I don't think anybody on list consciously supports imperialism. Some people on the list get carried away. I agree with much of Louis's political objectives, but as Carrol correctly noted, it does no good to attack individuals personally rather than their ideas. Max then chimed in with his satire. I thought that most of the sponsors were hilarious, even my own. However Max gets carried away and does not know when humor turns into insensitivity. As I said before, my institution is far from pure. Hell, I'm not even 100 percent pure. Long ago, when I read the Brenner debate, my head when spinning. Paul Sweezy seemed to come out at the short end, yet I had and still have great respect for him. Had I got myself worked up, I could have denounced him as a child of finance capital to explain his Smithianism. Of course, the accusation would be ridiculous. Ellen Wood's new book helps me to sort out the debates. I have trouble with the concept of Weberianism. If we extend the idea of capitalist rationality to include the new social relations of wage labor, I can find something that I agree with in Ricardo's line. Jim Blaut knows more about the subject pile any of us do, but he seems so insistent on denouncing those with whom he disagrees [not in a personal way, which I think is destructive], I probably have more doubt about his information I should. I guess I'm following a line similar to Jim Devine, who seems to be trying to piece the whole thing together. I was also struck by Paul Phillips' remark that the debate should go on because he has not yet made up his mind. I think it is a real shame that so much interesting information gets cluttered in a pile of dogmatism. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
