedby Marx n his essays "On theJewishQuestion" and "A Critiqueof Hegel's Philosophyof Right."A closereadingof these articlesshows thatMarxhimself was a peculiartype ofanarchist.Thatis, he was an anarchistwho believed thatone could notbe an anarchistand at the same time overlook the hegemonic natureofthe capitalistmode of production.This mode of productionalso playsanintimaterole in structuring oliticaldomination.Inaddition, it contrib-utes to the abstractway in which politicalnotions,such as freedomanddemocracy,are perceived.EllenWood, in a recentarticle,gives a help-ful descriptionof capitalism hat should be rememberedby all critics ofhegemony:

It s a ruthlessotalizing rocesswhichshapesour ives neveryconceivableaspect,andeverywhere, otjustin the relative pulenceof the capitalistNorth.Among ther hings, eaving side he sheerpowerof capital,t sub-jectsall social ife otheabstractequirementsf themarket,hroughhecom-modificationf life inall itsaspects.Thismakes mockeryf allouraspira-tions o autonomy,reedom fchoice,anddemocraticelf-government.4 BookReviews

127


7/10

Notice that Wood, following Marx, sees democratic self-governmentas a goal for her philosophy. But, as Marx and the Chinese anarchistsconstantly reiterate, this goal entails the radical transformation of socialand political structures. This transformation, however, is contingent onthe transformationof capitalism.

Now let us briefly look at Marx's critique of so-called democraticstructures. Lukacs, in his book on Lenin, cogently summarizes the keyargument in "On the Jewish Question":

Many workerssuffer from the illusion that a purelyformaldemocracy, inwhich the voice of everycitizen is equallyvalid, is the mostsuitable instru-ment forexpressingandrepresentinghe interests f societytakenas a whole.But this fails to take into account the simple-simple!-detail thatmen arenotabstract ndividuals,abstract itizens or isolated atomswithinthe totalityof the state, but are always concrete human beings who occupy specificpositionswithinsocial production,whose social being ... is determinedbythis position.The puredemocracyof bourgeoissociety excludesthis media-tion. It connects the nakedand abstract ndividualdirectlywith the totalityofthe state,which in this contextappearsequallyabstract.Thefundamentallyformalcharacterof puredemocracy... is not merelyan advantage or thebourgeoisiebut is precisely he decisiveconditionof its class rule.5

Although this passage succeeds in outlining Marx's critique of thestate, it in itself is not sufficient to allow us to skirt the possibility of ahegemonic interpretationof Marx. Infact, as PaulThomas notes, "[w]ordslike these could readily enough be put into the mouth of a corporatefascist," and "universal suffrage is not inherently bourgeois by nature."6Marx's program to overcome this alienation is compatible with that ofthe anarchists, since his primaryconcern involves allowing the individ-ual to regain his/her political power:

Only when the actual individualman takes back into himself the abstractcitizen and in his everyday ife, his individualwork,and his individualrela-tionshipshe has become a species being,only when he has recognizedandorganizedhis powers(forcespropres) s social powersso thatsocial force isno longerseparated romhim as politicalforce-only then is human eman-cipationcomplete.7

Again, this "taking back" of oneself involves the transformation ofexisting state apparatuses and, of course, the transformation of the capi-talist mode of production. The restructuringshould be carried out in or-der to ensure that the individual's social force is not "separated from himas a political force." Looking back at the various attempts at socialism, itis obvious that this separation continued to occur and in many cases wasintensified due to the split between the party bureaucracy and themasses.

PhilosophyEast& West Marx's critique of the Hegelian idea of a bureaucracy as a universal

128


8/10

class is, in many ways, relevantto bureaucracies n twentieth-centurycommunistregimesas well.8 The partyabstractly epresentshe masseswhile excludingthem from even the possibilityof any seriousdecisionmaking.As Maonoted,the party,or at leastpartof it,has the tendencytopursue ts own interestsand becomes, as itwere, a class in itself.Thisisthe contradictionhat the anarchistspredicted n the early1900s.Inthe final chapter,Dirlikcriticizes Mao from an "anarchist"per-spective. Mao and other Chinese communists inheritedthe Bolshevikstructurerom the verybeginning,and both the anarchistsand theiride-als were suppressed n the nameof this structure.Dirlikgives a concreteexample of the way in which this happened by examiningthe organ-izationof the commune,which, as I mentionedabove, was a symbolofboth anarchismand socialism:

