From rkmoore@iol.ie Fri Jan 2 20:47:02 1998 Sat, 3 Jan 1998 03:46:52 GMT Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 03:46:52 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network), activ-l , philofhi@yorku.ca (philosophy of history) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: rkm's model of the world, 12/97 version ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ rkm's model of the world, 12/97 version -- assuming no intervening revolution ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1. What is true today: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (a) There is, today, an elite who benefit from and ultimately control the overall direction of global events and who determine the basic framework of public propaganda, namely (surprise) the _capitalist_ elite. The megacorp (TNC) is the fundamental tool of capitalist operations: the ship-of-the-line of the elite fleet. (b) This elite, even though it collectively benefits from basic global policies, is by no means a monolith: it has its own complex hierarchical structures and winners and losers -- but as a whole it functions with collaborative strategic coherence. (c) Part of what unifies the elite is a common philosophy, and that philosophy is a simple one: the sovereignty of capital, the primacy of the investor, the sacrifice of all other values to the facilitation of global capital growth and the efficiency of investor transactions. (d) What this philosophy leads to is the dominance of the global economy by the international banking and brokerage industry, out of all proportion to the relative wealth of that industry compared to others. This industry has been invested, via deregulation, with immense power over the global economy, on behalf of capitalism generally, due to the for-the-time-being alignment of that industry's interests with elite philosophy and policies. (e) The coherence of elite strategy and policy comes from a network of think tanks and other institutions; the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR), for example, more or less embodies elite consciousness on geopolitical matters, and its publications, properly interpreted, reveal in advance with surprising candor the global plans being made by the elite, and the basic propaganda lines by which those plans are to be sold. (f) Globalization is a two-level political revolution: a centralized world government is being set up, while simultaneously nation states are being aggressively undermined by a whole range of assaults from privatization to engineered currency crises to massive anti-government propaganda. National sovereignty and democracy are being replaced by global bureaucracies under direct elite control, thus officially and permanently institutionalizing absolute elite hegemony. (g) Nation states are devolving downward, both in size and function: the Soviet breakup is a foretaste of more widespread physical devolutions to come, with Scotland and Wales indicating a gradualist path, and the Northern-Italy movement indicating a more rapid path; the Third-World indicates the basic functionality that will be expected of national governments: keeping the population under control, commerce functioning, and debt repayments timely. (h) The EU -- although justified by all sorts of rhetoric, from a "stronger Europe", to fear of America, to fear of neo-fascism -- has really only one essential purpose: lubricating the transition of Europe, the home of the world's most robust democracies, into the globalist trap. It's a setup, a ruse, a trojan horse -- the EU has no special standing at the WTO, anymore than any other nation or group of nations, and its existence will be meaningless when the globalist regime is fully established. 2. What is looming on the horizon: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (a) There are three primary geopolitical problems to be solved by globalist planners: (1) the safe completion of the destruction of the former USSR, reducing it to total chaos, so that it can be "properly" rebuilt from the ground up, (2) the taming of China, by whatever means necessary including selective nuclear strikes, and (3) the establishment of a new global ordering principle, given the demise of sovereign nation states. (b) The new global order is being based on a high-tech mobile elite corps, to maintain strategic global order, and regional client strong-man regimes (eg, Turkey), with second-tier weaponry, to maintain tactical order within designated "cultural regions", more or less as outlined by (CFR spokesman) Samuel P. Huntington in "Clash of Civilizations". (c) Global peace and harmony, as a scenario for world order, is perceived by the elite to be unstable and unmanageable; ongoing tension and chronic localized conflict are preferred: this is a scenario the elite knows how to manage -- an ongoing version of dynamic "divide and conquer" -- and it has the secondary benefit of funding a profitable arms industry. (d) The role of the elite corps is currently being played on a de facto basis by the Pentagon and NATO, legitimized by one-at-a-time authorizations from the UN. How this prototype arrangement will be regularized is not yet clear, but one possibility is that a new international agency will be created (the "World Peace Organization"?) that will have control over the elite corps, removing it from the vagaries of the deteriorating political processes in the US and Europe under globalization. Most likely funding will be spread among the global population, perhaps leading to the first globally administrated taxation. (e) The prognosis for humanity is extremely bleak: chronic conflict; universal disenfranchisement; hi-tech surveillance and suppression; heartless bureaucratic domination and corporate exploitation. (f) One outcome of laissez-faire free-trade globalist policies is abundantly clear: a competitive global shakeout is occurring which will lead to a handful of megacorps owning most of the world's wealth and controlling all of its major commerce. What will happen then is of momentous importance, and this is a scenario to which the elite must surely have devoted considerable thought. (g) Marx predicted what would happen if the elite turned off their collective brain and simply kept the laissez-faire throttle on "full speed ahead", running directly into the the shoals of an apocalyptic collapse. The experience of the petroleum industry provides a much more likely scenario: when the shakeout comes down to a few majors in each industry, they will cease serious competition and will instead collaboratively manage production, distribution, and pricing to their mutual benefit. Similarly, one can expect financial markets to be ultimately stabilized, and a single global currency to be adopted. 3. What threatens just over the horizon: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (a) If these events transpire, then the elite philosophy (see 3 above) will be outmoded -- _capital growth_ will have been effectively replaced by _property management_ as the paradigm of the global economy. A paradigm shift in elite philosophy would be the intelligent, and therefore expected, outcome -- presumably toward something more like that of feudal aristocracies. (b) During a transition to a post-capitalist regime, presided over by an elite undergoing a radical change of consciousness, profound societal changes must be expected. The whole Western pre-occupation with growth and progress will be outmoded, just as globalization has outmoded nationalism, and new societal paradigms will be required, more in tune with economic and political realities. One's crystal ball gets blurry at this distance, but some kind of hi-tech medievalism, with a static rather than dynamic world view, and ruled by a hierarchy of aristocratic elites, seems inevitable. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore - rkmoore@iol.ie - PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal (USA Citizen) * Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig * ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ To join cyberjournal, simply send: To: listserv@cpsr.org Subject: (ignored) --- sub cyberjournal John Doe <-- your name there From gsbarkin@artsci.wustl.edu Fri Jan 2 21:30:56 1998 Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 22:33:31 -0800 From: Gareth Barkin To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Media as Hegemonic Tool Does anyone know if any work has been done regarding Western media as a hegemonic tool in the cultivation of, say, consumeristic (and other capitalist-friendly) attitudes in the developing world? I'm a graduate student in cultural anthropology looking for a thesis topic, and, as many people in the field have noticed, this decade has seen a striking proliferation of satellite dishes in less-populated areas which previously had no access to television. In Polynesia it has been blamed for stopping the night time tradition of story telling in which elders pass on the myths, beliefs, etc., of their culture to the younger generations. The younger generations now watch TV. I think we all know what it's teaching them. Anyway, I'm sure there's been plenty of work done on television's powers of persuasion here in the core, but I wasn't able to turn up much about its use and effects in the periphery (I plan on doing my fieldwork in Indonesia, perhaps Sulawesi). The appearance of the satellite dish has made a serious difference in the spread of Western media away from urban centers, to which it had previously been confined to a greater degree. In a large, spread out country like Indonesia and in other island nations, this can make a big difference. It might be interesting to study its effects on a rural village. Any references, ideas or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Gareth Barkin Campus Box 1114 Department of Anthropology Washington University in St. Louis gsbarkin@artsci.wustl.edu From harlowc@cats.ucsc.edu Sun Jan 4 05:18:33 1998 Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 04:12:16 -0800 From: Christian Reply-To: harlowc@cats.ucsc.edu To: WSN Subject: [Fwd: MARXIST Newsletter on-line: latest issues] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------5736366CB08D86F5C19AD060 FYI --------------5736366CB08D86F5C19AD060 X-arrival-time: 883915981 by ntserver3.sensible-net (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 07:14:32 -0500 Reply-To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu Sender: owner-socgrad@csf.colorado.edu From: tr@tryoung.com (T R Young) To: Sociology Graduate Students -- International Subject: MARXIST Newsletter on-line: latest issues X-Cc: psn-special@csf.colorado.edu, SOCIAL-CLASS@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU, socgrad@csf.colorado.edu David Langer, Webmaster for the Red Feather Institute, has posted the two latest issues of FROM THE LEFT to the Red Feather Home Page. They are at: http://www.tryoung.com/fromleft/index.htm They are: Winter '97...which features a guest editorial by Steve Rosenthal: Race and Gender in the Armed Forces: A Marxian Analysis, Fall '97...which features a guest editorial by Alan Spector, Chair of the Marxist Section, ASA...who argues that: Marxists should oppose: democracy, binding elections, academic freedom and free speech in general, feminism, multiculturalism, self­determination and all nationalisms, and, of course, peace. Before you get furious, take a careful look at the editorial, as one might expect, Alan has a special point to make...a good point. TR Note: Do make a link to FROM THE LEFT to any other sites you think might find the newsletter of interest. TR TR Young The Red Feather Institute 8085 Essex, Weidman, Mi., 48893--ph: [517] 644 3089 Email: tr@tryoung.com --------------5736366CB08D86F5C19AD060-- From chriscd@jhu.edu Sun Jan 4 11:02:29 1998 (1Cust35.max7.san-francisco.ca.ms.uu.net [153.35.236.163]) by jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 00:49:35 +0000 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: [Fwd: January-February Issue of the ISA Newsletter is on-line] To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 13:56:12 -0700 From: Lawrence E Imwalle Subject: January-February Issue of the ISA Newsletter is on-line Sender: International Studies Association News To: ISA-NEWS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU Reply-to: International Studies Association News Approved-By: Lawrence E Imwalle Dear ISA members: HAPPY NEW YEAR! The January-February Issue of the ISA Newsletter is now available on the ISA website at the following URL: http://csf.colorado.edu/isa/newsletter If you have any questions or encounter any problems please contact ISA Headquarters via email at: isa@u.arizona.edu Best regards, ISA Staff International Studies Association 324 Social Sciences Building University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 phone: 520.621-7715 fax: 520.621.5780 **************************************** From chriscd@jhu.edu Sun Jan 4 11:02:30 1998 (1Cust35.max7.san-francisco.ca.ms.uu.net [153.35.236.163]) by jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 00:53:52 +0000 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool To: gsbarkin@artsci.wustl.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu Leslie Sklair's _Sociology of the Global System_ deals extensively with the topics of cultural imperialism and consumerism. My own take on this is in Chapter 5 of _Global Formation_ (soon to be republished by Rowman and Littlefield). chris From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Sun Jan 4 11:42:49 1998 Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 13:42:44 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: chris chase-dunn Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool In-Reply-To: <34AEDDA0.7E74@jhu.edu> Chris, I look forward to this. Sklair's book is very good but awkward in its formulations. This is often the problem with works that try to chart their own path by (seemingly) purposely avoiding frameworks (such as Marxian) that already articulate the point and do so in a more complete and integrated fashion (for example, Marx's _Wage Labor and Capital_ and Marx and Engels' _Communist Manifesto_; see also Avineri's (1968) discussion of this in _Karl Marx: Social & Political Thought_). The strength of Sklair's book is his focus on the TNC. He operates at a level of analysis that ties together other analytical levels in a useful and innovative way. Andy From Kim@UWyo.Edu Mon Jan 5 10:26:27 1998 From: Quee-Young Kim To: "'WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK'" , "'Gareth Barkin'" Subject: RE: Media as Hegemonic Tool Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 10:26:16 -0700 Your query reminds me of the notion of "cultural imperialism" of the 1960s, and to some extent a tinge of modernization theory. Under the heading of "global village," "globalization of culture," you will find discussions relating to the homogenizing process. See also articles by Steve Krasner. Clifford Geertz might have published a few pieces on this topic. Have you read "McDonalization of the World?" You may gain some insights from it for your thesis. Quee-Young Kim University of Wyoming ---------- Sent: Friday, January 02, 1998 11:34 PM To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Media as Hegemonic Tool Does anyone know if any work has been done regarding Western media as a hegemonic tool in the cultivation of, say, consumeristic (and other capitalist-friendly) attitudes in the developing world? I'm a graduate student in cultural anthropology looking for a thesis topic, and, as many people in the field have noticed, this decade has seen a striking proliferation of satellite dishes in less-populated areas which previously had no access to television. In Polynesia it has been blamed for stopping the night time tradition of story telling in which elders pass on the myths, beliefs, etc., of their culture to the younger generations. The younger generations now watch TV. I think we all know what it's teaching them. Anyway, I'm sure there's been plenty of work done on television's powers of persuasion here in the core, but I wasn't able to turn up much about its use and effects in the periphery (I plan on doing my fieldwork in Indonesia, perhaps Sulawesi). The appearance of the satellite dish has made a serious difference in the spread of Western media away from urban centers, to which it had previously been confined to a greater degree. In a large, spread out country like Indonesia and in other island nations, this can make a big difference. It might be interesting to study its effects on a rural village. Any references, ideas or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Gareth Barkin Campus Box 1114 Department of Anthropology Washington University in St. Louis gsbarkin@artsci.wustl.edu From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Mon Jan 5 11:28:05 1998 Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 13:28:01 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: RE: Media as Hegemonic Tool In-Reply-To: List, I don't have cable, but if I am remembering correctly, C-SPAN (1, I think) samples news programs from around the world. That might be an interesting program to watch to get ideas about how media frames developed in the core are reproduced in the periphery. My impression from the few times I have seen the program is that western styles of propaganda are extensively used in other countries (I would expect this anyway). If the program provided some initial insight, then it might be useful to try to acquire news programs from around the world, along with samples of commercial television, and study the form and content. This would be an expensive procedure, it seems. So there is a drawback. I haven't thought too much about the study suggested by the poster, but I would think that contextualizing consumerist propaganda is crucial. Some sort of comparative analysis looking at consumption levels in various countries and seeing if there is a correlation with level and type of propaganda. I am sure this has already been thought of. Andy From gsbarkin@artsci.wustl.edu Mon Jan 5 12:51:34 1998 Mon, 5 Jan 1998 13:51:26 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 13:54:13 -0800 From: Gareth Barkin To: aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool Andy et al, What do you mean by "contextualizing consumerist propaganda," specifically? Contextualizing it against what? Other forms of propaganda? Also, with regard to the comparative analysis, I'm sure the study you described -- between consumption levels in nations and their levels of media saturation -- has been done as well. But such a study would have to deal with a potentially unbearable load of confounding variables derived from other differences (economic, political, cultural) between those countries. At any rate, I'm in anthropology, so my interest is more at the local level; comparative analysis, if done at all, would probably between one village with a satellite dish and another without one. The idea being not so much a quantifiable study, but one which examines how the media achieves its hegemonic goals, particularly in areas which have virtually no previous contact with the West. How are traditions incompatible with consumerism undermined? I guess part of the question would be: Is the consumerist 'instinct' for more and more goods and services innate, requiring only the opportunity to be released, or must it be cultivated? In other words -- is there any hope? Gareth Barkin Dept of Anthropology Box 1114, Washington University St. Louis, MO 63130-4899 314/935-5680, FAX -8535 From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Mon Jan 5 14:24:49 1998 Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 16:24:41 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Gareth Barkin Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool In-Reply-To: <34B15685.4946D40E@artsci.wustl.edu> On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Gareth Barkin wrote: > Andy et al, > > What do you mean by "contextualizing consumerist propaganda," > specifically? Contextualizing it against what? Other forms of > propaganda? Sure. And ideological structures generally. But, more importantly, looking at the overall structure of production, distribution, and consumption. By contextualizing I mean putting in sociohistorical context. > Also, with regard to the comparative analysis, I'm sure the study you > described -- between consumption levels in nations and their levels of > media saturation -- has been done as well. But such a study would have > to deal with a potentially unbearable load of confounding variables > derived from other differences (economic, political, cultural) between > those countries. All research has unbearable loads of confounding variables derived from other difference. You just have to grin and bear it and move on. However, economic, political, and cultural variables are not confounding variables--they are THE variables to study. > At any rate, I'm in anthropology, so my interest is more at the local > level; comparative analysis, if done at all, would probably between one > village with a satellite dish and another without one. I don't associate anthropology with the sort of exclusionary scientific practices you imply here, so I am not sure the point you are making. > The idea being not so much a quantifiable study, but one which > examines how the media achieves its hegemonic goals, particularly in > areas which have virtually no previous contact with the West. How are > traditions incompatible with consumerism undermined? I guess part of the > question would be: Is the consumerist 'instinct' for more and more goods > and services innate, requiring only the opportunity to be released, or > must it be cultivated? In other words -- is there any hope? There is always hope. The question you are asking is a question about global structures and forces. Andy From gsbarkin@artsci.wustl.edu Mon Jan 5 16:34:23 1998 Mon, 5 Jan 1998 17:34:14 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 17:37:07 -0800 From: Gareth Barkin To: aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool Hello again, Well, I suppose I assumed that in a doctoral thesis, the imperative to put one's issue of study in its sociohistorical context was pretty much a given; I thought you must have been referring to something more specific to the issue in question. Regarding politics, culture, etc. as confounding variables, I think it was clear that I did not mean to say that this was all they were -- culture IS what I study -- but simply that in the context of the study suggested, in which consumerism and media were to be causally linked, such factors might seriously compromise the usefulness of the 'data'. As for anthropology, it is noble of you not to associate the field with the sort of "exclusionary scientific practices" I must have inadvertently implied -- indeed, anthropologists study a tremendously wide array of issues. As it now stands, however, most doctoral students in cultural anthropology here in the U.S. are expected to perform ethnographic fieldwork which, along with thorough research on the literature of their subject (the old 'sociohistorical context' would likely come into play here), form the basis of their dissertations. Thus, the questions they are encouraged to ask are ones in which ethnography would play a critical role in investigating. I don't mean to defend or even discuss this inter-relationship, except to note that this is what is expected of me and my dissertation. This is why I wrote that I would be looking at the question more from local, village perspective than the international level suggested. This is not to say that I will not generalize, to a responsible degree, from my study, nor that I won't look at literature about cultures around the globe -- clearly, I would have to -- but simply that the focus of my research question must be one in which local ethnography plays a role. This was the only 'point' I was trying -- rather unsuccessfully, it seems -- to make. I myself am not convinced that there is, in fact, "always hope", but I'm reassured by your apparent certainty. As for the question I was asking about a potential human "instinct" toward consumerism, I admire your confidence at classifying it, but would have to say that this specific question is more psychological than anything else. Global systems may govern the hegemony of the market, along with its increasing ubiquity, but the susceptibility of individuals and local cultures to its allure (as heralded by the arrival of Western media) is far from being a purely politico-economic equation. This is where ethnographic research might be able to shed some light. Anyway, thanks to everyone who sent me references -- I am in the process of looking them all up. Please send more, if they occur to you -- I'm finding them very useful. I look forward to reading Dr. Chase-Dunn's book, as well. When will it be arriving at a book store near me? Thanks again, Gareth From chriscd@jhu.edu Mon Jan 5 22:08:39 1998 (1Cust116.max2.san-francisco2.ca.ms.uu.net [153.34.181.116]) by jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 23:58:57 +0000 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool To: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu thanks for your contribution to wsn. i think the main problem with Sklair's book is that he critiques consumerism from the point of view of local cultural autonomy but not from the point of view of ecological constraints. the main problem here is the "global impasse" stressed by Peter Taylor (The Way the World Works). If the Chinese try to eat as much meat and eggs and drive as many cars as the Americans do the biosphere will fry. This is a major contradiction of capitalism. chris From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Mon Jan 5 23:52:41 1998 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 01:52:36 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: chris chase-dunn Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool In-Reply-To: <34B173BF.37EB@jhu.edu> Chris, On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, chris chase-dunn wrote: > If the Chinese try to eat as much meat and eggs and drive as many cars > as the Americans do the biosphere will fry. Great point. And if Americans keep eating meat and eggs and driving car like they do the biosphere will fry. The parameters of the "mainstream" debate, however, runs from the we-can-have-growth-and-sound-ecology-too contingent to the screw-the-ecology-let's-have-lots-o-growth contingent. The faux-left is one of out biggest enemies here; they secure a position to the right of them for the accumulators. We should be argue that the main policy initiative for preserving ecosystems is the destruction of capitalism. Andy From p34d3611@jhu.edu Tue Jan 6 00:06:21 1998 by jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 02:08:12 -0500 (EST) From: Peter Grimes Subject: Capitalism & Biosphere To: WSN At this point in history, the removal of capitalism is a necessary, but far from sufficient, step for the preservation of a large human population within the global biosphere. I'm not holding my breath. I'm confidant that the biosphere will have the last word. --Peter Grimes From phuakl@sit.edu.my Tue Jan 6 02:48:38 1998 From: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 17:50:13 +0000 Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool Is it just capitalism or is it the ideology that continuous economic growth is a good thing? >From all accounts, the environmental problem is much worse in the East European nations after years of Communist rule and reckless disregard for the environment. Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 01:52:36 -0500 (EST) Reply-to: aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool Chris, On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, chris chase-dunn wrote: > If the Chinese try to eat as much meat and eggs and drive as many cars > as the Americans do the biosphere will fry. Great point. And if Americans keep eating meat and eggs and driving car like they do the biosphere will fry. The parameters of the "mainstream" debate, however, runs from the we-can-have-growth-and-sound-ecology-too contingent to the screw-the-ecology-let's-have-lots-o-growth contingent. The faux-left is one of out biggest enemies here; they secure a position to the right of them for the accumulators. We should be argue that the main policy initiative for preserving ecosystems is the destruction of capitalism. Andy From harlowc@cats.ucsc.edu Tue Jan 6 03:43:02 1998 Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 02:36:21 -0800 From: Christian Reply-To: harlowc@cats.ucsc.edu To: phuakl@sit.edu.my Subject: ideology, capitalism, environment --------------0C9EAECC27C2F5AE4AFAF68D DR. PHUA KAI LIT wrote: >From all accounts, the environmental problem is much worse in the East European nations after years of Communist rule and reckless disregard for the environment. By their very prescence in the Capitalist world-system Eastern European countries were not Communist and definetly not zero-growth. > Is it just capitalism or is it the ideology that > continuous economic growth is a good thing? Don't these go hand in hand? I can't imagine a social system that has reached the point of complex hierarchy not being based on the ideology that continuous economic growth is a good thing. Maybe its not capitalism at all though. Perhaps our friend Gunder Frank and his colleagues doing work on the environment are on to something. Maybe their has been enviromental degradation as long as there has been a systemic imperative for surplus accumulation and therefore growth...which most would agree followed the heels of the neolithic revolution. I'm growing more and more inclined to believe that dialectic of human history has been negative and that the environmental catastrophe on the horizon could be mother nature's aenema for the last 15,000 years of $%*# that she's had to deal with. Can human agency be of any use here? I wonder how much force you would have to exert to a train moving at 80 mph to stop it from hitting a brick wall ten feet in front of it? Sure it can be done...but I don't think so. Hopefully, we'll get it right next time (if we're lucky enough to get a "next time") and we'll build something humane out of the ashes of this world system. Someone please tell me that this sounds overly pessimistic and why?! I'm only 26, I wonder if I have time to raise children before all hell breaks loose? According to our own Peter Grimes (PEWS Conference paper) I don't have near enough time...How many years until the biosphere bites back Peter? I seem to remember you saying 25-50 years? Sincerely Christian Harlow UC Santa Cruz > > > > --------------0C9EAECC27C2F5AE4AFAF68D DR. PHUA KAI LIT wrote:

>From all accounts, the environmental problem is
much worse in the East European nations
after years of Communist rule and
reckless disregard for the environment.

By their very prescence in the Capitalist world-system Eastern European countries were not Communist and definetly not zero-growth.

 

Is it just capitalism or is it the ideology that
continuous economic growth is a good thing?
Don't these go hand in hand? I can't imagine a social system that has reached the point of complex hierarchy not being based on the ideology that continuous economic growth is a good thing.  Maybe its not capitalism at all though.  Perhaps our friend Gunder Frank and his colleagues doing work on the environment are on to something.  Maybe their has been enviromental degradation as long as there has been a systemic imperative for surplus accumulation and therefore growth...which most would agree followed the heels of the neolithic revolution.  I'm growing more and more inclined to believe that dialectic of human history has been negative and that the environmental catastrophe on the horizon could be mother nature's  aenema for the last 15,000 years of $%*# that she's had to deal with.  Can human agency be of any use here?  I wonder how much force you would have to exert to a train moving at 80 mph to stop it from hitting a brick wall ten feet in front of it?  Sure it can be done...but I don't think so.  Hopefully, we'll get it right next time (if we're lucky enough to get a "next time") and we'll build something humane out of the ashes of this world system.  Someone please tell me that this sounds overly pessimistic and why?!  I'm only 26, I wonder if I have time to raise children before all hell breaks loose?  According to our own Peter Grimes (PEWS Conference paper) I don't have near enough time...How many years until the biosphere bites back Peter?  I seem to remember you saying 25-50 years?

Sincerely

Christian Harlow
UC Santa Cruz

 
 
 
 
  --------------0C9EAECC27C2F5AE4AFAF68D-- From rkmoore@iol.ie Tue Jan 6 05:07:49 1998 Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:07:41 GMT Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:07:41 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: contradictions of capitalism 1/06/98, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: >We should be argue that the >main policy initiative for preserving ecosystems is the destruction of >capitalism. True enough, but there are several paradigm shifts involved which need to be considered separately: (1) end of capitalist hegemony (2) awareness that prosperity and growth are not synonyms (3) awareness that capitalism and free enterprise are not synonyms (4) awareness that there are many other alternatives to capitalism besides marxism Generations of people have been persuaded to believe that their prosperity has been due to capitalism, and this myth must be dispelled; it is not enough to point out the side-effect drawbacks of capitalism. If people think that ending capitalism means reduced prosperity, an end to enterprise and innovation, or the installation of some doctrinaire ideology, then they are likely to decide "better the devil we know than the one we don't". The _economic_ waste of capitalism needs to be explained: even if one cares not about ecology, capitalism just isn't the most efficient way to use resources, if all factors are considered. The radical difference between "running a business" and "investing capital" needs to be understood, and between "producing a profit" and "growing capital". The myth that says "prosperity = GDP-growth" must be dispelled: prosperity must be redefined in terms of human well-being, and GDP must be exposed for what it is, an index of corporate theft or something close to that. A pluralistic discussion of economic paradigms -- an exploration of alternatives -- is necessary before a replacement for capitalism can be selected, and with no alternative in mind it is unlikely that a consensus for ending capitalism can be achieved, and rightly so. The belief that marxism is THE alternative to capitalism is probably one of the strongest factors keeping capitalism in power. rkm From D.Ohearn@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK Tue Jan 6 05:08:50 1998 Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:14:08 GMT Sender: dohearn Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 13:06:17 PST From: "Denis O'Hearn" Subject: RE: Media as Hegemonic Tool To: Kim@UWyo.Edu on this topic, i suggest you look at Zia Sardar's new book, Postmodernism and the Other (Pluto 1998, L14.99 or $20.95). I just got it and haven't read it yet but it covers many of these concerns about media and their effects on the non-west, and Zia's work is generally good stuff. Paraphrasing the blurb, he offers a 'radical critique' of 'the salient spheres of postmodernism - from architecture, film, television and pop music, to philosophy, consumer liefstyles and new-age religions' and 'reveals that postmodernism in fact operates to marginalise the reality of the non-west and confound its aspirations.' AND he offers 'ways in which the people of the non-west can counter the postmodern assault and survive with their identities, histories and cultures intact.' What could be better? Denis O'Hearn, Ollscoil na Riona Beal Feirste > ---------- > Sent: Friday, January 02, 1998 11:34 PM > To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK > Subject: Media as Hegemonic Tool > > Does anyone know if any work has been done regarding Western media as > a > hegemonic tool in the cultivation of, say, consumeristic (and other > capitalist-friendly) attitudes in the developing world? I'm a > graduate > student in cultural anthropology looking for a thesis topic, and, as > many people in the field have noticed, this decade has seen a > striking > proliferation of satellite dishes in less-populated areas which > previously had no access to television. In Polynesia it has been > blamed > for stopping the night time tradition of story telling in which > elders > pass on the myths, beliefs, etc., of their culture to the younger > generations. The younger generations now watch TV. I think we all > know > what it's teaching them. > > Anyway, I'm sure there's been plenty of work done on television's > powers > of persuasion here in the core, but I wasn't able to turn up much > about > its use and effects in the periphery (I plan on doing my fieldwork in > Indonesia, perhaps Sulawesi). The appearance of the satellite dish > has > made a serious difference in the spread of Western media away from > urban > centers, to which it had previously been confined to a greater > degree. > In a large, spread out country like Indonesia and in other island > nations, this can make a big difference. It might be interesting to > study its effects on a rural village. > > Any references, ideas or comments would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks, > > Gareth Barkin > > Campus Box 1114 > Department of Anthropology > Washington University in St. Louis > gsbarkin@artsci.wustl.edu > > From futureu@teleport.com Tue Jan 6 07:09:45 1998 by user2.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.8.4) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 06:09:39 -0800 (PST) From: Paul Augustine To: Peter Grimes Subject: Re: Capitalism & Biosphere In-Reply-To: Here I think we could convert our economys without eliminating the capitalists,(I would suffer cause I depend on their system to eat)but by looking at what we need as a whole society tinker with the system in place till its a more perfect form,a budget by census as an example,which would automaticly create a more unified nation,which would allow more solutions for more citizens. paul futureu@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (1200-28800, N81) future utopia 17024 helbrock dr. bend or 97707 541-593-1664 24hrs UNITY :www.teleport.com/~futureu/ : UNION .Budget by census From rozov@nsu.ru Tue Jan 6 07:47:54 1998 Tue, 6 Jan 1998 20:43:21 +0600 (NOVT) From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" To: Gareth Barkin , WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 22:51:30 +0600 Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool Reply-to: rozov@nsu.ru In-reply-to: <34B15685.4946D40E@artsci.wustl.edu> just two points on Gareth's anthro-psychological question > From: Gareth Barkin > How are traditions incompatible with > consumerism undermined? I guess part of the question would be: Is > the consumerist 'instinct' for more and more goods and services > innate, requiring only the opportunity to be released, or must it be > cultivated? In other words -- is there any hope? 1. when i studied psychology in 1970s it was one of most popular question with detalaised experimantal examination (Vygotsky, Piaget, Luria, Leontiev, Galperin etc) the main conclusion from these debates is BOTH: innate and experience factors work but in different way. The innate factor gives smth like amorphous basis and culture-education-media-communication-experience (in hand with some degree of self-determination) gives a definite form for this basis 2. according to the posed problem i think one should take into account at least three kinds of human needs: a) needs for ethnocultural identification (are basic for preserving native traditions) b) establishing own social status (mainly in comparison with neighbours, relatives, various referent groups) - can be based both on native or imported value systems and identification c) needs for comfort ( reaching new levels but much more strong for preserving the current one) my hypothesis is that 'cultural-imperialistic mass-media' mainly works with b, suggesting new levels in c , but at the same time not-purposefully destroys a (the last is a major disaster for humanistically and PC-oriented anthropologists) best Nikolai ****************************************************** Nikolai S. Rozov, PhD, Dr.Sc. Professor of Philosophy E-MAIL: rozov@nsu.ru FAX: 7-3832-397101 ADDRESS: Philosophy Dept. Novosibirsk State University 630090, Novosibirsk, Pirogova 2, RUSSIA Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI (PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history). URL= http://www.people.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe/philofhi.htm ********************************************************************* From futureu@teleport.com Tue Jan 6 08:00:39 1998 by user2.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.8.4) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 06:04:45 -0800 (PST) From: Paul Augustine To: Andrew Wayne Austin Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool In-Reply-To: Some thoughts from future utopia There are viable alternatives for fuel for autos,alcohol isnt near as poluting and I think there is a world glut we could fairly easily convert quickly,so we could keep our cars.There are other alternatives also,we need our cars here in america because we designed our system to be connected by highways,If we didnt have to drive so many miles to work it probably would partialy solve the prob. paul futureu@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (1200-28800, N81) future utopia 17024 helbrock dr. bend or 97707 541-593-1664 24hrs UNITY :www.teleport.com/~futureu/ : UNION .Budget by census From PAT.LAUDERDALE@ASU.Edu Tue Jan 6 08:07:27 1998 From: PAT.LAUDERDALE@ASU.Edu 06 Jan 1998 08:07:11 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 08:07:10 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool In-reply-to: To: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" Isn't the point that it was socialist rule by the East European nations, BUT in the world capitalist structure aka "rule."? At least, it seems to be one of the central points that we can ascertain by following Gunder Frank, i.e., understanding national rule constrained by the world system. On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, DR. PHUA KAI LIT wrote: > Is it just capitalism or is it the ideology that > continuous economic growth is a good thing? > > >From all accounts, the environmental problem is > much worse in the East European nations > after years of Communist rule and > reckless disregard for the environment. > > > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 01:52:36 -0500 (EST) > Reply-to: aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu > From: Andrew Wayne Austin > To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK > Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool > X-To: chris chase-dunn > > Chris, > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, chris chase-dunn wrote: > > > If the Chinese try to eat as much meat and eggs and drive as many cars > > as the Americans do the biosphere will fry. > > Great point. And if Americans keep eating meat and eggs and driving car > like they do the biosphere will fry. The parameters of the "mainstream" > debate, however, runs from the we-can-have-growth-and-sound-ecology-too > contingent to the screw-the-ecology-let's-have-lots-o-growth contingent. > The faux-left is one of out biggest enemies here; they secure a position > to the right of them for the accumulators. We should be argue that the > main policy initiative for preserving ecosystems is the destruction of > capitalism. > > Andy > > > From gsbarkin@artsci.wustl.edu Tue Jan 6 10:33:36 1998 Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 11:36:18 -0800 From: Gareth Barkin To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Psychology of Consumerism Nikolai S. Rozov wrote: > just two points on Gareth's anthro-psychological question > > 1. > when i studied psychology in 1970s it was one of most popular > question with detalaised experimantal examination (Vygotsky, Piaget, > Luria, Leontiev, Galperin etc)... That's very interesting in itself -- my BA is actually in psychology and I didn't see a single experiment dealing with consumerism. Perhaps such research is less likely to get funding in this country (of course, I don't know where you went to school -- I assume it was over there). > 2. > according to the posed problem i think one should take into account > at least three kinds of human needs: > > a) needs for ethnocultural identification (are basic for > preserving native traditions) > Not sure that this is a human need, as such. I think a feeling of belonging and community might be the closest things, in which ethnocultural identification can play a role. But this, I would argue, IS aggressively targeted by Western media, intentionally or not: images of Western stereotypes and ideals become associated with social status (b), and are internalized as superior cultural forms. Cultural imperialism, as someone pointed out, is the banner under which this has been studied. The point being that, in the end, even if they can't afford higher social status through material acquisition, they have subscribed to the Western material metric. When I lived in Indonesia in the early 90's (we all remember the early 90's, don't we?) everyone, right down to the unemployed street denizens, revered symbols of Western culture such as Harley-Davidson, Levi-Strauss, etc. -- all product brands. They might get their hands on a pair of jeans -- never a Harley -- but that wasn't the issue. They preferred to identify with Western culture, rather than their own. > b) establishing own social status (mainly in comparison > with neighbours, relatives, various referent groups) - can be based > both on native or imported value systems and identification > > c) needs for comfort ( reaching new levels but much more > strong for preserving the current one) > > my hypothesis is that 'cultural-imperialistic mass-media' mainly > works with b, suggesting new levels in c , but at the same time > not-purposefully destroys a (the last is a major disaster for > humanistically and PC-oriented anthropologists) I don't know whether I'm a "PC-oriented anthropologist" or not, but you're right -- it's silly to hold one's head in lamentation of cultural homogenization -- if people are voluntarily giving up their traditions, who are you to tell them it's wrong? But I would take issue with the lack of purposefulness. American tobacco companies, as we've all probably heard, have specifically targeted China as their last, great, un-tapped market. A barrier to this is a cultural prohibition against women smoking. They have taken this on, full force, with extensive advertising aimed at undermining this taboo, as they did in this country in the 40's and 50's (you've come a long way, baby). A culture can't remain whole when stripped of all its traditions which happen to run afoul of capitalism. American culture (if there is such an animal), for example, doesn't seem to be handling it too well. Russia seems to be having trouble as well. Gareth From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Tue Jan 6 10:35:37 1998 id MAA02730; Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:35:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:35:27 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool In-Reply-To: On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, DR. PHUA KAI LIT wrote: > Is it just capitalism or is it the ideology that continuous economic > growth is a good thing? The ideology of growth is the emergent and true consciousness of the laws of capitalist development. The heart of capitalism is accumulation. To accumulate, capital must expand. > From all accounts, the environmental problem is much worse in the East > European nations after years of Communist rule and reckless disregard > for the environment. Putting to one side the point that the position that things were worse on a comparative basis under Communist rule isn't defensible (which is not to say that there was not environmental destruction under state socialism, for certainly there was), there are two arguments that obviate the more important premise of this argument. If you hold that any part of a world system is determined by the same overall structural logic of the world system, and then note that the structure of the world system for (at least) the past couple of hundred years has been capitalist, then the real premise of the argument--that the elimination of capitalism and the formation of state socialism makes things worse (or doesn't make things any better)--is vacuous because those parts of the world system were part of a single capitalist division of labor. If, on the other hand, you believe that state socialism in this century constituted a socialist world system, you still must understand the behavior of the socialist world system--the drive for industrialization, militarization (involving the development of nuclear capability), etc.--in relation to the capitalist world system. The Soviet Union was in a fight for its life, encircled by hostile imperialist nations dedicated to bringing about the demise of the global revolutionary workers movement. In any case, the destruction of the environment in this century has been determined by the development of capitalism, not by its elimination. Andy From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Tue Jan 6 10:52:54 1998 id MAA06487; Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:52:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:52:41 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: contradictions of capitalism In-Reply-To: On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote: > The belief that marxism is THE alternative to capitalism is probably one of > the strongest factors keeping capitalism in power. Marxism is a historically variable set of theoretical and practical orientations to the world. Presently Marxism is deeply infected with ideological distortion (many of which Richard repeats in his numerous posts). Marxism is not the only socialist theory of social transformation, and Marxism is not *one* socialist theory anyway. Whose Marxism? Where? At what time? And in any case Marxism is not a universal blueprint for a social system; this is not possible given Marxism's basic materialist and relativist foundation. So the point that it is held up as an alternative to capitalism is irrelevant, since it isn't true. Moreover, the form of argument presented in Richard's post is nonsensical. Socialism is the alternative to capitalism, more than this Marx never said. History is emergent, shaped by humans in various sorts of practices. Historical materialism (that is not Marxism, which is vague at this point, but Marxianism, if you will) is the the most powerful theoretical and practical system for understanding and explaining our present situation, imperative to making global revolutionary change. The change comes in practice, by people on the ground, organized in a flexible global counterhegemonic movement. It is absurd to suggest that Marxism is what keeps capitalists in power. And it is ironic! Since it is the left anticommunism that Richard Moore shares that has actually played an historical role in keeping from the world proletariat the science of their class. Andy From rkmoore@iol.ie Tue Jan 6 13:08:10 1998 Tue, 6 Jan 1998 20:08:01 GMT Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 20:08:01 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: Is it just capitalism or is it the ideology? 1/06/98, DR. PHUA KAI LIT wrote: >Is it just capitalism or is it the ideology that >continuous economic growth is a good thing? Capitalism depends intrinsically on growth, and through capitalist influence the "growth = prosperity" myth has been promulagated: it's propaganda. rkm From phuakl@sit.edu.my Tue Jan 6 19:24:33 1998 From: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu, sangkancil@malaysia.net Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:27:08 +0000 Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool Re: Emphasis on Economic Growth regardless of the impact on the environment I believe that some people have even argued that it all goes back to the strong Christian influence on Western civilization i.e. the view presented in Genesis that nature was created for the benefit of "Man" and that we should have mastery over nature. This contrasts with other philosophies which argue that human beings should live in harmony with nature. P.S. As for the fascination of people in the Third World with Western consumer goods and a consumerist lifestyle, one has to remember that the Third World is either still mired in poverty or just emerging from poverty. When one is poor or dirt poor, the image of affluent Western society presented by Hollywood, American TV programs etc. is truly fascinating indeed. (Remember the fascination of the New Guineans with the material goods brought in by Allied soldiers during World War Two and the subsequent appearance of the Cargo Cults??) If you speak to the average Malaysian, he or she would think that more and more shopping malls, more and more housing projects, more and more condos, more and more highways are desirable and even signs of "progress". Nevertheless, as we get better educated and more exposed to the latest debates over economic growth and the environment, a Green awareness is growing among certain segments of Malaysian society. (Having studied and lived in the U.S. for a long time, I enjoy going to nature parks in Malaysia. But to my parents, it is just undeveloped jungle! My little niece complains about the heat, how boring the park is, that she should have stayed home and watched TV etc!) Paraphrasing Keynes, the scribblings of intellectuals yesterday become the conventional wisdom of ordinary people today. "Modernisation Theory" was promoted in academia in the West in the 1950s and 1960s and these ideas have filtered down and become the conventional wisdom in the Third World today. Perhaps with the passage of time, ordinary people in the Third World will become more "Green" in their consciousness. And also come to view the malling of Third World cities and urban sprawl as being a blight on the land rather than as signs of "progress" (In Singapore - comparable to the West in its GNP per capita and with a well educated population - Green consciousness is quite strong among the younger generation). Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 08:07:10 -0700 (MST) From: PAT.LAUDERDALE@ASU.Edu Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool To: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" Isn't the point that it was socialist rule by the East European nations, BUT in the world capitalist structure aka "rule."? At least, it seems to be one of the central points that we can ascertain by following Gunder Frank, i.e., understanding national rule constrained by the world system. On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, DR. PHUA KAI LIT wrote: > Is it just capitalism or is it the ideology that > continuous economic growth is a good thing? > > >From all accounts, the environmental problem is > much worse in the East European nations > after years of Communist rule and > reckless disregard for the environment. > > > > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 01:52:36 -0500 (EST) > Reply-to: aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu > From: Andrew Wayne Austin > To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK > Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool > X-To: chris chase-dunn > > Chris, > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, chris chase-dunn wrote: > > > If the Chinese try to eat as much meat and eggs and drive as many cars > > as the Americans do the biosphere will fry. > > Great point. And if Americans keep eating meat and eggs and driving car > like they do the biosphere will fry. The parameters of the "mainstream" > debate, however, runs from the we-can-have-growth-and-sound-ecology-too > contingent to the screw-the-ecology-let's-have-lots-o-growth contingent. > The faux-left is one of out biggest enemies here; they secure a position > to the right of them for the accumulators. We should be argue that the > main policy initiative for preserving ecosystems is the destruction of > capitalism. > > Andy > > > From rkmoore@iol.ie Tue Jan 6 22:44:32 1998 Wed, 7 Jan 1998 05:44:22 GMT Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 05:44:22 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: contradictions of capitalism I wrote: >> The belief that marxism is THE alternative to capitalism is probably one >> of the strongest factors keeping capitalism in power. 1/06/98, Andrew Wayne Austin respondd: >Socialism is the alternative to capitalism But what kind of socialism? Is private property allowed? Are there political parties? Are there private businesses? I don't see that "socialism" tells us much more than "marxism", or "democracy" for that matter. What are the specifics? The devil is in the details. >Marxianism, if you will) is the the most powerful theoretical and >practical system for understanding and explaining our present situation, >imperative to making global revolutionary change. That's _your_ opinion; would you disallow differing views from discussion? And what exactly is it that this "practical system" tells us that is useful? >The change comes in >practice, by people on the ground, organized in a flexible global >counterhegemonic movement. We're in agreement here, and one doesn't need Marx to know this much; but do you claim that all the "people on the ground" need to carry a marxist banner before they can succeed? >It is absurd to suggest that Marxism is what keeps capitalists in power. >And it is ironic! Since it is the left anticommunism that Richard Moore >shares that has actually played an historical role in keeping from the >world proletariat the science of their class. I don't consider myself an "anticommumist": that's much too vague. I don't like Stalinism; I do like Castro. And sorry I hit a sore spot with you, my point is just that if you tell the world's people that the only alternative to capitalism is marxism, you won't get anywhere mobilizing "people on the ground". rkm From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Wed Jan 7 00:15:50 1998 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 02:15:40 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: contradictions of capitalism In-Reply-To: On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote: > But what kind of socialism? We will have to see what emerges. One can only assert socialism in very broad outlines. People will have to make the system for themselves, where they are. It would be based primarily in collective ownership of the means of production and a distribution system based on effort and need. In its initial form it would probably involve state socialism, and there would be violent dispossessions of private property, which is in order. Violent because accumulators will resist. And who would blame them? Capitalists more consistently act in accord with their interests than any other class of people. That is one of the reasons they are in power and we're not. > Is private property allowed? I draw a distinction between personal property and private property, with the later being property which the owner uses to exploit the labor or others. I agree with Marx and Engels that individuals should have the right to appropriate social product (since they produced it), but that no one should be permitted to use social product to exploit others. So it depends on your understanding of the term "private property," I suppose. > Are there political parties? We will wait and see. I think that industrial organizations politically active, whatever you call them, are reasonable after the bourgeoisie is abolished. And they should be encouraged presently. There would not be any organized capitalists since capital would be abolished (capital in its systemic sense) so it is hard to think of what such a party would be about (as long as we are speculating on possible worlds). Parties usually cohere around interests, and interests are the result of objective relations. Would people be allowed to stand on a soapbox and wax nostalgic for the days when people were allowed to exploit other people? Sure, why not. Can they call their soapbox a political party? I suppose so. Wifebeaters can organize a political party, too, right? > Are there private businesses? In what sense? You mean can a person sell the fruits of their own labor? Sure. If this is business, then I guess that's business. An important question here would be whether civil society survives the destruction of capitalism. If you mean business in the sense that a person can hire labor to work in their firm, no, that would be contrary to socialism. People exploiting other people should be outlawed like murder. Accumulators should be charged with the murder of starving people. Lots of things flow from this logic. > I don't see that "socialism" tells us much more than "marxism", or > "democracy" for that matter. Each word tells us various things about different dimensions of real and possible and imagined social worlds. Marxism tells you a lot when it is contrasted with Malthusianism. Marxism is differentiated reasonably well from, say, Ayn Rand's Objectivism. It become a little more blurry when a historical materialist is held up beside a Leninist, and so forth. Socialism is well understood to be different from capitalism, but there are disputes between what is socialism and what is communism, or whether they are the same thing, so forth. And democracy is different from, say, totalitarianism. But what sort of democracy? Socialist democracy? Or polyarchy? All are contested concepts, true. At one level they are useful; at another level they are glittering generalities. But all are also reasonably distinguishable from other standpoints within the dimensions they call home. So, Richard, we would all agree that socialism is a vague term. I don't think we could agree on what your point is exactly. But as I recall you said that Marxism was not an alternative to capitalism. This struck me as sort of like saying "Malthusianism is not an alternative to socialism." It seemed to be mixing apples and oranges, that's all. And I don't see here that you have clarified the matter at all. > What are the specifics? The devil is in the details. But this is true for everything, isn't is? That is the purpose of slogans like "the devil is in the details"--it is true because it isn't false. Slogans are propaganda tools to skirt the hard questions. They have their place. > That's _your_ opinion More slogans. Sure, Richard. Everything can be said to be opinion. The point is whether somebody's "opinion" carries more validity than another person's opinion. Biological evolution is an opinion. Creationism is another. And then there are some who believe aliens put us here. Are all these opinions equal? We get into a really silly spot if we chalk everything up to opinion. There is also the fallacy of neutrality, etc. Yes, like everybody else, I have beliefs about the world. I even hold some convictions. > would you disallow differing views from discussion? Why is this a question? You offer a point of view. I offer another. You attack my point of view because it is *one* point of view (as is yours) and then suggest that because I have a point of view that I want to disallow your point of view. Why doesn't this same argument apply to your point of view? Why aren't I whining about being oppressed by your opinion? This is a standout in the big book of fallacies. Typical liberal pluralism "Can't we all agree to disagree." No, we can't. We have to make a judgment or else we stand paralyzed like deer in a car's headlights. And that is deadly. A deer from the woods shouts to another deer standing stiff in the middle of I-24, "Hey, it's my opinion that that phenomenon you are observing is simply a pair of ethereal lights, a mere atmospheric disturbance, so don't move." No, Bambi, it is a metallic gasoline burning vehicle weighing several hundred kilos. Get the hell out of the way! > And what exactly is it that this "practical system" tells us that is > useful? One objectifies reality. It is a matter of becoming conscious of the process of objectification and take over the process of world construction. I recommend Marx's Theses on Feuerbach (1845). > We're in agreement here, and one doesn't need Marx to know this much; but > do you claim that all the "people on the ground" need to carry a marxist > banner before they can succeed? I believe that people would be more successful in global revolution (and in any sort of organizing against oppressive systems) if they were historical materialists. Yes. I already answered this question when I made claims about the superiority of the Marxian standpoint. But, of course, the question you ask is plain: nobody would ever need to know Marx and his work to carry out successful revolution. However, ignorance of Marx's work does not preclude people from developing a system that is *in effect* Marxian. Had Marx never lived, I feel confident that historical materialism would have been developed, only under a different name. What the term "gravity" describes doesn't necessarily need Newton. We don't know who was the person who invented bowls. But they work, don't they? Gramsci notes: The same ray of light passes through different prisms and yields different refractions of light: in order to have the same refraction, one must make a whole series of adjustments to the individual prisms.... Finding the real identity underneath the apparent differentiation and contradiction and finding the substantial diversity underneath the apparent identity is the most essential quality of the critic of ideas and of the historian of social development. (Prison Notebooks, Notebook I) It doesn't matter what you call it, Richard. When all the prisms are adjusted properly we will all be pretty close to being on top of it. > I don't consider myself an "anticommumist": that's much too vague. I consider you an anti-communist. But I don't see the sense of arguing over this. It is just my opinion. > I don't like Stalinism; I do like Castro. I don't think you can make snap statements like this (although I'm glad you "like" Castro). Stalin accomplished a lot. He should be credited for his successes. He changed the lives of hundreds of millions of people for the better. Give him his due. Does this mean that there are things about him that aren't deplorable. Of course not. People are complex. I recommend Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds (1997). > And sorry I hit a sore spot with you The trick of trying to make you opponent look lost to emotions is very old, Richard. This fits more with the Bill Buckley type, not somebody addressing WSN. > my point is just that if you tell the world's people that the only > alternative to capitalism is marxism, you won't get anywhere mobilizing > "people on the ground". Are you telling us that movements based in Marxism didn't get anywhere mobilizing people on the ground? Events of the 19th and 20th century refute this statement. Andy From rkmoore@iol.ie Wed Jan 7 14:05:41 1998 Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:05:02 GMT Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:05:02 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: contradictions of capitalism I wrote: >> But what kind of socialism? 1/07/98, Andrew Wayne Austin responded: >We will have to see what emerges. One can only assert socialism in very >broad outlines. People will have to make the system for themselves, where >they are. It would be based primarily in collective ownership of the means >of production and a distribution system based on effort and need. In its >initial form it would probably involve state socialism, and there would be >violent dispossessions of private property, which is in order. Violent >because accumulators will resist. And who would blame them? Capitalists >more consistently act in accord with their interests than any other class >of people. That is one of the reasons they are in power and we're not. > >> Is private property allowed? > >I draw a distinction between personal property and private property, with >the later being property which the owner uses to exploit the labor or >others. I agree with Marx and Engels that individuals should have the >right to appropriate social product (since they produced it), but that no >one should be permitted to use social product to exploit others. So it >depends on your understanding of the term "private property," I suppose. > >> Are there political parties? > >We will wait and see. I think that industrial organizations politically >active, whatever you call them, are reasonable after the bourgeoisie is >abolished. And they should be encouraged presently. There would not be any >organized capitalists since capital would be abolished (capital in its >systemic sense) so it is hard to think of what such a party would be about >(as long as we are speculating on possible worlds). Parties usually cohere >around interests, and interests are the result of objective relations. >Would people be allowed to stand on a soapbox and wax nostalgic for the >days when people were allowed to exploit other people? Sure, why not. Can >they call their soapbox a political party? I suppose so. Wifebeaters can >organize a political party, too, right? > >> Are there private businesses? > >In what sense? You mean can a person sell the fruits of their own labor? >Sure. If this is business, then I guess that's business. An important >question here would be whether civil society survives the destruction of >capitalism. If you mean business in the sense that a person can hire labor >to work in their firm, no, that would be contrary to socialism. People >exploiting other people should be outlawed like murder. Accumulators should >be charged with the murder of starving people. Lots of things flow from >this logic. > >> I don't see that "socialism" tells us much more than "marxism", or >> "democracy" for that matter. > >Each word tells us various things about different dimensions of real and >possible and imagined social worlds. Marxism tells you a lot when it is >contrasted with Malthusianism. Marxism is differentiated reasonably well >from, say, Ayn Rand's Objectivism. It become a little more blurry when a >historical materialist is held up beside a Leninist, and so forth. >Socialism is well understood to be different from capitalism, but there >are disputes between what is socialism and what is communism, or whether >they are the same thing, so forth. And democracy is different from, say, >totalitarianism. But what sort of democracy? Socialist democracy? Or >polyarchy? All are contested concepts, true. At one level they are useful; >at another level they are glittering generalities. But all are also >reasonably distinguishable from other standpoints within the dimensions >they call home. So, Richard, we would all agree that socialism is a vague >term. I don't think we could agree on what your point is exactly. > >But as I recall you said that Marxism was not an alternative to >capitalism. This struck me as sort of like saying "Malthusianism is not an >alternative to socialism." It seemed to be mixing apples and oranges, >that's all. And I don't see here that you have clarified the matter at >all. > >> What are the specifics? The devil is in the details. > >But this is true for everything, isn't is? That is the purpose of slogans >like "the devil is in the details"--it is true because it isn't false. >Slogans are propaganda tools to skirt the hard questions. They have their >place. > >> That's _your_ opinion > >More slogans. Sure, Richard. Everything can be said to be opinion. The >point is whether somebody's "opinion" carries more validity than another >person's opinion. Biological evolution is an opinion. Creationism is >another. And then there are some who believe aliens put us here. Are all >these opinions equal? We get into a really silly spot if we chalk >everything up to opinion. There is also the fallacy of neutrality, etc. > >Yes, like everybody else, I have beliefs about the world. I even hold some >convictions. > >> would you disallow differing views from discussion? > >Why is this a question? You offer a point of view. I offer another. You >attack my point of view because it is *one* point of view (as is yours) >and then suggest that because I have a point of view that I want to >disallow your point of view. Why doesn't this same argument apply to your >point of view? Why aren't I whining about being oppressed by your opinion? >This is a standout in the big book of fallacies. Typical liberal pluralism >"Can't we all agree to disagree." No, we can't. We have to make a judgment >or else we stand paralyzed like deer in a car's headlights. And that is >deadly. > >A deer from the woods shouts to another deer standing stiff in the middle >of I-24, "Hey, it's my opinion that that phenomenon you are observing is >simply a pair of ethereal lights, a mere atmospheric disturbance, so don't >move." No, Bambi, it is a metallic gasoline burning vehicle weighing >several hundred kilos. Get the hell out of the way! > >> And what exactly is it that this "practical system" tells us that is >> useful? > >One objectifies reality. It is a matter of becoming conscious of the >process of objectification and take over the process of world >construction. I recommend Marx's Theses on Feuerbach (1845). > >> We're in agreement here, and one doesn't need Marx to know this much; but >> do you claim that all the "people on the ground" need to carry a marxist >> banner before they can succeed? > >I believe that people would be more successful in global revolution (and >in any sort of organizing against oppressive systems) if they were >historical materialists. Yes. I already answered this question when I made >claims about the superiority of the Marxian standpoint. But, of course, >the question you ask is plain: nobody would ever need to know Marx and his >work to carry out successful revolution. However, ignorance of Marx's work >does not preclude people from developing a system that is *in effect* >Marxian. Had Marx never lived, I feel confident that historical >materialism would have been developed, only under a different name. What >the term "gravity" describes doesn't necessarily need Newton. We don't >know who was the person who invented bowls. But they work, don't they? > >Gramsci notes: > > The same ray of light passes through different prisms and yields > different refractions of light: in order to have the same > refraction, one must make a whole series of adjustments to the > individual prisms.... Finding the real identity underneath the > apparent differentiation and contradiction and finding the > substantial diversity underneath the apparent identity is the most > essential quality of the critic of ideas and of the historian of > social development. (Prison Notebooks, Notebook I) > >It doesn't matter what you call it, Richard. When all the prisms are >adjusted properly we will all be pretty close to being on top of it. > >> I don't consider myself an "anticommumist": that's much too vague. > >I consider you an anti-communist. But I don't see the sense of arguing >over this. It is just my opinion. > >> I don't like Stalinism; I do like Castro. > >I don't think you can make snap statements like this (although I'm glad >you "like" Castro). Stalin accomplished a lot. He should be credited for >his successes. He changed the lives of hundreds of millions of people for >the better. Give him his due. Does this mean that there are things about >him that aren't deplorable. Of course not. People are complex. I recommend >Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds (1997). > >> And sorry I hit a sore spot with you > >The trick of trying to make you opponent look lost to emotions is very >old, Richard. This fits more with the Bill Buckley type, not somebody >addressing WSN. > >> my point is just that if you tell the world's people that the only >> alternative to capitalism is marxism, you won't get anywhere mobilizing >> "people on the ground". > >Are you telling us that movements based in Marxism didn't get anywhere >mobilizing people on the ground? Events of the 19th and 20th century >refute this statement. > >Andy From futureu@teleport.com Wed Jan 7 15:23:34 1998 by user2.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.8.4) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 14:23:26 -0800 (PST) From: Paul Augustine To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: contradictions of capitalism In-Reply-To: Are these thoughts limited to comparing the differences between capitalism and marxism? I have some thoughts I would like to add to this shaping of a world system that would work for us as a group of world citizens. is private property allowed? I think having a private piece of property is important for any human whether they know it or not,it ties the human to the earth in a way that cant be established any other way,it should be a right,if land becomes inaccessable people become rootless and worthless in the eyes of some of the more fortunate ones.I think any system we design should allow every human access to thier own property. are private businesses allowed in socialism? marxism? you mean who will we work for,working people work and there will be a need to continue in some capacity,no working for a private company exploiting class because they dont have any other way is not much of an answer and niether is not working. How would people work for one another? how would a person have his roof repaired or house painted or maintained. If we used, say a budgeted economic form,that was based on a census, then each person would have a value to exchange for anything,it would be work in the purest sense in that people could choose whom they would work for and work would no longer be exploitation of a class of people. Because this budgeted form would place the value of the work on each human they wouldnt be exploited in the same sense as hiring people to work in a mine then sell whatever was extracted for a profit,but would be budgeted members extracting something that was needed by society. paul futureu@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (1200-28800, N81) future utopia 17024 helbrock dr. bend or 97707 541-593-1664 24hrs UNITY :www.teleport.com/~futureu/ : UNION .Budget by census From wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Wed Jan 7 16:51:31 1998 by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with smtp (Exim 1.81 #1) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 23:43:01 -0800 From: William Kirk To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: contradictions of capitalism What consensus exists regarding Capitalism, Socialism and Marxism? I mean here for the 'economically active' sector of the population, or what I perceive is their concept, or at least is my interpretation. Everyone has a 'choice' to vote for something, and that is vaguely to appoint a team that is either 'left' or 'right'. This notion is qualitative, experts can talk about the 'far left', the 'centre' and the 'centre right' and so on. All of this means something to people generally. As a system, it is 1-space, and when the system is made quantitative, such that left is represented by zero, and right by one hundred, then the centre is 50 left and 50 right. If I make a graph of this, as my personal interpretation, this is how I'd quantify the effect. 1946 40 1956 50 1966 57 1976 66 1986 78 1996 86 Right now I haven't said what is going on, this is just the 'sensation' I have of the background noise, that is 'political' and is at the same time of the 'economy'. If I was asked what sort of government there was in say 1986 then I'd say it was 78 per cent 'right', and therefore, was 22 per cent 'left'. So, it might be well off the mark but this is not really the point. A government is probably only electable if it is perceived to shift the existing position on the scale by a few points, thus, in 1966 a leap to the past in 1946, or to the future in 1976, would not have been acceptable to the voters. In the same way that 'New Labour' had to present an image of being about 86 points plus or minus 2 or 3. The Socialist Labour party's image was of a government at about 40 to 50, and found a proportionate number of people voting for them. Similarly, there is no point in continuing with policies that do not have a consensus, for instance, the Labour Party of the 1950's had visions of there being no independent television service, and that food rationing was a good thing, it had a sort of 'equality' image, and that four ounces of butter per person per week and one suit of clothes per year was very right and proper. In the same way there is a consensus now that privatisation of fire, air, earth and water has gone too far, and New Labour was elected because people generally perceive they will reverse the process. Running alongside the perception of this 'left-right' background there is the economy. By about 1956-1960 the average wage was Ł10 per week, last year I heard it was Ł317 per week. I have no idea what the meridian is, it might be about Ł150-200. Now, by various standards, or subtle argument, there are those who suggest 'in real terms' I think this is the phrase, that there is not all that much difference. Maybe, but look at what has happened since 1950. Then, one person in twenty had a vehicle. Now one person in twenty doesn't. Then, a holiday for the majority was Blackpool, and further north, a trip of about twenty miles on a paddle steamer to the resorts on the Clyde. Now it is Bangkok, Las Vegas, etc., etc. Then, hardly anyone would even think of spending Ł1 on a meal in a restaurant. Now Ł31.7 isn't even a problem. Then, a half bottle of whisky was for the New Year, Now it is a bought by the case for no other reason than drinking the stuff. And so on and so on. What brought this about? How do I reckon with this, what is the consensus of this change? The political shift, and hence, the economic shift? Simple, they are one and the same thing, and I'd say about 99.99 per cent of the population believe this, and do not want anyone to meddle with whatever is the cause. Whatever is this 'background' perceived there is one thing you do not do, start to analyse it, or explain it, or worse, suggest it might not be for the best, just in case it changes. Again, 99.99 per cent of the population is hypnotised by this invisible power that has given them vehicles, holidays, drink, drugs, there is nothing that cannot be bought, even strawberries all year round. What is this 'power', what is going on in the background? Well, it is the move to the 'right', or what is given the label Capitalism. This is the force existing in 1-space, nothing exists beyond 0 or 100, there is nothing infinitesimally at right angles to this straight line in 1-space. Within the 1-space most people, when they think of 'far left', and the 'ultra far left', imagine this to be Marxism, Communism, and to me this lies on the line at about 10. Therefore, if you say Marxism, the immediate thoughts are - rationing, public transport, community programmes, listening to long lectures in cold dimly lit halls, growing turnips, and medals, not money for work. Marx, as far as I can see, outlined the 1-space, as a system, and I tend to think this analysis was as much an insight to the wealthy, it extended their horizons giving them a formula that has worked well for over one hundred years. As a systems problem, the first action is to destroy the 1-space concept. Yes, it will need the carefully worked manuscripts, well referenced, with historical backup. Relatively easy, the big haul comes in getting it over, and that wont be done by people reading manuscripts. From Larsjens@ida.ruc.dk Wed Jan 7 18:48:20 1998 Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 02:48:56 +0100 From: Lars Jensen To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Clarification on Luhmann? This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------7A3A0B250E787190FECB1734 --------------7474A3801A0CA2BA8DFCD459 Hi, I have a question regarding Niklas Luhmann's theory, which I have finally turned to you with. How does Luhmann explain the evolving of systems? If my understanding is correct, the Parsonian way would be to argue, that a system does exist, because another system requires it's functions. This is unacceptable to Luhmann, he is referred to as a functional-structuralist, whereas Parsons is referred to as a structural-functionalist. I could really use some help. Sincerely yours Lars Jensen Lars Jensen Phone: +45 33 25 52 64 Arkonagade 18, 4tv e-mail: larsjens@ida.ruc.dk 1726 Copenhagen V Home: Denmark http://www.ruc.dk/~larsjens/ --------------7474A3801A0CA2BA8DFCD459  
 
Hi, 

I have a question regarding Niklas Luhmann's theory, which I have finally turned to you with. How does Luhmann explain the evolving of systems? 

