Re: critical debate

[Greg Schofield <gschofield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George seems to be making a good point here and I would like to see some
clarity on these issues.

All I can say is that I have read Woods' article and find little to
disagree with, moreover I find it internally consistent, though obviously I
cannot vouch the accuracy of how she characterizes her adversaries.

I do not know Blaut's work and reading these posts I am no clearer as to
the substance of the debate or the particular contribution he made.

I do not intend to add fuel to the fire, but if there is an argument that
capitalism was somehow in-uterio elsewhere I would very much like to know
more about it than I presently do (reading between the lines does not
constitute an ideal way to asses debates).

Would it be at all possible to reduce such a thesis to some fundamentals,
otherwise I am forced to concur with Woods for want of any clearer explanation.

For a debate causing so much heat, a little light would not go astray, all
I can see at the moment is a lot of smoke but no actual fire.

Greg Schofield

At 07:47  17/05/01 -0400, you wrote:
>I did not imagine that when I posted the Ellen Woods article it would lead
>to such strong reactions on this list. I would like to suggest that people
>actually read this article and then formulate their ideas  about the
>arguments it poses. what might be the reasons for Woods publishing this
>article at this time? is she simply trying to reformulate her argument in
>THE ORIGINS OF CAPITALISM? when I read her book I found it interesting that
>she limited her focus to the debate between the English  historians about
>the origins of capitalism. she did not make any attempt to deal with the
>analyses of either Wallerstein or Amin for example. this would seem to be a
>rather large omission. I do not think that Blaut's own work is above
>criticism. people who have read it should offer their critiques. it seems to
>me that a list like this is the right place for such critical reflections.
>
>George Snedeker