Brenner, Wood, Perelman and Bhandari
rhh1 at nildram.co.uk
Wed Sep 10 02:52:45 MDT 2003
I had just written a reply to Louis's post in which he stated his
understanding of the Brenner thesis, then I read the below:
> From: Michael Perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu>
> Subject: Re: Portrait of a Radical Republican
> I do not understand the importance of the either/or approach to the
> Brenner thesis. Britain exploited its own people within the market, just
> as Brenner says. Britain profited from imperialism and forced labor. In
> addition, one could see the cheap labor supply of Irish workers within
> Britain as either part of the market or as the result of imperialism.
> Shouldn't the question be to understand the interplay between the two
> blades of the scissors?
I could not have said it better myself (I couldn't!)
'Interplay' means NOT either / or, but both in some sense.
And RB says exactly what I had written (but neater):
> Not true. As Ellen Wood has clarified, Brenner thesis focuses on the
> landlord-capitalist tenant relation as it evolved in England. Ellen
> Wood has allowed for servants in husbandry to be capital positing
> workers despite the extra economic coercion to which they were
> subject. Moreover, Brenner thesis does not deny importance of
> slavery. As Wood and DMS have often emphasized the English merchant
> fortunes built on the basis of the New World plantations (England's
> and others') could only be invested as capital (rather than
> dissipated as revenue) as a result of the internal changes in
Marxmail is still a good place to get an education.
26 St Martin's Close
work: r.harris at londonmet.ac.uk
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism