Re: Re: Re: Re: Eurocentrism once again

[Jim Devine]

> >Wasn't Brenner continuing in the footpath of Maurice Dobb's criticisms of
> >Sweezy, ditto Wood?

Louis writes:
>I think that Brenner's addenda to the Dobb-Sweezy would have remained mired
>in academic obscurity had he not lashed out at "third worldism" in the NLR.

in what sense did Brenner "lash out"? did he use intemperate language? did 
he use sectarian jargon? did he use fallacious arguments and rhetorical 
tricks?

>Nobody reads "Past and Present" except other scholars like Patricia Croot
>and La Durie. And nobody much cares about the problems of when and how
>exactly capitalism got started except them.

You seem to care a lot about the origins of capitalism. Else you wouldn't 
invest so much emotion into attacks on Brenner's views concerning this topic.

>For the average Marxist activist, these are arcane topics. What does pique 
>our interest, however, is the notion that revolutions in the "third world" 
>are doomed to 'autarky'. That's what Brenner wrote in his NLR article and 
>it is a pile of crap.

please quote what Brenner says and explain why it's a "pile of crap."

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine