Brenner, if I recall, in his latest work actually includes quite a bit of
discussion of the impact of global integration and intensified global
competition in the international political economy...

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
> I have heard Wallerstein speak very recently too, but I don't remember
> him implying that "Marxists had a simplistic way of looking at the
> world". As a Marxist, of course, he is critical of *certain* brands of
> marxist theory-- the orthodox developmental model-- which dominates the
> sociology of development literature with varying degrees, and takes the
> *nation state* as the unit of analysis instead of the *world system*.
> Accordingly,  part of IW's criticism is related to whether societies have
> their independent logic of capitalist development or relate to one
> another within a world system. 


Brenner is most certainly a Marxist, Barrington Moore utilizes quite a bit
of Marxist analysis in his work, especially 'democracy, dictatorship...',
but is more tied to a Weberian approach theoretically. He would probably
eschew the lable Marxist that you assign him. He is a brilliant writer of
course, as is the Marxist Brenner.  


 Barrington Moore and Brenner type
> Marxists are included in the former category, although Marx, from a world
> systemic perspective, had the world system, not the nation state, in mind
> when he was analyzing British capitalism. There is a fine line between
> world system marxists and marxists.  The former subcribes to the
> core-periphery model. I find this a very powerful analysis of
> contemporary imperialism and capitalism, as far as the *sociology* of
> modern capitalism goes. You may disagree with it as an economist, but one
> needs to debate the *premises of*  the world system theory first to be
> able to criticize it. If you disagree, fine; but you can state the
> rationality grounds of why you disagree; theory wise.


I thougth Michael was addressing himself to the generalizing comment he
heard Wallerstein make, not necessarily to the theory itself. 


Steve

Reply via email to