Re: Social transformation of the Cuban peasantry
Because bourgeois economists understand economic and social indicators differently from socialists, have Cuban universities actually made an attempt to find an expression of social facts about their society as economic indicators which foreign economists could understand, to facilitate international communication and information ? Jurriaan
Re: Social transformation of the Cuban peasantry
In a message dated 10/13/03 3:10:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Cuba is a model for such a process. After the revolution took power, it prioritized rural development. To this day Havana remains neglected. Large-scale farming enterprises were the beneficiaries of clinics, day-care centers, schools, sports and cultural programs. It is also important to consider that most of the rural population was of African descent. As the children of the original population became educated, they began to move to the cities on their own accord and usually because there was some skilled job that had opened up for them. As mechanization was introduced into the sugar and tobacco fields, it freed up additional labor. None of this was done coercively. It is a model of socialist transformation and a painful reminder of how bad Stalin fucked things up. For all of the hatred poured on this despot from Western liberals, we should never forget that he was simply imitating Great Britain and US "primitive accumulation". "Imitating Great Britain and US 'primitive accumulation" as the method and form of industrialization in Russia? What an intriguing proposition. The primitive accumulation of capital is disputed within Marxism but Karl Marx defines his meaning in a manner that a 10 year old child can understand. The question is not Stalin but why is and was Soviet industrialization an imitation of the industrialization that took place in Britain, which evolved from the slave trade? Just curious. Why is "primitive accumulation"of capital in quotes when any schooled boy that has read the question and studied the matter know the difference between the formation of the capitalist class and reproduction on the basis of bourgeois property. Please explain? Melvin P.
Re: Social transformation of the Cuban peasantry
The question is not Stalin but why is and was Soviet industrialization an imitation of the industrialization that took place in Britain, which evolved from the slave trade? It imitates the US and Great Britain because it is driven from above. Actually, even before Stalin took power there was an open proposal of primitive socialist accumulation from Preobrezhensky. Trotsky found these ideas seductive, but it was Stalin's left turn in the late 1920s that truly put him in the same category of the Western capitalist class. Adam Ulam saw Stalin in this light, even though I disagree with his class analysis. History would probably regard Bukharin as being more clear-sighted than either Trotsky or Stalin on these questions. A forced march in agricultural collectivization nearly destroyed the Soviet economy. Just curious. Why is primitive accumulationof capital in quotes when any schooled boy that has read the question and studied the matter know the difference between the formation of the capitalist class and reproduction on the basis of bourgeois property. Please explain? Because the term is generally understood as a capitalist category. That is why I put it in quotes. Capitalism was not being built. Instead industrialization resting on collective property relations was being built, albeit on rotten foundations as Chernobyl would demonstrate. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Social transformation of the Cuban peasantry
In a message dated 10/14/03 3:34:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It imitates the US and Great Britain because it is driven from above. What is driven from above? As I understand matters the bourgeois property relations is driven from below on the basis of the small producer and a manual form of labor, which in real time history coincided with the process of manufacture and its transition to industrial forms of production. "Below" means on the basis of the changes in the implements of production and not "above" meaning the superstructure, or political authority or government or administration in society. Why is "primitive accumulation"of capital in quotes when any schooled boy that has read the question and studied the matter know the difference between the formation of the capitalist class and reproduction on the basis of bourgeois property. Please explain? Because the term is generally understood as a capitalist category. That is why I put it in quotes. Capitalism was not being built. Instead industrialization resting on collective property relations was being built, albeit on rotten foundations as Chernobyl would demonstrate. Reply You are probably correct but I thought the primitive accumulation of capital meant what Marx said it meant -- a prehistoric stage of cattail that comes in front of the formation of the capitalist class. I am not opposed to redefining concepts but when a person does not say that they are changing the meaning of a concept that originates with the person who coined the concept, it is hard to understand. Primitive accumulation of capital is not a concept of capitalism but a concept of its prehistory. I am probably wrong. Can you indicate the source of why is a concept of capitalism -- your words. I will of course indicate my sources where this concept is sited as a prehistory of capital by it originator if requested. I understand what you call industrialization the Stalin way -- which I have no opinion on in this article, to begin around the time of Stalin - 1926-1928 and I was wondering how this imitated industrialization in Britain which stated over a century earlier based on a different historical process. Am I to understand that Soviet industrialization was bases on African slavery and not a harsh accumulation of capital from the peasantry? I welcome your explanation. I am not really interested in Stalin as to the process of industrialization in the Soviet Union beginning in the period of 1928 and why it imitated Great Britain. Perhaps, my understanding of Marx stating that the primitive accumulation of capital is the prehistory of capital stands in my way. My misunderstanding gave rise to an equal misunderstanding of expanded value - as the reproduction of value on an expanding basis of what others call capital reproduction as distinct from the processes that create the infrastructure basis of the independent operation of capital as the process logic of bourgeois property. How did Soviet industrialization - transition from manufacture to industrial forms of cooperation, mimic Britain's rise and transition from manufacture - within the feudal productive relations, to modern industrial relations. Not arguing . . . just intrigued and in need of an explanation. Melvin P.