LiuShipeimighthave recognizedin the people'scommunessomethingakinto the ruralreorganizationhe had advocated. For all its antimodernism,however,Mao'srevolutionary olicy was guidedby a commitment o rapidnationaldevelopment,and organic political power. As a consequence, thepeople'scommunescame to servenotas the nucleifora new societybut as ameansto social control,fastereconomic development,and efficientexploi-tation that this demanded-rendered all the more ruthless or havingbeenattached to the symbolsof the revolution.I have referred o the fate of thecommune principleduringthe CulturalRevolution.Withinthe context of apoliticalsystemdominatedbythe all powerfulCommunist arty, he model ofthe ParisCommuneserved, not the purposesof democraticrevolutionaryorganization,but as a political imaginary hat, under the guise of popularrevolutionarycontrol, perpetuatedand enhanced political penetrationinsociety. Andwhen it was transposedagainstthe existingpoliticalsystem bythosewho took itseriouslyas a radicalprincipleof a social democracy, twassuppressedwithouthesitation. pp.299-300)

Portionsof the CulturalRevolutionwere attempts o overcome thehegemony of the Partyand reorganizesociety into revolutionary om-mittees. In 1967, Mao toyed with the anarchist dea when talkingwithJiangQunqiao:9"Withthe establishmentof a people's commune,a ser-ies of problemsarises and I wonder whetheryou have thoughtaboutthem. If the whole of China sets up people's communes, should thePeople's Republicof Chinachange its name to 'People'sCommune ofChina"' (p. 295). Mao rejected his idea fora numberof reasons,and afull examination of this subject would involve a detailed study of the"Cultural Revolution."Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution is important since anarchistictendencies in what is called "ChineseCommunism" oday are almostnonexistent. Now, Chinese leaders who embody the hegemonic struc-ture of the Party have joined hands with global capitalism and thusmoved even furtheraway from the ideals on which the Chinese revolu- BookReviews

129


9/10

tion was founded. Dirlikcites Deng Xiaoping'sreactionto the June4,1989 massacre o give us an understanding f the hegemonic natureofhis regime:Deng's reasoning n suppressing t (democracy) learlyrevealedwhat somehistorianshave known all along:that he has throughoutbeen a more con-sistent Bolshevik than Mao Zedong, who was always uncomfortablewithcertain eaturesof Bolshevikorganization.According o a reportnAsiaWeekof May12, 1989, Dengpurportedlyaid in a partymeeting n lateApril:"Thestudentsmay be acting out of line but the broad masses of workers andpeasantsareon ourside. Even fthe workersand farmers sic]were to jointhestudents,we can stillrelyon morethanthree millionsoldiers o maintain awand order." p.303)The historyof anarchism,as Dirliksays at the end of his book, pro-vides a vantagepointfromwhichto rethinkhe fundamentalproblemsofpolitics(p. 304). Anarchism n the ChineseRevolution s an informative,

well-written ntroduction o the understanding f thisvantagepoint. De-mocracyand freedom are perhaps wo of the best-knownpolitico-phil-osophicalconceptsthatareaddressed n Dirlik'sdiscussionof anarchism.The maindirectionof the discussion is one thatmanyphilosophersandsinologistswill recognizeas beingpeculiarlyChinese,namelya returnothe concrete. When democracyis conceived concretelyit moves in thedirectiontheorized in differentways by the Chinese Anarchists,Marx,andMao. Thefirst teptowardrealizing hisgoal is the constantcriticismof hegemonic structures.Anarchism,by definition,must meet with re-sistance since it structures tself against existing hegemonic structures.Dirlik'sbook shows that the Chinese case has been no exception. AsMao said, where there is oppressionthere must also be resistance.Theconstancyof anarchicresistance s perhapsbest summedup by the fol-lowing passagefromRoyBhaskar's ook Dialectics:

Dialectic is the processof absentingconstraints n absentingabsences (ills,constraints,untruths, tc.). It is not in the businessof tellingpeople, in com-mandist Stalinist)relitist(SocialDemocratic)ashionwhatto do. Rathert isbetterconceived as an innerurgethat flows universally romthe elementallogic of absence (lack, need, want or desire). It manifestsitself whereverpowerrelationsholdsway. Itis the heartbeat f a positivelygeneralizedcon-cept of freedomas flourishing.... It is irrepressible.10

Notes1 - Here a different nterpretationf Confucianism hat focuses on thestatement"thejunzi is not an implement"mayserveas the startingpointto makea similarcritique.

Philosophyast&West 2 - This actwas interestinglyverlookedby the membersof theAmeri-

130


10/10

can Consulate,who were sent to uncover "Bolshevikactivities."Interestingly,he only report hatdistinguishesbetween Bolshevismand Anarchismwas made byJohnDewey. Dewey's report, iled inDecember 1920, says of the movementin question:"it was trulyanarchistic,advocating he abolitionof governmentand the family,but no Bolshevist."Though heremightbe a few Bolsheviksaroundthe country,Dewey continued,they had "nothingto do with thegeneraltone andtemperof radical hought nthe country" p. 151).

