(Following Grossmann, CLR James, Jairus Banaji, Alex Callinicos and others, I do disagree with Brenner and Ellen Wood on the proletarian nature of much of the formally unfree labor in early capitalism--they seem to deny it.)
In terms of Brenner and evolutionary theory, it comes into play in his global turbulence book as an implicit analogy, I would say. Evolution is often thought of as a process of constant hill climbing, but it is possible that evolution has sometimes passed through valleys of intermediate forms of low fitness before beginning hill climbing on higher peaks on the adaptive landscape. But how does one survive in the valley? Analogously, how did Germany and Japn survive the transition to a new technological foundation on which higher heights could be reached though economic costs are high in a transition to a new technological paradigm and thus relative fitness dangerously low?
For Brenner, they were explicitly protected by the US due to the Cold War and thus allowed to switch peaks on the adaptive landscape, having thus survived the valley of low intermediate fitness. In other words, protection allowed Japan and Germany to pass over the adaptive saddle and then be captured by a higher steeper adaptive peak. Fitness was decreased in passing from one peak to another, and this would not have been possible without protection. So eventually they reached much greater heights (not all peaks are equally high on an adaptive landscape). This then led to US retaliation and then their counter-retailiation--the long downturn being the consequence.
Oh well just playing around with Sewall Wright's adaptative landscapes, which according to Jean Gayon has been the most powerful metaphor of evolutionary biology in the 20th century.
Barkley may get a good laugh at my efforts here to explore the analogy between economics and evolution. But note that I think this analogy helps to illuminate Brenner's framework, not that he relies on it. And not that I agree with it.
Still thinking about Jim F's response.
Yours, Rakesh