>*Not* common among marxists. This is utterly incoherent, and it is >difficult to imagine that the author of this paragraph would have much >of any interest to say on the laws of motion of the capitalist system. >Lou must be pulling our leg. It certainly is utterly irrelevant to *any* >of the pen-l debates on Brenner or to anyone's theory of the origins >of capitalism. > >Carrol Carrol, I am afraid that you have lost track of what this debate is about. Let me remind you. 1) Brenner argues that large-scale units of farming beginning in late 15th century England, run on the basis of profit, provided the productivity breakthrough necessary to allow capitalism to sink roots. This created the basis of industrial development and growth in the home market. That's the argument, anyhow. But not everybody agrees. J.C. Cooper, who I alluded to today, rejects this analysis. Now I am not a professional economic historian but I smart enough to weigh the arguments between 2 professionals, like Cooper and Brenner. Meanwhile, the only thing you seem to be weighing is one email against the other. I regard this as unscholarly. You are a retired professor who has plenty of time on his hands. It is a scandal that you have posted on this thread over 50 times without showing any evidence of having read anything except email exchanges. The whole purpose of this thread is to spur further reading, such as Mat on Darrity, etc. You are setting a terrible example for young Marxist schoars. 2) Brenner argues that free labor is a precondition for capitalism. But there was no free labor in colonial Latin America. This represents a challenge to Marxist analysis. You can harrumph all you want about deviations from orthodox Marxism, but until you can speak intelligently about this issue, you'd serve scholarly goals better by keeping your trap shut. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
