After half a decade of collective work, the public gets access to a project that registers the life, thought and political praxis of the first Marxists in the Americas
By Yuri Martins-Fontes, Joana Coutinho, Pedro Rocha Curado, Felipe Deveza, Paulo Alves Jr. and Solange Struwka *
[Translated from Portuguese by Flávia Julius; translation revision by Diana P. Gómez Mateus and Francisco Quartim de Moraes]
The Dictionary Marxism in America is a historical recovery of the memory of the first thinkers and militants who, based on the theoretical framework of historical materialism, set out to reflect and confront the social, political and economic issues that affected particularly the new American nations, initiating the development of Marxist thought-and-struggle on the continent.
An educational and critical work of unprecedented characteristics, especially in Portuguese, the
Praxis Center for Research, Popular Education and Politics [Núcleo Práxis de Pesquisa, Educação Popular e Política] of the University of São Paulo coordinates the project. The Center is an organization dedicated to political and popular education activities. It currently involves almost a hundred volunteer researchers, from different countries, who are engaged in this archaeological investigation into the origins of Marxism in the Americas.The first volumes, planned to have more than a thousand pages, feature biographies and essays on the ideas and political praxis of about 150 Marxists who lived, wrote and took actions in the American countries, in a period that ranges from the 19th century, with the first developments of Marxism, until the 1970s, when the capitalist structural crisis worsened and multiple versions of “Marxisms” were generated.
For the time being, after half a decade of collective efforts, the Marxist Dictionary is gradually becoming available to the audience: its entries can be freely read online, in the form of “articles”, available periodically on the Núcleo Práxis-USP portal and republished by prominent partners online. This preliminary tasting – of the first volume, related to the formative years of Marxism in America – will last throughout the year, aiming both at popularising the project (whose objective is not only theoretical but educational), as well as providing space for critical readings and possible improvements to the texts, before being published as a book.
Due soon, the complete publication is in charge of Edições Práxis, in co-edition with the Expressão Popular, and will have two versions: a printed one (at popular prices) and a digital one (free).
Beginnings of the Dictionary
In 2015, the founders of Núcleo Práxis-USP, between political meetings and debates of the Study Group on Marxism (one of their first projects), began to consider expanding the collective’s activities towards popular education. Times were tough in Brazil, with the coup d’État in the making (Dilma Rousseff was dishonestly impeached in 2016). Within this context, two new projects were considered: a discussion forum on social rights (which was later established, in partnership with associations and communities in the city of São Paulo), and an anthology, both critical and didactic, that brought together essays on prominent Latin American Marxists, to offer students and workers an overview of Marxist theories and practices developed in our America.
In this process, the general coordinator of the Núcleo Práxis, Yuri Martins-Fontes, while participating in a meeting at USP’s Political Economy and Economic History Laboratory, presented the idea to professor Wilson do Nascimento Barbosa, who directed the entity’s research. After further discussions, the idea was refined and expanded. Instead of another anthology with complex articles, which would tend to be restricted to the academic environment, the following was considered: why not join forces to produce a larger body of work, an educational publication of reference, with shorter texts that managed to present the great diversity of themes and currents of Marxism developed over more than a century throughout the continent – a book that could be used not only by high schools and university students but also to the political training of young socialists?
The seed was planted. The project was even written and presented to a prestigious publisher, which required an entry as an example. Yuri Martins-Fontes responded to the request, writing an article on Mariátegui based on the model he had recently developed in his thesis on Latin American Marxism (later published as Marx in America). The editorial committee approved the publication, although emphasizing that at that moment it could not embrace the whole project. Brazil´s economic, social and cultural situation was difficult and soon deteriorated even more. By then, the Núcleo Práxis-USP had just over a dozen members, few of whom were willing to take on the adventure. Without material conditions or at least structural support, the plan was shelved.
