S. Artesian wrote:
The emancipatory, "progressive," element in capitalism is not the "dual role" of the bourgeoisie as Marx imagined, and only imagined, it to be in 1848,[ as a careful examination of the struggle against the ancien regime and its remnants shows that the bourgeoisie itself hardly played a revolutionary role, but in fact the actions of the rural and urban poor, the petty bourgeoisie were the revolutionary drivers and the revolution itself only became bourgeois in its defeat], is not and does not exist in "things." Greg: Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this apply only to Germany under the Junkers? S. Artesian: That is to say that the bourgeoisie had to join hands, under the table and above the board, with feudal, partriarchal, idyllic relations. The bourgeoisie adapted itself to them, as in countries in Latin America, or adapted them to itself again countries in Latin America, as, for example, in the haciendas of Mexico between 1867 and 1910-- and even after the revolution. I would be careful about extrapolating european feudalism and applying it to social relations in colonial latin america. Greg ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
