Re: Re:The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
Ricardo Duchesne wrote: Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: 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. Nowhere does Marx say that "the formation of a Eurocentric world market in the 16th was the single most important condition"; and nowhere can WS find any evidence for this claim. Arrighi's 1+1 is a good step. Actually, you are quite mistaken, because your are taking Arrighi *literally* here. There are indeed *evidences* for productive "world systemic theorizations" in Marx's writing. You can go and reread 1)"The modern theory of colonization" 2) "British Imperialism in India" 3) "the historical tendency of capitalist accumulation" 4) the Communist Manifesto: "workers of all countries UNITE" 5) *international* socialism. Mine -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___
Re: Re: Re:The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
On 13 Jul 00, at 11:19, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: 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. Nowhere does Marx say that "the formation of a Eurocentric world market in the 16th was the single most important condition"; My friend Mine: Actually, you are quite mistaken, because your are taking Arrighi *literally* here. There are indeed *evidences* for productive "world systemic theorizations" in Marx's writing. You can go and reread 1)"The modern theory of colonization" 2) "British Imperialism in India" 3) "the historical tendency of capitalist accumulation" 4) the Communist Manifesto: "workers of all countries UNITE" 5) *international* socialism. No what doubts these evidences, point is there are evidences as well for a peasant road (Hilton), for a merchant road (Sweezy, even Dobb), and for a landlord road (Brenner) to capitalism. -- 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 Analysis
This is exactly on the mark imho Steve On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Jim Devine 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). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re:The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis
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
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 ___
