Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
Yesterday the United States! Today the OECD! Tomorrow the World! (It ain't Utopia, but it's the only game in town--unless you think, like Lars-Erik Neilsen in the _New York Review of Books_, that Mexicans ain't fit to assemble staplers and should go back to the subsistence agriculture that they came from) So those are the only choices? Mexicans should assemble staplers for us, instead of feeding, clothing, housing, and educating themselves? If this is neoliberalism, then it sounds like imperialism to me. Doug Like we exploit Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, all of which grew rapidly by exporting light industrial products? Between assembling staplers for export and growing corn in unirrigated Mexican soil, I'll take assembling staplers for 50 pesos, Alex... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
Brad, that's a pretty restricted set of choices. Assembling staplers might not be so dangerous, but most of the workers there sit in a toxic stew. Would it be better to provide for the corn farmers with credit, with the same access to water that the large farmers get, and with the same sort of cultural amenities available in cities -- maybe by setting up colleges in the countryside instead of in cities? Brad De Long wrote: Yesterday the United States! Today the OECD! Tomorrow the World! (It ain't Utopia, but it's the only game in town--unless you think, like Lars-Erik Neilsen in the _New York Review of Books_, that Mexicans ain't fit to assemble staplers and should go back to the subsistence agriculture that they came from) So those are the only choices? Mexicans should assemble staplers for us, instead of feeding, clothing, housing, and educating themselves? If this is neoliberalism, then it sounds like imperialism to me. Doug Like we exploit Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, all of which grew rapidly by exporting light industrial products? Between assembling staplers for export and growing corn in unirrigated Mexican soil, I'll take assembling staplers for 50 pesos, Alex... Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Michael Perelman wrote: Would it be better to provide for the corn farmers with credit, with the same access to water that the large farmers get, and with the same sort of cultural amenities available in cities -- maybe by setting up colleges in the countryside instead of in cities? And then co-finance local industries producing farm tools and processing machinery, and then an industrial sector to service the farm tools, and then computer plants to service the industrial sector. If China can do it with a little help from Li Ka-shing, why can't Mexico do it? C'mon, Brad, after all *your people* were and are in charge of Mexico (I'm just kidding, but you know what I mean). What went wrong? -- Dennis
Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: As a Marxist, of course, he is critical of *certain* brands of marxist theory-- the orthodox developmental model-- which dominates the sociology of development literature with varying degrees, and takes the *nation state* as the unit of analysis instead of the *world system*. I'll said it from the start, aside from the first two volumes of *The Modern World-System*, Wallerstein has written little that is of much value. He repeatedly mistakes describing for explaining. People like Amin, Sweezy, Frank, and Wallerstein have had the fortune of finding a mass of admiring readers and commentators despite the low quality of their scholarly work, just because they published one initial great work. This is not the case with Marxists like John Roemer, E.O. Wright and Gerry Cohen. The scholarly output of these three has been impressive from the start, and has never faltered. Just a few years ago Wright published *Class Matters*, which may very well be the best work yet on class by a Marxist, though not mentioned once in this list! - which brings me to the cited passage above. The "orthodox development model" does not dominate sociology of development literature. Wallerstein may want you to think that - as if the issue was still between WS theory and modernization theory! - but the truth is there is a whole array of contesting theories.
Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
I would agree with half of this post. The first half. But I don't see the intellectual value of Wright's work. Rod Ricardo Duchesne wrote: Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: As a Marxist, of course, he is critical of *certain* brands of marxist theory-- the orthodox developmental model-- which dominates the sociology of development literature with varying degrees, and takes the *nation state* as the unit of analysis instead of the *world system*. I'll said it from the start, aside from the first two volumes of *The Modern World-System*, Wallerstein has written little that is of much value. He repeatedly mistakes describing for explaining. People like Amin, Sweezy, Frank, and Wallerstein have had the fortune of finding a mass of admiring readers and commentators despite the low quality of their scholarly work, just because they published one initial great work. This is not the case with Marxists like John Roemer, E.O. Wright and Gerry Cohen. The scholarly output of these three has been impressive from the start, and has never faltered. Just a few years ago Wright published *Class Matters*, which may very well be the best work yet on class by a Marxist, though not mentioned once in this list! - which brings me to the cited passage above. The "orthodox development model" does not dominate sociology of development literature. Wallerstein may want you to think that - as if the issue was still between WS theory and modernization theory! - but the truth is there is a whole array of contesting theories. -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June,2000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/11/00 11:54PM I have heard Wallerstein speak very recently too, but I don't remember him implying that "Marxists had a simplistic way of looking at the world". As a Marxist, of course, he is critical of *certain* brands of marxist theory-- the orthodox developmental model-- which dominates the sociology of development literature with varying degrees, and takes the *nation state* as the unit of analysis instead of the *world system*. Accordingly, part of IW's criticism is related to whether societies have their independent logic of capitalist development or relate to one another within a world system. Barrington Moore and Brenner type Marxists are included in the former category, although Marx, from a world systemic perspective, had the world system, not the nation state, in mind when he was analyzing British capitalism. There is a fine line between world system marxists and marxists. The former subcribes to the core-periphery model. CB: What is the difference between "core-periphery" and "imperial center-colonies" ? ((( I find this a very powerful analysis of contemporary imperialism and capitalism, as far as the *sociology* of modern capitalism goes. You may disagree with it as an economist, but one needs to debate the *premises of* the world system theory first to be able to criticize it. If you disagree, fine; but you can state the rationality grounds of why you disagree; theory wise. Mine -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June,2000
Charles Brown wrote: CB: What is the difference between "core-periphery" and "imperial center-colonies" ? Charles, they are almost the same. Probably, I over-stated the difference in the first place. Technically, periphery is a formerly colonized part of the world. The reason I specifically like the concept is that even in the *decolonized* phase of capitalism, peripheralization is still continuing, so periphery is an efficient tool to analyze new forms of inequalities, poverty and exploitation on a global scale, although these problems have been in existence since the 16th century. Also mind you that there is the semi-periphery category. These three levels (core/semiperiphery/periphery) show the degree/extend to which countries are integrated into the world system, geographically and time wise. For example, Brazil is not the same with Nigeria; one is on the top of the other in the hierarchy of the world system. So these concepts are useful in terms of understanding the articulation of multiple hierarchies, mechanisms of surplus labor extraction, and other power/ideological structures that coexist with capitalism ( racism, sexism). adios Mine -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
How about Theda Scokpol's and Brenner's critique of "liberal" and neo-smithian approaches of IW? xxx Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of WashingtonCampus Box 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA Phone: (253) 692-4462 Fax : (253) 692-5718 xxx True, but "neo-liberal smithian" label of IW is completely Brenner's mischarecterization of IW. In fact, IW's central struggle in the _Modern World System_ is to illustrate the fact that capitalism has *never* been the capitalism of *free trade* and competitive market* liberalism as Smithians argued. IW demonstrates this historically by documenting the capitalist *power struggle and *inter-imperialist* rivalry within the core. Actually, I am attaching Arrighi's article of non-debates among Skocpol, IW and Brenner in the 1970s. If my memory does not mistaken me at the moment, Skocpol was arguing in the _States and Revolution_ that France was *not* capitalist in the16th/17th centuries, given the predominance of aristocratic/landowning classes, challenging IW's characterization of Colbert's mercantilist policies as *capitalist*. In my view, Skoc misses the *historical* argument in IW here: Mercantilism is *one form* of modern capitalism, *not* a