Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of
Louis Proyect wrote: One other key element of the demise of AM is the market socialism they often upheld. When the Gorbachev experiment failed, when the CCP went off the deep end welcoming in Nike, etc., when Yugoslavia imploded, it made it more difficult to talk about the benefits of including market mechanisms in a socialist society. If AM is finished, so is market socialism. And so is Soviet-style socialism. So what's left? Doug why, e-list chatt(er)ing, of course... Michael Hoover
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
Brad De Long wrote: So if in a decade Mexico, Brazil, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are in the position that SK and Taiwan are now, you will conclude... what? That history has reversed itself? That 5 countries out of over 200 in the World Bank's World Development Indicators don't make a trend? That in 60% of cases, Communism makes a good foundation for capitalist development? Here are the figures for GDP per capita, PPP brand, as % of US (based on the WDI CD-ROM): Brazil Czech Rep HungaryMexicoPoland S Korea 1975 28.0% 39.0% 30.2% 18.2% 1980 30.9% 40.7% 33.5% 27.4% 21.4% 1990 23.7% 54.9% 40.0% 27.6% 24.6% 38.1% 1998 22.4% 41.8% 34.6% 26.0% 25.7% 45.5% 1975-98-5.6% -4.4% -4.2% +27.3% 1990-98-1.3%-13.1% -5.4% -1.6% +1.2% +7.4% EastEurope/ Lat Amer/ Mid East/ South Africa Asia Cent Asia CaribN AfricaAsia 19759.5% 4.4% 27.6% 22.7% 5.2% 19808.2% 5.0% 29.0% 21.0% 5.0% 19906.3% 7.8% 31.1% 22.5% 17.1% 5.9% 19985.1% 11.3% 19.0% 22.0% 15.7% 6.6% 1975-98-4.4% +6.9% -5.5% -7.0% +1.4% 1990-98-1.2% +3.6%-12.1% -0.5% -1.4% +0.7% Looking at these, I'd say that, outside Asia, the last 25 years have been pretty rough on most "developing" countries; that Africa is a disaster of stunning magnitude; that "transition" in the former socialist world has not worked very well; that it's hard to guess how these trends would be reversed; and that "convergence" is a crock. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems
I never denied Michael's point. I don't knwo enough about this. But in the Schweickart model I advocate, new investment is planned, so if there is a problem there with markets, we need to worry about it in market socialism of that variety. --jks In a message dated Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:27:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I had also mentioned before that the Hayek system fails to account for the allocation of long-lived capital investments.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
As I dsaid, in the Schweickart model, investment is planned, so this wouldn't be a problem with socialist markets. In a message dated Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:35:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 12:04 AM 07/14/2000 -0400, you wrote: What system provides incentives to respond to accurate information fast. In my way of seeing things, large corporations respond slowly and in an imperfect way to market signals. Those with more reserve resources can delay the respond for a longer period. One problem is that capitalists within the context of market institutions seem to respond _too fast_ to "market signals." This is where we get the complaints that businesses only care about the "bottom line" this quarter (or this _week_) rather than planning to maintain "long-term profitability." This encourages such phenomena as management fads, financial bubbles, corporate down-sizing, and the stampede of Thomas Friedman's electronic herd, encouraging employee cynicism and undermining consumer loyalty. (This "short-termism" arises from the domination of the bond-owners rather than that of the Harvard MBA, IMHO.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
At 03:43 PM 7/14/00 -0400, you wrote: As I dsaid, in the Schweickart model, investment is planned, so this wouldn't be a problem with socialist markets. if investment is planned, then the Hayek critique applies and the Schweickart model falls apart, right? or maybe the Hayek critique isn't as general as you say? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
I have long troubled over investment planning. It is a weak point in Schweickart's theory from an efficiency point of view. I think we may have to suffer those inefficiencies for equity reasons. Without denocratic control of new investment, it is hard to see how you have socialism at all. But there can be a seconadry financial market, reinvestment of profits, etc., to give some market efficiencies. --jks In a message dated Fri, 14 Jul 2000 4:26:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 03:43 PM 7/14/00 -0400, you wrote: As I dsaid, in the Schweickart model, investment is planned, so this wouldn't be a problem with socialist markets. if investment is planned, then the Hayek critique applies and the Schweickart model falls apart, right? or maybe the Hayek critique isn't as general as you say? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems A
No, we are not against democracy. But we have to recognize that not all its effects are wholly good in every context. In the context of planning, democarcy would make the calculation problem worse by amplifying the information distortions it involves. Democracy is not part of the solution to the calculation problem. That is not a reninciation of democracy. It is a criticism of a proposed solution to a problem with planning. Am I speaking Latin or something, why is this simple stuff so hard to understand? I thought you guys were economists. --jks In a message dated Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:17:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 11:49 AM 7/14/00 -0400, you wrote: The Hayek arguments assume only enough centralization to have a system count as planned. Democracy would, if anything, make the problems worse, because there woiuld be more information to coordinate and more pressure groups to accommodate. so we're against democracy now? what kind of democracy? the type encouraged by capitalism? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