If my understanding is correct, the Parsonian way would be to argue, that a system does exist, because another system requires it's functions. This is unacceptable to Luhmann, he is referred to as a functional-structuralist, whereas Parsons is referred to as a structural-functionalist. 

I could really use some help. 

Sincerely yours 

Lars Jensen 
 
 
 
Lars Jensen 
Arkonagade 18, 4tv 
1726 Copenhagen V 
Denmark 
 Phone: +45 33 25 52 64 
e-mail: larsjens@ida.ruc.dk 
Home: http://www.ruc.dk/~larsjens/ 
 
 
 
  --------------7474A3801A0CA2BA8DFCD459-- --------------7A3A0B250E787190FECB1734 begin: vcard fn: Lars Jensen n: Jensen;Lars org: Roskilde Universitetscenter adr: Arkonagade 18, 4tv;;;1726 Copenhagen V;;;Denmark email;internet: larsjens@ida.ruc.dk title: Student tel;home: (+45) 33 25 52 64 x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE version: 2.1 end: vcard --------------7A3A0B250E787190FECB1734-- From borderlands@theriver.com Wed Jan 7 21:15:03 1998 Reply-To: From: "Jake Elkins" To: "WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK" Subject: NGO Networks Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:14:48 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01BD1BB1.49535000 Greetings, friends, I am a grad student working on a paper. I could use some help with my thesis. The idea is that globally governments are increasingly being pressured by the agenda's of NGO's. Governments still make the rules, but they are being forced into decisions, and alliances with NGO's, in order to make decisions which affect their own internal affairs. Examples would include the agenda of the RIO'92 Conference, the Osaka Climate Conference, and networks formed to address global crime cartels. I expect to see this trend continue, and increase. It seems to me that informal, flexible NGO networks have increasingly assumed a bigger voice over this century. The next century promises an even bigger NGO voice, and a dramatic restructuring of global politico-economic relations. Anyone think this line of thought is worth developing? And if so, have any suggestions/feedback? Thank you very much! Sincerely, Jake Elkins Jake Elkins Sustainable Borderlands Planning P.O. Box 44181 Tucson, AZ 85733 (520) 327-0410 "Let us not love in word, neither in tongue: but in deed and in truth." 1 John 3:18 ------=_NextPart_000_01BD1BB1.49535000

Greetings, = friends,

I am a grad student working on a paper.  I = could use some help with my
thesis.

The idea is that = globally governments are increasingly being pressured by
the agenda's = of NGO's.  Governments still make the rules, but they are
being = forced into decisions, and alliances with NGO's, in order to = make
decisions which affect their own internal affairs. =  Examples would include
the agenda of the RIO'92 Conference, the = Osaka Climate Conference, and
networks formed to address global crime = cartels.  
I expect to see this trend continue, and = increase.  It seems to me that
informal, flexible NGO networks = have increasingly assumed a bigger voice
over this century.  The = next century promises an even bigger NGO voice, and a dramatic = restructuring of global politico-economic relations.

Anyone think = this line of thought is worth developing?  And if so, have = any
suggestions/feedback?

Thank you very = much!
Sincerely,
Jake Elkins



Jake = Elkins
Sustainable Borderlands Planning
P.O. Box 44181
Tucson, = AZ  85733
(520) 327-0410

"Let us not love in word, = neither in tongue: but in deed and in truth."
1 John 3:18

------=_NextPart_000_01BD1BB1.49535000-- From rkmoore@iol.ie Thu Jan 8 02:15:39 1998 Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:15:28 GMT Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:15:28 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: capitalism, marxism, and revolution APOLOGIES for my previous posting -- I hit the send button accidentally. I appreciate Andrew's candor in anwering the questions I posed. First, let's review the predictive aspect: I wrote: >> But what kind of socialism? 1/07/98, Andrew Wayne Austin responded: >We will have to see what emerges. One can only assert socialism in very >broad outlines. >> Are there political parties? >We will wait and see. Apparently then, Marx tells us very little about the architecture of what is to replace capitalism. I'm interested in investigating what can and should replace capitalism, in terms of political reality and economic possibility; I continue to find Marx of little value in that regard. >> And what exactly is it that this "practical system" tells us that is >> useful? >One objectifies reality. It is a matter of becoming conscious of the >process of objectification and take over the process of world >construction. I recommend Marx's Theses on Feuerbach (1845). It was brilliant that Marx was able to predict so much about capitalism when he did, but the objective realities of capitalism and its "takeover of world construction" are now obvious facts; I find it more useful now to analyze current conditions than review old analyses. Has marxism become a neo-aristotelianism? Is one to learn about flowers from reading the master instead of examining real flowers? --- The remainder of Andrew's responses, apparently, are to be interpreted as Andrew's own vision, rather than marxian prescriptions. >People will have to make the system for themselves, where >they are. We agree here, and my interest is in being one of those "people" "making the system", not just an observer and commentator. >It would be based primarily in collective ownership of the means >of production and a distribution system based on effort and need. This would seem to be adopting the most discredited economic agendas of communism as we have seen it implemented in the Eastern block. A more mixed economic solution would seem to make more economic and political sense. >> That's _your_ opinion >Everything can be said to be opinion. The >point is whether somebody's "opinion" carries more validity than another >person's opinion. Biological evolution is an opinion. Creationism is >another. Quite right: an opinion based on evidence and understanding has more validity than one based on false authority. What I see you saying, all to often, is that "materialism is truth" and "materialism decrees x to be true". This line of "argument" has no more validity than "the Bible decrees x to be true". If you can't explain why "x is true" here-and-now without reference to authority then I remain unconvinced. rkm From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Thu Jan 8 03:40:48 1998 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 05:40:39 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: capitalism, marxism, and revolution In-Reply-To: On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote: > Apparently then, Marx tells us very little about the architecture of what > is to replace capitalism. I'm interested in investigating what can and > should replace capitalism, in terms of political reality and economic > possibility; I continue to find Marx of little value in that regard. Who tells you a lot about the post-capitalist architecture? What prophets do you have in back of you? > It was brilliant that Marx was able to predict so much about capitalism > when he did, but the objective realities of capitalism and its "takeover > of world construction" are now obvious facts You misunderstood me. There are capitalist class fractions whose intellectuals have figured out to a substantial degree parameters of the capitalist dynamic and this has permitted them some control over the system. But that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the working class becoming conscious of the objective process of world construction and taking over the process. This takes a system of knowledge and action which permits aligning intersubjectivity with objective reality. Based on the pragmatic criterion, and with real history in back of it, historical materialism is that system of knowledge and action. > I find it more useful now to > analyze current conditions than review old analyses. I must quote from a recent piece in The Guardian (London/Manchester) "No Marx for the duvet theory of unemployment," by Mark Steel: The idea that theories have no modern relevance because they are old is quite selective. I do not suppose Tony Blair throws his champagne glass into the air, shouting: "What's the matter? You don't still believe is that gravity nonsense, do you? That's 300 years old." Maybe his bathroom is regularly flooded, because he refuses to believe that 2,000-year-old Archimedes rubbish about the water level rising when you get in the bath. The Tories are even stranger. A 1980s poster showed a picture of Marx, with the caption "Do you want the country to be run by a 100-year-old corpse?". This was at a time when most Tory ideas came from the Adam Smith Institute, named after an economist who died in 1790. Perhaps they did not realise he was so old, and Cecil Parkinson never understood why Smith did not reply to his requests for a photo shoot with Nigel Lawson. I sent the whole piece to Richard earlier today. The rest of the essay is quite good. > Has marxism become a neo-aristotelianism? Is one to learn about flowers > from reading the master instead of examining real flowers? What does this mean, Richard? Is Einstein irrelevant because he is dead? Einstein's general theory of relativity dies with Einstein? Are the principles of natural selection identified by Darwin to be rejected because Darwin has been dead now for so many decades? Isn't it a matter of examining the world today in a particular theoretical framework and looking for predictive validity and explanatory power? It doesn't matter that Marx is dead, Richard (at least not for this discussion). What is important is whether the theoretical and practical system he and others developed works. Your argument shares with politicians of the bourgeois system their slogans. > >It would be based primarily in collective ownership of the means > >of production and a distribution system based on effort and need. > > This would seem to be adopting the most discredited economic agendas of > communism as we have seen it implemented in the Eastern block. A more > mixed economic solution would seem to make more economic and political > sense. When was the economic system of the Eastern block "discredited"? State socialism took people to heights they never dreamed of. And since the demise of the socialist world system, the people are in terrible conditions. State socialism didn't fail because of collective ownership of the means of production or the goals of reward by work and need. State socialism succeeded in these areas, and succeeded remarkably. These sorts of claims are typical anti-communist propaganda, right down to the typical word use in this cliche "discredited." This is what passes for historical analysis? > Quite right: an opinion based on evidence and understanding has more > validity than one based on false authority. What I see you saying, all to > often, is that "materialism is truth" and "materialism decrees x to be > true". Well, you need to develop better skills of observation and interpretation. What do I say? That historical materialism is the superior mode of historical analysis. I base this judgment on explanatory power and predictive validity. I have suggested you read the work of Bill Robinson, Robert Cox, Stephen Gill, and others so you may make this judgment for yourself, but, alas, you blow them off. In fact, you admitted not knowing who they were. And yet you pretend to understand the body of theory you decry. I may be wrong, but my impression of your posts to this list on this subject, given the tone of your language, amount to an effort to clear historical materialism out of the way so that this theory of yours you are always hyping can have a niche. As you say, you want to help lead the world into this new system (whatever it is). If this is the case, you falsely flatter yourself. Andy From OWENJACK@FS.isu.edu Thu Jan 8 06:16:45 1998 From: "J B Owens" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 06:22:01 -0600, MDT Subject: Leipzig conference ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 13:53:33 -0800 Reply-to: H-NET List for World History From: Ken Pomeranz Subject: world history conference: Leipzig, Feb., 1998 From: Hans-Martin Moderow, Universitat Leipzig ges92clj@studserv.uni-leipzig.de International workshop WORLD HISTORY TODAY - CHIMERA OR NECESSITY 12 - 14 February, 1998 Leipzig, Germany organised by Centre for Advanced Studies of Leipzig University (Zentrum f=FCr H=F6here Studien der Universit=E4t Leipzig), Visiting Leibniz Professor Edoardo Tortarolo, Turin ------------------------------ For further information please contact: Zentrum f=FCr H=F6here Studien Universit=E4t Leipzig Augustusplatz 10/11 04109 Leipzig Germany Tel. 0049/341/9730230 Fax. 0049/341/9730288 Email: ges92clj@studserv.uni-leipzig.de or: etorta@rz.uni-leipzig.de -------------------------- PROGRAM 12. 2. 1998 09.00 a. m. Intruductory remarks Section I: An old tradition 09.30 a. m. Fran=E7ois Hartog (Paris): Universal history writing and antique age 10.00 a. m. Helmut Zedelmaier (M=FCnchen): Universal history writing in early modern times 10.30 a. m. Discussion 11.00 a. m. Coffee break 11.30 a. m. Reba Sofer (Los Angeles): Universal history by catholic historians in England in the 19th century 12.00 a. m. J=FCrgen Osterhammel (Genf): Anglo-American Models of World History in the 20th Century 12.30 p. m. Discussion (-01.00 p. m.) Section II: Challenges and new perspectives Chair: Pirmin Stekeler-Weithofer (Leipzig) 13.30 p. m. Alberto Piazza (Turin): Genetics and history 04.00 p. m. Kurt Nowak (Leipzig): Religion in history 04.30 p. m. Coffee break 05.00 p. m. Giovanni Filoramo (Turin): Religion and world history 05.30 p. m. Discussion (-06.00 p. m.) 13. 2. 1998 Section III: Other traditions Chair: Georg Iggers (Buffalo) 09.00 a. m. Hans-Heinrich Nolte (Hannover): Russia and World history 09.30 a. m. Quingjia Edward Wang (Glassboro): Chinese World history writing 10.00 a. m. Discussion 10.30 a. m. Coffee break 11.00 a. m. Sebastian Conrad (Berlin): What time is Japan? The dilemma of world history from a post-colonial perspective 11.30 a. m. Adam Jones (Leipzig): Africa in World history 12.00 a. m. Hannes Siegrist (Leipzig): Die Rolle des Vergleiches f=FCr die Weltgeschichte 12.30 p.m. Discussion (-01.00 p. m.) Section IV: Discussion: World history after the age of universal history Chair: Ulrich Johannes Schneider (Leipzig) 04.00-08.00 p. m. Ewa Domanska (Poznan): Universal history and postmodernism Johan Galtung (Honolulu): Micro and Macro and the present historiography Giuseppe Ricuperati (Turin): Patterns in World history writing --------------------------------------------------- Hans-Martin Moderow Arndtstra=DFe 9 b 04275 Leipzig Email: ges92clj@studserv.uni-leipzig.de --------------------------------------------------- dienstlich: Zentrum f=FCr H=F6here Studien Universit=E4t Leipzig Augustusplatz 10/11 04109 Leipzig Tel. 0341/9730288 Fax: 0341/9605261 ----------------------------------------------------- FORWARDED BY: ******************************************************** J. B. "Jack" Owens, Professor of History Project Coordinator, Computer-Mediated Distance Learning Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209 USA e-mail: owenjack@isu.edu www: http://www.isu.edu/~owenjack ******************************************************** From OWENJACK@FS.isu.edu Thu Jan 8 06:18:44 1998 From: "J B Owens" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 06:24:01 -0600, MDT Subject: CFP: Econ. Hist. Assoc. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 17:20:57 -0800 Reply-to: H-NET List for World History From: Ken Pomeranz Subject: CFP: Economic History Association September, 1998 With the holidays, meetings, and the rush to prepare for the next semester, it is all too easy to let the deadline for paper proposals for the 1998 Economic History Association Annual meeting slip by. Please don't let it happen to you! The deadline this year is JANUARY 30, 1998 and the Program Committee invites your proposal on this year's theme: Revolutions in Economic History. Details follow. CALL FOR PAPERS: FIFTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL EHA MEETING: REVOLUTIONS IN ECONOMIC HISTORY The 1998 Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association will be held at the Washington Duke Inn and Golf Club, Durham, North Carolina, September 25-27, 1998. The theme of the program is "Revolutions in Economic History." The theme refers to historical cases in which economic structures of long standing and apparent stability either disintegrate or are overturned by something new. "Revolutions" may include the famous upheavals of political and economic history (e.g., French, Russian, Industrial), but also sociopolitical transformations such as the Civil Rights Revolution in the United States, discontinuous changes in the norms of labor relations or family life, etc. Conventional economics has little to say about these phenomena, but history should have plenty to say. Members of the program committee are: John Brown (Chair), David Carlton, Jane Humphries, and Warren Whatley. The committee especially encourages proposals for papers and sessions that help promote intellectual conversations among scholars who may assess revolutions in economic history from differing analytical or disciplinary perspectives. To submit a proposal for a paper, send a short abstract (150 words) and a longer 3-5 page abstract to John Brown postmarked by January 30, 1998. Proposals may also be submitted by using the form available from the E.H.A. Web Site at http://www.eh.net/EHA/Announcements/EHA_sub_prop_98.html. If a draft of the paper is available, please send it in addition to the abstracts. The committee welcomes proposals for entire sessions as well as for individual papers. Proposals for sessions should include abstracts for each paper in the session. The committee does reserve the right to assign papers to sessions and to accept some papers from a proposed session if the entire session is not accepted. For full consideration, proposals must be received by January 30, 1998. Submissions must include the full name, mailing address, telephone number(s), fax number, and E-mail address of all authors. Notices of acceptance will be sent to the individual paper givers by March 30, 1998. Those interested in being considered for the 1998 E.H.A. program are welcome to enter into conversations (E-mail encouraged) with any of the members of the Program Committee: John Brown (Chair) Department of Economics Clark University Worcester, MA 01610-1477 (508)793-7390 Fax: (508)855-3736 JBROWN@VAX.CLARKU.EDU David L. Carlton Department of History Vanderbilt University P.O. Box 1523, Station B Nashville, TN 37235 (615)332-3326 Fax: (615)343-6002 DAVID.L.CARLTON@VANDERBILT.EDU Jane Humphries Cambridge University Department of Economics Cambridge, England CB3 9DD (01223)335222 Fax: 01223-335475 JANE.HUMPHRIES@ECON.CAM.AC.UK Warren C. Whatley Department of Economics The University of Michigan 215 Lorch Hall Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (313) 764-5256 Fax: (313) 764-2769 WWHATLEY@UMICH.EDU Those expecting to receive their Ph.D. during the academic year 1997/98 are invited to apply for inclusion in the dissertation session at the 1998 E.H.A meetings. Dissertations on U.S. or Canadian history chosen for presentation at the meetings will be finalists for the Allan Nevins Prize. Such dissertations should be sent to: Leonard Carlson Emory University Department of Economicsics Atlanta, GA 30322 e-mail: econlac@emory.edu Dissertations on areas of the world other than the U.S. or Canada will be finalists for the Alexander Gerschenkron Prize. Such dissertations should be sent to: Lynn Hollen Lees University of Pennsylvaniavania Department of History College Hall Philadelphia, PA 19104 e-mail: LHLees@sas.upenn.edu Applicants must send a copy of their dissertation to the appropriate convener so that it reaches him or her by FRIDAY, MAY 29, 1998. ------------------------- FORWARDED BY: ******************************************************** J. B. "Jack" Owens, Professor of History Project Coordinator, Computer-Mediated Distance Learning Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209 USA e-mail: owenjack@isu.edu www: http://www.isu.edu/~owenjack ******************************************************** From rkmoore@iol.ie Thu Jan 8 21:33:12 1998 Fri, 9 Jan 1998 04:33:04 GMT Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 04:33:04 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: capitalism, marxism, and revolution I wrote: >> Apparently then, Marx tells us very little about the architecture of what >> is to replace capitalism. I'm interested in investigating what can and >> should replace capitalism, in terms of political reality and economic >> possibility; I continue to find Marx of little value in that regard. 1/08/98, Andrew Wayne Austin responded: >Who tells you a lot about the post-capitalist architecture? What prophets >do you have in back of you? Haven't your guessed by now Andrew?... I'm an original thinker. Everyone you study in your books was an original thinker: some respected, some despised; some appreciated right away, and some later; some with valuable contributions and some not. You can criticize me anyway you want, but not on the basis of cited authority: I cite no authorities, only evidence and analysis. >> It was brilliant that Marx was able to predict so much about capitalism >> when he did, but the objective realities of capitalism and its "takeover >> of world construction" are now obvious facts >You misunderstood me. There are capitalist class fractions whose >intellectuals have figured out to a substantial degree parameters of the >capitalist dynamic and this has permitted them some control over the >system. "Some" is a serious understatement, but I'll take this as a point of agreement: there _is_ a marxism-conscious elite, of disputed potency. >But that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the >working class becoming conscious of the objective process of world >construction and taking over the process. I agree generally with this objective, except that I dispute strongly that "working class" should define the revoltionary constituency. Globalization has created a situation where everyone except the super-rich should be able to perceive their disadvantage in continued capitalist globalization, and thus the potential constituency for revolution is broader than just "working class": this is a development that must be exploited, whether or not Marx anticipated it at this particular stage of the dialectic process; we need every advantage we can find. >... This takes a system of knowledge >and action which permits aligning intersubjectivity with objective >reality. Indeed, and "objective reality" includes more than materialism: it includes as well culture, propaganda, current ideologies, politics, organizational strategies, elite tactics, existing factionalism, etc. Certainly you must agree that Lenin and Trotsky made unique and spontaneous contributions not inherent in Marx. >> Has marxism become a neo-aristotelianism? Is one to learn about flowers >> from reading the master instead of examining real flowers? >What does this mean, Richard? Is Einstein irrelevant because he is dead? No, of course not. But if I was pointing out the importance of relativity I would explain Einstein's thought experiments, and later verification with eclipses and particle accelerators, I wouldn't just claim that Einstein defined the "objective process of time-space construction". What I miss from you is specific articulation of the application of materialism to topics under discussion. I accept the dictum experessed in "Cats Cradle" (author's name eludes me at 1.38 am) - if you can't explain a principle so a ten-year old can understand it, then _you_ don't understand it. >> >It would be based primarily in collective ownership of the means >> >of production and a distribution system based on effort and need. >> This would seem to be adopting the most discredited economic agendas of >> communism as we have seen it implemented in the Eastern block. A more >> mixed economic solution would seem to make more economic and political >> sense. >When was the economic system of the Eastern block "discredited"? Isn't it generally acknowedged that the Soviet agricultural programs were disasters? Indeed, wasn't this largely attributable to a doctrinaire implementation of collective ownership? Capitalism enshrines greed and acquisitiveness as absolute "good" - this is bad; but banning greed and acqusitiveness entirely turns out to be unsound. The dictum "moderation in all things" applies well in this case. Even if the dialecic pendulum wants to swing 180', that doesn't mean we can't endeavor to moderate intelligently. >State socialism took people to heights they never dreamed of. I'd say "conscious national development" had considerable successes, and without benefit of private entrepreneurhip, but there were unnecessary inefficiencies and dictatorship: we can learn from that experience, but we can do better. >Since the demise of the socialist world system, the people are in terrible >conditions. Quite true, but _any_ system, if abruptly destabilized, would lead to terrible conditions. What was proved is that the old system was not nearly as bad as Western propaganda claimed. >State socialism didn't fail because of collective ownership of >the means of production or the goals of reward by work and need. Agreed; in fact state socialism never did fail: it was finally undermined by ongoing economic warfare (eg, arms race); any system would have withered under the strain. >What do I say? That historical materialism is the superior mode of >historical analysis. I base this judgment on explanatory power and >predictive validity. >I have suggested you read the work of Bill Robinson, >Robert Cox, Stephen Gill, and others so you may make this judgment for >yourself, but, alas, you blow them off. In fact, you admitted not knowing >who they were. And yet you pretend to understand the body of theory you >decry. I'm sorry, but I need to be motivated to read more about marxism: I simply haven't seen any results or predictions relevant to today's situation that were at all interesting. If I had, I'd want to find out more about what they were based on. The only "specific" predictions I've seen are that capitalism will collapse, and that world socialist revolution will occur: and I question the ultimate finality of both of these predictions on a variety of grounds. >I may be wrong, but my impression of your posts to this list on this >subject, given the tone of your language, amount to an effort to clear >historical materialism out of the way so that this theory of yours you are >always hyping can have a niche. No, I'd simply welcome discussion of my theses on their own merits. Where are the observations or reasoning unsound? Instead you just say "it's not marxism". >As you say, you want to help lead the >world into this new system (whatever it is). If this is the case, you >falsely flatter yourself. For just wanting to help? Pardon me. In fact I've made concrete progress toward my goals, and wsn critiques have been very helpful. I can only do what I can do. But I'm not waiting to see what happens: that's _my_ absolute imperative. rkm From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Thu Jan 8 23:01:18 1998 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 01:01:13 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: capitalism, marxism, and revolution In-Reply-To: Richard, You criticized me for citing authority, and then went on to cite "generally acknowledged" as your source on that claim about the failure of Soviet agriculture. I am curious about one thing you said, though (and then I will leave you to your important work). Are there a lot of ten year olds running around who understand the general theory of relativity? Or are you saying that Einstein was just messing with us? By the way, I believe Kurt Vonnegut is the authority you cited as your source on that claim about 10 year olds and the appropriate level of intellectual discourse. (The corporate media gives the public credit for a bit more, pitching discourse around the 6th grade levels or so. But maybe Vonnegut is right.) Andy From rragland@csir.co.za Fri Jan 9 00:04:48 1998 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 09:09:28 +0200 From: Richard Ragland To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu, borderlands@theriver.com Subject: NGO Networks -Reply If you want an ear-full on this subject read David Korton's "Getting to the 21st Century" Yes, this subject is worth developing! From akwebb@phoenix.Princeton.EDU Fri Jan 9 07:51:24 1998 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:50:13 -0500 (EST) From: "Adam K. Webb" Reply-To: "Adam K. Webb" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: formidable opponents In-Reply-To: On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote: > > I agree generally with this objective, except that I dispute strongly that > "working class" should define the revoltionary constituency. Globalization > has created a situation where everyone except the super-rich should be able > to perceive their disadvantage in continued capitalist globalization, and > thus the potential constituency for revolution is broader than just > "working class": this is a development that must be exploited, whether or > not Marx anticipated it at this particular stage of the dialectic process; > we need every advantage we can find. > While I wholly agree that the proletariat as such enjoys no unique position, I question the optimism and excessive inclusiveness of this formulation. How do you address the fact that the top 20% of most countries _has_ benefited substantially from globalisation? You evidently wish to return to a post-WWII era of (false) national solidarity and ideologically eviscerated social democracy, when in fact the antisystemic political project must be recast as a profound, transnational cultural struggle, between a hitherto-passive majority (peasants, informal sector, industrial labour, traditional elites, etc) and this substantial minority, over the definition of world society itself. Exaggerating the breadth and amorphousness of your potential support may serve as a fine rallying cry, but at the level of praxis it is likely to do more harm than good. Regards, --AKW =============================================================================== Adam K. Webb Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton NJ 08544 USA 609-258-9028 http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb From ProfTabb@aol.com Fri Jan 9 13:10:42 1998 From: ProfTabb Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:10:05 EST To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: x Dear World Systems Network, I do not have original instructions as to how to get myself off your listserv. I certainly hope this address does not go out to the network and appologize to all if it does. Please end my subscription. Thanks. From chriscd@jhu.edu Fri Jan 9 15:01:11 1998 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 16:57:52 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: [Fwd: January-February Issue of the ISA Newsletter is on-line] To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 13:56:12 -0700 From: Lawrence E Imwalle Subject: January-February Issue of the ISA Newsletter is on-line Sender: International Studies Association News To: ISA-NEWS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU Reply-to: International Studies Association News Approved-By: Lawrence E Imwalle Dear ISA members: HAPPY NEW YEAR! The January-February Issue of the ISA Newsletter is now available on the ISA website at the following URL: http://csf.colorado.edu/isa/newsletter If you have any questions or encounter any problems please contact ISA Headquarters via email at: isa@u.arizona.edu Best regards, ISA Staff International Studies Association 324 Social Sciences Building University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 phone: 520.621-7715 fax: 520.621.5780 **************************************** From rkmoore@iol.ie Sat Jan 10 00:33:34 1998 Sat, 10 Jan 1998 07:33:26 GMT Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 07:33:26 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: restart - re: Marxism Dear Andrew, I'm sorry our dialog deteriorated as it did; our natural mutual stance seems to be with swords in hand. I've got a fresh approach which I hope will be more productive. I have some fundamental problems with Marx's theories, as I understand them, and those problems came up so early in my exposure to his ideas that I haven't been motivated to read him in greater depth. This has made dialog with marxists difficult: they always say I need to read a stack of books before I can talk to them. Perhaps you can help with this problem. I'll tell you my critique of Marx, and you can tell me where I'm misunderstanding him. Fair enough? First of all, I find the "labor theory of value" to be totally unsound, entirely too simplistic. Creativity, initiative, vision, risk-taking, and good judgement - in setting up and managing an operation - all create value, as does labor, but in a multiplicative way. All the labor will be for nought if the enterprise is mis-conceived. Under capitalism, labor is treated as a commodity and equity rests with investors; this is wrong, but swinging the pendulum 180 degrees the other way is no better. A _balance_ between worker voice/equity and entrepreneur voice/equity (weather private or public) would seem to provide both justice and economic vitality. I _believe_ the experience of China and the USSR tends to support the desirability of such a balance. Equally unsound, I believe, is Marx's belief that socialist revolution is the only likely consequence of the contradictions of capitalism. The evidence I like to cite for this is the global oil industry, which is in many ways the most structurally mature capitalist industry. This industry has long-since reached its "point of contradiction": the industry has long been concentrated in a handful of major global operators, potential productive capacity has long exceeded demand, and demand-growth has stabilized to the point where inter-major cannibalism should have been expected, on pure capitalist grounds. But while in the auto industry similar over-production conditions are currently leading to shakeouts and bankrupticies, this is not happening in the oil industry. The auto industry is just reaching its "point of contradiction"; the oil industry has already adapted to it. The way they adapted was by jointly regulating production and distribution: they gave up cut-throat competition and decided to share the market more or less amicably. In the capitalist microcosm of petroleum, Marx's "contradictions" have been met and overcome, without dethroning either the elite owners or their corporations. The contradictions have been overcome, I suggest, by a replacement of capitalist competition with aristocratic comradarie. This neo-aristocratic system is made up of corporations instead of family-scions, but its dynamics are the same: the collaborative domination of the many by the few. And behind the corporation-aristocracy is a human aristocracy of the super-rich, which collectively owns most corporte stock. I believe then, differing from Marx, that there are _two_ evolutionary outcomes that might follow the end of capitalism: neo-aristocracy _or_ a resurgance of democracy, and either, I claim, is likely to come about peacably; chaos and violent change are not inevitable in either outcome. Globalization, the elite's answer to the contradictions, is leading rather peacably (if disastrously) to the aristocratic outcome; and a democratic resurgance is much more likely to succeed if approached peacably. I emphasize "democratic revolution/rejuvination" rather than "workers revolution" because I find the "labor" vs "bourgeois" class dichotomy too simplistic for today's world; and I don't say "socialist revolution" because I believe a mixed economy is advisable, as mentioned earlier. It seems to me that Marx believed too rigidly in the omnipotence of dialectic forces: he was correct that economic currents flow in certain cycles, but that doesn't dictate that the societal ship is destined to follow. The elite have found an eddy current that favors them, and I believe we can too. We can make a pre-emptive strike on history, not waiting for collapse, and we can stop the dialectic pendulum at an intermediate point: we aren't compelled to adopt doctrinaire socialism. Your comments are invited; I'd like to know specifically where my understanding is wrong. rkm From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Sun Jan 11 12:40:46 1998 id OAA07812; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:40:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:40:40 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: restart - re: Marxism In-Reply-To: Richard, You wanted me to go through your post and see what I find fault with. Your post was vague. For example, you write: > First of all, I find the "labor theory of value" to be totally unsound, > entirely too simplistic. Creativity, initiative, vision, risk-taking, and > good judgement - in setting up and managing an operation - all create > value, as does labor, but in a multiplicative way. I don't know exactly how to evaluate the claim: "I find the 'labor theory of value' to be totally unsound, entirely too simplistic." If you can clarify this it would help. Thanks, Andy PS--Are you saying that workers are not creative, lack initiative, have poor judgment, and don't take risks? I find it interesting that the man who wrote an essay on the nature of capitalist propaganda ("Doublespeak and the New World Order") would advance an argument littered with quintessential capitalist buzz words like "initiative" and "risk." From athan.kokkinias@utoronto.ca Mon Jan 12 03:14:54 1998 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 04:58:48 -0500 To: wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk, WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK From: "Athanasios (Tom) Kokkinias" Subject: Re: contradictions of capitalism, and World Views as they relate to Ritchard and Andy In-Reply-To: <34B48385.C44@wml.prestel.co.uk> At 02:43 AM 08/01/98 -0500, William Kirk wrote: >What consensus exists regarding Capitalism, Socialism and >Marxism? I mean here for the 'economically active' sector of the >population, or what I perceive is their concept, or at least is my >interpretation. Everyone has a 'choice' to vote for something, and that >is vaguely to appoint a team that is either 'left' or 'right'. This >notion is qualitative, experts can talk about the 'far left', the >'centre' and the 'centre right' and so on. All of this means something to >people generally. As a system, it is 1-space, and when the system is made >quantitative, such that left is represented by zero, and right by one >hundred, then the centre is 50 left and 50 right. If I make a graph of >this, as my personal interpretation, this is how I'd quantify the effect. > > 1946 40 > 1956 50 > 1966 57 > 1976 66 > 1986 78 > 1996 86 > ...... Listers (and more specifically, William), With great interest and anticipation I have read many posts to this list over a number of months now and have read commended articles, essays and books on the variously interrelated subjects discussed here.....William, I apologize for not responding in a "timely fashion" to your posts to me (and to the list). I have particularly enjoyed and thought about your posts - it seems that both of us come from a "scientific" mold (if I understand correctly you are or have been an engineer and I am also presently involved in the Canadian telecommunications industry as a computer "guy"...) However, my pleasure on all occasions is that I have had the opportunity to witness the various listers' writing on this here forum and the present "anomalous" behaviours exemplified between Ritchard K Moore and Andrew Wayne Austin's back and forth interactions that speak to me about the state of the list, the nation and the globe regarding having reached some kind of "wall" of sorts...more on this a little further on.... During my undergrad degree in Pol. Science and Economics, I remember well the days when our Latin American Studies prof would talk about Andre Gunder Frank's work relative to the "system"; with the modernists and so forth...I am sure by far most listers here are well versed (probably much better than I) on the above. I have listened to lectures delivered by profs Stephen Gill and Robert Cox (this is mentioned here as an aside to Andy's remarks to Ritchard regarding awareness of issues from a Historical Materialist perspective); Other profesors with whom I studied over the years included Abraham Rothstein (Karl Polanyi's graduate student - on the Great Transformation issues); Ritchard Day (encyclopedic knowledge of the "left" history of the world- advisor on the formation of the Italian Communist Party and Sovietologist), etc. Then I met with Gad Horrowitz (Modern Political/Philosophic thought)and enjoyed a refreshing take on current issues through his approach to modern political theory "making" by way of an attempt at looking at the various problems from an "epistemological" perspective of sorts - it was a matter of world views - systems theories and such...it was a matter of well, matter; ie., materialistic matter. It was views proposed by him that dealt more than less with issues of mind and mater. With notions such as "we have run ashore matties, we need a new world view (not to mean throw away everything else - they dont work) with which to build a new future. Mind and Nature - Gregory Bateson; Descarte's "cogito" and so forth... Since Hegel and Marx the world is dialectic in its processes of organization....but all this is glossed over by the vast majority.... Before I once again begin to bable, I witnesed all this and now here am listening to Andy and Ritchard and all the rest - folks, in view of the psychology happening here (what the hell does that mean...?) I propose the following as just yet another departure point for richer and even perhaps more "sane" discussion making: I have appended to this post a post from a lister on the "process philosophy" list which was a reply to a new lister regarding: "What is Process Philosophy?" I have done this for two major reasons: 1) As a vague reply to William Kirk's thoughts on "systems theories" and particularly the suggestion of the Santa Fe Institute as cutting edge "new" work....I visited their web site (I wish I had funds to visit them in person) ...however, they like "us" here on this list seem to me to be pursuing in a fervent fashion A MAP WITHOUT DUE REGARD FOR THE TERRITORY from which the abstraction itself derives...and so forth - perhaps more elaboration of this point in another post, another time. 2) As a reply (a mediating substance- perhaps a tranquilizer of sorts :o)?) to Moore's and Austin's arguments regarding old, new and yet newer ways and means of theorizing....Marx (or I should be quick to point out lest I get flack - the various strands of Marxists theories/ists) and the "other" side (Capitalism?..) of a kind of "mapped" pendulum affair - those neo-liberal theories/ists who forever will proclaim the same kind of "grain of truth" as their eternal foes: Both camps (please remember: when I use words to speak at all - I seem to constantly be reminded daily that indeed communication is a fascinating process - I use ALL words while always fully aware that ALL words are ONLY MAPS of a deeper TRUTH - all words are abstract to the point of di-straction and de-struction) are using a particular map (or more to the point - a set of maps) and are currently running amok and taking the rest with them - what the hell do I mean - simple: both camps (more like trench warfare platoons) are mired in a worldview, an epistemologic ethos, a MAP, that is markedly materialistic - both have erected the god of their religion as the God of MATTER. Both world views subscribe to a Nihillistic teleology that is driving this planet to extinction. Both have a fervent passion in regards to the attainment of WELFARE FOR THE MAP AT THE EXPENSE OF WELFARE FOR THE TERRITORY.....I hope you get the drift... So, in due haste (in light of the dimness perceived by me in my oceanic stupor) I herewith continue by way of the post I have appended as mentioned earlier... Please keep in mind that this post serves "merely" as a metaphoric interlude to the discussions proceeding at this time in this here forum. Enjoy PS. If any listers here are interested in this post but are not able to receive it in its entterity due to mail server limitations, let me know and I will repost in segments. Kind regards, Tom Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 05:48:45 -0500 Reply-To: Aliman & Mirnah Sears X-X-Sender: m9621310@urc1.cc.kuleuven.ac.be Subject: #3 Re: What is Process Philosophy? (I think this was the Subject) From: Aliman & Mirnah Sears To: Process Phil List Cc: Ed & Barb Sears X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave process-philosophy' to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk X-nder: process-philosophy-request@mailbase.ac.uk Howard, You can appreciate the depth and power of process philosophy much more if you place it in context with the history of philosophy in general. To a certain extent this will be true with any philosophy. However, you've got to start somewhere, and process philosophy is as good a place as any (maybe better). Below I'll try to set some things out, but please realize this is only a very rough sketch, and is very generalized. Here is a short summary: We can talk about Process Philosophy as a world view. It's a world view where "all things flow." Normally we think of the world as made up of discrete material objects. Descartes' metaphysics took those discrete objects and separated them into "matter" and "mind." Matter was now thought of as simply inert stuff. Subsequently, the "mind" part of Descartes' system got discarded while science only concentrated on the "matter" part. But within a few hundred years, science itself began to discover matter wasn't just solid inert stuff. After the discovery of subatomic particles in the 20th century, matter was thought of as non-local patterns of radiating energy, or as an active dynamic organism in flux. Whitehead's genius is that he postulates a new world view because he reunites "matter" and "mind." He says that ultimately anything that is "actual" is in process, and that ultimate reality is composed of "events" rather than "substances." Let me try to explain this in more (but hopefully not too much!) detail: One way to approach your most difficult question is to talk about process philosophy as a world view. It's a world view where "all things flow." In _Process and Reality_, Whitehead said: "That 'all things flow' is the first vague generalization which the unsystematized, barely analysed, intuition of men has produced." But normally we don't operate in this mode of intuitive insight. Normally we think of (analyze) the world as made up of discrete material objects rather than as a "flow." As far as we know, Leucippus of Miletus (5th century BCE) originated the atomic philosophy. His famous disciple Democritus furthered his master's views: To account for the world's changing physical phenomena, he conceived of the "Void" as an infinite and vacuous space in which moved eternal, invisible, and indivisible "atoms." These atoms were in themselves static and changeless, and only by their differing structure, combination, and recombination do we perceive change in the world. This view had its roots in common sense, was taken up by scientists in the 17th century and fit well into the emerging modern materialistic and scientific world view. Descartes' metaphysics (around 1640) separated mind and matter. Science governed the domain of matter and God governed the domain of mind (soul). Eventually, science thought it could fully explain the domain of matter using mathematics as the main tool. The "mind" side of Descartes' metaphysics was jettisoned because, to state the matter frivolously, the left brain (logic) didn't know what the right brain (intuition) was doing, and the left brain was in control. The 18th and into the 19th centuries saw the rise of material science and fall of philosophy: If science was supposed to be myopic and analyze narrow highly-specialized areas of knowledge (this is good!), philosophy was supposed to be both circumspect and comprehensive so as to be make sure science didn't analyze itself down a blind alley. However, a purely material science took the ball and ran with it, and soon found itself wandering around in a strange environment where its own experiments seemed to undermine its own world view. Part of the problem stemmed from the view of matter as solid inert "stuff," in the sense of Democritus. In _Science in the Modern World_ (1925), Whitehead says, "There persists, however, throughout the whole period [the last three centuries] the fixed scientific cosmology which presupposes the ultimate fact of an irreducible brute matter, or material, spread throughout space in a flux of configurations. In itself such a material is senseless, valueless, purposeless. It just does what it does do, following a fixed routine imposed by external relations which do not spring from the nature of its being. It is this assumption that I call "scientific materialism." Also it is an assumption which I challenge as being entirely unsuited to the scientific situation at which we have now arrived." (p. 17) That scientific situation that Whitehead mentioned began taking shape with the studies in electrodynamics by Faraday and Maxwell (late 19th century). Their work indicated for the first time that something existed apart from palpable matter. The problem was that Maxwell's findings did not fit with the theory of discrete atomic units. The discovery of the electron (1897) showed that the 2,000-year-old conception of the atom as a homogeneous static particle was wrong and that in fact the atom has a complex structure. So, an atom was now known to be fundamentally different than both history had supposed, and fundamentally different from the "common sense" view. Now we start moving into a process-type world view. Scientists and philosophers began to think of matter differently, as non-local patterns of radiating energy. Thus it only makes sense to (ultimately) think of your arm or your desk in these terms too. This is part of what may be called the Appearance/Reality dilemma: Reality is not necessarily exactly as it appears to be. Whitehead postulated that reality is constituted by "actual entities" or "actual occasions" which underlie everything. An actual entity is not strictly matter nor energy, however. Actual entities are a kind of underlying subtension: Matter, energy and time all *result from* the dynamic flux of the interaction of actual entities. (Sorry, this is a complicated point, and is one of the main ideas of process philosophy.) With the discovery of electrons and subatomic particles, matter is now seen as active dynamic organism always in flux. An electron is not a distinct and particular "thing" traveling along a predictable path like a baseball hit by Babe Ruth. Rather it is a series of different particles coming into and going out of existence. However, electrons are not the same as actual entities, because subatomic particles are energy. (Again, this is another stickler.) I'm not a physicist and maybe some people on the list will correct me here (Chuck?) but I think we can consider the so-called messenger particle, called the Gluon, as an example of this flux. As explained by quantum theory, gluons have the ability to create other gluons as they move between quarks. If a quark starts to speed away from its companions, the gluons utilize energy that they draw from the quark's motion to produce more gluons. Obviously gluons cannot produce other gluons out of nothing, rather they transform energy available in the system into gluons. So, in a manner of speaking, there is a peculiar and intimate relationship between gluons and quarks, we may be able to say they are different ways of talking about the same "thing," entity or process. Although Whitehead's ultimate constituents of the universe (the actual entities) behave similarly to subatomic particles in *some* ways, please don't think I'm saying they are the same thing. This is only an analogy (and it might not be a good one, either, but we've got to start somewhere). Actual entities are rather explained in terms of "feeling" or "droplets of experience." If you try to think of them in terms of "tiny particles" you'll just drive yourself crazy. The difficult part is to move your mind out of a "substance" world view and into an "event" world view. Whitehead's magnum opus, _Process and Reality_, is a long and complex book that describes the relationship of actual entities to each other and their relationship to the macro-world; it can't be stated in one (or 50!) E-mail messages. However, if your like any of us here on this list, once you dive in, the depth and vision of it is overwhelming and fascinating. The main thing to keep in mind is that Whitehead is postulating a new world view because he reunites "matter" and "mind" by saying that ultimate reality is composed of "events" rather than "substance." This new world view sends tidal waves of equivocity and indeterminacy racing across the less complicated traditional modern world view. Physical objects are not fundamentally mechanistic objects, rather they are fundamentally organic interconnected processes. "All things flow." As I said, please take this with a grain of salt because it is only a very rough sketch, is very generalized, and further it's a kind of scientific approach. Further yet, it also concentrates on Whitehead. So, it's a scientifically- minded patchwork of a tiny slice of Whitehead's ideas. It's not meant to represent "Process Philosophy." There are many other approaches to process philosophy, among them social, educational, and theological. And within these you can talk about specifically Whitehead's ideas, or you can leave him out and talk about "process" in general. If you are brand new to philosophy, then you'll want to get a good general history of philosophy and read it either before or during your exploration of process philosophy. If you already have a general idea of the history of philosophy, then I'd recommend that you jump right into _Science and the Modern World_. It's fairly accessible, fairly short, and will give you some idea of Whitehead's novel way of thinking. Sorry for the longwindedness. I'm looking forward to see some other responses to your question. Bon Chance, Aliman. ________________________________________________________________________ | Aliman & Mirnah Sears | | Brusselsestraat 66 Phone: 011-32-16-20.39.88 | | B-3000 Leuven, Aliman.Sears@Student.KuLeuven.ac.be | | Belgium Aliman.Sears@Hotmail.com | | Mirnah_Sears@Hotmail.com | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| |Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Hoger Instituut voor Wijsbegeerte, | | Kardinaal Mercieplein 2, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium | ^----------------------------------------------------------------------^ From dp@hss.iitb.ernet.in Mon Jan 12 03:45:46 1998 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 16:10:51 +0500 (GMT+0500) From: "d.parthasarathy" To: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool In-Reply-To: <101C44F21E0@pmail.sit.edu.my> Current environment related movements in the third world are not just because the population are becoming more "aware" and "conscious" regarding the environment. Most movements arise because populations are directly affected by the forms of economic development that are in place, especially against large scale projects set up by the state or the transnational corporations. Movements arise not because local populations have been "educated"regarding environmental issues, but because they have a direct and immediate stake in the environment, their livelihoods are dependent on sustainable environments. D.Parthasarathy Dept. of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology Mumbai, India On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, DR. PHUA KAI LIT wrote: > Re: Emphasis on Economic Growth regardless > of the impact on the environment > > I believe that some people have even argued that it > all goes back to the strong Christian > influence on Western civilization i.e. the view presented > in Genesis that nature was created for the benefit of > "Man" and that we should have mastery over nature. > > This contrasts with other philosophies which > argue that human beings should live in harmony > with nature. > > P.S. As for the fascination of people in the > Third World with Western consumer goods and > a consumerist lifestyle, one has to remember that > the Third World is either still mired in poverty or just > emerging from poverty. When one is poor or dirt poor, the > image of affluent Western society presented by Hollywood, > American TV programs etc. is truly fascinating indeed. > (Remember the fascination of the New Guineans with the > material goods brought in by Allied soldiers during > World War Two and the subsequent appearance > of the Cargo Cults??) > > If you speak to the average Malaysian, he or she would think > that more and more shopping malls, more and more > housing projects, more and more condos, more and more > highways are desirable and even signs of "progress". > Nevertheless, as we get better educated and more exposed > to the latest debates over economic growth and > the environment, a Green awareness is growing among certain > segments of Malaysian society. > (Having studied and lived in the U.S. for a long time, I > enjoy going to nature parks in Malaysia. But to my parents, > it is just undeveloped jungle! My little niece complains > about the heat, how boring the park is, that she should > have stayed home and watched TV etc!) > > Paraphrasing Keynes, the scribblings of intellectuals yesterday > become the conventional wisdom of ordinary people today. > "Modernisation Theory" was promoted in academia in the > West in the 1950s and 1960s and these ideas have filtered > down and become > the conventional wisdom in the Third World today. > > Perhaps with the passage of time, ordinary people in the Third World > will become more "Green" in their consciousness. And > also come to view the malling of Third World cities and > urban sprawl as being a blight on the land rather than as > signs of "progress" (In Singapore - comparable to the West > in its GNP per capita and with a well educated population - > Green consciousness is quite strong > among the younger generation). From phuakl@sit.edu.my Mon Jan 12 04:08:39 1998 From: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" To: "d.parthasarathy" Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 19:12:30 +0000 Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool You are right of course. The Malaysian Bakun dam has really aroused the ire of indigenous peoples in East Malaysia. However, the young students I teach today do know much more about environmental issues compared to myself and my peers when we were at a comparable age. In the case of these middle class and comfortably middle class kids, I would attribute it more to greater discussion of environmental issues in the mass media. They are unlikely to be the ones who are directly hurt by dam-building, deforestation and so on. The environmental movement in Malaysia seems to be more of a middle class movement than anything else. (But with the Great Haze of 1997, it may gain greater support among the working class and the peasants). Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 16:10:51 +0500 (GMT+0500) From: "d.parthasarathy" To: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" Subject: Re: Media as Hegemonic Tool Current environment related movements in the third world are not just because the population are becoming more "aware" and "conscious" regarding the environment. Most movements arise because populations are directly affected by the forms of economic development that are in place, especially against large scale projects set up by the state or the transnational corporations. Movements arise not because local populations have been "educated"regarding environmental issues, but because they have a direct and immediate stake in the environment, their livelihoods are dependent on sustainable environments. D.Parthasarathy Dept. of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology Mumbai, India From rkmoore@iol.ie Mon Jan 12 11:11:03 1998 Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:10:12 GMT Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:10:12 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: restart - re: Marxism 1/11/98, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: >Are you saying that workers are not creative, lack initiative, have >poor judgment, and don't take risks? Not at all: both workers and bosses can contribute both creativity and labor. But labor, whoever contributes it, is not the full story on value. At least that's my belief. I'm not asking you to agree with my views; I'm asking whether my understanding of marxism is reasonably accurate. rkm BTW> If anyone else can respond to my earlier post - please do so. rkm From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Mon Jan 12 13:25:17 1998 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 15:24:46 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: restart - re: Marxism In-Reply-To: On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote: > 1/11/98, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: > >Are you saying that workers are not creative, lack initiative, have > >poor judgment, and don't take risks? > > Not at all: both workers and bosses can contribute both creativity and > labor. But labor, whoever contributes it, is not the full story on value. > At least that's my belief. I'm not asking you to agree with my views; I'm > asking whether my understanding of marxism is reasonably accurate. So what is the full story on value? Andy From chriscd@jhu.edu Mon Jan 12 13:56:05 1998 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:39:59 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: A Reinforcing Orthodoxy To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 16:53:51 -0500 From: "INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC" Organization: UWI To: listmgr@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: A Reinforcing Orthodoxy THIS IS INTENDED FOR THE WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK DISCUSSION LIST!! PLEASE ENTER MY MESSAGE. THIS IS MY 9th EFFORT: HELP suscribe wsn iserch@caribsurf.com A little while ago Andre Gunder Frank sought answers on the interface of social movements with B-phases through orthodox cycles-theory. I have pondered on his request and have only found the time since the holidays to jot down my impressions of where this list is going. Frank (& Gills 1993) lays claim to a longer historical unfolding of the world system, but seeks to find answers on various crisis-symptons in modern capitalism by taking up data that starts VERY LATE (circa 1500 AD) in the historical unfolding of the world system. There is a tale in this. As a young academic in the Caribbean, I have found the continuity argument of Frank & Gills, David Wilkinson, Chase-Dunn, Thomas Hall and a very few others, to be one of the more important breakthroughs in social science and broad development theory. But what remains unsettling is the tendency on this list to slip back into the overarching discourse of a 500-year "world-system". Perhaps this has something to do with intellectual hegemony and a sort of mild censorship function that an orthodox world-systems list inheres. The message seems to be that we engage in a monologue about the "world-system", the occasional querying of the hyphen notwithstanding. Do not confuse my concern here with academic choice on the side of the debate. There are many who accept the orthodox Wallersteinian position; and a few who do not. But the latent Eurocentrism and ethnocentrism associated with notions of a post-1500 leap into modernity jars against the normative emancipatory goals of most structuralists. The persistent cling to "the hyphen" does very little to rescue adherents from the charge of succumbing to civilisation/barbarism meta-narratives of modernist schools of thought. Funny how the historical rise of western Europe presaged the supposed birth of capitalism, of idustrialisation, of `relevant' K-waves, Kitchin, Juglar, and Kuznet cycles, of core-hegemony, of Arrighian de/regulatory cycles - in short of international political economy proper. Shouldn't we self-consciously take stock of the canvass of processes we confidently claim as recent and specific to Euro-bequeathed capitalism? Can we not find similar processes in antiquity? Rather than a competing set of voices on this list with no voices having a particular claim to priority over others, the orthodoxy prevails, a situation akin to an expression of autonomous power. Gotta go. Don D. Marshall Research Fellow Institute of Social and Economic Research University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus BARBADOS From rkmoore@iol.ie Mon Jan 12 17:55:07 1998 Tue, 13 Jan 1998 00:55:00 GMT Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 00:55:00 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: restart - re: Marxism 1/12/98, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: >So what is the full story on value? Come on Andrew, what's all this diversionary maneuvering about? Why don't you respond to my critique? Is it perhaps that you have no adequate response? rkm From beichenlaub@usa.net Mon Jan 12 18:10:59 1998 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 17:06:57 -0800 From: Bill Eichenlaub To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: World systems web resources Greetings, I did a fairly thorough search of the internet for "world systems" last week. I’ve put the results together in a page at: http://www.olywa.net/coastwalker/wsystems/wslinks.htm If you know of something it is missing, let me know and I’ll add it. Thanks, Bill Eichenlaub From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Mon Jan 12 18:34:23 1998 id UAA02202; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 20:32:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 20:32:52 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: restart - re: Marxism In-Reply-To: On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote: > Come on Andrew, what's all this diversionary maneuvering about? Why don't > you respond to my critique? Is it perhaps that you have no adequate > response? Because you offered no critique of Marx at all, Richard. You just said that you didn't like Brussels sprouts. How am I supposed to respond to your not liking Brussels sprouts? AA From barendse@coombs.anu.edu.au Tue Jan 13 00:24:54 1998 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:22:26 +1100 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: Rene B Subject: Re: Reinforcing orthodoxies Having been off-line for four months and having meanwhile temporarily moved to Australia, I have to catch-in on the ever continuing discussion on this list. I would like, however, to make two remarks on Don D. Marshall's stimulating comments, although, surely, these will only reveal my depth of ignorance about the discussion of the last months. 1.)Regarding economic cycles predating European hegemony. Yes, indeed, it is often assumed in economic literature that economic A- and B-cycles are typical for capitalism alone and that European hegemony indeed predated Kuznets, juglars and so forth. However, among historians this proposition has never been seriously held. In fact, much of the discussion on the Kondratiefs originally caught on because of research in the history of prices and wages in medieval Europe - partly initiated by no lesser a person than Sir William Beveridge the progenitor of the British welfare state - in the twenties, in which clear cyclical patterns can be found from the 12 th century (and, no doubt, before if there only were sufficient figures). More scarse material on prices in medieval Egypt tends to confirm that such cycles existed in the Middle East too and overlap with the European Kondratiefs. Ideally we should like to reconstruct price- and wage - series for antiquity but the extreme scarsity of material does not allow for this (although it might be possible for Egypt in late antiquity in the distant future). 2.)On the relationship between `B-phases' and anti-systemic movements: I do not know what Andre Gunder Frank's original question is - but as Frank is of course well aware there is a vast literature on the `B-phase' in Europe in the late middle ages and its relationship with the disturbances in late medieval Europe. Check out especially the writings of Guy Bois on this topic: `Malthus or Marx in the Late Medieval Norman Countryside ?' Well - that's some discussion for this list. Again, although I don't know much about this debate there is a vast literature - stretching all the way back to Gibbon - on the economic crisis in the Roman world in the third century and its relation to the barbarian invasions. So, this is a well-studied topic for periods far before any European hegemony. As he is thinking over the question let me be so impolite as to admonish Don Marshall a propos. The literature on the relation between `A' and `B' phases and revolutions in the modern and early modern period in Europe and Asia is as vast as it is unsatisfactory - so many other factors are involved that it's very hard to establish a clear relationship. However, one area which would merit closer research regarding the relationship between economic shifts and revolt is precisely the West Indies - any world-economic crisis tends to hit the inhabitants of the West Indies the first and often the hardest. Slave-revolts and peasant-uprisings in the nineteenth century in the West Indies can, I think, be profitably connected to economic cycles which would be much harder for Europe, let alone Asia. That is, I would argue, because - at least previous to ca. 1860 - there was in the West Indies no large, mainly self-sufficient, peasant population which tended to stimy the direct impact of economic crises in Europe, West Africa or Asia. Peasants working on self-sufficient family-farms would simply retreat to the farm from plantation or manufactures and since most of the income of the farmer is from direct agricultural consumption they can strictly work without wages, although this tends to make the wages quite rigid and may worsen the long-term impact of a recession. (It is interesting to note that this still applied to the Bombay textile industry in the strikes of 1983 when the workers simply `dispersed' to the farms of their family). Such a `safety-valve' did not exist in the West Indies. Furthermore whatever one may now think about Barrington Moore's work: the importance of the peasant-issue in uprisings and revolutions and thus to the formation of democracy and dictatorship throughout Eurasia can not be denied. Now, the West Indies are one of the few regions where pre 1860 there was no separate `peasant class' mostly isolated from the market. Uprising there were more closely related to shifts in the global economy, rather than to separate demands from the peasantry which normally tended to revolve around extremely local issues which might be linked to the wider economy or, again, might not. (This is, obviously, not to deny that the peasantry could have become self-sufficient as a result of shifts in the world-system as is obviously the case in the West Indies after 1860 when there does arise a peasant question). Peace, love and unity to remain in style (although that's probably too Rastafarian for a well-bred Barbadian) Dr. R.J. Barendse IIAS - Leiden / Australian National University Canberra barendse@coombs.anu.edu.au From rkmoore@iol.ie Tue Jan 13 09:08:04 1998 Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:07:42 GMT Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:07:42 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Communist Manifesto: critique by Petras (fwd) ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Sent: Sunday, January 11, 1998 9:57 AM To: pen-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu; marxism-international@jefferson.village.virginia.edu; cm150-l@mtu.edu Subject: James Petras' critique of the Communist Manifesto The sequence of capitalist expansion, destruction of traditional bonds and global integration was, according to Marx, the process of creating a unified working class, conscious of its class interests and linked across national boundaries. His chain of reasoning lacks a clear understanding of the importance traditions and social bonds preceding capitalism played in creating social solidarity for confronting capitalism and sustaining class consciousness. When Marx describes the bourgeoisie as reducing human relations to the "cash nexus" as a prelude to the development of class consciousness, he is essentially describing the condition of the U.S. working class--probably the least willing and able to identify its source of exploitation let alone struggle against it. The stripping of older beliefs--what Marx and Engels unfortunately called "philistine sentimentalism"--includes the sense of community and not necessarily belief in a "natural superior." Thus the assumption that the "everlasting insecurity and agitation" that the Manifesto's authors associate with capital's "revolutionizing of the means of production" does not necessarily "compel [man] to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life and his relations with his kind." In fact, economic processes are having the opposite effects in deepening reaction, atomizing labor, stimulating ethnic warfare and undermining a vast swath of economic production throughout Latin America, Africa, the ex-USSR and elsewhere. Thus the centrality of "tradition" and culture and community in defining the formation of class consciousness is lost before Marx and Engels' sweeping and uncritical celebration of the revolutionary potential of the development of the forces of production. Similarly, the savaging of the Third World labor force occurring under the aegis of the internationalization of capital has not led to greater class consciousness or "civilized" behavior. One look at free trade zones should dissuade anyone of that notion. Instead, it has broken class ties and fostered greater deference and servility. Bourgeois globalization has not created "a world in its own image" as Marx and Engels argued. Today these are the "sentimental pieties" printed out in World Bank public relations handouts trumpeting the "modernization" of the Third World. [And LM TV documentaries, I might add.] Their lack of a sense of class consciousness directly related to the producers and not derived from the capitalist process of production explains the difficulties many "Marxists" have in creating an alternative to capitalism. Today capitalists don't "call into existence the men who will wield the weapons" to deal a death blow to capitalism. They create millions of frightened, uncertain, temporary workers, tied to the cash nexus. To become a Marxist in the sense of realizing the goals of the Manifesto, one must reject Marx and Engels' false assumptions about the "revolutionary role" of the bourgeoisie. To move toward working class action, their conception of the transformation of workers into a revolutionary class must be subjected to the harshest criticism. Where Marx and Engels say that "man's consciousness changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life" the changes that capitalism has wrought have undermined the construction of a revolutionary consciousness at every point. The notion that the bourgeoisie revolutionizes production through competition and in the course "forces" workers to "confront" their conditions and subsequently join together is false on all counts. The most important change is not the revolutionizing of production, but the transformation of political and social relations throughout the world in a fashion that undermines the possibility of "material recognition of proletarians." To speak of the Manifesto today, one must move from the brilliant economic analysis to the revolutionary conclusions by constructing a new theory of revolutionary action. -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- The passage above appears in James Petras' article "The Manifesto's Strength and Flaws," which is part of a symposium on the relevance of Marxism on the 150th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto published in the latest New Politics, Winter 1998. I highly recommend this issue. For ordering information, check www.wilpaterson.edu/~newpol. Louis proyect ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Dear wsn, Thanks to Carolyn Ballard for sending me the above critique, which supports one of my objections to marxism - the invalid prediction that "socialist revolution is the only likely consequence of the contradictions of capitalism". As Petras points out: "a new theory of revolutionary action" must be constructed. In order to construct a new revolutionary theory, not only must the issue of class consciousness be reviewed objectively, but some of Marx's "brilliant economic analysis" must also be rejected. As I suggested before: > there are several paradigm shifts involved which need to > be considered separately: > (1) end of capitalist hegemony > (2) awareness that prosperity and growth are not synonyms > (3) awareness that capitalism and free enterprise are not synonyms > (4) awareness that there are many other alternatives to capitalism > besides marxism (1) end of capitalist hegemony ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Capitalist hegemony must be overcome, but this calls for sound political strategy and action, which must include management of a smooth transition to a successor paradigm. (2) awareness that prosperity and growth are not synonyms ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Belief in the efficacy of growth has been deeply ingrained in the masses by capitalist propaganda, and reducation is necessary for struggle against capitalism to be politically feasible. The practical case for Green-based prosperity needs to be better articulated. (3) awareness that capitalism and free enterprise are not synonyms ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Here's where Marx was most in error. Small business is a good thing, economically productive, and laws can guard effectively against exploitation, as can encouragement of labor solidarity and activism. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the common insantity of fundamentalist faiths. (4) awareness that there are many other alternatives to capitalism besides marxism ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Marxist hegemony in the discussion of revlutionary alterntives is dangerously detrimental to the progress of revolution. Marx said, and Engels credited it to him, that the working class could only overcome its oppression by ending all forms of suppression and exploitation. He offered no argument for this view, but it had a nice ring to it, and so it became part of the marxist religion, to be believed on faith. But behind Marx's hyperbole was a grain of truth: if capitalist hegemony is to be broken, given how deeply entrenched it is, only a radical reversal of the political order can succeed. A new broom must sweep clean, and one might then hope for comprehensive societal reforms, not just marginal gains against current elites. There's no historical imperative which guarantees that the societal changes will end all forms of exploitation, as we saw in the USSR and China. It is necessary to discuss objectively and with an open mind the alternatives to the capitalist system. Workers simply taking over their factories is not an answer to capitalism - it isn't radical enough - its just capitalism under new management. rkm ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore - rkmoore@iol.ie - PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal (USA Citizen) * Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig * ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ From wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Tue Jan 13 16:52:24 1998 by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with smtp (Exim 1.81 #1) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:05:55 -0800 From: William Kirk To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: contradictions of capitalism, and World Views as they relate to Ritchard and Andy Athanasios (Tom) Kokkinias wrote: > > At 02:43 AM 08/01/98 -0500, William Kirk wrote: Yes, this is interesting Tom, I think the post came through complete. The problem is that I am not complete, but, I dare say this is due to having been ground into Karl Popper philosophy. I have not read Whitehead but I seem to think I have come across something of the ideas. First, I think most imagine 'science' to be about things material; what 'partly' qualifies an idea to be scientific is a) can the idea be communicated to others, and b) is the idea repeatable, can it be demonstrated. In short, do I know what I'm talking about, and can I show that it works. Then, is the idea accepted by the immediate community? So, we can only try our best, which is all too often not good enough, especially when tramping about on ground where the signposts aren't altogether clear. Incidentally, in the posting from Aliman, a reference is made to the quark; this, and eightfold symmetry, was discovered by Murry Gell-Mann, a founder member of the Santa Fe Institute. I get the drift of what you are saying, I made a note a few years ago on something along the lines that I'll include here. New Scientist 1917, 19 March 1994. Is the future transparent? The leader covers predictions of the future, and states the biggest changes are social, not really technological. At least, technology changes but in ways which are not at all obvious. This has been shown by looking at predictions made one hundred years ago. What does appear to be a matter for the future is what is called "fragmentation". The article begins with this. 'The future is another country: they do things differently there. So differently in fact, that only the luckiest or most uncannily prescient crystal ball gazer could ever get more than a fraction of any scenario right. But in a world which is growing more complex by the second, surely thinking about the future is not only an interesting intellectual exercise, it also helps us to understand the present more acutely.' The article then ends with the following. 'The view that we are at the "end of history", or, at least, that there are no viable alternative goals for politicians other than liberal capitalism and affluent consumer-orientated culture, suggests that fragmentation may now be a permanent feature of post-postmodern capitalism. Is a different future possible? Is there ever a way to judge whether increased diversity and individualism is to be welcomed or not? That is perhaps the one area where we found few avenues to explore. With the end of Marx, there appears no one left with a radical alternative future. And comprehensive critiques of the way we live now are few and far between. If we are to make a completely different future, then we await someone with a new ideology. Or we may face an ecological catastrophe that will make nonsense of our postindustrial civilisation.' 1917. 19 Mar, 1994. Is broken ocean pump a global warning? The Odden feature. Anyway, I too have noted the Moore Austin discussion, >arguments regarding old, new and yet newer ways and means of theorizing....Marx (or I should be quick to point out lest I get flack - the various strands of Marxists theories/ists) and the "other" side >(Capitalism?..) A few years ago I found in the library Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism, I cannot remember the author but the date of publication was somewhere about 1967. I was interested in the chapter dealing with measuring dielectric spheres from reflected radiation. The author outlined that over one hundred years had been devoted to experimental verification of the laws, but was doubtful about the following hundred years. The verification was purely academic, and decidedly obscure, in fact I had taken the book from the Andersonian Library, Glasgow, and had been taken out in twenty five years by two other persons. The problem with verification was that about six months were required to do one calculation, and this involved 76 calculators. I suspect that 2^6 +2x6=76, so the calculators were using the management system devised by Diophantes. This was expensive, the pay for 76 persons in the 60's for six months wasn't easy to justify. I got a hint that the author was imagining that the work was destined to total obscurity. (He wasn't sure about computers and how fast they were going to be.) Look where we are Now!! It's all singing all dancing Maxwell's laws, look at the multimillion industries that have grown from them, I mean here particle analysis, hold a murky liquid in front of the machine and in an instant there is the number of particles and their size, in the 50 500 micron range. You want to know the size of ice particles or drops of water 25 miles away, we get the pictures on the television every night. So, who can tell, one thing for sure, the ideas of Marx have not been verified, so perhaps his time has yet to come. . . I hope the parallel can be seen. On top of that, I notice or I am beginning to become more aware of ridicule regarding Marx, not on wsn, more on television and newspaper; is this a sign that someone is seriously concerned? I wonder about this. "With the end of Marx, there appears no one left with a radical alternative future." What if it is said that Marx has not begun . . . >Both world views subscribe to a Nihillistic teleology that is driving this >planet to extinction. Yes, to give another analogy, the world is all aboard the SS Capitalism, the unsinkable ship, the core folk are on the upper decks, the peripheral folk are down below. Right now an iceberg has been spotted. The officers are hypnotised by the notion of 'unsinkable', deckchairs are rearranged on the upper decks. When this ship goes down the loss will be of Biblical proportions. >Marxists theories/ists) and the "other" side (Capitalism?..) of a kind of "mapped" pendulum affair - those neo-liberal theories/ists who forever >will proclaim the same kind of "grain of truth" as their eternal foes: Yes, the point I make is the perception of the 'two sides' where the map is a line, 1-space. I'd say most people believe this is 'the way of it', as many hold their hands to say there is no room for argument. Since the argument is polar, having a positive and negative, right and left, good and bad, right and wrong, black and white, then if the 'right' is 'good' by the simple rules we all use it follows that the 'left' is 'bad'. Therefore, most of us are preconditioned before we start on any study of 'bad stuff'. One other matter, in the perceived wonderful world of material possession, I fancied there might have been a reaction to the process, in that it is driven by political/capitalist ideas. I'll get back about maps and words. This is worth a look at. William Kirk. From cjreid@netcom.com Wed Jan 14 04:17:21 1998 Wed, 14 Jan 1998 03:17:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 03:17:11 -0800 (PST) From: "Charles J. Reid" Subject: Corporations and judicial interpretation To: Organizational distribution list , antitrust@essential.org, CTRL@LISTSERV.AOL.COM, cyberjournal@Sunnyside.COM, erf@rachel.clark.net, futurework@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca, IRE-L@lists.missouri.edu, JOURNET-L@AMERICAN.EDU, laamn@labridge.com, nation-talk@thenation.com, publish@cybernews.org, rad@gte.net, wsn@csf.colorado.edu This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --------------2E671F7C2C01 Hi, folks! I wanted to raise a couple of issues for discussion. Any comments? 1. As many probably know, the Supreme Court has raised contract law to a level that supersedes the Constitution of the United States. This has been an historical evolution starting perhaps has early as Fletcher vs. Peck (1810), and it certainly was one of the outcomes of the Snepp case (Snepp vs. United States (1980)), which many may know about. Frank Snepp wrote the book, "Decent Interval," about the fall of Saigon in 1975. The govt sued, arguing that he had a contract with the CIA not to publish without submitting everything to prior review. The Court upheld the govt, and I think all the profits of the book had to be turned over to the govt, and Snepp was banned from ever writing anything else about his govt service without submitting it to prior review. In short, the Court with this decision upheld censorship and abandonded freedom of expression as an American right. 2. As many also know, the Court in 1886 in the case, Southern Pacific v. Santa Clara County, interpreted the law in a fashion that gave corporations the status and rights of individuals (though not the same responsibilities -- in fact, corporate responsibilites have never been codified). In many Bill-of-Rights cases, where business interests conflicted with individual interests, or where business interests conflicts with some things govt wanted to do (e.g., search and seizures), the Court has sided with business interests by and large. This is especially part of the history of stopping states from interfering with corporations. 3. We have now reached the point, I would argue, that Court support for the business ideology is anti-thetical to the interests of individual citizens and irrational in terms of community decision-making. The traditional "conservative" support for the marketplace and those who control it has become untenable. We need legislation that accomplishes as least these things: A. We must affirm that the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, superseding ALL other areas of the law, including those areas that protect Executive Bureaucracy, allowing people with positions in the bureaucracy to think they are above the law. Contract law must not be allowed to supersede the Constitution: individual must be protected from being lulled, or forced, into absolutely signing away their rights, the loss of which is often economically or professionally related. B. We need to affirm one of two things: EITHER the responsibilities of corporations and govt bureaucracies vis-a-vis citizens and communities need to be codified OR we need legislation that will once again set forth the Primacy of the Individual and Individual Rights vis-a-vis corporations and govt bureaucracies. And then the law needs to be enforced, with individual being held accountable. E.g.: everyone knows that the CIA has been involved in domestic spying, but when was the last time anyone was prosecuted for violating the law on this? Corporations can also spy with de facto impunity. C. We probably need an Ombudsman bureaucracy with the mandate to handle all grievances against the govt. This institution should be staffed with people who can be as arrogant and as impudent as those who currently work in the Executive Bureaucracy. (Just to give one example: a Navy submarine pulled a fishing boat into the deep killing one seaman near Monterey, CA, and subsequently refused to answer ANY inquiry about the matter. We don't need this kind of crap in America. Anyone who gets a paycheck from our taxes is answerable to us.) Primacy of the individual need to be reaffirmed. As long as individual citizens are the lowest being on the food chain in institutionalized America, both government bureaucratic institutions and corporations will continue to win the most important legal battles relating to constitutional rights (i.e., they will continue to trample on our rights) and our rights will be sliced away into oblivion under the guise of some legal justification we are powerless to do anything about. As individual citizen's we ought to be able to contribute to raising public consciousness about these issues. It would seem to be in our interests. Too many juriridical interpretations are morally indefensible and null and void from a humanocentric perspective. Any thoughts? -- CJR cjreid@netcom.com "Salus populi suprema est lex" (Cicero) The welfare of the people is the highest law. ---------- "Genuine goodness is threatening to those at the opposite end of the moral spectrum." (Charles Spencer) --------------------------------------------- --------------2E671F7C2C01-- From gernot.kohler@sheridanc.on.ca Wed Jan 14 08:30:16 1998 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:30:12 -0500 (EST) To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: Gernot Kohler Subject: tradition vs. innovation (book note on Singh + Gatade) RK Moore's point of view in recent postings to wsn is very interesting and welcome. It touches on the problem of tradition versus innovation on the left, taking the side of innovation. Here is some further support for that position, broadly conceived, from an unlikely side -- namely, from a Marxist-Leninist authors' collective in India, which I find quite agreeable from a left-Keynesian point of view. REFERENCE R.P. Singh and S. Gatade, eds. Globalisation of Capital: An Outline of Recent Changes in the Modus Operandi of Imperialism. (A Study Commissioned by Lal Parcham and Lok Dasta) [No ISBN] Publisher's address: S. Gatade, ed., Lok Dasta, F-5/79, LIG Flats, Sector-15, Rohini, New Delhi-110085. 261 pages. Date: 1997. 300 rupees. (The title was forwarded to wsn by Alan Spector, April 1997) Most of the book gives a thorough analysis of globalisation. In the concluding sections, the authors state that: "It is the need of the hour, more than ever before, to make an objective analysis of the situation..." (p. 247) "As if revolutionary analysis requires permanent prediction of capitalist breakdown. This actually is a travesty of the scientific method of Marx and Lenin."(p. 247) "Traditional views...are in need of drastic modifications as they have been overtaken by sweeping changes of the post-war decades. ... Nor can one agree with the academic circles or independent Marxists when they claim that such issues have long been settled." (p. 257) "Another major issue has been in the background of this study ... It may roughly be described as the problem of apparent longevity and dynamism of capitalism which seem to contradict the prognosis of moribundity." (p. 260) "Left's ... agenda for the future will have a chance to regain popular acceptance only if these issues are taken up in an effective manner."(p. 261) From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Wed Jan 14 09:05:00 1998 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:04:40 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Gernot Kohler Subject: Re: tradition vs. innovation (book note on Singh + Gatade) Gernot Kohler, Your post doesn't support Richard Moore, Gernot. Rather it supports my argument. Richard rejects the Marxian standpoint. Singh and Gatade do not. They argue that "permanent prediction" is a "travesty of the scientific method of Marx." This is correct and precisely what I have argued. Marxian analysis is an open system that involves concrete historical analysis. Because historical systems are always in transformation, a core premise in historical materialism, the dialectical method must be used. My argument concerns the pragmatic success of historical materialism as a historical-scientific system. As for Moore's forward of Carolyn Ballard's forward of Louis Proyect's selected (selective) quotes from the enigmatic James Petras, I might prepare a response, but I presently have other commitments. So Moore will have to wait. But while he is waiting, I am still waiting for Moore's original analysis on the labor theory of value and an original critique of historical materialism. He said a couple of posts ago that he doesn't need to read anybody because all his analysis is original. But since then all he has done is dissemble, manufacture vague strawdogs, or quote other people. Show me the analysis. Andy From cballard@cetlink.net Wed Jan 14 12:53:34 1998 From: Carolyn Ballard To: "'WSN@csf.colorado.edu'" Subject: Kohler remarks/Moore-Austin Debate Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:46:54 -0500 Gernot Kohler wrote: RK Moore's point of view in recent postings to wsn is very interesting and welcome. It touches on the problem of tradition versus innovation on the left, taking the side of innovation. Andrew Austin wrote: Your post doesn't support Richard Moore, Gernot. Rather it supports my argument. Richard rejects the Marxian standpoint. Singh and Gatade do not. Andrew: I hate to say it, but you are lapsing into extreme hubris here. It is becoming apparent to me (and perhaps others?) that you either can't or won't recognize/address Richard's main point in this lengthy (though entertaining) debate re/the contradictions of capitalism -- that there are flaws in Marxist theory which preclude its ability to move us towards urgently needed, innovative/revolutionary world system change. It is this kind of inflexible adherence to Marxist dogma which has weakened the cause of the Left. From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Wed Jan 14 16:18:53 1998 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:18:35 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Carolyn Ballard Subject: Re: Kohler remarks/Moore-Austin Debate In-Reply-To: <01BD20FB.476C4540@ts1-rhsc-32.cetlink.net> Carolyn, How are Moore's vacuous posts hubris on my part? What logic does this argument rest on? And how is advocating an open system and concrete analysis dogma? The only dogma here is Moore's blatant corporatist rhetoric and anti-communism. And Moore's claim that he need not read any literature in this area is the epitome of hubris. The ad hominem launched in your post doesn't swing this "debate" in your and Richard's "innovative" direction, Carolyn. Quite the opposite, in fact; it exposes the paucity of the views, albeit nebulous, advanced on your side. Evidently some loyalty to Richard Moore has dispossed you of the ability to be even remotely objective in your assessment of the "Moore-Austin Debate." Andy From cjreid@netcom.com Wed Jan 14 17:53:37 1998 Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:47:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:47:13 -0800 (PST) From: "Charles J. Reid" Subject: Re: Who doesn't need to know? (fwd) To: Organizational distribution list , antitrust@essential.org, can-rw@pencil.math.missouri.edu, CTRL@LISTSERV.AOL.COM, cyberjournal@Sunnyside.COM, erf@rachel.clark.net, futurework@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca, IRE-L@lists.missouri.edu, laamn@labridge.com, nation-talk@thenation.com, publish@cybernews.org, rad@gte.net, wsn@csf.colorado.edu Any comments on this exchange about the "need to know" issue and compartmentalization of information? -- CJR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:29:57 -0800 (PST) From: Charles J. Reid To: Ed Cray Hi, Ed! I can understand that you might disagree with my statement on this issue. My purpose was to provoke thought. So it's consistent with your purpose, I should think. But I am dismayed that you would characterized it as "emotional." Of course, this is a well known rhetorical tactic. 1) You characterize my statement as "emotional." 2) By inference your statement is not emotional. 3) Assumption: emotional statements are not valid or acceptable. 4) Hence, my statement is not valid or acceptable. Sorry, Ed. I think any reader will recognize that there is a logical and unemotional basis of the statement and conclusions I drew. Let me add to my argument. Let's assume we all lived in a small community of, say, 200 persons. We'd probably know all there is to know about each other. Of course, we actually live in a big community of 260 million people, or 6 billion if we include the world. In this context, while it would be practically impossible for each of us to know everything about all of us, we can ask this question: what do we have a right to know about each other? We also have a meta-question: by what rule or authority shall we apply to answer this question? We can also ask the contrary question: what don't be have the right to know? We also need to ask the meta-question here. Place these questions, say, in the context of Supreme Court rulings on electronic surveillance, search and seizure, "national security", domestic spying, and asset forfeiture. Government bureaucrats have rarely, if ever, suffered sanction when they sought to know everything about a target, which often have been selected on ad hoc, illegal, immoral, and indefensible bases. Of course, we know corporations can also esentially buy this information. So we have government bureaucrats and corporations with the resources to find out with de facto impunity anything they want to about anyone, often by lying, cheating, stealing, and other unethical tactics. My argument becomes more refined: as long as some people somewhere are able to know anything about anyone, we all have the right to know everything about everyone. As soon as character and integrity become elements in our culture, and as soon as culture adopts rules respecting privacy rights, and as soon as these rules become codified into law, and as soon as they are enforced, and as soon as no one is above the law -- including govevrnment bureaucrats and corporate security officers -- when these things happen, then perhaps rules governing privacy will be morally acceptable. We can put this another way: current rules are a joke; they are violated all the time;therefore, null and void in any moral -- and by extension, legally acceptable -- sense. Ed, I can't perceive too much emotion in this reasoning. But there is an upside to this. There seems to be a natural law the operates practically: most people don't have the time to devote to accumulating information about everyone else, hence don't even care. So the rule I suggest, namely, we all have the right to know everything about everyone, is not threatening. Like the rule, we all have the right to swim in the Pacific Ocean, it is a rule that is not important to everyone all of the time. But, in our current cultural context, it's better to have this rule -- i.e., we all have the right to know everything about everyone -- than any other rule, because at least we know what the real rule is. -- CJR On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Ed Cray wrote: > Charles: > > I am sorry to dissent in part with your comment reprinted below. I do not > know what public good or a presumed "right to know" is served by revealing > that this or that person is adopted. Or just how some movie star divided > his fortune. > > What I am trying to get folks to do in pursuing this issue is to think > critically rather than emotionally. The principles of democracy > presumably include (after Griswold v. Connecticut) a right to privacy. > > The point is that rights guaranteed by the Constitution are in conflict > all the time, viz., fair trial v. free press. Or licensing of > broadcasting stations; is not that a form of a) prior censorship and b) > state licensure of a "printing press." The Founding Fathers were aware of > both ills, and probably for that reason wrote a freedom of the > press/speech clause into the Bill of Rights. > > Ed > > > On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Charles J. Reid wrote: > > > Hi, Ed! > > > > What you say is true, of course! The logically conclusion, then, must be > > that such laws violate the principles of democracy. If so, then such laws > > must be considered null and void by the defenders of democracy. Defenders > > of the such laws are anti-democratic and un-American, especially in a > > culture where integrity and loyalty to constutitional principle has > > essentially expired. > > > > -- CJR > > > > cjreid@netcom.com > > "Salus populi suprema est lex" (Cicero) > > The welfare of the people is the highest law. > > ---------- > > "Genuine goodness is threatening to those > > at the opposite end of the moral spectrum." (Charles Spencer) > > --------------------------------------------- > > > > On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Ed Cray wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Charles J. Reid wrote: > > > > > > > The only acceptable use of the term, "need to know," is with "We all,' as > > > > in: "In a democracy where people are legally sovereign, we all need to > > > > know." Corollary: "No one is authorized legally or morally to prevent us > > > > all from knowing." > > > > > > > > > > > I will not speak to the _moral_ issue, but I just might point out that > > > legally there are a number of ways that information may be withheld from > > > the public. In short, many are authorized to prevent us from knowing. > > > > > > 1) Gag orders as per _Shepherd v. Maxwell._ > > > > > > 2) In California, as elsewhere the public records act keeps sealed > > > personel records, contract bids until legally opened, and discussions by > > > elected officials about lawsuits filed against or by the entity. > > > > > > 3) Judges seal adoptions as a matter of course. Also wills of famous > > > people. > > > > > > 4) Judges seal settlements all the time -- even when the public has a > > > demonstrable need to know. (I suspect this will be an area of legislative > > > scrutiny soon.) > > > > > > 5) Military secrets real and imagined. > > > > > > 6) Arrest records and records of investigations until an information or > > > indictment is returned. > > > > > > 7) Search warrant requests and returns until opened by a judge. > > > > > > 8) Grand jury proceedings which do not result in a true bill. > > > > > > Etc. etc. etc. > > > > > > > > > > From rkmoore@iol.ie Thu Jan 15 07:45:18 1998 Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:45:04 GMT Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:45:04 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: tradition vs. innovation 1/14/98, Gernot Kohler wrote: >RK Moore's point of view in recent postings to wsn is very interesting and >welcome. It touches on the problem of tradition versus innovation on the >left, taking the side of innovation. Here is some further support for that >position... Thanks for the reference, will check it out. Hope you find my "model of revolution" useful. rkm From rkmoore@iol.ie Thu Jan 15 07:45:31 1998 Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:44:51 GMT Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:44:51 GMT To: Geoff Holland , wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network), activ-l , philofhi@yorku.ca (philosophy of history) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: rkm's model of revolution & democracy ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ rkm's model of revolution & democracy ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Copyright 1998 by Richard K. Moore www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal rkmoore@iol.ie 1. Where the world is heading - the context of revolution (brief recap of "rkm's model of the world"): ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (a) There is, today, an elite who benefit from and ultimately control the overall direction of global events and who determine the basic framework of public propaganda, namely (surprise) the _capitalist_ elite. The megacorp (TNC) is the fundamental tool of capitalist operations: the ship-of-the-line of the elite fleet. (b) Globalization is a two-level political transformation: a centralized world government is being set up, while simultaneously nation states are being aggressively undermined by a whole range of assaults from privatization to engineered currency crises to massive anti-government propaganda. National sovereignty and democracy are being replaced by global bureaucracies under direct elite control, thus officially and permanently institutionalizing absolute elite hegemony. (c) Global peace and harmony, as a scenario for world order, is perceived by the elite to be unstable and unmanageable; ongoing tension and chronic localized conflict are preferred. This is a scenario the elite knows how to manage - an ongoing version of dynamic "divide and conquer" - and it has the secondary benefit of funding a profitable arms industry. (d) Marx predicted what might happen if the elite turned off their collective brain and simply kept the laissez-faire throttle on "full speed ahead", running directly onto the the shoals of an apocalyptic collapse. The experience of the petroleum industry provides a much more likely scenario: when the shakeouts come down to a few major operators in each industry, they will cease serious competition and will instead collaboratively manage production, distribution, and pricing to their mutual benefit. (e) The prognosis for humanity is extremely bleak: nearly universal disenfranchisement; chronic conflict; social hardship and environmental decline; hi-tech surveillance and suppression; heartless bureaucratic domination and corporate exploitation under the control of an aristocratic elite. 2. Why revolution is necessary: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (a) The current course of global events must be changed, and must be changed radically, for humanity to avoid the dismal future toward which it is rapidly heading. It would not be enough to simply moderate the excesses of the current system: fundamentally different political and economic regimes must be established. (b) Economically, society must adopt a green-tinted paradigm, one which recognizes certain fundamental realities: the globe is finite; renewable and non-renewable resources are finite; ecosystems and biosystems are the very stuff of life, and they are fragile. Unregulated growth and technological development (eg, biotech) are not merely unwise: they are incompatible with continued human health and survival. Capitalism, even if it was appropriate to the previous era of intensive development, has now outlived its utility as a primary economic organizational paradigm: its interests have become incompatible with those of humanity as a whole. (c) The recognition of limits and the ending of capitalist hegemony does not in any way imply that economic prosperity must be sacrificed, or that society must become static, or that economic initiative must be stifled. The Earth and appropriate technology can provide adequate prosperity for all, and entrepreneurship and innovation should continue to make contributions and reap rewards. But the blind and relentless pursuit of "growth, change, and progress" must be abandoned as youthful folly: intelligence and wisdom must be marshalled to regulate the management and development of economic and technological systems. (d) Politically, society must find a new focus of leadership to replace that of the capitalist elite, one that is aligned with the long-term health of humanity and that embodies the wisdom and intelligence of society, not just its greed urges. Only in that way can the necessary economic and social agendas be defined and implemented coherently and successfully. Such a focus of leadership must be ultimately based in the population itself: such is democracy, and the people are the single constituency whose interests are most aligned with human welfare and happiness. (e) All avenues of significant political influence under the current global system have been co-opted by corporate/elite interests. The USA, the only nation with the power and influence to seriously modify the global system, is thoroughly dominated by elite political influence; other nations, in those cases where they are not similarly dominated directly by the elite, are severely constrained by elite/corporate domination of international trade, finance, and military power. (f) Only a major political revolution which changes the basis of leadership and power on a global scale can shift the direction of global society. In order for such a revolution to succeed, the USA must either be in the forefront or not far behind: it single-handedly has the power and influence to make or break the revolution, as its geopolitical track record over the past 50 years has amply demonstrated. (g) "Revolution" implies neither armed insurrection, nor the disruption of societal systems, nor the re-design of constitutions and governments. It requires "only" that a critical faction of today's leading national powers (including the USA) be brought under the leadership of slates of elected officials who are in alignment with the necessary new paradigms, who are dedicated to democratic principles, and who collectively bring to office coherent and comprehensive reform agendas. With the support of such an initial beachhead, the wider spread of revolutionary successes could be expected to follow rapidly. (h) For such an electoral revolution to occur, a revolution in popular consciousness must occur first: grass-roots mobilization and organization must arise on an unprecedented scale. Well-informed and and strategically-minded "movements" of majority proportions will be necessary to define adequate agendas and to achieve electoral victories. Incumbent governments and the mass media will employ all means at their disposal, overt and covert, to disrupt and neutralize organizational efforts, hence special care will be necessary in setting up the communications and leadership infrastructures of the movements. 3. The practical prospects for revolution: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (a) As the ravages of globalization unsettle even the Western middle classes, the objective constituency for revolutionary change approaches supra-majority proportions. By abandoning the nation state and their erstwhile political allies, the elite have left themselves vulnerable to creative and determined political opposition. As the "ladder of success" ceases to function, the trance of capitalist mythology looses its formidable grip. (b) The potential for political rebellion, based on objective economic conditions, has not escaped elite notice. As a consequence, consolidation of the globalist power grab is being pushed at a breakneck pace, adding kindling daily to the potential fires of rebellion, as well adding urgency to the need for popular response. (c) In order to manage the (already visible) growth in public discontent in the West, new elite tactics of "democracy management" are being deployed to maintain control over national politics. Instead of traditional consensus-based politics, where politician pied pipers take turns distracting the masses with "new national visions", a politics of intentional divisiveness is being pursued. Constituencies (aka special-interest groups) are becoming, in effect, mutually isolated cults (fundamentalists, environmentalists, militias, feminists, National Fronts, libertarians, etc.) - each voting negatively for the candidates least obnoxious to its minority belief system. Thus disempowered, each constituency blames others for society's ills, and the principle of divide-and-conquer is effectively applied once again by the crafty elite. (d) The undermining of respect for government, politicians, and democratic institutions has been from the beginning at the core of globalist neoliberal propaganda. Thus blame for globalization-induced social deterioration has been hung at the door of "bungling politicians" and "inefficient government". By this jujitsu maneuver, the elite have conditioned the populace to distrust the one avenue of power available to them: effective participation in the democratic process. (e) By abandoning national-consensus politics, and by nurturing cultish divisiveness, the elite have exposed another point of political vulnerability. As more and more people become open to considering "alternative" political belief systems, and as mass-media "news" falls increasingly into the same disrepute as politicians, an opportunity is opened for an inspired propaganda counter offensive. Each constituency can be targeted with customized educational outreach messages: a volatile public mind is more ready for revolutionary consciousness than is a mesmerized silent majority. 4. Principles of a democratic revolutionary strategy: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (a) Foremost is the necessity to focus on the creation of an ongoing instrument of popular consciousness, a grass-roots based coalition movement that embodies popular will and can act effectively and responsively to promote popular interests in the long term. The organizational structure and operational style of the coalition must be carefully designed to support this strategic democratic mission. (b) The very process by which the movement can be built up is the same process by which it can be dynamically maintained: mediation among a growing circle of constituencies, promotion of mutual education and understanding across constituency boundaries, the establishment of consensus agendas, and the negotiation of coordinated programs of policy and action. So as to maximize grass-roots responsiveness and minimize bureaucratic self-aggrandizing tendencies, the coalition itself should remain an umbrella organization of constituencies - a lean mediating agency, not a power brokerage nor an "institution". Checks-and-balances mechanisms will be necessary to guarantee on-going grass-roots orientation in coalition operations. (c) Electoral impact follows naturally as the movement gains majority proportions and can articulate a consensus societal vision. Individual candidates with competence, integrity, and dedication to the coalition agenda can be identified (or recruited) and their political campaigns endorsed. Electoral politics should not dominate the activities of the coalition or its allied constituencies: their common focus as a movement should be on organizational vitality, direct participation in societal affairs, and mutual collaboration in pursuit of a more livable world for this and future generations. Elections are a means to enable formal government to align itself with objectives already being pursued on the ground by movement members and organizations. (d) The initial attempts of the growing movement to exert political influence will involve considerable struggle against immense odds. The elite are capable, among other things, of sponsoring terrorist acts and blaming them on the movement, of engineering distracting international conflicts or domestic crises at critical political moments, and of mounting formidable and divisive demonization and harassment campaigns against leaders and specific constituencies. Divisiveness and destabilization are favorite elite tactics, and the coalition must be structured to withstand such tactics. If the reactionary counter-attack is successfully endured, the movement and its leadership will emerge from the struggle with significantly enhanced political maturity, much better prepared to participate in societal leadership. (e) The core leadership of the initial coalition organizing effort will face a comparable trial-by-fire when they first show up on elite radar: the robustness and integrity of the initial leadership effort must be insured by appropriate organizational principles, and early trials will serve to refine those principles for the greater challenges to come. (f) The first principle of democratic organizing is openness and frankness: not only is this sound democratic process, but it is disarming of elite counter measures. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, the elite are best prepared to neutralize conspiratorial movements; they are somewhat taken aback by leaders and groups which operate publicly and honestly. Membership, discussions, policies, and plans should not only be non-secret, they should be actively publicized. If some leaders are suppressed, new ones can rise from the ranks, already informed of policies and operations. Public exposure is the safest sea for democratic revolutionary fish to swim in. (g) The second principle of organizing is more subtle and concerns the deliberative process of coalition sessions, both internal and with allied and potentially allied constituency representatives. An effective consensus-development process is necessary, and skill in facilitating such a process in sessions with diverse constituencies is essential for coalition leaders. Abalone Alliance (70s, California), Quakers, and other groups have refined such processes, and the coalition should base its approach on those techniques which have proven themselves to be effective in practice. 5. Why revolution must be pursued with extreme urgency: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (a) The window of opportunity for peaceful revolution is closing fast. National destabilization and disempowerment continues apace as globalist institutions continue to consolidate their power. Erosion of civil liberties proceeds in the West (eg, US "Anti-Terrorism" bill) while police are being paramilitarized and citizen surveillance becomes more pervasive. The prospects for effective democratic revolution are being systematically and intentionally foreclosed. (b) The notion that revolution must wait until "things get worse" and the "masses spontaneously arise" is one of the most dangerous traps of revolutionary thinking. "Things" are sufficiently "bad" for revolutionary organizing to begin, and as time goes by revolutionary prospects are deteriorating faster than public discontent is growing. Official propaganda is specifically designed to explain away deteriorating conditions in ways that diffuse spontaneous revolutionary consciousness and which encourage passivity. 6. How the revolution might be launched - some proposals: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (a) Circulation of this document among activist groups will hopefully encourage strategic revolutionary thinking and discussion, and help point the way to a productive consensus perspective. (b) If sufficient interest can be aroused among activist leaders, a leadership conference could be convened aimed at (1) adopting a draft coalition platform which could be more widely circulated for feedback, and (2) planning of follow-up organizing activities. 7. Getting the ball rolling - a proposed draft coalition platform: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - recognition of the nation-state as the most practical venue for (initial) democratic rejuvenation: the infrastructures are already in place and democracy is more feasible/manageable at a national rather than global scale. Still smaller units, though they may be ultimately desirable, would be too weak during the inevitable confrontation phase with international capitalism - re-assertion of national and constitutional sovereignty: repudiation of "free-trade" treaties, re-regulation of foreign exchange and corporations, balanced budget through taxation of corporations/elites - all to be implemented prudently and incrementally - comprehensive reform of the democratic process within constitutional constraints - realignment of domestic priorities around sustainable economics, general prosperity, environmental prudence, human welfare, responsive government, and citizen participation - realignment of foreign-policy priorities around defusing of tensions, radical reductions in armaments, human rights and democracy, international cooperation, forgiveness of debts created under duress, respect for sovereignty, and encouragement of local economic autonomy and self-sufficiency. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore - rkmoore@iol.ie - PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal (USA Citizen) * Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig * ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ To join cyberjournal, simply send: To: listserv@cpsr.org Subject: (ignored) --- sub cyberjournal John Q. Doe <-- your name there From cballard@cetlink.net Thu Jan 15 08:28:50 1998 From: Carolyn Ballard To: "'WSN@csf.colorado.edu'" Subject: Kohler remarks/Moore-Austin Debate Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 10:22:14 -0500 Andrew- You wrote: How are Moore's vacuous posts hubris on my part? What logic does this argument rest on? If this were the argument, it would indeed be illogical. Forgive me, but I fail to see how you deduced that my statement re/hubris relates to "Moore's vacuous posts." Allow me then to clarify. Hubris refers to your counter to Kohler's remarks re/"tradition vs. innovation," i.e. that his post in some way "supports your point" rather than Moore's. Kohler made no mention of supporting either one side or the other, rather remarking that innovative thinking (Moore's) re/Marxist theory was a refreshing injection into the traditionalist (yours, others) debate. And how is advocating an open system and concrete analysis dogma? The only dogma here is Moore's blatant corporatist rhetoric and anti-communism. How does intransigent adherence to historic materialism constitute "advocating an open system"? If Marxist theory holds that ideas and social/political institutions develop only as the superstructure of a material economic base, then that theory does not lend itself to advocacy of an open system. Moreover, your arguments thusfar dispute your assertion that you advocate "concrete analysis." An analysis is concrete only insofar as it conforms to traditional Marxist theory, according to what I have read of your arguments. The ad hominem launched in your post doesn't swing this "debate" in your and Richard's "innovative" direction, Carolyn. Quite the opposite, in fact; it exposes the paucity of the views, albeit nebulous, advanced on your side. I was not under the impression that the intent of discussion on this list was to "swing" debate in anyone's direction. The purpose of the dialectic is to expose fallacy and elicit truth, thereby advancing "knowledge." That is the noble enterprise which we should be about in these list discussions, particularly in light of the exigencies we face re/ globalizing capitalism. The supercilious derision of ideas contrary to your own, as you continue to engage in Andrew, is counter productive to that process and its time-honored tradition of reasonable, intelligent debate. Evidently some loyalty to Richard Moore has dispossed you of the ability to be even remotely objective in your assessment of the "Moore-Austin Debate." I am proud to say that I am Richard's collaborator on the globalization/ fate of democracy book-in-progress. So, quite naturally, we share many of the same ideas. We also disagree on some, but in a civilized manner. I do not concur with your opinion that my association with Richard has circumscribed my objectivity re/this or any debate. Warm regards, Carolyn From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Thu Jan 15 10:40:04 1998 id MAA07995; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:39:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:39:29 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Carolyn Ballard Subject: Re: Kohler remarks/Moore-Austin Debate In-Reply-To: <01BD219F.78D84D00@ts1-rhsc-25.cetlink.net> On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Carolyn Ballard wrote: > Kohler made no mention of supporting either one side or > the other This is a false claim, Carolyn. Kohler wrote: "RK Moore's point of view in recent postings to wsn is very interesting and welcome. It touches on the problem of tradition versus innovation on the left, taking the side of innovation. Here is some further support for that position, broadly conceived, from an unlikely side -- namely, from a Marxist-Leninist authors' collective in India, which I find quite agreeable from a left-Keynesian point of view." So, as you can see, you are clearly in error. Kohler contrasts my side of the argument as "tradition," whereas Moore's is "innovative." Kohler praises Moore for "taking the side of innovation." He then commits the good intentions fallacy by (falsely) bringing in Marxist-Leninists who "support" Moore's analysis. The quotes Kohler provided do not support Moore analysis, therefore my statement is correct. You cannot accuse people of hubris for simply noting the correctness of their view. And Kohler does take sides, therefore your statement is incorrect. And there is no hubris in this, either (just error). You admit that you are fully aware that my position is being cast as "traditionalists," when you write that the "innovative thinking (Moore's) re/Marxist theory was a refreshing injection into the traditionalist (yours, others) debate." So why deny what you admit a second later? > How does intransigent adherence to historic materialism constitute > "advocating an open system"? This is like accusing somebody who accepts Einstein's theory of relativity of being a dogmatist. Or better yet, characterizing somebody who goes to see a medical doctor as being opposed to open systems. My argument: historical materialism is an open system; ergo, adhering to historical materialism is advocating an open system. By your standards any belief at all is dogma, a self-sealing fallacy. If these are not your standards, then you don't even have a fallacious point of view to stand by. > If Marxist theory holds that ideas and social/political institutions > develop only as the superstructure of a material economic base, then > that theory does not lend itself to advocacy of an open system. Neither Marx nor Engels ever advanced this strawman. In a letter to Joseph Bloch, on September 21, 1890, Friedrich Engels wrote: According to the materialist conception of history the determining element in history is ultimately the production and reproduction of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. If therefore somebody twists this into the statement that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms it into a meaningless, abstract and absurd phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure--political forms of the class struggle and its consequences, constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc.--forms of law--and then even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the combatants: political, legal, philosophical theories, religious ideas and their further development into systems of dogma--also exercise their influence upon the course of historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form." Here is Engels saying that even philosophical theories and religious ideas can "in many cases *preponderate* in determining" the form of historical struggles. This is one of the most famous distortions of Marxian thought, and evidence that Ballard does not understand that which she criticizes. There are the reiterations of anti-Marxist propaganda, Carolyn. Hardly scholarship. > Moreover, your arguments thusfar dispute your assertion that you > advocate "concrete analysis." This is another false argument. My posts here are discussing matters of metatheory and theory. My discussing matters of science, theory, and methods at a general level does not negate the capacity of historical materialism to generate concrete historical analysis. > An analysis is concrete only insofar as it conforms to traditional > Marxist theory, according to what I have read of your arguments. Not at all. I never said that, nor have I even implied that. > I was not under the impression that the intent of discussion on this > list was to "swing" debate in anyone's direction. Then it isn't debate, is it? This is worthless liberal rhetoric, Carolyn. Posts to this list are persuasive documents. Articles in journals, books, speechs, lectures, presentations--persuasive speech acts, all of them. You (and particularly Moore) assert your position with arrogance, but deflect this by appealing to the liberal ideology of neutrality. This is a base propaganda technique. > That is the noble enterprise which we should be about in these list > discussions, particularly in light of the exigencies we face re/ > globalizing capitalism. And this doesn't involve trying to "'swing' debate in anyone's direction"? Here is Richard advocating corporatist ideology, saying that bosses and workers should share the wealth. And you are on his side. What sorts of exigencies are *you* facing amid globalization? Go back and read Moore's post on how capitalists are innovators and visionaries, how they take risks and should be rewarded, etc.. Moore embraces the capitalist ethos, the very thing that drives globalization in this epoch, and you defend him *against* the masses, and personally attack me. > The supercilious derision of ideas contrary to your own, as you continue > to engage in Andrew, is counter productive to that process and its > time-honored tradition of reasonable, intelligent debate. No, you are completely wrong. The facts of this conversation are quite the opposite: You were flushed out from behind your private support of Moore by my attack on the threadbare forward by Proyect. And you came out swinging. Your post was ad hominem, and it was in support of Moore. Moore is so inept at advancing any critique of Marx that you come to his rescue (quite badly, too), privately forwarding him posts that might help him. And I legitimately dismissed the forward. Obviously you have some stake in this debate, however behind the scenes your maneuvering is. And you wanted to find some way of throwing a monkeywrench in the middle of ignorance. And you are wrong--wrong on every single point. So who is really being counterproductive? The real reason why Moore does not post any critique of Marx and historical materialism is because he know he will get nailed. He knows full well, and even admitted it a couple of days ago, his ignorance of Marx's work. Everything he posts to this list shows he is ignorant not only of Marx, but of the literature on globalization generally. That is all there is to this. Hence, he dissembles and obfuscates the "debate"--a debate he wanted to have. And you are playing good cover here with your irrational sniping from the sidelines. There is nothing scholarly about criticizing a point of view you know nothing about, Carolyn. And it is irrational to then attack persons advancing that point of view with accusations of "hubris," of being "dogmatic" and "supercilious," and other such inappropriate nouns and adjectives. > I am proud to say that I am Richard's collaborator on the globalization/ > fate of democracy book-in-progress. Makes all kinds of sense, now. I hope you don't practice the same sort of cerebral hygiene as Richard Moore, or else your "globalization/fate of democracy book-in-progress" thing is in a whole world of hurt. So far, his posts on the subject, like those this morning, are extremely weak. All the time you waste with this rhetorical posturing is time you don't have to spend actually saying something. But, then again, considering that virtually every one of your arguments in this post were untrue or fallacious, this might be your best angle. And don't sign personal attacks with "warm regard," Carolyn, okay? Andy From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Thu Jan 15 13:40:58 1998 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:40:51 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson Subject: Moore, Austin, and Brussels sprouts To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Moore I think is quite right to say that the labor theory of value is inadequate, and that many more things go into determining value. However, the Marxian position on the importance of labor is still relevant; even though labor may not be the only thing determining value, it is still one of the most important things. Capitalists are always looking for ways to lower their wage bill, and this has important implications for capitalist development. Stephen Sanderson From Eric.Palmer@Law.UC.Edu Thu Jan 15 14:02:50 1998 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:01:17 -0500 (EST) From: "Eric L. Palmer" Reply-To: "Eric L. Palmer" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Corporations and judicial interpretation In-Reply-To: Greetings! I am extremely pleased to have just joined the network and within one day read a posting on an issue directly related to my interests - Charles Reid's thoughtful comments on corporations and the Constitution. Progressive Corporate Law (Lawrence E. Mitchell ed., 1995), offers a number of very good, critical chapters on corporate law in general and contractarianism specifically. There is also a great deal of work currently being done in the areas of corporations and human rights and corporations and the Constitution. Of interest here are the articles available on-line at Korten's People-Centered Development Forum . The article titled "The United Nations and the Corporate Agenda" is especially surprising. Ward Morehouse and the Council on International and Public Affairs in New are also doing much work in this area. The National Lawyers Guild also has a very active committee on Corporations, Democracy and Human Rights. As a member, I attended a series of workshops organized by the Committee at the Guild's October Convention. Workshop participants included Ralph Nader, Maude Barlow (Chair of the Council of Canadians), Carl Mayer (a New Jersey political activist and law teacher), Robert Bullard (Clark Atlanta University), Lance Compa (N. American Commission for Labor Cooperation), and others. What has come out of this Committee is a mission that echoes the very relevant and urgent points raised in Charles' comments: 1. The recognition of the personhood under the Fourteenth Amendment is unacceptable. Protections of the Bill of Rights are given to people out of a concern for human dignity, liberty or equality. Corporate claims to such protections should be rejected except in the rare instance that a pervasive claim can be made that creating and enforcing the corporate right is necessary to make the right meaningful for individuals. In all cases the corporation's assertion of such right derives from and is dependent upon the need to protect the rights of individual human beings. 2. Corporate participation in politics is presumptively illegitimate. Therefore, e.g. Bellotti v. First National Bank (1978) upholding the right of corporations to use their money to participate politically, should be explicitly overruled to the extent that it has not already been implicitly overruled in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Comm (1990). 3. In all areas in which corporations exercise significant power over people's lives, it is presumptively appropriate to require corporate behavior to meet constitutional norms (just as government actors are required to do), as well as to respect fundamental human rights. Current law rarely imposes this obligation. Because of the type of power a corporation exercises and the authority it receives from the state, corporate actions should (in certain circumstances at least) be held to constitute state action. 4. Democratic principles require that corporations respect and follow rather than evade the local law of jurisdictions in which they do business, unless that law is violative of fundamental principles of human rights. With increased globalization, this principle becomes ever more significant. Contrary to this, the US government is rapidly moving in the direction of negotiating and endorsing international treaties that would increasingly free international corporations from the obligation to comply with local laws. The U.S. is also using its political leverage-through the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, and other means-to obtain acquiescence from countries whose domestic laws are likely to be overridden, particularly developing nations. Although international controls over multinational corporations are appropriate, international agreements should not be allowed to free MNCs from the obligations of domestic law. Peace, elp ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "The first step is to penetrate the clouds of deceit and distortion | | and learn the truth about the world, then to organize and act to | | change it." | | -Noam Chomsky | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Thu Jan 15 14:54:19 1998 by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with smtp (Exim 1.81 #1) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:13:34 -0800 From: William Kirk To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: contradictions of capitalism, and World Views as they relate to Richard and Andy. On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 04:58:48 Tom wrote, >I seem to constantly be reminded daily that indeed communication is a >fascinating process - I use ALL words while always fully aware that ALL >words are ONLY MAPS of a deeper TRUTH - all words are abstract to the >point of di-straction andde-struction) are using a particular map (or >more to the point - a set of maps) and are currently running amok and >taking the rest with them Tom, Maps and words. It is right to have a common understanding of words. A while ago someone was looking for a clear definition of 'core' in terms of World Systems, the one I have is G7, the semi-periphery is the 'second world', etc. However, there are one or two words that come to mind that might require clearer definitions and I hope there will be some response. To illustrate this, some years ago I was with an acquaintance, having some considerable wealth, and asked me along to his place of refreshment. Since it was obvious this was of the 'upper class', he suggested he should introduce me as perhaps more of that class, and decided that I was a 'developer'. I'm not sure if this has the same meaning on the other side of the Atlantic, but here it means brass, and a lot of it. Oh yes, what a difference a lie makes . . . Then, about two years later, in the same place with the same person, I said it was my turn to experiment, so I introduced myself as an inventor. This had the effect of clearing the immediate area, to the extent that Mine Host drifted over and wondered if there had possibly been some small indiscretion on my part. This is the point, think inventor and what comes to mind? Eccentric, head-case, garden shed, mad-scientist, bampot, Heath Robinson, loner, devious, etc., etc. What is the accepted or dictionary definition of the word, well, here it is from the OED, together with the word invention. Invent v.t. Create by thought, originate, (new method, instrument etc.); concoct (false story etc.); so ~ or n. (esp. in Law, patentee of invention), ~ress. n. [ME.=discover, f. L in (venire vent- come) find, contrive] Invention. n. Inventing; thing invented, contrivance, esp. one for which patent is granted; fictitious story; (Mus.) short piece developing simple idea; inventiveness; I~ of the Cross, (festival on 3 May commemorating) reputed finding of the Cross by Helena mother of Constantine, A D 326. [ME, f. L. inventio (as prec.; see ~ion)] More or less, what comes over from this is the word false, fictitious, contrivance suggests Heath Robinson, something that might work at some later time. Another word close to this is innovate, and here is the definition. Innovate v. i. Bring in novelties; make changes in; hence or cogn. ~ation, ~ator, ns., ~ative, ~atory, adjs. [f. L. in (novare make new, alter, L. novus new) + -ate] I tried out a word association test, again a few years ago, not under laboratory conditions I must add, to see what sort of response I'd get from asking the phrase - to bring in novelty. No one said innovation or innovate, the reply's given were Santa Claus, something with bells on it, nick knack, and others similar. This was carried out a week or two before Christmas so maybe this time of year could be better to try it out. The point of this is, and when I say people generally perceive the world just now, in their new cars, going to Bangkok and so on, they completely believe the transformation is entirely due to capitalist economics, capitalists and the World System of capitalism. But for this, we'd all be living in the days of black smoke, warm beer, Monday washing and listening to the radio. The capitalist and their hired hands are trained to take every opportunity to 'prove' that whatever is new and better is a direct result of capitalism. For example, I can remember in a talk show on privatisation a member of the House of Lords, pretending to be disinterested on the question of privatisation, said that since the telephone service had been privatised he was getting an instant reply to calls, whereas, in the days of the nationalised organisation, known as the General Post Office, or GPO, calls could take forever to get through. Alright, most know that electronic exchanges have made the difference, but this isn't said in the context of the overall improvement. Long before that, I think it might have been during the past labour administration, 1974-79, the Trades Union Congress, or one of the officials, was asked about the role of research and development in society and in general, he said this was best left to big business, meaning the multinational or the monopoly industries. Therefore, if I were to suggest an alternative definition for the word inventor, would this be acceptable at all? Invent. v.t. Create by thought, originate, (new method, instrument etc.); to reduce the energy needed for a process, or to create another resource from an existing one: so ~ or n. someone who initiates a process that creates wealth, and ultimately increases or maintains the economic well-being of a nation: i.e., creates employment, more taxable revenue etc. Is there any definition in any other language that has anything like this? I'm going off at a tangent here, I've just realised, if Constantine's mother was searching about in east Africa, and his father was in York, he was, I believe, buried there, did Constantine come from a broken home? Now, to the words that bother me right now, slave and enslave. Both are given, and the definition given is - Person who is the legal property of another or others and is bound to absolute obedience, human chattel, etc. To enslave is to bring someone into slavery. There is also a colloquial definition - Maid-servant, esp. hard-worked one. In all definitions there is the distinct quantum approach, you are a slave or you are not. Thus, enslavement is brought about in an instant, when the hammer falls and you then become the legal property of another. There does not appear to be any definition suggesting a gradual process, or that anyone might be a part-time 'slave'. Thus, if a person is say given to or bound to absolute obedience for six hours of the twenty four hour day, they are twenty five per cent slave. If this is increased to eight hours per day, then they have undergone a process of enslavement. This of course does not apply to those who work for no money, many people 'slave' away doing things but are not bound to another, neither are they subjected to absolute obedience. Those who are in the process of enslavement are there because they have no choice, they have no resource and are obedient by coercion. Perhaps all of this is arguable? There is a reason for asking this. William Kirk. From dassbach@mtu.edu Thu Jan 15 15:32:50 1998 From: "Carl H.A. Dassbach" To: "WSN" Subject: Re: Moore, Austin, and Brussels sprouts Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:40:31 -0500 charset="iso-8859-1" Stephen Sanderson wrote: >Moore I think is quite right to say that the labor theory of value is >inadequate, and that many more things go into determining value. However, the >Marxian position on the importance of labor is still relevant; even though >labor may not be the only thing determining value, it is still one of the most >important things. Capitalists are always looking for ways to lower their wage >bill, and this has important implications for capitalist development. I agree. Much of the labor theory of value is problematic but the LTV remains nonetheless, a central tool in the critical analysis of capitalist society because it demonstrates: 1. that even though the appropriation of surplus is hidden in capitalist society, surplus is nonetheless appropriated by individuals other than the direct producers. 2. production is (and should always be understood as) an antagonistic process - a process of struggle where one party (capital) attempts to extract the maximum amount of value from the other party (labor) and return as little value as possible. 3. capital is labor, the accumulation of capital is merely the accumulation of stolen labor. --------------------------- Carl H.A. Dassbach DASSBACH@MTU.EDU Dept. of Social Sciences (906)487-2115 - Phone Michigan Technological Univ. (906)487-2468 - Fax Houghton, MI 49931 (906)482-8405 - Private From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Thu Jan 15 16:13:37 1998 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:13:33 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Moore, Austin, and Brussels sprouts In-Reply-To: <00be01bd2206$966b3b40$2029db8d@dassbach.aux.mtu.edu> List, I have no problem with critiques of the LTV. I am familiar with many such critiques. The problem is when the sum total of somebody's argument is thus: "I find the 'labor theory of value' to be totally unsound, entirely too simplistic." What is that? Andy From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 15 16:31:40 1998 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:31:35 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: rkm's model of revolution & democracy In-Reply-To: On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote: > (f) Only a major political revolution which changes the basis of > leadership and power on a global scale can shift the direction of global > society. In order for such a revolution to succeed, the USA must either be > in the forefront or not far behind: it single-handedly has the power and > influence to make or break the revolution, as its geopolitical track record > over the past 50 years has amply demonstrated. Most of your post looks fine to me, but I wonder about this point. This may have been true in the Cold War era, but nowadays, the USA is a small, declining economy amidst a very large world-system. The EU is a bigger market, and Japan and the East Asian countries haven't exactly been resting on their laurels since 1989 (though of course now they have to deal with an Eastern European-style meltdown of their peripheries). Put it another way: reaction in the USA has put the hurt on many Latin American Left projects, but our control over the world-system has, thankfully, declined considerably since the Eighties. Nowadays, when economic crises break out in the Czech Republic or South Korea, it's Japan and the EU which seem to be doing the bailouts. This suggests that a canny resistance movement might find new, post-American sources of leverage in the decades to come. > (b) The very process by which the movement can be built up is the > same process by which it can be dynamically maintained: mediation among a > growing circle of constituencies, promotion of mutual education and > understanding across constituency boundaries, the establishment of > consensus agendas, and the negotiation of coordinated programs of policy > and action. So as to maximize grass-roots responsiveness and minimize > bureaucratic self-aggrandizing tendencies, the coalition itself should > remain an umbrella organization of constituencies - a lean mediating > agency, not a power brokerage nor an "institution". Checks-and-balances > mechanisms will be necessary to guarantee on-going grass-roots orientation > in coalition operations. Very much like the ideal (if not the practice) of the Greens. What's your impression of the Green movement generally, and especially the well-organized German Green Party? What can and should the Greens in less organized, Anglo-Saxon countries be doing to generate these kinds of radical umbrella groups? -- Dennis From akwebb@phoenix.Princeton.EDU Thu Jan 15 21:39:08 1998 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 23:38:18 -0500 (EST) From: "Adam K. Webb" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: rkm's model of revolution & democracy In-Reply-To: This model is the most complete you have presented to date, but it still seems rather amorphous. You keep saying that there is potential for a broad coalition, consensus, mobilisation, and so on. But can you offer a more concrete analysis, even in retrospect from a hypothetical postrevolutionary vantage point, of how the relevant social forces and institutions are supposed to interact? What would be the chapter headings of a history book written five years after victory? Any revolutionary history involves specific social sectors, crises, exploitation of particular cleavages, framing of appeals to political subcultures, dynamics of relative group leverage, elite splits and defections, ranking of priorities, issue linkages, constituency side-payments, capture or incapacitation of the coercive apparatus, negotiated settlement pacts, phases of coalition formation and disintegration, empowerment of counterelites, management of reactionary insurgency, etc. My apologies if I sound too much like a social scientist, but I doubt that any movement is going to succeed simply by taking the most inclusive, optimistic, and aggregative of views. Can you sketch out for me even one scenario of how this revolutionary process is supposed to work? At times it seems that you are resting all hopes on appealing to public opinion and winning elections, after which the whole system magically responds to the popular will. It sounds like a cross between Perot's United We Stand America and Allende's Unidad Popular, neither of which figure in history as great successes. Frankly I doubt the hypothetical movement could even win Congressional representation, given the political culture and structure of electoral incentives in the United States or anywhere else in the G7, much less majority power for long enough to undertake irreversible changes. One plausible scenario, that's all I ask--and from whatever theoretical (or atheoretical) perspective you like.... Regards, --AKW =============================================================================== Adam K. Webb Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton NJ 08544 USA 609-258-9028 http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb From asajh@UAA.ALASKA.EDU Fri Jan 16 02:36:26 1998 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:47:11 -0800 From: Andrew Hund Subject: MULTI-LANGUAGE SEARCH ENGINE To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu You never know what will appear in your e-mail -- I thought I would pass this around in hopes someone has an international business :-) Andrew Hund http://cwolf.uaa.alaska.edu/~asajh/Soc/ >---------------------------- >MULTI-LANGUAGE SEARCH ENGINE >---------------------------- > >You are invited to register your business in > >http://WORLD-TRADE-SEARCH.com/ > >World Trade Search is the first commercial multi-language search >site that offers free registration AND searching! Register today! > >This search engine is powered by I-Search which enables users to >conduct keyword searches in their native languages. > >I-Search currently supports more than 20 languages from around the >world, including: > > * Asia: Chinese (BIG5 and GB), Japanese, Korean, etc. > * Western Europe: English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, > Italian, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Icelandic, etc. > * Eastern Europe: Russian, Polish, Hungarian, etc. > * And many more! For instance Hebrew, Arabic, and Turkish. > >Virtually any language can easily be supported! > >Please feel free to register in as many languages as you >do business in. > > >If you are interested in the I-Search search engine, please visit our >home page at > >http://www.iicnet.com/mldb/ > >Please reply to this email. Our representative will contact you and >send you more information about I-Search. > >Please indicate your interest in I-Search: > > * For corporate sites. > * For clients sites. > * To become a VAR. > * To become a distributor. > * To license the technology. > * For a localization company that can include multi-language > search engine installation and configuration in your services. > * For an ISP which can resell multi-language searching feature > to web site clients. > > >Sincerely, > > >World-Trade-Search (WTS) >====================================== >Multi-language Search Engine >International business is our business! > >http://world-trade-search.com/ > >2601 Elliott Ave. Suite 4174 >Seattle International Trade Center >Seattle, WA 98121 >USA > >Email: info@iicnet.com >Tel: 1-206-256-1685 >Fax: 1-206-256-1687 >====================================== > > >[If you wish to be removed from our mailing list, please reply to >this message with the subject header set to "remove".] > Andrew Hund http://cwolf.uaa.alaska.edu/~asajh/Soc/ From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Fri Jan 16 12:59:40 1998 id OAA05193; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 14:59:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 14:59:35 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: rkm's model of revolution & democracy In-Reply-To: List, I think one of the big problems with Moore's argument is his claim that there is an elite who "ultimately control the overall direction of global events. I think this is simplistic. And here's why. If this elite had ultimate control then why couldn't they prevent regional crises, such as the deterioration of Asian financial markets? Because they can't prevent it. Even their interventions have not worked. Where is this "ultimate control"? It simply isn't there. The argument isn't plausible given situations like Asia. Moore is stuck with saying that the elite who control the overall direction of global events caused the Asian crisis for some sort of beneficial reason to elites. Rather, I think it is that there are elites who have some capacity to steer events and shape certain outcomes, but that generally global development is objective and emergent. Rather than doing the necessary historical analysis, Moore opts for simplistic conspiracy theory. Several detailed examples of the complexity of elite steering can be found in Bill Robinson's Promoting Polyarchy (1996). What he found in all cases was that US and transnational elites in subverting popular movements had to rely on organic movements that emerged rather than creating a faux popular movement. The US would support the dictator until such time that it was apparent that popular forces had built enough momentum to topple the regime, *then* the US switched their support from the regime to the movement and began co-opting leaders and so forth. The US's role was *shaping* the outcome, but elite control is too strong language even in the national context. The idea that an elite could control the overall direction of the global system is far and away more problematic. The goal of global elites is to secure peace so that the injection of transnational capital is profitable to the global capitalist class. For example, extending NATO is not about fostering conflict, but rather it is about securing a zone for the operation of transnational capital. Elites sometimes foster conflicts for the purpose of destabilization. But the question here is the soundness of Moore's argument that this is an on-going strategy at the global level. Moore has never presented any evidence to support this claim. Moore has a bad tendency to explain global conflicts as the result of elite machinations rather than the product of complex historical forces. Moore's arguments are deeply contradictory. He argues that capitalism has "outlived its utility as a primary economic organizational paradigm." But in previous posts he advances a corporatist model still predictated on capital logic. Indeed, he goes on in his last post to talk in glittering terms about entrepreneurs, prosperity, etc.. Entrepreneurs, he argues, should be permitted to "reap rewards," for example. Moore, it seems, has not grasped the fundamental contradiction in capitalism. The logic of Moore's arguments on this list are fundamentally flawed, in my view, because they crash on the shores of some of the most obvious antinomies. I recommend, for example, he read M. O'Connor's Is Capitalism Sustainable? to get an idea about some of these problems he ignores. Andy PS--By the way, if a "revolution" does not disrupt societal systems then it is not a revolution. If it does not redesign governments it is not a revolution. From rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU Sat Jan 17 16:13:05 1998 Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 16:09:33 -0700 (MST) From: Richard N Hutchinson To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Freedom for Toni Negri & italian political prisonners (fwd) WSN List- Here is an update on the effort to free Italian marxist theorist Toni Negri. I encourage you to participate. The website for the petition is: http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~forks/TNmain.htm (Check at the end of the forwarded message for this in case I made an error in transcription.) For those who are curious about Negri's work, I suggest you look up his "Marx Beyond Marx", which is an analysis of the Grundrisse. Richard Hutchinson ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:16:25 +0100 From: laurent@ecn.org To: yann.m.boutang@wanadoo.fr Subject: Freedom for Toni Negri & italian political prisonners Freedom for Toni NEGRI-- To Have Done with the Year of Lead in Italy! Information letter to signers of the appeal Ever since delivering himself over to Italian justice in July 1997, Toni Negri has been incarcerated in Rome, his only short-term hope that of working outside and returning every evening to prison (a very strict system in no way comparable to partial release). That means that he needs our active support to make people understand his cause and that of 400 militants still imprisoned or in exile, especially since the effect of surprise has passed and the debate opened in the Italian press on the political meaning of Negri’s return is being progressively closed. Hence the importance of the existence and activities of the "Committee for the Liberation of Toni Negri and Amnesty for the Years of Lead," which was formed last October 17 on the initiative of signers of the Appeal (1000 signatures have already been recorded from all over the world, several hundred of which come from internationally famous persons, and several hundred remain to be recorded). The Committee’s first initiatives: 1) A press conference was held on November 18 at the headquarters of the League of the Rights of Man; you may have read echoes of it in the press. Some newspapers have picked up the Appeal, in particular Le Monde and the Guardian. A dossier on the case is in preparation at Libération. In Italy, by contrast, apart from the unambiguous support of Il Manifesto, the major organs of the press have kept an uncomfortable silence, with only a few papers providing a brief news item. 2) An important initiative: on November 25 a committee delegation went to the European Parliament at Strasbourg to present the petition to national representatives there. The committee was received in succession by ten deputies, from France (Socialist Party, Communist Party, and others from the Left), and Germany (the Greens), and as for Italy, the delegation met the PDS, the party in power, the united left and the Radical Party. The delegation was received attentively by the French and German parliamentarians. On the Italian side, obviously central, the PDS expressed two principal reservations. Without explicitly admitting that the Italian emergency laws are in contradiction with European laws, the two PDS representatives insisted that they proved their worth in the fight against organized crime, and that a compromise must be found between the preservation of their efficacy and the demands of democracy. They cautiously promised to sound out opinion on the problem of amnesty while raising the danger that an expanded amnesty law could also be used to absolve others of corruption (Tangentopoli). In short, the discussion remains open on that side. As for the Radical Party, it has a favorable attitude regarding the amnesty for events in relation to the Years of Lead. The Radical Party proposes to take the contents of the petition and produce a text to be signed by European parliamentarians and propose it for discussion by the Commission on Civil Liberties. AND NOW… The committee is continuing its activity directed toward Strasbourg by assisting in the promotion of an internal parliamentary initiative (petition). The signature campaign continues and other initiatives are being planned. THESE INITIATIVES ARE QUITE COSTLY: trips to Strasbourg and Brussels, not to speak of legal and administrative fees. Those who wish to make financial contributions should please read the attached instructions. Thanks for your solidarity. A tax-deduction receipt will be sent to you by return mail. --The Committee P.S.: In "Retour vers le futur" (90 minutes), a videocassette recorded by Toni Negri before his departure from France, he tackles different political and philosophical subjects. This video may be ordered by check for 250 francs (which will go to the committee) from the following address: L'Yeux ouverts 2 Allée Komarov 92000 Nanterre FRANCE Tel. 0147667176 FELICE - APPEAL FOR FUNDS 1997/1998 If you want to send a check: SEND YOUR CHECK payable to the order of Ť La FELICE ť together with this form to the following address: Bernard PRINCE 13 rue Biscornet 75012 PARIS FRANCE Mr./Ms. Address City State Post Code Tel Fax e-mail ________________________________________________________________________ If you want to make a funds transfer: TRANSFER to: FELICE - Account N° 04618348640 Caisse d’épargne de l’Ile de France 19, rue du Louvre BP940 75021 Paris Cedex 01 FRANCE Warning : any transfer to a foreign country costs money: a service fee of 250FF or Ł25 or $50 US or something comparable per transfer will be assessed. So you should transfer a large amount of money if you choose this method. Point of Origin date Signature Web sites : ----------- Petition : http://www.anet.fr/~aris/ecn/infoszone/solidarite/negri05.html French : http://www.anet.fr/~aris/ecn/infoszone/solidarite/negri01.html Spanish : http://www.larc.net/desertika/autonomia/negri.htm http://www.larc.net/desertika/argument/argument.htm http://nodo50.ix.apc.org/laboratorio/convocat/amnistia.htm English http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~forks/TNmain.htm Italian : http://www.ecn.org/liberi/ http://www.ecn.org/rete.sprigionare Turkish : http://aries.gisam.metu.edu.tr/yeni/newseng.htm And probably more... From rkmoore@iol.ie Sat Jan 17 19:12:03 1998 Sun, 18 Jan 1998 02:11:46 GMT Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 02:11:46 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: responses to "revolution & democracy" dear wsn, I very much appreciate your taking the time to review and comment on this thread. As must be obvious to everyone, both of the "models" I've presented are essentially lists of conclusions I have reached, without substaniating argument. In fact, the "models" are outlines for portions of the book "Globalization and the New World Order", and I don't expect this book to be an easy one to write. We're making strong and controversial claims and we anticipate considerable research and painstaking exposition for the book to enjoy any public or critical acceptance. But there is considerable value in discussing the model at this high level of abstraction, for those audiences who are able to deal with it. If we can get past some of the piecemeal objections, at least for the sake of argument, then we can ask whether the flow of the models work: IF each statement were to be individually proven, THEN does the flow of the model provide a logical sequence leading to useful insights and perspectives? I hope we can get to that stage of discussion. I appreciate this opportunity to offer focused elaborations for the topics that have been specifically challenged. -rkm -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- the model> >> (1.a) There is, today, an elite who benefit from and ultimately >>control the overall direction of global events and who determine >>the basic framework of public propaganda, namely (surprise) the >>_capitalist_ elite. The megacorp (TNC) is the fundamental tool of >>capitalist operations: the ship-of-the-line of the elite fleet. Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: >I think one of the big problems with Moore's argument is his claim that >there is an elite who "ultimately control the overall direction of global >events. I think this is simplistic. Indeed this is a very controversial claim on my part, and special care will be necessary in developing this point. I've been practicing for this task, having published nine articles in various periodicals and journals which attempt to establish the claim from various perspectives. For those who like to argue via references, I can suggest looking at the various articles (mine and others) posted in Cyberlib on my website: www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal As I currently envision it, the line of argument will include... - Respected historical works will be cited regarding the existence and role of elites, especially over the past 200 years in the West. Some of the scenarios are sufficiently well established by evidence that the "logical possibility" of coherent and effective elite behavior must be admitted: the question is merely one of identifying where it does and doesn't occur. - In particular, the Council on Foreign Relations will be examined in some detail, especially its long track record in articulating policy well in advance of it being adopted by the USA and other Western powers. The fluidity of personnel between elite circles, the CFR, and government will be examined, and the case will be made that the CFR is one obvious emobdiment of elite consciousness, and that it directly sets US policy on many primary geopolitical matters. - We will present the analysis that the postwar pax-americana regime created fundamentally different circumstances for capitalism, and that a shift of capitalist focus away from the nation state and toward a global perspective was all but inevitable. - We will trace the evolution of the IMF, WTO, et al, including insider statements about their goals and functioning, and show that they are very clearly elite-dominated institutions, beholden directly to the inner circles of international banking, finance, and the capitalist elite generally. We will present the scope of power that is being vested in these institutions, and show that national sovereignty is even already more facade than reality. There is more, but that should give some idea of how seriously we take this "Claim 1.a". The claim is admittedly "simplistic" as stated in the "model", but the thesis is not one that was reached easily, nor will it be presented simplistically. >And here's why. If this elite had >ultimate control then why couldn't they prevent regional crises, such as >the deterioration of Asian financial markets? Because they can't prevent >it. Even their interventions have not worked. Where is this "ultimate >control"? It simply isn't there. The argument isn't plausible given >situations like Asia. Moore is stuck with saying that the elite who >control the overall direction of global events caused the Asian crisis for >some sort of beneficial reason to elites. Rather, I think it is that there >are elites who have some capacity to steer events and shape certain >outcomes, but that generally global development is objective and emergent. >Rather than doing the necessary historical analysis, Moore opts for >simplistic conspiracy theory. (cont. at bottom of post) The Asian meltdown is worth some considerable debate. I didn't feel "stuck" with my 23 Dec posting at all: I don't deny the possibility of crises due to unforseen panics; I don't claim elite ominipotence. I _chose_ to raise the possibility of elite manipulation in the meltdown because I see it as a likely scenario that deserves closer examination. There was OPPORTUNITY, there was MOTIVE, there were a whole host of consequent elite BENEFITS, and elite institutions are now running wild re-engineering the region according to their globlist recipe book, far beyond any relevance to the crisis and what might have caused it. Circumstantially it looks very much like a well-engineered take-over of the reigns of the erstwhile tiger, stealing its substance and forcing it to undergo a course of globlist re-conditioning. I have no argument with the point that "generally global development is objective and emergent". And presumably you would agree that elite elements attempt to guide and influence the parameters of this process when they can. For example, the IMF has considerable influence over where capital does and doesn't "flow", thus regulating, to some extent, the dynamics of "emergent" investment behavior. The question is one of degree: just how much functional influence do elites have? I intend to do the historical analysis that seems necessary to me (and my collaborators) in attempting to address this question of degree. Again you insist on using the word "simplistic". Is _all_ emphasis on "agency" considered inherently simplistic by materialism, as you understand it? -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- the model> >> (1.b) Globalization is a two-level political transformation: a >>centralized world government is being set up, while simultaneously >>nation states are being aggressively undermined by a whole range of >>assaults from privatization to engineered currency crises to massive >>anti-government propaganda. National sovereignty and democracy are >>being replaced by global bureaucracies under direct elite control, >>thus officially and permanently institutionalizing absolute elite >>hegemony. Vunch wrote: > Allow me to pick this apart. Globalization is happening only in the >sense of capitalist exploitation of labor markets. Otherwise, you can't >really expect people to believe that a unity of humans is actually being >installed politically. The apathy of the US public starkly contradicts >the terrorism found in most 3rd world countries, a terror that is often >created by local injustices. To even think that there is a global >bureaucracy and that such an organization is controlled by an >'elite' is to beg questions of where is it and who are they? The fact >that money talks is not relevant to most people who struggle just to pay >rent. I think you are overestimating the general intelligence of the >masses, the reality of the so-called elite, and the unreachableness of >authority within organizations. Globalization is much, much more than the "exploitation of labor markets". Just to pick one small example among dozens, there is CODEX, which is the name of an elite-dominated commmission with the charter to set down eventually-binding global rules for drugs and pharmaceuticals: the likes of EJ Lilly and Bayer are right-now deciding what will be "safe" (eg, expensive and inadequately tested drugs and biotech products) and "unsafe" (eg, non-prescription vitamins and health foods). This is a matter of record, even if it doesn't make the evening news. It all adds up to political power, even though it is always called "economic reform". There _is_ a "global bureaucracy", primarily the IMF and WTO; it is definitely controlled by the capitalist elite; and it is being "installed politically", although that fact is consistently downplayed by media spin and official rhetoric (itself evidence of pervasive elite control). Regardless of what caused the Asian meltdown, the IMF is now implementing _political_ policy in the region: forcing it down everyone's throats because the IMF has the power to do so. As for over-estimating the general intelligence of the masses, I can only say ignorance rather than stupidity is the problem of the masses, unless all my life I've only met atypical people. -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- the model> >> (2.f) Only a major political revolution which changes the >>basis of leadership and power on a global scale can shift the >>direction of global society. In order for such a revolution to >>succeed, the USA must either be in the forefront or not far behind: >>it single-handedly has the power and influence to make or break the >>revolution, as its geopolitical track record over the past 50 years >>has amply demonstrated. Dennis R Redmond wrote: >Most of your post looks fine to me, but I wonder about this point. >This may have been true in the Cold War era, but nowadays, the USA is a >small, declining economy amidst a very large world-system. The EU is a >bigger market, and Japan and the East Asian countries haven't exactly been >resting on their laurels since 1989 (though of course now they have to >deal with an Eastern European-style meltdown of their peripheries). Put it >another way: reaction in the USA has put the hurt on many Latin >American Left projects, but our control over the world-system has, >thankfully, declined considerably since the Eighties. Thank for your support re/ the overall model. I dispute your characterization "small, declining economy" for the USA; it is still the largest single market, the dollar is still the favorite reserve currency, and the Fed still has more clout than any other central bank. The "Global Trap" is informative in this regard. But the US economy is declining relatively, and cannot exert decisive influence based on its economic arm-twisting forever. That's one reason for shifting power to globalist institutions. But the main point is that US geopolitical power is not proportional to its GDP: it is much greater. The US military, with its nukes, hi-tech systems, satellites, and carrier groups is globaly hegemonous. And US military planners, as a matter of stated policy, have no intention of allowing that to change. Yes this hegemony is being internationalized, as NATO is being prodded into more activism, but this is happening under elite control. >Nowadays, when >economic crises break out in the Czech Republic or South Korea, it's Japan >and the EU which seem to be doing the bailouts. This suggests that a canny >resistance movement might find new, post-American sources of leverage in >the decades to come. I don't think we have decades available to wait; the consolidation of power in elite institutions is proceeding more rapidly than that. I do agree that "canny resistance movements" should be encouraged everywhere - every little bit helps - but while the USA remains firmly under elite control, the odds against success are very high. The bailout roles being played by Japan and the EU deplete their reserves instead of Uncle Sam's; those governments are simply volunteering their taxpayers money to be spent according to elite-IMF dictates. -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- the model> >> (4.b) The very process by which the movement can be built up is the >>same process by which it can be dynamically maintained: mediation >>among a growing circle of constituencies, promotion of mutual >>education and understanding across constituency boundaries, the >>establishment of consensus agendas, and the negotiation of >>coordinated programs of policy and action. So as to maximize >>grass-roots responsiveness and minimize bureaucratic self-aggrandizing >>tendencies, the coalition itself should remain an umbrella organization >>of constituencies - a lean mediating agency, not a power brokerage >>nor an "institution". Checks-and-balances mechanisms will be necessary >>to guarantee on-going grass-roots orientation in coalition operations. Dennis R Redmond wrote: >Very much like the ideal (if not the practice) of the Greens. What's your >impression of the Green movement generally, and especially the >well-organized German Green Party? What can and should the Greens in less >organized, Anglo-Saxon countries be doing to generate these kinds of >radical umbrella groups? The Greens is one organization among others that I intend to learn a lot more about in the course of research for the book. They could well be the single most important "constituency" in the European context, to be recruited to a more comprehensive anti-systemic coalition movement. They may also be a good source of organizational methods. But one will need Workers plus Greens, speaking in broad terms, before a majority coalition can begin to materialize. To bring in workers, and others, one needs a more comprehensive and radical analysis than the Greens are likely to come up with - at least that's my suspicion based on limited observation so far. As for what Greens, or other organizations, can do to encourage radical umbrella groups... they can give a high priority to building bridges to other organizations; they can seek consensus agendas with sister movements; they can start the ball rolling re/ broader solidarity. -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- Adam K. Webb wrote: > This model is the most complete you have presented to date, but it >still seems rather amorphous. You keep saying that there is potential for >a broad coalition, consensus, mobilisation, and so on. But can you offer >a more concrete analysis, even in retrospect from a hypothetical >postrevolutionary vantage point, of how the relevant social forces and >institutions are supposed to interact? What would be the chapter headings >of a history book written five years after victory? Any revolutionary >history involves specific social sectors, crises, exploitation of >particular cleavages, framing of appeals to political subcultures, >dynamics of relative group leverage, elite splits and defections, ranking >of priorities, issue linkages, constituency side-payments, capture or >incapacitation of the coercive apparatus, negotiated settlement pacts, >phases of coalition formation and disintegration, empowerment of >counterelites, management of reactionary insurgency, etc. My apologies if >I sound too much like a social scientist, but I doubt that any movement is >going to succeed simply by taking the most inclusive, optimistic, and >aggregative of views. Can you sketch out for me even one scenario of how >this revolutionary process is supposed to work? At times it seems that >you are resting all hopes on appealing to public opinion and winning >elections, after which the whole system magically responds to the popular >will. It sounds like a cross between Perot's United We Stand America and >Allende's Unidad Popular, neither of which figure in history as great >successes. Frankly I doubt the hypothetical movement could even win >Congressional representation, given the political culture and structure of >electoral incentives in the United States or anywhere else in the G7, much >less majority power for long enough to undertake irreversible changes. >One plausible scenario, that's all I ask--and from whatever theoretical >(or atheoretical) perspective you like.... There are four stages relevant to your question: (1) activists building the coalition; (2) the coalition getting its slates elected; (3) the elected officials following through with effective programs that legitimately embody the coalition agenda; (3) the ongoing relationship between the coalition, its constituencies, and the governmental process. Each of these has its own immense challenges, and you may want to clarify which stage is the context for each of your questions. As regards (1), the use of the consensus process is of strategic importance, and is radically different in its operation than "factions competing for influence". Greens don't try to convince workers that the environment is more important than prosperity: the two together seek a path to prosperity AND a healthy Earth, and so on for other constituencies. Some of your issues, such as "constituency side-payments", should be clarified by this. The coalition process becomes the societal democratic process: government is the policy-implementing bureaucracy. Today the government is the policy-implementing bureaucracy for an agenda set by political parties. In the US and UK, where both parties are elite dominated (at least since Blair), that means the agenda is set by the elite. But even in European countries, where more pluralistic parties persist, the party-competitive system is inherently less effective in embodying democracy than is a coalition-based process. Divide-and-conquer tactics of the elite effectively exploit the party-competitive process to elite advantage. This is why the title says "model of revolution _and_ democracy". The phrase "public opinion" becomes quaint and inappropriate in this scenario. Public opinion is a Madison-avenue term, referring to passive responses to opinion polls. Under a functioning democratic system, one is more interested in "popular will" and "popular understanding" as expressed through grass-roots organizations. I hope these comments provide some clarification. As for Allende, my understanding is that he was very successful on many grounds, embarrasingly so to the anti-socialist elite; he was a bigger Castro, and that is why he was taken out by the CIA. It was his successes that did him in, not his failures. -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: >What he found in all cases >was that US and transnational elites in subverting popular movements had >to rely on organic movements that emerged rather than creating a faux >popular movement. ... The US's role was >*shaping* the outcome, ... My interpretation of this material is that the elite learn from their mistakes, take full advantage of opportunities that arise, and use what I would call wise jujitsu martial tactics, along with ever-present divide-and-conquer. >Elites sometimes foster conflicts for the purpose of destabilization. But >the question here is the soundness of Moore's argument that this is an >on-going strategy at the global level. Moore has never presented any >evidence to support this claim. Destabilization has been one purpose; another has been to shift boundaries of spheres of influence; another to capture national territory; and there have been others. I _have_ presented evidence that chronic conflicts are part of intended globalist policy. Among other evidence, I've discussed Huntingtons's "Clash of Civilizations" thesis, and his follow-up pieces in Foreign Affairs, all of which point to the promotion of cultural factionalism. The history of such intentional practices in the Arab world (keeping the Arabs from unifying) is I think very well established. These and other cases will be rigorously developed in the book. >Moore's arguments are deeply contradictory. He argues that capitalism has >"outlived its utility as a primary economic organizational paradigm." But >in previous posts he advances a corporatist model still predictated on >capital logic. Indeed, he goes on in his last post to talk in glittering >terms about entrepreneurs, prosperity, etc.. Entrepreneurs, he argues, >should be permitted to "reap rewards," for example. Moore, it seems, has >not grasped the fundamental contradiction in capitalism. I claim a fundamental distinction between entrepreneurial enterprise and capitalism. If a couple saves money and buys and operates a retail shop, for example, that is a fundamentally different economic event than MacDonalds opening up another franchise. I see many gradations between the extremes of laissez-fair capitalism and universal state ownership of production. >PS--By the way, if a "revolution" does not disrupt societal systems then >it is not a revolution. If it does not redesign governments it is not a >revolution. My American Heritage Dictinary states: revolution: ... 