>Dennis R Redmond wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
>
> > 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/).
>
> >Sure, but here's Wallerstein writing in 1997 on the potential conflict
> between Japan, the US and the EU in the 21st century (full text available
> at http://fbc.binghamton.edu/iwrise.htm), where he bets the farm on Japan:
>
> >"4) Since a triad in ferocious mutual competition usually reduces to a
> duo, the most likely combination is Japan plus the U.S.A. versus the E.U.,
> a combination that is undergirded both by economic and paradoxically
> cultural considerations.
>
> >5) This pairing would return us to the classical situation of a sea-air
> power supported by the ex-hegemonic power versus a land-based power, and
> suggests for both geopolitical and economic reasons the eventual success
> of Japan."
>
> >Sea power versus land power -- in the era of GSM and bullet trains? I
> mean, come *on*. This isn't to bash Wallerstein, who's written some neat
> things, but he does seem to focus on the geopolitics and not the
> geo-economics. But then, I'm just one of those carping, post-American
> litcritters, so what do I know.
>
> -- Dennis
You are making a valid criticism here, Dennis. No need to get emotional. My question
is that "are *geo-politics* and *geo-economics* separate" in the way that you imply
above? From a world systemic perspective, the capitalist world economy expands
geographically (because it needs expansion. Period), while dialectally reinforcing
economic expansionism at the same time. Geo-economics is not the reified opposition
of geo-politics. In fact, capitalist powers are those who are already powerful
geo-politically; their power emanates from not their *political* strength (state
machinery) but from the strength of their ruling classes; the specific nature of
socio-economic groups located within the state, and their ability to specialize in
core economic activities. For example, If you remember, IW keeps on arguing in the
_Modern World System that the reason why Netherlands was a strong sea power with a
strong military capacity in the 17th century was because Netherlands was able to
militarize itself by developing and thus channeling the division of surplus value,
which was extracted from peripheral zones. While redistributing of surplus labor
enriched the pockets of the Dutch merchants, it also helped Netherlands to finance a
military capable of expanding overseas, and hence to maintain its hegemomy.
--
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
___________________________________________________________
