> That was my impression too. Moore really focuses in on social relations. > His work on India, China and Japan is valuable because there is so > little of it in english (as far as I'm aware.) Of course it is somewhat > dated and open to interpretation. > Didn't Moore co-author(co-edit?)a work with Marcuse and R.Paul Wolff > *The Critique of Pure Tolerance*? Michael Hoover will know. > In this age when so much postmodernist trash has been published, like that of Judith Butler's, which has been paraded as serious academic work, when it is really just mumbo-jumbo, it is a real pleasure to read a book like Social Origins which thinks it is possible to understand the patterns of long term historical change. Skocpol, who was a student of Moore, is the one who took a more Weberian approach in her emphasis on geopolitical relations.