3 - Cf. "TheCivil Warin France," n Marx-EngelsReader New York:W. W. Norton,1978), pp. 618-652.4 - EllenWood, "The Uses and Abuses of CivilSociety," in SocialistRegister1990, ed. RalphMiliband,Leo Panitch,and JohnSaville(London:MelinPress),p. 79.5 - Georg Lukacs,Lenin:A Study in the Unity of his Thought, rans.

NicholasJacobs(Cambridge:MITPress,1970), p. 65; PaulThomas,Alien Politics(Routledge,1994), p. 174.6 - Thomas, Alien Politics, p. 1747 - Marx and Engels,Collected Works New York:International ub-lishers,1975), pp. iii, 168; Thomas,Alien Politics,p. 82.8 - For Marxistcritiquesof hegemonic structuresn socialist regimes,one can look at the works of Antonio Gramsci and Nicos Pou-lantzas. Forexample, Nicos Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism(London:Verso, 1980), and AntonioGramsci,Selections fromthe

PrisonNotebooks,ed. QuintinHoare and GeoffreyNowell-Smith(New York: nternational ublishers,1971).9 - ChairmanMao Talks o the People, ed. StuartSchram New York:PantheonBooks),p. 278.

10 - Roy Bhaskar,Dialectics: The Pulse of Freedom(London:Verso,1994), pp. 298-299.

Feminizm:Vostok.Zapad.Rossiia Feminism:East,West, Russia).Editedby MariettaStepaniants.RussianAcademy of Science, Institute f Phi-losophy.Moscow:Nauka,1993. Pp.241.Thisveryinteresting olume is a collaborative ffortby fourteenRussian, Reviewed yAmerican,British,Mexican,and Indianscholars,and it is the firstsuch Barbara .Nortonwork on feminismand philosophyto be publishedin Russia,so faras I WidenerUniversityknow. The book had itsgenesis in the Moscow RegionalEast-WestPhi- ? 1996losophers'Conferenceon Feminist ssues Eastand West (1990). Thepa- byUniversityfpers prepared or that occasion were supplementedby otherssolicited Hawai'i ress

can Consulate,who were sent to uncover "Bolshevikactivities."Interestingly,he only report hatdistinguishesbetween Bolshevismand Anarchismwas made byJohnDewey. Dewey's report, iled inDecember 1920, says of the movementin question:"it was trulyanarchistic,advocating he abolitionof governmentand the family,but no Bolshevist."Though heremightbe a few Bolsheviksaroundthe country,Dewey continued,they had "nothingto do with thegeneraltone andtemperof radical hought nthe country" p. 151).

3 - Cf. "TheCivil Warin France," n Marx-EngelsReader New York:W. W. Norton,1978), pp. 618-652.4 - EllenWood, "The Uses and Abuses of CivilSociety," in SocialistRegister1990, ed. RalphMiliband,Leo Panitch,and JohnSaville(London:MelinPress),p. 79.5 - Georg Lukacs,Lenin:A Study in the Unity of his Thought, rans.

NicholasJacobs(Cambridge:MITPress,1970), p. 65; PaulThomas,Alien Politics(Routledge,1994), p. 174.6 - Thomas, Alien Politics, p. 1747 - Marx and Engels,Collected Works New York:International ub-lishers,1975), pp. iii, 168; Thomas,Alien Politics,p. 82.8 - For Marxistcritiquesof hegemonic structuresn socialist regimes,one can look at the works of Antonio Gramsci and Nicos Pou-lantzas. Forexample, Nicos Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism(London:Verso, 1980), and AntonioGramsci,Selections fromthe

PrisonNotebooks,ed. QuintinHoare and GeoffreyNowell-Smith(New York: nternational ublishers,1971).9 - ChairmanMao Talks o the People, ed. StuartSchram New York:PantheonBooks),p. 278.

10 - Roy Bhaskar,Dialectics: The Pulse of Freedom(London:Verso,1994), pp. 298-299.

Feminizm:Vostok.Zapad.Rossiia Feminism:East,West, Russia).Editedby MariettaStepaniants.RussianAcademy of Science, Institute f Phi-losophy.Moscow:Nauka,1993. Pp.241.Thisveryinteresting olume is a collaborative ffortby fourteenRussian, Reviewed yAmerican,British,Mexican,and Indianscholars,and it is the firstsuch Barbara .Nortonwork on feminismand philosophyto be publishedin Russia,so faras I WidenerUniversityknow. The book had itsgenesis in the Moscow RegionalEast-WestPhi- ? 1996losophers'Conferenceon Feminist ssues Eastand West (1990). Thepa- byUniversityfpers prepared or that occasion were supplementedby otherssolicited Hawai'i ress

13131

Documents

Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution by Arif Dirlik书评3