In a message dated 9/28/00 12:52:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << So in effect the two sides of this debate is that Brenner's explanation for the rise of Europe has great merit but so does the argument made by other marxists from the "periphery" (see also David Washbrook). Where Brenner and others seem to differ is on the explanation for the rise of Europe. I do not think Brenner's analysis suggests a "provincial" view (as being Eurocentric suggests). >> Right. Brenner talks about why capitaliksm arose when and where it did in Europe. The Brenner thesis does not address what forms it may have taken later and elewhere. Brenner does not dispute that imperialism exists and tends to be bad for its victims. --jks
