Michael Eisenscher:
>Pardon my intervention in this fascinating discussion, but weren't Marx and
>Engels referring to "rural idiocy" in the context of rural life in the
>transition from feudalism to capitalism in which the rural population was
>imprisoned by superstition, ignorance, and technical backwardness in
>subservience to a landed gentry?
Yes, this is correct which is all the more reason not to apply this formula
without respect to time and place. It is deeply problematic to use it to
describe, for example, the exodus of Mayan Indians to Guatemala City, or
Quechuas to Lima, over the past 150 years, especially those who were
fortunate to be living on arable land. They paid no tribute to a baron nor
needed defense from maurauding bandits. They got the same kick in the teeth
that the peasant of the British Isles got, but never received the "benefit"
of being able to go to work in a textile mill and look through shop windows
at all of the shiny goods they were producing. Latin American Indians have
never been absorbed into the capitalist mainstream. They have occupied
marginal positions as street vendors, etc. They are the social base for the
Sendero Luminoso and it easy to understand why. The schema of the Communist
Manifesto of the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Western Europe
has very little application to Latin America. You have to read Andre Gunnar
Frank et al to fully understand the class dynamics of Latin America.
Finally on the question of "superstition". What is this? Is it the Popul
Vuh, the holy book of the Guatemalan Indians? I will probably post some
passages from this at some point. Or is it the television shows that most
people escape into like X-Files, etc. The statistics on UFO belief in the
USA would make Guatemalan Indians chuckle.
>Second question: Is our objection as critics of capitalism (and dare I say,
>proponents of socialism) to urbanization per se or to capitalism and its
>consequences under circumstances of urbanization? Should we celebrate
>(romanticize) rural life for its own sake, ignoring the intellectually and
>culturally stultifying charateristics of rural life under conditions of
>capitalism and it predecessors?
Michael, these are precisely the types of questions that get us off-track.
They are posed as a series of abstractions, whereas historical materialism
has to deal with specific class relations. Of course, it would be nice if
everybody could live a couple of blocks from the Fairway grocery and
Zabar's like Doug Henwood, but this is not feasible. This type of pleasant
urban life is intimately related to and a function of the hell that is
Mexico City. The corncupia of produce that greets you when you walk into
the Fairway comes from third-world countries that are being systematically
plundered by the USA. The flowers, mangoes and tomatoes very likely come
from Mexico and the swarthy man of Indian descent standing guard over them
is likely from the state of Puebla, which has been turned into a vast
export agriculture plant for US consumption.
>
>Third question: Would not it be possible to construct a socialist
>alternative that integrates the most uplifting elements of both urban and
>rural existence, bringing the cultural and technical advantages of
>urbanization to rural life while bringing ecological sustainability and
>rational planning to the lives of urban inhabitants?
That's the topic of my final post. The answer is yes, thank your lucky
stars. Ditch your gas-guzzler but everything else will be quite lovely. I
promise.
>
>Last question: For those who are tempted to romanticize the lives of
>Amazonian indians or the simplicity of rural life, how many currently have
>adopted anything approaching that kind of lifestyle? How many have actually
>lived for an extended period in rural areas? How many would forfeit their
>privileges in urban universities in favor of that life style? How many
>would even be on this list if they had assiduously pursued that lifestyle
>over the last 10-20 years?
This is just the wrong tack to take. It rapidly degenerates into the sort
of hairshirt attitude that typified the 1960s. The fight is not over who is
a fake because they refuse to go live in a teepee. It is rather over the
right of self-determination for people who want to live according to their
own customs. It really doesn't matter if Vandana Shiva takes a jet plane to
travel four corners of the world to denounce the Narmada Dam and similar
projects. This is besides the point. The poor villagers who will lose
everything need champions for their cause. The choice for these villagers
is not between subsistence farming and a co-op three blocks from Zabars. It
is between subsistence farming and begging on the streets.
Louis Proyect
