Rod Hay wrote:
> 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.
The premise that technological improvements (in the abstract)
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 t
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
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 in
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
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!
I am not surprised. There's no one iota of an idea which one could
extract out of that future demise thing. Beyond that
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 per
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 fo
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 mo
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
improve
>
>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 abo
>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
>>un
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.
Rod
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/13/00 03:11PM >>>
Lou says that market socialism is finished.
>Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
> > We are not there yet, but we are
> > clearly moving in the direction of such a demise, or if you will permit
> > my prejudices, a bifurcation. What are the contradictions of
> > world-systems analysis?
> >
> >> 1) The first is that world-systems analysis is precis
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 ra
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
We are not there yet, but we are
> clearly moving in the direction of such a demise, or if you will permit
> my prejudices, a bifurcation. What are the contradictions of
> world-systems analysis?
>
> 1) The first is that world-systems analysis is precisely not a theory or
> a mode of theorizin
> it is because we
> are running the danger of success. It is because of the strength, and
> not the weakness, of our efforts that our terminology is in the process
> of being appropriated for other, indeed opposite, purposes. This can
> cause serious confusion in the general scholarly public, a
On 13 Jul 00, at 12:18, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
>
> himm? I don't see any mentioning of Durkheim,Weber and Marx in the below
> post, but Rostow.
Read again, Rostow wrote in the 20th, not 19th century. In
sociology these three are understood to be classical, unless you
have any other names
>
> "The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis"
>
> 1) The first thrust was globality. It followed from the famous concern
> with the unit of analysis, said to be a world- system rather than a
> society/state. To be sure, modernization theory had been
Sociology, for example, typically avoids
> having an historical perspective.
Yes, in the 50s
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 fo
himm? I don't see any mentioning of Durkheim,Weber and Marx in the below
post, but Rostow. Being highly critical of Rostow's modernization theory, IW
is a *still* a modernist. You don't need to be anti or post modernist to be a
critical of Rostow, and definitely, I should add, WSA is a radical e
I wrote:
> > the narrow-minded method of orthodox mainstream social science <
RD responds:
>... there is no such thing as "orthodox mainstream social science" (maybe
>in economics but not sociology).
It's true that I was thinking of economics, which is dominated by a single
world-view, that
>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 ther
> "The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis"
>
> by Immanuel Wallerstein ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
> Rather it presented itself as a critique of many of the premises of
> existing social science, as a mode of what I have called "unthinking
> socia
>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 peop
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-system
On 12 Jul 00, at 13:45, Jim Devine wrote:
the narrow-minded method of orthodox mainstream
> social science
The bipolar academic world of Yates aside, there is no such thing
as "orthodox mainstream social science" (maybe in economics but
not sociology). Again, I know Wallerstein would like
Well I guess I was wrong. I just did not see much that was Marxist in the
original post I commented upon. Your further posts make it clear that he
certainly uses a number of Marxian ideas whether he is a Marxist or not.
By the way, why should it not be useful to extend the concept of social
class
>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...a
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
cr
>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_ capital
Yoshie wrote:
>I have a question. 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).
hi, Yoshie. Bob develops abstract models, like his piece in the
Roeme
In a message dated 7/12/00 8:29:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I have a question. 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
Ma
Hi Jim:
>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) we
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 Marxis
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.)
>
> Orig
At 03:12 PM 7/12/00 -0500, you 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. The concept of class is not mentioned as
>far as I could see. There is no u
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. The concept of class is not mentioned as
far as I could see. There is no use of the base, superstructure distinction,
http://fbc.binghamton.edu/iwwsa-r&.htm
"The Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems Analysis"
by Immanuel Wallerstein ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
© Immanuel Wallerstein 1997.
(Paper delivered at 91st Annual Meeting of the American Sociological
Association, New York, Aug. 16, 1996)
41 matches
Mail list logo
