Jim Devine:
>does Brenner say that the impact of capitalism has been, on balance,
>progressive? why? (Marx's argument here was that capitalism was progressive
>because it set the stage for socialism, which is hardly a ringing
>endorsement.) what is meant by "progressive" anyway?
>
This isn't t
Justin:
>You're kidding right? There is no question who has the higher level of
>schilarship. Brenner is one of the major historians of our time. Blaut is
>just another professor. He might be right, but he can't touch Brenner for
>scholarship.
Actually, Jim Blaut is not just another professor
Justin wrote:
"How to determine whether someone is one the major historians: There is a
book called The Brenner Debate, with articles and responses discussing B's
thesis about the rise of capitalism. If the people in your field name a
major debate after you, such that it can be referred to by just
Louis says:
>This isn't the problem with Brenner. Rather it is that he goes out on a
>limb to attack the "development of underdevelopment" thesis associated
>with dependency theorists around the Monthly Review associated with views
>originally put forward by Sweezy and Baran. It seems to me tha
How to determine whether someone is one the major historians: There is a book called
The Brenner Debate, with articles and responses discussing B's thesis about the rise
of capitalism. If the people in your field name a major debate after you, such that it
can be referred to by just your name,
Louis writes:
>Yeah, there's a new Brenner debate goin' on as well. Mostly people
>refuting his NLR article on the imminent collapse of capitalism, just as
>they refuted his earlier articles claiming some kind of privileged status
>for the rise of capitalism in Great Britain.
Brenner didn't cl
En relación a [PEN-L:2379] Re: Re: 8 Eurocentric Historians,
el 27 Sep 00, a las 10:21, Louis Proyect dijo:
>
> Actually, Jim Blaut is not just another professor. For the past 3
> decades he has been an activist in the Puerto Rican Socialist Party,
> upon whose central commit
In a message dated 9/26/00 6:12:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Brenner clearly went out on a limb to attack the D-of-U school. And Blaut
attacks back, also going out on a limb. I won't say which of these two has
higher levels of scholarship. It seems to me that bot
I don't think that Justin's test should be accepted uncritically. Weren't there
debates about the Bell Curve? His test might have been somewhat valid in the past --
perhaps even in the time of the Brenner Debate -- but now with big $$$ promoting hacks
.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How t
I wrote:
><< Brenner clearly went out on a limb to attack the D-of-U school. And
>Blaut attacks back, also going out on a limb. I won't say which of these
>two has higher levels of scholarship. It seems to me that both "bend the
>stick" a little too far in an effort to make it straight (i.e.
OK, maybe there is something wrong with the Big Name structure of academia: I wouldn't
dispute that. Part of my point is that Brenner is a Big Name. Not all Big Names are
any good: I know lots who aren't. But Brenner is a Big Name who is first rate. part of
the way you can tell this is that he
I thought my conclusion was obvious, so that I didn't have to say it. Maybe
I'd choose Brenner over Blaut on one specific issue (say, the
underdevelopment issue). But I'd never rank them in general terms. Maybe
one is right about one issue, but the other is right about another. More
likely, th
I have an additional point: one can't rank different people in terms of
"scholarship," since there are different kinds of scholarship for different
purposes. Someone who's trying to argue for a very specific point of
history will mobilize all sorts of primary sources. On the other hand,
someon
13 matches
Mail list logo
