Re Alejandro V's [73l8] >. Do you know some discussion > about economic interest related to academic interest? I read, some years > ago, an interesting paper from J. Petras about politics and > Latin-American intellectuals. In such paper Petras argued that personal > economic interest are close related to changes in focus by LA > intellectual (And elsewhere I presume). In Mexico, by example, during > 70's it was compatible to obtain academic prestige and grants with > Marxian ascription. This changed drastically during 80's and 90's and > most of Marxian Mexican economist rejected the first M; hence they are > now Mexican economist. I think you are referring to his article "The Divergence Between Scientific Work and Political Action" in _Critical Perspectives on Imperialism and Social Classes in the Third World_ (NY, Monthly Review Press, l978). A very interesting and insightful essay which explores the changing relationships between "The Intellectuals and the Activists". His four case studies on the "Divorce of Theory and Practice" are particularly interesting. A central conclusion of his essay is the "importance of the organic linkage of intellectuals to the social and economic process" (202). In that connection Petras noted that "intellectuals in Latin America have not developed, in most cases, organic ties with the labor movement" (20l). I think this observation is valid in many other areas of the world besides Latin America. On the other hand, I don't find his swipes at the concept of *relative autonomy* to be very convincing, did you? E.g he wrote that this concept "is a mode of rationalizing intellectuals' evasion of commitment"; those who "demand" relative autonomy "demand freedom from the constraints of class and party"; "In the West the divorce of Marxism from class struggle is codified in the notion of 'relative autonomy'"; this notion is "above all, an opportunistic formula" (202). On the other hand, Petras seems to be using this expression to convey a "notion" very different from the way in which that expression has been used re *the state*. He claims instead that the emergence of the notion of relative autonomy "is a direct response to the decades of Stalinist hegemony on the Left and to the bureaucratic-authoritarian control of the party" which "served to legitimize the freeing of the intellectuals in the cultural realm without challenging the bureaucratic conception of the relationship between class and party" (Ibid). Perhaps there was a different meaning to the expression "relative autonomy" in Latin America in the l970's? Did the "Marxian Mexican economists" turned "Mexican economists" become, by and large, mainstream (neo-neo-classical) economists or heterodox economists? Relatedly, are most of them now populist, liberal, or reactionary? Also, what has been the role of radical (Marxian and heterodox) economists in the ongoing struggle in Chiapas and in the student revolts at universities (including UNAM)? > In my view, a genuine interest by ecological > issues and Marxian approach is not only possible but necessary. An > example is J.B. Foster. Agreed. What is interesting, though, in this connection is that the perspectives of Foster and OPE-Ler Paul Burkett are very similar on the issue of Marx's perspectives on environmental questions even though the former is an advocate of the "monopoly capital" MR (Baran-Sweezy) school while Paul attempts to extend Marx's theory of value to explain environmental issues. In other words, what I find most interesting is that two authors -- one who thinks that a theory of value is unnecessary and redundant and another who believes it to be essential to comprehending the subject matter -- arrive at basically the same conclusion. But, I suppose one could then ask a Steedman-like question: if the former (Foster) can arrive at very similar conclusions as the latter (Burkett), then could the latter's use of value theory then be said to be unnecessary and redundant? I would say no, but I would have to explain Paul's book (_Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective_) more to make sense of that claim. Perhaps the "lesson" here is that two theories which share the same *conclusions* can nonetheless have very different principles and methodologies. Perhaps what they most share in common is the desire to answer Green critics of Marx and explain why the latter was not the anti-Green theorist that many Green writers make him out to be. Thus, they share perhaps a similar political stance (which aims towards Red-Green unity or "eco-socialism") as well as a conclusion. Apologies to Paul (and John B) if I haven't grasped their perspectives correctly. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EDT