Forwarded from Anthony (Brenner)

Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky Gorojovsky at
Sun Nov 26 17:47:14 MST 2000

En relación a Re: Forwarded from Anthony (Brenner),
el 26 Nov 00, a las 17:57, Yoshie Furuhashi dijo:

> Had the American South won the Civil War it could have
> become as poor as Bolivia or worse.

Most probably a vast Jamaica. But worse still, it would have asphyxiated the North.
It was unescapable. The North would have been crushed in a series of consecutive
blows (as Paraguay or the Argentine Northern and Western provinces).

> And compare North America and Latin America.  Around 1800 Latin
> America appeared much richer & more promising than North America.
> After the American Revolution & then the belated Civil War, however,
> the USA created a coherent national economy, breaking its
> subordination to England (politically during the Revolution &
> economically during the Civil War);

You are forgetting the often misunderstood War of 1812, which drove the economy
towards the domestic market for good. Those interested should read on the Hartford
Convention, and its social and economic meaning.


>  In contrast, Latin America could not create one
> nation that brought together all the erstwhile Spanish & Portuguese
> possessions.  Simon Bolivar's dream of the Gran Columbia failed to
> become a reality as well.

It was not only a Gran Colombia, which in the end was torn to pieces but at least
existed for a while. The project (not "dream", if you don't mind, Yoshie) of the
whole generation of Independence --with the PARTIAL exception of the Mexicans--
spanned from California to Cape Horn. Bolívar shared it with San Martín, O'Higgins,
Monteagudo, Artigas, the Pernambucan Abreu e Lima, and many others. In fact, the Act
of Independence of "Argentina" established the Independence of the "United Provinces
in South America" (if you go to Tucumán you can read it with your own eyes, it is
exposed at the Historic House of Independence), and representatives of provinces
that today are not a part of Argentina signed it.

Balkanization (how dreadful does this word sound nowadays!) worked afterwards in
order to destroy that which armies from all over South America, from the Pampas to
the Ciénagas, had won in Ayacucho.


> In fact, to speak of "nations" with regard to Latin America was & is
> still premature.  As Nestor often reminds us, nationalism is an
> unfinished project, in that only by liquidating  neo-feudal/neo-colonial
> structures of land ownership & social relations -- solving the problem of
> the landless & the Indigenous Question -- can Latin America create an
> ensemble of social relations that hold the idea of "nation" together;
> it takes revolutionary socialism to _truly_ accomplish that.

It is not _that_ easy, since during the long time that has passed by, "neo-feudal"
relations have been replaced almost completely by other structures, partly due to
imperialist penetration, partly due to unfinished national revolutions (such as in
Perú, Méjico, or Bolivia).  In the River Plate area, moreover, though there have
been and somewhere still remain some "neo-feudal" relations in deep inland pockets,
agriculture is carried on under capitalist relations. Semicolonial capitalist, but

> I believe that Nestor has no
> great fondness for Robert Brenner (neither do I, to tell you the
> truth), but one thing that he does agree with Brenner is that "the
> development of underdevelopment" cannot be properly understood
> without attention to the vicious circle of neo-feudal social
> relations at home reinforcing neo-colonial subjection to imperial
> powers & the world market & vice versa.

Ah, it was in this sense that you were speaking! Yes, in this sense I agree

> Yoshie

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at

More information about the Marxism mailing list