On 6/1/21 11:26 AM, Michael Yates wrote:
Andrew, there is a big difference between an analysis of the Chinese
revolution and what Mao and the Red Army accomplished, the radical
transformation of the countryside (see the book by Zhun Xu on the
dismantling of the communes), and so forth and the foolishness of the
Maoist groups in the US. Monthly Review never associated itself with
any of them, ever. Mao's ideas of autonomous development were correct,
in my view. And even the Cultural Revolution was not viewed completely
negatively, even by some of those worst affected by it. In any event,
MR has changed its views on China several times, based mainly on
changing factual circumstances. To put MR and its editors on a par
with the groups Young is talking about is a bit offensive. It is easy
to criticize in hindsight, but it is a lot harder to try to put
matters in historical context. I can assure you of one thing. Ethan
Young is utterly incapable of doing this.
_._,_._,
_._,_._,_
It's a big mistake to look at MR as monolithic. For the most obvious
example, Michael Yates clearly does not share the Sputnik Left
orientation of the zine, nor did he go along with Yoshie Furuhashi's
earlier version that was so misguided that it led to the resignation of
a member of the editorial board and an open letter by members of the
Iranian left in exile.
Another anomaly. Despite being the leading voice of Eurocentric critics,
MR hired Ellen Meiksins Wood to edit the magazine. She was even more
extreme than Robert Brenner in pushing Political Marxism as some kind of
litmus test for the left.
I think that MR was far more homogeneous when Paul Sweezy and Harry
Magdoff were co-editors. Basically, they saw their mission as
articulating the goals of the anti-imperialist movement in the 50s and
60s with a particular emphasis on dependency theory. All of the books
they published became instant classics such as Eduardo Galeano's "Open
Veins of Latin America". I strongly identify with this perspective and
am eternally grateful for Michael Yates's continuity with this tradition.
With respect to Ethan Young's Washington Babylon's interview, I'm afraid
that Andrew erred in making an amalgam between Ben Norton and the 1960s
Monthly Review. Ethan clearly states that Norton and company are nothing
like the New Communist movement that Ethan belonged to. Basically,
Grayzone has no ideology and is simply a group of assholes trying to
exploit the low level of internationalism that accounts for the craven
support for Assad, etc. I should add that I am very familiar with the
period having worked with Peter Camejo to persuade the Guardian (the
American radical weekly, not the British paper) to move in a less
sectarian direction. Ethan was a staff member of the Guardian at the
time and open to new perspectives. In his case, it led to a long-time
affiliation with the Committees of Correspondence, a Eurocommunist split
from the CP involving Dorothy Healy et al, and hence his Carl
Davidson-like orientation to the Democratic Party. Despite my quibble
with Andrew's intro to the interview, I am extremely gratified that he
and Ken Silverstein are going after Grayzone hammer and tongs. They have
the credibility that is needed to expose a truly toxic outlet.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#8895): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/8895
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/83214196/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