Ken Hanly wrote: By the way, why should it not be useful to extend the concept of social class beyond the capitalist system? Cheers, Ken Hanly Ken, hi. Actually, it is very useful to extend the concept of social class beyond the "nation-state", which is what the world system people and marxists writing in the field of International Relations are trying to do (See folks like *Van der Pijl*, Robert Cox, Gill who are mostly informed by Gramsci's hegemonic concepts of control, historical materialism and geo-politics of capitalism). As far as the world system theory is concerned, it must be added, its very premises rest upon the existence of structural differentiation of labor among regions of the world economy. For example, "Modes of Labor Control", as introduced by IW, is a concept used to characterize the "dual mode of labor involvement" in a capitalist world economy: "Free labor is the form of labor control used for work in core countries; whereas coerced labor is used for work in peripheral areas. The combination thereof is the essence of capitalism" (1974). I have been recently reading Pijl's new book _Transnational Classes and International Relations_ (Routledge, 1998). It is a unique contribution to IPE literature, and social sciences in general. American economists have a lot to learn from it, especially the ones misinformed by the very premises of Anglo-Saxon/ Analytical/functionalist school of Marxism. The book combines a lot of Marxist ideas in a very productive fashion (Marx, Lenin, Gramsci, Poulantzas, Mandel, Wallerstein). It offers a historical account of "transitional integration" of the capitalist class-- the ways in which different factions of capital interests involve in the process of globalization, transnationalization of capitalist production and capitalist control of the world economy; Pax Britannica; Pax Americana, etc.. I particularly liked the book. It is very contemporary. Dennis was hinting elsewhere that US hegemony is weakened by the rise of Japanese and European capitalisms (although I think it is *confirmed*). Arrighi *heavily* touches upon these issues (See his article "the Rise of East Asia and the withering away of the Interstate System"), but this book is really *ideal* for assessing how transitional capitalism and its current ideological mode of accumulation (neo-liberalism) are being reinforced/ rearticulated by different centers of the world economy; sometimes through *conflict* other times through *cooperation* among major capitalist powers. It is a good starting point to make sense of the globalization of neo-liberal hegemony from a Gramscian perspective. Mine Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: Ken Hanly wrote: I read through this but I fail to see anything that I can identify with Marxism. I only recall capitalism mentioned once. Capitalism does not seem to enter as a unit of analysis. mentioned once?? In the _Modern World System_ and _The Capitalist World Economy_ capitalism is mentioned in *every* SINGLE identifiable page, probably like hundred times, in the whole book, although not specifically mentioned in this *small* introductory piece. how many times do you mention *capitalism* in your posts, Ken? The concept of class is not mentioned as far as I could see. There is no use of the base, superstructure distinction, no mention of class conflict or class struggle or organising for revolutionary change. there are two chapters in the _Capitalist World economy_ that specifically deal with class, among other things (race, slavery, rural economy, etc..): 1) American slavery and the capitalist world economy 2) CLASS FORMATION IN THE CAPITALIST WORLD ECONOMY. In the below parag, note the emphasis on the importance of _dialectics_ and _class analysis_. " SOCIAL CLASS AS A CONCEPT WAS INVENTED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CAPITALIST WORLD ECONOMY AND IT IS PROBABLY MOST USEFUL IF WE USE IT AS HISTORICALLY SPECIFIC TO THIS KIND OF WORLD SYSTEM. CLASS ANALYSIS LOSES ITS POWER OF EXPLANATION WHENEVER IT MOVES TOWARDS FORMAL MODELS AND AWAY FROM DIALECTICAL DYNAMICS. "THERE IS A SHORT RUN LOGIC IN THE FORMATION OF CLASS. IT IS THE GRADUAL PERCEPTION OF COMMON INTEREST (THAT IS SMILAR RELATIONSHIP S TO THE OWNEERSHIP AND THE CONTROL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTON, AND SMILAR SOURCES OF REVENUE) AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOME ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES TO ADVANCE THESE INTERESTS IS AN INDESPENSABLE ASPECT OF BARGAINING" "THUS CLASSES ARE FORMED,-- BUT THEY ARE THEN REFORMED. THIS IS WHAT MAO MEANT WHEN HE SAID PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA "THE CLASS STRUGGLE IS BY NO MEANS OVER" "THIS CONTINIOUS RE-ERUPTION OF THE CLASS STRUGGLE AFTER EACH POLITICAL RESOLUTION IS IN MY VIEW IS NOT A CYCLICAL PROCESS, HOWEVER, BUT PRECISELY A DIALECTICAL ONE. FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CLASS, HOWEVER TRANSIENT THE PHENOMENON, TRANSFORMS THE WORLD SYSTEM" Nothing on dialectics, about socialism and so on and
Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analys...
And so is Soviet-style socialism. So what's left? Doug Revolutionary socialism and mass struggles that move in that direction. Eg., Colombia, general strike in Argentina, water protests in Bolivia, indigenous protests in Ecuador, Israel getting pushed out of southern Lebanon (Lebanese Marxists on the Marxism list have explained the role of the left in this broad movement), Indonesians organizing a new Marxist party, a new left in Zimbabwe challenging Mugabe's sellout policies, resurgence of Communist Parties in the former Soviet bloc including Mongolia, etc. And most of all, revolutionary Cuba which is showing how a genuine Red-Green synthesis can be accomplished, even under the gun of imperialism. If struggles in "peripheral" countries are not your cup of tea, then I can understand how you can get demoralized like the AM'ers and the academic left in general. Louis Proyect The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analys...
And so is Soviet-style socialism. So what's left? Doug ...most of all, revolutionary Cuba Louis Proyect There's your answer: 40-year long dictatorship as the *model* we are supposed to aim for... Right. Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
Brad De Long wrote: If I understand IW's main criticism of Rostow, it was that Rostow imagined countries "modernizing" and undergoing similar processes at different times--but that the structure of the world system prevented a "peripheral" country from becoming a "core" country unless it broke out of the system and followed an anti-systemic semi-peripheral path that was never adequately explained to me or anyone else. From today's perspective, Rostow looks much better: Italy, France, and Japan have joined the core. Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, the Hong Kong SEZ, Spain, and Ireland are joining the core, and there appear to be a bunch more lined up behind them... That's a rather optimistic interpretation. Italy, France, Japan, and Spain were hardly peripheral in the sense that Haiti or Brazil are/were; all four were imperialist countries in their own right. Singapore and HK are small and rather anomalous places that don't seem easily replicable as models elsewhere. The strongest cases you've got are SK and Taiwan, but two exceptions out of over 100 countries aren't enough to disprove the general rule. Ireland got lots of EU subsidies; Mexico should be so lucky. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analys...
There's your answer: 40-year long dictatorship as the *model* we are
supposed to aim for...
Right.
Brad DeLong
For North Americans? Heavens no. But for other countries in the Caribbean.
YES. Here's an excerpt from a profile on Paul Farmer in last week's New
Yorker Magazine. Farmer is a trained physician and anthropologist who runs
a hospital in the deeply poverty-stricken central highlands of Haiti. Out
of his experiences there, he has written two powerful books: "The Uses of
Haiti" and "Infections and Inequality". Here is a brief excerpt from the
article:
===
Leaving Haiti, Farmer didn't stare down through the airplane window at that
brown and barren third of an island. "It bothers me even to look at it," he
explained, glancing out. "It can't support eight million people, and there
they are. There they are, kidnapped from West Africa."
But when we descended toward Havana he gazed out the window intently,
making exclamations: "Only ninety miles from Haiti, and look! Trees! Crops!
It's all so verdant. At the height of the dry season! The same ecology as
Haiti's, and look!"
An American who finds anything good to say about Cuba under Castro runs the
risk of being labelled a Communist stooge, and Farmer is fond of Cuba. But
not for ideological reasons. He says he distrusts all ideologies, including
his own. "It's an 'ology,' after all," he wrote to me once, about
liberation theology. "And all ologies fail us at some point." Cuba was a
great relief to me. Paved roads and old American cars, instead of litters
on the gwo wout ia. Cuba had food rationing and allotments of coffee
adulterated with ground peas, but no starvation, no enforced malnutrition.
I noticed groups of prostitutes on one main road, and housing projects in
need of repair and paint, like most buildings in the city. But I still had
in mind the howling slums of Port-au-Prince, and Cuba looked lovely to me.
What looked loveliest to Farmer was its public-health statistics.
Many things affect a public's health, of course-nutrition and
transportation, crime and housing, pest control and sanitation, as well as
medicine. In Cuba, life expectancies are among the highest in the world.
Diseases endemic to Haiti, such as malaria, dengue fever, t.b., and AIDS,
are rare. Cuba was training medical students gratis from all over Latin
America, and exporting doctors gratis- nearly a thousand to Haiti, two en
route just now to Zanmi Lasante. In the midst of the hard times that came
when the Soviet Union dissolved, the government actually increased its
spending on health care. By American standards, Cuban doctors lack
equipment, and are very poorly paid, but they are generally well trained.
At the moment, Cuba has more doctors per capita than any other country in
the world-more than twice as many as the United States. "I can sleep here,"
Farmer said when we got to our hotel. "Everyone here has a doctor."
Farmer gave two talks at the conference, one on Haiti, the other on "the
noxious synergy" between H.I.V. and t.b.-an active case of one often makes
a latent case of the other active, too. He worked on a grant proposal to
get anti-retroviral medicines for Cange, and at the conference met a woman
who could help. She was in charge of the United Nations' project on AIDS in
the Caribbean. He lobbied her over several days. Finally, she said, "O.K.,
let's make it happen." ("Can I give you a kiss?" Farmer asked. "Can I give
you two?") And an old friend, Dr. Jorge Perez, arranged a private meeting
between Farmer and the Secretary of Cuba's Council of State, Dr. José Miyar
Barruecos. Farmer asked him if he could send two youths from Cange to Cuban
medical school. "Of course," the Secretary replied.
