Jim D. wrote:
>Louis wrote:
>> I have always been much more interested in the political
>>implications of the "Brenner thesis" rather than what it amounts to
>>as a
>>scholarly interpretation of the origins of capitalism. As a long
>>time supporter of the Monthly Review, I have never quite gotten
>>over Robert Brenner describing Paul Sweezy as a "neo-Smithian" in
>>the pages of New Left Review. While Adam Smith symbolizes the
>>tyranny of the marketplace, the Monthly Review--launched on the
>>cusp of the Cold War during the Henry Wallace campaign--has been
>>conducting a half-century battle against that tyranny.
>
>I don't get this. Brenner disagrees with Sweezy, arguing that the
>latter emphasizes market relations too much (defining capitalism in
>terms of markets, etc.) _Therefore_ you say that Brenner is dissing
>Monthly Review, not to mention Monthly Review as a whole and its
>half-century battle against tyranny. Therefore, Brenner's opinions
>should be misrepresented again and again (while lumping him with
>Eugene Genovese to get that all-important "guilt by association" zap
>in), despite people like Yoshie and myself pointing out that you do
>so. It doesn't follow.
Actually, I think that there are ways in which we can constructively
criticize Brenner's views, but while Lou insists on misrepresenting
them, others don't get around to critical examination of Brenner,
since we are busy saying, "No, that's not what Brenner says...".
This gets very tedious.
>This reminds me of one pen-ler (who shall remain nameless, but has
>very different opinions than Louis does) whose response to something
>I said defending Nader (that it's a vote for militancy) was that I
>was dissing all of the toiling masses who would suffer under the
>iron heel of George W. (BTW, it turns out that W. would be the third
>presidential George the US has had, so if he's elected, he's George
>III.)
Time for another American revolution!
Yoshie
