> Barkley: > > Ricardo and I acquired a clear understanding of eavch other's position many > months ago on another list. He simply believes that European had some > qualties of the Weberian sort (rationality, etc.) before the modern era and > this implied that europe was bound to rise first asnd fastest. Nonsense! (and leave us alone Michael, I like Blaut, looks like he has some connection to Puerto Rico, too, just fighting a little bit here). I don't simply believe that Weber is the key. That debate in the world history list was about how bad Weber has been explained by Frank and you, who have never fully grasped his concept of "rationality". My point is that, Weber is important to an understanding of the rise of the West, which involved, I repeat and repeat, more than economic changes. Also, though I have yet to read it all, the stuff on the agricultural rev, might very well be very useful to me 'cause I, too, as I said in the last post on China, dont think there ever was an agricultural revolution, though, I agree with Devine that property relations are important, though not in the way Brenner-Wood say it.