Again and again during our stay, Farmer marvelled at the warmth with which
the Cubans received him. What did I think accounted for this?
I said I imagined they liked his connection to Harvard, his published
attacks on American foreign policy in Latin America, his admiration of
Cuban medicine.
I looked up and found his pale-blue eyes fixed on me. "I think it's because
of Haiti," he declared. "I think it's because I serve the poor."
Louis Proyect
The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analys...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/13/00 02:16PM And so is Soviet-style socialism. So what's left? Doug ...most of all, revolutionary Cuba Louis Proyect There's your answer: 40-year long dictatorship as the *model* we are supposed to aim for... )) CB: But it is a big improvement over your model of 220 years of war, genocide, slavery, racism, imperialism, male supremacy and dictatorship.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
Brad wrote: From today's perspective, Rostow looks much better: Italy, France, and Japan have joined the core. Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, the Hong Kong SEZ, Spain, and Ireland are joining the core, and there appear to be a bunch more lined up behind them... Doug riposted: That's a rather optimistic interpretation. Italy, France, Japan, and Spain were hardly peripheral in the sense that Haiti or Brazil are/were; all four were imperialist countries in their own right. Singapore and HK are small and rather anomalous places that don't seem easily replicable as models elsewhere. The strongest cases you've got are SK and Taiwan, but two exceptions out of over 100 countries aren't enough to disprove the general rule. Ireland got lots of EU subsidies; Mexico should be so lucky. It's important to remember that during the Cold War, the US did everything it could to make sure that SK and Taiwan (and Japan and West Germany) were showcases to "prove" that capitalism was superior to the "communist" countries. They even allowed SK and Taiwan to have successful land-reform programs and to engage in heretical export-led growth programs that weren't based on official free-trade dogma. (It should be remembered also that Chiang's KMT and the SK ruling class were also desperate to develop their economies to avoid peasant revolutions a la China or N Korea.) This set up SK and Taiwan (and Japan and W. Germany) to benefit from the massive expansion of world aggregate demand during the US war against Vietnam. None of this is in Rostow's theory. His theory is worse than the crudest of the crude Marxian stage theories. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analys...
I think answering this question would be fruitless. We have been over that before quite a few times. Brad De Long wrote: And so is Soviet-style socialism. So what's left? Doug ...most of all, revolutionary Cuba Louis Proyect There's your answer: 40-year long dictatorship as the *model* we are supposed to aim for... Right. Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise ofWorld-Systems Analysis
From today's perspective, Rostow looks much better: Italy, France, and Japan have joined the core. Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, the Hong Kong SEZ, Spain, and Ireland are joining the core, and there appear to be a bunch more lined up behind them... Thanks to military dictatorships and IMF programs who have brought the Tigers to the level of the core. If T, SK, SP, HK relatively did better, it happened so by peripheralizing other countries in the region'; ie by hiring Malaysians, mostly women and children, as cheap labor in garment/maquiladora industries in the Pacific Rim, at $1.65 per hourly wage rates or so, and by mostly keeping them non-unionized and without any job security. There is a *small* world system there, characterized by inter-regional differences and inequalities. So the relevance of IW, and the difficulty with Rostow. --- 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 Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analys...
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Brad De Long wrote: There's your answer: 40-year long dictatorship as the *model* we are supposed to aim for... It worked for that icon of global competitiveness otherwise known as Singapore, didn't it? -- Dennis
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise ofWorld-Systems Analysis
Military dictatorships in Singapore and Hong Kong? Malaysians are doing relatively better in both Malaysia and Singapore. So are the Indians. I don't think the IMF programs per se brought them to the core status. If that was the case then everybody would want the IMF medicine willingly! It is the mix of state-society relations, particular institutional contexts, some historical accidents, and the like. One need not resort to "systemic" explanation to explain the growth and development of East/South East Asia, although no one saying that macro-structural shifts should not be at the background. In fact it is in this area where WSP has miserably failed because details don't fit the larger plot line. Local wages expressed in dollar terms is quite meaningless. A $1.65 an hour wage will be quite high in many countries because of what it can actually purchase. Cheers, Anthony Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Ph: (253) 692-4462 Comparative International Development Fax: (253) 692-5718 University of WashingtonBox Number: 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA xxx On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:30:19 -0400 From: Mine Aysen Doyran [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:21575] Re: Re: Re: "The Rise and Future Demise ofWorld-Systems Analysis" From today's perspective, Rostow looks much better: Italy, France, and Japan have joined the core. Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, the Hong Kong SEZ, Spain, and Ireland are joining the core, and there appear to be a bunch more lined up behind them... Thanks to military dictatorships and IMF programs who have brought the Tigers to the level of the core. If T, SK, SP, HK relatively did better, it happened so by peripheralizing other countries in the region'; ie by hiring Malaysians, mostly women and children, as cheap labor in garment/maquiladora industries in the Pacific Rim, at $1.65 per hourly wage rates or so, and by mostly keeping them non-unionized and without any job security. There is a *small* world system there, characterized by inter-regional differences and inequalities. So the relevance of IW, and the difficulty with Rostow. --- 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 Rise and Future Demise ofWorld-Systems Analys...