Re: Social transformation of the Cuban peasantry
Melvin: What is driven from above? As I understand matters the bourgeois property relations is driven from below on the basis of the small producer and a manual form of labor, which in real time history coincided with the process of manufacture and its transition to industrial forms of production. Below means on the basis of the changes in the implements of production and not above meaning the superstructure, or political authority or government or administration in society. What do I mean by above? I mean by force--like cops or soldiers. In Cuba no farmer was ever forced off the land. They left voluntarily. Primitive accumulation of capital is not a concept of capitalism but a concept of its prehistory. I am probably wrong. Can you indicate the source of why is a concept of capitalism -- your words. I will of course indicate my sources where this concept is sited as a prehistory of capital by it originator if requested. I don't know about prehistory. Capitalism begins with naked force. The army enforces laws about hunting, etc. People are driven from their land. This is how capitalism begins, as an act of violence. That is one thing, by the way, that is missing from the Brenner thesis. All this prattle about markets misses the essential unity between kicking peasants off their land and slavery. You do this through the barrel of the gun, not by market relations which comes late in the game. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Social transformation of the Cuban peasantry
In a message dated 10/14/03 4:12:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What do I mean by above? I mean by force--like cops or soldiers. In Cuba no farmer was ever forced off the land. They left voluntarily. Actually, leaving the land as toilers is a historical process because an infrastructure development must take place that allows one to leave the land for something else. According to the Cuban government the Soviets made this process possible by their economic aid until the collapse of the Soviet form. My question was why was industrialization in the Soviet Union a copy of industrialization in Britain? I don't know about prehistory. Capitalism begins with naked force. The army enforces laws about hunting, etc. People are driven from their land. This is how capitalism begins, as an act of violence. That is one thing, by the way, that is missing from the Brenner thesis. All this prattle about markets misses the essential unity between kicking peasants off their land and slavery. You do this through the barrel of the gun, not by market relations which comes late in the game. I was not speaking about markets. Actually, capital as a social power does not begin with force but as the result of an accumulation over and above what is needed for immediate consumption. You are of course correct to speak of the role of force in the imperial relations and as the social power of capital -- the commodity force evolves. The exchange comes first and then the force. Manufacture evolves from what is called handicraft and this does not involve kicking anyone off the land as such. Something else takes place that requires the use of force. Pardon my prattle, but I am hoping to grow to a point to leave prattle. What is this relationship where Soviet industrialization was a copy of industrialization in Britain? Here is what was stated: "It is a model of socialist transformation and a painful reminder of how bad Stalin fucked things up. For all of the hatred poured on this despot from Western liberals, we should never forget that he was simply imitating Great Britain and US "primitive accumulation." I am trying to understand what was imitated from Great Britain and the primitive accumulation of capital in the American Union. Mechanization of agriculture in the American Union, that ended up liquidated roughly 11 million sharecroppers - 6 million white and 5 million black, was not carried out with coercion -- as I understand the term, between 1940 and 1970, but by the tractor. How many tractors did the Soviets have in 1926? As I understand matters mechanization of agriculture in the Soviet Union did not involve coercion but rather the force was used against various strata of the peasants based on wealth and exchange. Obviously, Stalin fucked up earth and the world would be different. My question is how did industrialization in the Soviet Union imitate Britain and its empire that was built on the slave trade? Is this not the source of the primitive accumulation of capital? Are you stating that Soviet industrialization was built upon a similar trade in blacks? Just trying to understand your meaning? Melvin P.