deviation from or less developed stage of capitalism. if we take Skoc's criteria of what capitalism means somewhat seriously, then no country in the world is capitalist; only the west par excellence. Skoc seems to endorse a typical modernization perspective, albeit in a closet fashion, of the kind Smithian/orthodox economists would subscribe: "No necessary prerequisites, No capitalism", so the argument carries a danger of obfuscating imperialism and relagating capitalism to the sphere of country's internal charecteristics rather than to the world system.. Furthermore, In the theory chapter of her dissertation, Skoc also classifies IW under world system/ marxist theories of capitalism, and is somewhat critical of marxism in general. okey, I need to go to bed... i will attach the artricle later.. Mine Mine On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: De long wrote: Yes! He does not seem to have learned the extent to which the neo-liberal program is successfully advancing. Bind all prosperous market economies of the world into one single bloc in which the prosperous development of all is a precondition for the prosperous development of each. Then embrace-and-extend as countries that adopt Marshall Plan politico-economic institutions are brought into the core as they receive massive amounts of technology transfer from core-located firms, and countries that remain outside the core strive to adopt political democracy, free trade, and market economics. No. IW does *not* endorse the Smithian view implied above. He is a marxist. Mine -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___ -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___
Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
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
Simmer down now! Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:The Upheavals of June, 2000
Mine, I'm hardly getting all bent out of shape about this question, why should I relax? Steve Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June,2000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I heard Wallerstein speak recently. He was contemptuous of Marxists, implying that they had a simplistic way of looking at the world. Obviously, some of us do, but his characterization was all-inclusive. And don't you think that piece was just a little fevered? The world changed in June 2000 and all that? Doug You mean that you think a great stock market commentator was lost when Wallerstein went in for sociology? Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
You are correct. Stephen E Philion wrote: I thought Michael was addressing himself to the generalizing comment he heard Wallerstein make, not necessarily to the theory itself. Steve -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
What are you Doug, some kind of a commie? --jks In a message dated Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:48:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Brad De Long wrote: Yesterday the United States! Today the OECD! Tomorrow the World! (It ain't Utopia, but it's the only game in town--unless you think, like Lars-Erik Neilsen in the _New York Review of Books_, that Mexicans ain't fit to assemble staplers and should go back to the subsistence agriculture that they came from) So those are the only choices? Mexicans should assemble staplers for us, instead of feeding, clothing, housing, and educating themselves? If this is neoliberalism, then it sounds like imperialism to me. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
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 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
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
Stephen E Philion wrote: 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 Stephen, First off, my call of IW as a "world system marxist" is just a *descriptive* labeling of IW's position in order to distinguish him from other forms of marxism or positions within marxist theory. IW specifically uses the term "world system analysis" instead "world system theory" in his article "Rise and Demise of World System Analysis", so I should have instead used the term *analysis*(form of method) rather than *theory*. Well, I still continue to label IW Marxist or _at least_ some form of _socialist_, as far as the analytical nature of his work is concerned: Transnational class driven perspective of international politics and economic history. What is he then, if we need to label him for descriptive purposes? (*Marxist* is not my *labeling* of him , BTW. it is wtritten in every *standard* sociology and international poitical economy text book, including Ronald Chilcote's). He does *radical* sociology, criticizes methodological individualism, pays attention to hierarchies (core/periphery) at the global level, and more importantly he proposes a *systemic* analysis of capitalist accumulation on a world scale, which move beyond state centric/individualistic approaches to capitalist development. His analysis is very illustrative of global system and inherent contradictions of capitalism. second, I did not call Moore a marxist, but I meant that there are Marxists heavily influenced by his work. third, game theory has no relevancy to the issue here if you wanna bring into *dead horse* topics, game theory is not even a radical school of thought; I mean *methodology* wise... fourth, I will appreciate if you do *not* contact me privately now or in the future. enough!! Mine -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
[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 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