Everyone thought that Hayek had died too with his critique of Keynes as well as socialism! I don't see how the failure of Gorbachev proved anything except that a lot of the Russian elite including the gangsters thought that something like capitalism where they owned the productive facilities was much more in their interest than market socialism. If failures show an economic system doesn't work how come capitalist businesses go broke all the time but no one seems to conclude capitalism is a failure. Soviet communism may have been a failure but what replaced it is even more of a failure, increasing poverty, knocking ten years off life expectancy etc.etc. Something like the old style socialism might come back. Indeed, in states such as Belarus it still exists to a certain extent. Factories are not allowed to close but they can alter what they produce I understand. The worst aspects of Soviet style "socialism" were the lack of input into decision-making by those outside the party and the lack of civil liberties together with repression of even non-violent dissent. True there is no longer a working model of socialism market or otherwise, with the possible exception of Cuba, but then there is no working model of capitalism according to neo-classical economics. That doesn't seem to stop it from being touted as the way to go and preached from a hundred pulpits. Cheers, Ken Hanly Doug Henwood wrote: Louis Proyect wrote: One other key element of the demise of AM is the market socialism they often upheld. When the Gorbachev experiment failed, when the CCP went off the deep end welcoming in Nike, etc., when Yugoslavia imploded, it made it more difficult to talk about the benefits of including market mechanisms in a socialist society. If AM is finished, so is market socialism. And so is Soviet-style socialism. So what's left? Doug
Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-SystemsAnalysis
Anthony DCosta wrote: Wallerstein writes, irrespective of what others write. He doesn't listen--to paraphrase some of his students (who are my friends) and colleagues! Cheers, ohh, definetly, he is very persistent of his own position. That is expectable from a sociologist of grand theory, especially of a marxian variety. If people listened to each other all the time, they would not be different! He is very articulate when he talks, BTW: clear and to the point. I like his style.. Mine Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Ph: (253) 692-4462 Comparative International Development Fax: (253) 692-5718 University of WashingtonBox Number: 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA xxx -- 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 Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
Brad De Long wrote: If I understand IW's main criticism of Rostow, it was that Rostow imagined countries "modernizing" and undergoing similar processes at different times--but that the structure of the world system prevented a "peripheral" country from becoming a "core" country unless it broke out of the system and followed an anti-systemic semi-peripheral path that was never adequately explained to me or anyone else. From today's perspective, Rostow looks much better: Italy, France, and Japan have joined the core. Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, the Hong Kong SEZ, Spain, and Ireland are joining the core, and there appear to be a bunch more lined up behind them... That's a rather optimistic interpretation. Italy, France, Japan, and Spain were hardly peripheral in the sense that Haiti or Brazil are/were; all four were imperialist countries in their own right. Singapore and HK are small and rather anomalous places that don't seem easily replicable as models elsewhere. The strongest cases you've got are SK and Taiwan, but two exceptions out of over 100 countries aren't enough to disprove the general rule. Ireland got lots of EU subsidies; Mexico should be so lucky. Doug So if in a decade Mexico, Brazil, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are in the position that SK and Taiwan are now, you will conclude... what? Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
None of this is in Rostow's theory. His theory is worse than the crudest of the crude Marxian stage theories. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine I guess I should say something good about crude Marxian stage theories (which actually ain't that bad), and about GA Cohen and technological determinism to boot... Brad DeLong The handloom gives you the feudal lord, the steam-driven powerloom gives you the industrial capitalist, the microprocessor-controlled loom gives you...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
Brad DeLong wrote: I guess I should say something good about crude Marxian stage theories (which actually ain't that bad), and about GA Cohen and technological determinism to boot... One key problems with the technological determinism that Marx flirted with in his early days (when he was more under the influence of Smith and Ricardo) was that it ignored something that's clear in his mature work, specifically in CAPITAL: not only does the technology affect the society, but the society limits and shapes the kind of technology that is developed, though of course his emphasis is how it's used. (If someone points out that Marx didn't analyze the RD process, there's no reason to restrict his analysis from it. Braverman, among others, discusses this issue.) The kind of technology that's developed largely in hopes of serving those with the power and thus serves individual corporations' profits, the perceived class interests of the capitalists (because they have political power), and/or military purposes; typically these mesh well.[*] (The "benefits" and "cost" of technology are typically discussed by the official pundits so as to show that this development is all for the best in the best of possible worlds. The key assumption is that the technology that developed is the only technology that could have arisen.) The feed-back from society to technology undermines all pretensions of technological determinism and thus mechanical stage theory. In the case of the poor countries, the domination by the rich countries prevents even the imitation of the advanced countries path, except in ways the serve the capitalists in the center. (Obviously, there are special exceptions like S Korea, but I already explained that.) [*] Luckily, a lot of technological abuse has encouraged resistance... Unfortunately some of this resistance leans toward being against all new technology. The handloom gives you the feudal lord, the steam-driven powerloom gives you the industrial capitalist, the microprocessor-controlled loom gives you... The microprocessor-controlled loom isn't profitable (as far as I know), because labor is so cheap in Southeast Asia and elsewhere. So it won't be installed in the foreseeable future. Moving to a low-wage area with workers under tight control is a clear substitute for bringing in new technology, especially these days with low communication and transportation costs, which allow the import of the product into the rich areas like the US with purchasing power. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
