I understand that there are political differences between the different participants. That is why I lumped Frank, Wood, Wallerstein ..... My point was that you can profit from people whose politics you reject. Keynes, for example, had some awful politics. He was an elitist snob, who sneered at workers. Even so, I have learnt some economics from him. For example, I appreciated Ellen Wood's new book. She was somewhat critical, but mostly sympathetic to Brenner. I get a lot of information, even though she did not really address the circuits by which exploitation of the colonial world furthered capitalism. Rather than rejecting her out of hand or adopting her in a wholesale way, I thought that she did a good job in working through the domestic part of a larger process. Maybe I do not know enough about the subject to be critical. Louis Proyect wrote: > Michael, there are political differences that all the parties seem to > recognize. I don't think its helpful to pretend that they don't exist. > Perry Anderson attacked Brenner in the pages of the London Review of Books > in November, 1993 as trying to construct a model of capitalism in one > country. Meanwhile Wood labels Anderson's "Lineage of the Absolutist State" > in her latest book as being the latest variation on the "commerce" model > found in Sweezy. Her book in fact is an extended polemical defense of > Brenner. The chapter in Robin Blackburn's book on slavery that I posted > extensively from a couple of weeks ago is widely regarded as a reply to > Brenner and others in his current. I suspect that one of the reasons Wood's > book was published was to put some kind of imprimatur on the subject, but I > doubt if that will close the subject. > > Louis Proyect > (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
