Evidence versus implication

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mon Nov 6 17:16:17 MST 2000

I am aroused again. Sorry. Robert Brenner's lumping of Sweezy with
Neo-Smithians is unsupported by evidence. Excuse me, but NLR  article is
a rhetorical attack by an old academic suffering mental disorder. In
fact, Foster argues in his critique of Brenner's report on Asian crisis
that Brenner's analysis is influenced by Smithian theories of
competition, including Schumpeter's analysis of trade cycles.. So who is
neo-smithian here? Brenner, himself.  Smith, who is a well known
ideologue of market capitalism,  exemplifies a total contradiction with
the anti-imperialist and anti capitalist line followed by the Monthly
Review crowd. Sweezy is the person who is heavily influenced by Lenin's
theory of monopoly capitalism (as the highest stage of imperialism). If
people confuse oranges and apples by lumping together Lenin and Smith,
there is hardly any solution to cure them.  Has Berenner published at
least one article on US interventions in Yugoslavia? or Isreali attacks
at Palestinians?

You should have cc'd your article to Brenner, Lou. Iam sure economist
admirers of Brenner on pen-l have done it already though.



Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222

_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______

More information about the Marxism mailing list