[PEN-L:11611] Re: Brenner

["Ricardo Duchesne" <RDUCHESN@xxxxxxxx>]

Yes, the reason Brenner wrote that piece (or someone included it
in that book AM, ed by Roemer, is that, like the analytical marxists,
he clearly delineates the causal relationships between his variables, which is
why his 1976 essay won such much praise, the thesis was stated in a
clear, logical, decisive way. But he is an all out critic of PF
determinism. He is also historian, and completed his Ph.D under
Lawrence Stone (or Lorenzo 'the Magnificent' as he was called). Are
people here aware of his 600 page book, Merchants and
Revolution (1993)?

> I don't think Brenner's views are anything like Cohen's or Roemer's,
> especially since he (Brenner) is empirically-oriented. He clearly likes
> abstract model-building (as the AMists do), as in the first chapter of his
> recent book, but quickly moves to confront the data. The Brenner-critique
> by Ben Fine, Costas Lapavitsas, and Dmitris Milonakis in CAPITAL & CLASS
> Spring 1999 accurately sees Brenner as emphasizing the effects of the
> relations of production in determining the development of the forces of
> production (rather than vice-versa as in Cohen). (F, L, & M, p. 78.) Since
> he's a professional history, I doubt that Brenner is a stagist.
>
> Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx & http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
>
>