[was: Re: [PEN-L:11961] A reply to Ellen Meiksins Wood]
Steve P. wrote:
> > Or maybe he thought that Jim Divine was already doing a good enough
> > job responding to your characterizations of Brenner as 'eurocentric'
> > and some kind of enemy of Marxism or the like.
thanks.
Duchesne writes:
>By the standards of world historians - or anyone who disagrees
>that Europe was uniquely prepared for modern capitalism, or that
>by the 16th-17th centuries capitalism was fully underway in
>England, Brenner, Wood, including Anderson, and all the British
>Marxist historians ARE eurocentric.To the extent that marxists
>today continue to write about the rise of capitalism without doing
>comparative world historical research, they ARE eurocentric.
what I don't understand is why people _criticize_ Brenner (or Wood or
whomever) as "Eurocentric" with such emotional _fervor_ because he sees
capitalism as arising in Western Europe. He clearly is "Eurocentric"
in theory, since he argues that capitalism started in W. Europe. But since
Brenner does _not_ see capitalism as a "good thing" (au contraire), he is
_not_ saying that Europe's virtue is proved by its invention of
capitalism.[*] His proposition is positive, not normative. Because of this,
it makes sense to criticize Brenner's facts (including those left out),
logic, and general methodology, especially if the critic presents better
alternatives. But it makes little sense to invest emotion in this critique,
unless one is the typical academic pedant ...
In many ways, capitalism is quite unlike other exploitative modes of
production: unlike others, it tends to be viral, spreading all over the
world, among other things leading to the homogenization of world economies,
cultures, etc., where those who got the capitalist bug first are given the
power to dominate the "late comers" and to force them into a kind of
capitalism that benefits the dominators. In this case, Brenner's
"Eurocentrism" is _damning_ Europe. It's true, as Marx argued, that the
rise of capitalism creates some opportunities for the development of
socialism (as with the rise of the proletariat), but there's nothing in
Brenner that says that he's praising Europe for being the inventor of
capitalism.
Of course, I've noticed that the anti-Eurocentric critics of Brenner tend
to (1) have a different definition of capitalism than Brenner does and (2)
be extremely vague about what that definition is (something about markets).
But maybe that's only the anti-Eurocentrics who have participated on pen-l.
[*] BTW, would Michael Perelman's THE INVENTION OF CAPITALISM be considered
"Eurocentric"? If so, does it have the same horrible political conclusions
that Louis attributes to Brenner? Should people be urged to denounce it
with the same fervor that Brenner is denounced?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
