Gunder Frank nude (was Re: The MIR (was Re: Dependencytheorydebate in Latin America))

Xxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Sat Jun 9 15:20:07 MDT 2001




> > Frankly, I have hard times in appreciating what Nestor is saying here.
I
> > need to see the context of interpretation above, because, for Frank, I
> > assume,  _national bourgeois_ in the Cuban context means _comprador
> > bourgeois_ before Fidel came to power. Comprador bourgeois was the
> > bourgeois responsible for Cuba's capitalist underdevelopment, uneven
> > capitalist accumulation and close integration with the imperialist
> > bourgeoisie.

Nestor dijo:

> The actual Gunder Frank, the one who gave the foodstuff for the mind
> of tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of young militants, did not
> make that difference. I have lost somewhere in my library the
> reference, but I remember he even declared that he was speaking of
> "the bourgeois", not the "comprador" bourgeois.

You had better cite, as i did Nestor. First off, all bourgeoisies,
including the Latin American bourgeoisie, develops itself economically and
socially on the basis of capitalism. Accordingly, whether you like it or
not (and bourgeois nationalism is no exception to this) _all_  bourgeoisies
have to make an effort to preserve the exploitative relations that have
brought them into existence. In imperialized contexts, the international
system of monopoly capitalism (as Lenin observed) _conditions_ the
formations of domestic class structures. Thus, the bourgeoisie develops
according to whether it is relatively autonomous or dependent.  Here is how
AGF, Cockroft and Johnson define "comprador bourgeois": *** " The close
correspondence between the interests of Latin American bourgeoisies  and
those of foreign investors, their dependence upon international support
for survival against the forces of nationalism and revolution, and the
growing importance of the multinational corporation all testify to the
impact of the metropolis upon the class structure of stallites. The so
called  national and progressive bourgeoisie  in Latin America is neither
nationalist nor progressive--it is a dependent, comprador bourgeois. Latin
American bourgeosies have been the active agents of  foreign economic
penetration over the past two decades. The masses, of course, continue to
produce wealth and pay the price for this ongoing misdevelopment" (p.
17)***

> This is exactly the problem: there was _not_ a "Peronist" "comprador
> bourgeoisie", and by equating the national movement under programmatic
> bourgeois leadership (Peronism, a political movement where in fact
> there was almost no bourgeois) with the "comprador" bourgeoisie AGF
> and DT's provided the ground for ultra-left provocations FROM WITHIN
> PERONISM IF NECESSARY. Thus, their differences with Brenner become
> less substantial than they seem.

To be frank, I don't know which DT you are talking about. DT  is not a
homogeneous body of thought. Provocateur ultra-left is a huge
generalization.

Secondly, with all due respect,  Peronism, just as Kemalism, is a not
homogenous class force. It is not  a "permanent" ruling class over time
either. Intraclass as well interclass conflicts often occur through time,
and depending on international circumstances, unusual class coalitions
form. For example, Kemalists, despite they were anti-imperialist
nationalists in the 1920s, were the ones who deliberately pushed for
Turkey's entrance to NATO in the 1950s. As time have changed and the
capitalist regime was consolidated, Kemalists joined to the ranks of
comprador bourgeoisie. It is the same republican Kemalists today (CHP),
along with neo-liberal Kemalists, trying to integrate Turkey with EU. If
you want to idealize bourgeois nationalism uncritically here, why not leave
aside socialism?


>
> >  Here is a citation of what Frank says:
> >
> > Referring to modernization theory, "we criticize the following commonly
> > accepted propositions"
> >
> > " The precapitalist state of sectors of  latin american societies
accounts
> > for underdevelopment. the argument of a pre-capitalist stage  is used
by
> > many scholars , even Marxists, to justify the supposed need for reform,
or
> > a bourgeois revolution , to bring Latin America into the capitalist
stage
> > of history. we will show however that the allegedly pre-capitalist,
feudal
> > or backward parts of Latin America (which also can be termed as
internal
> > colonies) both reflect and contribute to Latin America's ongoing,
> > thoroughly _capitalist underdevelopment_, since latin america has
_already_ been
> > shaped, underdeveloped and _misdeveloped_ during the _capitalist stage
_,we
> > maintain that the time HAS COME FOR REPLACING CAPITALIST
UNDERDEVLOPMENT WITH
> > SOCIALIST DEVELOPMENT" (James Cockroft, AGF, Dale Johnson, _Dependence
and
> > Underdevelopment: Latin America's Political Economy_Anchor Books, 1972,
p. 11)
>
> I do not see what does the quote above add to Xxxx's argument, at best
> it is repeating the basic positions I criticized on my first posting
> of this thread.  Please explain yourself, Xxxx.

Well, continue to criticize the basic propositions I cited above. What I am
trying to say is that Latin American capitalism did not and will not
develop in the same way that core capitalist countries have developed. The
"developmentalist" notion of catching up_ is limited _within_ capitalism,
so the only way to true development is socialism...


---
Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Ph.D Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222


> Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
> gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar





More information about the Marxism mailing list