On Tue, 22 May 2001, Louis Proyect wrote:
> Michael channeling Ellen Meiksins Wood:
> >debates about it, would survive. I very much doubt that he would
> >have
> >appreciated attempts by "friends" to stifle discussion of his
> >ideas.
>
> Look, Comrade Wood. The problem is not you. The problem is Brenner. He knew
> that Blaut was raising hell all over the Internet. Brenner received copies
> of many of the germane posts, but never deigned to answer Blaut on any of
> these mailing lists, including PEN-L. He must have been afraid of being
> shown up. Perhaps you should sub to PEN-L so we can get a chance to review
> the errors in your ATC article, particularly with respect to the Irish
> question.
>
Or maybe he thought that Jim Divine was already doing a good enough job
responding to your characterizations of Brenner as 'eurocentric' and some
kind of enemy of Marxism or the like. Maybe Brenner isn't interested in
these kinds of exchanges, not everyone is up to hours on email and writing
prolifically. Henwood, Pereleman tend to be the exception, not the rule.
And I've yet to figure out how they do it. There's a good reason for
that. It's hard to spend a lot of time on the internet engaged in these
'debates' and do serious writing. But in the short run, it's fair to say
that Brenner is interested in debate, but not interested in the email list
version of debate. That is not something that can be pegged on academic
distance either, since there a good number of committed activists,
organizers and the like who don't see the point of spending much time on
lists like this 'advancing debate.'
Meanwhile, Jim Divine pinch hits for the Brenner and Wood and has done a
bang-up job defending Wood and Brenner's arguments.
Steve
