[Marxism] Weak bourgeoisie and Balkanization [Re: Second and final on the quiz]

[S. Artesian]

One or two things more, I guess.  I think Nestor's exposition gives us the 
core of his beliefs, that always and everywhere, and perhaps even now,  but 
especially then, if it hadn't been for the intervention of the imperialist 
US and UK, the poor, the "masses," the "lower classes" would have made a 
true bourgeois revolution in spite of the incapacity of the bourgeoisie 
themselves to make such a revolution.

If I'm wrong in ascribing that to Nestor, I'm sure he will correct.  Anyway, 
the view itself is unsupported by the careful examination of the struggles 
and development in Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, and yes, 
Brazil.

I think Nestor would like to even take it a step backward and ascribe the 
backwardness of Spain and Portugal, the persistence of its mercantile-feudal 
alliance to the pressure of advancing capitalism in Britain.  Again, I don't 
think that view holds water.  It is, first and foremost in its organization 
of agriculture that Spain, and Portugal create the die that molds them into 
being what they were and were not.

There is no argument that Britain supported every reactionary, backward, 
archaic formation it could to secure private property from the prospects of 
uncontrolled revolution; that it propped up it's "little brother" in 
Portugal, but that was only possible because of the pre-existing 
configuration of land and labor on the peninsula.