A Whlly Other Tme?
the new were not separate processes; as Lenin puts it, “
, creative social-ism is the product o the masses themselves” (1963: 16:289; my emphasis).The problem was how to make sure that the most oppressed, the “wretchedo the earth,” direct “the everyday administration o the state” and the deci-sion making o the new society (Lenin 1964b: 25:494). This is ar rom easy.Indeed, despite such awareness, Lenin ailed. To his dismay, he viewed thegrowing bureaucratization o the party, the increase o Russian nationalchauvinism, and an “administrative mentality” o the party leaders as thegreat threat to the revolution (Dunayevskaya 1989: 119). In the context o thecountry reeling rom civil war, imperialist blockade, and amine, what wasto be done? The libertarian Lenin (i.e., the Lenin o a “living, creative social-ism”) was trumped by the pragmatic organization man who put his trust inthe party leaders, a “thin layer” o principled Bolsheviks who would some-how hold on or another revolution “i not through Berlin, then throughPeking” (quoted in Dunayevskaya 1989: 126).
The problem was that the con-tradiction was
to the revolution. The problem was that the partybecame the problem and Lenin could not break with the vanguard party con-cept. Unlike Fanon, he could not imagine how the party o liberation couldbecome the “modern orm o the dictatorship o the bourgeoisie” (Fanon1968: 165). Like Lenin, Fanon vigorously criticized the rise o national chau-vinism and the laziness and conceit o intellectuals;
in addition, he pointedto the inherent contradictions and “pitalls” in the anticolonial movements,that is, the arrogance o the party o liberation and the etish o leadership,and to the absence o a liberatory ideology. By “liberatory,” I mean ideologynot simply as critique o other ideologies but what he also called developinga social and political “new humanism” within “the structure o a people”(Fanon 1968: 143), gesturing toward a more inclusive working out o theuture rom the bottom up. Coming as Fanon did as an insider critic, his cri-tique o the anticolonial movements was one o his great contributions.Fanon remained a loyal member o the FLN even ater RamdaneAbane’s assassination in December 1957.
Though Fanon despised the mili-tarists, narrow nationalists, and anti-intellectuals and was marginalized inTunis, he kept working on the periodical
. On the revolution-ary wing o the organization, he nevertheless remained vital as a diplomator the Algerian provisional government in West Arica, meeting PatriceLumumba, Felix Moumié, and Kwame Nkrumah, among others. From theseexperiences he developed a critique o national consciousness that would bepresented in discussions and lectures at the National Liberation Army’s(ALN) headquarters in Ghardimaou on the Tunisian border.
By 1961, he wascertain that colonialism would be deeated, but at the same time, he oresaw