Manifeste du Parti d'Entente Populaire

The Parti d'Entente Populaire's Manifeste is a precious document for understanding how Alexis and other Haitian intellectuals viewed Marxism and the struggle of national liberation and development. While undoubtedly a Marxist and believing that the "New Independence" of Haiti must center the working classes, Alexis was a pragmatist who saw the extreme backwardness of the Haitian economy and the weakness of its working-class as major impediments to any type of socialist revolution. Instead, inter-class alliances uniting the peasantry (the vast majority of the population in the mid-20th century), the unemployed and poor urban masses, the tiny working-class, middle-class elements (despite being, on average, the most conservative, some of them and the middle-class intellectuals should be included in a united national front), and the bourgeoisie nationale should be the goal. With this broad coalition, Alexis and the PEP believed that the semi-feudal and imperialist conditions in which Haiti had languished for 150 years could finally be overturned. Already by this period, Haiti's conditions were dire and the writing was on the wall on the lack of any viable economic or social future. Consequently, the workers, peasants, progressive-minded Haitians and members of the bourgeoisie eager to industrialize Haiti or safely invest their capital in the country must cooperate to create a democratic, liberal state. 

Naturally, the PEP's program for this future state included active state intervention in the economy and a number of protections for workers, landless peasants, a plan for economic development that welcomed the national bourgeoisie and sought to limit the negative impact of US imperialism. But before any type of socialist revolution could take place, a bourgeoisie nationale must be included in a progressive coalition to overturn "feudalism" and imperialism. This reading of Haitian political history and the solution to the problems of Haiti led to a generally positive view of the Liberals of the 19th century and the champions of civil government and liberal reforms, including Edmond Paul and Firmin as intellectuals who correctly identified some of the solutions for Haiti. However, since the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois progressives in the 1840s, 1870s, and other moments ultimately sided with the "feudal" landowners, military generals, and imperialist forces at other moments when the semi-feudal, imperialist conditions of Haiti were threatened, the PEP promoted inter-class solidarity for a united front while placing less emphasis on their Marxist influences or believe in the next stage or mode. Through education, collaboration, and protecting Haitian commerce and industry, the PEP would win over progressives of the bourgeoisie whose long-term interests meant an end to the feudal conditions of Haiti. 

Of course, one wonders why conditions in the 1950s and 1960s would be any different from past experiences where Haiti's bourgeoisie chose to side with the retrograde "feudal" forces. Seeing their long-term class interests requires rational thought and a willingness to forego immediate profits while also risking everything in moments of unrest, arson or looting. Duvalierism itself also represented something new that, though obviously based on the "ancient Haitian tradition" of governance and corruption, was more extreme and authoritarian (arguably not so obvious in 1959). One assumes Alexis saw this, and perhaps was increasingly drawn to the Cuban model and Castro for their successes in seizing government and instituting a number of reforms and protections for the poor. Indeed, Mao and the Chinese Revolution were clearly another source of influence on how Alexis's political ideology and programs may have changed had he lived longer or the PEP was able to take power. And looking at Haiti today, with its apocalyptic conditions and nonviable economic, social and political conditions, one can see that no inter-class coalition that united the national bourgeoisie, workers, peasants, and the middle classes was able to institute a state with durable liberal governance. Although the political system did open up to include those from the lower classes and middle class, Haiti has been beset by various crises, foreign interventions, and now, a complete hollowing out of the state. One wonders how horrified Alexis would be today if he had lived to see what became of our island, and perhaps how far from fruition even some of the basic ideas in the PEP's program are.

Marxism as the Only Possible Guide to the Haitian Revolution

Le marxisme, seul guide possible de la révolution haïtienne by Jacques Stéphen Alexis is a fascinating essay defending Marxism and dialectical materialism as the foundation for the future revolution in Haiti. As part of the Parti d'Entente Populaire, Alexis fought for a national revolution that was democratic, anti-feudal, anti-imperialist, and included allies among the bourgeoisie nationale who saw that Haiti's semi-feudal conditions and the negative impact of imperialism hurt their interests. In response to critics of Marxism or those who questioned its utility as a framework for revolution, however, Alexis's essay articulates a view of Marxism and dialectical materialism that "completed" philosophy by overturning Hegelian idealism. In other words, Marxist theory and praxis were the best foundation for eventually reaching a future in which exploitation will cease. Others, who focused on the writings of a young Marx (before the maturation of Marxism) or sought answers in other schools of thought were missing the mark, according to Alexis. 

Naturally, Alexis's essay offers an outlook on how the PEP viewed itself and its ideology in the context of Haitian political parties. While certainly dogmatic and emphatic on the superiority of Marxism for a theory of society and framework for all sciences (included ethnology, which Alexis viewed as sterile in its Haitian context and guilty of a mystification of blackness), Alexis's views here also correlate well with his literary productions. For instance, his insistence on viewing Haitian culture as the fusion of Amerindian, African, and European traits can be found in his other writings. Furthermore, he also called for formal arts ad literature in Haiti be meet and engage with popular folklore and storytelling, something Alexis endeavored to do in his own short story collection,  Romancero aux étoiles. Alexis clearly sought to model what he believed was the best path forward for Haitian arts and literature through an active engagement with folklore, Vodou, and rural Haiti, even as he believed a Marxist application to the study of such phenomena will culminate in the liquidation of aspects of Vodou and superstition. But by embracing those contradictions or apparent contradictions in the making of Haitian identity and culture, something new will emerge out of Marxist engagement and study. Thus, the alienation experienced by colonized and racialized peoples like Haitians, or the contradictions and ambivalence of Haitian Creole and French, the color question, Roman Catholicism and Vodou, and Haiti's complex cultural heritage will, eventually, be unveiled through Marxist analysis and revolution.

While Alexis is a far more mature thinker here than in his youthful writings in La Ruche, one cannot help but feel that much of this is outmoded. The idea that Marxist revolution and technological improvements would eventually displace or end veneration of, say, aquatic spirits in Haitian Vodou, seems incredibly unlikely due to the survival of religion in the Soviet bloc. Likewise, one cannot help but wonder how the PEP would succeed in ushering a truly democratic revolution with the aid of the bourgeoisie nationale under the guidance of the proletariat. If segments of the Haitian bourgeoisie were unable to align with the piquets in the 19th century, how would Marxist-influenced revolutionaries make it happen when the power of the bourgeoisie nationale would have to rely on heavy exploitation of the workers to a significant degree before becoming competitive with the comprador bourgeoisie or international capital? In other words, wouldn't the Haitian bourgeoisie, already being weaker and under threat from the international capitalist system, and undermined by the comprador class and nearly 2 centuries of Haitian political economy in the interests of foreign or semi-foreign capital, have to rely on certain conditions of exploitation of the working class to reach a point where their capital could be invested in industrialization? One supposes Alexis knew this, and thus insisted that the working-class would have to exert significant control of this first step in the Haitian Revolution, to protect workers' rights and labor laws. We assume this is partly why Alexis praised Mao and the Chinese Revolution as a revolution of oppressed nations which sought to align all pro-nationalist forces and even inculcate upper classes or bourgeois allies with the belief that they should work alongside the peasantry and working classes.