Louis Proyect wrote:
> "These thinkers [Baran, Sweezy et al] move too quickly from the proposition
> that capitalism is bound up with, and supportive of, continuing
> underdevelopment in large parts of the world, to the conclusion not only
> that the rise of underdevelopment is inherent in the extension of the world
> division of labour through capitalist expansion, but also that the
> 'development of underdevelopment' is an indispensable condition for
> capitalist development itself."
>
> 100 percent crapola. Pure, undiluted nonsense. Neo-Kautskyism. A rotten bag
> of potatoes that has fallen between two stools and can not get up, as my
> old friend Adolfo Olaechea used to say.
>
It seems from the quotation that Brenner is objecting to assuming a
deterministic relationship between the growth of capitalism and the development
of underdevelopment. Are you saying that we should accept the determinism, or
that Baran and Sweezy did not take the deterministic position Brenner
attributes to them, or something else?
Please tell me before I am reduced to eating rotten potatoes.
Fred
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
