[Marxism] More on the Brenner thesis

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

For newcomers here, I have written a great deal about the so-called
"transition" question, all of it can be found here:

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/origins.htm

You can also read Jim Blaut's critique of Brenner here:

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/Blaut/brenner.htm

I would also recommend Pakistani Marxist Hamza Alavi's "Colonialism and the
Rise of Capitalism" here:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/sangat/Colonial.htm

Finally, a debate between Chris Harman and Brenner can be heard here:

http://www.resistancemp3.lpi.org.uk/dayschool.htm

Although I agree with much of what Harman has to say, my analysis differs
from his. At some point, I might write something about this. Generally
speaking, I find the whole approach of Dobb, Brenner and company to be
marred by "stagist" conceptions that are characteristic of the whole
British CP historian's school. Long before I ran into Blaut, who used to be
a Marxmail subscriber (he died in Nov. 2000), I was convinced that Eric
Williams's "Capitalism and Slavery" was correct. Williams, it should be
noted, was strongly influenced by CLR James who had the same concept of
combined and uneven development that seems to have been lost on people like
Maurice Dobb, Eric Hobsbawm et al. The notion of capitalist property
relations being introduced into a given century in a given country like a
new species of frogs seems misplaced, to say the least. My analysis is the
period between feudalism and capitalism is much more fluid and much harder
to fix boundaries around. This is especially true of Meiji restoration
Japan, Junkers German and the American slave south.


________________________________________________
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