Paul wrote:
>
> I would love to hear about the other two. Are you able to reconstruct the
> Postone presentation you mentioned?
Damn it, no! Nor am I ablle to reconstruct the fine presentations in that panel by Julie Matthaei, Richard Albritton, and Richard Westra. (Bob Jessup's paper was read in a low voice that I could not hear). There is hope, however, since the papers are part of a book to be published next year, edited by Albritton, Westra & Jessup (and already listed on Barnes & Noble).
The second panel, chaired by Michael McIntyre of LBO-Talk, had two interesting papers, Michael's and one by Joel Wainwright (geographer from OSU), entitled "Rethinking Colonial Capitalism as Development." I've been promised an electronic copy of that, and it too will be in a book sometime next year. When I get the electronic copy I'll comment on it. Joel has an interesting critique of the concept of "development" -- one that fascinated me for a number of reasons, one being that it parallels the critique of "Improvement" which runs through the novels of Jane Austen!
Michael's paper was in unfinished form, a commentary on and critique of Gramsci's concept of hegemony, entitled "Imperialism and Failed Hegemony." Even in the form in which Michael delivered it I found it persuasive. Perhaps he will post on some of his ideas. I had an interesting brief conversation with Michael afterwards on how hegemony as he describes it resembles/differs from Plato's argument that no state ever collapses as long as its rulers remain united.
One of the two panels which defeated my damaged hearing dealt with the '60s, and provoked from me an interesting (though undoubtedly flawed!) formula for the sixties -- or rather, for what is left out of so many accounts of the '60s: "We were confronting a monster, a monster much stronger than us, and we didn't know we were defeated from the beginning." I had it better then, but can't remember my own exact words. But in any case, this perspective is worth keeping in the margin of one's mind as a qualifying comment on many critiques and accounts of the '60s.
Carrol