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 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
Mine wrote: fourth, I will appreciate if you do *not* contact me privately now or in the future. enough!! Mine, What are you talking about, contacting you privately? That post is plainly addressed to PEN, cc'd to youwhy would I want to contact you privately if I address the post to PEN? Steve Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: My question is that "are *geo-politics* and *geo-economics* separate" in the way that you imply above? Of course they are; the dialectic of capital is that politics drives economics which in turn drives politics ad infinitum. The poles of the contradiction don't meet in some definitive medium, nor does one hold eternal sway over the other; rather each pole is mediated via its antipode (I'm paraphrasing Adorno, who would also insist that these mediations are the sites of the most violent social struggles). The US owes Japan and the EU lots of money, but there's no state agency capable of hauling the US in front of a global bankruptcy court. At least, not yet (give the ECB time). The point is that our models of hegemony are mostly drawn from the Pax Americana; we don't really have good models of the 21st-century keiretsu/euro-capitalisms blossoming all around us, though there's good work being done on the developmental state (Bruce Cumings, Peter Katzenstein, etc.). My nit-picking critique of world-systems theory is that it's not world-systemic enough -- it should push still further, to the infrastructures of late capitalism which suffuse its superstructures. -- Dennis
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
Mine, You are a very smart person, but you keep butting up against people. This sort of talk is not needed here. Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: fourth, I will appreciate if you do *not* contact me privately now or in the future. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
I don't keep people butting up. I just don't want some people to "cc" me. that is all I want. one can post his ideas on pen-l. he does not need to cc me, unless he asks my approval. Mine Michael Perelman wrote: Mine, You are a very smart person, but you keep butting up against people. This sort of talk is not needed here. Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: fourth, I will appreciate if you do *not* contact me privately now or in the future. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___
Re: Re: 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 Yes! He does not seem to have learned the extent to which the neo-liberal program is successfully advancing. Bind all prosperous market economies of the world into one single bloc in which the prosperous development of all is a precondition for the prosperous development of each. Then embrace-and-extend as countries that adopt Marshall Plan politico-economic institutions are brought into the core as they receive massive amounts of technology transfer from core-located firms, and countries that remain outside the core strive to adopt political democracy, free trade, and market economics. Yesterday the United States! Today the OECD! Tomorrow the World! (It ain't Utopia, but it's the only game in town--unless you think, like Lars-Erik Neilsen in the _New York Review of Books_, that Mexicans ain't fit to assemble staplers and should go back to the subsistence agriculture that they came from) Brad DeLong -- Professor J. Bradford DeLong Department of Economics, #3880 University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-3880 (510) 643-4027; (925) 283-2709 voice (510) 642-6615; (925) 283-3897 fax http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/
Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
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 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___
Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
De long wrote: Yes! He does not seem to have learned the extent to which the neo-liberal program is successfully advancing. Bind all prosperous market economies of the world into one single bloc in which the prosperous development of all is a precondition for the prosperous development of each. Then embrace-and-extend as countries that adopt Marshall Plan politico-economic institutions are brought into the core as they receive massive amounts of technology transfer from core-located firms, and countries that remain outside the core strive to adopt political democracy, free trade, and market economics. No. IW does *not* endorse the Smithian view implied above. He is a marxist. Mine -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
Lately I'm convinced the definition of Marxist on this list for some has become, 'I like xx, therefore they are Marxist.' Steve On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: No. IW does *not* endorse the Smithian view implied above. He is a marxist. Mine
Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
Stephen E Philion wrote: Lately I'm convinced the definition of Marxist on this list for some has become, 'I like xx, therefore they are Marxist.' I have been following this thread, but if what Steve says is correct, it is a serious error because it leaves too much room for the opposite error, "I don't like xx, and therefore it is Marxist," or "It is Marxist and therefore I don't like it." An essential part of the battle against anti-communism is that propositions be debated on their merits, not on whether a label applies to them or not. And just as we should view with contempt the argument that because such such is marxist (or stalinist) it is *therefore* wrong, so we should avoid the argument that because x is marxist it is therefore right. (When a discussion is confined to those who are both marxist *and*, more importantly, do share pretty much their conceptions of marxism, then use of the label purely as shorthand is quite reasonable.) Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
