[Marxism] Voting with feet, not commendable in Argentina Re: China's high speed rail plans
nmgoro at gmail.com
Mon Sep 7 14:51:14 MDT 2009
Yes, perhaps we started on the wrong foot.
I have never suggested that the transitional period should be capitalist
just because it has to carry to end tasks that the bourgeoisie cannot
take to their fulfillment.
And, XxxxXxxx, though I am no Peronist, not at all, I am still further
from anti-Peronists, including those who tend to stress that there has
been no "structural" difference between the patterns of accumulation
under Peronist economic policies and non-Peronist (in fact,
anti-Peronist) policies. What is an economic policy, in the end, but a
way to guide accumulation towards a certain point against another point?
Maybe some day we can have a talk, elsewhere, perhaps in Spanish, don´t
XxxxXxxx XxYyXxx escribió:
> Louis Proyect wrote: "My main disagreement with Nestor is his tendency to apply such examples
> to Iran, China or other countries with nominally "anti-imperialist"
> governments but at least he errs on the side of living reality rather
> than quote-mongering from Marx."
> Well, Louis, as always, I think that depends on the context. For example, when the whole discussion starts to get embroiled with ‘Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, agrees with me!’ –Néstor’s words, then should we not take a step back and see what Marx said? Is it enough to invoke the theories of Lenin or Trotsky out of nowhere? In fact, if you allow me the impudence, reading your posts on the latest events on Iran, you quote Trotsky quite a bit yourself. Same goes for when I talk to Stalinists who, and I suggest you experiment with this, can be caught saying exactly what Marx was going crazy about in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, a ‘political’ programme, and no, I’m not saying Néstor is one of them.
> So far the argument had been mainly centered, at least from my side, on the (determinative) role of accumulation (forgive me, I have to say this here, Marx said accumulation is ‘the’ independent variable,) is that orthodox, economistic, dogmatic, determinist? Not if one takes Capital as a political book, notwithstanding how Council Communists have made a religion out of this outlook, I think. I certainly didn’t mean any of this to be an abstract condemnation of the CCP, nor am I willing to abstract from the complications and propose instead to engage in the demonization spectacle, and even further, while I don’t accept, and think it is necessary to expressly reject, Nestor’s framework about ‘using’ capitalism, the way I understand it, the transitional period is capitalist, but then we have to measure how the production process is progressively veering toward socialist society in terms of productivity, organic composition of capital, labor relations, etc..
More information about the Marxism