>I'm going to return to Brenner after I've had a chance to review some of >his articles from the Columbia Library. I will say one thing now that sort >of helps me put him into a framework. In a footnote in Blaut's book, >Brenner is cited in Roemer's collection "Analytical Marxism" which rang a >bell for me. Of course. Of course. Brenner is an analytical Marxist--how >could I have forgotten. Justin Schwartz, a comrade of Brenner's, and a >strong proponent of AM always used to hold up Brenner as an example of how >good AM could be when challenged to defend some of the more obviously >wrongheaded notions of Roemer and Elster. One of the things I pointed out >in my dissection of AM here and on the Marxism list is the degree to which >it is a throwback to Second International "stagism". Capitalist "progress" >is good medicine for colonial peoples even when there are nasty >side-effects. I really have to examine how this may or may not be present >in Brenner's presentation... I don't think Brenner's views are anything like Cohen's or Roemer's, especially since he (Brenner) is empirically-oriented. He clearly likes abstract model-building (as the AMists do), as in the first chapter of his recent book, but quickly moves to confront the data. The Brenner-critique by Ben Fine, Costas Lapavitsas, and Dmitris Milonakis in CAPITAL & CLASS Spring 1999 accurately sees Brenner as emphasizing the effects of the relations of production in determining the development of the forces of production (rather than vice-versa as in Cohen). (F, L, & M, p. 78.) Since he's a professional history, I doubt that Brenner is a stagist. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
