In wrote:
> >please quote what Brenner says and explain why it's a "pile of crap."
Louis quotes:
>"These thinkers [Baran, Sweezy et al] move too quickly from the
>proposition that capitalism is bound up with, and supportive of,
>continuing underdevelopment in large parts of the world, to the conclusion
>not only that the rise of underdevelopment is inherent in the extension of
>the world division of labour through capitalist expansion, but also that
>the 'development of underdevelopment' is an indispensable condition for
>capitalist development itself."
and explains:
>100 percent crapola. Pure, undiluted nonsense.
why? what is illogical about it? what goes against known facts? how is it
an incomplete, so it gives a merely one-sided vision? We knew you hate
Brenner, so it doesn't help to tell us that again.
>Neo-Kautskyism.
in order for this to be a criticism, you have to explain what this means
and what's wrong with it. Name-calling doesn't help.
>A rotten bag of potatoes that has fallen between two stools and can not
>get up, as my old friend Adolfo Olaechea used to say.
is this person a reliable source? why should we believe him? how does the
above sentence clarify anything or convince anyone?
In conclusion, it should be noted and stressed that in the quote above,
Brenner _agrees with_ "the proposition that capitalism is bound up with,
and supportive of, continuing underdevelopment in large parts of the
world." It seems to me that this should be sufficient for anti-imperialists.
However, he disagrees with the proposition that "not only that the rise of
underdevelopment is inherent in the extension of the world division of
labour through capitalist expansion, but also that the 'development of
underdevelopment' is an indispensable condition for capitalist development
itself." I don't see why anti-imperialists _have to_ accept this
proposition. If European capitalism hadn't had the third-world periphery to
exploit, it could have abused nature more, for example. Or it could have
taken advantage of its own proletariat, as Marx, Brenner, Wood, _et al_ argue.
In any event, the quote does _not_ reveal Brenner to be sectarian, rude,
crude, or unfairly critical of Baran _et al_. Rather, it's a short summary
of a long article. In order to show that Brenner _is_ the scum that he
implies that he is, Louis will have to present a more serious argument. It
has to be more than "Brenner disagrees with me and my heroes, therefore
he's wrong."
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
