Re: [Marxism] Re: Pomeranz

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Louis Proyect wrote:
>
>
> In any case, the main problem with the Brenner thesis is that it has failed
> to answer Blaut's main criticism, namely that the rise of European
> capitalism was intimately linked with the massive transfer of value from
> the Americas after 1492, a point made by Marx in "Genesis of the Industrial
> Capitalist" for that matter.

In the first paragraph of the Preface to Eight Eurocentric Historians
Blaut writes of "those arguments that falsely attribute historical
superiority or priority to Europeans. . . ." That _or_ vitiates his
whole analysis, for it is simply _untrue_ that there is _any_ connection
between "superiority" and "priority."

Yoshie Furuhashi raised this problem with Jim in discussion on this
list, but the discussion was mostly abortive because Jim was already
seriously ill. But nevertheless it is essential, I believe, to sharply
separate any debate over "superiority" (itself a suspicious category)
from more empirical considerations of priority. And the latter debate is
never decisive, and usually irrelevant to discussion of superiority.

Secondly, Lou's citation from Marx above, "Genesis of INDUSTRIAL
capital," also is irrelevant to the Brenner position. Brenner's works
are not concerned with the development of industrial capital but with
the initiation of _capitalist relations of production_, a quite
different matter.

Carrol

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism