> >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
[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 w
[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
> Ca
>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 mar
> >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 Washington
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
co
>>> [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 development
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
c
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, b
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,
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-
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',
>[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
>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 t
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
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 instea
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,
> > >
>
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
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
I
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?
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 Universit
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 peripher
>[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 Ma
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. Th
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
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 m
26 matches
Mail list logo
