[Marxism] RE: Late Development and Modernisation

["Calvin Broadbent" <calvinbroadbent@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Rob,

But it is not 'the nation' that decides the direction such modernisation
will take, but rather, the particular form taken by modernisation depends
upon the outcome and effects of the class struggle within that
(inter)national context. The imperialism of fascist nations is principally
undertaken by the ruling elite to prevent the socialist expropriation of the
property of the ruling class, and the abolition of their class, and occurs
after that threat has been overcome. There is indeed a sense in which Syria,
Cuba, and Venezuela can be lumped together- they are each socialist or
quasi-socialist nations fighting imperialist onslaught upon their national
sovereignty, and attempting 'modernisation' on that beleaguered basis. They
are not themselves imperialistic. This is in direct contrast to Germany
which, as I said, was already highly modernised and highly industrialised
before the fascists took power.  The 'contemporary', as you put it, to which
'modernising' nations aspire is not, or should not, be simply to emulate
capitalist modes of production, but rather to (sorry for the crude
schematism) retain or attain national sovereignty against imperialism, forge
regional and interregional alliances, on the basis of a drive to socialise
the means of production.
As far as postmodernism goes- I'm not really interested in it, since it
seems to have little serious social analytic worth (although it might indeed
have some significance to an understanding of the cultural logic of 'late
capitalism'). And as far as Marxist 'orthodoxy' goes, with its alleged
inability to understand the complexities of a 21st century world- I think we
could do with more, not less of it,  to be honest.

ROB WROTE:

Calvin,


Whilst I actually do approach the "late developer" argument only
tentatively, I think there is a simple truth involved here, and one which is
relatively uncontentious: that, faced with such a world scene,
"modernisation" and "imperialism" have necessarily been the dominant issues
to which nations have had to orientate themselves. It is in this sense and
this sense only that I would "lump" soviet communism and fascism together
(and note there was no mention of German fascism in the original mail). In
the same sense, one could equally lump together countries as disparate as
Syria and Cuba, Venezuela and Vietnam- whatever- of course if we insist that
such a generalisation is where it ends, in terms of our understanding, we've
shot outselves in the foot before even setting out on out journey.

.........

However, as Asia climbs skyward, the West looks increasingly unstable, and
environmental disaster looms ever closer, one has to wonder what is the
status of that old "contemporary" to which peoples have aspired; is it
simply to relocate at some point to China, is it to become somehow entirely
globalised (this is rather hard to imagine, for example, with regard to some
of the least developed parts of Africa), is it to be replaced by some kind
of Frederic Jameson-esque "multiplicity" of contemporaries (this is equally
hard to imagine realistically)? I would contend that those who aim to assume
a radical position must address this issue of what the status of this
"contemporary" is- and this must go way beyond boring postmodernisms or
knee-jerk "orthodoxy" of many Marxists who don't even pay much attention to
the complexities of many of Marx's original texts! And in the meantime,
let's attend to complexities as well as generalities..

Cheers,

Rob.

_________________________________________________________________
Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism