See the discussion in the entirety of Peter Novick, "This Noble Dream, "
on US historiography, "presentism" and objectivity.
Eugene Genovese, "Staughton Lynd as Historian and Ideologue, " reprinted
in, " In Red & Black, " ... "...self defeating tendency to read the past
according to the political demands of the present."
Michael Pugliese
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 7:41 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:11955] Re: A reply to Ellen Meiksins Wood
> I have been intermittently following this discussion from outside. Of
> course, watching Lou P perform is an out-of-body experience at any time,
but
> I have been puzzled by the strange passions in the current discussion of
> development theory and the rise of capitalism, thinking that the untensity
> of it was characteristic of academic debates in a way that was
> uncharacteristic of LP. Not that intensity is uncharacteristic, but why
> about early modern history? Now I think I understand. For Lou, and a
certain
> sort of Marxist, everything is not what is is, but is something else.
>
> I in my naivete thought that Bob Brenner was writing about the rise of
> capitalism in 17th century Europe. Turns out, he's really G.A. Cohen, or
> maybe G. Plekhanov, in disguise, and he's really writing about current
> revolutionary struggles, or even more insidiously, defending a stagist
> version of historical materialism that justifies opposing third world
> liberation struggles and political quietism. Foolish me, for not seeing
> that. Likewise with Hill and Hobsbawm. And, presumably, Thompson too:
could
> they be writing about their ostentiable subjects, respectively, 17th C
> English history (and in Hill's case, mostly intellectual and religious
> history, how this is "stagist" or even development theoretic beats me),
19th
> C world history *mostly), and 19th and 18th C labor and radical history?
No.
> They are writing in an Aesopian way about contemporary politics! Actually,
> this may be partly true about Thompson, who chose his early subjects
> (Morris, the radical English working class of the Fr Rev generation) as a
> way of attacking his CP past; Hill, too, whose more recent interest in
> Milton and "the experience of defeat" has obvious expernal referents.
>
> But, and this is a big but, it is a deadly insult to these writers, and to
> Brenner too, to say that their historical work is to be assessed not in
> terms of its value as an adequate account of its purported subjects, but
> because some can extract (good or bad) inspiration for some other events
> that occurred years or centuries later in another part of the globe. Fact
> is, if they want to write on contemporary politics, they are more than
> capable of it, Brenner too, who does actively and often, and (in my view)
> rather well; Thompson did, bitterly and brilliasntly; Hobsbawm does.
>
> And my broken hand is acting up, I can;t write any more.
>
> --jks
>
>
> >
> >Michael channeling Ellen Meiksins Wood:
> > >debates about it, would survive. I very much doubt that he would
> > >have
> > >appreciated attempts by "friends" to stifle discussion of his
> > >ideas.
> >
> >Look, Comrade Wood. The problem is not you. The problem is Brenner. He
knew
> >that Blaut was raising hell all over the Internet. Brenner received
copies
> >of many of the germane posts, but never deigned to answer Blaut on any of
> >these mailing lists, including PEN-L. He must have been afraid of being
> >shown up. Perhaps you should sub to PEN-L so we can get a chance to
review
> >the errors in your ATC article, particularly with respect to the Irish
> >question.
> >
> >Whether or not you descend from Mt. Olympus, I do plan to get back to
your
> >ATC article after I've had a chance to do a little detour on "dependency"
> >theory, which was attacked in a side-bar in Brenner's NLR article from
> >disco days. It helps to put things into context to understand these
fights
> >with ECLA, Furtado, Cardoso, Cuevas, Laclau et al. (I should mention that
> >Mexico, where Cuevas operated from, was never friendly to "dependency"
> >theory. It appears that the major luminaries on the academic left were
> >refugees from Franco's Spain. The stagist ideological fountains they
drank
> >from were presumably the same as those from which Christopher Hill and
E.J.
> >Hobsbawm partook.)
> >
> >The more I look at the whole debate and the better I understand the
> >participants and where they are coming from, the better equipped I am to
> >take the "orthodox" Marxism of people like Brenner, Genovese and Laclau
> >apart.
> >
> >Fundamentally, the debate is about "stages" with the "orthodox" side
> >attempting a very sophisticated version of Marx's 1850s Herald Tribune
> >articles. We are dealing with a poorly theorized early version of
> >historical materialism that gave utterance to such formulations as "The
> >railways system will therefore become, in India, truly the forerunner of
> >modern industry." When formulations such as this were generalized in
> >Kautsky's Marxism and then enshrined in the Comintern,
> >Marxism--particularly in Latin America--had to struggle to define itself
as
> >a revolutionary current. Castro said that unless the revolution was
> >socialist, it would fail. Whatever errors A.G. Frank has made over the
> >years, this was his original belief as well, no matter what risk of
> >"autarky" (Brenner's infelicitous term) was incurred.
> >
> >What could have provoked Brenner's attack on the MR dependency theorists,
> >who took their cue from Sweezy and Baran? Was it how to interpret 15th
> >century British society or was it a need to supersede the kind of "third
> >worldist" orientation expressed in this 1963 call by Sweezy and Huberman
> >after returning from Cuba?
> >
> >"The only possible revolution in Latin America today is a socialist
> >revolution.
> >
> >"The notion that there is a powerful national bourgeoisie in these
> >countries anxious to break away from US domination . . . is unfortunately
a
> >myth.
> >
> >"There can be no doubt that Latin America needs and is ripe for socialist
> >revolution, not at some distant date in the future but right now.
> >
> >"We did not meet a single serious leftist in Latin America who is not an
> >ardent supporter of the Cuban Revolution . . . There is just one thing
that
> >worries them, the extent to which Cuba in resisting the US, may have
fallen
> >under the domination of the Soviet Union."
> >
> >Long live this kind of dependency theory.
> >
> >
> >Louis Proyect
> >Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