3. a. A sudden political overthrow of seizure of power brought about from within a given system. b. Activities directed toward bringing about basic changes in the socioeconoimic structure, as of a minority or cultural segment of the population. There is no requirement in (a) that a seizure process be systemically disruptive, nor in (b) that the "basic changes" be implemented in a disruptive manner. The American Revolution was singularly non-disruptive of societal systems, because the goal of revolution in that case was independence, not social transformation. Initially there wasn't even a government redesign, the assemblies that had functioned in colonial days simply assumed sovereignty. The later decision to form the Union, and design a new government, was again carried out non-disruptively. The democratic processes in the West permit non-disruptive "seizures of power" to occur. In the event, reactionary intrigue will presumably manage to create violent incidents, which is unfortunate, but if that doesn't happen it would still be a revolution. In the case of the USA, I see no reason for wanting to redesign the basic governmental structure or the Constitution. It is the office-holders that have been the problem, not the structure of the government. There are some amendments that are necessary, especially regarding corporate "personhood". And there are cases where the government has been ignoring the Constitution, and better safeguards need to be implemented, especially regarding government secrecy and "presidential orders". -rkm ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore - rkmoore@iol.ie - PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal (USA Citizen) * Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig * ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ From rkmoore@iol.ie Sun Jan 18 05:18:22 1998 Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:18:12 GMT Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:18:12 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: re: Austin on democracy and capitalism Thanks, Andrew, for a very interesting and informative post. I can respond at two levels: practical revolutionary politics, and general societal philosophy. With respect to practical politics... my response is that the US Constitution is good enough, with minor modifications and different players, and that I'd fear what might come out of a total redesign; it could well be worse instead of better. Certainly, as history proceeds under democratic control, continuing Constitutional evolution might be desirable, but I don't see a need to emphasize that now. At this point opening up the Constitutional can-of-worms is revolutionarily divisive and delays effective action. With respect to general societal philosophy... I think there are several design requirements for a good society. You note that economic justice is just as important as political participation (not your exact words) and I agree. To these I would add "information rights" - the right to comprehensive and unbiased information about the world and government activities. But I also believe that the Enlightenment notion of limited government must be factored in as well. This reflects a healthy pragmatism: no matter how wonderful a regime is at any given moment, there are always some imperfections, abuses, injustices, and examples of tastlessness. I believe strongly in an appropriate degree of personal liberty, such as promised by the Bill of Rights, and which permit political and economic (and artistic and religious) activity which is not necessarily what the regime would prefer to prescribe. But this should be within limits: eg, murder should not be allowed, and exploitation should not be allowed. Liberty isn't license. The Bill of Rights was subverted when it was used to make corporations "persons", and this should be undone by amendment. But I don't believe Constitutional provisions are needed to insure economic justice, and I believe a constitution, just like an operating system (which is what a consitution is), should be limited to core functions. Legislation can provide for economic justice and for information rights. I do believe politics should be separate from civil society, and from religion, and from information-access. Leaving aside the question of government abuses, Government shouldn't be necessarily burdened with operating the economy or other social institutions. That doesn't mean basic infrastructures shouldn't be under government control, or that government shouldn't subsidize culture, but these should be political choices, not consititional requirements. With corporate person-hood undone, there's nothing in the Constitution which prevents private economic activity from being adquately regulated, and there's nothing that prevents the state from operating industries and infrastructures in those cases where the electorate prefer it. Nationalization (or municipilization) of corporate operations, for example, is fully constitutional provided only that due process and due compensation be observed, as they should be. (But "due compensation" should include subtracting previous government subsidies and all ill-gotten gains.) When the USA began, corporations were viewed as a threat - some colonies had _been_ corporations, and people hadn't liked it, and the power of the Hudon's Bay Company and the British East India Company were well understood and resented. So at the beginning, corporations were given limited charters and for limited times - the Consititution was proven to be consistent with capitalist-constraining goverment policy. No, the problem with the Constitution is that it is structured to give extra weight to _elite_ interests: whoever is running government at a given moment (whether capitalists or conservative land owners) has an extra edge in maintaining that control (by hanging around for six years in the Senate, by appointing Supreme Court justices, etc.). How much does this need to be remedied Constitutionally? I'm not sure, but I suspect most of the elite advantage has accrued from extra-Consitutional mechanisms: political party system, elite ownership of media, campaign-funding, and bribery. I believe some election reform amendments might be necessary, and that the Fed should be brought under political control, but I don't see complete Constitutional redesign as being necessary. Huntington is an enemy of democracy, and any use he makes of the term must be inerpreted as anti-democratic propaganda. You are taking his mis-definition of democracy as proof that the Consitution needs to be revamped! What logic is there in such an argument? I notice you didn't respond to my distinction between "enterprise" and "capitalism". rkm From sbabones@jhu.edu Sun Jan 18 08:50:56 1998 by jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:52:44 -0500 (EST) From: Salvatore Babones Subject: JWSR Fall '97 now available To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK The Journal of World-Systems Research Fall 1997 special issue on "World-Systems and the Environment," guest-edited by Albert Bergesen and Laura Parisi, is now available at: http://csf.colorado.edu/wsystems/jwsr/vol3num3.htm The full text of the JWSR is available free through this site. In this issue: Editors' Introduction: Discovering the Environment Albert Bergesen and Laura Parisi Tim Bartley and Albert Bergesen World System Studies of the Environment Sing C. Chew For Nature: Deep Greening World-Systems Analysis for the 21st Century Christopher K. Chase-Dunn and Thomas D. Hall Ecological Degradation and the Evolution of World-Systems Thomas J. Burns and Byron L. Davis and Edward L. Kick Position in the World-System and National Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Special thanks go to Al Bergesen of the University of Arizona and Laura Parisi of Virginia Tech for putting together this provocative set of articles. Enjoy! Salvatore Babones Assistant Editor, JWSR From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Sun Jan 18 11:54:59 1998 id NAA06514; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:54:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:54:53 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: re: Austin on democracy and capitalism In-Reply-To: Richard, Your argument that action could make something worse can be said about anything, Richard. This is a slogan. And it sounds like a neoconservative one. For example, neoconservative James Q. Wilson sums up the rhetoric of "we could well make it worse" in the "Foreword" to The Essential Neoconservative Reader (1996): "neoconservatives are not friends of inequality but find the reality underlying these data complex and often counterintuitive." From this assumption, Wilson argues that neoconservatives don't want to do anything about inequality lest the screw it up worse than it is. Marvin Olasky crystalizes the essence of this in his book The Tragedy of American Compassion. Great title, huh? He argues that our efforts to forge social justice have resulted in making things much worse. On the House floor (US House of Representatives) during the welfare "reform" debate, Republican members made similar arguments, though with less poetry. One gentleman from Florida compared the poor to alligators and said "Don't feed the alligators," because if we did then they would soon be in our backyard eating our dogs. A gentlewoman from out West (Colorado, maybe, or Washington state) used the wolf protection program to illustrate the folly of trying to change things; when they went to release the wolves from their cages, the wolves didn't want to leave. Helping the wolves only makes it worse for the wolves, is the moral of the story. Now, I realize that you did not make such arguments. But these arguments illustrate clearly the problem with the ideology of inaction that is suggested in your fear of tampering with the sacred document of the US. And these arguments go back to before the neoconservatives. The same argument was used to justify slavery, saying that changing that system might make it worse off for blacks. The same again for desegregation. (Some argue that desegregation has made it worse for blacks!) That begs the question of what constitutes "worse." So the Constitution, a class document, guaranteeing a mode of production that is inherently exploitative, should not be changed because things could be worse for workers. This is more than a terrible argument. It is sort of reactionary. It is also elitist because the subtext is the one used by the framers of the Constitution; if left to the people they will screw it up, make things worse. Madison or Hamilton once said something to the effect that the stupid masses seldom choose right. The tragedy of compassion. Trying to save the wolves. You are some "revolutionary," Richard. You missed my point concerning democracy and capitalism. History is not proceeding under democratic control and it cannot, in part, because of constitutional systems developed under liberal capitalism. The US Constitution, like other express politico-juridical frameworks are reflections of objective social arrangements. The US Constitution is a document designed to legitimate exploitative arrangements. Because the document is not democratic, it cannot be changed democratically to any substantial degree. It must be dissolved at the same time that the social arrangements it articulates are dissolved, and this can only come about through revolution (a real revolution). You wrote that I "note that economic justice is just as important as political participation." You disclaimed that these were "not your exact words." They are not only not my exact words but I didn't make a statement with anything close to that meaning. I said that you cannot have political equality without economic equality. That is very much a different sort of statement. Systems are possible where people don't have to participate in politics to have political equality. The point I was making was a much deeper one about the fundamental antinomy between capitalism and democracy. The "Enlightenment notion of limited government" was developed to legitimate capitalist domination. It should not be factored in, but eliminated. Here again you assume that there is a non-political sphere in which people engage in contract formation and that it behooves those people to keep democracy out of that sphere. The notion of limited governments rests on the antinomy I have identified. Through legal devices, such as the Constitution, elites have created a private space of tyranny. Hell, corporations govern. The "Right of Man" is a liberal mythos. "Keeping government out of our lives" is a classical euphemism for "Get democracy away from the people." As for personal rights, these come not from dividing society up into these political and depoliticized spaces, but from removing those limitations and relations that exploit and oppress people. The fact that such rights would have to be specified demonstrates the failure of the social system to deliver real social justice. And look at what the Bill of Rights ultimately does. It throws a few bones to the people, but then reinforce the central point of tyranny of the whole system, that is, the protection of private property. And the document itself, through the protection of ideas, for example, is inherently tyrannical. You say that "politics should be separate from civil society, and from religion, and from information-access." But it cannot be, Richard. Society is an organic totality. Politics cannot be lifted from this system and put over there somewhere. Politics is part of every aspect of the system. I recommend Sandra Harding's work to you. She makes very clear the fallacy of depoliticizing institutions and behaviors. What this practice of depoliticization does is to dissimulate power and domination. You would create a space "civil society" where the people who are structured into exploitative relations have no political recourse. You are unwittingly supporting tyranny, Richard. I see no difference between the logic of your arguments and the logic of the system you rhetorically decry. Because you have embraced the liberal fallacy of democracy under capitalism you have anthropomorphized institutions. You have argued that you don't want governments burdened with operating the economy and so forth. But the government is not burdened with this. People are. And the question is whether you want only a few "entrepreneurs" and their "enterprises" running civil society, or whether you want the people running society democratically. You suggested in your post that I didn't answer your question regard the distinction between capitalism and whatever it is you are advocating. But what you advocate *is* capitalism, specifically, a corporatist capitalism. If you want democracy you have to articulate a scheme where power is in a whole other place, namely, with the people. Your scheme doesn't do that, and it cannot because of the false assumptions that underpin its logic. You write that: > Huntington is an enemy of democracy, and any use he makes of the term must > be inerpreted as anti-democratic propaganda. You are taking his > mis-definition of democracy as proof that the Consitution needs to be > revamped! What logic is there in such an argument? I didn't make this argument. Huntington makes the same argument you are making. That is why I used him. Both you and him and other liberal thinkers base their arguments on the maintenance of the antinomy between politics and economics. You have demonstrated in this post precisely the points I have been making. And the interesting thing is that you seem to uncomfortable with your own argument. This is because, I believe, there is a vague recognition that the argument you advance is inherently anti- democratic. And the logic for this syllogism is blatant, Richard: You advance Huntington's argument. You say that Huntington is an anti-democratic propagandist. The conclusion is obvious. Andy From rkmoore@iol.ie Mon Jan 19 19:48:19 1998 Tue, 20 Jan 1998 02:48:12 GMT Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 02:48:12 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: re: Austin on democracy and capitalism 1/18/98, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: >But what you advocate *is* capitalism Andrew - there is much I find useful in your most recent post, and I am familiar with Chomsky's talk on "Madisonian Democracy" which makes some of the same points re/Consititution. But before I can make further sense of what you said, I need to better understand why you make no distinction between a Mom & Pop enterprise and capitalism. Could you provide some focused elaboration? Would you disallow Mom & Pop enterprises altogether in your ideal world? Thanks in advance for your patience and brevity, rkm From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Mon Jan 19 20:05:34 1998 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:04:38 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: re: Austin on democracy and capitalism In-Reply-To: Richard, I have already explained this precisely in this discussion. I will do again so by producing a quote I have used before. From the Communist Manifesto: "Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation." Put otherwise, "Mom and Pop," whatever that term means, should not have the option of exploiting labor. Andy From Shawn_Terrell@marketstrategies.com Tue Jan 20 07:58:32 1998 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 98 09:58:01 EST From: "Shawn Terrell" To: WSN@csf.colorado.edu Subject: innovation in utopia To anyone who might BA able to help: How is competition and its offspring, innovation, and increased quality of products and services to be reckoned with in a system that disallows all forms of capitalism? In a world without a profit motive how are these things to be fostered? Is any competition desirable? If so how does it work? If not what might motivate risk taking and hard work beyond the norm? From thall@DEPAUW.EDU Tue Jan 20 08:54:10 1998 id IAA05807; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 08:54:04 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 10:54:02 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas D. [Tom] Hall, THALL@DEPAUW.EDU" Subject: PEWS Round Table CFP To: Network World-Systems Another call for papers. I am want to organize a Roundtable for PEWS at ASA on Roles of Indigenous Peoples in the World-System I will give a brief paper by the same title, but am more interested in getting PEWS & ASA members interested in indigenous peoples together to talk. This is a great way to try out working ideas. By ASA rules, presenting a paper at refereed roundtable counts as one participation. Depending on the number of papers, we may simply circulate papers in advance and use the roundtable to talk about our work. Send titles to to: thall@depauw.edu For other round table topics contact Joya Misra: CMSJOYA@uga.cc.uga.edu Thomas D. [tom] Hall thall@depauw.edu Department of Sociology DePauw University 100 Center Street Greencastle, IN 46135 765-658-4519 HOME PAGE: http://www.depauw.edu/~thall/hp1.htm From thall@DEPAUW.EDU Tue Jan 20 08:59:18 1998 id IAA06308; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 08:59:12 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 10:59:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas D. [Tom] Hall, THALL@DEPAUW.EDU" Subject: 11th hour CFP To: Network World-Systems Section Latino CALL FOR PAPERS FOR ISA XIV World Congress of Sociology, Montreal, July 26- August 1, 1998 Please feel free to repost, advanced apologies for those you on all the same list as I am on for seeing this CFP more than once! Henry Teune, chair of the coordinating committee of the new Thematic Group #06, The Sociology of Local-Global Relations, asked me to chair one of their five sessions: Globalization: the Dynamics of National and Ethnic Identities. To submit a paper send as soon as possible a summary of your proposal (approximately 200 words) to Tom Hall. I am especially interested in papers that address indigenous groups and/or gender issues, but any paper that broadly addresses the local-global nexus would be welcome. Full mailing addresses of sessions chairs as well as sessions descriptions are available at: http://www.ucm.es/info/isa Session 5 Globalization: the Dynamics of National and Ethnic Identities Chair: Thomas D. [Tom HALL] Dept Sociology & Anthropology Depauw University, 100 Center St. Greencastle, IN 46135 tel: 1-765-658-4519 email: thall@depauw.edu Programme Coordinator: Henry TEUNE Dept Political Sciences Univ Pennsylvania Stiteler Hall Philadelphia, PA 19104-6215 tel: 1- 215-8984209 fax: 1-215-5732073, Email: hteune@sas.upenn.edu >From http://www.ucm.es/info/isa/tg06.htm the purpose of Thematic Group 06 is: The subject matter of the TG06 is the emergence and shifts of the new 'localisms', neighborhoods, local communities, ethnic and language identities, affinity groups, and economic and political associations, and their aggregation into networks and their formation of systems that create regions and impact the incipient world system. As part of this, the role of the individual will be examined, in particular the processes of individualization within a global framework. The theoretical contexts include spatial and temporal relations, the development of increased complexity or integrated diversity that transcends traditional boundaries, the logics of regionalism, including those of political integration as well as classical concepts from human and social ecology. The new methodological base of the TG06 would be that of fuzzy sets, most of which has been advanced in the engineering sciences and yet has limited applications in the social and behavioral sciences other than psychology. This methodology would depart from standard cross-level analyses, so much a part of ecological research with fixed sets, to that of fuzzy and sets and systems in which the member components have multiple and shifting memberships. Some of this has now been developed in computer programs, at a stage similar to that of cross-level analysis about 15 years ago, that can be adopted to sociological data. The data to be addresses are at several levels, community, region, country, transnational regions, and the world as a whole, at two or more points in time. This would be the ideal. Much less structured data are expected to be the norm. Since the 1950s data on sub national units and groups within countries have been accumulating, and, of course, these data are being stretched into several points of time. Indeed, the combination of individual survey data within structures of groups, countries, and associations beyond national boundaries, envisioned by Stein Rokkan more than three decades ago, have now become a reality for many domains of human activity and organization. The group organized Ad Hoc sessions at the ISA XIII World Congress of Sociology in Bielefeld, 1994, and since then has been involved in exchange of research among the participants on the Democracy and Local Governance research program which now has gathered data on local political leaders in 24 countries. Thomas D. [tom] Hall thall@depauw.edu Department of Sociology DePauw University 100 Center Street Greencastle, IN 46135 765-658-4519 HOME PAGE: http://www.depauw.edu/~thall/hp1.htm From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Tue Jan 20 10:02:14 1998 id MAA07335; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:01:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:01:44 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Shawn Terrell Subject: Re: innovation in utopia Shawn, Your questions presuppose that profit motive is necessary for the perpetuation of social systems. But profit motive is a characteristic of only some sorts of social systems, and these are marked by extreme inequalities and social injustices. The answer to your question is answered by asking another question: how did other societies get along without the profit motive? The other false assumption in your argument concerns incentive. Where is the incentive for workers to work hard when they do not take profits? Why wouldn't a system in which workers were rewarded the full value of their efforts be an incentive society? Seems to me that such a system has more incentive to be efficient and productive. Under capitalist relations, profit taking is an incentive to exploit labor and ecosystems. This is not the behavior a just society should reward. Andy From rkmoore@iol.ie Tue Jan 20 11:50:45 1998 Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:50:27 GMT Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:50:27 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: re: definition of "Mom & Pop" 1/20/98, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: >Put >otherwise, "Mom and Pop," whatever that term means, should not have the >option of exploiting labor. "Mom & Pop" refers to a small business owned and operated by a married couple. Does "not have the option of exploiting labor" mean they can't hire someone to help run the store? rkm From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Tue Jan 20 12:42:47 1998 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:42:01 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson Subject: profits and incentives To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu In the old Soviet Union, it was discovered that workers who received guaranteed employment and a guaranteed wage regardless of what work they did and how well they did it performed poorly. This contributed in an important way to the economic crisis and ultimate collapse of state socialism. A basic characteristic of human nature even agreed to by such WSNers as Chase-Dunn and Hall, is that humans follow a Law of Least Effort. That is, they try to expend a minimal amount of time and energy in the performance of activities, especially those involving toil. Socialist labor systems, much to their dismay, ran up against this hard fact and suffered accordingly. Of course, Austin will now claim that there's no such thing as human nature. We've had that debate before. But the evidence from anthropology and history suggests otherwise. For all of its faults capitalism still works better in some ways than many other social systems, socialist societies included. Even world-system theorists like Wallerstein admit that overcentralization of production is a problem that has to be avoided in creating any future socialist system. Markets and incentives are important and have a role to play, even within "socialism." Stephen Sanderson From gmd304@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Tue Jan 20 14:33:33 1998 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:35:58 -0600 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: "Georgi M. Derluguian" Subject: Incentives & innovation The question posited by Shawn actually goes to the heart of the debate. Technological innovation in the systems based on lesser degrees of individuation than capitalism apparently had just two sources -- socio-technological mutations occurring during the dire periods of systemic transition, usually caused by environmental calamities (neolithic revolution), or enhanced warfare capability (chariot, iron, or Soviet sputnik). Capitalism in its pursuit of profit has been outstandingly innovative indeed (I leave aside the question whether for better or for worse, and to what degree markets served the warfare purposes). Incidentally, the trajectory of arts in modern world-system is even more awe-inspiring -- or pitiful, considering that it travelled from Renaissance standards to mass-culture and post-modernism. Still, if measure, rather than judge, just the pace and variety of change, in "Western" arts, there has never been a parallel in history. Rhetorical answers about the unbound potential of squarely rewarded workers suggest that a more sound answer might be unavailable in principle. We may need to reformulate the question -- will the post-capitalist historical system be as rapidly and continuously changing over time, or, rather, stasis will be its major value? Why not, then capitalism (plus, maybe, European feudalism, an extremely technologically and artistically dynamic period as well) might look in hypothetical retrospect as geologically brief phase of mutation on the way towards another equilibrium. Georgi Georgiď M. Derluguian Department of Sociology Northwestern University 1812 Chicago Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60208-1330 USA FAX (1-847) 491-9907 tel. (1-847) 491-2741 (rabota) From jsommers@lynx.dac.neu.edu Tue Jan 20 15:11:24 1998 Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:20:28 -0500 From: jeff sommers Reply-To: jsommers@lynx.dac.neu.edu To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: PEWS Would anyone know if PEWS has a web page and if so what its URL is? Sincerely, Jeffrey Sommers From futureu@teleport.com Tue Jan 20 15:12:49 1998 by user2.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.8.4) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:12:26 -0800 (PST) From: Paul Augustine To: s_sanderson Subject: Re: profits and incentives In-Reply-To: <01ISLQ3ZG1U091Z7NI@grove.iup.edu> On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, s_sanderson wrote: Some thoughts from future utopia. > In the old Soviet Union, it was discovered that workers who received guaranteed > employment and a guaranteed wage regardless of what work they did and how well > they did it performed poorly. This contributed in an important way to the > economic crisis and ultimate collapse of state socialism. A basic > characteristic of human nature even agreed to by such WSNers as Chase-Dunn and > Hall, is that humans follow a Law of Least Effort. That is, they try to expend > a minimal amount of time and energy in the performance of activities, especially > those involving toil. Socialist labor systems, much to their dismay, ran up > against this hard fact and suffered accordingly. > What kind of work? Some drudgery work is sometimes difficult to maintain a constant quality,do scientist share this same human nature,pilots,musicians.Perhaps quality could be maintained by sharing some of the least liked chores. Is there any way to inspire workers in a guarnanteed enviorment,which is one of my ideals by the way.I would be pretty coopertive if I could live at a good quality of life and be able to work at a satisfying position that fit my ideals to a T.It would take a lot of vodka or too much cocaine to really blow an ideal like that. Where as the security of a budget that allowed a person to reach his highest potential and never have to worry or have to sell himself into slavery would seem more attractive.Im not sure what happened in ganawanda land,but Im pretty sure most of the people I have met or worked with wouldnt let the same human values be the cause of systemic collapse. > Of course, Austin will now claim that there's no such thing as human nature. > We've had that debate before. But the evidence from anthropology and history > suggests otherwise. > > For all of its faults capitalism still works better in some ways than many > other social systems, socialist societies included. Even world-system > theorists like Wallerstein admit that overcentralization of production is a > problem that has to be avoided in creating any future socialist system. > Markets and incentives are important and have a role to play, even within > "socialism." Im angling for a simular enviorment where as budgeted members we can solve all the problems of poverty which seems to be a by product of capitlism with resulting crime. By the way I live in capitalism and it works really well for about 2/3 of the nations base,I would want some modifications that included the rest of society and I would also like to create something that was more sustainable and was a little more oriented towards taking care of our planet instead needing to exploit something like natural resources to make a profit,I know that profit is a sacred cow but I would like to submit this idea for your consideration,suppose each person was the raw resource, then what ever activity each citizen was active at could return to something I like to call a United system,that way we wouldnt need to rely on chopping down all the trees or using up all the resources to keep our economy going and maintain a quality of life for a whole society. paul :) > > Stephen Sanderson > > futureu@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (1200-28800, N81) future utopia 17024 helbrock dr. bend or 97707 541-593-1664 24hrs UNITY :www.teleport.com/~futureu/ : UNION .Budget by census From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Tue Jan 20 16:26:35 1998 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:25:59 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: s_sanderson Subject: Re: profits and incentives In-Reply-To: <01ISLQ3ZG1U091Z7NI@grove.iup.edu> Sanderson, The Soviet Union accomplished in two decades what it took Britain and the United States 200 years to accomplish. And the Soviet Union had a standard of living and quality of life that far exceeded most capitalist countries before, during, and since. In fact, the socialist world system puts the capitalist world system to shame on quality of life and equality measures. I don't need to dismiss the metaphysics of human nature to punch holes in typical anti-communist propaganda and pro-capitalist mythology. The facts do just fine. Andy From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Tue Jan 20 17:03:31 1998 id TAA06697; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:03:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:03:20 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: re: definition of "Mom & Pop" In-Reply-To: Richard, The point is that it depends on whether an enterprise (in the generic sense of the term) uses labor to generate surplus value, or whether it uses labor to better meet the needs of those who seek it services. If an enterprise needs help to better meet the needs of those who seek its services, then that enterprise should seek extra labor. But "Mom and Pop" should not be benefit financially from additional labor. A producer is exploited in a corporation or in a small business, Richard. The size of the firm doesn't obviate that fact. It is in principle just as wrong when a family firm exploits labor and ecosystems than if a transnational corporation does it. The differences is only the scale. Andy From wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Tue Jan 20 17:21:29 1998 by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with smtp (Exim 1.81 #1) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:09:46 -0800 From: William Kirk To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: profits and incentives s_sanderson wrote: > > In the old Soviet Union, it was discovered that workers who received >guaranteed employment and a guaranteed wage regardless of what work they >did and how well they did it performed poorly. This contributed in an >important way to the economic crisis and ultimate collapse of state >socialism. A basic characteristic of human nature even agreed to by >such WSNers as Chase-Dunn and Hall, is that humans follow a Law of Least >Effort. That is, they try to expend a minimal amount of time and energy >in the performance of activities, especially those involving toil. >Socialist labor systems, much to their dismay, ran up against this hard >fact and suffered accordingly. > Of course, Austin will now claim that there's no such thing as human nature. We've had that debate before. But the evidence from anthropology and history suggests otherwise. > For all of its faults capitalism still works better in some ways than >many other social systems, socialist societies included. Even >world-system theorists like Wallerstein admit that overcentralization of >production is a problem that has to be avoided in creating any future >socialist system. Markets and incentives are important and have a role >to play, even within "socialism." > Stephen Sanderson This is a great characteristic of homo sapiens, to follow the Law of Least Effort, the same can be said for other species. In the former there are two ways of doing this, by inventing ways to reduce effort, or by stealing off others. The latter seems to be preferred since this requires even less effort. Members of the race will do either; the point is the argument of what is better for either method of performing the least effort, socialism or capitalism, cannot be answered in terms of the two systems. Indeed, the problems now cannot be answered with the organising myth of either. Neither capitalism nor socialism is a problem, the problem is thinking they are canonical extremes. As Wallerstein commented, Marx was a bit to Smithian for his liking. William Kirk From dp@hss.iitb.ernet.in Tue Jan 20 23:55:57 1998 Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:21:15 +0500 (GMT+0500) From: "d.parthasarathy" To: Andrew Wayne Austin Subject: Re: profits and incentives In-Reply-To: > The Soviet Union accomplished in two decades what it took Britain and the > United States 200 years to accomplish. And the Soviet Union had a standard > of living and quality of life that far exceeded most capitalist countries > before, during, and since. In fact, the socialist world system puts the > capitalist world system to shame on quality of life and equality > measures. I don't need to dismiss the metaphysics of human nature to punch > holes in typical anti-communist propaganda and pro-capitalist mythology. > The facts do just fine. > > Andy > Not to mention that in the post collapse period, there has been a significant decline in practically every indicator you can think of with respect to standard of living, qaulity of life, equality measures and so on. Especially on aspects such as gender equality, the Soviet Union easily puts to the shade whatever has been achieved even in advanced capitalist countries. Sanderson like many others tends to generalize the experience of capitalism in the US to the rest of the world. One just has to take a look at the way in which capitalism is working outside of the US and western Europe to know what impact it is having on inequality, quality of life, gender, children, and on culture and ecology. Considering that we are on the WSN, should we not also be looking at the contribution of the rest of the world to the "success" of capitalism in the US rather than just attribute it to innovation and profit taking behaviour of American capitalists? In a capitalist world system is it possible to replicate the growth and development paterns of the US in the rest of the world? Is it not in fact a function of the increasing poverty and immiserisation of the peripheral countries? D.Parthasarathy From barendse@coombs.anu.edu.au Wed Jan 21 02:26:21 1998 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 12:52:02 +1100 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: barendse@coombs.anu.edu.au (Rene Barendse) Subject: Re: Incentives & innovation In reply to Derlugunian's: >Capitalism in its pursuit of profit has been outstandingly innovative >indeed. Incidentally, the >trajectory of arts in modern world-system is even more awe-inspiring -- or >pitiful, considering that it travelled from Renaissance standards to >mass-culture and post-modernism. >Capitalism (plus, maybe, European feudalism, an extremely >technologically and artistically dynamic period as well) might look in >hypothetical retrospect as geologically brief phase of mutation on the way >towards another equilibrium. Hmm ... There are various other cases of extremely innovative and dynamic societies (in art and in technology) in history where innovation or artistic creation was not primarily spurned by the motive of gaining a personal profit e.g. the Khalifates of Bagdad and Cordoba in the ninth century or Sung China or where the pursuit of mean profit was actually shunned, Athens in the fifth/fourth century B.C. - perhaps the most innovative societ ever - being the prime case. Although there are still some writers arguing that Athens was primarily a mercantile society that is ideology (one of the many words we derive from Athens) the Athenian elite which produced the galaxy of artistic and scholarly work of which we are still in awe nowadays despised working for an income let alone working for a profit. Now, if you would have asked a member of the Athenian elite, such as Aristotoles, why they produced scholarly or artistic work if it was not for a profit Aristotoles would have answered that they were striving for thymos, that is the urge to distinguish oneself from the other citizens of Athens. And, Aristotoles would have pointed out, the search for money is just one form of man's strife for thymos. There are many other reasons why man strive for thymos: the admiration of one's kin-group or, indeed, members of the other sex. I think Aristotle has a point here - as research among soldiers shows man face death only to gain respect from their fellows - not for profit, as is, too, shown by the textbook case of the classic `chicken' - game among American adolescents (immoralized from the male perspective in James Dean's `Rebel without a cause' or from the female's perspective in a classic clip by Paula Abdul). And indeed since the mossosaurus already had bizarre adorations on his snout to distinguish himself from other mossosaurians thymos is at least as ancient an urge as the idleness adduced by Sanderson. There was under Soviet socialism an attempt to mobilize Thymos as was shown by the picture of `distinguished workers' on the factory gates or university institute and this certainly worked to some extent during the twenties and thirtees - it was not because of Stalinist repression that tens of thousands of Komosolsk youth moved to the Urals to build the Chelyabinsk steelworks - it was because they were sacrificing themselves for the revolution and seeking to distinguish themselves. Of course, the Stakhanovite movement was motivated by this aim to use thymos to enhance the production. However, if you are living in a society in which there is a constant widely felt lack of consumption-articles which some (party bosses) have and some have not and where there is little popular participation in the state which divides consumption-articles people are wont to feel that distinction has to be translated in more consumption articles. (In the USSR ministers, of course, didn't get paid as much as say workers on the Baikal Amur Magistral in Siberia but the minister did have a limousine, his own hospital, shops etc. while the railway worker had to wait twelve years to buy a Lada and his wive had to stand in a line every evening). The ancient Athenians would well have understood this - in Athens the popular assembly decided on the distribution of power (including economic power) in the city and, of course, the Athenians had slaves to do boring and heavy work, so that the citizens could pursue excellence in the eyes of his fellow-citizens. This would mean that as long as the world is still a realm of scarsity the inevitable way to pursue thymos is acquiring material goods - but, since we increasingly dispose of mechanical slaves to do the drudgery for us - we could theoretically soon step back to a society like ancient Athens where excellence is pursued for distinction and not for reward (which, obviously, Marx meant with communism). As regards Sanderson's posting note that capitalism may as much stiffle innovation as enhance it - capitalism has a monopolistic tendency and monopolists are wont to hold back technological innovations which may threaten their hold on a market. The prime force for fundamental techological innovation this century has not been capitalism per se but the military/industrial/research complex, supported by the state. Also, and even more importantly, `pure' capitalism which is not protected against itself by a spate of social legislation by the state: for example against firing of employees on the spot, will result in a sullen, unmotivated labour-forces which will sabotage the orders of `them'. (the managers) whenever they are able to. There is abundant research on productivity of labour in the UK (or developping countries) which demonstrates this. Thus, capitalism is walking on cruches provided by the state: now that ever more companies are trying to throw away these cruches by `global' production it is pretty unsure whether technological innovation or high productivity can survive. The only answer to protect capitalism against its own tendency towards abysmal labour-relations, low expenditure on education and, thus, a lowely skilled, unmotivated and therefore low productive labour-force would probably be a global social security-system and that's likely what we are going to see in the future. (You can not have an unskilled and unmotivated labourer using very expensive and complicated machines). Although many will now accuse me of undue optimism I still think they should read K. Polanyi's classic `The great transformation' on the inability of capitalism to sustain its own growth without support from the state and the growing ability of the capitalists to recognize that the system can only survive with the support of the state. Dr. R.J. Barendse IIAS Leiden/RSPAS Canberra Peace Research Centre Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies Australian National University Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia Tel: +61-6-2492259 (Wk) Tel: +61-6-2675324 (Hm) Fax: +61-6-62490174 From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Wed Jan 21 08:37:13 1998 Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:22:19 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson Subject: the Soviet Union and the quality of life To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Concerning his remarks on the quality of life in the Soviet Union, Andrew Austin must be referring to some other Soviet Union in some parallel universe. I don't recognize his USSR. Stephen Sanderson From chriscd@jhu.edu Wed Jan 21 10:04:13 1998 Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 11:57:52 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: civility To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu i want to thank all the contributors to recent discussions on wsn for the content and the tone of the discussions. it is hard to confront such basic and important quiestions while still maintaining a high level of civility, but that has been done. we are learning how to use this new medium to debate important issues and to clarify what we mean by our words. thanks again. chris From rkmoore@iol.ie Wed Jan 21 15:26:41 1998 Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:26:27 GMT Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:26:27 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Ravi Batra: CRASH COMING (fwd) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 From: cpriest@juno.com (Curt Priest) Subject: CITS Debt Watch tpr-ne@mitvma.mit.edu, pub-adv@s1.net, fastnet@igc.apc.org, X-Cc: komoski@aurora.liunet.edu, Yeswecan@aol.com, pfoldes@INTERHELP.COM, think@ix.netcom.com, servant@upn20email.com, gorbyjs@hotmail.com, We have high respect for Dr. Batra's fine books and wish to call your attention to this new one: W. Curtiss Priest Editor CITS Debt Watch January 15, 1998 News Release The first global stock market crash of the year will come in February or March, says the just released book, Stock Market Crashes of 1998 and 1999: The Asian Crisis and Your Future by Dr. Ravi Batra, a professor of economics at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, and author of five international bestsellers. The crash could come as early as the last week of January. Batra, claiming a forecasting accuracy of better than 85%, argues that what happened in the Tokyo stock exchange in 1990 is likely to be repeated in the United States and elsewhere in 1998. The new book demonstrates that many recent events have followed the patterns that Batra first foresaw in the mid-1970s. In his 1996 work, The Great American Deception, Batra predicted a global stock market crash at the end of 1997. In October of that year, share prices indeed crashed in Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe, while the Dow Jones Index plunged 554 points on October 27th. The Dow suffered the largest single-day point drop in history. In his best-selling work, The Great Depression of 1990, Batra foresaw the market-meltdown of 1987, and then another crash in 1990. The experts now blame the current currency crisis in Asia on the share price collapse that began in Japan on the first trading day in 1990. In another best-selling book, The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism, which was written in 1978, Batra prophesied the collapse of both systems by the year 2,000. Farfetched as it was, Soviet communism disintegrated as the world watched in astonishment. Next is the turn of capitalism, which Batra defines as the rule of money in society. In other words, the reign of money in politics is about to end. How it will end is described in the new book. Batra argues that the recent market crashes originated in Japan in 1990, gradually found their way into the economies of the Asian Tigers, Mexico and Latin America, and will culminate in North America and Europe in 1998 and 1999. America is at the center of its business empire, and like every empire in history this one will also fall. However, the peripheries always fall first, and the center the last. That is why the United States seems to be immune to the Asian crisis. But trouble is fast coming from the peripheries to the center. The bullish case for American shares, in spite of the current turmoil, comes mostly from Wall Street brokers. They ask us to look at the current fundamentals such as low inflation, interest rates and unemployment. But they overlook 1929, when such sound fundamentals were even lower, and yet did not prevent the market collapse and the Great Depression. Unemployment in 1929 was just 3%. The only fundamental that counts is the force of supply and demand. Supply springs from production or labor productivity, and demand from wages. Since 1990, wages have lagged behind productivity all over the world. If productivity rises but wages stagnate, supply grows faster than demand and an imbalance develops. For a while the demand gap can be plugged by bank loans and consumer demand can be artificially lifted to match the rising supply. In the meanwhile profits rise sharply as wages fail to grow, thereby creating a hefty rise in stock prices. But there comes a critical point when banks stop lending or debt-burdened consumers reduce their borrowing. Then the supply-demand gap surfaces. This critical point arrived in South East Asia in July 1997, when banks in Thailand sharply curtailed their lending. Until the supply-demand gap vanishes, share prices will remain under pressure. Batra foresees a constant stream of market crashes around the world in 1998, and the beginning of the fall of the American business empire in 1999. The only prudent investment under these circumstances will be government bonds or bank CDs. Batra also offers some market-based reforms. He argues that the main problem facing the world today is the lack of consumer demand, and the best medicine for this illness is the expansion of the housing industry through tax credits and incentives. The book also explores the likely behavior of the dollar, interest rates, inflation or deflation, gold, real estate among others in the near future. How to Order the book? To order a copy, send a check for $21.00 for a softcover or $27.00 for a hardcover version of the book to Liberty Press, 3016 Rosedale Ave., Dallas, TX. 75205, or call 1-800-888-9999. The price includes postage and handling. ISBN: 0-939352-78-8 Praise for Professor Ravi Batra "When it comes to the bottom line so beloved of economists, one can learn a lot about events by thinking about them in cyclical regularities, of which Batra gives a novel and brilliant exposition." Lester C. Thurow, MIT "Ravi Batra has made an outstanding reputation in the United States as an international economic theorists in the best Western tradition." Leonard Silk, New York Times "The forecasting record of this widely respected Southern Methodist University economist has won glowing praise from many investment masters. Tom Peters, Chicago Tribune "Dr. Batra writes about his subject as clearly as if he were telling bedtime stories." Christopher Lehmann Haupt, New York Times "Scary, provocative. The good professor has a formidable academic reputation and, from what I know, his forecasting record is impressive." Barton Biggs, Morgan Stanley & Company "Batra [is] a scholar who has earned a considerable reputation as an expert on trade. Albert Crenshaw, Washington Post "His predictions in the early 1980s of low inflation, falling oil prices and a wave of mergers mocked for years have proved close to the mark." Thomas C. Hayes, New York Times "Ravi Batra was used to making tumultuous global forecasts and having nobody listen then predictions started to come true." Chip Brown, The Associated Press "What separates Batra from most of the worriers and makes him worth reading or listening to is his broad and fundamentally cultural perspective. Scott Burns, Dallas Morning News "So far Batra is close to five for five. Pray he doesn't go six for six." Eric Leven, People [Batra] is one of the most gifted and serious economists around today. His views on several national and global socioeconomic issues and problems are in demand around the world. World Business Review About the Author Dr. Ravi Batra, a professor of economics at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, is the author of five international bestsellers. He was the chairman of his department from 1977 to 1980. Batra was ranked third in a group of 46 superstar economists selected from all the American and Canadian universities by the learned journal Economic Inquiry. In 1990, the Italian prime minister awarded him a Medal of the Italian Senate for correctly predicting the downfall of Soviet communism. _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore - rkmoore@iol.ie - PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal (USA Citizen) * Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig * ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Wed Jan 21 17:22:07 1998 id TAA02624; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:21:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:21:45 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: s_sanderson Subject: Re: the Soviet Union and the quality of life In-Reply-To: <01ISMVNSLXGY920RVC@grove.iup.edu> Stephen Sanderson, Chris has remarked on the civility of the conversation, perhaps sensing that things might turn bad here. I don't want to disappoint him. I do want to make a few points that I think are in order. You have dragged a red herring (human nature) into this discussion in an attempt to diminish my argument. This tactic is easily dismissed by simply noting it here. Your constant cheerleading for the capitalist regime, passing off ideology as having some scientific validity, frees me from wasting my time seriously refuting your propaganda per se. I will only say that if the Soviet Union I described seems to you like some parallel universe, then you are either: (a) ignorant of the history and the character of the Soviet Union; or (b) denying the facts. The latter carries motivations that I am definitely inclined to attribute to you. Addressing your "arguments," therefore, is more productive from the standpoint of *revealing* false assumptions rather than *refuting* your conclusions. Of course, if the former is the case, somebody in your position should be better informed. But I have found that this expectation obviated by actual experience. Andy From thall@DEPAUW.EDU Wed Jan 21 18:46:00 1998 21 Jan 1998 20:45:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:45:56 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas D. [Tom] Hall, THALL@DEPAUW.EDU" Subject: the Soviet Union and the quality of life To: Network World-Systems ---------- >From: Andrew Wayne Austin >constant cheerleading for the capitalist regime, passing off ideology as >having some scientific validity, frees me from wasting my time seriously I want to toss some water on this "flame" before it spreads. Andy, Read social transformation carefully, and you will not find any cheerleading for capitalism. Rather, a grudging assessment that it has promoted more change than anyther social system, and is the first thing to come along in 10k years to reverse the steady if sporadic trend toward increasing inequality. [Of course there is the standard WST critique here, within societies or across societies--in latter, W-S perspective, the trend is continuing apace--also well noted in ST]. Re former USSR: Yes it did more "catchup" than any other country. But also yes it was at its collapse still well behind in QOL the west. Again the std WST critique, from my frequent co-author, Chris C-D, that is was part of a larger system that sought to contain, if not destroy it. QoL in USSR/Russia is a redherring [sorry about the atrocious pun] regarding Marx and capitalism. The old saw about Christianity & socialism applies: good ideas, too bad nobody ever tried them. [Again the WST critique: you can't try them in only one country embedded in capitalist world-system]. Chris and I tried to argue in the end of Rise & Demise that we need to think of MANY alternatives for future world-systems and get out of the socialism a la Marx vs Capitalism a la A. Smith and think of alternatives, c, d, e, f, etc. You may want to look at Dan Chirot's Social Change in the 20th Century [precursor of Social Change in the Modern Era]. He argues, persuasively, that USSR did begin to catch up to the west up through the time he wrote it [pub 1977] more than other strategies, but it did not catch up completely. Hence, Andy is right, USSR did 'progress/improve'; but equally Steve is right, to call it same or better than west on Physical Quality of Life is ludicrous. Both right, but neither settling whither the future? For the record, Steve is more pessimistic about the future than I am, and Chris more optomistic, but we all three hold considerable trepidation about our ecological future. One reads Meadows et al's _Beyond the Limits_ and finishes hoping that their methodology is somehow fundamentally flawed. 'nuff of my blather. My BIG point is that there is room for disagreement on the data and its interpretation without sliding into character assassination. tom Thomas D. [tom] Hall thall@depauw.edu Department of Sociology DePauw University 100 Center Street Greencastle, IN 46135 765-658-4519 HOME PAGE: http://www.depauw.edu/~thall/hp1.htm From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Wed Jan 21 20:07:19 1998 Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:07:07 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Thomas D. [Tom] Hall, THALL@DEPAUW.EDU" Subject: Re: the Soviet Union and the quality of life On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Thomas D. [Tom] Hall, THALL@DEPAUW.EDU wrote: > Read social transformation carefully, and you will not find any > cheerleading for capitalism. Rather, a grudging assessment that it has > promoted more change than anyther social system, and is the first thing > to come along in 10k years to reverse the steady if sporadic trend toward > increasing inequality. How is making this claim not cheerleading? Capitalism has not reversed the trend towards increasing inequality. Capitalism put increasing inequality into overdrive. Grudgingly accepting this "fact" makes for even better propaganda, sort of the reverse of the good intentions fallacy. But this is beside the point. I was making my judgment based on the arguments Sanderson makes on WSN. These arguments are deeply ideological. His arguments some months ago concerning human nature were not only bad propaganda, they were revealed as illogical. The assumptions that underpin Sanderson's arguments in his more candid moments are, following the right turn in Harris and others, becoming more and more social Darwinian. This argument simply does not rest on fact. > Re former USSR: Yes it did more "catchup" than any other country. But > also yes it was at its collapse still well behind in QOL the west. It was "behind" only a few countries in the "west," assuming that you mean by that term Britain, US, W. Germany, etc.. Only the richest capitalist countries had better *overall* levels of quality of life. But USSR challenged the richest countries on many of these measures. And USSR did not have the deep poverty pockets of the richest countries, nor the level of inequality. Compared with middle-range and lower-range capitalist countries, covering the vast majority of the world's population, the Soviet Union and the socialist world system were superior. > Chris C-D, that is was part of a larger system that sought to contain, > if not destroy it. This is a crucial point. That the Soviet Union and the other state socialist countries achieved what they did under siege conditions makes their accomplishments that much more dramatic. One can just imagine what might have been if the world capitalist regime had permitted the development of socialism, but let's leave that to that realm. > QoL in USSR/Russia is a redherring [sorry about the atrocious pun] > regarding Marx and capitalism. The old saw about Christianity & > socialism applies: good ideas, too bad nobody ever tried them. [Again > the WST critique: you can't try them in only one country embedded in > capitalist world-system]. I disagree with this well-known W-S/state capitalist argument. After stripping away its scientific pretensions it amounts to no more than a cop out to argue that there was no socialism in USSR. This is an ideological attempt, dictated by left anti-communist sentiments, to remain an *ideal* socialist by denying *real* socialism. Michael Parenti says this perfectly: "No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed." I have reviewed the arguments that whatever exist in a capitalist world system must be capitalist and have found that they are empirically unsound and logically fallacious. Under this logic it is impossible for socialism to exist. The argument is set up so that the arguer cannot lose. I regard the Soviet Union and other state socialist countries to have comprised a socialist world system. > Chris and I tried to argue in the end of Rise & Demise that we need to > think of MANY alternatives for future world-systems and get out of the > socialism a la Marx vs Capitalism a la A. Smith and think of > alternatives, c, d, e, f, etc. If you assume that socialism in our century failed, sure. But I don't believe this. This century has seen a real alternative. Utopianism is not a real alternative. And "third ways" have been among the ugliest memories of the 20th century. > Steve is right, to call it same or better than west on Physical Quality > of Life is ludicrous. Sanderson is incorrect in his polemic vis-a-vis the USSR. And you have distorted what I said by injecting the vague phrase "in the west" into the discussion. Here is what I wrote: ...the Soviet Union had a standard of living and quality of life that far exceeded most capitalist countries before, during, and since. In fact, the socialist world system puts the capitalist world system to shame on quality of life and equality measures. My post was not a flame. It was a reasonable assessment of Sanderson's posts to this lists. Andy From dp@hss.iitb.ernet.in Wed Jan 21 22:05:37 1998 by manashi.hss.iitb.ernet.in (8.8.8/8.8.7-IITB-with-MX) id KAA00415; Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 10:31:34 +0500 (GMT+0500) From: "d.parthasarathy" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: the Soviet Union and the quality of life In-Reply-To: A brief comment on inequality. On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: > How is making this claim not cheerleading? Capitalism has not reversed the > trend towards increasing inequality. Capitalism put increasing inequality > into overdrive. Grudgingly accepting this "fact" makes for even better > propaganda, sort of the reverse of the good intentions fallacy. > > It was "behind" only a few countries in the "west," assuming that you mean > by that term Britain, US, W. Germany, etc.. Only the richest capitalist > countries had better *overall* levels of quality of life. But USSR > challenged the richest countries on many of these measures. And USSR did > not have the deep poverty pockets of the richest countries, nor the level > of inequality. Compared with middle-range and lower-range capitalist > countries, covering the vast majority of the world's population, the > Soviet Union and the socialist world system were superior. > Andy In continuation of the argument, regarding levels of inequality, there is a tendency to only look at income or econmoic inequality. For many of us in the third world that is only one of the problems of inequality. How about equality of opportunity, non-class forms of inequality (caste etc), gender, education etc. On each of these the USSR achieved remarkable success in a short period that it was no wonder countries like India, in the post independence era strived to set up "socialist" systems. One just has to compare figures of the UNDP Human Development Index to understand the increase in inequality on these scores in the USSR before and after the fall. Other figures pertaining to women's participation in public life before and after show the same results. These kinds of inequality have always been much more difficult to root out (because of human nature?!) and it testifies to the power of both socialist and capitalist systems that they were able to set up and dismantle egalitarian systems in a short time in the USSR. D.Parthasarathy From athan.kokkinias@utoronto.ca Thu Jan 22 01:41:42 1998 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 03:17:04 -0500 To: futureu@teleport.com, WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK From: "Athanasios (Tom) Kokkinias" Subject: Re: profits and incentives In-Reply-To: You wrote, >What kind of work? Some drudgery work is sometimes difficult to maintain a >constant quality,do scientist share this same human >nature,pilots,musicians.Perhaps quality could be maintained by sharing >some of the least liked chores. Check out "Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century" by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel The book is damn interesting reading and starts with a quote form Joseph Heller's "Catch-22": "There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions....If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to....'That's some catch, that Catch-22,' Yossarian observed. 'It's the best there is,' Doc Daneeka agreed." Some Chapter titles from the book are in order: Work without hierarchy Participatory Workplaces Egalitarian Consumption Participatory Consumption Allocation without Hierarchy Participatory Allocation Workplace Decision Making Consumption Planning Allocation Decision Making The Information Society (Is that us?!...) Well, so much for this. One (I say just one) of the questions to ask (preferably in an Economics 101 course, and in a pseudo-rhetorical fashion) are: "Why do we breath?....So that we can toil and thus appropriate for ourselves the means to breath some more?" "...And if so, then..." Let's all take a deep breath then and take a closer look at value. Transcendental value that is. The value of Life and Death. Michael, your revolutionary schemas smell good, but as the late father of John Bentham(?) used to rail while pounding the doors of the then House of Commons, "WHAT'S THE USE?!!" Get the drift? (Think about Bentham's approach of his social calculus...the rest will sound too painfully rational to allow for closer reflection) Next question: Somebody take a stab at this: Looking for purpose in any system...Is that Top-down of Bottom-Up analysis? What is the difference? How do we define a system as having been elaborated about, from a Bottom-Up perspective and from a Top-Down one? Metaquestion: How does our own stake in the breathing process affect, effect our own derivations about the system? How do we then view the Top-Down, Bottom-Up question above? Personal Question: What the hell was my old professor refering to when he used to talk about the University System as "The Machine?" And for that matter, when he used to refer to any system as "The Machine?"....Except living systems, of course... Unless we learn to feel the incidence of value as inherent in the very fabric of Life, we are all dead. Can the preceeding statement be construed as deterministic? The Final Question: How the heck do we about building a car if we don't know what the hell we are building it for? Unless we are building it so that we may answer the first question above with: "We breath in order to exist in order to breath, in order to exist....in order to breath..." And why not? "We build the car in order to build the car..." Or, "We make profits in order to reap profits, in order to make profits so that we reap heftier profits, and so forth...." Obviously, we do (act) in order to do (act) in order to do (act)...and so forth....but obviously (I am sure everyone will agree with this) this Level of analysis, if tethered to, clearly seeks to obviate a MetaLevel of analysis of a higher order of abstraction: namely, we wouldn't be doing (ie., arguing at the local WSN) unless the purpose is outside the scope of the proceedings..... The purpose (the value) is already guiding us (in a persuasive, yet uncommited fashion) to a telos.... Heck, we all know this.... Sorry for the interuption, please resume the back-and-forth....I will gladly read on...after all, half the time I answer the fist question with a pseudo-uncommited: "'Cause it's Fun" Now, as for the other half of the time....that's another story..... With deep, slow, breathing strokes, I neary steady this, my ship of life.... Tom PS...PLEASE excuse my morribundities - no punities intended!!! :o) > > >> For all of its faults capitalism still works better in some ways than many >> other social systems, socialist societies included. Even world-system >> theorists like Wallerstein admit that overcentralization of production is a >> problem that has to be avoided in creating any future socialist system. >> Markets and incentives are important and have a role to play, even within >> "socialism." > >Im angling for a simular enviorment where as budgeted members we can solve >all the problems of poverty which seems to be a by product of capitlism >with resulting crime. > >By the way I live in capitalism and it works really well for about 2/3 >of the nations base,I would want some modifications that included the rest >of society and I would also like to create something that was more >sustainable and was a little more oriented towards taking care of our >planet instead needing to exploit something like natural resources to make >a profit,I know that profit is a sacred cow but I would like to submit >this idea for your consideration,suppose each person was the raw >resource, then what ever activity each citizen was active at could return >to something I like to call a United system,that way we wouldnt need to >rely on chopping down all the trees or using up all the resources to keep >our economy going and maintain a quality of life for a whole society. > >paul :) > > >> Stephen Sanderson > >> >> > > >futureu@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport >Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (1200-28800, N81) >future utopia 17024 helbrock dr. bend or 97707 541-593-1664 24hrs > UNITY :www.teleport.com/~futureu/ : UNION .Budget by census > > > > > From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 22 04:27:21 1998 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 03:27:18 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: the Soviet Union and the quality of life In-Reply-To: On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: > It was "behind" only a few countries in the "west," assuming that you mean > by that term Britain, US, W. Germany, etc.. Only the richest capitalist > countries had better *overall* levels of quality of life. But USSR > challenged the richest countries on many of these measures. And USSR did > not have the deep poverty pockets of the richest countries, nor the level > of inequality. Oh yes it did: in its prison system and labor camps, which were pretty extensive from the 1930s to the 1950s. The horror of the 20th century is that, given Russia's semi-peripheral position in the world-economy and two incredibly destructive world wars on its terrain, prison-labor Keynesianism was really the only option for the Eastern bloc countries. It was either forcibly draft their peasants into arms factories, or be physically annihilated under the jackboot of Fascism (and, later, by the economic might and military interventions of the globe-straddling American Empire). The world-system isn't something you can just withdraw from by decree, but rather a centuries-old and hideously exploitative global division of labor. Conversely, the struggle for socialism has been going on for centuries, too, and takes different forms in different historical eras. The one-party-state model is pretty much finished in Russia and Eastern Europe, though it seems to be making a comeback in places like Kazakhstan and China; socialist movements in the First World are probably going to look something like the European Greens. -- Dennis From dassbach@mtu.edu Thu Jan 22 06:49:02 1998 From: "Carl H.A. Dassbach" To: "WSN" Subject: Re: Ravi Batra: CRASH COMING (fwd) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:56:53 -0500 charset="iso-8859-1" Two observations about predicting stock market crashes: 1. If you are wrong, nobody pays attention. 2. It will crash someday. --------------------------- Carl H.A. Dassbach DASSBACH@MTU.EDU Dept. of Social Sciences (906)487-2115 - Phone Michigan Technological Univ. (906)487-2468 - Fax Houghton, MI 49931 (906)482-8405 - Private From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Thu Jan 22 08:37:26 1998 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 10:37:07 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Dennis R Redmond Subject: Re: the Soviet Union and the quality of life In-Reply-To: Dennis, The prison system and labor camps did not constitute a very large proportion of the population in USSR, particularly when compared to the prison system and labor camps of the United States (and I think a comparative basis is important here). Considering size of population the United States has a much more extensive system. Even at the height of the Purges, the US system is comparatively much bigger. The prison system in Russia was an extension *in time* of the system Russians were accustomed to. Crime and punishment are also culturally relative things. The "gulags" system has been greatly exaggerated. One only wonders the comical degree of disappointment shared by the corporate media when after the "fall of communism" there were no hoards of skinny, starving, and diseased masses stumbling from non-existent concentration camps. Probably almost as much as when the police files showed such a small amount of people executed (small in relation to the wild claims made by ideologues guessing from Stalin's fingers), and among them criminals and Nazi prisoners. But can this imagined disappointment match the embarrassment of Vaclac Havel, who in 1989 released two-third of Czechoslovakian "gulag" population (under the assumption that they were oppressed masses) only to find he had unleashed seasoned criminal upon the population?! The idea that the Russian gulag system provided a Keynesian stimulus is, frankly, laughable; the system was nothing like the prison *industry* in the "advanced western" countries. The wartime conditions were exceptional (and successful). The impact of Solzhenitsyn on the US consciousness is a testament to the deceptive power of the anecdote. A lot of "captive nations" rhetoric is sneaking into this discussion. I think people need to be more critical of their assumptions. Andy From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Thu Jan 22 09:31:47 1998 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 11:31:25 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson Subject: Capitalism, socialism, and the quality of life To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Many thanks to Tom Hall for clarifying my position, which he does very nicely. No one familiar with my Macrosociology or my Social Transformations could ever call me a "cheerleader for capitalism." But it seems to me a terrible distortion to claim that capitalism has been all negative. Stephen Sanderson From gmd304@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Thu Jan 22 11:10:16 1998 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:12:45 -0600 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: "Georgi M. Derluguian" Subject: Gulag Dear Andy, You are really testing our civility. Once in America I had to fill out health insurance form which asked about the age at death and its causes in my family since 1900. While I stared puzzled counting the dead, my wife did the calculations ahead: "No male in Derluguian's family has so far died of natural causes in the twentieth century". Females fared better lasting beyond eighty raising kids in widow households. My grandpa was saved in 1930 when he refused to become the collective farm accountant (he had 7 classes of education, a lot). The local OGPU simply deported the entire family to the Kalmyk desert to work at the railway construction. They ate prarie dogs and occasionally dried camel meat there, which actually saved the family. In 1932 our village of Staro-Velichkovskaya, a large Cossack settlement of over twenty thousand in the outstandingly fertile Kuban province, was near completely obliterated by starvation. It failed to deliver the punitive quota of grain assigned a year before. The grain was needed to pay for the two Ford factories in Michigan grounded by Depression. Ford was willing to sell the machinery at a reasonable price but demanded cash scared by the Bolshevik debt defaults. The factories were later sold nonetheless and became the Stalingrad and Kharkov tractor factories. With the knowledge of US administration, Ford included in the deal the tank-making equipment for the Kinney model, later improved in the USSR into the famous T-34 -- a cheap and effective battle tank, we still used them in Mozambique in 1984. There is hardly a single family without such stories in Russia, let alone in the areas of mass deportation like Chechnya or Ingushetia. My only advantage is that professionally I can understand the logic of Stalin's policy. Yet, I am not prepared to use this higher understanding as an excuse. Please, think again. You intelligent enough to realize that your body count trick is essentially the same as denying that Nazis ever used gas chambers. GULag was dismantled in the mid-fifties when it became economically counterproductive and politically dangerous for the elite. Indeed, neither Havel nor Gorbachev had the millions of political prisoners to release but this proves nothing about "mature Stalinism". There can be no political excuse for mass extermination of humans. I know what I say with the sad advantage of close experience. Yours, Georgi Georgiď M. Derluguian Department of Sociology Northwestern University 1812 Chicago Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60208-1330 USA FAX (1-847) 491-9907 tel. (1-847) 491-2741 (rabota) From gmd304@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Thu Jan 22 11:14:16 1998 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:16:46 -0600 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: "Georgi M. Derluguian" Subject: Sources of polis inventiveness TimesRE: Barendse on the inventiveness of Greeks On the Athenian democracy -- many thanks for the term "thymos". Lacking classical education, I suspected that there must have been a term for the urge to excel before the (age-gender-class-tribe) equals in tribal civic communities of the polis type. I am finishing a book on the Chechen resistance. The more I study my mountaineer neighbors the more I realize how profoundly blinding was the shine of Athenian intellectual outpouring to the successive generations of "Western civilization" inheritors and interpreters. What Barendse described should be qualified in two respects:=20 a. The "classical" explosion of innovative artistic, intellectual, and political forms lasted perhaps less than a century followed by thousand or more years of reproductive stasis (the birth of Christianity is a big problem, which demands special consideration, but I suspect even that invention doesn't change the trajectory until much later); and b, Athenian thymos was particular (because there also was Sparta and Macedonia, and brutish Rome) transposition of the competitve norms instilled in the combat-age males of such 'mountain' frontier societies. I mean the marginal (rather than peripheralized) communities in the secure mountain (or, possibly, island, dense forest and desert) pockets outside the effective reach of contemporary world-empires but close enough to experience what Chase-Dunn and Hall called "information networks" (or a Russian poet "the glow and thunder of imperial grandeur on the distant horizon"). The marginal (but not "primordial" least of all "primitive"!) societies, which Andrei Korotaev proposed to group as "mountanous democracy", can neither afford nor allow control/defense by the small exclusive retinue of racketeer aristocrats. Such societies mobilize their entire menfolk and often women, too, developing the norms of highly individualized yet collective civic culture. Each member of the community ought to prove oneself almost constantly by being able to afford his own weaponry (customarily standardized infantry or cavalry weapons, depending on the age and terrain), must excel in practicing the weapons, and must internalize as highest civic norm the glory of self-sacrifice for the sake of joining the legendary pantheon of community heroes. In this respect there is little difference between the Chechen taxi-driver Ahmed who sold his colored TV to buy a Kalashnikov rifle and, together with a few brothers and neighbors, plunged into the cold mud outside their village waiting for the Russian tanks, or a group of Athenian farmers who stood at Plateia in the phalanx of socially equal warriors waiting for the Persian army of slaves and mercenaries. The difference is in the fact that Athenians in less dangerous times and in the brief period when their polity was still in creative flux transposed the warrior competitiveness on other kinds of competition -- don't forget the sports when you talk about arts. Sports were more important, Spartans also practiced them but hardly any arts which may suggest what were the original and the derivative fields of competition in polis democracy.