Re: Were sugar plantations capitalist?

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I seriously suspect that you are pulling our leg. You have again
>tried to equate Brenner and Cohen by some form of free association,
>while you must know that Brenner and Cohen are as sharply
>opposed as it is possible for two self-labelled marxists to be.
>
>Carrol

No, I am not pulling anybody's leg. Cohen and Brenner are both Analytical
Marxists. The main difference between them is that Brenner upholds the
Labor Theory of Value, while Cohen denies it. Furthermore, although Brenner
has criticized Cohen for technological determinism, Alan Carling (another
AM'er) has written an NLR article claiming that the two actually have an
affinity. I plan to get my hands on this article and discuss it briefly in
my final installment on Brenner. Right now, from what I've seen of both
Cohen and Brenner, there ARE strong affinities. Both have a pronounced
tendency toward "stagism". In Cohen's case, it is stated upfront. My
webpage has an article on this if anybody's interested. With Brenner you
get much of the same thing with respect to the problem of transition. He
seems incapable of understanding what Trotsky referred to as "combined and
uneven development". I am not sure you have ever read Trotsky, Carrol, but
I would refer you to "Results and Prospects" which is at the fine archive
Brian Basgen supports. (www.marxists.org). If you read Carlos Rebello's
wonderfully perceptive posts on these questions, you will note that he sees
the problematic in that context.

Louis Proyect

(The Marxism mailing list: http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)