The Renaissance
In 2018, Núcleo Práxis experienced a period of growth, as a result of the movement around its projects, especially three of them: the Study Group (which at the time was reading Capital, by Marx); the collective translation from Portuguese into Spanish of History and Philosophy (selection by Caio Prado Júnior, published in 2020 in Argentina); and the Fórum de Formação Política de Lideranças Populares [Forum for Political Formation of Popular Leadership] (whose regular meetings brought together educators and community leaders). Many militants – researchers from different areas, universities and countries – joined the collective at this point.
With this expansion movement, the organization gained the strength to consider new actions. After many brainstorming meetings, the plan for a periodical publication was approved: an easily accessible political magazine, that would offer students and workers a dissonant voice in the fascist environment that reverberated in the country – a time of growing irrationality, if not supported, consented by the mainstream media and other neoliberal forces, irritated by the (basic) social reforms of the years of Workers’ Party (PT) governments (2003-2016).
Our experience with periodicals was limited to a few members, who in the 2000s had edited a small newspaper, A Palavra Latina [The Latin Word], for a few years. But the collective was so cohesive then, that many manifested the disposition to get involved with a solid regular project. After back-and-forth proposals and debates, the Dictionary project is taken out of the drawer. Partially reworked, it was reintroduced at a gathering at a theatre in São Paulo´s downtown area, which brought together members of Núcleo Práxis-USP and guests attracted by the proposition. Right there, the project was reborn.
Thinking Marxism in America
In the following year, at its General Assembly, Núcleo Práxis-USP elects a new committee, starting to rely on the strength of new comrades who have long worked in training courses and the collective’s publications (didactic material, Marxist translations, collaborations with the independent press). Paulo Alves Junior (secretary-general) and Solange Struwka (vice-coordinator) join the General Coordination of the entity; in parallel, Pedro Rocha Curado takes over the newly created Political Communication Coordination, whose function would be to disseminate our editorial and popular education ventures, physical and digital.
The debates around the Dictionary intensified and became more regular, but so much energy was still needed for it to be systematized. With this in mind, the Marxist Thought in America Seminar was created. Participants aimed to investigate and select the most prominent Marxists on the continent, so that their stories, thoughts and political actions could be analyzed, recorded and disseminated to the general public. The seminarians were divided into five subgroups, each responsible for studying the history of Marxism in the nations of their respective regions: Brazil; Southern Cone; Andes; Mexico and Central America; North America and the Caribbean. It began – now in practice – the editorial odyssey.
In its initial formation, the Seminar had a dozen researchers. This number soon doubled, however, as the complexity of the assignment was better understood, it showed to be still insufficient. Information about certain fundamental historical characters was very scarce and difficult to access. A work of this size needed more co-authors, collaborators, and coordinators.
To this end, the Political Communication Coordination was reinforced, with Joana Aparecida Coutinho and Felipe Santos Deveza joining the team. The goal was to extend our political networks to social and academic movements and establish connections that would support both the basic structure of the project and the recruitment of the intellectual workforce necessary for its production.
We were now at the beginning of 2020, when the pandemic started to develop. Given the lockdown, the Núcleo Práxis face-to-face meetings and political debates had to move to a remote model (in the same way as the political training activities, carried out by videoconference in 2021). Despite the coldness and even precarious characteristics of digital relationships, this sudden technical impulse allowed the collective to multiply its links – forming sometimes quite distant but consistent ties.
With the launch of the Seminar’s research and the ingress of new coordinators, the Editorial Coordination of the Dictionary became more robust. This is the team responsible for the general organization, distribution of tasks, schedules, deadlines, agreements and publication, as well as for the critical review and final editing of entries and documents related to the project. Previously formed by the three representatives of the General Coordination, it would now include the three members of Political Communication.
A meeting with historical Marxists
This is how, for about two years of monthly meetings, the members of the Seminar carried out historical-archaeological research that was dedicated to unveiling the memory of the Marxist characters of the nations under the auspices of their respective working groups, making an effort to recognize not only the protagonists but the intricacies of their historical moment in which they were immersed, and the context of their ideas and actions. Every month, new names of communist thinkers appeared, revealed by readings centred on the author’s and his scholars’ handwriting. Biographical information, political polemics and theoretical texts were slowly excavated in libraries and in forays into archives, sometimes private.
