Steve:
>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.
I never referred to Brenner as an enemy of Marxism. I referred to him as
dogmatic and stagist in the tradition of E.J. Hobsbawm. People like
Hobsbawm are capable of perfectly decent analyses, as long as you
understand the context.
> Maybe Brenner isn't interested in
>these kinds of exchanges, not everyone is up to hours on email and writing
>prolifically.
He never answered him in print either.
>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.
I don't know. He had a brief debate with Henwood about the Asian financial
crisis on LBO-Talk. I just don't think he really is that interested in
Merrie Olde England so much nowadays. Wood has taken his place while he
moves on to Brenner Controversy #2.
>Meanwhile, Jim Divine pinch hits for the Brenner and Wood and has done a
>bang-up job defending Wood and Brenner's arguments.
Has he? I hadn't noticed.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