=20 So, I continue to insist on the importance of warfare in the evolution of arts and sciences. Georgi M. Derluguian Georgi=EF M. Derluguian Department of Sociology Northwestern University 1812 Chicago Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60208-1330 USA =46AX (1-847) 491-9907 tel. (1-847) 491-2741 (rabota) From Shawn_Terrell@marketstrategies.com Thu Jan 22 12:50:01 1998 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 98 14:49:40 EST From: "Shawn Terrell" To: WSN@csf.colorado.edu Subject: dissent So, in ancient Greece they had slaves to do all the undesirable jobs: Dr. R.S. Barendse writes: "...of course, the Athenians had slaves to do boring and heavy work..." In the Soviet Union jobs were assigned: Georgi M. Derluguian writes: "My grandpa was saved in 1930 when he refused to become the collective farm accountant (he had 7 classes of education, a lot). The local OGPU simply deported the entire family to the Kalmyk desert to work at the railway construction. They ate prarie dogs and occasionally dried camel meat there, which actually saved the family." This is I think one of the "great fears" of a communist system. Yes, freedom to chose one's vocation in the current system is greatly limited, but the alternatives posited above don't even allow for the ability to dream. Even if there were no "human nature" what is important is that average people believe there is, and part of the belief is that people will take advantage of a system where they can. In this context the notion of a system where everyone cooperates due to enlightened cooperation will not fly with the average person. In the alternative to the current world system what will be done if someone decides they are not going to do the shit work, nor are willing to be assigned their vocation? From dassbach@mtu.edu Thu Jan 22 13:39:03 1998 From: "Carl H.A. Dassbach" To: "WSN" Subject: Call for Papers Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:46:51 -0500 charset="iso-8859-1" CALL FOR PAPERS The Radical History Review, an independent academic journal of history, politics, and culture published by Cambridge University Press, is currently soliciting articles and essays for a thematic issue on "Islands in History: Perspectives on U.S. Imperialism and the Legacies of 1898." The centennial of the Spanish-Cuban-American War and the War in the Philippines offers an opportunity to reflect on the national and international significance of U.S. expansion at the turn of the century. Events in 1898 profoundly changed the histories of U.S., Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, and Spain and continue to shape lives, politics, culture and economics in these areas. This issue of the RHR seeks to explore the links between the history of imperialism and the many responses, debates and consequences including anticolonial political and cultural activism, immigration and citizenship, and the construction of national identities. We are especially interested in articles that challenge the dominant discourse on U.S. expansion and regional responses and engage with current political issues related to colonial and postcolonial practices. We welcome articles that address: * Specific and comparative analysis of U.S. expansion at the turn of the century in Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America, and the Pacific; * Early accounts of responses to the transfer of control and the creation of new hegemonic configurations within the newly subjected territories; * The role of discourses about democracy in constructing the discourses of legitimization for invasion and in shaping responses to U.S. presence; * The various colonizing projects instituted or emerging from the U.S. invasions in 1898, and their impact on theories of governmental notions of autonomy and self-determination, and the very definition of colonialism; * The impact of distinct processes of racialization in informing representations of the subject populations and shaping U.S. policy toward each country and region; * The effect of U.S. racial ideologies on local and national ethnic and racial hierarchies; * Local, regional, national ethnic and racial processes of identity formation that emerged in response to colonization by the U.S., and other anti-imperialist and anti-racist political and cultural responses to the invasion; * Impact on global economy, culture and politics beyond the nations directly involved; * The implication of imperial ideologies and projects in the construction of gendered hierarchies and sexual identities; * The role of organized religion and its practitioners in helping to solidify U.S. imperialism and in creating responses to it; * The demographic transformations that resulted from U.S. occupation, including but not limited to the distinct histories of the various colonial diasporas and their incorporation into ethnic and racial configuration within the U.S.; * Effects of linguistic policies on processes of assimilation and pacification; * The cultural representations and ideological workings of imperialism from a transnational or comparative perspective; * The continued impact of imperial legacies on debates about culture, politics and economy in the U.S., Cuba, Puerto Rico, Philippines, and Guam. Submission deadline: April 15, 1998 Please send submissions to Managing Editor, Radical History Review, Tamiment Library, 70 Washington Square South, New York, NY 10012 Inquiries to Pennee Bender or Yvonne Lassalle at pbender@email.gc.cuny.edu, or to the RHRoffice at 212-998-2632 --------------------------- Carl H.A. Dassbach DASSBACH@MTU.EDU Dept. of Social Sciences (906)487-2115 - Phone Michigan Technological Univ. (906)487-2468 - Fax Houghton, MI 49931 (906)482-8405 - Private From rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU Thu Jan 22 14:07:18 1998 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 14:02:31 -0700 (MST) From: Richard N Hutchinson To: s_sanderson Subject: Re: Capitalism, socialism, and the quality of life In-Reply-To: <01ISOC6R7RUG91VW52@grove.iup.edu> On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, s_sanderson wrote: > Many thanks to Tom Hall for clarifying my position, which he does very nicely. > No one familiar with my Macrosociology or my Social Transformations could ever > call me a "cheerleader for capitalism." But it seems to me a terrible > distortion to claim that capitalism has been all negative. > > Stephen Sanderson > > One important point seems to have been conflated in the recent debate -- the difference between absolute standard of living and inequality. Your text "Macrosociology" presents cross-national data showing that the level of inequality, as measured by GINI, was much lower in the old Soviet bloc. Of course that greater equality was at a significantly lower standard of living than the >>average<< level in the U.S. and the rest of the core. Richard Hutchinson From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Thu Jan 22 15:38:50 1998 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 17:38:26 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu As we used to say in the sixties, Georgi Derlugian is "telling it like it is." From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Thu Jan 22 17:04:38 1998 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 19:04:31 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Georgi M. Derluguian" Subject: Re: Gulag In-Reply-To: Georgi, Your attempt to imply that my challenging anti-communist ideology is the equivalent of Holocaust denial is outrageous, particularly on a discussion group that is supposed to be scholarly. Whatever injustice you feel I served up is eclipsed by your employ of this base tactic. Andy From r.deibert@utoronto.ca Thu Jan 22 17:45:45 1998 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 22:36:53 -0500 To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK From: "Ronald J. Deibert" Subject: Re: Gulag In-Reply-To: Andrew As someone reading this debate with interest, I must say that it appeared to me what you were challenging was not just "anti-communist ideology" but the idea that the Soviet system was repressive and unjust. You seemed to be arguing that the Gulags were not all that horrible, yes? In that case, I think Georgi's comments were appropriate. It is one thing to take on the myths of consumer culture that sustain capitalism. I think most people on this list are interested in and aware of these. It is another to argue that a vile and repressive regime that terrorized its population and strangled free speech was just a myth.... If you are want to make a moral argument in favor of communism on a list that contains not a few historians, you will have to do so on some other basis than washing out the past. Regards, Ronald J. Deibert At 07:04 PM 1/22/98 -0500, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: >Georgi, > >Your attempt to imply that my challenging anti-communist ideology is the >equivalent of Holocaust denial is outrageous, particularly on a discussion >group that is supposed to be scholarly. Whatever injustice you feel I >served up is eclipsed by your employ of this base tactic. > >Andy > > > Ronald J. Deibert Assistant Professor Department of Political Science 100 St. George Street University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario M5S-3G3 Phone: 416-978-5304 Fax: 416-978-5566 email: r.deibert@utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~rdeibert/ From spector@calumet.purdue.edu Thu Jan 22 18:12:30 1998 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 19:13:21 -0800 From: Alan Spector Reply-To: spector@calumet.purdue.edu To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Capitalism/Marxism One of the things I've always appreciated about the WSN list is the broader, international perspective that many writers bring to the list. It is a refreshing break from so much of U.S. social science, which is generally very narrow and "U.S.-centric." That's why I've been somewhat astounded at the recent discussions about "capitalism and socialism." So many of the comparisons between the USSR and the US are taken so utterly out of international and historical context as to sound like the rather narrow patriotic propaganda many of us were subjected to in the 1950's. Without attempting to get into the detailed discussions about the failures and successes of the USSR, some points are worth noting: OF COURSE the USSR has had a lower standard of living than the U.S. or England. The USSR lost something like 20 million, or was it 30 million people killed in World War II and had the equivalent of their New York, Chicago, Detroit, etc. devastated. A disproportionate number of those who died were inthe more productive 15-50 age group. How can anyone make any kind of reasonable comparison between standard of living in the USSR and the U.S.? Furthermore, the U.S. has had a powerful, highly profitable international economic empire from which massive profits were extracted. The Soviet Empire was primarily military and ultimately drained resources from the USSR. And in 1917, the Russian Empire was something of a backwater in terms of modernization, etc., with dozens of languages, ethnic groups, and religions. Somehow they took the full force of the Nazis and destroyed that regime--killing and capturing far, far, far more Nazis than the U.S. did. (Although the saturation bombing of civilian areas in places like Dresden did narrow the gap a little.) People write about the 800-1000 dead in Tienamien Square, although it is a massacre in scale to national population perhaps only 5% as severe as the massacre of students in Mexico City in 1968. From Chile's massacre of 30,000 and impoverishment of millions to El Salvador's U.S.-funded death squads that killed 50-100,000 people (in a country one-half of one percent of China's population!), to the CIA influenced bloodbath in Indonesdia (500,000? in a month or so, and highly lucrative oil contracts given to imperialist oil companies as the new regime consolidated its power)---in these places and a hundred more, "highly successful capitalism" has gained its prosperity on the blood of workers and peasants. Yes, many died in the USSR, and many of those deaths were innocent victims. I wonder how many people starved to death in capitalist India in the early 1930's though? One can't talk about the "successes" of capitalism based on average standards of living in the core. Some readers of this list must have an idea of what is going on in places like Ethiopia, Peru, Mexico, Eastern Europe, as well as major parts of China. And as far as political repression is concerned, I invite people to drive around Gary, Indiana or North Philadelphia, or the west side of Chicago or a hundred other cities and see how the police can and do stop, harrass, and arrest people at random. U.S. prisons are flooded with young black men. ============================= Marxism aspires to a world free of exploitation. Capitalism endorses exploitation as either a "positive good" or as a "necessary evil." Maybe it is a unrealistic to think that Marxism will give us a better world. But it is far, far more unrealistic to think that capitalism can ever get us there. Alan Spector From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Thu Jan 22 18:58:18 1998 id UAA03433; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:57:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:57:56 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Ronald J. Deibert" Subject: Re: Gulag In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980122193653.0081e4c0@mailbox55.utcc.utoronto.ca> Ronald, History is not something exclusive to you and those you are thinking about on this list (whoever they are--lot of ad populum appeals all the sudden with everybody suddenly using "we" instead of "I"!). Nothing I said in my post excuses the Russian prison system. Prison systems exist in many societies, they are generally brutal, and they should be studied comparatively. And they must be studied in context. The comparative argument I made is not incorrect. But perhaps all that is beside the point now? What has happened here is predictable: the ideological point, that anybody who attempts to talk objectively about the Soviet system is somehow apologizing for oppression, has been viciously injected into the discussion, accompanied by a passionate and personal anecdotal account. That post was clearly designed to stop debunking activities that threatened favored mythology. And the power of pathos over reason is revealed in the bandwagon effect we see presently, an effect I suspect we will see increasing over the next several days. You see, I knew--in fact I made the prediction to my wife yesterday morning--that as soon as I began defending the accomplishments of the Soviet Union somebody would drag the gulags into the discussion. They always do. The gulags are used ad nauseum to distract objective discussion about the Soviet system. It is a base and shopworn propaganda ploy. The reality of atrocities in the former Soviet Union during some of the Stalinist era are bad enough without exaggerating those numbers. It is the *exaggeration* I attacked. The predicted response: "Apologist!" It is not true, of course. But it is functional, and its *function* is what is crucial to expose here. This tactic legitimates the liberal and corporate versions of totalitarianism, and diminishes the horror of authoritarian capitalism, while making communism nonviable. Those who inflated the numbers of killed--10 million, 30 million, 100 million--were evidently (and ironically, in a way) counting on the Soviet Union never falling, and state records never coming out. You may not like it, but debunking anti-communist mythology is a legitimate activity and it is no way related to denying the Holocaust, and it doesn't justify the character of personal attack that has been leveled at me. When Chomsky demonstrated the way the corporate media lied and exaggerated the Pol Pot atrocities in Cambodia, he did not expose the fraud to diminish the lives of those who were murdered. To say that what Chomsky was doing was "Holocaust denial" which is a frequent accusation aimed at him, legitimates capitalist propaganda. And that is what is happening here. I am not worried that debunking favored mythology will draw fire from dogmatists who sling personal anecdotes and hyperbolic rhetoric. What is more important for me (and a lot of other people who are not represented on this list) is that other sides are told. I am not going to be intellectually intimidated by appeals to "historians" into not challenging the extreme ideology that attempts to pass for scholarly thought here. It is immoral to be complacent in the reactionary context that lies lurking beneath the "civil" surface of this listserv. I was fully aware that I would be standing here tonight having this discussion when I took up the challenge of anti-communism. I can't imagine that all this bullying is winning points in the eyes of people here who have the slightest capacity to think for themselves. Andy From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 22 19:53:51 1998 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 18:53:48 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Gulag In-Reply-To: On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: > The reality of atrocities in the former Soviet Union during some of the > Stalinist era are bad enough without exaggerating those numbers. It is the > *exaggeration* I attacked. The predicted response: "Apologist!" It is not > true, of course. But it is functional, and its *function* is what is > crucial to expose here. This tactic legitimates the liberal and corporate > versions of totalitarianism, and diminishes the horror of authoritarian > capitalism, while making communism nonviable. > > Those who inflated the numbers of killed--10 million, 30 million, 100 > million--were evidently (and ironically, in a way) counting on the Soviet > Union never falling, and state records never coming out. The archival evidence finally available to scholars shows that somewhere between 1 and 1.5 million people were executed during the purges of the Thirties; many of these folks were not "politicals" but were classified as criminals, but they were victims of the crash industrialization just the same. Millions more were drafted into labor camps, where they existed in pretty horrible conditions. These are not personal anecdotes, these are the best historical evidence we have today -- KGB archives, personal accounts, a wide variety of sociological and statistical sources etc. Yes, peasants were starving in India in the 1930s. And millions of Ukrainian peasants starved to death during the same time-period, thanks to the madness of Stalinist collectivization (I won't even begin to mention the various sell-outs of the Greek revolutionaries, the Spanish anarchists, etc. by the Stalin apparat). I just don't see the point of selecting the bright points of Soviet society, labelling these "socialism", and comparing these to the worst aspects of American, or German, or Indonesian society: dialectics is about thinking critically about ALL societies, and analyzing the tendencies of a very large, complex and antagonistic world-system in an attempt to stop the incessant and continuing slaughter of capitalist pre-history. Stalinism did not stop the slaughter, but continued it with different means, which is no socialism at all. -- Dennis From adkes@pipeline.com Thu Jan 22 23:28:34 1998 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 01:24:50 -0500 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: Adam Kessler Subject: Spector's Contribution Unfortunately this stuff is pretty typical of what one finds here--all this tendentious "analysis" and stale sloganeering. Just one point: Surely Germany and Japan suffered as much dath and destruction in WWII as the U.S.S.R. Yet they recovered quickly and achieved high living standards for their people. (I await a convoluted Marxoid response to these facts) From dp@hss.iitb.ernet.in Fri Jan 23 00:00:35 1998 by manashi.hss.iitb.ernet.in (8.8.8/8.8.7-IITB-with-MX) id MAA05456; Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 12:26:38 +0500 (GMT+0500) From: "d.parthasarathy" Subject: Re: Spector's Contribution In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980123062450.00891188@pop.pipeline.com> On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Adam Kessler wrote: > Unfortunately this stuff is pretty typical of what one finds here--all this > tendentious "analysis" and stale sloganeering. Just one point: Surely > Germany and Japan suffered as much dath and destruction in WWII as the > U.S.S.R. Yet they recovered quickly and achieved high living standards for > their people. (I await a convoluted Marxoid response to these facts) > Death and destruction in WII was just one of the factors that Andy had mentioned. Another important factor (just one of many others) was that at the time of the revolution Russia was more or less a feudal society with little industrial development or even the resources - capital, skills, education - for rapid economic development. And don't forget that the kind of support which Japan and Germany recieved from the capitalist countries in the immediate aftermath of the world war was just not available to the USSR. D.Parthasarathy From barendse@coombs.anu.edu.au Fri Jan 23 02:16:09 1998 (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA070186957; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 20:15:57 +1100 Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 12:41:33 +1100 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: barendse@coombs.anu.edu.au (Rene Barendse) Subject: Greek polis I tend to agree partly with Derluguian's comment regarding the link between warfare and `primitive' democracy. (Although this is also one of the main arguments advanced by both Giddens and M. Mann against classic Marxism - namely that power also depends on military capability - and Giddens and Mann are far from popular with some contributors to this list) Yes, certainly, only those who could muster a shield and weapons could vote in the Athenian assembly; one of the main issues of contention during the period of Pericles when Athens developped a powerful navy was whether rowers in the galleys (these were free men - in the latter period galleys tended to breed slavery) should be permitted the vote. There is a theory that Athenian democracy was to a high extent predicated upon the need of foot-folk organized in a falanx to extremely closely keep together so that the unbroken row of shield would not be broken this necessitated much closer collaboration between warriors and thus between fellow-citizens than for example in Persian warfare in the same period which was heavily based upon mounted archers. Again, there is an argument that the need to closely worker together for rowers in a galley (in the Greek way of rowing) necessitated warriors to work very closely together and was thus instrumental in the rise of popular democracy. To some extent it may be said that closed heavy infantry formations breed democracy just like - a much surer case - heavy cavalry tends to breed feudal arrangements - this can be seen from Mali to Japan, from Persia to Ethiopia - but as Derluguian rightly writes `mountain democracies' are also quite common. It is really a pity that Mann appearently does not grasp this (but, then again, we should have something to complain about should n't we ?) However I disagree on two points: a.)Athens was not a mountain-state and it was certainly during the height of democracy not a poor state having monopolized much of the trade of Greece and of course with its mines more or less controling Greek coin-production. Athenian income in the fourth century was primarily trade and `tribute'. (Interesting thought - come to think of it - if you wonder what the prime income of Athens was later - it was probably tourism from the second century B.C. until now !) Athens is not a simple `peasant democracy'. If you look for classic examples of `mountain-democracies' it would be more useful to look for the smaller city-states and, perhaps, to the fifth - sixth century B.C. I like the comparison between Checnia and ancient Greece but I don't think it's appropriate - if I were to compare Checnia with a society in antiquity I would rather pick Minoic Greece with its aristocracy of proud warriors and their bands of followers (much of the present values of Checnia seem to be pretty well depicted in the Illias). b.)The remark that the Athenian light was extinguished after a `mere' two centuries (that's a long period !) by the despotic empire of Macedonia involves a misunderstanding of Macedonia and, more importantly, ` the stagnation' of the Hellenistic period involves a misunderstanding of the Hellenistic period. Due to its great achievements in science in particular and in `classical' scholarship - creative or not - the Hellenistic period may also be ranged among the great creative periods. In fact, Ptolmeaic Egypt is one of the few societies which very heavily invested in abstract science before capitalism and is an excellent case of a society where scientific innovation was not driven by the profit-motive. I added something to my remark on slaves: `the Athenian elite had slaves (so that they could devote themselves to creative work), we now increasingly have mechanical slaves to relieve us of the drudgery'. If this seems mightily abstract remember that in most pre-industrial societies 90% of the population had to work on the land 9% do other manual work to feed 1% of the population who were engaged in non-manual work; in most developed societies that would now be 1%, 60%, 39%, so that we have come a long way in only two centuries. Since the 60% is constantly falling too, who knows where we're heading in the next two centuries ? Since Marx and Engels envisaged communism as the realm where man is relieved of the necessity to do heavy manual work, I think that as regards to the condition of the forces of production we are heading for communism. But that would take me too far. Cheers R.J.Barendse P.S. I should indeed note with Chass-Dunn that it is remarkable how civilized the exchange of mail still is, in spite of dealing with the highely emotionally charged issue of Stalinism. Keep it going ! This posting on antiquity may seem like an exotic aside but remember that Marx was primarily a classsic scholar (his Ph.D. was on Herakleitos) and his idea of socialism was probably heavily influenced by the image of Greece in Germany ca. 1830 Peace Research Centre Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies Australian National University Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia Tel: +61-6-2492259 (Wk) Tel: +61-6-2675324 (Hm) Fax: +61-6-62490174 From agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca Fri Jan 23 03:27:47 1998 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 05:27:04 -0500 (EST) From: Gunder Frank To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: soviet reply (fwd) The 'debate' and the better turn which Alan Specter has given it prompts me to submit something perhaps relevant thsat i just prepared for another net. there was an appendum too, which i haven found yet. gunder frank ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Andre Gunder Frank University of Toronto 96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616 Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071 CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 16:21:22 -0500 From: "A. Gunder Frank" To: Andre Gunder Frank Subject: soviet reply Ray Smith's January 16 contribution to the matter of "The collapse of the USSR" prompts me to put in my own two cents worth. First an agreement with Smith: It is indeed true that defense expenditures were increased already under President Carter. But his claim is not true that they only followed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which was in December 1979. For already a half year and more earlier, Nixon's detente was replaced by the "New Cold War" when NATO decided to increase expenditures by 3 percent not counting inflation, instituted the "two track" policy of negotiating with these expenditures and the placement of cruise and other missles in Europe, and the United States played its "China card", all of which is a matter of public record and to which the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a response. Smith and his colleagues may not have been privy either to all the ins and outs of the new US Strategy, but Sean Gervasi [alas now deceased] some years ago published citations from previously secret U.S. government documents that concretely outlined a deliberate strategy to use Star Wars and other defense expenditures in order to spend the USSR into bankruptcy and collapse. As I will argue below however, beyond this 'ideological' competition with the Evil Empire, Reaganomic Military Keyenseanism also had domestic and world economic purposes and functions. I do that by direct quotation of excerpts of two recent articles of mine, the first "The Cold War and Me" [BULLETIN OF CONCERNED ASIAN SCHOLARS 29:3, July-Sept. 1997: 79-84 and expanded version on their webpage http://csf.colorado.edu/bcas ] and my variously titled "Soviet and Eaast European 'Socialsm': A World Economic Review of What Went Wrong" and "The Thridworldization of Russia and Eastern Europe" published in REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY I,2,April 1994:113-57, and in M. Mesbahi Ed. RUSSIA AND THE THIRD WORLD IN THE POST-SOVIET ERA, Gainsville: University Press of Forida 1994:45-72, which also contains the chapter by V. Kublakova cited below. A Mexican newspaper headline claimed that "Gunder Frank Predicted the Fall of the Soviet Union." That is an exaggeration, but a friend from Hungary told others and me at the 1997 meetings of the International Studies Association that I was the only person who had correctly analyzed the political economic process and its outcome in his country and Eastern Europe. However that may be, Vendilka Kublakova (1994) observed in her "Requiem for the Soviet Union" and for Soviet studies that at least I did better than the consensus among Western cold war Sovietologists, including many who became media personalities whose tunnel vision made them see only what they and their cold war conditioned public wanted. More often than not she observes, events including finally the sudden demise of their very subject matter itself arrived unforseen out the blue and were inexplicable within their Sovietology paradigm. Since then it "has become an easy target for ridicule; collections of misguided predictions made by leading Sovietologist now are considered amusing reading" (ibid. 29). My analysis, on the other hand, situated the Soviet Union, but also China and other 'socialist' countries, within the world economy and subject to its imperatives, which conditioned and shaped their policies just like anybody elses. Thus already in 1972 and again in 1976 under the title "Long Live Transideological Enterprise! The Socialist Countries in the Capitalist International Division of Labor" I argued that there is only ONE world economic system and that the 'socialist' countries were rapidly being 're'-integrated into it. In still another conflict with the orthodoxies of the cold war on both sides, I found and denounced it more and more as a snare and a delusion. I lectured and wrote how American interest groups were using and in every recession escalating the cold war to promote their own economic interests not only in the Third World but in the increasing competition that the deepening world economic crisis generated with Western Europe and Japan. Part of this analysis was my 1983 book The European Challenge, which argued that, all ideological differences notwithstanding, East and West Europe could and would be again be united, but with the East dependent on the West. Extending the same argument at the beginning of the last recession in early 1989 and still before the Berlin wall came down, I argued for eastward expansion of the European Union by 1992. So WHAT WENT WRONG in the Socialist East? The usual answers range from "everything" by opponents to only "Stalinism" or even "nothing" according to erstwhile believers and/or supporters. The answers cover policies or ideologies and periods ranging from the first Soviet government and revolution in 1917 [or even earlier from the birth of Marxism in 1848] to those of the last government and reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev since 1985. About this last Soviet period also, the answers range from the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" position of those who thought nothing much was wrong to that of pronouncing the whole "system" as unworkable. Many critics in between, like Gorbachev (1987) himself, recognized failures and the need for some change like perestroika, but not complete transformation. Other critics, however, regard Gorbachev's reform efforts to fix things as themselves misguided and literally counter-productive. Some of these critics argue that were it not for Gorbachev's own policy errors, the Soviet Union and its economy could have survived for some time if not indefinitely. Among these critics are Ellman and Kontorovich (1992) and Menshikov (1990, 1992). All these answers and others like them are at best half truths, of which the old adage has it that they are worse than none at all. All these answers fall very short because 1. they focus primarily if not exclusively on ideological reasons attributed to "socialism", and/or 2. they are concerned primarily with "organizational" and policy failures inside the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and 3. they leave real world economic reasons out of consideration completely or essentially. I contend that the answer to the question of "what went wrong" must be sought much more in the material reality of our one world economy than in any ideological discourse about "socialism" or even policy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. To begin with, these regions entered the competitive development race under the "socialist" flag with an enormous historical handicap in their starting positions within the world economy. >From a real[istic de-ideologized] world economic perspective, the efforts in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were [much] less to build "socialism" as to catch up. For a while, they seemed to succeed -- before they failed. However, not so much the now universally faulted and rejected ideological "socialism" or political "planning" but much more the historical economic differences and still contemporary relations between the two parts of Europe in the world economy is responsible for the backwardness of the East. The same problem obtains a forteriori in the Soviet Union. A few parts of Russia and the Ukraine were westernized by Peter the Great and industrialized by him, Witte, and Stalin. But most of the former Soviet Union at best still has a third world economy, like Brazil, India, and China, which also have industrial capacities, especially in military hardware. The Transcaucasian and Central Asian regions are not even likely to be Latin Americanized, but rather economically more Africanized or, God forbid, politically Lebanonized like the former Yugoslavia. From there, war and "ethnic cleansing" may soon srpead elsewhere through the Balkans, and already offers a bitter foretaste of the foreseeable future for many of the peoples. The revolutions of 1989 in Eastern Europe and the breakup of the Soviet Union were not so much responses to supposed differences between economic and political policies between the "socialist" East and the "capitalist" West. These revolutions were more the consequences of their participation in a single world economic system and its present world economic crisis. The world economic crisis spelled the doom of the "socialist" economies, much more than their "socialist planning" "command economy," which is now almost universally blamed for the same. Not unlike the "Third World" economies of Latin America and Africa, the "second world" economies of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were unable to bear the pace of accelerated competition in the world economy during this period of crisis. Like every previous one, this economic crisis forces one and all to restructure economically and to realign politically. It is true that economic command organization and political bureaucracy were instrumental in depriving economies in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union from the flexibility necessary for adaptation to the world economic crisis and the technological revolution and restructuring, which that same crisis engendered elsewhere. But both the "market" and the "arms race" also intervened directly in Soviet economy and society. Halliday [p.129] correctly notes that the rise in the price of oil gave the USSR a windfall profit. However, he conveniently disregards that the same imposed an unexpected stormy cost for oil importing countries in Eastern Europe and that the renewed decline in oil - and gold - prices since 1981 deprived the Soviet Union of the much needed foreign exchange. It was generated by the oil and gold exports, which were over 90 percent of its hard currency earners in this market, which according to Halliday did not intervene in Soviet economy or society! In the United States, the same monetary and fiscal policy begun by President Carter continued, except that now it was called "Reaganomics" and functioned through "military Keynesianism" or "Star Wars." Reagan's renewed increase of military expenditures [coming on top of Carter's] generated the famed American "twin deficits" in the federal budget and the foreign current account. This U.S. deficit spending was necessary not only to keep the American economy, but to keep the entire Western economy afloat during the 1980s. This world economic imperative and the always uneven distribution of its costs benefitted parts of the West, including Western Europe, Japan and the East Asian NICs who were dependent on the American market. However, it was this same world monetary and fiscal policy that pushed Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe AND the Soviet Union into an economic depression, which is already more severe than that of the 1930s. A major, but always unmentioned, difference between the Soviet Union and United States in the 1980 was that the former had no one to bail it out of bankruptcy, while the latter received massive capital contributions from Western Europe and Japan, and involuntarily through debt service from Latin America, to plug up the American foreign trade and domestic budget deficits, which were generated by Star Wars. So, Halliday and many others could not be more mistaken in claiming that the [world] market did not intervene in Soviet economy or society and their collaspe. From agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca Fri Jan 23 03:33:57 1998 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 05:33:14 -0500 (EST) From: Gunder Frank To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: more (fwd) see my just previous 2 cents worth first please gunder frank ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Andre Gunder Frank University of Toronto 96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616 Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071 CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:14:08 -0500 (EST) From: Gunder Frank To: David Johnson michael Ellman , agf , Pat Lauderdale , Annemarie Olivero , Albert J Bergesen Subject: more Dear David. Since i am now on your weekly summary, I do not know if you posted my 'contributuion' of a couple of days ago or not. Either way, I now write to say that I got distracted and therefore neglected to add in re my own 'predictive' and 'censorship' experiences paralleling those of Ray Smith, the following 2 items: ITEM 1: In my "The East European Revolution of 1989" published several times, among them in ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY in Bombay on February 3, 1990 I wrote and published inter alia "the 'imperial' reach of the Soviet Union is under effective political challenge due principally to economic failure, and the 'Union' may effectively break up" This same article was also published in the LAST issue of PROBLEMS OF PEACE AND SOCIALISM [Prague] No. 381, 5, 1990 at least in its English, French and Russian Language editions. At least in the Russian language edition i have before me, this sentence and some preceeding ones were however OMITTED. Moreover, the Russian translation of my title was "The EVENTS of 1989" rather than my original "The REVOLUTION of l989" The Editor in Chief had previously told me that he could NOT publish anything of mine in this CP house organ, since various CP Party representatives on his editorial board vetoed publication of anything by me. He decided on the publication of this article by me however, as he later told me, because after all this was to be the LAST issue in the life of the magazine. The editor was none other than our friend and your regular DJL contributor STANISLAV MENSHIKOV. ITEM 2: regarding my "Economic Ironies in Europe: A World Economic Interpretation of East-West European Politics" published in UNESCO International Social Science Journal XLIV, 1, 1992 I added the folowing "author's note" to the reprints: "My reference was to '[ex]Soviet Union' in the original of this article, which was written late Spring and revised early October 1991. Over my express objections, UNESCO edited and deleted out the 'ex' for [diplomatic?] reasons of its own" Submitted for the record gunder frank ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Andre Gunder Frank University of Toronto 96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616 Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071 CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From jsommers@lynx.dac.neu.edu Fri Jan 23 05:56:28 1998 Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 08:05:36 -0500 From: jeff sommers Reply-To: jsommers@lynx.dac.neu.edu To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: convoluted paranoid Marxist response Dear Adam, I prefer to stay away from the tired academic debates on this issue, but here goes anyway... While not defending the Soviets, you must remember that the US poured huge sums of money into Germany and Japan after World War II. Additionally, they both benefited from maintaining small militaries and as serving a sub-contractors for the US in the Cold War. Germany for NATO and Japan for Vietnam. Japan being even a more special case in that it was encouraged to build the economic empire, a Japanese co-prosperity sphere, that the US before the Cold War had actually gone to war with Japan to prevent! Japan is especially instructful, for while Germany had high per capita incomes before WW II, Japan’s were never really more than one-fourth those of the richest countries. In other words their 80 years of industrialization beginning with Mejii were somewhat effective, but never launched them into the first world until the exigencies of the Cold War gave them the final push (my friend Gunder may disagree with me on this. We’ll see). I know this is all rather structural, and I don’t wish to completely deny the role of agency here, but I do think these are important factors for understanding the development of these post-WW II areas. The Soviets on the other hand, had a net drain on their system by having to spend massively, in terms of their GNP, on their military. We can argue if this was by choice or necessity. Bear in mind this isn't a defense of the Soviets, just some factors which helped propel Germany and Japan's economies upward. Whatever your thoughts on Wallerstein may be, his concept of "development by invitation" has some relevance here. Best, Jeff Sommers From agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca Fri Jan 23 07:35:25 1998 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 09:34:44 -0500 (EST) From: Gunder Frank To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: jeff's japan an' stuff well yes actually i do disagree, for Japan's 'industrialiazation' began with the tokugawas or before long before the Mejii 'restoration' and yoiur use of diacritical marks comes out totally garbled. So you get a B for not doing your homework -even in my chapter 2 that you have around there - and a minus - for sputtering up cybersapce. of course i get ------ for my typos. gunder ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Andre Gunder Frank University of Toronto 96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616 Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071 CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From r.deibert@utoronto.ca Fri Jan 23 07:42:32 1998 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 12:28:29 -0500 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: "Ronald J. Deibert" Subject: Re: Gulag Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: > >What has happened here is predictable: the ideological point, that anybody >who attempts to talk objectively about the Soviet system is somehow >apologizing for oppression, has been viciously injected into the >discussion, accompanied by a passionate and personal anecdotal account. >That post was clearly designed to stop debunking activities that >threatened favored mythology. And the power of pathos over reason is >revealed in the bandwagon effect we see presently, an effect I suspect we >will see increasing over the next several days. > >You see, I knew--in fact I made the prediction to my wife yesterday >morning--that as soon as I began defending the accomplishments of the >Soviet Union somebody would drag the gulags into the discussion. They >always do. The gulags are used ad nauseum to distract objective discussion >about the Soviet system. It is a base and shopworn propaganda ploy. Andrew: Thanks for the reply. I would like to clarify what you are claiming here, so that I understand it better. Your theory is that you are being subjected to a systematic propaganda campaign which is generated every time you try to make objective statements about the Soviet system during the Stalinist era. The propaganda campaign is functional to the workings of the capitalist system, and typically employs sophisticated rhetorical strategies such as --the invocation of a fictional "we" --reliance on the discursive weight of "historians," --personal anecdotes and references to "gulags" --and personal attacks directed at you. If I were to criticize this theory, I would probably ask the following questions: (1) Are your claims about the Soviet system accurate? How many people died in the gulags? How did they die? What do historians have to say about this? (2) How does this systematic propaganda campaign operate? Is it a conspiracy of intellectuals? Or, is it a subconcious impulse among what we might call intellectual dupes whose attacks on you are activated in a knee-jerk, unthinking way? (3) Did anyone "sling personal attacks" at you in recent posts? (4) Are the personal experiences about the Soviet system genuine, or fictional? Do you accept these questions as a good basis to critique your theory? IF not, how might we test your theory? How might your theory be falsified? Regards, Ronald J. Deibert > Ronald J. Deibert Assistant Professor Department of Political Science University of Toronto r.deibert@utoronto.ca 416-978-5304 http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~rdeibert/ From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Fri Jan 23 09:30:59 1998 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 11:30:35 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Ronald J. Deibert" Subject: Re: Gulag In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980123172829.00810e6c@mailbox55.utcc.utoronto.ca> Ronald, Fairly creative but ultimately transparent attempt to shift the onus on me. That it was implied that my activities here were the equivalent of Holocaust denial proves my claim. That the gulags were dragged into to the discussion proves my claim. That you and others used the pronoun "we" rather than "I" proves my claim. That it is implied that I am "apologist for Stalin," proves my claim. But I will answer your questions, lest you find a way to turn a non-response into an explicit claim on my part. Your questions concerning the accuracy of claims about the Soviet system have nothing to do with my claims about the tactics that are being used here. The tactics being deployed by some people on this list are designed to *prevent* questions about the Soviet system being asked and answered. So while this point of yours does not go to this "theory" of my views you have manufactured here, it does point out the path where this discussion should travel, the path I have worked to keep the discussion on. Your questions concerning the character of the operation of the systematic campaign of anti-communism is well-documented and fascinating. I would think you would be aware of this history and the literature surrounding this. Anti-communism is one of the most successful propaganda campaigns in history. It is not, as you imply, a conspiracy. It is out in the open and in your face. Nothing that happened here was conspiratorial. And the use of anti-communism in world history it generally not conspiratorial (although there are clear instances when conspiracies have used anti-communism). Nor is the employ of anti-communism a knee-jerk reaction. It is ideological and deeply-felt by many people who use it. For others, it is a pragmatic strategy to achieve certain goals. This is not a mysterious thing. As for personal attacks, I might ask you: if you were having a discussion about the character of the Soviet Union, and somebody out of the blue said you were engaging in the equivalent of Holocaust denial, how would you feel? I took it personally. But the ad hominem in this debate is deeper than this. That I have become a target, and that the rhetoric on the other side is ideological, contrasted with my argument being focused on the Soviet Union in a series of objective questions debunking mythology, demonstrates my claim of ad hominem. As for personal experiences of the Soviet system. They may be genuine. But they are beside the point. I have listened to the heartfelt accounts of whites who feel wronged by the "liberal establishment" who use "reverse racism" to prevent them from holding a job they were qualified for. I have listened to an impassioned and articulate neo-Nazi talk tell me personal stories of black violence. But I don't let the emotion of these personal accounts distract me from the bigger picture. These are "horror stories." They are used to prevent socialized medicine by insurance companies. They are used to justify the death penalty. They are a tried and true method of persuasion--the testimonial. I believe that such accounts may be racists and reactionary in the same way I believe that personal accounts of suffering at the hands of Soviet authorities may be used for anti-communist purposes. It is the function of the testimonial that I expose here. It is not an attempt to diminish personal suffering. It is to dismiss the relevance of this to the discussion at hand. You can continue to distort this aspect of my argument, but it should be clear to anybody who uses reason to debate where reality lies. And I think you are smart enough to figure this out, too. Interestingly, while your questions are not a good basis for a critique of my "theory," they are a rather clear demonstration of the sort of tactics I have exposed here. Andy From thall@DEPAUW.EDU Fri Jan 23 09:49:35 1998 23 Jan 1998 11:49:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 11:49:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas D. [Tom] Hall, THALL@DEPAUW.EDU" Subject: On collapse of USSR To: Network World-Systems Gunder's discussion and summary of the collapse is informative. One sociologist, however, made a similar prediction, Randall Collins, in a paper first given in the early 80s, then as a chapter in Weberian Soc. in 1986. His saga is told in a paper with David Waller, including an analysis about why the major sociological camps missed the prediction. His comments on WST are, in this light interesting. TO summarize: too many WSTers were to enamored of the left to be overly critical, so they missed an "obvious" prediction. Interestingly, as I recall his argument, COllins did say that of all sociological theories [except his on geopolitics] WST SHOULD have predicted the collapse. Other theories would not lead to such a conclusion so they would not have made it in any case. Collins's argument, follows his "no intervening heartland rule" and the notion that overextension in foreign wars which are lost delegitimizes and destabiles the regime. It was only a far more robust economy in his view that kept the US from a similar collapse after Vietnam. His argument and story are much richer than this summary.. Relative to Gunder's story, what is interesting is that all the Sovietologists thought he was nuts! While Gunder's analysis is, in myy view more complete, both share close attention to international context as a shaper of internal dynamics. the references are: Collins, Randall. 1986. Weberian Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collins, Randall and David Waller. 1992. What Theories Predicted the State Breakdown and Revolution in Soviet Bloc?" Pp. 31-47 in The Transformation of European Communist Societies, Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, edited by Louis Kreisberg and David R. Segal, Vol. 14. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Orig. 1991 paper pres nted at American Sociological Association meeting, Cincinatti, August. tom Thomas D. [tom] Hall thall@depauw.edu Department of Sociology DePauw University 100 Center Street Greencastle, IN 46135 765-658-4519 HOME PAGE: http://www.depauw.edu/~thall/hp1.htm From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Fri Jan 23 12:09:09 1998 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:09:02 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson Subject: standard of living To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu In response to Richard Hutchinson's point, he himself seems to realize that inequality in and of itself is not a very good measure of the standard of living. The Soviet Union and other Eastern European societies did have lower levels of income inequality, but at the cost of a much lower average standard of living, as he himself points out. What good does a more egalitarian income distribution do you when the average person stands in line half the day for a small piece of fatty meat, or waits 15 years for a cramped apartment or 10 yeas for a car? Stephen Sanderson From r.deibert@utoronto.ca Fri Jan 23 12:25:29 1998 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:11:39 -0500 To: Andrew Wayne Austin From: "Ronald J. Deibert" Subject: Re: Gulag Andrew Wayne Austin wrote > >Interestingly, while your questions are not a good basis for a critique of >my "theory," they are a rather clear demonstration of the sort of tactics >I have exposed here. I suppose we have a genuine disagreement, then. I am merely trying to probe your theory further. You seem to perceive it as a "tactic" of some sort. Regards, Ron Deibert > >Andy > > > > Ronald J. Deibert Assistant Professor Department of Political Science University of Toronto r.deibert@utoronto.ca 416-978-5304 http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~rdeibert/ From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Fri Jan 23 12:31:55 1998 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:31:41 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Alan Spector makes a good point about being comparative and looking at context. Capitalism is responsible for a lot of exploitation and misery in the Third World, no doubt about it. But consider: "Socialism" has not been successful at developing a single Third World country to any decent level at all. The most successful Third World countries in recent decades are capitalist, namely, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. They are way ahead of China and Cuba, and on some measures of development (such as infant mortality) are nearly even with the core. Even if we look at the rest of the Third World, we see that things have been improving in many respects. For example, infant mortality is way down, and literacy is up. Capitalist Third World countries today generally have infant mortality rates that are lower -- in some cases much lower -- than the rate for the US in the mid-19th century. Although Wallerstein sees capitalism as producing absolute immiseration in the Third World, I think the evidence supports only relative immiseration -- relative, that is, to the core. I know, I know, to some this will sound like cheerleading for capitalism. But it seems to me it is just facing facts, whethr we like them or not. Compared to "actually existing socialism," capitalism wins. It may be possible to build a system that is better than current capitalism, but so far it hasn't been done. Stephen Sanderson From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Fri Jan 23 12:35:57 1998 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:35:42 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson Subject: response to Parthasarathy To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Parthasarathy's point about the Russia's backwardness at the time of the Russian Revolution is well taken. But Taiwan and Korea were even more backward in the 1940s, and yet look at them today. Stephen Sanderson From rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU Fri Jan 23 13:07:47 1998 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:03:42 -0700 (MST) From: Richard N Hutchinson To: s_sanderson Subject: Re: standard of living In-Reply-To: <01ISPW3PT2QQ91W78C@grove.iup.edu> On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, s_sanderson wrote: > In response to Richard Hutchinson's point, he himself seems to realize that > inequality in and of itself is not a very good measure of the standard of > living. The Soviet Union and other Eastern European societies did have lower > levels of income inequality, but at the cost of a much lower average standard > of living, as he himself points out. What good does a more egalitarian income > distribution do you when the average person stands in line half the day for a > small piece of fatty meat, or waits 15 years for a cramped apartment or 10 yeas > for a car? > > Stephen Sanderson > > > Well, it all depends on what the question is. If you're not concerned with inequality or exploitation, and only in absolute, average standard of living, then I guess you're right. But those of us who >>are<< concerned with inequality and exploitation (and I include you as well, despite your one-sided arguments) cannot so quickly dismiss what you yourself describe as accomplishments of the attempts at socialism so far. The way I see it, any positive lessons from China, the Soviet Union and elsewhere are difficult to apply to the core. "Core socialism" remains utopian, which is not necessarily bad (Warren Wagar's fiction is useful and thought-provoking). But there are definitely lessons that are applicable in the periphery. The prospect of revolution in China is increasing along with unemployment, attendant to the displacement of millions of farmers and the creation of a vast urban lumpenproletariat. Many Chinese, caught in the process of capitalist modernization, long for Mao's "iron rice bowl." (Also relevant here is the annoying -- to U.S. capital -- refusal of Cubans to overthrow Castro. Cubans enjoy much higher levels of education and health care than anywhere else in Latin America, and although they are not totally happy, reject the alternative in store for them. So the equality/abundance trade-off is not as straightforward as the triumphant capitalists would like.) Samir Amin is the most thoughtful current analyst of the prospects for the periphery. He calls for a popular alliance of the peasantry and workers to engage in national struggles that aim to "delink" from the exploitative capitalist world-system. In today's climate, this too seems utopian to many. But objectively, (especially given the current crisis of the "Tigers", and the dim chance that most of the periphery will enter "tigerhood"), the prospects for successful anti-systemic movements remain greater in the periphery than in the core. Rather than starting from scratch, it is reasonable to think that current and future anti-systemic movements in the periphery will, and should, carefully assess both the negative and the positive experience of past attempts. Richard Hutchinson From spector@calumet.purdue.edu Fri Jan 23 13:46:06 1998 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:47:07 -0800 From: Alan Spector Reply-To: spector@calumet.purdue.edu To: dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Gulag In responding to my post about the USSR, Dennis Redmond wrote: "I just don't see the point of selecting the bright points of Soviet society, labelling these "socialism", and comparing these to the worst aspects of American, or German, or Indonesian society: dialectics is about thinking critically about ALL societies, and analyzing the tendencies of a very large, complex and antagonistic world-system in an attempt to stop the incessant and continuing slaughter of capitalist pre-history." I agree of course. Genuine Marxists, much more than pro-capitalists, want to understand the failures (and successes) of the former Soviet Union. I would agree that it is one-sided ("undialectical?") to only compare the bright side of Soviet society with the destructive side of capitalism, but I would argue that many of the posts on WSN recently were doing exactly the opposite---condemning the entire historical experience of the Soviet Union while conveniently ignoring the brutality of capitalism. And this is not just tired sloganeering. I could bring forward statements from friends who had family murdered by CIA-funded Death Squads in El Salvador, but I'm not sure that such first person testimony adds anything constructive to the discussion. I certainly didn't intend to bring one-sidedness into the debate; on the contrary, I (and a few others) were simply pointing out the extremely heavy one-sidedness of the anti-Marxist flow. Look at the content of many of those messages and judge who was being anti-historical, anti-contextual, anti-dialectical. Alan Spector From TBOS@social-sci.ss.emory.edu Fri Jan 23 15:41:46 1998 Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:41:38 -0500 (EST) From: "Terry Boswell" To: jsommers@lynx.dac.neu.edu, wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:41:46 EST5EDT Subject: Re: PEWS website The political economy of the world system section has a ASA sponsored website at http://www.asanet.org/polecon.htm. This includes a links to related sites. TB Date sent: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:20:28 -0500 Send reply to: jsommers@lynx.dac.neu.edu From: jeff sommers To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: PEWS Would anyone know if PEWS has a web page and if so what its URL is? Sincerely, Jeffrey Sommers Terry Boswell Department of Sociology Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322 From gmd304@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Fri Jan 23 15:58:03 1998 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:00:38 -0600 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: "Georgi M. Derluguian" Subject: Small treatise on Soviet glories Small treatise on Soviet glories in the world-systems perspective. by Georgi M. Derluguian Well, couldn't we bring a little world-systems perspective into this network? Andrew defends valliantly a historical anti-systemic ideology, which is respectable, and he also equates this ideology with a specific twentieth century state, which is naive. It would be very interesting to discuss sociologically why so much of the Western Left was and is (perhaps, more so today) combatively naive. After all, sheer romanticisation of its causes and allies contributed to the demise of the Left as political force. This is important because a) Andrew is undeniably very intelligent and an astute debater b) Western Left in general consistently associated the USSR with socialism one way or another and unwittingly followed the lines of capitalist propaganda -- loudly defending the tarnished image of the USSR allegedly misrepresented by the mainstream media. Psychologically it is very difficult to part with the illusions which in my case happen to be also patriotic (I mark in the US affimative action papers "Yes, veteran of overseas wars though from the opposite side", sometimes I tell my sons the stories of those exotic medals which one of the uncles received for shooting down half-a-dozen American airplanes over Korea, and I keep the Soviet General Staff map of Chicagoland -- but I am also rather happy we never put it to use.) Well, it is quite impossible to identify with Mr. Yeltsin and the tri-couleur. The USSR inherited Russia's ambiguous position within the global division of labor. In the eighteenth century, when Russia has joined the capitalist world-system, it immediately became a heavy-weight due to its capacity to mobilize extremely large (over one million) standing armies armed with relatively simple muskets and bayonets. The apogee was reached in 1815 when Russian Cossacks rode into Paris. At the same time two things were happening: the organization of production in the core takes a major turn (industrial revolution) while the growing Russian nobility (under Peter I alone it grew tenfold in numbers due to the practice of granting nobility to the officers from the company commanders up) encountered problems in financing its now European upper-class consumption. Serfdom was driven to near plantation slavery. The state, fearing the nobility revolt like in December 1825, tightened the repression and switched to the policy of morose bureaucratic promotion into the elite. In various forms and projects since the 1850s every sector of Russia's "educated" society realized the need to "modernize", i.e. compensate with industrialization for the declining/stagnating incomes of the Europeanized elites (Russian officer was paid twice lower than his French or British colleague at the time, most estates barely fed their lords) and the visibly inadequate military capability of the state. Grosly there were two projects corresponding to two camps: those educated men who made it into the bureaucratic establishment and logically advocated reforms from above (conservative counterreforms being reforms nonetheless) -- and those who didn't make it and eventually formed the educated counterestablishment, the famous Russian intelligentsia, whose projects involved more or less revolutionary restructuring of the state as condition for catching up with the "progressive states of Europe". Ottoman empire was experiencing similar strains but the Ottoman intelligentsia was more narrow and deeply fractured along ethnic lines due to the old "millet" system. Young Turks, logically in their situation, read Durkeim about organic solidarity (Ataturk was a Durheimian buff, but not he alone) and looked at France for the example. Russians traditionally gravitated towards German culture, hence the infatuation with Hegel, later Marx, and deep envy/disgust of German order and cleanliness. In 1917 -- very late considering that intelligentsia had been waiting for three generations -- the buraucracy at last faltered surprisingly suddenly and easily. Russian state completely disintegrated by the end of 1917, it was hard to believe how rapidly such a monstrosity could lose coherence. The intelligentsias were invited and rushed into power. basically, there were two projects: provincial intelligentsias pursued local nationalism, the centrally located groups pursued universalist imperial projects. Bolsheviks did it more effectively, or were luckier -- it is really the key mystery of the Russia revolution how the Bolsheviks survived during the first year in power. Their coming to power was easy and easily explained. Their still being there in December 1918 is a very poorly studied problem. Part of the explanaton is enthusiasms of various sorts -- class (largely the brief peasant jubilation after being allowed to spontaneously re-division the land) and national (since most nationalisms in the Russian empire were nascent, Tatars or Bashkirs, though not Poles or Finns, were content with the promise of ethnic niche in the larger framework of socialist Russia). Radical factions within the old intelligentsia, especially artistic, joined for the pathos, providing the most glorious ideological images and forms of the period. But at least no less important was the Bolshevik institution-building. By the end of 1918 Red Army was an army, not a set of militias, with the discipline enforced by terroristic methods once denounced, later praised by Trotsky. Isaac Babel, undeniably a devoutedly Bolshevik author, left poignant romantic descriptions of the Civil War violence. (See Babel', I. (Isaak), 1894-1941. Konarmiia. German translation: Budjonnys Reiterarmee. Suhrkamp <1965> Babel', I. (Isaak), Red cavalry. London : Bristol Classical Press, 1994.) This violence -- and the relative lack of it during the collapse of 1988-92 -- puzzles me immensely. In Maikop, a town near the place I was born, the local Reds first executed all families which had cars (there were few), then began killing basically all aliens -- educated professionals, Jews including Bolsheviks, Circassians as "counterrevolutionary Asiatics". Since most natives resided in the mountain villages, 38 were shelled by Red artillery and burnt by punitive expeditions. Naturally, this provoked a revolt where the natives (Circassians) supported the officers and gymnasium graduates (the washed one, the White bone, as they were called) fleeing from the town. In June 1918 the Whites took Maikop over and in revenge massacred 3 thousand men and women from among "the unwashed one" out of the total population of 8 thousand. Just in three days and nights. In one small provincial town. In 1991 Yeltsin abolishes the USSR -- and not a single general marches on Moscow! Not a single Jewish pogrom occurs. Even in Chechnya and Karabagh -- less than 5 thousand combat deaths in each war (majority of victims being the elderly who hid in the basements and were buried alive by heavy shelling) Trotsky instilled some order into this bloody chaos -- not much but enough to win. This order rested on ruthlessness and often blind obeience -- the intervening means must be systemically adequate, mustn't they? For instance, in January 1919 Trotsky sends the telegram warning local Soviet authorities in Southern Russia that Cossack populations were likely to support the advancing Denikin Volunteers. In a village called Popovka (I just happened to read those documents, similar incidents were many) 67 men and women were put in preventive custody, that is, in the basement of local schoolhouse. Arrests were laregely random -- the local Bolsheviks, mostly recently returning from the WW I fronts soldiers, grabbed in one morning as many people who looked suspicious as they managed. But what to do with the detainees? How even to feed them? Next day Trotsky sends another circular cable urging the local commanders to "excel in revolutionary resoluteness in crushing the Cossack Vandee". They likely didn't know the word vandee, but they surely understood "resolutness". The chief of local soviet drank moonshine with his comrades for the rest of the day. They weren't yet sufficiently brutilized. At night, in his own words, he took the machine gun and "grounded the prisoners into fine dust". Trotsky replied that the action was probably excessive though justified under the circumstances. In the future he demanded the execution lists to be senct for saction at least to the district command. What matters in such stories is that these relatively young men with the Civil War experience formed the ethos of Soviet cadres in the 1920s and 1930s. They largely perished in the purges, but they also killed as easily themselves. The theshold of admissible violence was very low in the first decades of Soviet modernization. That it was modernization, not an effort to 'better' the lives of Soviet population, was very clear to the Bolshevik leadership itself. Better life wasn't even part of the sloganry until much, much later. The main slogan was greater country. Now, Russia wasn't as underdeveloped as oftain portrayed. Its indicators and the general picture was rather extremely contradictory. Yet, it was before 1917 a country with pockets of advanced industry and world-class science and arts. Imperial Russia was somewhat more "backward" than Germany but far "ahead" of Turkey. Russia tested the first multi-engine bomber airplane, Ilya Muromets, before 1914. Igor Sikorsky, its creator, later emigrated to the US where he later built mostly helicopters (Bell-Sikorsky) but dozens of his colleagues remained. (Also see a very informative book Bradley, Joseph. Guns for the Tsar : American technology and the small arms industry in nineteenth-century Russia. DeKalb, Ill. : Northern Illinois University Press, 1990.) What Bolsheviks really achieved was military-industrial state that in the 1930s became an uneasy ally of the US in Europe. The Kinney prototype tank was sold by Henry Ford to Russia with the approval (or connivance) of Washington. The calculation was perfectly sober -- massive tank armies of Russia could reach Berlin but hardly Washington. In 1932 Hitler comes to power and America recognizes Soviet Russia. In the 1930s the USSR, with all the sacrifes and efforts, produced less than ten thousand combat airplanes. Most were outdated by 1941 and anyway perished in the first months of the war. having lost one half of its industrial base, the USSR nevertheless by 1944 fielded ten times more airplane and huge armored armies. Ironically, the massive US aid which helped to really set up the Soviet military-industrial complex and win the war, remained largely unmentioned -- figure out yourself in whose interest such transfers of technology and material could become declassified and publishable during the Cold War? After 1945 the USSR accomplished the secular goal. For the second time since 1815 Russia was the most milarily important power of Europe. The geopolitical balance was restored at the new industrial level. Militarization and industrialization required mass production of skilled workers and cadres, with the appropriate life-styles. In this respect the literature on similar transformations in " properly capitalist" societies is very illuminating -- beginning with Gramsci's idea of Fordism. As the ideology of war communism was being exhausted and domestic terror could no longer support it, consumerism became first the internal agenda of the Soviet elite (statistical analysis will tell very little -- as former employee of Gosplan, I know the value of our statistics, especially in such sensitive areas) As Braudel said, the comforts of modern life have the tendency to trickle down into the masses a generation later. In the USSR this happened very rapidly. My mother had no shoes until the age of 14, in the fifties she had a pair of work boots issued by her post-office, in the sixties there were Czech-made shoes, in the seventies Austrian leather boots became the dream. Partly, because of the general expansion of the fifties, partly because in the 1970s the USSR financed with oil-revenues the consumer goods imports in order to prevent protests. The prospect of mass protests was much more immediate than presumed back at the time when such instances were isolated and assiduosly muffled. But the Politburo knew what actually happened in Novocherkassk and several other industrial towns in 1962, and it is no coincidence that in 1962 Politburo sanctioned "as exceptional measure" the purchase of grain from the US. As you know, these imports never stopped. The most meaningful way of interpreting the demise of the USSR is by comparing it to firm bancruptcy dynamics. In 1945 the USSR struck gold. It invested heavily into producing and maintaining exactly the kind of land army that Rommel and Guderian would envy. Only this army had nobody to fight with. We pondered seriously the Maoists (I fondly remember packing the ryucksack in February 1979 waiting to be airlifted to North Vietnam for what we wryly called The First Socialist War -- but we were young and really wanted to beat the .... out of Chinese. Our colonel was warning: "Boys, don't sit on your asses, volunteer! This war might be over before you manage to earn any medals.") Then Afghanistan was selected as an easier practice. The maps of Pakistan were being studied in February 1980, 2 months after. Why not linking up with fraternal India? Wasn't Pakistan an artificial invention of British imperialism anyway? The firm, specialized in geopolitical aggrandizemnet and export of protection costs which may be called USSR, Inc. simply pursued the road of its success and heavily overinvested in the increasingly obsolete area (heavy mass-produced weapons; remember that A-bombs were mass produced, too). The firm, however, had to keep its workforce and cadres content and tame which was becoming increasingly costly. Then a recession inevitably arrived (in the late seventies) which forced Moscow to choose between cutting the military (a very costly operation in itself) or heeding to the consumer expectations of the population in order to preserve legitimacy. Fluctuations within this constrained choice was the story of perestroika. But, as a satirist observed, the USSR fell apart not because its citezenry was given to read 'Doctor Zhivago", but because it was given "Doctor Zhivago" instead of sausage. Here, I believe, lies the big hope for the opponents of capitalism -- it is not as nearly dangerous for an expanding and expansive historical system when a group of people (say, class) refuse to live under it. Far more dangerous is when a lot of people (say, population of the Third World) actually demands to live under such system demanding that it fulfills its ideological promise and delivers the goods. Uf-f-f! Forgive me, I claim to have overfullfilled my productive quota and I drop from the authors of ephemeral debates on the destiny of the world. Yours, Georgi Derluguian Georgiď M. Derluguian Department of Sociology Northwestern University 1812 Chicago Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60208-1330 USA FAX (1-847) 491-9907 tel. (1-847) 491-2741 (rabota) From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Fri Jan 23 16:07:42 1998 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 18:07:29 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: On Socialist Development List, Sanderson made the claim that "'Socialism' has not been successful at developing a single Third World country to any decent level at all." This is incorrect. Let's take the development of the socialist world system from out of WWII to the late 1970s. Let's use comparative data from the World Bank, the Overseas Development Council (OCD), the World Development Report (1978). Prior to WWII, those countries that would become socialist were distributed in the full range of the underdeveloped world (this is the entire world except for 14 developed countries). Three of the Asian countries that would become socialist were the poorest in the world. By the 1970s no socialist country was in the bottom category of all countries. Every single one of them was in the middle-income range for all nations. In fact, 41 capitalist countries, covering 34% of the world's population, had per capita incomes *below* the poorest socialist nation. By the 1980s, the goals specified in *Reshaping the International Order: A Report to the Club of Rome*, by the Tinbergen Group in 1976 had been surpassed by *all* the socialist countries, whereas only the high income groups among capitalist nations have met the Tinbergen goals. > I know, I know, to some this will sound like cheerleading for capitalism. > But it seems to me it is just facing facts, whethr we like them or not. It looks to me that you are not facing the facts you don't like, Professor Sanderson. Andy From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Fri Jan 23 16:44:33 1998 id SAA07043; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 18:44:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 18:44:05 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Georgi M. Derluguian" Subject: Re: Small treatise on Soviet glories In-Reply-To: Georgi, Would you be so kind as to explain to me this "historical anti-systemic ideology" I allegedly hold? Thanks, Andy From adkes@pipeline.com Fri Jan 23 18:29:19 1998 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 20:25:23 -0500 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: Adam Kessler Subject: Re: standard of living >> (Also relevant here is the annoying -- to U.S. >capital -- refusal of Cubans to overthrow Castro. Cubans enjoy much higher levels of education and health care than anywhere else in Latin America, and although they are not totally happy, reject the alternative in store for them. So the equality/abundance trade-off is not as >straightforward as the triumphant capitalists would like.) >Richard Hutchinson > > > >Simple question--how do you *know* that they (the Cubans) *reject the alternative in store for them*? After all, the essence of dictatorship is that the dictator does note permit anyone to find out what the people *really* want. Just before the fall of the Berlin wall Western leftists described with great confidence what the East Germans *really* wanted and how they enjoyed the great benefits of *free* this and that -- education, health care, vacations and *worker housing*--boy were they (you?) surprised. From 70671.2032@compuserve.com Fri Jan 23 22:56:50 1998 for wsn@csf.colorado.edu; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 00:56:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 00:54:09 -0500 From: james m blaut <70671.2032@compuserve.com> Subject: response to Parthasarathy Sender: james m blaut <70671.2032@compuserve.com> To: world systems network -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: response to Parthasarathy Date: 23-Jan-98 at 20:41 From: james m blaut, 70671,2032 TO: INTERNET:SKSANDERrove.iup.edu,INTERNET:SKSANDERrove.iup.edu Steve Sanderson: You make two egregious errors. Socialist-oriented Third World countries have had to fight tooth and nail for survival, not to mention progress. Capitalist-oriented Third World countries are flooded with capital and arms from Uncle. The price they pay is immiseration and non-development. Statistics of supposed growth are partly lies and partly glosses to cover up the immiseration of the poverty-ridden majority. Third World countries overall have not developed. (But Cuba, be it noted, has a life expectancy of 76 years and an infant mortality rate of 7.4. Compare that with capitalist-oriented countries.) Secondly, you list the East/Southeast Asia "tigers" as a supposed shining example of progress, a counter-example to socialist-oriented countries, but the comparison is fallacious. I take the liberty of reprinting a comment I made on h-world last month: "South Korea was not and is not a neocolony in economic terms: it benefitted from huge infusions of US aid, much of it tied to the US military presence...