[PEN-L:11991] Lumpers and Splitters

[Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Devine set an excellent example of how debate should proceed.  Do
not characterize others in ways that they would not accept themselves.
I mentioned to Jim B. that the term Eurocentrism did not seem
particularly useful.  For example, Dobb, as I read him could be charged
with Eurocentrism, just like the creators of triumphalist books to
celebrate the success of the British economy.

Dobb, as I read him many years ago, seemed to make the same point that
Doug Henwood suggested, that the exploitation of the British themselves
should not be overlooked.

As I understand the story, the British overlords were willing to exploit
just about anybody: African slaves, Irish tenants, Indian farmers ....
as well as their own people.  All contributed to the process.

Marx, as I understand him, understood things holistically.  Maybe this
makes him a lumper, although he was careful to make distinctions in his
analysis.  For example, he rejected all sorts of bourgeois theory, but
not before he extracted what could be useful from people, such as Smith
and Ricardo.

I'm still at a loss to see the basis of all the hostility in this
debate.  To accept Maurice Dobb does not seem to sacrifice anything on
an altar of British or European superiority.  To incorporate much of Jim
Blaut's information, which I appreciate, does not mean that I'm willing
to castigate those who disagree with him as Eurocentrists.

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901