I heard Wallerstein speak recently. He was contemptuous of Marxists, implying that they had a simplistic way of looking at the world. Obviously, some of us do, but his characterization was all-inclusive. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
At 08:00 PM 07/11/2000 -0500, you wrote: An essential part of the battle against anti-communism is that propositions be debated on their merits, not on whether a label applies to them or not. And just as we should view with contempt the argument that because such such is marxist (or stalinist) it is *therefore* wrong, so we should avoid the argument that because x is marxist it is therefore right. amen, bro! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Is it peace or is it Prozac?" -- Cheryl Wheeler.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I heard Wallerstein speak recently. He was contemptuous of Marxists, implying that they had a simplistic way of looking at the world. Obviously, some of us do, but his characterization was all-inclusive. And don't you think that piece was just a little fevered? The world changed in June 2000 and all that? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I heard Wallerstein speak recently. He was contemptuous of Marxists, implying that they had a simplistic way of looking at the world. Obviously, some of us do, but his characterization was all-inclusive. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have heard Wallerstein speak very recently too, but I don't remember him implying that "Marxists had a simplistic way of looking at the world". As a Marxist, of course, he is critical of *certain* brands of marxist theory-- the orthodox developmental model-- which dominates the sociology of development literature with varying degrees, and takes the *nation state* as the unit of analysis instead of the *world system*. Accordingly, part of IW's criticism is related to whether societies have their independent logic of capitalist development or relate to one another within a world system. Barrington Moore and Brenner type Marxists are included in the former category, although Marx, from a world systemic perspective, had the world system, not the nation state, in mind when he was analyzing British capitalism. There is a fine line between world system marxists and marxists. The former subcribes to the core-periphery model. I find this a very powerful analysis of contemporary imperialism and capitalism, as far as the *sociology* of modern capitalism goes. You may disagree with it as an economist, but one needs to debate the *premises of* the world system theory first to be able to criticize it. If you disagree, fine; but you can state the rationality grounds of why you disagree; theory wise. Mine -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___
Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
Yes! He [Wallerstein] does not seem to have learned the extent to which the neo-liberal program is successfully advancing. Bind all prosperous market economies of the world into one single bloc in which the prosperous development of all is a precondition for the prosperous development of each. Then embrace-and-extend as countries that adopt Marshall Plan politico-economic institutions are brought into the core as they receive massive amounts of technology transfer from core-located firms, and countries that remain outside the core strive to adopt political democracy, free trade, and market economics. This is quite bizarre. (Brad, just say "no" to drugs!) It's true that neo-liberalism is taking over, but at the same time it's binding the prosperous market economies into a single bloc, it's also using the IMF and the like to impoverish the poor countries (or rather, to intensify their pre-existing impoverishment), while destroying any nationalist institutions that allowed a modicum of civilization under capitalism. The poor countries don't get "technology transfer." Rather, they pay top dollar for renting intellectual property. (It's only when there's massive political pressure that the drug companies start offering anti-AIDS drugs to Africa at cut rates, of course with heavy strings attached.) If they try to engage in technology transfer (as China has done), the US does everything to stop it, in the name of holy intellectual property rights. Providing patent, copyright, and trade-mark owners with protectionism (rather than engaging in free trade in such) is much more important than human rights, naturally enough. Of course, we could always define "technology transfer" loosely as involving selling goods and services to the poor countries. In that case, a lot of technology transfer involves the selling of weapons so that the governments can attack each other and repress their peoples (while keeping corrupt military sinecures in place). I'm no fan of nationalism, but it's important to remember that it typically has important benefits for those of the nationality in question, so that the neo-liberal program of abolishing all nationalist institutions has important costs. (Oh I forgot: to make an omelette, you have to break eggs! Neo-liberals don't care about costs as long as they're