Re: [Marxism] Forwarded from Anthony (reply to Julio Huato)

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Julio Huato wrote:
> This is the argument underlying the idea of the supposed "imperialist
> privilege" of workers in the rich capitalist countries.  And IMO, it is
> a flawed argument.  I don't deny that there are phenomena that appear to
> be consistent with these views, but there is contrary evidence that
> cannot be accommodated in this interpretation.  On the other hand,
> alternative interpretations -- say, along the lines of classical Marxism
> -- seem to explain the phenomena reasonably well.

Comrades should recognize that Julio's arguments resonate with those
made against "dependency theorists" in the Latin American and Latin
American Studies left in the 1970s and 80s. Starting with a challenge to
admittedly flawed arguments found in the writings of theoreticians
grouped around MR--most especially Andre Gunder Frank--they sought a
return to "classical" Marxism which had no use for spurious categories
such as "imperialism" that supposedly were never found in Marx himself.

I am very well acquainted with this debate, having examined it in
conjunction with work I have done around the Brenner thesis. You have to
keep in mind that Robert Brenner, Ernesto Laclau (from Argentina), Colin
Leys and others emerged in a kind of "young Turk" assault on what was
seen as MR and Leninist orthodoxy.

Although Julio, who is an economics professor, is cagey about his
influences, there is no question that he is completely familiar with the
debate and committed to the "return to orthodoxy" faction, which was
particularly strong in Mexico. Some have speculated that this is
attributable to the rather powerful contingent of Spanish CP
intellectuals who made a home in the Mexican academy after the rise of
fascism. In my opinion, the Brenner-Laclau-Leys line of reasoning has
enormous affinities with Second International and Stalinist stagism,
which is often evident in Julio's interventions around questions such as
NAFTA, etc. Brenner, after all, is the first to admit that he is a
disciple of Maurice Dobb, an outstanding CP theoretician who never
really understood combined and uneven development.

I myself find little reason nowadays to try to answer him, since he is
rather hardened on these questions and since there are so few comrades
who are inclined to take this seriously. That being said, these
arguments do enjoy wide support in academia. If you want to get up to
speed on them, I recommend Ronald Chilcote's "Development in Theory and
Practice: Latin American Perspectives." Even better would be his
"Theories of Development: Mode of Production or Dependency" or his
"Dependency and Marxism: Toward a Resolution of the Debate", both of
which are unfortunately out of print.

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org



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