[it was] a beneficiary of the Cold War. Taiwan had much the same benefits, for the same reasons, but Taiwan also received vast amounts of capital fleeing mainland China after the revolution -- again: not an economic neocoloy. Singapore, a city-state, was *the* financial center for most of Southeast Asia from the 19th century down through independence (which didn't make much difference economically -- nor politically, given the lack of democracy under Lee Kuan Yew) -- again, not a neocolony. Hong Kong also was a long-time financial center; like Taiwan, it received capital fleeing mainland China; obtained masses of low-wage labor which could be matched to that capital (I am oversimplifying); and so was not a neo-colony. This leaves us with Thailand and Malaysia. Thailand is, through and through, a neocolony, poverty-ridden to the poiont where children in large numbers are sold into prostitution. Some foreign capital established a vigorous but small industrial sector, using cheap labor, mainly for export, but this did hardly anything for the masses of Thais. Malaysia, another true neocolony, benefits from the huge deposits of minerals, and so has always had a higher income than its neighbors, but it is still poverty-ridden: an economic neocolony in spite of the twin skyscrapers in KL. Indonesia is a typical poverty-ridden neocolony. "There is a lot of mythology about the Asian 'tigers.' If you take away -- for the reasons stated somewhat over-simply above -- S. Korea, Taiwan, and tiny Hong Kong and Singapore, and if you note that Japan has been a developed capitalist country for a century, you are left with...no tigers. Countries like Thailand and Indonesia are -- or were until last year -- tigers for speculative investors and boasted a few maqualidora-type and free-port industries, but for their people as a whole they are no less neocolonial and no less poverty-ridden than the countries of Latin America." Put all of this in a world-systems perspective. Capitalism dominates on a world scale, and socialist countries do not simply enjoy progress or nonprogress in isolation: they have to fight off world capitalism in order merely to survive. And some do that. By the way, I now understand fully why your review of my book was so negative. A different world view. Jim Blaut From rkmoore@iol.ie Sat Jan 24 01:17:21 1998 Sat, 24 Jan 1998 08:17:13 GMT Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 08:17:13 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: the Andrew thread & socialism vs capitalism I don't think Andrew is being fairly treated in this discussion. I perceive a phenomenon known as the "wounded rabbit syndrome" - after the guy took a few hits in the flanks, the masses feel compelled to delurk and unload broadsides in his direction. Andrew's main point is entirely valid - communism has been the target of an intensive and prolonged propaganda campaign: its crimes have been exaggerated; its destabilization by external forces has been blamed on its internal shortcomings; its accomplishments have been discounted; comparisons with the West have been largely fallacious when not based on outright fabrication. --- One interesting sub-thread has been the question of how comparisons between Western and Soviet systems should be based. Some have suggested looking at inequality levels in Standard-of-Living, some have suggested looking at "absolute" (ie, average) SoL levels. I suggest both approaches are capitalist-centric, in that they take monetary transaction rates as the measure of societal accomplishment. In fact a number of metrics need to be compared collectively, and the metric I consider most relevant hasn't even been mentioned: * the percentage of the population that has adequate food, shelter, medical care, and access to education The fact that lots of core families had color televisions, second cars, and other luxuries is a dubious balance against those condemned, say, to ghetto conditions. The West's core may have had a higher average SoL, but its inequality levels dipped many into abject poverty, and I agree with those who suggest periphery poverty should also be charged to the Western account. When one considers a brutal episode such as Stalin's starving of Georgian peasants, which should be rightly condemned, we in fairness need to look at the comparable depression situation in, say, the US. At least Stalin was robbing Peter to pay Paul: he felt it was more important to Soviet survival that urban populations and industrial workers be fed than a particular segment of the peasantry - the confiscated crops were at least put to use. In the US, by comparison, while many families were starving and migrating, crops which couldn't be sold profitably were sprayed with gasoline so that no one could eat them. Or consider the Irish famine: adequate food supplies were available at all times to feed everyone, indeed, more than enough food was being _exported_ from Ireland to feed the starving. And when huge emergency supplies of wheat were purchased from the US by Britain, the bread wasn't distributed to the starving, but was simply sold on the market, with negligable benefit. 1/23/98, s_sanderson wrote: >"Socialism" has not been successful at developing a single Third World >country to any decent level at all. Wrong. Cuba, despite being subjected to a prolonged state-of-war by the world's most powerful nation thirty miles away, has managed to provide a much better standard of living, health, and literacy than in comparable Latin-American countries. And Cuba didn't have death squads and military actions against its own people. Cuba even exceeds US standards in some health metrics. >The most successful Third World countries in recent decades are capitalist, >namely, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. They are way ahead >of China and Cuba, and on some measures of development (such as infant >mortality) are nearly even with the core. Specious - conveniently omits that these "winners" were supported by core investment and military protection, while the "losers" were being economically strangled and militarily threatened. 1/24/98, Adam Kessler wrote: >Simple question--how do you *know* that they (the Cubans) *reject the >alternative in store for them*? After all, the essence of dictatorship is >that the dictator does note permit anyone to find out what the people >*really* want. Just before the fall of the Berlin wall... Here we see propaganda being reported as fact. First Castro is identified as a dictator, which is just party-line rhetoric, and then characteristics are thereby attributed to him which contradict fact. In fact Castro is a tireless public servant, has the overwhelming support of the people, systematically includes popular participation in policy making, and explains policy decisions forthrightly (and at great length) on television. By comparison, US presidents serve with marginal electoral majorities, make policies according to elite interests, and use their television time to deceive and mislead. For my money its the US that has a dictatorship and Cuba that has by comparison a democratic system. rkm From miranda@fas.harvard.edu Sat Jan 24 01:46:33 1998 Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 03:46:27 -0500 (EST) From: Diego Miranda To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: LIBOR Rates In-Reply-To: I am trying to find out what the LIBOR rates were from 1960 to 1969. Any idea where could i find that information? Diego From adkes@pipeline.com Sat Jan 24 11:00:31 1998 Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:56:39 -0500 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: Adam Kessler Subject: Re: Gulag >As for personal experiences of the Soviet system. They may be genuine. But >they are beside the point. I have listened to the heartfelt accounts of >whites who feel wronged by the "liberal establishment" who use "reverse >racism" to prevent them from holding a job they were qualified for. I have >listened to an impassioned and articulate neo-Nazi talk tell me personal >stories of black violence. But I don't let the emotion of these personal >accounts distract me from the bigger picture. These are "horror stories." >They are used to prevent socialized medicine by insurance companies. They >are used to justify the death penalty. They are a tried and true method of >persuasion--the testimonial. I believe that such accounts may be racists >and reactionary in the same way I believe that personal accounts of >suffering at the hands of Soviet authorities may be used for >anti-communist purposes. It is the function of the testimonial that I >expose here. It is not an attempt to diminish personal suffering. It is to >dismiss the relevance of this to the discussion at hand. You can continue >to distort this aspect of my argument, but it should be clear to anybody >who uses reason to debate where reality lies. And I think you are smart >enough to figure this out, too. > >Although (perhaps unfortunately) the wsn list has an audience of 20, it would still be a good thing if the above paragraph written by Austin became famous. It basically says that the victims of the Gulag deserved what they got (like racists and neo-nazis). God save us from those who love mankind! > > From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Sat Jan 24 12:23:28 1998 Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:23:22 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Adam Kessler Subject: Re: Gulag In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980124175639.0089de88@pop.pipeline.com> On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Adam Kessler wrote: > Although (perhaps unfortunately) the wsn list has an audience of 20, it > would still be a good thing if the above paragraph written by Austin became > famous. It basically says that the victims of the Gulag deserved what they > got (like racists and neo-nazis). God save us from those who love mankind! Please explain the logic of this argument. I am very interested in hearing the creative rhetoric that one might one might use to justify the claim that my expose on the rhetorical function on the testimonial can be boiled down to a claim that the victims of the gulags deserved what they got. Adam, my argument need not be heard by anyone outside this circle for it to be "famous." The argument I used is not original. The testimonial is widely understood as a basic propaganda technique. The fact that the "horror story" works, and a rather sophisticated understanding of the psychological reasons behind its working, are basic to social science. Worked on you, didn't it? Andy From wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Sat Jan 24 16:20:42 1998 by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 23:07:17 -0800 From: William Kirk To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Who needs to know what? The points raised by Charles J. Reid on Wed, 14 Jan are valid and must be answered. Or at least I think so. Also, Paul Augustine on Tue, 20 Jan brings in a different issue but one that connects, here again this is how I see it. To begin some comment on the points. 1. >Any comments on this exchange about the "need to know" issue and compartmentalization of information? Everyone 'needs to know' the facts necessary in order to perform the designated task. The street sweeper needs to know where his round is. The shop assistant 'needs to know' how to hold an item so that the bar code can be read. Going up the ladder everyone needs to know what they are doing, and some need to know what others below the ladder are doing. However, it isn't such a good idea to 'know' how things work above your station, for many reasons that I'm sure everyone knows. There is also a culture based on only knowing enough or keeping to the things that you know. Some business's make profits because they 'know' or have specialised skills. Many other 'business's make profits because they 'know' by selective manipulation of knowledge, that is, everyone could perform equally well if they were aware of the secret. Very often the 'secret' is precise data about the economy. 2. >What do we have a right to know about each other? Whatever is interactive regarding a community. The greater majority of us are deliberately focused on the things other people do that really are no concern of the greater population. For everyone who takes a great interest in the side issues of politicians for example, the same number have no interest in what their policies are. Is this deliberate? 3. >We also have a meta-question: by what rule or authority shall we apply to answer this question? The reason why we don't 'know' is because we gave up the option long ago. To take back the right to know will not be easy. If I understand what Paul Augustine says I'd say he wants to know - not out of curiosity but to improve the general well-being of the immediate community. 4. >But there is an upside to this. There seems to be a natural law the >operates practically: most people don't have the time to devote to >accumulating information about everyone else, hence don't even care.The point here is that most people don't know what information there is out there and if they had it what good would it do? It is relatively easy to give some idea of what data might be worthwhile - what isn't so easy is showing everyone what it means to have the data. Accumulating the data is helped largely by having an internet, and having computers nowadays that can handle huge quantities of data does mean that no time at all is needed to gather, process and distribute. The time for the individual is with input, but even here I think there is a way around the difficulty. What I am certain of is that no government will provide the data, I shall explain all of this in some detail in a moment. There is no point in making any comment unless there is something that can be added to further the idea you have. To do what I suggest is going to take a community of individuals who can see the benefits of the system. Remember that the there is nothing new or inventive here, it is all happening right now, the 'capitalist' has all of this, the 'capitalist' knows everything about everyone. Another thing to keep in mind is that the system of 'having the knowledge' is an evolving process, anyway, this is what I seem to think might be a start. So what is this knowledge? It is knowing the quantitative data of how people exchange goods and services. This is really what I think sums up the notion of what we perceive to be 'capitalism'. Behind this curtain there are those who know how it works, and have up to the minute data on how it is happening now. Having this knowledge before the majority is worth a fortune, and this is where fortune's are made. Notice that there isn't the definite literature here, the whole basis is keeping information 'secret' or having it for such a time whereby the fortune is made. Once made then some of the information can be given. If you are seen to be a 'winner', or have lots of money, people will sit for hours and listen to any rubbish you care to tell them, rarely will anyone give a true account of how a fortune is made. At the other end of the spectrum we have what is perceived to be 'socialism'. Here this is very much like having a plan of campaign for a battle that is read in advance by the enemy. To me this is why there are so many failures of socialism. First, the notion of an 'enemy' isn't part of their thoughts, second, the mechanism of application tends to be radical, there is risk with a relatively high degree of failure, third, the data existing is somehow 'unavailable' is 'unnecessary' or irrelevant. Contrary to that the 'capitalist' lets the exchange of goods and services evolve, and having the 'knowledge' knows exactly where there is a fortune to be made. See Richard K, Moore, Tue, 23 Dec 1997. Of course they know! I bet those who are making the fortunes have a good laugh when they read through the analysis, if they indeed bother. So what information am I as an individual prepared to give to the community? Well, not a lot more than what I give already. I'd say what comes right at the top of the list is bank transactions. This gives a very accurate profile of how I exchange goods and services. If this is known to members of the community then as a single item of data does not do them any real good, it might satisfy their curiosity but it will have no effect on the systematic process. Collectively the data is fundamental to the process of 'capitalism'. If I live in a democracy, and here this is the Aristotlean concept - where everyone is able to become involved in everything, then I think as a right the community needs to know that I am part of it. For example, this is the information that needs to be known collectively. Age. Marital status. Work status. Number of children not earning. Wages per unit time, week or month. Total deductions, income tax, local tax, state insurance, pensions. Balance in Bank or other depository and individual transactions. Investments, shares, bonds, etc. Return on Investments. This information should be known to everyone, but not as an individual record. What I get in return is a summary of this, statistical measures and totals. All of this information is known anyway and is reviewed daily. Some of this is made available by way of government statistics, although modified, and often several months after collation. How is this to be done practically? There are undoubtedly sufficient data links in existence now, but the chances of these being made available for the purpose of giving everyone instant access is low to not at all. However, with modern communications, I do not see a great difficulty in posting up a few numbers, to a server, that acts like a local accumulator, and posts on a stream of data. At this first stage of collation the identity of each person is lost, the local server does not need name and number of the individual to pass on to the higher level server. A local server might cater for any number of people that can be suitably handled, where the group is geographical. The numbers might be anything from about two hundred to two hundred thousand persons. This local server would publish the collated data, or make it available to everyone, and at the same time post on to a state municipality, or region, where again the compound data is available to everyone. The ultimate for any individual might be the country, such as the USA or the EU. A lot of work for the individual? Democracy is precious and doesn't come without commitment or cost. I tend to think that ignoring the free availability of the data is leading to a reduction in democracy. This is the price of belonging to a community, and here I'd say the biggest drawback right now is commitment. And possibly a fear that someone is going to be caught out. However, if this is done by consensus, and not as a law then no prisoners are going to be taken. So all of this needs to be proved. There are a number of hurdles, the technical aspect, the software, and the availability of everyone to partake in what will be an experiment in the first instance. No doubt many people will shudder at the thought of this data becoming public, well this is democracy. If a person wants absolute privacy, or doesn't think they are part of the community then I dare say they will go to their private island, or say they are part of another community, such as the private island. I think too that if I had an income of three or four thousand a week, with a few million in shares, bonds, etc., then I might have doubts about the idea, and make damn sure everyone knew what they were. This is often the way of democratising information, those who have an interest in hiding their personal data are the first to offer every reason on this earth why the idea will never work. This can be seen every day, the slow process of finding the truth is like pulling teeth. For those at the other end of the spectrum they have to provide accurate data in any event, by government decree, so becoming actively part of the democracy is not really a problem, and is much better than continually saying 'that's the way of it', 'you can't change anything', etc., etc. The greatest danger I can see is not the introduction and evolvement of the system, it is being 'privatised' or controlled by government, so that a few people have prior sighting in which to make 'alterations' or decisions based on an agenda that isn't known to those making up the community. >From the collated data the variables such as Q, the total amount of money in the system will be known, along with N, the number of people who are part of the system. a measure of the Velocity of money, V, can be made for each individual. The data stream for each individual is stacked as follows, and is made up for a given time period. 1.Input, wage and deposits other than from shares or bonds. 2.Outputs, the total for the time period. 3.Cash balance. When this is compared with the data from the previous time period an estimate of V is possible. This would be given as a quantity of money. The outgoing data, one collated, comes streaming back to the individual, and is loaded onto their 'econobrowser', or some programme that presents the data as tabulations, graphs, and comparisons with previous data. An important feature and one making the presentation mean something is ranking of data to show 'most' and 'least', and to compare changes over a period of time. Any single person will be able to see where they are in the distribution of wealth. No data is collected and therefore none is seen with regard to people's possessions, the value of their premise, type of vehicle, or what kind of soap they use. What any individual has is possessions that either increase in value or decay; it is no one's business to know what the individual chooses to do with money. Having data on wages and wealth it is possible to calculate the index of concentration of both. If the index is C then if all people have the same wage C=0.0 and if just one person gets all the money in a community then C=1.0. Each person or groups are n, where n1 + n2 +n3 + …………nk = N The average, or arithmetic mean is Q/N =Av. In order to get a value of 1.0 then when one person has all the money the excess over the average is Q - Av Therefore if this is divided by Q - Av, Q - Av/Q -Av = 1.0. Two examples of the calculation are given below. The data is ranked so that the shape of the distribution can be seen. The difference, or what will either take the distribution to equality, is the difference between the number of units of money and the average. (I hope these tables come out as they I see them) n u Av - n total Individuals units of money difference difference a 0 -7.82 b 1 -6.82 c 6 -1.82 17.28 d 7 -0.82 e 8 0.18 f 8 0.18 g 9 1.18 h 10 2.18 17.26 i 11 3.18 j 12 4.18 k 14 6.18 Total 86 Average 7.82 17.27 C = 17.27/86 - 7.82 = 0.22 n u Av - n total Individuals units of money difference difference a 0 -19.13 b 0 -19.13 c 3 -16.13 103.04 d 7 -12.13 e 8 -11.13 f 9 -10.13 g 11 -8.13 h 12 -7.13 i 20 0.87 j 26 6.87 k 28 8.87 l 30 10.87 103.09 m 31 11.87 n 40 20.87 o 62 42.87 Total 287 Average 19.13 103.065 C = 103.065/287 - 19.13 = 0.3847 Similar calculations can be made for wealth, that is share holding, bonds and bank total. Whilst this information deals only with money, it has to be remembered that money is the measure of how goods and services are exchanged. This data is largely used by the various agencies that determine economic policy, and this policy is explained to the community without reference to the economic data, in short, the community does not have the benchmarks necessary to review decisions or make any sensible comment. Also, a proposal can be tested or simulated, to see what the effect is going to be for the community. When a community has the ability to do this, and figure out what the benefits/disadvantages are I'd say issues can be voted on, many of which at the present time do not appear to be 'political', or are allegedly beyond the capacity of the community to understand. It is easy to see that when this happens the power of the state is undermined, it then is on a downhill run of 'withering' away, yet the process by which this is done is entirely by capitalist rules. So, have a think about this, there is considerably more in the detail but I think this is just at the stage of discussion and argument. There are several possible outcomes when a community has this data, I have imagined one or two, perhaps you should think about this. Whatever, I'd be interested in what you have to think about this data collection. William Kirk. From barendse@coombs.anu.edu.au Sat Jan 24 20:29:51 1998 (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA059598964; Sun, 25 Jan 1998 14:29:24 +1100 Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 06:54:39 +1100 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: barendse@coombs.anu.edu.au (Rene Barendse) Subject: Third world socialism/capitalism 1.) Some attempts to establish Socialist regimes in third world countries succeeded, others failed dismally - very much depending upon the preconditions of growth. Regarding Cuba it should not be forgotten that Cuba was in the early twentieth century one of the most prosperous countries in the Carribean (tens of thousands of Jamaicans actually emigrated to Cuba as the land of opportunity.) Also, Cuba was - together with Trinidad - the one Carribean country to have some manufacturing and to have an industrial proletariate - ... -. Thus it started objectively from a quite favorable position already - I don't have the figures around but in the 1950's Cuba would probably have been in the `middle category' as to its GNP per capita - as it still is, together with Jamaica but below Trinidad or Surinam - let alone `tax-haven countries' such as the Caymans or the Dutch Antilles. I say `objectively' of course since as to the inequality of distribution Cuba under Battista was rivaled by few Latin American countries, though by many Carribean since the Carribean is traditionally one of the front-runners in global inequality -. Furthermore its development was obviously helped by the USSR buying the entire sugar-crop at a `fair' price which (I believe) was 30-40% above the world-market price, mainly in return for oil. The development was thus sponsored by the USSR like Surinam by Holland or Martinique by France - it is not entirely fair to compare heavily sponsored countries with non-sponsored countries but I think it's fair to say that as to the amount of growth in the 60's and 70's Cuba was somewhere in the middle category - and of course growth-rates dropped dramatically in the 90's with negative growth though the Cuban economy is now reviving - mainly, I think - because of the impact of tourism. However, as to the division of wealth Cuba is obviously very different and in some respect much better of than most countries in the Carribean - to state the obvious: Cuba and Jamaica have almost the same GNP per capita. In Jamaica everybody can buy toothpaste, while in Cuba it may not be around for weeks and in Jamaica the poor can't afford to go to the dentist - while in Cuba there are too many dentists ! So, the Cuban story is not an overall succes-story and it certainly does not constitute a real alternative for smaller third-world countries because of the special relationship between Cuba and the former USSR - most smaller third world-countries can simply be starved into submission to the US or France or Holland. (As happened with the Bouterse regime in Suriname which was really forced to abdicate in the mid-eighties after the so-called jungle-command of Ronni Brunswijk - supported by the Dutch secrete service as we now know - began to disrupt electrity-supplies and supplies of bauxite on which the whole economy of Surinam depends.) Anyhow, while the socialist expiriment in Cuba has some great achievements to its credit the point is that Cuba already started from a relatively healthy economic base - socialism has failed dismally in trying to conjure up forced development along the USSR line in countries where there was no development at all - worst under the Mengishtu regime in Ethiopia and in South-Yemen, but also in the Cabe Verde and in Angola and Mozambique. However, the mention of these last two countries already points to something else - for most of the poorest countries capitalism is no alternative either. No capitalist is going to invest in countries where there is no infrastructure, no schooled work-force, no reliable government and no western comforts. And this excludes almost all African countries and the Arab countries - if it wasn't for oil. The best way of development might be - but who are we to know that best ? - some form of socialism not based on the USSR model of forced industrialisation but upon the development of agricultural cooperatives based on the peasant-communities. This was actually what Frelimo tried to implement in Mozambique, but the promising developments there were smothered in blood by the South-African intervention. This South African intervention is one of those many cases where the US supported intervention and/or intervened in completely peripheral countries to `fight communism'. Ironically, as the Soviet threat has now evaporated I guess socialism - or socialist-inspired regimes - in the peripheral third world countries (not Mexico, say, or Turkey) may have a better change of survival than in the seventies and eighties as these countries are simply too unimportant to invest soldiers or funds for counter-insurgency in. Thus, for example, while the Dutch government in 1981 was almost succesful in persuading the USA to intervene in Surinam as Bouterse was `a communist', Bouterse is now back again and the USA simply doesn't care. (Holland still does, though: it tried to sponsor a coup in Surinam four months ago which was easily discovered by the Bouterse regime - one sign how unimportant the third world now really is for the `rich countries'). As to disontenment in Cuba I'm not sure whether most of the population supports Fidel - the old probably do but I'm not so sure about younger persons. I'm not sure whether the discotntent see an alternative to Castro though, a take-over by mobsters from Miami is not much of an alternative. Anyhow - in a communist country you can always blaim want and deficiency of supply on communism - there is always the capitalist alternative - as `truthfully' depicted in the US-televison. The situation in their capitalist neighbour seems to be diferent: I would say that the poor in Jamaica are at least as discontent as the Cubans but they have lost confidence in all `politrics' - claiming to be socialist, capitalist or what have you - and only rely on God and their gun. 2.)The `Southeast Asian' tigres are as Blaut rightly points out in some respects a very bad example for the rest of the third world. For one thing, in the spirit of its Greater Asian prosperity sphere Japan already put up a processing-industry in Korea and Taiwan. Both thus had an industrial base to build on. The `prosperity-zone' was not altogether an empty shell. Unlike the English, Dutch or Americans in Southeast Asia the Japanese were not interested in defending their home industry against competition from manufacturing in the colonies. (Although it should be added that most heavy industry which Japan built in Korea was located in the North). Most other countries were in the protective shell of the Commonwealth or the French trade zone which, of course, relagated the third-world countries to producers of primary materials. There were exceptions here, one being Malaysia which has a large Chinese banking and trading community and was already in the thirties the most prosperous `tropical' colony in the British empire. Thus the Southeast Asian tigers were before World War II already not like the poor primary material producing countries in Africa. It is also true as Blaut remarks that they greatly profitted from US-sponsorship but, then, the Philippines appearently did not, nor did Turkey or Iran greatly profit. US-investments and aid might be invested productively or it might just be dissipated in corruption, `politrics' or prodigious consumption - as in Panama now, or in Jamaica under Seaga, Iran under the shah or in Turkey for fifty years now. So it is not entirely the case that one can't learn anything from the Southeast Asian tigres. The Southeast Asian tigres built a reasonable efficient state-apparatus (the lower levels are reasonably free of corruption - of course this does exist on the government level). Again, thanks to the good services of comrade Kim Il Sung in South Korea in 1950 and to expatriates from China in Taiwan these two countries were among the few in Asia to put through a comprehensive land-reform which is lacking - most conspiciously - in the Phillipines for example, where about 70% of all land is in the hands of 400 families. Third, and this is a fact which all too many officials of the IMF or the Worldbank in all their enthusiam for export-led growth are only too happy to overlook - Taiwan and South Korea have partly because of this land-reform a much more equal distribution of incomes than most other developing countries - and more equal than the UK or the US too - Not only does this guarantee a fairly broad home-market (most other developing countries essentially have a very rich class which imports everything from abroad and a very poor class which can just afford food) but also because of this more equal spread of incomes they have high rates of savings. Fourthly, both Korea and Taiwan already invested heavily in good primary and secondary education before the development-spurt of the sixties began - and still do - the rating of average students of secondary schools in Korea in math are - I believe - 40 % above the US-average. In all these matters the tigers are - I think - an example for other developing countries as is - fifthly - but that is pretty obvious - that the great industrial complexes which the South Korean state constructed in the fifties - as export substitution economic communis opinio nowadays notwithstanding - were not allowed to lapse under the control of multinational cooperations during some drive for liberalisation as is now happening under World Bank dictates in much of the Third World. We can pretty much predict this will lead to the dismemberment of `inefficient industries' leaving most third world countries with no industry whatsoever. Guess I have fulfilled my `productive quota' Cheers R.J.Barendse IIAS, Leiden/RSPAS, Canberra Peace Research Centre Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies Australian National University Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia Tel: +61-6-2492259 (Wk) Tel: +61-6-2675324 (Hm) Fax: +61-6-62490174 From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 24 21:32:06 1998 Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 20:32:01 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Who needs to know what? In-Reply-To: <34CAE4A5.1FF3@wml.prestel.co.uk> On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, William Kirk wrote: > So what is this knowledge? It is knowing the quantitative data of how > people exchange goods and services. This is really what I think sums up > the notion of what we perceive to be 'capitalism'. Behind this curtain > there are those who know how it works, and have up to the minute data on > how it is happening now. Having this knowledge before the majority is > worth a fortune, and this is where fortune's are made. Notice that there > isn't the definite literature here, the whole basis is keeping > information 'secret' or having it for such a time whereby the fortune is > made. Once made then some of the information can be given. If you are > seen to be a 'winner', or have lots of money, people will sit for hours > and listen to any rubbish you care to tell them, rarely will anyone give > a true account of how a fortune is made. The problem is, most of what we call knowledge is neither quantitative nor static. Knowledge isn't a raw material which can be produced and traded, it's something which is produced, reproduced and constantly reinvented. One of the weirdest aspects of life in capitalist societies is that knowledge, too, is a market: crudely put, fresh discoveries and inventions replace and devalue older, less powerful or comprehensive ones. The flip side of this is that late capitalism has become so complex that effective knowledge about the system as a whole is tremendously difficult to get, and when you do get it, it becomes outmoded very quickly. The example you gave is really that of a Warren Buffet or other rentier, who doesn't really know how a given company produces what it does, but invests in it anyway because if you're ahead of the pack, other, more gullible investors will buy up your shares at a higher price. Maybe a better example is the rise of Bill Gates to Uebergeek of the Net: everyone thought the task of Macintoshizing the PC world would take place either as a software shift or a hardware shift. Lotus bet on software, Apple bet on hardware; but both were wrong. Instead, a more complex cooperative tandem between Intel's chip designers and Microsoft's programmers turned out to have the market-worthy solution -- fast graphics and a reasonably reliable interface at affordable prices. The knowledge one has has value nowadays only as a precursor to what one doesn't yet know (what university types like myself like to call the "learning to learn" conundrum). > At the other end of the spectrum we have what is perceived to be > 'socialism'. Here this is very much like having a plan of campaign for a > battle that is read in advance by the enemy. To me this is why there are > so many failures of socialism. First, the notion of an 'enemy' isn't part > of their thoughts, second, the mechanism of application tends to be > radical, there is risk with a relatively high degree of failure, third, > the data existing is somehow 'unavailable' is 'unnecessary' or > irrelevant. Contrary to that the 'capitalist' lets the exchange of goods > and services evolve, and having the 'knowledge' knows exactly where there > is a fortune to be made. This was certainly true in the former Soviet Union. Still, a socialist alternative to the capitalist marketplace of knowledge or information or whatever is not about imposing models on a specific society (a fancy way of saying, the rule of a non-elected one-party state), but about changing the rules of that evolution of knowledge. Right now, we have a society where the evolution of new services, goods and technologies tends to favor innovations in weapons systems, raw materials-gobbling consumer appliances and the wasteful overproduction of hydrocarbon transport machines. This is because big capital needs to get bigger and expand its markets, and to hell with consumers, previous model designs, or the ecology. But why not favor innovations in education, community services, sustainable economies, aesthetics and, yes, even politics? I have no idea what social changes would be needed for such a shift, but it's probably worth pondering the question. -- Dennis From adkes@pipeline.com Sun Jan 25 08:39:28 1998 Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 10:35:36 -0500 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: Adam Kessler Subject: Re: Gulag >Please explain the logic of this argument. I am very interested in hearing >the creative rhetoric that one might one might use to justify the claim >that my expose on the rhetorical function on the testimonial can be boiled >down to a claim that the victims of the gulags deserved what they got. > >Adam, my argument need not be heard by anyone outside this circle for it >to be "famous." The argument I used is not original. The testimonial is >widely understood as a basic propaganda technique. The fact that the >"horror story" works, and a rather sophisticated understanding of the >psychological reasons behind its working, are basic to social science. > >Worked on you, didn't it? > >Andy > > Last month 45 Indian peasants were massacred in the Mexican state of Chiapas with the collusion of local PRI officials and the the state police. How do we know this? As a result of personal testimonials from survivors! And Austin believes this and more! Why? Because it fits in with his world view and bits and pieces of information he has about conditions in Mexico. So I know of of no general result of "social science" which says that personal testimonials automatically constitute propaganda and should be ignored. But if someone were to write that the survivors' personal testimonials remind him of the complaints of neo-nazis and racists, I would suspect that he thought the peasants deserved what they got. (Maybe they were bandits?) Georgi Derlugian reports that his family was sent to the Gulag because of some political misdeed. What are we to do? How should we react? Catiously await further evidence? From kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my Sun Jan 25 10:27:51 1998 From: kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 01:27:25 +0800 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: standard of living Some may have seen it, but just an article from the IHT to consider in discussing post-communist standards of living. KJ Khoo Top Stories from the Front Page of the International Herald Tribune, Tuesday, January 20, 1998 In Belgrade, a Descent Into Sordid Hedonism Serbs Are Turning to Pornography and Violence ---------------------------------------------------- By Chris Hedges New York Times Service ---------------------------------------------------- BELGRADE - Pulsating music thumped through the blue haze of cigarette smoke and strobe lights of the Lotus Club. Scantily clad strippers spun around poles and leaped into two huge floodlit cages with men and women from the dance floor. The young couples began to peel off their shirts and simulate sex with the dancers. ''Stay a little longer,'' a patron shouted. ''The simulation is just the beginning.'' Under a spotlight, a stripper known as Nina, a star of Belgrade's violent and frenetic night life, descended a spiral staircase. Her lover and bodyguard, a woman with closely cropped hair and a pistol tucked in her belt, followed her. A year ago, Belgrade, which saw daily street protests staged by the political opposition, seemed on the verge of escaping from the nightmare of war, ultranationalist ideology and repressive rule by President Slobodan Milosevic. Today, the city seems more like Caligula's Rome. There is a wild abandon in the air, bred of hopelessness and apathy. The city's best-known gangsters, sometimes in the company of Mr. Milosevic's son, Marko, who recently threatened bar patrons with an automatic weapon, cruise the streets in BMWs and Mercedeses. They haunt clubs like the Lotus in their expensive black Italian suits and leather jackets. This criminal class, many of whom made their fortunes by plundering the possessions of ethnic Croats and Muslims who were expelled from their homes or killed in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the war there, deals in stolen clothes from Italy, stolen cars, drugs, protection rackets, prostitution and duty-free cigarettes. They also control some 70 escort services in Belgrade, three adult cinemas and 20 pornographic magazines, people in the industry say. After midnight, the public television channels show hard-core pornographic films made in their studios. The hedonism comes as inflation is eating away at the local currency, the dinar, which has lost more than half of its value in the last few months. And it comes as the political opposition self-destructs with infighting after Mr. Milosevic, formerly the president of Serbia and now the president of Yugoslavia, has reasserted control. Adding to the pressures, Serbs are also trying to cope with mounting violence by the ethnic Albanians in the Kosovo region of Serbia, who want independence. And in Montenegro, which along with Serbia makes up all that remains of Yugoslavia, separatist forces are building under a new government critical of Mr. Milosevic. The effects of the social collapse have been devastating. Distraught teachers say they struggle to cope with children as young as 11 who have been exposed to graphic scenes of sado-masochism on television. Domestic violence, often by men who are out of work or who have not received their small salaries for months, also appears to be widespread, sociologists say. Crime is endemic. ''This stratification of society is part of a general trend in Eastern Europe,'' said Zarko Korac, a professor of clinical psychology at Belgrade University, ''but in this country it has taken a more sinister form. The sanctions and the war created a much richer and uglier underworld. ''They are our carpetbaggers who buy up the property of the Belgrade elite, even the old communist nomenclature. We have descended into barbarity, into the crudest forms of life. We live in a world of moral idiocy. I watch the smiling face of Milosevic, who seems incapable of remorse or pity, and wonder if he is not the devil incarnate.'' The trend Mr. Korac referred to began with the collapse of communism, which saw a rupture of the social contract in Eastern Europe and the discarding of longtime political and social values. Pornography, along with crime, has been embraced along with the emerging liberties to engage in trade, publish freely or build opposition parties. The violent breakup of Yugoslavia began in 1991, the same year that the government decided to permit hard-core sex films to be broadcast on public stations and the first locally made pornographic film was produced. While the old communist Yugoslavia did not censor love scenes in its state-run film industry, it condemned pornography as the exploitation of woman and banned its production. Many say they do not find it coincidental that this happened as the first graphic pictures of mutilated and dead from the war, along with the racial diatribes against Muslims and Croats, hit the airwaves. ''The war was about the lifting of taboos, about new forms of entertainment to mask the collapse and repression,'' said Ljuba Isakovic, a reporter who is writing a book on the new sexual mores. ''War and sex became the stimulants used to keep people from examining what was happening.'' A Belgrade woman, Gordana Lalic, 26, poses for pornographic magazines and sings occasionally in night clubs. Her attempt to build a career in the recording industry has meant cultivating contacts with Belgrade's most notorious thugs. Mrs. Lalic, like many young women drawn to the glitter of money and power, has often been a victim of its darker side. ''I have been raped many times,'' she said. ''I tried to escape from one of these gangsters the other night by running from the disco. I fell and he pulled out his gun, put it to my head and told me I could go with him to his apartment or get cut up into little pieces. ''These are people who do not care about murder. When some police saw us he pulled out his weapon and they backed away. The police know the price of interfering.'' ---------------------------------------------------- [Today] From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Sun Jan 25 10:29:05 1998 id MAA00743; Sun, 25 Jan 1998 12:28:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 12:28:54 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Adam Kessler Subject: Re: Gulag In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980125153536.0089690c@pop.pipeline.com> On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Adam Kessler wrote: > Last month 45 Indian peasants were massacred in the Mexican state of Chiapas > with the collusion of local PRI officials and the the state police. How do > we know this? As a result of personal testimonials from survivors! This argument rests on a false premise. I never denied that people suffered in the gulags. Thus, your argument is irrelevant. People did die in gulags, just as they die in prison systems all over the world. I admit this. So now what do you do, Adam? How can your smear proceed without the fact of "gulag denial"? > So I know of of no general result of "social science" which says that > personal testimonials automatically constitute propaganda and should be > ignored. There is nothing to prevent you from ignoring any propaganda technique. My statement, I repeat again, was not about the reality of personal suffering in the gulags. My arguments had to do with the relevance of personal accounts to the question of the adequacy of the Soviet economic system (gulags are irrelevant to this question) and with the function of the testimonial in anti-communist propaganda. Neither of these statements bears on the suffering of people in gulags. > But if someone were to write that the survivors' personal testimonials > remind him of the complaints of neo-nazis and racists, I would suspect > that he thought the peasants deserved what they got. (Maybe they were > bandits?) Many of the people in the gulags were bandits. They were also rapists, murders, traitors, Nazi, etc. Whether they got what they deserved is a question that should be answered on a case by case basis. Only a small fraction of the populations of the gulags were executed, and while I do not favor capital punishment, most people would find no problem with doing away with some of the criminals in the gulags. This is the hypocrisy of anti-communism. This is why arguments using the gulags to bash the Soviet project are so ridiculous. Even if we suspend their irrelevancy, they falsely assume that everybody in the gulags were innocents. It is the same with left idealists in the West thinking that everybody in the US corrections system is a victim or that criminals are revolutionaries! And such arguments, and this *is* relevant, naively assume that people using the gulags to bash the Soviet Union have the people's best interests at heart. Anti-communist generally don't have the people's best interests at heart, which is why they are anti-communist! It seems that the possibility that right wing ideologues might use the gulags to advance their political goals of anti-communism escapes you, Adam. Can you imagine where a Russian capitalist or landholder, or his cadres, dispossessed of his property and the right to exploit land and people for his own personal enrichment, might proclaim the terror of the Soviet state? Of course! Even the most dim among us with three seconds of consideration can see this. > Georgi Derlugian reports that his family was sent to the Gulag because of > some political misdeed. What are we to do? How should we react? Catiously > await further evidence? No, we sympathize with Georgi Derlugian's suffering. But, if we grant relevancy on this whole discussion, we also understand that many of the people sent to the gulags for political reasons were sent there for justifiable reasons given the exigencies of the context. While I stand with Ignazio Silone in spirit when he tells the story of the little old man being taken away in chains--I am sympathetic with the little old man's unhappiness--I do not stand with Silone's paralytic anti-communism. Some little old men might need to be taken away in chains. The picture is not so simple. We cannot assume that everybody in the gulags did not deserve to be there. And justice never comes without a price, Adam. Revolutions are unpleasant. But that does not make them wrong. The slave master suffers greatly when his slaves are taken from him and freed. But it is a suffering that I am willing to inflict. Revolutions are not wrong because people die or are imprisoned. Derlugian's personal tragedy takes place in a web of interests and historical realities, interests and realities that stand over and above any one man's family. One has to choose sides. Morally, we cannot wash away our class responsibilities by refusing the justify death in the pursuit of justice. Andy From adkes@pipeline.com Sun Jan 25 15:40:26 1998 Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:36:33 -0500 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: Adam Kessler Subject: Re: the Andrew thread & socialism vs capitalism At 08:17 AM 1/24/98 GMT, you wrote: > >I don't think Andrew is being fairly treated in this discussion. I >perceive a phenomenon known as the "wounded rabbit syndrome" - after the >guy took a few hits in the flanks, the masses feel compelled to delurk and >unload broadsides in his direction. > >Andrew's main point is entirely valid - communism has been the target of an >intensive and prolonged propaganda campaign: its crimes have been >exaggerated; its destabilization by external forces has been blamed on its >internal shortcomings; its accomplishments have been discounted; >comparisons with the West have been largely fallacious when not based on >outright fabrication. > >--- > >One interesting sub-thread has been the question of how comparisons between >Western and Soviet systems should be based. Some have suggested looking at >inequality levels in Standard-of-Living, some have suggested looking at >"absolute" (ie, average) SoL levels. > >I suggest both approaches are capitalist-centric, in that they take >monetary transaction rates as the measure of societal accomplishment. In >fact a number of metrics need to be compared collectively, and the metric I >consider most relevant hasn't even been mentioned: > * the percentage of the population that has adequate food, shelter, > medical care, and access to education > >The fact that lots of core families had color televisions, second cars, and >other luxuries is a dubious balance against those condemned, say, to ghetto >conditions. The West's core may have had a higher average SoL, but its >inequality levels dipped many into abject poverty, and I agree with those >who suggest periphery poverty should also be charged to the Western >account. > > >When one considers a brutal episode such as Stalin's starving of Georgian >peasants, which should be rightly condemned, we in fairness need to look at >the comparable depression situation in, say, the US. At least Stalin was >robbing Peter to pay Paul: he felt it was more important to Soviet survival >that urban populations and industrial workers be fed than a particular >segment of the peasantry - the confiscated crops were at least put to use. > >In the US, by comparison, while many families were starving and migrating, >crops which couldn't be sold profitably were sprayed with gasoline so that >no one could eat them. Or consider the Irish famine: adequate food >supplies were available at all times to feed everyone, indeed, more than >enough food was being _exported_ from Ireland to feed the starving. And >when huge emergency supplies of wheat were purchased from the US by >Britain, the bread wasn't distributed to the starving, but was simply sold >on the market, with negligable benefit. > > >1/23/98, s_sanderson wrote: > >"Socialism" has not been successful at developing a single Third World > >country to any decent level at all. > >Wrong. Cuba, despite being subjected to a prolonged state-of-war by the >world's most powerful nation thirty miles away, has managed to provide a >much better standard of living, health, and literacy than in comparable >Latin-American countries. And Cuba didn't have death squads and military >actions against its own people. Cuba even exceeds US standards in some >health metrics. > > >The most successful Third World countries in recent decades are capitalist, > >namely, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. They are way ahead > >of China and Cuba, and on some measures of development (such as infant > >mortality) are nearly even with the core. > >Specious - conveniently omits that these "winners" were supported by core >investment and military protection, while the "losers" were being >economically strangled and militarily threatened. > > >1/24/98, Adam Kessler wrote: > >Simple question--how do you *know* that they (the Cubans) *reject the > >alternative in store for them*? After all, the essence of dictatorship is > >that the dictator does note permit anyone to find out what the people > >*really* want. Just before the fall of the Berlin wall... > >Here we see propaganda being reported as fact. First Castro is identified >as a dictator, which is just party-line rhetoric, and then characteristics >are thereby attributed to him which contradict fact. In fact Castro is a >tireless public servant, has the overwhelming support of the people, >systematically includes popular participation in policy making, and >explains policy decisions forthrightly (and at great length) on television. > > >By comparison, US presidents serve with marginal electoral majorities, make >policies according to elite interests, and use their television time to >deceive and mislead. For my money its the US that has a dictatorship and >Cuba that has by comparison a democratic system. > > >rkm > > > From adkes@pipeline.com Sun Jan 25 15:42:49 1998 Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:38:54 -0500 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: Adam Kessler Subject: Re: the Andrew thread & socialism vs capitalism At 08:17 AM 1/24/98 GMT, you wrote: > > >1/24/98, Adam Kessler wrote: > >Simple question--how do you *know* that they (the Cubans) *reject the > >alternative in store for them*? After all, the essence of dictatorship is > >that the dictator does note permit anyone to find out what the people > >*really* want. Just before the fall of the Berlin wall... > >Here we see propaganda being reported as fact. First Castro is identified >as a dictator, which is just party-line rhetoric, and then characteristics >are thereby attributed to him which contradict fact. In fact Castro is a >tireless public servant, has the overwhelming support of the people, >systematically includes popular participation in policy making, and >explains policy decisions forthrightly (and at great length) on television. > > >By comparison, US presidents serve with marginal electoral majorities, make >policies according to elite interests, and use their television time to >deceive and mislead. For my money its the US that has a dictatorship and >Cuba that has by comparison a democratic system. > > >rkm > > > >So Castro is a "tireless public servant"! I suppose this is not propaganda but an objective description of >reality. (Personal anecdote perhaps?) > >Castro "has the overwhelming support of the Cuban people"? I repeat my question: how do you know that, since there are no free elections and his opponents are put in prison? > > >Castro "systematically includes popular participation in policy making"? By what mechanism? The wonderfully independent Cuban parliament? Neighborhood vigilance committees? Santeria? Osmosis? Castro "explains policy decisions forthrightly (and at great length) on television." Are you serious? > > >Benjamin Disraeli said that the conservative party was the "stupid party." He didn't mean the British >Conservative party but all those who opposed reform of the British political system. I don't know if he was >right or not, but it is pretty clear that for the past 70 years the left with its scoundrelly defense of >Communist tyranny has been the "stupid party." It is because of "in your face" silly statements such as "the >U.S...has a dictatorship and Cuba...has by comparison a democratic system" that the Left is not taken seriously anywhere on the globe. > From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Sun Jan 25 16:04:06 1998 Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 18:03:58 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Adam Kessler Subject: Re: the Andrew thread & socialism vs capitalism In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980125223854.0089ccdc@pop.pipeline.com> Adam, How would an "independent Cuban parliament" constitute popular participation in policy making? How is a parliament "independent"? Independent of what? Are you equating elections with democracy? I don't have much faith that you understand the structure of socialist governments in this century (or capitalist "democracies" for that matter). But socialist states have generally involved more worker and peasant participation than the polyarchic structures that exist in capitalist social formations. Andy From adkes@pipeline.com Sun Jan 25 17:43:56 1998 Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 19:40:03 -0500 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: Adam Kessler Subject: Gulag, etc. > > >1/24/98, Adam Kessler wrote: >Simple question--how do you *know* that they (the Cubans) *reject the >alternative in store for them*? After all, the essence of dictatorship is >that the dictator does note permit anyone to find out what the people >*really* want. Just before the fall of the Berlin wall... Here we see propaganda being reported as fact. First Castro is identified as a dictator, which is just party-line rhetoric, and then characteristics are thereby attributed to him which contradict fact. In fact Castro is a tireless public servant, has the overwhelming support of the people, systematically includes popular participation in policy making, and explains policy decisions forthrightly (and at great length) on television. By comparison, US presidents serve with marginal electoral majorities, make policies according to elite interests, and use their television time to deceive and mislead. For my money its the US that has a dictatorship and Cuba that has by comparison a democratic system. rkm So Castro is a "tireless public servant"! I suppose this is not propaganda but an objective description of reality. (Personal anecdote perhaps?) Castro "has the overwhelming support of the Cuban people"? I repeat my question: how do you know that, since there are no free elections and his opponents are put in prison? Castro "systematically includes popular participation in policy making"? By what mechanism? The wonderfully independent Cuban parliament? Neighborhood vigilance committees? Santeria? Osmosis? Castro "explains policy decisions forthrightly (and at great length) on television." Are you serious? Benjamin Disraeli said that the conservative party was the "stupid party." He didn't mean the British >Conservative party but all those who opposed reform of the British political system. I don't know if he was right or not, but it is pretty clear that for the past 70 years the left with its scoundrelly defense of >Communist tyranny has been the "stupid party." It is because of "in your face" silly statements such as "the U.S...has a dictatorship and Cuba...has by comparison a democratic system" that the Left is not taken seriously anywhere on the globe. AK From adkes@pipeline.com Sun Jan 25 18:11:03 1998 Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 20:07:10 -0500 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: Adam Kessler Subject: Re: the Andrew thread & socialism vs capitalism At 06:03 PM 1/25/98 -0500, you wrote: >Adam, > >How would an "independent Cuban parliament" constitute popular >participation in policy making? How is a parliament "independent"? >Independent of what? Are you equating elections with democracy? > >I don't have much faith that you understand the structure of socialist >governments in this century (or capitalist "democracies" for that >matter). But socialist states have generally involved more worker and >peasant participation than the polyarchic structures that exist in >capitalist social formations. > >Andy > > >Fine, so an independent parliament does not constitute popular participation in polcy making. Then what does? I really would like to hear some sort of description of the process of popular participation. Of course I suspect that Austin simply means that in an "historically objective sense" the "Vanguard Party" represents (no, constitutes) the proletariat and the proletariat *is* the people so decisions by the party are ipso facto popular decisions. Its true though--I didn't know that there was a mystery about the "structure of socialist governments in this century"--I thought there was simply a corrupt nomenklatura at war with the people so they could hold on to their privileges. From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Sun Jan 25 18:28:21 1998 id UAA08451; Sun, 25 Jan 1998 20:28:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 20:28:12 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Adam Kessler Subject: Re: the Andrew thread & socialism vs capitalism In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980126010710.008adea0@pop.pipeline.com> On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Adam Kessler wrote: > Its true though--I didn't know that there was a mystery about the "structure > of socialist governments in this century"--I thought there was simply a > corrupt nomenklatura at war with the people so they could hold on to their > privileges. What privileges? Taking an occasional sauna at the public baths? Andy From phuakl@sit.edu.my Sun Jan 25 23:18:56 1998 From: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:21:09 +0000 Subject: Re: the Andrew thread & socialism vs capitalism I was in Ho Chi Minh City (locals continue to call it "Saigon") in November 1994 when they held their elections. It was compulsory for everyone to vote and, of course, all the candidates were also selected and approved by the Communist Party. Good example of the sham "democracy" of Leninist regimes. P.S. By the way, I also saw entire families sleeping on folding beds in the streets. Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 20:07:10 -0500 Reply-to: adkes@pipeline.com From: Adam Kessler To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: the Andrew thread & socialism vs capitalism At 06:03 PM 1/25/98 -0500, you wrote: >Adam, > >How would an "independent Cuban parliament" constitute popular >participation in policy making? How is a parliament "independent"? >Independent of what? Are you equating elections with democracy? > >I don't have much faith that you understand the structure of socialist >governments in this century (or capitalist "democracies" for that >matter). But socialist states have generally involved more worker and >peasant participation than the polyarchic structures that exist in >capitalist social formations. > >Andy > > >Fine, so an independent parliament does not constitute popular participation in polcy making. Then what does? I really would like to hear some sort of description of the process of popular participation. Of course I suspect that Austin simply means that in an "historically objective sense" the "Vanguard Party" represents (no, constitutes) the proletariat and the proletariat *is* the people so decisions by the party are ipso facto popular decisions. Its true though--I didn't know that there was a mystery about the "structure of socialist governments in this century"--I thought there was simply a corrupt nomenklatura at war with the people so they could hold on to their privileges. From rkmoore@iol.ie Mon Jan 26 03:51:04 1998 Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:50:56 GMT Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:50:56 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: Cuba, democracy, socialism, and capitalism Adam Kessler wrote: >So Castro is a "tireless public servant"! I suppose this is not propaganda >but an objective description of >reality. (Personal anecdote perhaps?) >Castro "has the overwhelming support of the Cuban people"? I repeat my >question: how do you know that, since there are no free elections and his >opponents are put in prison? >Castro "systematically includes popular participation in policy making"? >By what mechanism? The wonderfully independent Cuban parliament? >Neighborhood vigilance committees? Santeria? Osmosis? >Castro "explains policy decisions forthrightly (and at great length) on >television." Are you serious? I base my characterizations of Cuba on written reports and film documentaries I've seen over the years from many sources, taking into account the credibility track-record of the individual sources. Even Western propaganda on the subject is useful, because of what it doesn't claim - even the propaganda doesn't accuse Cuba of the military-dictatorship behavior (death squads, systematic torture, massacres of peasants) so common in the rest of (capitalist dominated) Latin America. >It is because of "in your face" silly statements such as "the >U.S...has a dictatorship and Cuba...has by comparison a democratic system" >that the Left is not taken seriously anywhere on the globe. Such a judgement seems rather premature, even irresponsibly reckless, given the following exchange... Andrew said: >>I don't have much faith that you understand the structure of socialist >>governments in this century (or capitalist "democracies" for that >>matter) to which Adam responded: >Its true though--I didn't know that there was a mystery about the "structure >of socialist governments in this century"--I thought there was simply a >corrupt nomenklatura at war with the people so they could hold on to their >privileges. You admit your knowledge of socialist government is limited to Western propaganda, and yet you're willing to dismiss as "silly" the observations of those who have taken the time to dig deeper. I'd say it is the success of Western propaganda, and its mis-characterizations of both the socialist and capitalist experiences, that is inhibiting globally the development of a Left of any consequence. >Fine, so an independent parliament does not constitute popular >participation in polcy making. Then what does? I really would like to hear >some sort of description of the process of popular participation. This is a good question, but don't you need the answer PRIOR to announcing your decision about what's silly and what isn't? The Western system, ideally, incorportes popular will via elections; the Cuban system, ideally, incorporates popular will via ongoing feedback channels. Both systems are theoretically workable frameworks for democracy, and one must look at how they operate in practice to determine whether they, in each case, result in a democratic or dictatorial regime. In the US, it seems abundantly obvious to me, the competitive party system, with the help of the elite-controlled mass media, has been exploited so as to completely undermine the democratic process. We are given a choice between elite-selected candidates both of whom are dedicated to representing elite corporate interests and whom employ demagogic rhetoric. That is not democracy, it is oligarchic dictatorship. In Cuba, I claim based on empirical evidence, the regime has managed to stay in touch with popular sentiment, has responded to it, governs with the general support of the people, and has served them well. This democratic responsiveness has been perhaps encouraged by US pressure. With a constant threat of invasion, severe economic warfare, and ongoing CIA efforts to stir up rebellion and dissent, Castro has been forced to maintain strong popular support as a means of preventing national destabilization. Stalin, in comparable circumstances, chose a different solution: a strong police state. Socialism, unlike capitalism, has arisen in the Third World due to local popular demand, and there is more variety in the resulting instances than perhaps we find in capitalist instances which have been facilitated by a common imperialist influence. rkm www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal To join cyberjournal, simply send: To: listserv@cpsr.org Subject: (ignored) --- sub cyberjournal John Q. Doe <-- your name there From rkmoore@iol.ie Mon Jan 26 08:53:09 1998 Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:52:59 GMT Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:52:59 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: socialism vs capitalism (PHUA KAI LIT) 1/26/98, DR. PHUA KAI LIT wrote: >It was compulsory for everyone to vote and, >of course, all the candidates were also selected and >approved by the Communist Party. >Good example of the sham "democracy" >of Leninist regimes. One could with equal relevance (to whatever point) relate horror stories from Guatamala or El Salvador and call them good examples of the sham "democracy" of capitalist regimes. At a miniumum we need to look at individual countries if the discussion is going to be more than "yes it is", "no it isn't". "Leninist regimes" covers a broad space, from Stalin to Tito to the Sandinistas. The democratic rationale of a one-party system is that the party is to embody popular will, and that the government is to administrate party policy. That system is corrupted when the party becomes a top-down tyranny instead of a bottom-up system of representation. Similarly, the competitive electoral system is corrupted when a clique of parties achieve hegemony, and those parties are each controlled by the same elite interests. In both cases democracy is undermined by the formation of de facto hierarchical power structures. In fact one-party systems and electoral systems are political systems, not economic systems. Capitalism can exist in a one-party state and socialism can exist in a multi-party state (examples plentiful). It is wrong to equate socialist economics with one-party politics (corrupt or otherwise), or capitalism with competitive parties (representative or otherwise). I suggest that Vietnam's democratic failings are less relevant to a critique of socialism than, say, Indonesia's dictatorship is to a critique of capitalism. The Jakarta regime is charaterisic of capitalist perphery-management tactics. Ho Chi Minh arose from the ranks as a leader of national liberation, and his regime is, if anything, characteristic of that unique national experience. Socialism seems largely irrelevant to Vietnam's political structure. rkm From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Mon Jan 26 11:37:26 1998 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:37:18 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson Subject: standard of living To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu At one time I found it very interesting that Cuba had probably the lowest level of infant mortality in Latin America. Boy, their socialist regime must be doing something right, I concluded. And then I discovered, quite by accident, that they had had the same low level of infant mortality before the Castro regime! From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Mon Jan 26 11:44:54 1998 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:44:48 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson Subject: reply to Blaut To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Yes, of course, S. Korea and Taiwan benefitted enormously from US aid in their developmental efforts. I am well aware of that, and have discussed that and other reasons for the unique accomplishments of these countries in my Macrosociology. But that does not make them any less capitalist, nor their achievements any less the result of a capitalist system. Stephen Sanderson From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Mon Jan 26 11:51:37 1998 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:51:28 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu If the Soviet Union and other Soviet-style systems had made such great accomplishments, then why did they collapse and give way to something different? I suppose their defenders will claim that this was the result of Western constraints. That may provide some of the answer, but not most. Their internal deficiencies were glaring also. I sort of recall massive popular reaction against the state socialist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989. That tells us what most members of these societies thought about their accomplishments. Stephen Sanderson From cemck@cs1.presby.edu Mon Jan 26 12:09:07 1998 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:08:52 -0500 (EST) From: Charles McKelvey To: s_sanderson Subject: Re: standard of living In-Reply-To: <01ISU1WAQTVM91XFVC@grove.iup.edu> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, s_sanderson wrote: > At one time I found it very interesting that Cuba had probably the lowest level > of infant mortality in Latin America. Boy, their socialist regime must be > doing something right, I concluded. And then I discovered, quite by accident, > that they had had the same low level of infant mortality before the Castro > regime! > In 1959, the infant mortality rate in Cuba was 32.3 per 1000 babies born. By 1963, it had risen to 39.6, largely a consequence of the fact that more than half of Cuban physicians left the island during the 1960s, mostly in the early 1960s. By 1984, the infant mortality rate had been reduced to 16. Prior to the revolution, there was approximately one doctor per 1000 persons. By 1984, the ratio was one to 490. In 1959, there were 58 hospitals in Cuba; by 1976, there were 257. In 1962, there were 161 polyclinics; by 1983, there were 387. These facts are taken from Louis A. Perez, Jr., {Cuba: Between Reform and Revolution} (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 361-65. Perez is professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Charles McKelvey Department of Sociology Presbyterian College Clinton, South Carolina 29325 From rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU Mon Jan 26 14:05:14 1998 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:57:34 -0700 (MST) From: Richard N Hutchinson To: s_sanderson Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <01ISU2D98B0U91XFVC@grove.iup.edu> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, s_sanderson wrote: > If the Soviet Union and other Soviet-style systems had made such great > accomplishments, then why did they collapse and give way to something > different? I suppose their defenders will claim that this was the result of > Western constraints. That may provide some of the answer, but not most. Their > internal deficiencies were glaring also. I sort of recall massive popular > reaction against the state socialist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989. That > tells us what most members of these societies thought about their > accomplishments. > > Stephen Sanderson > > It is also worth noting, based on this logic, that a large proportion of those in the former Soviet bloc now see the Brezhnev days as a Golden Era, and would happily return to it immediately now that they know there is not a Capitalist Cornucopia awaiting them with the fall of the old system. Your arguments are totally one-sided, and sound just like those of a U.S. Republican or English Tory. If that's what you think we should become, you should be frank and say so. The problem with much of the recent discussion is that several people seem to be inferring that the people who made revolutions in the periphery wanted nothing other than to oppress people, which is the assumption that the right wing makes. Those of us who are arguing the other side are maintaining that 1) the capitalist world-system is in need of revolution and 2) many people with good intentions have tried, with outcomes all over the map, but including some positive ones. It's hard to see in the apparent system-defenders' arguments any sign that they too see the need for structural change. To shift to a different but related point, that of alternatives, it strikes me that Wagar's proposal for a world party is a classic case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. In reality, positive change is likely to occur at the local, national and global levels (the last through networks), but the dream of a global state is likely to be realized only by the capitalist elites. Back to the discussion of "actually existing socialism," then, it is the luxury of the core intellectual to dismiss all real-life attempts at revolutionary re-structuring as reactionary, calling on those in the periphery to wait for global capitalism to modernize them. Any genuine attempts at constructing a unified, global anti-systemic movement will be killed at birth by this attitude. Richard Hutchinson From wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Mon Jan 26 14:23:44 1998 by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 21:08:13 -0800 From: William Kirk To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Who needs to know what? Dennis Some points to expand and clarify. Certainly knowledge is complex, it might well be the third infinity. (A. Einstein - There are two infinities, the universe and human stupidity . . . ) What is proposed is to show that there is some simplicity out there, or at least make available to everyone instantly at the same time what is now a 'secret' to a few people. Just now the extent of knowledge is wondering who to vote for every once in a while. Nothing complicated there, what I am suggesting is to extend this - knowing the quantitative data of how people exchange goods and services. Whereas most of us agree that capitalism has produced the goodies there is a sense that it will either not last, to fail with catastrophic results, or it will continue in true failure mode, beyond control, where consuming resource and displacing workers, with dispossession, is the only way to keep the system working. I have notions of what the proposed system will give, however, like all systems, as soon as it comes to life it will have goals of its own. I'd say the data will be a revelation, is there any like this anywhere in the world? Of course the practicalities of it are not so simple, the easiest place on earth where it will work is in the US, but this is perhaps the last place on earth where it is needed right now. What I mean is data being available to people instantly so that policy can be understood, and where criticism is based on facts. As the world becomes more complex, the number of ways that decisions can go wrong is a function of the complexity, and is inversely related to the number of people who are making the decisions. That is, as time goes on, the number of people who have a say in the decision making process reduces. Where a matter is left to a consensus few if any people have the necessary information to make valued judgement, this is why in my opinion few bother and say - 'this is the way of it'. The great criticism of allowing everybody to make a decision on detail is that they will get it wrong. There is one thing that guarantees the political machine to go into panic mode is the word referendum. Panic comes because the people might not vote the 'right way'. Besides, and this is where C. J. Reid is asking, what do we 'need to know' in order to make a valued judgement? One big issue is the common currency for the EU. I never see any argument, I do get a lot of hot air, what I do not see is a discussion on the mechanisms of scale of money systems. I do not get any reviewed history, I do not see simulations or predictions based on fact. If there are alternative smaller systems, they are presented in the 'comedy zone' or the slots reserved for the crackpot fringe. When I see this I can only figure out Europe is heading for a disaster of monumental proportions. (Monuments in stone and the shape of a cross.) Added to that, I was told yesterday that the EU is now run by a council of the 'unknown', the ERT I think they are called, and I have no idea what that means. What happens if one member takes a bad turn or becomes a 'visionary'? Or convinces himself he is right? I am not saying the system of public knowledge of economic fact is any answer to anything, the answers will come when people see how the system works in a simple fashion. It could well take a turn into resource management, who knows, it all depends on how it is perceived by people generally. I'll give two examples of resource management. Two or three years ago one university in Scotland had developed technology in 'powder silicon', that I think is how it was described, and has the potential to replace the cathode tube. This only came general news once the technology had been sold to some far east country, at a price that was about one tenth of the development cost. Now why wasn't this given the vote? When I say a vote in terms of resource management I mean the people of the immediate community voting with money. Alright, the consensus might well have been sell, who can say, but giving people the vote is what I see to be democratic. This week I see a development into the vacuum diode, being undertaken by a university in Michigan. This is going to have dramatic consequences, when a current is passed through the two electrodes, the negative warms up, and the positive one cools down. So the fridge of the future will have no moving parts, no compressor, no ozone layer destroying coolant, does not make a noise and has a thermodynamic efficiency of about eighty per cent. Present compressors have an efficiency of about thirty to forty per cent. The big saving will probably come from air conditioning. Now, does the immediate community have the opportunity to 'vote' for this? Can it benefit from jobs, making and sharing in the profits? Or is this going to the east at a knock down price? Increasingly the problems that seem to be important are not addressed by the political machine right now, less and less becomes political where a vote can change the way things are done. >But why not favor innovations in education, community services, sustainable economies, aesthetics and, yes, even politics? I agree, and why not on a scale where it makes sense? Even on a scale of the population of the UK none of these issues are matters for the public, it is all left to experts. For the past thirty years education has gone through a cycle to come back to the idea, that comes over almost as it had been just invented, that it might not be a bad idea to teach children to read and write. New Labour was elected on a ticket to improve diminishing community services, principally to end the creeping privatisation of the health service. What appears to be happening is the 'invisible hand' has come along, the actions stated before the election, or what most people thought were the stated actions in the manifesto, have been 'moderated' or are not quite so important. Wasn't there something like this in the US when Clinton was elected? About reform of the health services? It is easy to forget, and then 'things happen' so that you begin to question if you did hear the fact. Or am I just imagining this? Sustainable economy? This is all about sustaining big business. Aesthetics are very important, there exists a mass of planning regulation to ensure the roof tiles are the right shade of grey-blue, yet when big business comes along they are allowed to put up buildings that have all the appeal and charm of air-raid shelters. Also, big business go for 'green-field' sites, then build air-raid shelters or 'advanced Nissen huts' without windows. Political reform is next to impossible. I live in Scotland, and last year the option came up to vote for or against devolution, that is, the assembly can do whatever it likes but will not have any control of the economy. A waste of time. I decided there was no point in voting, and on the day I found that most others were having the same thought. But, on the six o'clock news we all see handbag lady saying that devolution is bad, bad, bad for everyone. I instantly ran out to join the long queues, and sure enough, it was the biggest turnout ever, and every region voted for devolution. You see, when it comes to the crunch I'm just as daft as the next one. I was tricked, I was robbed. But that's the way of it. Since then all I have seen is the soap opera about where the new parliament building will be sited, and just now the price is Ł40M, now I didn't vote for that. The madness goes on and on, the privatised railways are now a complete shambles, no cash there, but the government spends huge sums on highway 'improvements'. All of this is good material for the media, it has created a new industry in documentaries to let us all see what is happening, such as spending hundreds of millions on highway improvements to 'sustain the economy'. Added to this the EU hands out cash so who cannot resist taking it? Anyone who shows displeasure, and the only way to do that is take positive action, as in the Newbury by-pass and the extension of Manchester Airport, to mention just two of many hundreds, are 'listed' as 'enemies of the state'. They find out later on, for reasons that are not clear to them, that they cannot get a mortgage, or they never seem to get a job, unless they happen to be of celebrity status; in short, they are marginalised. The system is not quite what it pretends to be, it is advertised as some sort of enterprise community, where really it is heading rapidly to one of coercion, obedience and poverty. What no one wants is a dramatic shift or a massive U turn, this is the way when socialism implodes and when capitalism explodes, you end up with a system ten times as bad as what you had before. All because the community handed over the decision making process and the economy to 'experts'. Isn't it about time that the communities generally had the chance to make decisions? There has to be a system out there. William Kirk. From gmd304@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Mon Jan 26 14:46:45 1998 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:49:25 -0600 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: "Georgi M. Derluguian" Subject: Ecological Keynesianism Perhaps, unwittingly, but nevertheless, Robert Redmond puts a very serious question -- can the socially- and ecologically-amenable innovations replace the present orientation of capitalist production towards mass consumer goods and armaments? I believe this is really the core of the debate on the future of the system. I would sharpen it further -- what can prevent capitalism from a transition towards ecological Keynesianism? If we assume that the military Keynesianism did really exist and played the key stabilizing role in the last hundred years or so (which needs to be proven, but in the WSN we might agree it was indeed the case), then why couldn't the global environmental clean up provide the huge market of tax-payer eagerly supported expenditure, with an attractive ideology, very liberal goals, and the place for a sprawling international bureaucracy of managers and experts? What is the limit to the adaptability of this system? Georgi Georgiď M. Derluguian Department of Sociology Northwestern University 1812 Chicago Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60208-1330 USA FAX (1-847) 491-9907 tel. (1-847) 491-2741 (rabota) From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Mon Jan 26 14:49:02 1998 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:48:48 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson Subject: capitalism, socialism, and revolution To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu It would be nice if there were something better than capitalism, and capitalism certainly has some serious flaws, but my argument is simply that socialism, as it has actually existed in the twentieth century, has not produced that something better, and in fact in many respects has produced worse. My argument is not one-sided, all in favor of capitalism. In Chapter 9 of my Social Transformations I list a balance sheet of capitalism, in which I identify some 5 or 6 deficiences of capitalism (e.g., overcommercialization of economic life, negative impact on the environment) along with some of its positive features (e.g., has created an extremely high standard of living, at least in the core). I also list a balance sheet for socialism. It seems to me that, on balance, capitalism wins. I am certainly not saying, as would a republican, that capitaism is all good. Of course not. The critical issue involves the semiperiphery and the periphery. In the core it is clear that capitalism wins. Does the core produce greater underdevelopment in the semiperiphery and periphery, or does development take place there nonetheless? The jury is still out on that, to judge from the latest empirical studies. Under these circumstances, it would seem that, right now, it is bdtter to stay with capitalism than to foment revolution. I tend to agree with Jack Goldstone that revolutions don't solve problems, but generally ARE the problem. Stephen Sanderson Stephen Sanderson From wally@cats.ucsc.edu Mon Jan 26 15:05:06 1998 From: wally@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:04:51 -0800 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: revolutions steve sanderson and his pal jack goldstone are welcome to believe whatever they like about revolutions. but it seems indisputable that the very prosperity in the 20th c core countries that steve thinks so admirable is in important ways a consequence of the russian revolution, however one appraises its consequences for russia and the rest of the ussr. w From wwagar@binghamton.edu Mon Jan 26 15:39:19 1998 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:38:53 -0500 (EST) To: Richard N Hutchinson Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: > To shift to a different but related point, that of alternatives, it > strikes me that Wagar's proposal for a world party is a classic case of > the perfect being the enemy of the good. In reality, positive change is > likely to occur at the local, national and global levels (the last through > networks), but the dream of a global state is likely to be realized only > by the capitalist elites. The World Party and its allies would function at all levels, local, national, and global. And my dream of a global state cannot possibly be realized by capitalist elites--not my dream anyway. Maybe your dream, but not mine. Meanwhile, I'll settle for being perfect. Perfect is the enemy of the half-measure that plays into the hands of the bad guys. Warren From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Mon Jan 26 16:40:30 1998 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:40:14 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: s_sanderson Subject: Re: capitalism, socialism, and revolution In-Reply-To: <01ISU7YKF16Q91WUQY@grove.iup.edu> List, Judging the relative adequacy of capitalism and socialism on a comparison of capitalism in the core to the socialist world system is absurd. Any discussion of core capitalism that leaves out capitalism in the periphery is like the US President giving foreign dignitaries a guided tour through Washington DC. A note on one-sidedness. One might be able to argue that slavery had its good features (many in fact have). But it doesn't make slavery any more legitimate. Sanderson's one-sidedness of capitalism is an extremist position. We may safely reject his rhetoric out of hand. But a "balanced" critique on capitalism, whatever that might entail, is little better fair. The system of capitalism must be replaced, whatever positive features ideologues might want to manufacture about it. Capitalism is destroying the biosphere and it is fundamentally exploitative of human beings. This cannot be changed without doing away with capitalism. Comparatively, in totality, capitalism is not a superior system to socialism. Such a claim can hardly be taken seriously. Capitalism cannot be everywhere what it is in the more affluent regions of the capitalist core. And that affluence is built on the great mass of humanity who have suffered terribly at the hands of capitalists oppressors. Andy From spector@calumet.purdue.edu Mon Jan 26 16:46:13 1998 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:48:02 -0800 From: Alan Spector Reply-To: spector@calumet.purdue.edu To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Perspective, please Those who wanted a capitalist system struggled for centuries against feudalism to achieve a system where capitalist commodity production for profit and a political system that would enhance that would dominate the world. Along the way there were many false starts, zig-zags, half-steps, failures, partial successes, and stunningly successful revolutions---varying from Cromwell to Napoleon to the development of modern medicine, internal combustion engine, plant hybridization to the U.S. Civil War to the cotton gin to the African-American slave trade to King Leopold's massive genocide against Africa to the U.S. Constitution, the French Revolution and so on. Along the way, there was no shortage of failures, and there was certainly an abundance of brutal killings, not just of soldiers, but of civilians by the millions. Marxism has been around for about 150 years. Its activist endeavors include support the abolition movement, the Paris Commune, development of the labor movement, Soviet Revolution, destruction of the Nazis, and the Chinese Revolution. The rest of Eastern Europe, Cuba, Vietnam remain problematic as to just how marxist they were, although there were some remarkable reforms. Vietnam was a classic national liberation struggle. Keep this in mind the next time you lament the proliferation of poor people and cots on the streets of Vietnamese cities: About 90% of the property in Vietnam currently is in private hands. Doesn't sound too much like communism to me. Why blame marxism for the cots on the street? In any case, why be surprised that the Marxist experiment, basically 80 years old, could not consolidate its gains? I would agree that it is one-sided to see the collapse as primarily the result of U.S. external pressure. Internal developments are the main issue. In the USSR, consider that from the start, even BEFORE Stalin's era, the Bolshevik party was making major concessions to capitalism. While it was much, much more egalitarian than the Western capitalist countries, there was, nevertheless, privilege for party members institutionalized into Soviet life from the beginning. Combine that with the struggle to industrialize, the conflict between short term fixes, material incentives, etc. versus longer run social incentives, and add into the mix that of the millions of Soviets who died in World War II, this probably included a disproportionate number of those with the most "communistic"--i.e. unselfish, anti-elitist outlooks---those who faced down Nazi tanks with home-made Molotive cocktails while others were safely far from the front---, and one should not be overly surprised that these first attempts at an egalitarian economic/political system was not consolidated. By the 1980's, there were thousands of millionaires in the USSR, while others still struggled in economically difficult circumstances. The working class people could not be motivated with the communist dream of "sacrifice now to build a better world for themselves and their children"---not with Brezhnev riding around in a Mercedes. And they couldn't be motivated by the tried and true (short run) motivating power of "here's an extra dollar if you work harder." One foot in communism--one foot in capitalism: capitalism won. A dispirited population just cast about to see who might cut them the best deal. The collapse of the communist party's hegemony was not because of a mass, popular uprising. The military stood with the pro-Yeltsin bunch, and the rising upper middle class saw a chance to enhance their wealth by breaking the monopoly power control of the communist party, and also by selling off the various state-owned enterprises to themselves. Interestingly, in Rumania, a major reason for the impoverishment was because the so-called "communist" regime was dutifully paying off the IMF for loans. Rumania had been a favorite of Nixon, despite a particularly brutal, corrupt, family-dominated regime. The uprising was probably more a classic uprising of the "masses" against imperialist caused poverty than it was an uprising for democracy. ======================= Someone wrote: "In the core, capitalism won?"