By Luis Mattini
Does anyone remember the words like development, underdevelopment in developing countries? Sounds like an anachronism? No? Is that because we will have developed?
The truth is that the pseudo-Stalinist Marxism spawned the idea that underdevelopment was a stage in the process of nations dependence neglected by the nation needs "developed", called imperialists. In other words, underdevelopment would not have succeeded, had not "come" full capitalist development. Therefore trying to free imperialist domination to develop, a task whose historical mission was appointed to the alleged national bourgeoisie. By the way, after the triumph of the Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro was one of the most bought this speech and passed 50 years promising the general welfare when Cuba achieved so far prevented the development of the blockade.
At this point we recall that the guevarismo was undoubtedly the one hand a form of rebellion, but also a new way of reading reality, which sought to overcome these inconsistencies in the so-called real socialism. Guevara eventually defined underdevelopment, not as something that was below, as rather weak something to continue to achieve, but as a "distorted development". That is a thing to break and to do otherwise.
This change in mindset, which Che and those who follow him, was as important as the rifle, and would have serious consequences: the first was that the break was given to the continuity. So for Guevara, socialism was essentially a break because otherwise doomed to reproduce the deformations of capitalism. That was why, as Minister of Industry in Cuba, had its controversy with the Stalinist Soviet and internal influences on non-observance of the law of value in socialist society and the supremacy of moral incentives on materials. Stalinist mentality defeated Che in Cuba and that was one of the reasons for his departure.
Comfortable as always, the Marxist Soviet manual, the "realists" of every age, some national and popular "serious", much criticized for this position Che "idealist", "proactive" without being able to see the analogy of these postulates with Marx's assertion that the role of philosophy of the German proletariat could also be labeled as voluntary. In other words, Che wanted in Cuba and Latin America what Marx instructed the German proletariat for Europe and the world revolution, to think beyond the positivist visions, deterministic, think the revolutionary rupture, subjective basis without which there will be no socialism.
Because the content of "distorted development" did not start to see the underdevelopment as something incomplete and immature, but specifically a type of development that corresponded to the features of capitalism distorted by class interests and, therefore, socialism inherit this deformation. Let us now pass, and not without great bitterness, that the unfortunate part of the history of fifty years of revolution in Cuba gave him the right to Che. The fact that today, seventy percent of Cuban lands are not cultivated and most amount of food from the U.S., paid by the "Tourism industry" is the bitter paradox, and not explained in any way by the blockade but the persistence of a misconception of development that comes from the time of false hopes in the monumental harvests. Sugar monoculture, replaced by "monoturismo." Faced with this idea
Che, jumped several current orthodox Marxists who wondered if capitalism could have a well-formed development.
No doubt there are many stories in this, but there was no doubt that many more harmonious development, as the Scandinavian countries for example, with at least some better social balance, maximum exploitation of agricultural resources themselves, search for food sovereignty, complete education, full employment, good social security systems, etc. .
In Argentina in the sixties he wrote in the newspaper El Mundo columnist called, if I remember correctly, Enrique Silberstein had a column called "economic talks" He was a very capable and his columns were true chairs with the unusual power put the issue to everyone. On one occasion he wrote a note titled "The Collective", which showed that the collective transportation invented in Buenos Aires, was the most eloquent symbol of underdevelopment. He remembered the familiar story of the group that was born as an alternative to the massive tram, first as taxis, in which were moving white-collar workers, paying more expensive, but traveling sitting, how they were growing, increasing the size of vehicles, regulating routes and schedules to reach groups and will be transformed into a public service inificiente, unfair, uncomfortable, although expensive, is not comparable to public transport in developed countries like France or Germany. Similar mechanisms occurred in Chile with the "hare" and Mexico with the "peseros"
Curious, has spent more than half a century and today the proliferation of so-called combis, which currently come from different places and corners of this city (not even for terminals) and going to places near the interior of the great Buenos Aires traditionally covered by railroads today are catastrophic, Luján, San Pedro, Lobos, Chascomús, etc, which cost much more than the ticket of the bus or train, appear to be a repetition or a revival of that experience of the thirties, of those taxis taken in groups, the group ended up creating
Are we facing the Renaissance a new group?
do not know, in any case what is there is no doubt that this odious practice that favors convenience of public transportation to one side and the population is without a doubt, as Enrique Silberstein said at the time, a clear sign of underdevelopment Guevarista sense of the word. So we may be facing a "new" underdevelopment, which would confirm the obvious, that necessarily have a distorted development.
Queen Christina who has expressed his admiration for the "development" of the Villa 31, has the floor.
