Well I take back my comments about "capitalism" being the unit of analysis but there
still is nothing about "class" except indirectly in the quote about surplus value.
There is nothing about "dialectics". In characterising capitalism as a mode of
production he is silent about ownership of the means
of production. Is 'class" of no significance?The final quote sounds like an abstract
from a classic comics summary of significant Marxist doctrines.
CHeers, Ken Hanly
Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > >Marxists are good people Mine approves of, ergo, Barrington Moore >and Immanuel
>Wallerstein are Marxists, even though they rejected >the label, while John Roemer and
>Jon Elster are not Marxists, even >though they say they are. And _I_ am most
>definitely not a Marxist, >whatever I say I am.
> > --jks
>
> 1) I am repeating, and closing off this thread for the sake of not raising myself to
>level of deliberative "label" attachers. Actually, I really would like to discuss
>and learn more about IW's work with those who *professionally* read him, critically
>or reconstuctively, but at this level of
> high ad hominem and marxism bashing , it seems practiacally impossible.
>
> 2) I did *NOT* *NOT* *NOT* say that Moore was a marxist. I would like to see the
>*documentation* for this. I was instead *criticizing* Moore from IW's perspective,
>and making a point about marxists who read Marx under the influence of Weber and
>Moore. (nation state versus world system
> approaches capitalism)
>
> 3) IW does not *reject* the label marxist, although he does not specifically use the
>term to sell himself in the intellectual market place. Not using and rejecting are
>totally different issues. I don't use the label in every second, but I don't reject
>it either. In the final analysis, his
> work in Marxist in nature and he is a marxist, but he is differenct from *other*
>marxists I named a while ago. He writes in socialist journals and engages in every
>marxist forum I have ever been to. Refer to previous posts or some of his articles
>to get a better picture of who he is, why you
> disagree or agree, or discuss the nature of his work, analysis, papers, or show
>me citation dude, or whatever the fuck is from his major works... I gave direct
>citations from Elster or Roemer when I criticized them, instead of making
>speculative comments or ad hominems.
>
> Why does IW use a Marxist analysis of WS?
>
> "the modern world system is a capitalist world economy, whose origins reach back to
>the 16th century abroad. its emergence is the result of a singular histrorical
>transformation, that from feaudalism to capitalism. this capitalist world economy
>continues in existence today and now includes
> geographically the entire world, including those states commited to socialism...
>the usefullness of capitalism as a term is to designate that system in which
>structures give primacy to the accumulation of capital per se, rewarding those who do
>it well and penalizing all others, as distinct
> from those systems in which the accumulation of capital is subordinated to sum
>other objectives, however defined...
>
> "What distinguishes capitalism as a mode of production is that its multiple
>structures relate to one another in such a way that in consequence , the push to
>endless accumulation of capital becomes and remains dominant. Production tends always
>to be for profit rather than for use...
>
> 'capital is accumulated by appropriating surplus prioduced by labor, more the
>capital is accumulated , the less the role of labor in production" (pages, 271-273,
>_The capitalist world economy_)
>
> Mine
>
> >
> > >In a message dated Wed, 12 Jul 2000 3:32:05 AM Eastern Daylight >Time, Stephen E
>Philion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > << Mine,
> > Aren't you giving labels to people in fact? I mean, would Wallerstein
> > accept the appelation, "World System Marxist" ? I got my MA in his dept
> > and I don't recall his ever using that term to describe his approach.
> >
> > You excoriate anyone who uses game theory in their Marxism as
> > 'non-Marxist', even when they think of themselves as and call themselves
> > Marxist, yet writers who don't call themselves Marxist like Wallerstein
> > and Barrington Moore are Marxist in your book and worthy of praise as the
> > correct kinds of Marxists. Just sounds sloppy to me, forget at what level
> > we're talking about.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > Stephen Philion
> > Lecturer/PhD Candidate
> > Department of Sociology
> > 2424 Maile Way
> > Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
> > Honolulu, HI 96822
> >
> > >>
>
> --
>
> 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
> ___________________________________________________________
