Re: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
Leys is a specialist in "development theory", Africa in particular. According to Sam Pawlett, he comes at things from the same angle as Robert Brenner which is to say that he is skeptical of the"development of underdevelopment" thesis--another way of saying that imperialism exists. Don't know if I'd go that far. Leys used to espouse a dependency theory see esp. his *Underdevelopment in Kenya* (1974,U of Cal.) a classic Baran-type analysis. He says "To my mind underdevelopment theory represents an immense advance, politically and intellectually, over conventional development theory (or modernisation theory-SP)." pxii. In the last 20 or so years though, he has given up on it for he contends that dependency or underdevelopment theory has failed to explain the "African Tragedy" as he puts it. He now seems to think that sub-saharan Africa has never been capitalist at all and this is one of the problems. Leys now, justifiably I guess, is resigned to complete pessimism as everything tried in S. Africa has failed completely and only made the overall socio-economic-political situation worse. The situation there today is about as good as it's going to get barring significant drastic changes in the international political economy. A more optimistic (and complete) analysis is given by Patrick Bond in his various books. Sam Pawlett ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
Don't know if I'd go that far. Leys used to espouse a dependency theory see esp. his *Underdevelopment in Kenya* (1974,U of Cal.) a classic Baran-type analysis. He says "To my mind underdevelopment theory represents an immense advance, politically and intellectually, over conventional development theory (or modernisation theory-SP)." pxii. In the last 20 or so years though, he has given up on it for he contends that dependency or underdevelopment theory has failed to explain the "African Tragedy" as he puts it. He now seems to think that sub-saharan Africa has never been capitalist at all and this is one of the problems. Leys now, justifiably I guess, is resigned to complete pessimism as everything tried in S. Africa has failed completely and only made the overall socio-economic-political situation worse. The situation there today is about as good as it's going to get barring significant drastic changes in the international political economy. A more optimistic (and complete) analysis is given by Patrick Bond in his various books. Sam Pawlett I stand corrected. Furthermore, as a rule of thumb whatever Sam says I agree with in advance. Unless, of course, it is related to the topic of wild life preservation. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
At 11:27 AM 1/29/01 -1000, you wrote: Lou wrote: Henwood used to argue, except they formulated it slightly differently. They said that imperialism was manifested by the refusal of Great Britain, USA et al to invest in Africa. ..., the imperialists prevented multinationals from "developing" Africa. Steve responds: Well, if that is Henwood's argument, it's not that far from Frantz Fanon, who argued that advanced capitalist countries frequently set conditions for investment on newly decolonized countries that keep them from being able to experience development *and* if they refused they would be faced with the very real threat of withdrawl altogether of financial assistance (which Fanon also felt they were owed from the advanced cap. world as reparations for years of pilfering of colonial economies...). Well, okay. Frantz Fanon made no pretenses of being a Marxist. If Henwood simply dropped that pretension himself, there would be less controversy around his views in cyberspace. (I should add that his print views are largely unobjectionable, although having little to do with classical Marxism.) Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
Louis Proyect wrote: I stand corrected. Furthermore, as a rule of thumb whatever Sam says I agree with in advance. Unless, of course, it is related to the topic of wild life preservation. I'd like to get a wilder life myself. I'm a protected sub-species, too, according to my wife. ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
Mark, Who was criticising Frantz Fanon? And what is wrong with saying that an argument that Doug Henwood, even if you do think he is the most evil force haunting the world today, happens to be similar to or even the same as FF's on a particular issue? What is Leninist about that? Steve Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822 On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Mark Jones wrote: Stephen E Philion wrote: Well, if that is Henwood's argument, it's not that far from Frantz Fanon, who argued that advanced capitalist countries frequently set conditions for investment on newly decolonized countries that keep them from being able to experience development *and* if they refused they would be faced with the very real threat of withdrawl altogether of financial assistance (which Fanon also felt they were owed from the advanced cap. world as reparations for years of pilfering of colonial economies...). Wait a minute, whoa. Fanon gets a lot of (IMHO) entirely undeserved flak because of his alleged lack of centre-periphery focus. It would be good to have a seminar about Fanon. People talk about him in thought-bites and only half remember what they read years ago. Fanon was an entirely consistent fighter against colonialism and is a giant of our movement. Doug Henwood is not that. He is a pygmy. The problem with Henwood is not that he argues like/unalike Fanon (or anyone else), it's that he contradicts himself, does both often at the same time, and is politically inconsistent. Empirical accuracy used as a camouflage for wild opportunism is an old trick of Anglo-Saxon scholarship and should not mislead us. You cannot debate empirical opportunism, because it is a true wilderness of mirrors, a political bog and a haven for the worst kinds of self-seeking leftwing careerism. And this is something we ought to have settled accounts with by now, and must do if we are to develop. We shall have to take on board all the things which are flowing out of Porto Alegre, and find the ways to participate more actvely, and decisively, in the movement it embodies/represents: a movement which is characterised by a tacit alliance between the compliant petit-bourgeois socialism of acadameics, and the lumpenised semi-proletariat of the megacities who are now *also* firmly in the *political* sights of the emergent, post-neoliberal Davos Consensus. These things are connected. The bitterest and most decisive struggles against petit-bourgeois socialism will be necessary and while I agree we should be comradely, we should also be extremely serious and decisive in combating petit-bourgeois socialism. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
Stephen E Philion: Mark, Who was criticising Frantz Fanon? And what is wrong with saying that an argument that Doug Henwood, even if you do think he is the most evil force haunting the world today, happens to be similar to or even the same as FF's on a particular issue? What is Leninist about that? I don't think Doug H is particularly evil (not banal enough, perhaps). My remark was not directed at you anyway, and I'm glad you mentioned Fanon. Sorry if I sounded rebarbative. Didn't intend it. Not about you, anyway. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
Mac, where was this published? Reference, please Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Macdonald Stainsby Sent: 28 January 2001 07:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [L-I] The legacy...part 1 Any comments? - Macdonald *** Colin Leys and Leo Panitch ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
"reply to article in New Left Review 2, 2000" http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/hafa3/panitch.htm Mac, where was this published? Reference, please Mark --- Macdonald Stainsby Rad-Green List: Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion. http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/rad-green Leninist-International: Building bridges in the tradition of V.I. Lenin. http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international In the contradiction lies the hope. --Bertholt Brecht ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
this link goes to a different article! Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Macdonald Stainsby Sent: 28 January 2001 09:53 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [L-I] The legacy...part 1 "reply to article in New Left Review 2, 2000" http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/hafa3/panitch.htm Mac, where was this published? Reference, please Mark --- Macdonald Stainsby Rad-Green List: Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion. http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/rad-green Leninist-International: Building bridges in the tradition of V.I. Lenin. http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international In the contradiction lies the hope. --Bertholt Brecht ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
RE: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
I'm glad Mac posted this Panitch artcle (presumably the intro essay to a recent Soc Register, publication detalils WOULD be welome) and I think that L-I has a raison d'etre as a site dedicated to high-level theoretical debate about the state, and how we analyse and conceptualise it within the process of developing revolutionary theory/practice. I would like to propose that we resolve different schools of thought into a schemata. This article is part of the MR/SR school/tradition of non-soviet/anti-stalin critiques of the state and capital in the Baran/Sweezy tradition of anti-leninism (another anti-lenin tradition is that of Paul Mattick, shading over into Lucien Goldman and the autonomist/Tony Negri school which for eg Tahir Wood follows, is Tahir on l-i btw?) If we can agree to some admittedly arbitrary scheme then we can try to sharpen up/deepen our understanding of these different 'schools' thru further debate, elaboration etc. The link Mac gave goes to Martin Shaw's pages. Here he discusses NLR, Perry Anderson, Peter Gowan etc. I have on file a huge (and I mean big) file of papers on the state + capital by these and otthers which i can put into a zipfile if anyone wants to get it. Mark ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
Macdonald Stainsby wrote: Any comments? - Macdonald A question first: Who are Colin Leys and Leo Panitch? I am not familiar with their history (either that, or I simply cannot recall it at the moment). Comradely; James Paris, MWG-IWC http://www.marxistworker.org/us/ Workers of the World, Unite! ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
Re: [L-I] The legacy...part 1
At 04:37 AM 1/28/01 -0500, you wrote: Macdonald Stainsby wrote: Any comments? - Macdonald A question first: Who are Colin Leys and Leo Panitch? I am not familiar with their history (either that, or I simply cannot recall it at the moment). Comradely; James Paris, MWG-IWC Leo Panitch co-edited Socialist Register with Ralph Miliband, who died a couple of years ago. As Mark Jones pointed out, the SR was very close to Monthly Review and many of the same writers publish in both: Ellen Meiksins Wood, Patrick Bond, John Bellamy Foster, Bill Tabb, David Harvey, et al. If you had to pick and choose among Marxist journals based on the academy, I suppose that MR and SR are the least compromised. Leys is a specialist in "development theory", Africa in particular. According to Sam Pawlett, he comes at things from the same angle as Robert Brenner which is to say that he is skeptical of the"development of underdevelopment" thesis--another way of saying that imperialism exists. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ ___ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
