> N�stor wrote:
> > >"Take off", that is a foolish substitute for national revolution.
> >
> > It's interesting that this is the mirror image of WW Rostow's view
> > that communism is a disease of the take-off.
N�stor replies:
>Would you please expand, dear Jim? I believe there is a lot of meaty
>material here, involving, no less, Trotsky's theses on permanent
>revolution...
Rostow saw history like a railroad track, with the locomotive moving toward
the "stage" of "mass consumption," but often the movement in this direction
is blocked by various barriers. Rostow wanted countries to move "ahead" in
this way. Getting through these barriers -- the take-off -- causes some
problems (like Kusnet's phenomenon of increased income inequalities) which
allow "outside agitators" (the communists) to take advantage and sidetrack
the locomotive.
I read you as seeing "national revolution" as the goal to which all should
strive. As I understand you, you're saying that capitalist efforts to
promote economic take-off would side-track your effort. It's not the same
as, but very similar to, Rostow.
In these views, the "take-off" and "communism" (or "take-off" and "national
revolution") are substitutes.
Myself, I think Rostow's emphasis on the nation as the unit of analysis is
misplaced. Both international and national phenomena (both
dependency/underdevelopment and intranational exploitation/class
antagonism) are important.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
