I see. Brenner expressly rejects the primacy of the productive forces; he
builds his whole project around criticizing this, but he's "implicitly"
committed to it because he rejects autarky. You still haven't answered the
question about socialism from below. Nor have you explained why it is
stagist, or even just wrong, to think that socialsim requires a certain
level of material development. --jks
>
>Justin:
> >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.
>
>Marx started out believing that the productive forces were key. But he
>changed his mind in the last years of his life during his correspondence
>with Zasulich and other Russian populists. Teodor Shanin's "Late Marx"
>deals with this in depth. Strict adherence to productive forces being
>"adequate" is explicit in Kautsky and G.A. Cohen. It is implict in
>Brenner's complaint about "autarky".
>
>Louis Proyect
>Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