winning.) It's the institutions of the nation-state that allow the countries to moderate and tame the effects of the unfettered markets that the neo-liberals worship. Institutions like the US Food and Drug Administration are institutions of a nation angry at the poisoning of its food -- originally reacting to Upton Sinclair's muck-raking book, THE JUNGLE -- whereas neoliberalism only allows such institutions if they are global in scope (like the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO). Given the lack of political organization on a world scale by any forces but multinational corporations and banks, such secretive bureaucratic and top-down organizations (in sum, the neo-liberal versions of the "Leninist" party popularized by Stalin) respond only to the interests of capital, not those of the working class. So who do you think gets screwed? In its non-fascist form, nationalism represents a class compromise, capitalists and workers unified against the furriners in the name of the Fatherland (with the capitalists and their allies calling the shots). (The nicest form of nationalism is classic social democracy.) Breaking down national institutions in the countries that have been getting the short end of the stick (and this now includes South Korea and Malaysia, among other places) undermines the class compromise. This can spawn intensified worker struggle for a more human system (as in South Korea) or bizarre and extreme versions to revive nationalism (as in Malaysia or Afghanistan). So I believe that the neo-liberalism will soon face new set-backs, beyond those resulting from the crises it imposed on East Asia in 1997. This may be not pleasant, however, since the last major set-back that liberalism faced stretched from World War I to the Depression to World War II. The neo-liberal revolution also involves the creation of showcase "democracy." Though superior to the rule of the Emperor Bokassa or Idi Amin, such anemic democracy is dominated by the economic power of capital (especially in those countries that borrowed from abroad) and has its ability to intervene in and tame the economy cut off and cauterized. It involves the neo-liberal model imposing the same "solution" -- the economic final solution of _laissez-faire_ -- on all problems. Yesterday the United States! Today the OECD! Tomorrow the World! (It ain't Utopia, but it's the only game in town--unless you think, like Lars-Erik Neilsen in the _New York Review of Books_, that Mexicans ain't fit to assemble staplers and should go back to the subsistence agriculture that they came from) How often does one have to yell TINA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
Brenner, if I recall, in his latest work actually includes quite a bit of discussion of the impact of global integration and intensified global competition in the international political economy... On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: I have heard Wallerstein speak very recently too, but I don't remember him implying that "Marxists had a simplistic way of looking at the world". As a Marxist, of course, he is critical of *certain* brands of marxist theory-- the orthodox developmental model-- which dominates the sociology of development literature with varying degrees, and takes the *nation state* as the unit of analysis instead of the *world system*. Accordingly, part of IW's criticism is related to whether societies have their independent logic of capitalist development or relate to one another within a world system. Brenner is most certainly a Marxist, Barrington Moore utilizes quite a bit of Marxist analysis in his work, especially 'democracy, dictatorship...', but is more tied to a Weberian approach theoretically. He would probably eschew the lable Marxist that you assign him. He is a brilliant writer of course, as is the Marxist Brenner. Barrington Moore and Brenner type Marxists are included in the former category, although Marx, from a world systemic perspective, had the world system, not the nation state, in mind when he was analyzing British capitalism. There is a fine line between world system marxists and marxists. The former subcribes to the core-periphery model. I find this a very powerful analysis of contemporary imperialism and capitalism, as far as the *sociology* of modern capitalism goes. You may disagree with it as an economist, but one needs to debate the *premises of* the world system theory first to be able to criticize it. If you disagree, fine; but you can state the rationality grounds of why you disagree; theory wise. I thougth Michael was addressing himself to the generalizing comment he heard Wallerstein make, not necessarily to the theory itself. Steve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
Stephen E Philion wrote: Lately I'm convinced the definition of Marxist on this list for some has become, 'I like xx, therefore they are Marxist.' Steve On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: No. IW does *not* endorse the Smithian view implied above. He is a marxist. Mine I did *not* say "I like xx, therefore they are marxist". My proposition is unrelated to the proposition you impose on me. If you judged my proposition in light of what Delong had actually *said* (the previous prag), instead of taking my proposition out of context, you would not engage in this ad hominem. In any case, I have no intention of continuing IW debate at this level. I have precious things to do tonight...I advise you to relax too! -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
