How (or do) the characters in watterson's "calvin and hobbes" reflect the
characters and/or philosophy of their respective namesakes?
Damned if I know.
It did make for more interesting handouts in Early Modern Political
Thought courses for a while...
Brad DeLong
G'day Penpals,
Haven't read the particular EMW book in question, but ...
Sez Ricardo:
Right. Wood would call those Italian "bourgeois", not capitalists.
Myself am not convinced by Wood's facile definition of mercantile
wealth as mere "buying cheap and selling dear". Here's the proud
Italian
Rob Schaap said on 10/28/00 7:33 AM
G'day Penpals,
snipped
And all this before (as is only right for a materialist, whose first duty
to himself is to avoid being tarred with the Weberian brush) we get a
volatile
but productive engagement of protestant spirits (the English reformationist
Charles,
How else can I say it: the issue is Wood's book *The Origin of
Capitalism*, and her interpretation of Brenner (which she has
made it her own as well). I repeat, the issue is Wood. If you or
anybody here think my reading of this little book is wrong, then
show it. All this talk
Ricardo writes:
she simply ignored my question (except for a few more 's)
when I asked her how she came came to the view that Brenner
was writing about Africa and colonialism in the passages she
cited from him.
That's because I had already posted the passage shortly before I
wrote the post to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/00 12:15PM
Charles,
How else can I say it: the issue is Wood's book *The Origin of
Capitalism*, and her interpretation of Brenner (which she has
made it her own as well). I repeat, the issue is Wood. If you or
anybody here think my reading of this little book is
Yoshie, let's you leave at that; I just don't see anything in what you
cited from Brenner which goes against what I said Wood says. If
you think Brenner has to be combined with Wallerstein, that's fine
too. But I can assure you that Wood in particular would never
combine them (neither would
CB: By this thesis, what explains the fact that capitalism ,
in fact, went on to establish a very big colonial system ?
Was that not a necessary development ?
Was that not the result of part of the "essence" of the novel mode ?
As you say, it "went on to"; I mean it is possible that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/26/00 08:54AM
CB: By this thesis, what explains the fact that capitalism ,
in fact, went on to establish a very big colonial system ?
Was that not a necessary development ?
Was that not the result of part of the "essence" of the novel mode ?
As you say, it "went
The passage from Wood's book which Proyect just quoted is her
answer to this question. But I do agree - and this was in the back
of my mind as I was writing that post - that she misses completely
the Williams school and its contention that the rise of capitalism
was a coercive act through
If Weber took a step towards appreciating the "uniqueness" of
modern capitalism - albeit in an idealistic direction - Karl Polanyi
was the one scholar who truly appreciated how different, how
unusual modern capitalism was: disembedded and unconstrained
by any social relation or norm except
Careful student of Marx that he was, Dobb insisted that modern
capitalism was a unique mode of production representing both a
particular set of productive forces and of class relations. The point
was to look for that dynamic within the feudal mode which let to
the rise of a new mode. And
Ricardo Duchesne:
When Wood (and Brenner) tell us that capitalism is not commerce
they mean it. Capitalism did not grow naturally out of anything that
preceded it; it is so unknown in history, so novel, exceptional and
incomparable, that when it came, it did so "fully fledged". (Those
who
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/25/00 02:56PM
When Wood (and Brenner) tell us that capitalism is not commerce
they mean it. Capitalism did not grow naturally out of anything that
preceded it; it is so unknown in history, so novel, exceptional and
incomparable, that when it came, it did so "fully
*The Origin of Capitalism* is an all-too-brief (131-page) book. The
grand title is more a reflection of absolute conviction (and defiance
against alternate explanations) than an indication of someone
secured that they have established thorough control over the field. If
the book is small,
The view that Walter Rodney, Eric Williams, or contemporary proponents of the
Williams-Rodney thesis such as Darity or Ronald Bailey, see capitalism in terms
of "opportunity" as opposed to coercion, or that they are promoting a model of
Smithian commercialism, or that they see the absence of
A week ago I told Michael I was going to sub again, and he has
allowed me (or so I think since he did not block my attempt).
Maybe I have another chance. I have been under probation before,
as a BA student at McGill when my GPA was under 1 point. But I
failed again and was dismissed. I just
--- Forwarded Message Follows ---
Date sent: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 05:16:42 +1100
To: "Ricardo Duchesne" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Rob Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [PEN-L:3420] E.Wood's defence of Bren
Before I respond to Rob, I should correct big blunder I made below
when I suggested that Brenner privileges 17th century; he does
not, it is the 16th, which thus means that Wood is following
Brenner closely on this point as well:
except that it [Wood's book]
no longer privileges the
Rob:
Sez the big fella of the late 15th and early 16th centuries: 'In insolent
conflict with king and parliament, the great feudal lords created an
incomparably larger proletariat by the forcible driving of the peasantry
from the land, to which the latter had the same feudal right as the lord
20 matches
Mail list logo