Does anyone remember the words like development, underdevelopment in developing countries? Sounds like an anachronism? No? Is that because we will have developed?
The truth is that the pseudo-Stalinist Marxism spawned the idea that underdevelopment was a stage in the process of nations dependence neglected by the nation needs "developed", called imperialists. In other words, underdevelopment would not have succeeded, had not "come" full capitalist development. Therefore trying to free imperialist domination to develop, a task whose historical mission was appointed to the alleged national bourgeoisie. By the way, after the triumph of the Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro was one of the most bought this speech and passed 50 years promising the general welfare when Cuba achieved so far prevented the development of the blockade.
At this point we recall that the guevarismo was undoubtedly the one hand a form of rebellion, but also a new way of reading reality, which sought to overcome these inconsistencies in the so-called real socialism. Guevara eventually defined underdevelopment, not as something that was below, as rather weak something to continue to achieve, but as a "distorted development". That is a thing to break and to do otherwise.
This change in mindset, which Che and those who follow him, was as important as the rifle, and would have serious consequences: the first was that the break was given to the continuity. So for Guevara, socialism was essentially a break because otherwise doomed to reproduce the deformations of capitalism. That was why, as Minister of Industry in Cuba, had its controversy with the Stalinist Soviet and internal influences on non-observance of the law of value in socialist society and the supremacy of moral incentives on materials. Stalinist mentality defeated Che in Cuba and that was one of the reasons for his departure.
Comfortable as always, the Marxist Soviet manual, the "realists" of every age, some national and popular "serious", much criticized for this position Che "idealist", "proactive" without being able to see the analogy of these postulates with Marx's assertion that the role of philosophy of the German proletariat could also be labeled as voluntary. In other words, Che wanted in Cuba and Latin America what Marx instructed the German proletariat for Europe and the world revolution, to think beyond the positivist visions, deterministic, think the revolutionary rupture, subjective basis without which there will be no socialism.
Because the content of "distorted development" did not start to see the underdevelopment as something incomplete and immature, but specifically a type of development that corresponded to the features of capitalism distorted by class interests and, therefore, socialism inherit this deformation. Let us now pass, and not without great bitterness, that the unfortunate part of the history of fifty years of revolution in Cuba gave him the right to Che. The fact that today, seventy percent of Cuban lands are not cultivated and most amount of food from the U.S., paid by the "Tourism industry" is the bitter paradox, and not explained in any way by the blockade but the persistence of a misconception of development that comes from the time of false hopes in the monumental harvests. Sugar monoculture, replaced by "monoturismo." Faced with this idea
Che, jumped several current orthodox Marxists who wondered if capitalism could have a well-formed development.
No doubt there are many stories in this, but there was no doubt that many more harmonious development, as the Scandinavian countries for example, with at least some better social balance, maximum exploitation of agricultural resources themselves, search for food sovereignty, complete education, full employment, good social security systems, etc. .
In Argentina in the sixties he wrote in the newspaper El Mundo columnist called, if I remember correctly, Enrique Silberstein had a column called "economic talks" He was a very capable and his columns were true chairs with the unusual power put the issue to everyone. On one occasion he wrote a note titled "The Collective", which showed that the collective transportation invented in Buenos Aires, was the most eloquent symbol of underdevelopment. He remembered the familiar story of the group that was born as an alternative to the massive tram, first as taxis, in which were moving white-collar workers, paying more expensive, but traveling sitting, how they were growing, increasing the size of vehicles, regulating routes and schedules to reach groups and will be transformed into a public service inificiente, unfair, uncomfortable, although expensive, is not comparable to public transport in developed countries like France or Germany. Similar mechanisms occurred in Chile with the "hare" and Mexico with the "peseros"
Curious, has spent more than half a century and today the proliferation of so-called combis, which currently come from different places and corners of this city (not even for terminals) and going to places near the interior of the great Buenos Aires traditionally covered by railroads today are catastrophic, Luján, San Pedro, Lobos, Chascomús, etc, which cost much more than the ticket of the bus or train, appear to be a repetition or a revival of that experience of the thirties, of those taxis taken in groups, the group ended up creating
Are we facing the Renaissance a new group?
do not know, in any case what is there is no doubt that this odious practice that favors convenience of public transportation to one side and the population is without a doubt, as Enrique Silberstein said at the time, a clear sign of underdevelopment Guevarista sense of the word. So we may be facing a "new" underdevelopment, which would confirm the obvious, that necessarily have a distorted development.
Queen Christina who has expressed his admiration for the "development" of the Villa 31, has the floor.
0 comments:
Post a Comment