But it was especially the focus on dialogue – on listening to the historical subjects of each nation – that led us to the most valuable clues, which came about through the seminarians’ effort to obtain direct information. Oral or written interviews were conducted with social leaders and militants from communist, socialist, and labor parties in several countries, in addition to intellectuals and humanities academics from several universities. With this local knowledge, resulting from this international network, we were able to gather more vigorous opinions about Marxism and the main Marxists in each country. This, added to our previous studies – bibliographical, and generalist – allowed the research and selection process to become more democratic and diversified.
To complement this foundation of content, before the writing process, we also investigated the historical context of each nation in the period in question, as well as historiographical and philosophical, particular and universal aspects of Marxism developed by its representatives.
At the end of the first year of the seminar, the members of each subgroup began to expose their discoveries to the other participants, at which point we began to collectively discuss the result of each research. Based on this dialogical practice, the names of almost a hundred historical Marxists – who have left their thoughts recorded in some way (books, articles, manifestos, transcribed speeches, interviews, correspondence) -, were listed, evaluated, collated and chosen. They are the ones composing the volume relating to the period of formation of Marxism in America.
If the epistemological approach of the work gave preference to authors who developed authentic Marxist reflections – either concerning the historical analyses with which they investigated particular national questions or in a more strictly philosophical scope (universal, totalizing concepts) –, nevertheless were also valued those militants who developed the theoretical aspects of the materialist conception of history with less originality, who dedicated their lives to the political tasks proper to a communist: organization, popular awareness, dissemination of Marxist thought-struggle through grassroots work (education, trade unions, independent journalism).
Furthermore, among other criteria on which we rely for the selection of Marxists to be biographed, we prioritize emphasizing diversity, with attention both to gender and to the ethnic groups that make up the Americas: Indigenous people, Black people, women. Plus, we were careful to select thinkers, if not in each country (given the restrictions of the time), at least in each region of the continent. We also made an effort to include Marxists from as many countries as possible in America (and from various parts of Brazil) in the volume, so that in the end we managed to have representatives from all regions of the continent and almost all countries – although not all, since in this period some nations were still in formation or were subjugated colonies.
Work in progress
The time had finally come to focus on writing, on organizing accumulated learning. The activity of mass elaboration of the texts begins, a delicate task that should be guided by our specific entry model – didactic and critical –, which had the purpose of obtaining social capillarity, also included analysis and deepened essential topics, going beyond being descriptive. The quest to maintain this consistency and quality would require more steps than expected, in a process that started with the authors of the first version, went on to the reviewers (of form and content), and even, sometimes, to additional editors and translators, before reaching the editors – who evaluated the entry as a whole, eventually having to return it to an earlier stage.
It does not take long to understand that a project of such magnitude – and without institutional resources – it would be too long if it did not attract volunteers to engage with the team, which by then was still small, considering the size of the undertaking. To solve this limitation, in 2021, Núcleo Práxis-USP opened a public notice to select new co-authors for the execution of the work. As requirements, candidates should have studied human sciences or philosophy, with an emphasis on Marxism or political and social issues specific to American nations, preferably having produced research that demonstrates thematic affinities with the project.
Widely publicized, published in the independent media and disseminated through the social networks of the various parties involved, the call for proposals was a surprise: in one month, nearly fifty people had applied. The analysis of the candidacies was carried out by the Editorial Coordination, based on: first, a letter of intent that required the interested party to suggest, among the list of Marxists raised, one about whom he would like to write, explaining his reasons in a succinct essay; second, a “political-academic” curriculum describing relevant experiences, especially work related to Marxism, education, history of the Americas and writing experience in itself, as well as academic training and political and professional activities. The selection process was successful, both in terms of quantity and quality. Among those enrolled, three-quarters were quickly integrated into the group, doubling the number of workers in the Dictionary.