Re: Social transformation of the Cuban peasantry
In a message dated 10/14/03 4:12:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know about prehistory. Capitalism begins with naked force. The army enforces laws about hunting, etc. People are driven from their land. Last comment. Capital as a social power or what is called capital-ism, does not being with force. That is to say the social power that becomes that thing called capital arises from non-force. Engles wrote much on this. As the historical curve of human history everone is driven from the land. No? The first humans "Driven from the land" was the result of the development of handicraft and early manufacture and some peoples entered the early cities. The force comes later - much later, which is why my question is how did industrialization in the Soviet Union between say 1926 and 1940 imitate the process of industrialization in Britain, which occurred across another historical period all together. Stalin was a horrible monster and everything wrong is of course his fault. How did industrialization in the Soviet Union imitate Britain curve of industrial development? Here is what you wrote and a simply explanation is good enough for me: "For all of the hatred poured on this despot from Western liberals, we should never forget that he was simply imitating Great Britain and US "primitive accumulation". Of course Western liberals are what they always have been. Melvin P.
Social transformation of the Cuban peasantry
Cuba is a model for such a process. After the revolution took power, it prioritized rural development. To this day Havana remains neglected. Large-scale farming enterprises were the beneficiaries of clinics, day-care centers, schools, sports and cultural programs. It is also important to consider that most of the rural population was of African descent. As the children of the original population became educated, they began to move to the cities on their own accord and usually because there was some skilled job that had opened up for them. As mechanization was introduced into the sugar and tobacco fields, it freed up additional labor. None of this was done coercively. It is a model of socialist transformation and a painful reminder of how bad Stalin fucked things up. For all of the hatred poured on this despot from Western liberals, we should never forget that he was simply imitating Great Britain and US primitive accumulation. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Social transformation of the Cuban peasantry
I read an excellent book on the development of Cuba's medical care programmes. It was written by an academic from the mid-west, who was obviously not a socialist. And yet he was impressed and his account was one of the most amazing accounts of what intelligence, good will, and a humane project could achieve:remarkable results in one generation; astonishing results in two generations...all on a shoestring. Joanna Louis Proyect wrote: Cuba is a model for such a process. After the revolution took power, it prioritized rural development. To this day Havana remains neglected. Large-scale farming enterprises were the beneficiaries of clinics, day-care centers, schools, sports and cultural programs. It is also important to consider that most of the rural population was of African descent. As the children of the original population became educated, they began to move to the cities on their own accord and usually because there was some skilled job that had opened up for them. As mechanization was introduced into the sugar and tobacco fields, it freed up additional labor. None of this was done coercively. It is a model of socialist transformation and a painful reminder of how bad Stalin fucked things up. For all of the hatred poured on this despot from Western liberals, we should never forget that he was simply imitating Great Britain and US primitive accumulation. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Social transformation of the Cuban peasantry
joanna bujes wrote: I read an excellent book on the development of Cuba's medical care programmes. It was written by an academic from the mid-west, who was obviously not a socialist. And yet he was impressed and his account was one of the most amazing accounts of what intelligence, good will, and a humane project could achieve:remarkable results in one generation; astonishing results in two generations...all on a shoestring. Even World Bank president James Wolfensohn has touted Cuba's success with social indicators. It's impossible to deny (which doesn't stop some hacks from trying). Doug
