At 01:45 PM 9/27/99 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote in reply to my: >>So in essence, Blaut crticizes Brenner for not being au courant with the >>Zeitgeist of revolutionary struggle - i.e. for not being politically >>correct as we would say it today - rather than for proposing a theory that >>cannot suffciently explain empirical facts that his own can. Am I missing >>anything? >> >>wojtek > >I am going on record as protesting this sort of "intervention" from Wojtek, >which is an open attempt to subvert the scholarly goals of this discussion. >I understand that Wojtek is on the faculty of Johns Hopkins University, so >I would have expected him to draw upon scholarly resources there in order >to make an intelligent contribution to the discussion and not frame it in >terms of Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Lou - I am not an economic historian, I do not claim any special *factual* knowledge on the subject matter. I trust the resident experts to do so. I do, however, know how to make a valid argument. So what I would like to see is that claims are presented in an orderly and a matter-of-fact way, so the peons, such as myself, can have a clear understanding what exactly is being argued, and how the material being presented is relevant to that argument. So far, the main point of the posted passage I have been able to grasp is that the 'received wisdom' on european development is 'eurocentric.' In my textbook, an old theory is rejeected and a new one accepted if there are facts that the old theory cannot explain and the new one can - rather than because the old theory is less politically expedient than the new one. So I would like to see some factual basis for the rejection of the recieved 'eurocentric' wisdom and the acceptance of the new 'third-worldist' one. So far, the factual references to the subject matter I was able to grasp from the postings to this thread can be summarized as follows: - the received 'eurocentric' wisdom does not take into account certain facts, such as and technological advances of non-europen countries, e.g. China, and colonial exploitation - which the europeans pursued and non-euroepans did not. Again, in my textbook, the difference in emprically observed outcome is explained by comparing cases that, ceteris paribus, differ only in that outcome and the hypothesized factor causing that outcome. That leads me to thinking that I am being told that China and Europe were 'ceteris paribus' - i.e. similar - except the presence and absence of capitalist development (outcome) and the presenece and absence of colonial exploitation (cause). Do you really think that anyone who has a dash of common sense will believe that? Or perhaps I missed something? wojtek PS. Excuse my irreverence toward story telling and eruditism, but I really do not think that consumption of intellectual commodity would bring me any closer to the understand how the real world works, even if that earns me being put on a par with Rush Limbaugh. w.