He was taking pains to distinguish his own work from Marxism. Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I heard Wallerstein speak recently. He was contemptuous of Marxists, implying that they had a simplistic way of looking at the world. Obviously, some of us do, but his characterization was all-inclusive. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have heard Wallerstein speak very recently too, but I don't remember him implying that "Marxists had a simplistic way of looking at the world". As a Marxist, of course, he is critical of *certain* brands of marxist theory-- the orthodox developmental model-- which dominates the sociology of development literature with varying degrees, and takes the *nation state* as the unit of analysis instead of the *world system*. Accordingly, part of IW's criticism is related to whether societies have their independent logic of capitalist development or relate to one another within a world system. Barrington Moore and Brenner type Marxists are included in the former category, although Marx, from a world systemic perspective, had the world system, not the nation state, in mind when he was analyzing British capitalism. There is a fine line between world system marxists and marxists. The former subcribes to the core-periphery model. I find this a very powerful analysis of contemporary imperialism and capitalism, as far as the *sociology* of modern capitalism goes. You may disagree with it as an economist, but one needs to debate the *premises of* the world system theory first to be able to criticize it. If you disagree, fine; but you can state the rationality grounds of why you disagree; theory wise. Mine -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
How about Theda Scokpol's and Brenner's critique of "liberal" and neo-smithian approaches of IW? xxx Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of WashingtonCampus Box 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA Phone: (253) 692-4462 Fax : (253) 692-5718 xxx On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: De long wrote: Yes! He does not seem to have learned the extent to which the neo-liberal program is successfully advancing. Bind all prosperous market economies of the world into one single bloc in which the prosperous development of all is a precondition for the prosperous development of each. Then embrace-and-extend as countries that adopt Marshall Plan politico-economic institutions are brought into the core as they receive massive amounts of technology transfer from core-located firms, and countries that remain outside the core strive to adopt political democracy, free trade, and market economics. No. IW does *not* endorse the Smithian view implied above. He is a marxist. Mine -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
Or maybe I slept through the revolution Doug Henwood wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I heard Wallerstein speak recently. He was contemptuous of Marxists, implying that they had a simplistic way of looking at the world. Obviously, some of us do, but his characterization was all-inclusive. And don't you think that piece was just a little fevered? The world changed in June 2000 and all that? Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
Brad De Long wrote: Yesterday the United States! Today the OECD! Tomorrow the World! (It ain't Utopia, but it's the only game in town--unless you think, like Lars-Erik Neilsen in the _New York Review of Books_, that Mexicans ain't fit to assemble staplers and should go back to the subsistence agriculture that they came from) So those are the only choices? Mexicans should assemble staplers for us, instead of feeding, clothing, housing, and educating themselves? If this is neoliberalism, then it sounds like imperialism to me. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Upheavals of June, 2000
Yes, he is a _world system marxist_, as i said.. Mine Michael Perelman wrote: He was taking pains to distinguish his own work from Marxism. Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I heard Wallerstein speak recently. He was contemptuous of Marxists, implying that they had a simplistic way of looking at the world. Obviously, some of us do, but his characterization was all-inclusive. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have heard Wallerstein speak very recently too, but I don't remember him implying that "Marxists had a simplistic way of looking at the world". As a Marxist, of course, he is critical of *certain* brands of marxist theory-- the orthodox developmental model-- which dominates the sociology of development literature with varying degrees, and takes the *nation state* as the unit of analysis instead of the *world system*. Accordingly, part of IW's criticism is related to whether societies have their independent logic of capitalist development or relate to one another within a world system. Barrington Moore and Brenner type Marxists are included in the former category, although Marx, from a world systemic perspective, had the world system, not the nation state, in mind when he was analyzing British capitalism. There is a fine line between world system marxists and marxists. The former subcribes to the core-periphery model. I find this a very powerful analysis of contemporary imperialism and capitalism, as far as the *sociology* of modern capitalism goes. You may disagree with it as an economist, but one needs to debate the *premises of* the world system theory first to be able to criticize it. If you disagree, fine; but you can state the rationality grounds of why you disagree; theory wise. Mine -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___