Justin You will have to explain what you mean in more detail. What system provides incentives to respond to accurate information fast. In my way of seeing things, large corporations respond slowly and in an imperfect way to market signals. Those with more reserve resources can delay the respond for a longer period. The world of perfect competition does not and can not exist. But given the speed and capacity of modern computers there is no reason that a properly designed plan could not provide information on consumer demand. I don't know how to design the system of incentives. The market has few positive signals. Consumers can only react to decisions made by others. A socialist system could overcome that drawback. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/13/00 7:36:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually I think the Hayek-Mises critique of planning is quite easy to answer. The problem is not information. The problem is designing institutions which provide the incentives for technological improvements. That is one problem. Creating incentives to get and respond to accurate information fast is another. If you think you have an answer, tell me. I have been waiting, literally, for 20 years. I am not being sarcastic. I really want an answer. --jks -- 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: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
At 12:04 AM 07/14/2000 -0400, you wrote: What system provides incentives to respond to accurate information fast. In my way of seeing things, large corporations respond slowly and in an imperfect way to market signals. Those with more reserve resources can delay the respond for a longer period. One problem is that capitalists within the context of market institutions seem to respond _too fast_ to "market signals." This is where we get the complaints that businesses only care about the "bottom line" this quarter (or this _week_) rather than planning to maintain "long-term profitability." This encourages such phenomena as management fads, financial bubbles, corporate down-sizing, and the stampede of Thomas Friedman's electronic herd, encouraging employee cynicism and undermining consumer loyalty. (This "short-termism" arises from the domination of the bond-owners rather than that of the Harvard MBA, IMHO.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems
I had also mentioned before that the Hayek system fails to account for the allocation of long-lived capital investments. In fact, it more or less rules out heterogeneous capital. Justin, if I recall correctly, did not accept my argument, but markets cannot make any claim to efficiency in this regard. If I am going to invest in a steel mill, it depends on whether you are going to invest in an automobile plant Without some sort of coordination, inefficiency in inevitable. The key is not a formula for investment, but building up a form of civil life in which people can work together. Marx knew that to do so would be very difficult, but he believed that it could be done -- if I read him correctly. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems A...
Perfect competition does not exist, but some markets are more competitive than others,a nd some are quite competitive. Moreover, although large corporations often respond slowly--too slowly--they respond faster than five-years plans; the issue is comparative. Computers will not solve for a number of raesons. First, in addition to consumer demand, you need to account for available resources and alternative production methods. Second, in addition to current variables, you need to accurately predict future ones. Third, planning distorts information because everryone has an incentive to lie (conscioysly or otherwise): consumers will overstate their needs as well as guess wrong. Producers will say they need more than they dio to meet their targets and can do less than they can. And since change is disruptive to planning, alternativea nd more efficient production methods will be discouraged or not implemented. So we have a garbage in-garbage out problem--the computers are onlya s accurate as the information we give them. I emphasize that in markets, there is a corrective. Guess wrong, and in a reasonabvly competitive market, you will lose money. Keep guessing wrong and you will go bankrupt. This gives a powerful incentive to find the information and get it right. There is no such incentive in a nonmarket planned system. Finally (for here), the computer solution presupposes the universal mind that Trotsky, for one, recognized we could not have--because computers will not plan for us. We have to do that ourselves. But no one can hold millions of products and prices in his mind at once. So we abstract and make broad plans. Which means that concrete decisions at lower levels are unplanned, diverage from the plan, and screw it up. So in fact, the kind of planning Marx imagined, where everything is as transparent to the associated producers as Crusoes deliberations are to himself, is impossible. There can be no such plan. In a message dated 7/14/00 12:05:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Justin You will have to explain what you mean in more detail. What system provides incentives to respond to accurate information fast. In my way of seeing things, large corporations respond slowly and in an imperfect way to market signals. Those with more reserve resources can delay the respond for a longer period. The world of perfect competition does not and can not exist. But given the speed and capacity of modern computers there is no reason that a properly designed plan could not provide information on consumer demand. I don't know how to design the system of incentives. The market has few positive signals. Consumers can only react to decisions made by others. A socialist system could overcome that drawback.
Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of
I don't think Wallerstein ever claimed to be a Marxist, though he clearly learned from Marx Marxists and Marxist can learn some from his research. (In this, he is very similar to Barrington Moore.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Haven't read Wallerstein for long time but recall him asserting that Marxism is trap because (according to W) it is based on inevitable historical development and remember him nodding favorably about Marx saying he wasn't a Marxist (comment by M that Hal Draper did admirable job of de-mystifying). Wallerstein's approach is circulation rather than production. Seems correct to point out unequal exchange mechanism built into world capitalist system. 20 years ago, however, world-system theorists appeared to be incorrect in holding that world capitalist system is impenetrable from from periphery. Guess some folks may have re-evaluated latter point in light of intervening years.Michael Hoover
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
I wrote: I don't think Wallerstein ever claimed to be a Marxist, though he clearly learned from Marx Marxists and Marxist can learn some from his research. (In this, he is very similar to Barrington Moore.) Originally, I'd say that Analytical Marxism was a kind of Marxism, one responding to dissatisfaction with both the "orthodox" Marxism of the 2nd 3rd Internationals and Althusserian structuralist Marxism. But combining Marxist propositions with the narrow-minded method of orthodox mainstream social science was like mixing oil and water, so the two parted. I guess the exception would be people like Bob Brenner, who as an historian is always focused on the empirical world and so didn't get lost in mainstream social science. (Of course, I can't say I agree with everything he says). Steve wrote: This is exactly on the mark imho Actually, it's not exactly on the mark. I want to emphasize that the problem is not mainstream methods _per se_ as much as the way that the Analytical Marxists decided that _only_ mainstream methods (for example, Walrasian general equilibrium theory and game theory for Roemer) were valid. The problem is not GE or game theory as much as the assumption that only these methods (and the like) were valid. This kind of reductionism led to the AM school's fate. As I note, Brenner's status as an historian -- and thus as a real-world oriented person -- prevented him from going this way. Also, he's always been involved in political action (in the group Solidarity, that publishes AGAINST THE CURRENT). That helps avoid the academic trap. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of
M. H. wrote: Wallerstein's approach is circulation rather than production. Actually, he does emphasize production. Athony Brewer, in his famous book, _Marxist theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey_ classifies IW's world system theory under the section of_Modern Marxist Theories of Development and Underdevelopment_ (p.165). How 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 produced by labor, more the capital is accumulated , the less the role of labor in production" (pages, 271-273, _The Capitalist World Economy_, IW.) -- 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 Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analys...
In a message dated 7/12/00 4:48:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Originally, I'd say that Analytical Marxism was a kind of Marxism, one responding to dissatisfaction with both the "orthodox" Marxism of the 2nd 3rd Internationals and Althusserian structuralist Marxism. But combining Marxist propositions with the narrow-minded method of orthodox mainstream social science was like mixing oil and water, so the two parted. I guess the exception would be people like Bob Brenner, who as an historian is always focused on the empirical world and so didn't get lost in mainstream social science. (Of course, I can't say I agree with everything he says). What about Erik Wright? David Schweickart? Or even me, in my own small, narrowminded way? --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analys...
I wrote: Originally, I'd say that Analytical Marxism was a kind of Marxism, one responding to dissatisfaction with both the "orthodox" Marxism of the 2nd 3rd Internationals and Althusserian structuralist Marxism. But combining Marxist propositions with the narrow-minded method of orthodox mainstream social science was like mixing oil and water, so the two parted. I guess the exception would be people like Bob Brenner, who as an historian is always focused on the empirical world and so didn't get lost in mainstream social science. (Of course, I can't say I agree with everything he says). Justin asks: What about Erik Wright? David Schweickart? Or even me, in my own small, narrowminded way? I can't say I've done a literature survey of Wright's work, but I thought that his early Poulantzas-influenced stuff on class was better than his Roemer-influenced stuff. But I can't criticize him since his journal, POLITICS SOCIETY just published one of my screeds. Schwiekart's work is interesting, though I think that leftists should try to develop non-market systems for organizing socialism. "Market socialism" should be seen as at best a necessary evil as part of the transition, since markets distort democracy. And I'm not as familiar with Schwartz's work as I should be, especially since there's someone on the list who can slap me down if I make any kind of mistake in representing his work. In any event, Justin himself had said that Anal. Marxism was something in the past, a party that had ended. I was simply taking that as the premise and then sketching why I think that happened. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: The Rise and Future Demise ofWorld-Systems Analysis
