On Tue, 29 May 2001, Louis Proyect wrote:
> Jim Devine:
> >To say that each case must be examined only in its own terms (is this what
> >you're really saying?) is totally anti-theoretic, leaning heavily toward
> >stereotypes of post-modernism, full of sound and rhetorical fury but
> >signifying nothing.
Lou responded:
>
> There was capitalism in Russia, capitalism in Latin America and capitalism
> in Western Europe. Each region has its specific class relations and
> dynamics. Trotsky and Lenin analyzed Russia. Marx and Engels analyzed
> Western Europe. People like Celso Furtado, A.G. Frank, Mariategui, and
> Adolfo Gilly analyzed Latin America. My analysis rests on their work, not
> what Marx and Engels did not write.
Why not also rely on the works of, say, Petras and Zeitlin in addition to
Frank? Why would you prefer the work of Frank over these two, aside from
the fact that Frank's position supports yours? When you say you have
researched Latin America, that is true, but it is a very selective
research. Any positions that don't support a world systems/dependency
approach are out not relevant to LA for you, even though authors who
challenge those very positions have done very relevant research on Lat.
Am. Or at least explain to us how Frank's understanding of Lat. Am. is
superior to Petras's or Zeitlin's.
Steve