At the same time, we researched international experts on the work of some of the Marxists listed for the volume, who generally had the same nationalities as the biographers. Based on remote interviews – which allowed the editors to better understand the trajectory and work of each intellectual contacted, in addition to assessing their interest –, we made specific invitations, obtaining the engagement of more than a dozen co-authors.
With more people involved, and more tasks arising, specific committees were created to respond to new demands, namely: extra research that proved necessary; and the ever-present efforts to improve the texts received – such as adapting the writings to the template model, previous editing, translation and additional writing (if necessary), general revision, text preparation and final editing.
In addition to the Committee for Research on Marxism in America (which derived from the Seminar), special committees were created, dedicated to executive tasks related to the written material: committees responsible for translations, the various stages of revision, and supporting editorial work.
On the other hand, to put our production to the test, the Critical Advisory Council was created, composed of renowned activist intellectuals, whose works, political trajectory and contribution to Marxist communism were widely recognized. Coming from various parts of the world, these advisors have the optional function of, whenever they see fit, criticizing, suggesting and proposing changes – a kind of final touch for the improvement of the work.
Entries: a didactic-critical model
At this point in the project, in addition to the content, we started to worry about the form of the entries [verbetes]. The intention of the Dictionary was communicating, dialoguing and attracting supporters, however without failing to delve deeper into the polemic, the contradiction and the concept, particularly in some key aspects. The pedagogical aspect of a text, after all, cannot be dissociated from necessary – and stimulating – moments of analytical depth. A work aimed at initial Marxist education should address, without reductions or dogmatism, the central principles and concepts of historical materialism. We could not fail to mention topics such as dialectics, praxis, structure, class struggle, work, modes of production, primitive accumulation, theory of value, alienation, and above all dealing with the different conceptions and paths previously thought and tried for the concrete utopia of the revolution, without falling into sectarianism.
We therefore consider it essential to elaborate on erudite principles and terms, however always seeking to situate the use of erudition, explaining the complex concept in an accessible language. This would certainly have to be done with great attention to the naive vice of the verbose – an easy but imprecise way out that affects some theorists unaccustomed to life beyond the walls of the academy. Avoiding technical hermeticism, speaking a language that sought dialogue, and refraining from complexification beyond the necessary would prove to be among the most labor-intensive tasks of the editing process.
The aforementioned entry template model (trialed in 2015) was then questioned. According to it, the text would have three parts: the first, biographical-descriptive, in which the historical context and aspects of the Marxist’s life, his studies, political formation, professional activities and militancy would be presented; then, an analytical, essayistic item, which would deal with the author’s thinking based on his works and achievements; and finally, a bibliographical list relating the works read for the composition of the entry (by the author himself and by commentators). If this model had interesting aspects and worked well in academic works, on the other hand, its central part was somewhat open, which could give rise to theoretical digressions not always palatable to a learner.
So, to facilitate the understanding of the essential dimension of thought of each subject, it was decided to keep the initial item, and to divide the second item into two parts: the first, consisting of a brief essay encompassing the fundamental theoretical and practical contributions of the featured author, highlighting the main political ideas and concepts he contributed to Marxism; the second, simpler to understand (and which could be read partially independently of the others), would have a bibliographic and descriptive content, dedicating itself to presenting the author’s work, stimulating its reading through a review of the themes contained therein – thoughts, developed concepts, controversies, political positions defended in each writing. Finally, as an appendix, a fourth item (of this new model) would bring a list of books and texts produced about the Marxist author: both the references used in the article, and some recommendations for an introductory work.
*
As a result, the entries produced showed an interesting diversity of authors – with their own stories and perspectives. Observing the concerns expressed in the texts of the time, emphasis is given to the importance given to practical aspects, such as the organisation of the working class, the articulation of international networks connecting social movements and parties from the various countries of America, the battle for the improvement of living standards of the population and the fight against inequalities.
