I see. Brenner is, or was, an AM. Gerry Cohen, ditto. Cohen is a stagist (he
is, actually). So Brenner is. Lou, did anyone tell you that affirming the
consequent is a fallacy when you back reading James Joyce, superior being
that you are? I am, or was, an AM, too: am I a stagist, even if I have
expressly rejected the idea that history necessary must follow a determined
sequence? AMs had their differences. Cohen believed in functional
explanation, Elster didn't. Cohen believed in the primacy of the forces of
production. Brenner doesn't. He's a relations guy.
Anyway, and furthermore, what does Cohen's, or anyone's, stagism have to do
with socialism from below? Is it inconsistent to believe that socialism must
be the work of the subordinate classes themeselves and that one must be at a
certain level of development oif the productive forces to have it? (Marx
believed both of those things.) Lou, you are really losing us here. --jks
>
>Furuhashi:
> >Brenner can't be in support of both stagism & "socialism from below"
> >at the same time.
>
>What on earth are you talking about? Brenner was connected with the
>Analytical Marxist current before it gave up the ghost. These people, G.A.
>Cohen et al, are Second Internationalists in cap and gown. And why can't he
>be for "socialism from below"? This is such an amorphous idea that any
>leftist would be able to endorse it. It is our version of "family values".
>
> >Moreover, support of left nationalisms like
> >Peronism tends to contradict "socialist revolution right now," though
> >your posts suggest you favor both.
>
>I support Peron against Anglo-American imperialism. This is common Marxist
>practice. I learned this in the Trotskyist movement. I can refer you to
>some of the literature, specifically Trotsky's defense of Haile Selassie
>against Mussolini as an extreme example. For that matter, the Comintern
>supported the Kuomintang in the early 1920s. The difference between Trotsky
>and Stalin was over whether the CP should have retained a separate
>identity, with its own newspaper, etc. The debate was not over whether the
>KMT should have been backed in a fight for national independence.
>
> >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.
>
>Other people don't seem to have this problem. You can hear them snarling
>right now much to my satisfaction.
>
> >Our problem, in any case, is that none of the above -- stagism,
> >"socialist revolution right now," "socialism from below," & left
> >nationalism -- is popular today.
>
>I don't care about being popular. In high school I read James Joyce while
>everybody else preferred Grace Metalious.
>
>
>Louis Proyect
>Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
