Actually, I don't think Lou gives a hoot about the origins of capitalism.
That is arcane scholarship of no interest to the average Marxist activist
(all five of them). He cares about supporting Third World Revolutions, if
there are any left; and he is mad at Bob Brenner because he thinks,
mistakenly, that Bob doesn't do this. However, because he's smart and
informed on development theory (lots more than me!)--Lou, that is, he says
some useful and interesting things, though in a typically cantakerous tone.
--jks
>From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:11994] Re: Re: Re: Re: Eurocentrism once again
>Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:35:55 -0700
>
>
>> >Wasn't Brenner continuing in the footpath of Maurice Dobb's criticisms
>>of
>> >Sweezy, ditto Wood?
>
>Louis writes:
>>I think that Brenner's addenda to the Dobb-Sweezy would have remained
>>mired
>>in academic obscurity had he not lashed out at "third worldism" in the
>>NLR.
>
>in what sense did Brenner "lash out"? did he use intemperate language? did
>he use sectarian jargon? did he use fallacious arguments and rhetorical
>tricks?
>
>>Nobody reads "Past and Present" except other scholars like Patricia Croot
>>and La Durie. And nobody much cares about the problems of when and how
>>exactly capitalism got started except them.
>
>You seem to care a lot about the origins of capitalism. Else you wouldn't
>invest so much emotion into attacks on Brenner's views concerning this
>topic.
>
>>For the average Marxist activist, these are arcane topics. What does pique
>>our interest, however, is the notion that revolutions in the "third world"
>>are doomed to 'autarky'. That's what Brenner wrote in his NLR article and
>>it is a pile of crap.
>
>please quote what Brenner says and explain why it's a "pile of crap."
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