Notably, during the interwar period, we see the growth in the number of Marxist-inspired parties and unions, driven by events such as the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the activities of the Communist International on the American continent. Translated books multiply, and the Marxist philosophical tradition enters the universities. Original publications appear, dedicated to the understanding of national political and economic characteristics. Topics such as the particular character of those social formations raised from the rubble of European colonialism, the role of Indigenous and African components in the mode of production, imperialism and the struggle for authentic emancipation of nations, became part of the subjects debated in newspapers (independent, mostly), universities, social movements and political parties.
However, it would be unrealistic to imagine that the spread of Marxist thought occurred without setbacks and internal friction. The crusade of local governments against the creation of socialist-inspired parties and unions meant that, in several cases, their activities took place underground, subject to arbitrary prohibitions, persecution of militants, arrests and murders. On the other hand, the formation of rival Marxist tendencies reverberated in the American continent. Important interwar events, such as the financial crisis of 1929 and the rise of fascism in Europe, contributed to stress the process of defining party strategies, opposing those who preached the parliamentary way to the proponents of the revolution.
Here is the brief history of this unique work that now gradually reaches the public, even though its production continues and is far from being finished (if there is an end to works like this).
Notes
* The authors of this presentation text are coordinators of the Núcleo Práxis-USP, and editors of the
Dictionary Marxism in America:
Yuri Martins-Fontes Leichsenring is a professor, writer, journalist and translator; doctor in Economic History (University of São Paulo/CNRS-France), graduated in Philosophy and Engineering (USP), was a postdoctoral researcher in Ethics and Politics (USP), and History, Culture and Labor (OUC-SP).
Author, among other books, of Marx na América: a práxis de Caio Prado e Mariátegui (São Paulo: Fapesp/Alameda, 2018).
Joana Aparecida Coutinho is a professor of Political Science at the Federal University of Maranhão (UFMA), PhD and graduated in Social Sciences (PUC-SP), postdoctoral researcher at UNAM (México) and coordinator of the Study Group on Hegemony and Struggles in Latin America. She authored, among other books: ONGs e políticas neoliberais no Brasil (Editora UFSC, 2011), and A guerra ideológica
(Crítica e Sociedade, 2022).
Pedro Rocha F. Curado is a professor at the Institute of International Relations and Defense at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), PhD in International Political Economy (UFRJ), Graduated in Social Sciences (UFRJ), researcher at the Security and Defense Studies Laboratory. He is the author, among other books, of A guerra fria e a ‘cooperação ao desenvolvimento’ com os países não-alinhados (UFRJ/EHESS-France, 2014).
Felipe Santos Deveza is a professor of History and History in America at the public network and doctor in Comparative History (UFRJ-Brazil/UNAM-Mexico), graduate in History (UFF). He is the author, among other books, of O movimento comunista e as particularidades da América Latina (UFRJ/UNAM, 2014).
Paulo Alves Junior is a professor of Historiography at the University of International Integration of Afro-Brazilian Lusophony (Brazil), doctor in Sociology (Unesp), graduated in History (PUC-SP). Author, among other books, of Um intelectual na trincheira: José Honório Rodrigues, intérprete do Brasil (São Paulo: Editora Dialética, 2021).
Solange Struwka is a professor of Psychology at the Federal University of Rondonia (Brazil), doctor in Social Psychology (USP), graduated in Psichology (USP) and researcher of the Amazonian Group of Researches in Psychology and Education. She is the author, among other books, of Saúde mental em tempos de pandemia: os imperativos da situação-limite e as tarefas da psicologia (São Paulo: Lavra Palavra, 2022).
* This article was originally published in Portuguese on the Núcleo Práxis-USP website, as a presentation of the Dictionary Marxism in America , a collective work coordinated by this organization; it may be reproduced, without commercial purposes, provided that the source is cited (nucleopraxisusp.org) and that its content is not altered. Suggestions and criticisms are welcome: nucleopraxis.usp.br@gmail.com.