Brenner was considered by the AM group as one of them which is
why he was invited to write a piece for Analytical Marxism, ed by
Roemer. Carling persuasively argues that B's concept of class
struggle is close to the rational-choice model of Cohen and Elster.
>
> 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
>