Yoshie wrote: I realize that Robert Brenner identifies himself with Analytical Marxism, but I'm not sure what exactly stamps Brenner's work as Analytical Marxism (as opposed to other kinds of Marxism). here is Brenner/Wallerstein debate by Giovanni Arrighi! -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 Title: G. Arrighi, "Capitalism and the Modern World-System: Rethinking the Non-Debates of the 1970s" "Capitalism and the Modern World-System: Rethinking the Non-Debates of the 1970s" by Giovanni Arrighi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Fernand Braudel Center 1997. (Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Meetings, New York, August 16-20, 1996) Talking at cross purposes is often a major ingredient of so- called debates in the social sciences. The real, though generally undeclared purpose of such non-debates is not so much the shedding of light on their alleged subject-matter as establishing or undermining the legitimacy of a particular research program--that is, what subject-matter is worth investigating and how it should be investigated. Criticisms of empirically false or logically inconsistent statements are advanced not to improve upon the knowledge produced by a research program but to discredit the program itself. This, in turn, produces among the upholders of the program a siege mentality that leads them to reject valid criticisms lest their acceptance be interpreted as a weakness of the program. Worse still, the same fear leads to another kind of non-debate--that is, to the lack of any debate of even the most glaring differences that arise among the upholders of the program. Useful as these non-debates may be in protecting emergent programs against the risks of premature death, eventually they become counterproductive for the full realization of their potentialities. I feel that world-system analysis has long reached this stage and that it can only benefit from a vigorous discussion of issues that should have been debated long ago but never were. The purpose of this paper is to raise afresh some of these issues by examining briefly two major non-debates that marked the birth of the world-system perspective--the Skocpol- Brenner-Wallerstein and the Braudel-Wallerstein non-debates. 1. The World-System Perspective and Wallerstein's Theory of the Capitalist World-Economy. As Harriet Friedmann (1996: 321) has pointed out, the emergence of the world-system perspective as research program is inseparable from the influence of Immanuel Wallerstein's The Modern World System, Vol.I (henceforth TMWS) and from the new institutions formed in its wake, most notably the PEWS Section of the ASA, the journal Review, and the Fernand Braudel Center. Thanks to this text and these institutions, the new research program "opened questions later blazed across headlines, and the subject of fast-breeding academic journals. If sociology has kept pace with `globalization' of the world economy, it is to the credit of the institutional and intellectual leadership initiated in 1974 by [Wallerstein's] remarkable study of the sixteenth century" (Friedmann 1996: 319). The new perspective redefined the relevant spatial and temporal unit of analysis of the more pressing social problems of our times. In Christopher Chase-Dunn's and Peter Grimes' words, At a time when the mainstream assumption of accepted social, political, and economic science was that the "wealth of nations" reflected mainly on the cultural developments within those nations, [the world-system perspective] recognized that national "development" could only be understood contextually, as the complex outcome of local interactions with an aggressively expanding European- centered "world" economy. Not only did [world-systemists] perceive the global nature of economic networks 20 years before such networks entered popular discourse, but they also saw that many of these networks extend back at least 500 years. Over this time, the peoples of the globe became linked into one integrated unit: the modern "world-system." (1995: 387-8) In pioneering this radical reorientation of social research, Wallerstein (1974, 1979 [1974]) advanced a theoretical and historical account of the origins, structure, and eventual demise of the modern world-system. Central to this account was the conceptualization of the Eurocentric world-system as a capitalist world-economy. A world-system was defined as a spatio-temporal whole, whose spatial scope is coextensive with a division of labor among its constituent parts and whose temporal scope extends as long as the division of labor continually reproduces the "world" as a social whole. A world-economy was defined as a world-system not encompassed by a single political entity. Historically, it was
Re: Re: Re: Re:The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
Stephen E Philion wrote: Mine wrote: World System Marxism overcomes two limitations of Analytical Marxism in 5 *weak* areas 1) methodolological individualism Steve writes: I've never heard world system theorists addressing themselves to the AM question actually...and of course Marxists like Brenner, Petras,..have criticized WS for its ahisoricism... Steve It was my own interpretation of the strenght of the World System Theory *over* Analytical Marxism. I did *not* say that WS theorists *address* themselves to analytical marxists. How would IW-Brenner debate take place without addressing each other, btw? Why don't you have a look at Giovanni Arrighi's piece on this debate I posted a while ago? "It would be easy to dismiss Brenner's critique as being based on a highly selective reading of Marx. In this reading there is no room for Marx's more world-systemic theorizations, most notably the thesis that the formation of a Eurocentric world market in the sixteenth century was the single most important condition for the emergence of capitalist production in Western Europe, England included, in the following centuries. Brenner's theory and history of capitalist development does provide at least part of the explanation of why England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries emerged as the main center of capitalist production. But they have even less to contribute than Wallerstein's own theory and history to an explanation of how and why the world-systemic conditions for the development of capitalist production in England and elsewhere were created" "My purpose here, however, is to underscore not the weak but the strong points of Brenner's critique in order to see whether and how they can be met from a world-systems perspective. Two related issues seem to me to deserve special attention: 1) the impossibility of reducing processes of class formation and, more generally, socio-economic structures to position in the core- periphery (with or without semiperiphery) structure of the world- economy; and 2) the impossibility of explaining the transformation of the European world-economy into a capitalist world-economy without a theoretically and historically plausible account of the competitive pressures that have promoted and sustained the transformation" Stephen E Philion wrote: Mine wrote: World System Marxism overcomes two limitations of Analytical Marxism in 5 *weak* areas 1) methodolological individualism Steve writes: I've never heard world system theorists addressing themselves to the AM question actually...and of course Marxists like Brenner, Petras,..have criticized WS for its ahisoricism... 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 ___
