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,
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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 people
and
"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
social science."
Which unthinking social
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
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 of
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
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
Sociology, for example, typically avoids
having an historical perspective.
Yes, in the 50s
"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 international,
in that it insisted
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
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, and
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 theorizing,
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
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 rather
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 precisely not a
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.
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
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 about GA
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 more
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
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
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.)
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 Marxism, one
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) were
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
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
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_ capitalism is
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
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
