En relación a [PEN-L:3125] Re: Re: WWR & mysteries of the organ,
el 13 Oct 00, a las 15:40, Brad DeLong dijo:
> >WW Rostow was not right, and this I
> >will not debate with you. But the reasons why are quite different.
> >Neither Argentina, nor Uruguay, nor least of the three Chile had
> >taken off.
>
>
> By Rostow's criteria, Argentina had taken off by the 1880s--and
> Rostow saw "take off" as irreversible. The fact that Argentina today
> is not a rich country is proof that Rostow was wrong in his belief
> that "take off" was irreversible...
>
No. It is proof that the whole conception is devoid of any sense.
Of course. Rostow, Luis Roque Gondra before him (you don't know
Gondra, do you, Braden? You should if you want to understand anything
on how did that kind of capitalism work) and every reactionary on
this planet will say that. This is standard and conventional pseudo-
wisdom.
But Argentina had not "taken off" in 1880, so its performance after
the date proves nothing.
My country was simply integrated in a subordinate position to world
market through the beef trade. Although there existed some struggles
in Argentina on how to best get integrated (and some of these had a
faint flavor of a struggle to generate the conditions for autonomous
accumulation, that is for what Rostow attempts to mention when he
uses the aeronautical metaphor), the development of Argentina after
1880 (and, specially after the 1890 crisis, which was blamed on us
when in fact we were a victim) couldn't but end the way it did. If it
took us so long a time to finally become what we are now, it is
because the initial flow of wealth was more or less well distributed,
a parcel was used to build a State that would at its turn, through
Peronism, attempt to build a modern capitalist, self-centered nation,
and eventually failed.
Argentina, in fact, has never taken off. Thusly, if Rostow's theory
were true, we would not be evidence in contrary.
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
