F G wrote:
>
> I´m no expert (there´s that word again) in WS analysis, my knowledge
> of it stemming entirely from reading some of the papers on the FBC site
> and numerous articles in the Journal of World Systems Research. From
> what I have read though, some of the above misrepresents the cla
>From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:29024] Jim Blaut on world systems analysis
>Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 18:56:12 -0400
>
>(From the late Jim Blaut's regrettably out-o
>Certainly Marx did not write centrally about how the law of value operates
>on the largest scale in conditions where there are great discrepancies in
>the level of the means of production. But it should not be impossible to do so.
>
>Chris Burford
---
Key to understanding the relationship be
Very interesting argument forwarded by Louis Proyect
At 01/08/02 18:56 -0400, you wrote:
(From the late Jim Blaut's regrettably
out-of-print "The National Question". Sharp readers will notice
a strong affinity between Wallerstein's world systems perspective and the
one put forward by Hardt-Negri
joanna bujes :
>Yeah, I read the Wallerstein piece that was posted earlier today and I was
> profoundly underwhelmed. It made me think that one cure for neo-marxism
> would be some kind of grunt job for at least a year (in lieu of a
> sabbatical). Beyond that, Hardt/Negri/Wallerstein/etc interes
Louis Proyect wrote...
A related position is Giovanni Arrighi's peculiar 'geometry' of world
processes under capitalism. Arrighi is an admitted Kantian, and he believes
that the basic forces determining the historical trajectory of the modern
world are ultimately spatial, in an absolutist, New
(From the late Jim Blaut's regrettably out-of-print "The National
Question". Sharp readers will notice a strong affinity between
Wallerstein's world systems perspective and the one put forward by
Hardt-Negri in "Empire")
A second national-states-are-out-of-date position is associated with
met