Jim, you may well be right. The idea was not to conduct a Brenner debate. It came up in an entirely different context, when I challenged Brad about a statement in which he wrote of China's failure to become capitalist. My concern at the time was the idea of a capitalist teleology in which capitalism was associated with progress. We just happen to be discussing Brenner at the time because some people have concentrated on Brenner rather than larger issues. Eventually, this discussion will lead in another direction in which people with different areas of expertise will be able to contribute. "James M. Blaut" wrote: > Michael: > > All well and good, but of the 20 or so people who have participated in the > Brenner debate on this list, I'd venture that maybe 5 or 6 have actually > read Brenner ,mostly his NLR article of 20+ years ago; and maybe 3 or 4 > have read him in connection with this debate. > > I can't help but second Louis's point that if you're going to talk about > somebody's ideas you sbould at least try to confirm what those ideas are. > As I said once before, I suspect that some of the pro-Brenner interventions > were motivated by political allegiances or at least general ideological > sympathy, not concrete arguments -- I hope I'm wrong. > > But I will shut up for a while (to everyone's relief). > > Cheers > > Jim B -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
