State Capitalism, Bonapartism, Dependency and Zeynep has the wrong impression.

hariette spierings hariette at easynet.co.uk
Sat Jun 22 13:23:30 MDT 1996


>This is me some long time ago;
>
>>I think that we need some Marxist categories to explain class formations
>>that go beyond "Bonapartism" to explain the advent of capitalism, and the
>>formation of the nation-state, after being invaded by the
>>imperialist/capitalists.
>
>Louis Proyect says:
>
>>I want to hone in on the role of the national bourgeoisie in places like
>>Algeria during the anticolonial struggle. I am tentatively coming around
>>to the idea that Nkrumah, Nasser, etc. are basically left-Bonapartist
>>figures. For a time, the "socialist" states they rule over have all the
>>outward guise of a state like Cuba, but the capitalist class gradually
>>asserts itself and reconquers political power. Capitalist property
>>relations which survive the anticolonial struggle serve as a power base
>>for the national bourgeoisie which eventually displaces the plebian
>>governments of the early days of the revolution.
>>
>>This is my theory. If the facts contradict the theory, I will have to go
>>back to the drawing-board.
>
>Louis, what you say is very important. But we need a better understanding of
>this. This is awfully crucial. Bonapartism won't do.
>
>You see, the state as in the third-world is not the nation-state as in the
>central imperialist countries. The national bourgeoisie does not just
>displace the "plebian governments", the national bourgeoisie is nurtured and
>created through these governments. Which produces "state-classes".
>Bureaucracies that are not bureaucracies in the western sense of the world.
>Adolfo was making similar remarks about Peru. It didn't sound very "sound"
>theoreticaly, but he was, I think, pointing to something very real, which
>should be developed on. Unfortunately, his only interest currently seems to
>be Malecki.
>
No.  Zeynep. It is not that my only interest is malecki, although that is
somehow connected. I have already expressed that serious issues cannot be
debated in depth without the participants in any seminar having an earnest
attitude.  This list is not adequate for that. I have already proposed that
if we are really serious about this issues, we should adjourn them to a
sepecialised list with no background noise and with some discipline, so that
conclussion can be arrived at by reasoning. When people are ready to
participate, and NOT everyone will be allowed to be in the discussion, just
like in any seminar, disrupters are not welcomed, nor Jesuits or enemies of
the people of any sort - because if we discuss something is in order to
serve the people and not just to prove how intelligent or "ideologically
sound" we may be.

There are people in this list that can contribute with scientif rigor and a
basic Marxist attitude.  We all know who they are by now, and if there would
be more, they would have to prove themselves first.  I have proposed marxism
3 - I did that a long time ago.  I repeat it again.  In the meantime, more
productive than engaging in higgedly piggedly debates of that sort, I find
squishing malecki at least keeps me entertained in my breaks from my other work.

Adolfo

>
>More maybe after Monday.
>
>Zeynep
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list