Dennis R Redmond wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran crossposted:
>
> > "The Upheavals of June, 2000"
> >
> > Europe was born in June 2000. Of course, we have been talking about
> > Europe for 50-odd years now. But heretofore Europe has meant western
> > Europe, not Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, dear to both Charles
> > de Gaulle and Mikhail Gorbachev. Hitherto, the Germans would not really
> > hear of it because of their post-1945 fidelity to the United States.
>
> >For someone who invented world-systems theory, I always
> >wondered why Wallerstein's vision of the EU is so, well, national
> >(talking about "the Germans", "the French", "the Americans", as if there
> >were still national capitalisms which corresponded to the term). The EU
> >was born in 1990 when Eastern Europe finally put Marxism into practice,
> >tossed out their one-party states, and forced the doors of Fortress Europe
> >open for good, the general idea being, "Pay now for a Continental
> >welfare state, or pay later for 40 million refugees". It's true the new
> >metropoles are consolidating rapidly, but we need more in-depth analysis
> >of why and how this is happening. Anyone know if the Binghamton folks are
> >working on this?
>
> >-- Dennis
Dennis, I think we had better try to understand IW here. "The Upheavals of
June" is just a monthly commentary. We can not expect him to engage in a deep
analysis of the evolution of contemporary capitalism. For sure, he does it
elsewhere, but not here. why don't you have a look at Fernand Braudel
web-page, _Review_ journal, table of contents by issue. On the same web page,
there are also conference papers by Arrighi and Wallerstein (His article on
_Rise and Demise of World System Theory_ is pretty useful in outlining some of
the features of the world system theory. http://fbc.binghamton.edu/). _Review_
is more historical. _Journal of World System Research_ more specifically
deals with some of the contemporary issues you have in mind.
Regarding Eastern Europe and capitalism, In recent volume _Review_, Volume
XXIII, 4, 2000, there is an article by Hannes Hofbauer and Andrea Komlosy, "
Capital Accumulation and Catching up Development in Eastern Europe". there are
several other articles on similar topics in the archives of the journal.
I understand your criticism of IW's limitation of Europe to western europe,
but this is *not* theoretically contrary to WS theory. WS theory already
starts with the assumption that capitalism originated in Western Europe as a
world economy. *Western* is already implied in the definition of modern world
system, but WS supersedes geographical limitations in the final analysis. so
*western europe* does not carry a nationalist (or nation state) connotation in
IW's theoretical framework. for example, Eastern europe was part of the same
capitalist system too, although it was integrated differently, time wise,
than that of other peripheral zones. Once a world system is formed, Western
europe has no existential signifigance besides *hierarchical* (political
economic) signifigance.
--
Mine Aysen Doyran
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_________
Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________
