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: "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: 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: "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: 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: "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"
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: "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: 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: "The Upheavals of June, 2000"
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"
>[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: "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: "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: 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: 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 ___
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: 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: 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: 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: "The Upheavals of June,2000"
But aren't there core periphery relationships within countries as well, as I mentioned in an earlier post as well as core and peripheral nations. First nations have been peripheral within Canada and the US. The concept of imperialism seems preferable to me since it invokes domination of peripheries by the capitalist core(s). Arent there core regions and peripheral regions, metropolis and hinterland etc. Cheers, Ken Hanly Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: > 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: 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: 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 ___
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: Re: Re: Re: "The Upheavals of June, 2000"
Well I take back my comments about "capitalism" being the unit of analysis but there still is nothing about "class" except indirectly in the quote about surplus value. There is nothing about "dialectics". In characterising capitalism as a mode of production he is silent about ownership of the means of production. Is 'class" of no significance?The final quote sounds like an abstract from a classic comics summary of significant Marxist doctrines. CHeers, Ken Hanly Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >Marxists are good people Mine approves of, ergo, Barrington Moore >and Immanuel >Wallerstein are Marxists, even though they rejected >the label, while John Roemer and >Jon Elster are not Marxists, even >though they say they are. And _I_ am most >definitely not a Marxist, >whatever I say I am. > > --jks > > 1) I am repeating, and closing off this thread for the sake of not raising myself to >level of deliberative "label" attachers. Actually, I really would like to discuss >and learn more about IW's work with those who *professionally* read him, critically >or reconstuctively, but at this level of > high ad hominem and marxism bashing , it seems practiacally impossible. > > 2) I did *NOT* *NOT* *NOT* say that Moore was a marxist. I would like to see the >*documentation* for this. I was instead *criticizing* Moore from IW's perspective, >and making a point about marxists who read Marx under the influence of Weber and >Moore. (nation state versus world system > approaches capitalism) > > 3) IW does not *reject* the label marxist, although he does not specifically use the >term to sell himself in the intellectual market place. Not using and rejecting are >totally different issues. I don't use the label in every second, but I don't reject >it either. In the final analysis, his > work in Marxist in nature and he is a marxist, but he is differenct from *other* >marxists I named a while ago. He writes in socialist journals and engages in every >marxist forum I have ever been to. Refer to previous posts or some of his articles >to get a better picture of who he is, why you > disagree or agree, or discuss the nature of his work, analysis, papers, or show >me citation dude, or whatever the fuck is from his major works... I gave direct >citations from Elster or Roemer when I criticized them, instead of making >speculative comments or ad hominems. > > Why does IW use a Marxist analysis of WS? > > "the modern world system is a capitalist world economy, whose origins reach back to >the 16th century abroad. its emergence is the result of a singular histrorical >transformation, that from feaudalism to capitalism. this capitalist world economy >continues in existence today and now includes > geographically the entire world, including those states commited to socialism... >the usefullness of capitalism as a term is to designate that system in which >structures give primacy to the accumulation of capital per se, rewarding those who do >it well and penalizing all others, as distinct > from those systems in which the accumulation of capital is subordinated to sum >other objectives, however defined... > > "What distinguishes capitalism as a mode of production is that its multiple >structures relate to one another in such a way that in consequence , the push to >endless accumulation of capital becomes and remains dominant. Production tends always >to be for profit rather than for use... > > 'capital is accumulated by appropriating surplus prioduced by labor, more the >capital is accumulated , the less the role of labor in production" (pages, 271-273, >_The capitalist world economy_) > > Mine > > > > > >In a message dated Wed, 12 Jul 2000 3:32:05 AM Eastern Daylight >Time, Stephen E >Philion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > << Mine, > > Aren't you giving labels to people in fact? I mean, would Wallerstein > > accept the appelation, "World System Marxist" ? I got my MA in his dept > > and I don't recall his ever using that term to describe his approach. > > > > You excoriate anyone who uses game theory in their Marxism as > > 'non-Marxist', even when they think of themselves as and call themselves > > Marxist, yet writers who don't call themselves Marxist like Wallerstein > > and Barrington Moore are Marxist in your book and worthy of praise as the > > correct kinds of Marxists. Just sounds sloppy to me, forget at what level > > we're talking about. > > > > Steve > > > > Stephen Philion > > Lecturer/PhD Candidate > > Department of Sociology > > 2424 Maile Way > > Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 > > Honolulu, HI 96822 > > > > >> > > -- > > Mine Aysen Doyran > PhD Student > Department of Political Science > SUNY at Albany > Nelson A. Rockefeller College > 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 > Albany, NY 1 > > NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ > Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html > Request a CDROM 1-800-333
