At 6:50 PM -0400 5/22/01, Louis Proyect wrote:
>Fundamentally, the debate is about "stages" with the "orthodox" side
>attempting a very sophisticated version of Marx's 1850s Herald Tribune
>articles. We are dealing with a poorly theorized early version of
>historical materialism that gave utterance to such formulations as "The
>railways system will therefore become, in India, truly the forerunner of
>modern industry." When formulations such as this were generalized in
>Kautsky's Marxism and then enshrined in the Comintern,
>Marxism--particularly in Latin America--had to struggle to define itself as
>a revolutionary current. Castro said that unless the revolution was
>socialist, it would fail. Whatever errors A.G. Frank has made over the
>years, this was his original belief as well, no matter what risk of
>"autarky" (Brenner's infelicitous term) was incurred.
>
>What could have provoked Brenner's attack on the MR dependency theorists,
>who took their cue from Sweezy and Baran? Was it how to interpret 15th
>century British society or was it a need to supersede the kind of "third
>worldist" orientation expressed in this 1963 call by Sweezy and Huberman
>after returning from Cuba?
>
>"The only possible revolution in Latin America today is a socialist
>revolution.
>
>"The notion that there is a powerful national bourgeoisie in these
>countries anxious to break away from US domination . . . is unfortunately a
>myth.
>
>"There can be no doubt that Latin America needs and is ripe for socialist
>revolution, not at some distant date in the future but right now.
>
>"We did not meet a single serious leftist in Latin America who is not an
>ardent supporter of the Cuban Revolution . . . There is just one thing that
>worries them, the extent to which Cuba in resisting the US, may have fallen
>under the domination of the Soviet Union."
At 2:17 PM -0400 5/23/01, Louis Proyect wrote:
>Brenner is for "socialism from below". This means democratic socialism
>without the kinds of brutishness associated with nasty Stalinist regimes
>like Castro's or Mao's. Nor the kinds of radical nationalist projects such
>as Arbenz's or Peron's. Nor the largely agrarian-based models such as
>Kerala. He is a purist. Unless it is the sort of thing that Marx wrote
>about, it is inadequate.
Brenner can't be in support of both stagism & "socialism from below"
at the same time. Moreover, support of left nationalisms like
Peronism tends to contradict "socialist revolution right now," though
your posts suggest you favor both. I'm not sure what you are
criticizing or advocating here (and for which country, region, or
whatever), since your posts go into opposite directions.
Our problem, in any case, is that none of the above -- stagism,
"socialist revolution right now," "socialism from below," & left
nationalism -- is popular today.
Yoshie
