oops, times zone differences at it again. I hadn't read this note before I
just sent off a note with the same idea as Jim Devine's below. Pardon the
redundancy...
Steve
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Jim Devine wrote:
> I wrote:
> > >[*] 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?
>
> Louis writes:
> >If Perelman wrote broadsides against Baran and Sweezy in NLR, I would not
> >only denounce him, I'd bite off his ear.
>
> did Brenner attack Baran and Sweezy in a way that was uncomradely? did he
> attribute unpleasant motives to them or draw out disgusting or reactionary
> political implications of their theory that were _prima facie_ indicators
> that their theory should be flushed down the toilet without any further
> discussion? did he criticize them _because_ they were "third worldist" (or
> whatever) or did he instead point to logical, factual, or methodological
> holes in their theories? is it contrary to all that is true and beautiful
> to criticize the ideas of leftist "elder statesmen" like Baran & Sweezy? is
> there a reason why Marx's principle of "ruthless criticism of all existing"
> should exempt them?
>
> BTW, their theory (as represented by their MONOPOLY CAPITAL and Baran's
> POLITICAL ECONOMY OF GROWTH) have a lot of holes. Is recognition of the
> limitations of this theory a sin?
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
>
