So far the discussion has gotten a bit nasty, but mostly the tempers have
been kept in check. Let me ask a simple question: What is at stake in
this discussion? Why should I care about what Brenner/Wood/Sweezy/Dobb
etc have to say?
I would like to see a short summary, 50-100 words, laying out what is at
stake, including how the word Eurocentrism is to be understood. Does it
mean ignoring the accomplishments of non-European areas; or their
contribution to the development of capitalism?
What are the political implications of Eurocentrism?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