????? One of the most useful things about world-systems analysis is that it looks to the interconnections among different parts of the world economy. You know, the Silk Road, and all that fascinating stuff. So when people point to, for example, the mass death in Cambodia/Kampuchea during the regime of Pol Pot, you would think that they MIGHT think to mention that the U.S. War against Vietnam may have played a role in destabilizing the region---perhaps forcing hundreds of thousands of people to the cities where mass starvation may have killed many more had they not migrated again to the countryside? Not to excuse the killings of any innocent people. No, not at all. But how about a sense of perspective. That forced migration (for better or worse) might well have been carried out by a capitalist government attempting to stave off mass starvation. (And by the way, with all this talk of War Crimes, viz. Bosnia, etc.--how soon people forget Vietnam, not just the well known massacres, but the tortures of prisoners, the chemical destruction of the forests, the napalming of civilians, the tossing of suspects out of helicopters, etc. Doesn't any of that go up on the "Capitalist" side of the balance sheet? The silence is deafening.) But back to the interconnections issue. Is it not just slightly possible that the prosperity of the US, Britain, France, Germany, Scandanvia, Canada, etc. has something to do with the impoverishment of the "periphery?" Maybe, perhaps, the CIA-led coup in Iran against a relatively popular liberal capitalist regime, in order to install the Shah, maybe that protected the extraordinarily profitable oil businesses in the U.S.? In other words, to the extent that the U.S. has been prosperous, how much of that is because of military enforced exploitation of other countries? Call this rhetoric if you like, but adress the evidence rather than dismissing it like a 1950's anti-communist high school teacher. And what of a hundred other places, from Venezuela to Victoria Falls? How can some people concerned with "World Systems" have such a narrow historical and geographic understanding of these processes? Why the deafening silence about economic devastation and truly fascist repression in places like Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, Peru, or the U.S.-France proxy wars in Central Africa that have recently killed perhaps a half-million. Even Taiwan, that "miracle"--it was admitted that the Taiwanese govenment slaughtered some 6,000 union organizers in the early 1950's---that'll get you the labor peace you need to help U.S. business prosper! And if the prosperity in the U.S. is based in large part on international profits, what happens when those profits shrink because of competition from Germany, Japan, and dare we imagine it....Brazil, Iran, China with its hundreds of millions of low paid workers? We will see more "Gulags" in the U.S. As I mentioned before, the standard of living of the median family in the U.S. has basically declined in the past 30 years, especially for the lowest 20%. Prison population has doubled in ten years. As those interested in political economy, RATES OF CHANGE should be considered pretty important markers. The Welfare Reform Bill will not only further impoverish millions, it will create a cheap labor pool that will drive down the wages of tens of millions more. This will produce rebellion and the state will respond with repression. The police really do run a police state now in many parts of many U.S. cities. Really. Raids on high schools, forced searches of hundreds of students. But the real question is which way the future seems to be going. Alarmist rhetoric devoid of substance does no one any good. But is it devoid of substance? Reasoned questioning of what happened in the USSR is very important. Reasoned questioning about which way the future of the post-Soviet world order is also important. A sense of perspective is essential. Alan Spector From athan.kokkinias@utoronto.ca Mon Jan 26 17:00:23 1998 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:26:39 -0500 To: wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk, WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK From: "Athanasios (Tom) Kokkinias" Subject: Re: Who needs to know what? In-Reply-To: <34CD6BBD.C90@wml.prestel.co.uk> At 12:08 AM 27/01/98 -0500, William Kirk wrote: >Dennis > >Some points to expand and clarify. >Certainly knowledge is complex, it might well be the third infinity. > (A. Einstein - There are two infinities, the universe and human >stupidity . . . ) >What is proposed is to show that there is some simplicity out there, or >at least make available to everyone instantly at the same time what is >now a 'secret' to a few people. Just now the extent of knowledge is >wondering who to vote for every once in a while. Nothing complicated >there, what I am suggesting is to extend this - knowing the quantitative >data of how people exchange goods and services. William, Right on! I read your whole post, and I agree. (By the way, did you take a breath while writing all this? :o)) In contributing a comment to your comments and suggestions (which I find are of urgent need today), I reference you to a small but important book which I studied a few years ago in university together with my quack professor (god bless his heart!) who to this day still maintains that in order to shift gears and get up to speed with your suggestions, there is needed a major U turn of world-view-change proportions...for the vast majority if not everybody....otherwise all that dirt under the capitalist carpet will eventually defy all the brooming and grooming we care to throw at it!! The book: (in view of what you are talking about you should DEFINITELY check this out) "Looking Forward: Participatory Economics For The Twentieth First Century" by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. South End Press, 1991. The book is damn interesting reading and starts with a quote form Joseph Heller's "Catch-22": "There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions....If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to....'That's some catch, that Catch-22,' Yossarian observed. 'It's the best there is,' Doc Daneeka agreed." Some Chapter titles from the book are in order: Work without hierarchy Participatory Workplaces Egalitarian Consumption Participatory Consumption Allocation without Hierarchy Participatory Allocation Workplace Decision Making Consumption Planning Allocation Decision Making The Information Society (Is that us?!...) The Prologue of the Book begins with the following subheadings: Capitalism Triumphant? Socialism Repudiated? Coordinatorism The Origins of Coordinatorism The Big Lie In very, very short, the authors (in keeping with the wider issues presently discussed on this list) dismiss (pretty much wholesale) both the current "new and improved" versions of centrist neo-liberal capitalism and of hard-line "socialisms" of the past half century as models of coordinatorism - a term applied to essentialy elucidate the reality of non-participation in the economics of a life of the average joe in either system....Participatory Economics is the solution of these authors and the results are strikingly similar to your views (as much as in process as in ethos) I would have suggested the book to the entire list as compulsory reading - esp. in view of the heat and "civility" apparent, but better I hold my breath.... ....yes, given the evolution of a technology that is increasingly being miniaturized to a level of .xx microns and in the billions of flip-flops on a sigle wafer, it begins to become conceivable that these blasted machines might afford us another way out of the current Crisis. However, no machine will Ever replace our own few pounds of "thiking" matter and it remains to be seen if we will ever get the chance to put these new technologies to work to do away with the currently bi-furcated and dismal future in store for all of us.... There is always (in all systems) a third alternative and precisely because of that fact, there follow precisely very many other alternatives that can be implemented...however, the old saying remains painfully true: "You can lead a horse (either the "capitalist" or "socialist" kind) to water but you can't make him drink"! Oh, well :o) If you get a chance to read it, let me know Kind regards, Tom From 70671.2032@compuserve.com Mon Jan 26 21:42:48 1998 by hil-img-4.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.10) id XAA06113 for wsn@csf.colorado.edu; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 23:42:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 23:38:32 -0500 From: james m blaut <70671.2032@compuserve.com> Subject: standard of living Sender: james m blaut <70671.2032@compuserve.com> To: world systems network -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: standard of living Date: 26-Jan-98 at 21:48 From: james m blaut, 70671,2032 TO: INTERNET:SKSANDERrove.iup.edu,INTERNET:SKSANDERrove.iup.edu Steve Sanderson: According to Cuban official statistics, the infant mortality rate in Cuba just before the revolution (1958) was 33 per thousand. In a recent speech Fidel Castro stated the infant mortality rate now is 7.4. You can check the UN Demographic Yearbook for confirmation; I haven't looked at it for some time but I recall that the infant mortality rate given there was very low. Check it out. Fidel also says that life expectancy at birth in Cuba now is 76. That's close to the US level and well above the level for non-whites in the US. Jim Blaut From asajh@UAA.ALASKA.EDU Tue Jan 27 03:57:01 1998 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 02:07:40 -0800 From: Andrew Hund Subject: Soviet collospe To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK s_sanderson wrote: >If the Soviet Union and other Soviet-style systems had made such great >accomplishments, then why did they collapse and give way to something >different? I suppose their defenders will claim that this was the result of >Western constraints. That may provide some of the answer, but not most. Their >internal deficiencies were glaring also. >>>>That's interesting -- how so -- The stagnation of the Brezhnev era , perhaps Gorbachev's Glasnost' policy? I sort of recall massive popular >reaction against the state socialist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989. >>>>> Since Ivan the Terrible very few leaders in Russia have got to retire. Many have been killed in coups. The exceptions to this in Soviet history are Khrushchev and Gorbachev -- they stepped aside which is the smart thing to do when the Russia people moblize. That >tells us what most members of these societies thought about their >accomplishments. >>>>Perhaps, it had nothing to do with the successes or failures of Soviet leadership. Andrew Hund http://cwolf.uaa.alaska.edu/~asajh/Soc/ From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Tue Jan 27 13:28:12 1998 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:27:54 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond Reply-To: Dennis R Redmond To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Who needs to know what? In-Reply-To: <34CD6BBD.C90@wml.prestel.co.uk> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, William Kirk wrote: > Added to that, I was told yesterday that the EU is now run by a council > of the 'unknown', the ERT I think they are called, and I have no idea > what that means. What happens if one member takes a bad turn or becomes a > 'visionary'? Or convinces himself he is right? Do you mean the European Commission? They're appointed by the elected national parliaments of the member states; there's also the European Parliament which, if I recall aright, has been slowly taking on a bigger role in the EU as of late. The EU has its problems, but it's a promising model of transnational democracy, debate and discussion compared to, say, the authoritarian, top-down neoliberal savagery engulfing the ex-American Empire. > Political reform is next to impossible. It may look that way in the Anglo-Saxon countries. I think the answer is to generate a new kind of politics, on the model of the Central European Green parties, where struggle outside of the existing political institutions is as important as votes and elections. > Added to this the EU hands out cash so who > cannot resist taking it? Anyone who shows displeasure, and the only way > to do that is take positive action, as in the Newbury by-pass and the > extension of Manchester Airport, to mention just two of many hundreds, > are 'listed' as 'enemies of the state'. Well, Britain is a dependent semi-periphery of the European Union, so it's not surprising to see Albion taking money where it can get it. But why not elect folks to the European Parliament who'll use that money to pay for schools and hospitals, and not asphalt and weapons systems? If capitalism wants to abolish the nation-state, and it appears to be in the process of doing so, then Left alternatives to Business As Usual must go beyond national utopias. For Brits, this means dumping Labour's Murdochian capitalism and building Green or other Left Parties; for Americans, dumping the Democrats, etc. Local activism is meaningless without global solidarity, and vice versa. -- Dennis From adkes@pipeline.com Tue Jan 27 21:42:55 1998 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:38:58 -0500 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: Adam Kessler Subject: Re: Cuba, democracy, socialism, and capitalism > >On January 26, R. K. Moore (RKM) wrote: > >I base my characterizations of Cuba on written reports and film >documentaries I've seen over the years from many sources, taking into >account the credibility track-record of the individual sources. > > You assert that Castro enjoys the overwhelming support of the Cuban people and I ask you how you know this. To which you reply that you read reports and saw documentaries. But my question is a little bit deeper than this: How can *anyone* make such a statement without describing the method by which they discovered this truth? Did the writers and film makers go into the countryside and talk to bus drivers? farm workers? Did they conduct scientific polls? Did they use their intuition? What *was* their method? RKM wrote: >The Western system, ideally, incorportes popular will via elections; the >Cuban system, ideally, incorporates popular will via ongoing feedback >channels. Both systems are theoretically workable frameworks for >democracy, and one must look at how they operate in practice to determine >whether they, in each case, result in a democratic or dictatorial regime. >But I ask again: what are these ongoing fedback channels? I think you would be doing everyone a favor if you thought this question through very carefully. After all, comes the revolution and you might be asked to construct such feedback channels yourself! So I ask again: What are these so-called "ongoing feedback channels" and how are they supposed to work? (Perhaps Castro travels throughout Cuba incognito and listens to conversations in barbershops?) You write: In Cuba, I claim based on empirical evidence, the regime has managed to stay in touch with popular sentiment, has responded to it, governs with the general support of the people, and has served them well. > > >Again, I believe there is no such empirical evidence and if there is you have not cited it. But I will cite one bit of contrary evidence: the absence of freedom to travel. I will take a page from your book and make a bald assertion: any regime which does not allow freedom to travel does not enjoy popular support and fears its own people. > > > From adkes@pipeline.com Tue Jan 27 21:44:44 1998 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:40:48 -0500 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: Adam Kessler Subject: Re: convoluted paranoid Marxist response At 08:05 AM 1/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >Dear Adam, > >I prefer to stay away from the tired academic debates on this issue, but >here goes anyway... While not defending the Soviets, you must remember >that the US poured huge sums of money into Germany and Japan after World >War II. Additionally, they both benefited from maintaining small >militaries and as serving a sub-contractors for the US in the Cold War. >Germany for NATO and Japan for Vietnam. Japan being even a more special >case in that it was encouraged to build the economic empire, a Japanese >co-prosperity sphere, that the US before the Cold War had actually gone >to war with Japan to prevent! Japan is especially instructful, for >while Germany had high per capita incomes before WW II, Japan's were >never really more than one-fourth those of the richest countries. In >other words their 80 years of industrialization beginning with Mejii >were somewhat effective, but never launched them into the first world >until the exigencies of the Cold War gave them the final push (my friend >Gunder may disagree with me on this. We'll see). I know this is all >rather structural, and I don't wish to completely deny the role of >agency here, but I do think these are important factors for >understanding the development of these post-WW II areas. > >The Soviets on the other hand, had a net drain on their system by having >to spend massively, in terms of their GNP, on their military. We can >argue if this was by choice or necessity. > >Bear in mind this isn't a defense of the Soviets, just some factors >which helped propel Germany and Japan's economies upward. Whatever your >thoughts on Wallerstein may be, his concept of "development by >invitation" has some relevance here. > >Best, > >Jeff Sommers > Jeff: Just a brief response. Why, for example is Japan prosperous? It's a long story, but I'll just make two statements about facts which do *not* explain Japanese propsperity. (1) Japan is *not* prosperous because it received foreign aid from the U.S some 40 years ago and (2) Japan is *not* prosperous because it is able to exploit Thailand or Indonesia. Although offering positive explanations of Japanese prosperity may be complicated, the first steps are easy: (1) Japan enjoys tremendous levels of thrift and therefore investment and thus was able to accumulate a large capital stock. (2) Japan has a highly educated and hard-working labor force. And that's about it! From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Tue Jan 27 22:11:10 1998 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:11:05 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: convoluted paranoid Marxist response In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980128044048.008b2e30@pop.pipeline.com> On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Adam Kessler wrote: > (1) Japan is *not* prosperous because it received > foreign aid from the U.S some 40 years ago and (2) Japan is *not* prosperous > because it is able to exploit Thailand or Indonesia. Although offering > positive explanations of Japanese prosperity may be complicated, the first > steps are easy: (1) Japan enjoys tremendous levels of thrift and therefore > investment and thus was able to accumulate a large capital stock. (2) Japan > has a highly educated and hard-working labor force. And that's about it! Oh, really? So what are Toyota, Mitsubishi, Honda, Sumitomo etc. etc. doing building plants up and down Indonesia, Thailand and elsewhere in SE Asia, working on their tans or something? They're making money on those investments -- big-time money. They pay their workers zip, and export to First World markets, just like European and American multinationals, and part of the surplus gets kicked back to that highly-educated Japanese workforce (the scientists, engineers, technicians, managers, marketers etc.) and most goes right back to the company in question. In return, Indonesia gets lots of toxic waste dumps, lousy fly-by-night jobs, a mountain of yen-denominated bonds which they can't possibly pay off, plus advice from the sado-monetarist thugs at the IMF to slash social spending on wages, health care and education, thus ensuring that Indonesia stays at the bottom of the world economic food-chain, an easy target for giant multinationals and global rentiers. No, Japan didn't get rich off of just Thailand, they got rich off the whole damn Third World -- just like we did, and continue to do. -- Dennis From jsommers@lynx.dac.neu.edu Wed Jan 28 07:25:51 1998 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 09:32:41 -0500 From: jeff sommers Reply-To: jsommers@lynx.dac.neu.edu To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: convoluted paranoid Marxist response Re: convoluted paranoid Marxist respons Dear Adam, You missed the point, but parrot the commond wisdom well. The historical evidence runs against Horatio Alger explanations for Japan's development. Japan had decades of industrialization before WW II, but was not able to equal the wealth of the richest countries (re-read post below). "High savings rates and highly educated workers" are NECESSARY but not SUFFICIENT conditions for a launch into the first world (ironically, the Wall Street set now argues that Japan's high savings are a contributing factor to their continuing recession). The US role in Japan’s post WW II development came primarily in the form of assisting the development of their economy through massive sub-contracting, and clearing the space for a Japanese co-prosperity sphere. It's no mistake that before WW II Japan realized its continued development was incumbent upon attaining this, and that it DID attain it and launch into the first world after the US allowed its creation. In other words, economic empire was the missing piece of the puzzle, which the exigencies of the Cold War provided to Japan. Did Japan take advantage of it through a highly planned development effort in what some have called "the only communist country that works"? Yes! Sincerely, Jeffrey Sommers Adam Kessler wrote: > > At 08:05 AM 1/24/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Dear Adam, > > > >I prefer to stay away from the tired academic debates on this issue, but > >here goes anyway... While not defending the Soviets, you must remember > >that the US poured huge sums of money into Germany and Japan after World > >War II. Additionally, they both benefited from maintaining small > >militaries and as serving a sub-contractors for the US in the Cold War. > >Germany for NATO and Japan for Vietnam. Japan being even a more special > >case in that it was encouraged to build the economic empire, a Japanese > >co-prosperity sphere, that the US before the Cold War had actually gone > >to war with Japan to prevent! Japan is especially instructful, for > >while Germany had high per capita incomes before WW II, Japan's were > >never really more than one-fourth those of the richest countries. In > >other words their 80 years of industrialization beginning with Mejii > >were somewhat effective, but never launched them into the first world > >until the exigencies of the Cold War gave them the final push (my friend > >Gunder may disagree with me on this. We'll see). I know this is all > >rather structural, and I don't wish to completely deny the role of > >agency here, but I do think these are important factors for > >understanding the development of these post-WW II areas. > > > >The Soviets on the other hand, had a net drain on their system by having > >to spend massively, in terms of their GNP, on their military. We can > >argue if this was by choice or necessity. > > > >Bear in mind this isn't a defense of the Soviets, just some factors > >which helped propel Germany and Japan's economies upward. Whatever your > >thoughts on Wallerstein may be, his concept of "development by > >invitation" has some relevance here. > > > >Best, > > > >Jeff Sommers > > > > Jeff: > > Just a brief response. Why, for example is Japan prosperous? It's a long > story, but I'll just make two statements about facts which do *not* explain > Japanese propsperity. (1) Japan is *not* prosperous because it received > foreign aid from the U.S some 40 years ago and (2) Japan is *not* prosperous > because it is able to exploit Thailand or Indonesia. Although offering > positive explanations of Japanese prosperity may be complicated, the first > steps are easy: (1) Japan enjoys tremendous levels of thrift and therefore > investment and thus was able to accumulate a large capital stock. (2) Japan > has a highly educated and hard-working labor force. And that's about it! From rkmoore@iol.ie Wed Jan 28 08:03:22 1998 Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:03:12 GMT Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:03:12 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: convoluted paranoid Marxist response & Japan 1/28/98, Dennis R Redmond wrote: >No, Japan didn't get rich off of just Thailand, they got rich off the >whole damn Third World -- just like we did, and continue to do. True enough. Perhaps we should also mention the important contributions of strict protectionism and heavy government paticipation in managing the economy. rkm From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Wed Jan 28 08:59:54 1998 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:59:39 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson Subject: Japan To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Almost everyone starts much too late in trying to explain Japan's unique development among non-Western countries. Japan had a transition from feudalism to capitalism similar to that of Europe, and with similar timing. By the time Japan came back into the world-system from its two centuries of isolation, it was already substantially developed. The twentieth century developmens built on the developments of the past several centuries. See S.K. Sanderson, "The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism: The Theoretical Significance of the Japanese Case," Fernand Braudel Center Review 17:15-55, 1994. Stephen Sanderson From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Wed Jan 28 09:05:27 1998 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:05:20 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson Subject: Japan To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Are people aware that Japan has probably the most egalitarian income distribution of all the industrialized countries? (This is in response to the claim that Japan pays its workers zip.) Also, Japan's two colonies, Korea and Taiwan (Formosa), are now the most industrially advanced countries of the Third World, if they still belong in that category (they probably don't). A lot of the development in South Korea and Taiwan is due to US aids and loans, but not all of it. As Bruce Cumings noted in his famous article of 1984 on the northeast Asian political economy, Japan had a lot to do with it. SS From thall@DEPAUW.EDU Wed Jan 28 12:40:04 1998 28 Jan 1998 14:39:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:39:57 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas D. [Tom] Hall, THALL@DEPAUW.EDU" Subject: New Pics for your Dart Board To: Network World-Systems WSNers, I'm busy rebuilding my web page for the new term [for us starts Mond 2/2]. I loaded a set of pics from social science history meeting last Oct, so if you want to take a look check out: http://www.depauw.edu/~thall/ssh97pic.htm or just look under Pics from the home page-- I have yet to get all my WSN pics together, so that link goes nowhere just now.... tom Thomas D. [tom] Hall thall@depauw.edu Department of Sociology DePauw University 100 Center Street Greencastle, IN 46135 765-658-4519 HOME PAGE: http://www.depauw.edu/~thall/hp1.htm From cemck@cs1.presby.edu Wed Jan 28 13:00:28 1998 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:00:12 -0500 (EST) From: Charles McKelvey To: Adam Kessler Subject: Cuba, democracy, socialism and capitalism In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980126010710.008adea0@pop.pipeline.com> On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Adam Kessler wrote: > >Fine, so an independent parliament does not constitute popular > participation in polcy making. Then what does? I really would like to hear > some sort of description of the process of popular participation. Of course > I suspect that Austin simply means that in an "historically objective sense" > the "Vanguard Party" represents (no, constitutes) the proletariat and the > proletariat *is* the people so decisions by the party are ipso facto popular > decisions. I have been to Cuba four times since 1993. Last summer, I was there for ten weeks, and my activities included in-depth interviews of university professors and leaders in the Popular Councils concerning the political process in Cuba. In addition, I talked to many different people that I met informally, sometimes through families with which I was connected and other times with people I met as I traveled about Havana by myself. I do not consider myself an expert on Cuba. I would describe myself as someone who is knowledgeable about Third World national liberation movements and is in the process of learning about the Cuban case. My general impression is that the revolutionary government enjoys a high degree of legitimacy among the people. Occasionally, I came across someone who was alienated from the system. There disaffection was not rooted in the political system but in the economic hardships that have emerged during the "special period." The great majority seemed to support the system and seemed very well informed about the structures of the world economy and the challenges that Cuba faces. Many defended the system with great enthusiasm and strong conviction. I had expected none of this prior to my first trip, recalling my visit to Tanzania in 1982, by which time many had come to view "ujamaa socialism" as a faded dream, at least according to my impressions during my brief visit. But to my surprise, I found much support for the revolutionary project in Cuba. I could not help but contrast this to the United States, where there is widespread cynicism in regard to political and other institutions. The Cuban political system is based on a foundation of local elections. Each urban neighborhood and rural village and area is organized into a "circumscription," consisting generally of 1000 to 1500 voters. The circumscription meets regularly to discuss neighborhood or village problems. Each three years, the circumscription conducts elections, in which from two to eight candidates compete. The nominees are not nominated by the Communist Party or any other organizations. The nominations are made by anyone in attendance at the meetings, which generally have a participation rate of 85% to 95%. Those nominated are candidates for office without party affiliation. They do not conduct campaigns as such. A one page biography of all the candidates is widely-distributed. The nominees are generally known by the voters, since the circumscription is generally not larger than 1500 voters. If no candidate receives 50% of the votes, a run-off election is held. Those elected serve as delegates to the Popular Councils, which are intermediary structures between the circumscription and the Municipal Assembly. Those elected also serve simultaneously as delegates to the Municipal Assembly. The delegates serve in the Popular Councils and the Municipal Assemblies on a voluntary basis without pay, above and beyond their regular employment. The Municipal Assemblies elect the chief executives of the Municipality, who have supervision over the various ministries, such as health and education, within the Municipality. The Municipal Assemblies also elect an electoral commission, which develops a slate of candidates for the Provincial Assembly for ratification by the voters in the province. The Provincial Assemblies have responsibilities in the Province which parallel those of the Municipal Assembly in the Municipality, including electing an electoral commission which develops a slate of candidates for the National Assembly for ratification by the voters in the nation. The National Assembly is the legislative branch, and as such it makes the laws. It also elects the President of the Council of State, who appoints a cabinet and makes a government. The President of the Council of State is Fidel Castro, a position to which he has been re-elected since, I believe, 1975, when the Constitution was established. The role of the Communist Party in the political process is very different from what I had previously thought. The Cuban Communist Party is not an electoral party. It does not nominate or support candidates for office. Nor does it make laws or select the head of state. These roles are played by the national assembly, which is elected by the people, and for which membership in the Communist Party is not required. Most members of the national, provincial, and municipal assemblies are members of the Communist Party, but many are not, and those delegates and deputies who are party members are not selected by the party but by the people in the electoral process. The party is not open to anyone to join. About fifteen percent of adults are party members. Members are selected by the party in a thorough process that includes interviews with co-workers and neighbors. Those selected are considered model citizens. They are selected because they are viewed as strong supporters of the revolution; as hard and productive workers; as people who are well-liked and respected by their co-workers and neighbors; as people who have taken leadership roles in the various mass organizations of women, students, workers, and farmers; as people who take seriously their responsibilities as spouses and parents and family members; and as people who have "moral" lives, such as avoiding excessive use of alcohol or extramarital relations that are considered scandalous. The party is viewed as the vanguard of the revolution. It makes recommendations concerning the future development of the revolution, and it criticizes tendencies it considers counterrevolutionary. It has enormous influence in Cuba, but its authority is moral, not legal. The party does not make laws or elect the president. These tasks are carried out by the National Assembly, which is elected by the people. Prior traveling to Cuba, I had heard that the Cuban Communist Party is the only political party and that in national elections the voters are simply presented with a slate of candidates, rather than two or more candidates and/or political parties from which to choose. These two observations are correct. But taken by themselves, they given a very misleading impression. They imply that the Cuban Communist Party develops the slate, which in fact it does not do. Since the slate makers are named by those who are elected, the ratification of the slate by the voters is simply the final step in a process that begins with the voters. The reason given for using a slate rather than presenting voters with a choice at this stage was that the development of the slate ensures that all sectors (such as women, workers, farmers, students, representative of important social service agencies in the jurisdiction, etc.) are represented. As I indicated, Cubans tend to enthusiastically defend their system. They point out that the elected members of the assemblies are not professional politicians who must rely on fund-raising to be elected, as occurs in the United States. Moreover, it avoids excessive conflict among political parties, at the expense of the common good. As my good friend Professor Guzman observed, "it is a system which avoids the absurdities and distortions of bourgeois democracy." They seem to believe in it. I think it makes sense. I also think that the political system in the United States is experiencing a legitimation crisis, so I am not inclined to recommend it to Cubans. It seems to me that they have developed a system carefully designed to ensure that wealthy individuals do not have greater voice than working class individuals, and therefore it is a system that is more advanced in protecting the political rights of citizens. Although I have not had the experience, I suppose it would be possible to encounter a Cuban who feels alienated and who might say, "The Communist Party controls everything." This is true, because a majority of those elected are members of the Communist Party, and the higher up you go, the more likely it is to be so. Nevertheless, the selection of leadership is based on local elections. The Communist Party occupies a position of authority in the political institutions because the people support it. Our hypothetical alienated person is really expressing a frustration over the widespread support of the people for the Communist Party. The mechanism for the removal of members of the Communist Party from positions of authority in the government is in place, should that desire be the popular sentiment. It is ironic that while many in the West assume that Cuba is less protective of political rights, in fact they are developing a system that is deliberately designed to ensure that the right of the people to vote does not become manipulated in a process controlled by the wealthy, and it therefore is more protective of political rights. Many in the West make the same kind of false assumption in regard to the issue of freedom of the press. Take the case of newspapers. Many in the West think that the state controls the newspapers. In fact, the state prohibits the private ownership of newspapers. The various newspapers are operated by the various organizations: the Communist Party, the federations of workers associations, the federation of farmers associations, the federation of student associations, etc. In the United States, the newspapers are owned by corporations. In Cuba, those with financial resources to do so are not allowed to form a newspaper. This is a restriction on the right of property ownership, a restriction imposed for the common good, in particular to ensure that the people have a voice and that the wealthy do not have a voice disproportionate to their numbers. By prohibiting private ownership of newspapers, the system ensures that the various newspapers will be under the control of the various mass organizations. So it is a system which pushes the principle of freedom of the press to a more advanced level than what occurs in capitalism, ensuring that all exercise this right equally and avoiding a situation where the wealthy exercise freedom of the press but the workers and farmers possess it only as an abstract right. So the Cuban revolutionary project has many gains, not only in the area of social and economic rights, but also in the area of political and civil rights. Because of these achievements, the system enjoys wide popular support, in spite of the hardships caused by U.S. opposition and by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Drawing upon the institutions that they have developed over the last forty years, they are responding to the present challenges and are surviving in a post-Cold War world. The strength and vitality of these institutions is worthy of our investigation, for Cuba may represent an important case as we seek to understand how peripheral and semi-peripheral states can overcome the legacy of underdevelopment. For those of us on the Left, Cuba's achievements represent the fullest attainment of our hopes. The Cuban revolutionary project is deserving of our active and engaged support. Charles McKelvey Professor of Sociology Presbyterian College Clinton, South Carolina From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Wed Jan 28 14:13:32 1998 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:12:56 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Charles McKelvey Subject: Re: Cuba, democracy, socialism and capitalism In-Reply-To: Charles, Thanks for a very thoughtful post. I have been reading Mary-Alice Water's "Defending Cuba, defending Cuba's socialist revolution," in New International 10 (1994) and she corroborates the claims you made in your post. I have been terribly busy and haven't had a chance to refute the false claims made by people on this channel, but your post takes care of my having to find the time to do that. Richard Moore's arguments are on target, as well. Again, thanks. In keeping with your post, Charles, there is this NEWS from Cuba Cuban News from Havana/Cuban Interests Section January 19, 1998/No. 152: "Havana - Cuban Foreign Minister Roberto Robaina described Sunday's General Elections in Cuba as unequivocal proof of the Cuban people's unity and support of the Revolution. peaking with the national and international journalists in Havana, the Cuban official pointed to the fact that 98 percent of eligible voters turned out and that 94.34 percent of the ballots cast were for the full slate of 601 candidates of deputies to the nation's parliament and 1192 delegates to provincial governments. Another message resulting from the polling, Robaina said, was that both Cuban President Fidel Castro and Vice President Raul Castro were re-elected with more than 99 percent of the votes." If people want to read alternative (and more objective) points of view on Cuba, in contrast to the sort of stuff we are getting here from the opponents of socialism, see Cuba Solidarity Web Site http://www.igc.apc.org/cubasoli/newscuba.html Peace, Andy From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Wed Jan 28 16:29:19 1998 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:29:15 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Japan In-Reply-To: <01ISWP3MKWUW8WWY11@grove.iup.edu> On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, s_sanderson wrote: > Are people aware that Japan has probably the most egalitarian income > distribution of all the industrialized countries? (This is in response to the > claim that Japan pays its workers zip.) Actually, I said that Japanese multinationals pay their Indonesian and Thai workers zip -- a bit hyberbolic, of course, since Mitsubishi et. al. tend to invest long-term and pay better wages than most local businesses anyway; this is certainly more civilized than the Americans, who generally invest in other people's credit markets, and not production per se. But the Japanese model is still problematic to the extent that the surpluses from overseas production flow back into the Japanese keiretsu; you get an overaccumulation of industrial facilities and a lack of effective consumer demand (Americans can't buy all of the world's exports anymore). Another way of saying the same thing is that most of the SE Asian countries run big trade deficits vis-a-vis Japan, i.e. import high-tech production equipment and can't sell enough medium to low-tech goods to balance their books (which created, in turn, the preconditions for the speculative influx of cheap foreign credit which led to the bubble of the Nineties which led to the current credit collapse etc. etc. etc.). To make a long story short, this is why I think Japan needs to follow the German strategy, and create an EU-style system of redistribution, low-cost loans and other forms of capital recycling for the Asian semi-periphery and periphery. Economically this is doable, because of Japan's $4.3 trillion economy and humongous foreign exchange reserves; it's just a question of the political implementation. > Also, Japan's two colonies, Korea and Taiwan (Formosa), are now the most > industrially advanced countries of the Third World, if they still belong in > that category (they probably don't). Maybe semi-periphery is a more descriptive term -- something supported by the OECD's stats, which put the per capita GDP of Japan, S Korea and Taiwan at $32,000, $11,000 and $12,000 respectively. This would make the tigers the Second World of the Pacific Rim economy. -- Dennis From GSchoen255@aol.com Wed Jan 28 19:41:08 1998 From: GSchoen255 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:34:52 EST To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: sub In a message dated 98-01-28 18:33:42 EST,writes: << wsn@csf.colorado.edu >> How can I unsubscribe to this mailing list. WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK From rkmoore@iol.ie Thu Jan 29 00:22:10 1998 Thu, 29 Jan 1998 07:21:52 GMT Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 07:21:52 GMT To: activ-l , wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Prince Edward Island vs MAI: the revolution begins! CONNIE FOGAL Elites act, revolutionaries plan, and events take control in unpredictable ways. Marx expected revolution in the most industrialized countries; it came elsewhere. Lenin schemed away in Switzerland and almost missed his main event. Vietnam came along, and a New Left spontaneously arose. And so on. Would you have expected Prince Edward Island to launch globalism's counter-revolution - to issue the "shot heard 'round the world"? There may be earlier candidates for "first shot", but this one has all the makings of a strong contender. It raises a pike against the very center of globalism's advancing forces - challenging frontally the usurpation of national sovereignty and particularly the elevation of capital itself to supra-sovereign status. The MAI is the very bullseye on the standard at the point of the globalist advance. France took a rebel stance, but on secondary issues, and is being adroitly coaxed back into line. Cuba's stance is sufficiently radical, but domination of the Third World has been perfected by five centuries of imperialist evolution. Norway took a stand against the EU partly on grounds of sovereignty, but has not made the necessary generalization to globalization. Counter-systemic consciousness is coalescing in much of the First World, but it has nowhere else reached expression at provincial level as concrete and official government policy. One is reminded of the assemblies in the American Colonies, when they began to draft resolutions challenging the power of King George. As in PEI, the rebels were not in the streets but in the halls of government. Each referred to a legitimacy higher than that of their would-be oppressor: PEI to Canada's constitution, and the Founding Fathers to the inalienable rights of man. Some colonies were in the vanguard, and needed to bring the others around to the cause; PEI has a similar task before itself within Candada, as (hopefully) will Candada within the West. But the right example in the face of today's global political volatility can be like a match in dry grass - that which seemed reasonably tranquil can turn rapidly into unstoppable furor. The American colonies had one particular advantage: they controlled their own press and Royal propaganda efforts were ineffective. I don't know how the Candadian press will treat the PEI initiative, but certainly in most of the West it will be at first not covered, then downplayed, and finally demonized. For the example to achieve its potential global effect, it must be perceived widely and with appropriate emphasis, and the crows of globalism must not be permitted to defuse the situation. It is up to aware activists and leaders and writers to CREATE this event as a focal point for solidarity, to USE it as a rallying cry, to make their SUPPORT known to Canada, to ENERGIZE their various endeavors from the font of solidarity, to PRESS the counter offensive, to EXPAND the scope of consciousness and action, and to TURN elite reaction into MOTIVATION - to GO with the flow and REINFORCE the flow. The moment must be seized, all opportunities are precious, and the window for action is closing fast. But the very possibility of real successes creates a profound crisis: there must arise quickly a global strategy and vision, a positive direction for radical change. A purely defensive response cannot prevail, and is not a counter-revolution: the globalist organizing paradigm can only be defeated by a superior organizing paradigm. Hannibal out-fought the Romans for thirty years, but in defense of a status quo that could not be restored, and he had to lose in the end. There is an urgent need for both tactical aggressiveness and strategic vision. Make the moment. -rkm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 From: CAP *Erie-Lincoln* Reply-To: Constitutional-Money@pobox.com Organization: Canadian ACT!ON Coalition News To: MAI-SUX@BigFoot.Com Subject: Gov't of PEI (Canada) MAI (Oppostion Resolution) An astute publisher once defined news as anything somebody didn't want printed. Everything else, he maintained, was advertising. Therefore, the following is NEWS: by way of Bob Olsen/Toronto W. J. Schleich CAP *Erie-Lincoln* CAPel@BigFoot.Com -------------------------------------------------------------------- THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Prince Edward Island (Canada) insist that the Government of Canada impose a moratorium on ratification of the MAI until full public hearings on the proposed treaty are held in Prince Edward Island and across the country, so that all Islanders and Canadians may have an opportunity to express their opinions about it. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Hold MAI! --PEI Canada From: "Dale Wharton" <1@dale.CAM.ORG> Date: 22 Jan 1998 22:15:57 GMT Passed by the Prince Edward Island Legislature December 18, 1997, Resolution No. 47--on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment: WHEREAS the Government of Canada has been involved in negotiating, through the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, an international Economic treaty called the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI); AND WHEREAS these negotiations have been conducted behind closed doors, and that most politicians and ordinary citizens know little or nothing about the MAI or its implications; AND WHEREAS the most recent draft of the MAI indicates the prime objective of the agreement is to allow the movement of money across international borders by imposing a new set of rules restricting countries from using legislation, policies, and programs seen as impediments to the free flow of capital; AND WHEREAS the most recent draft of the MAI indicates that if adopted, transnational corporations would have the status of nation states with certain political rights; AND WHEREAS the most recent draft of the MAI indicates that if adopted, foreign fishing fleets could have full access to our waters; AND WHEREAS the most recent draft of the MAI if adopted, laws restricting the foreign ownership of land on Prince Edward Island could eventually be struck down and challenged under the MAI; AND WHEREAS the most recent draft of the MAI indicates that if adopted, it would have a major impact on many important areas of Island and Canadian life, including environmental protection, employment, wage levels, social progams, and culture; AND WHEREAS little information on the MAI has been provided by any public body, and little public discussion about the treaty has yet taken place; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Prince Edward Island insist that the Government of Canada impose a moratorium on ratification of the MAI until full public hearings on the proposed treaty are held in Prince Edward Island and across the country, so that all Islanders and Canadians may have an opportunity to express their opinions about it. .......................... http://www.gov.pe.ca/leg/hansard/1997fall/16dec/han40.asp#0 Bob Olsen Toronto bobolsen@arcos.org (:-) -------------------------------------------------------------------- For MAI-not subscription information, posting guidelines and links to other MAI sites please see http://mai.flora.org/ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 From: jslakov@TartanNET.ns.ca (Jan Slakov) Subject: misc. comments [& More on MAI rebellion] There are many people here in Canada working to fight the MAI. There are signs that the corporate interests behind the MAI are thinking it might be best to give in somewhat on this one but to get what they want with a series of smaller, harder to fight agreements. meanwhile, I hope all the good effort going into building anti-MAI coalitions can still be of use once the MAI is no longer a headline grabber. I think your efforts could be a good forum for that... If you have time, I thought you might be interested to see that a legal challenge against the MAI is being mounted. (I will copy a posting on this below.) There is also an effort, spearheaded by the leader of the Canadian Green Party, Joan Russow, to declare the MAI illegal because it overrides many UN treaties to which countries are signatories. (I could find that posting and send it along if you would like.) All the best, Jan Slakov --- Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 To: cfogal@netcom.ca From: CONNIE FOGAL DEFENSE OF CANADIAN LIBERTY COMMITTEE C/0 CONSTANCE FOGAL LAW OFFICE, #401 -207 West Hastings St., Vancouver, B.C. V6B1H7 Tel: (604)687-0588; fax (604) 688-0550; CELLULAR: 202 7334; E-MAIL cfogal@netcom.ca "The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled." Supreme Court of Canada A.G. of Nova Scotia and A.G. of Canada, S.C.R. 1951 pp 32-33. ====================================================================== WHAT YOU CAN DO TO STOP THE MAI The Defense of Canadian Liberty Committee is organizing a legal challenge to prevent Canada from entering the Multilateral Agreement on Investments, the M.A.I..Your financial contribution is needed now to make this challenge happen. Legal work is ongoing and needs to be funded to prepare the foundation documents and to carry the battle through the Courts. This is new ground in law as the New World Order seeks to replace centuries of democratic legal development with its own body of laws in the interest of "The Evil Empire". Not only is the survival of Canada at stake, but so is the well being of citizens of the world. If you do not want a country or a world where only the managers of industry and money and their shareholders get the lion's share of the world's wealth and where the rest get little, if anything, join us as we use our law to try to close the door on "Globalization's Darker Side". Some of our grounds: Under our Constitution- the Division of Powers, Section 96 authority of Superior Court Judges, and the Delegation of Sovereign Powers; Under our Charter of Rights and Freedom, s. 7(the right to liberty and the right not to be deprived thereof) and S.15 (equality before and under the law). We can do something. One step at a time. Let's take back our rights. VIVE LE CANADA LIBRE! ===================================== Send your cheque made payable to The Defense Of Liberty Fund, c/o #401-207 West Hastings St., Vancouver, B.C., V6B1H7. Join us by sending your name, address, telephone number, fax number, E-mail number to The Defense Of Canadian Liberty Committee (see address and numbers above). ====================================== signature: Jan Slakov, CP 35, Weymouth, NS, B0W 3T0 (902) 837-4980 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Dear Jan, Thank for your message. I didn't know of John Ralston Saul, but I'm glad you introduced me via the forward. You might pass on my address: PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland rkm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore - rkmoore@iol.ie - PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal (USA Citizen) * Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig * ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ To join cyberjournal, simply send: To: listserv@cpsr.org Subject: (ignored) --- sub cyberjournal John Q. Doe <-- your name there From rkmoore@iol.ie Thu Jan 29 00:22:11 1998 Thu, 29 Jan 1998 07:22:03 GMT Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 07:22:03 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: Cuban democracy 1/28/98, Charles McKelvey wrote: > For those of us on the Left, Cuba's achievements represent the >fullest attainment of our hopes. The Cuban revolutionary project is >deserving of our active and engaged support. Thank you Charles for a most eloquent and informative testimonial. Not just a breath of fresh air, but a revivifyng torrent of empircal delights. I hope you don't mind your report being more widely distributed, as I know of several venues that will find it useful. I'm embarrassed by how little I knew of the Cuban system, but then I'm far from alone on this list in that regard. In my longer post of today, I make a case that Canada is in the tactical vanguard of anti-systemic conciousness; perhaps Cuba points the way to a strategic vision. -rkm From kpmoseley@juno.com Thu Jan 29 00:41:52 1998 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: "A.Y. Kamara" : Watch Out: Globalisation is Re-drawing Africa's Borders X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-241 From: kpmoseley@juno.com (Katharine P Moseley) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 02:41:16 EST --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- From: "A.Y. Kamara" To: LEONENET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Subject: Watch Out: Globalisation is Re-drawing Africa's Borders Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:47:54 +0100 Watch Out: Globalisation is Re-drawing Africa's Borders January 27, 1998 Felix 'Machi Njoku, PANA Correspondent DAKAR, Senegal (PANA) - In 1885, European powers assembled in the German city of Berlin to carve out chunks of African territories for themselves. As this century turns the corner, a repeat has been set in motion though not in the manner of another daggers-drawn scramble for a continent some prefer to call the last frontier. This time, there are no gun powder and rum, no bibles and preachers. In short, in the place of a civilising agent, you have a vague phenomenon called globalisation , let loose on poor countries even as its minders try to get a true picture of the monster they created. The Leviathan seems to have seized the global village and taken its inhabitants hostage. Henceforth, the law of the jungle reigns supreme and only the strong can escape from its clutches. The world has learnt as much following ongoing turbulence in the world Economy. This has so rattled the famed Asian Tigers of late that African countries who were told to copy the Asiatics have almost given up. The brief artificial Afro-Optimism of the last couple of years is again giving way to darker pessimism, most manifest in speeches made by some African leaders at the beginning of the year. For instance, in early January, Ghanaian President Jerry Rawlings predicted a tough economic year for his country, exhorting his people to work extra-hard to counter external forces which threaten the country's development. We cannot yet be sure of the extent to which this (gobalisation) will affect the inflow of foreign investment into our economy, or the degree to which the negative aspects of an increasingly troubled world economy will impact on us, he said. Never mind that the west African country is host to one of the world's largest gold reserves or that Ashanti Goldfields Company is quoted on the London and New York stock markets. Besides, Accra has implemented all the economic and democratic reforms in the books that made it the darling of the multilateral finance institutions. Beyond and above this, serious development economists are not sure if any African country will go into the next millennium with the slightest hope of a bright prospect for the future. The political, economic and social instability in almost all African countries south of the Sahara at this point in time seems to support this theory. If recent pictures of street battles between soldiers and ordinary folk in Zimbabwe over the price on basic commodities do not tell the story, then what would? Is it the sorry sight of kid-soldiers in bathroom slippers totting AK-47 rifles in central Africa or the gory sight of slit throats in the back streets of Algiers. In today's Africa, it appears acceptable that any thug can mortgage his country's meagre resources for arms and use them to dislodge an elected government from power in the name of the free market. The prospects are frightening and at the same time incomprehensible, says Achille Mbembe, Executive Secretary of the Dakar-based Council for the Development of Social Science Research. How are we to characterise these African times we are living in? Mbembe asked in a lecture on New Economic Frontiers in Africa he gave at the UN African Institute For Economic Development and Planning, also based in the Senegalese capital. The continent is moving in multiple directions simultaneously and at varying speeds and levels that defy characterisation, noted Mbembe, a Cameroonian history professor. He said the colonial period was easy to characterise since everyone knew what the problem was. After that period, things began to look bad. They became murky in the 1980s and even murkier in the 1990s, as the twin effects of political democratisation and economic liberalisation began to bite harder. Now it is a dare devil situation. The conditions imposed on African countries today are more or less similar to conditions imposed on Germany and Japan after World War II, Mbembe said. Given this scenario one begins to wonder if liberalisation was not supposed to open up the economy, spread wealth across the broad spectrum of society. Was it not supposed to improve the peoples standard of living in an all inclusive political process where the people themselves decided who should rule them?. These have hardly been the case. Privatisation has become a synonym for corporate greed, while elections are easily programmed to determine the winner. At the same time, aid promised to countries implementing political and economic liberalisation have failed to materialise. Debts are not being cancelled even in cases where it is obvious that the debtor countries can't pay up. Foreign Private investment, the prime mover of globalisation continues to skip Africa as if parts of the continent were leprous. Where they show up, it is to hastily dip up underground minerals which are spirited away to the metropolis leaving the countries much worse than they were before. The Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, had cause to question the morality of rich countries on some of these issues during a recent visit to Ethiopia, when he reportedly urged Western nations and the multilateral finance institutions to cancel Africa's 235 billion dollars debt. In an emotional speech entitled Chains Around Africa: Crisis or Hope for the New Millennium , he told the diplomatic community in Addis Ababa last week the debt burden could only be likened to a new form of slavery. Western nations, he said, had the moral obligation to solve this crisis induced by the huge debt because of their colonial legacy which create many problems that did not previously exist. He noted that 40 million dollars were being drained from African everyday in debt servicing alone, pointing out that for every one dollar given in aid, three dollars are returned in debt service. The extent to which the chains of indebtedness was contributing to the overall problems of Africa and the sufferings of her people simply cannot be overestimated, he added. Analysts are not sure if such calls really make any impact, considering that Pope John Paul II made a similar call some years back. Morality and economics do not rob, they argue. Rather, what seems to scare the movers of the free market, especially the Bretton Woods circles, is the global impact of resistance against adjustment measures as was the case recently in Zimbabwe. Some people feel that fear of this imminent time bomb prompted the reform-minded president of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, to initiate his rather belated damage control operation for a humane approach to development. At the last annual general meeting of the bank and the IMF in Hong Kong, Wolfensohn acknowledged the bank's past mistakes, saying the time has come to get back to the dream of inclusive development. What we are seeing in the world today is the tragedy of exclusion. Whether you broach it from the social or economic or moral perspective, this is a challenge we cannot afford to ignore, he said. But we must recognise that we are living with a time bomb and unless we take action now, it could explode in our children's faces. Michel Camdesus, the IMF chief, also spoke about the responsibility of industrial countries to help minimise the social and cultural costs of integration into the global economy. However, for African countries, these amount to mere lip service when compared to the profound crises that would take years of concerted action to reverse. The issue is that many African economies have been so hard hit that some of them would simply be swallowed up by more fortunate neighbours. The economic frontiers of some states will encroach into smaller neighbours which would continue shrink, Mbembe noted in his lecture. He added: The entanglement of Africa is likely to lead to the fragmentation of public authority and the emergence of private indirect government. Then, the bottom line is that many African countries would revert to the post-Atlantic slave trade era where trade by barter would replace monetised economy. Even so, Mbembe believes that Africans are resilient enough to turn into themselves and like the mythical Phoenix, rise again from their ashes. But wait a minute: There may yet be other eminent companions in the journey to oblivion if American writer William Greider's new book on globalistion is to believed. He says: One world, ready or not, globalisation is a machine with skillful hands on board but no body at the wheels. In fact, the machine has no wheels nor any internal governor to control the wheel and direction. It is sustained by its own forward motion, guided mainly by its own appetite. And it is accelerating. --------- End forwarded message ---------- _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From chriscd@jhu.edu Thu Jan 29 11:39:18 1998 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:29:49 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: new front page for the Journal of World-Systems Research To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu JWSR has a handsome new front page thanks to help from Todd Allen. Have a looksee at http://csf.colorado.edu/wsystems/jwsr.html chris From gmd304@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Thu Jan 29 14:29:12 1998 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:32:01 -0600 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: "Georgi M. Derluguian" Subject: Cuban pride I have never been to Cuba, but some twenty years ago I shared the dorm with lots of "cubics" and then in Africa nearly got a Cuban medal (Fraternidad Combativa) posthumously. I can corroborate many of the observations regarding Cuban economic and political situation -- yes, Castro is a much more legitimate ruler than Honneker or Brezhnev. He has support in the population, although I'd be cautious describing it as "widespread". This support had sound roots in the massive Soviet aid, and in the valliant anti-American stance. The question, however, is, what does this have to do with socialism? How can you distinguish this program from nationalism? Georgi Derluguian Georgiď M. Derluguian Department of Sociology Northwestern University 1812 Chicago Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60208-1330 USA FAX (1-847) 491-9907 tel. (1-847) 491-2741 (rabota) From wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Thu Jan 29 16:22:32 1998 by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:09:46 -0800 From: William Kirk To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Who needs to know what? Tom wrote > In contributing a comment to your comments and suggestions (which I >find are of urgent need today), I reference you to a small but important >book which I studied a few years ago in university . . .I have made a note of it, I have read Catch 22. When it comes to books I generally buy second hand, and those that are new strangely enough are published in the US, and bought direct. As I say I am paranoid, I can recall the time when I asked the bank manager for a dollar cheque, and this would be 1977, to purchase Herman Daly - Steady State Economics. Once I had outlined what I thought the book might be about the manager nodded, after giving it some thought, decided that on this occasion it would be alright. Reference is made in the book to the works of Frederick Soddy, and in 1986 I read a review of the complete works of the aforementioned, in which it stated that after being given the Nobel prize for the discovery of isotopes, he took up the challenge of economics, and from a position of considerable fame he achieved instant obscurity. When I tried to get the book, which then was about Ł48, there was a 'problem'. Now here's a book you haven't read, 'I Believed', by Douglas Hyde. He was the sub editor of the Daily Worker before, during, and after World War II. He retired in 1948 or thereabouts and wrote his 'confession'. Much of this centres on the period before Mr. H. made the fatal mistake of hitting uncle Joe. Up until then there was some sort of pact, and this resulted in the instructions coming from uncle to the lads over here to 'go slow' with manufacture and distribution of goods and services. This worked out wonderfully well, as Hyde outlines, but as soon as the pact ended, the message was 'go fast'. When this was revealed to the public it more or less finished the Communist Party in the UK. Anyway, I was told about this, plus that I'd never find a copy of the book. When it was published Communists bought copies, then destroyed them. Similarly, books in libraries were taken out and destroyed, but fines or whatever were of course paid. I wonder at times. . . The left do not have a monopoly here, maybe I am going too far but I often think if there are radical works then as long as they are systemic that's OK. Another aspect of this is what I believe to be a central theme of the Work Systems Project is the concept of what I interpret to be 'heuristic synthesis'. That is, once the history has been read, digested, and coupled with personal experience, it leads to each of us to solve the problem. It is therefore no coincidence that many if not all will come up with something very similar. If the solution is anti-systemic then I wonder here too, will it ever be published? I mentioned before a work by Norbert Wiener, an outright attack on big business and multicorp, that remained unpublished until after his death. Is 'Looking Forward' available in libraries? How many copies were published? Is there a second printing? What are the published reviews? I also note from another list on the same server of deletions to the archived file, of material that is important to current events in the far east. Makes you wonder, but then I would. . . >You can lead a horse (either the "capitalist" or "socialist" kind) to >water but you can't make him drink.I agree, this is the uphill struggle, and even then I seem to wonder if anyone is really interested in the actual work. Another point, where are Albert and Hahnel now? A few years ago I watched a Disney cartoon on TV that was made round about 1943, screen time was near an hour and was made specifically for the military, to get over to them one single point. Hit the core, forget the periphery. This concept, simple as it sounds, was the idea of a Russian, I am not sure if he was seconded or what, that is all I can remember now. The idea being to make direct hits on Japan, and not to bother with the action in the Pacific. This all sounds too obvious after the event, and how was it the point had to be made by using an hour long cartoon? It is easy to understand the day to day problems, and the need to defend etc., but someone must have thought it necessary to ensure the point was driven home. Was it simply to get the undivided attention of the military for an hour? To concentrate their minds on one single matter? An hour long cartoon is not cheap. Having so many points, and no immediate need to do anything, it is almost as if the horse cannot be led to the water. . . >The Information Society (Is that us?!...)I'd like to think of the quantitative information society. There is a considerable literature dealing with the concentration of wealth, distribution, minimum and existence wage levels, comparative standard of living, money supply and other datas, along with analysis, conclusions and predictions. All too often I agree with what I see, and wonder why the knowledge isn't making things generally better, or creating what is called the 'feel good factor'. However, the whole picture is impersonal and remote. Because I, like everyone else, look on, in the same way that I can sit and enjoy a programme on the TV about global warming while at the same time imagine it belongs to the remote community and shovel the coal onto the fire without a thought. If I go to the other extreme where effect follows cause more or less instantly then I think I'd behave more rationally. Thus, if I am remote then it makes sense to reduce the size of the economic community to the point where my actions are going to show up and where there is more rapid feedback. I'd say that now the beginnings of the electronic age are here, with fast computers, producing a week by week statement of the economy is entirely possible. It is done already. The only fact is, we are not allowed to see what is our own collective data. It is largely a state secret. Also, the data is not being produced as an aid to guessing what it will be the following week or year, a fact that many people imagine is the purpose. Beyond the simplest description the system encroaches, if this is for individuals them it is up to them to figure out what they read into the data. There is al analogy here with the creation of SONAR, the technical system was simply a device to direct sound under water and then listen for the echo. The tool supplied by the developers worked if an echo was detected. That was all there was to it. I'd like to think the fun hadn't been taken out it. In another world, alright, I'll say it, Utopia, instead of the government giving us the Lottery they would have given us back our economic data, all with the fun and glitter of a Saturday night TV show. But then if I were to suggest something like this people would make fun of me. William Kirk. From wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Thu Jan 29 17:20:43 1998 by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 00:10:28 -0800 From: William Kirk To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Who needs to know what? Dennis >> Added to that, I was told yesterday that the EU is now run by a council >> of the 'unknown', the ERT I think they are called, and I have no idea >> what that means. What happens if one member takes a bad turn or >>becomes a 'visionary'? Or convinces himself he is right? >Do you mean the European Commission? They're appointed by the elected >national parliaments of the member states; there's also the European >Parliament which, if I recall aright, has been slowly taking on a bigger >role in the EU as of late. The EU has its problems, but it's a promising >model of transnational democracy, debate and discussion compared to, >say, the authoritarian, top-down neoliberal savagery engulfing the >ex-American Empire. Overall the transition to the 'Common Market' as it was once referred to has been something of a disappointment. The debate and discussion did have a lot of appeal or so it appeared, to get people to vote for the UK becoming part of the Union. Before joining the UK had trade links with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, along with many other ex-colonies. A large part of the imports were food, and it was argued that butter from say France would be cheaper because there was less transport. At the same time it was argued that products from Europe would be cheaper due to the 'free trade'. Of those who visited Europe, for holidays, the main attraction was Spain, where the drink was about a quarter or a third of what it is here, so this was taken into account, in the belief that prices here might become similar. In the event the expectation was replaced by the Common Agricultural Policy, that ensured the prices of all past imports increased in price. When the transition came there was also decimalisation of the pound. Many items of food were in pennies and shillings, thus, if say a quarter of butter was ninepence, or 9d, then the new price in decimal would have been 3.75p. Therefore, if a year later butter was 7p it seemed cheaper than it used to be long ago, whereas in the old money it was 16.8d, or to the nearest in shillings and pence, 1/5d. with the conversion to decimal, Value Added Tax came along, had the old Łsd system remained then calculation would have been a big problem. Few people were aware of the changes about to come. For a start, with decimalisation about half a million small businesses closed. Local production of food started to become non profitable, and with selective grants, such as rooting up trees by the million to make way for the grain growing prairie, the whole pattern of distribution changed. Free trade was complicated, for example, in continental Europe there were rules about discounts on bulk buying, where the discount was proportional to quantity. This protected the small retailer, particularly in urban areas, and more particularly in France. However, the UK was given an 'exemption', to favour the large buyer. Thus, there are now four large retail outlets in the UK that accounts for between eighty and ninety per cent of all food sold. Since these organisations have their own transport, the change from rail freight to highway ensured no food is now distributed by rail, and in order to make the transport effective and cheaper an ongoing improvement to those highways is necessary. Also, the big retailer is 'out of town', so if you don't have a vehicle you have no access to the cheaper prices. While this is going on the EU come along with specifications for food products, such as the shape of cucumbers, so it is now against the law to sell a cucumber that is curved, and there will be a geometric formula to determine and describe 'straight' and 'curved'. I am not sure but the same rule might apply to bananas, it seems as if the UK cannot buy bananas from Dominica, where their economy is entirely dependent on this export. Along with that, all vegetable products sold must be 'registered' with the EU, ensuring that only the varieties sold by the big four are included in the register. This all sounds like top-down neoliberalism to me, and it is very much 'under the carpet'. Also, see Nature, vol 391, 29 Jan, 98 p 433. Peeling the Chinese Onion. Jarwd M. Diamond. 'There are many explanations for the technological decline of China at the end of the mediaeval period, and the coincident technological rise of Europe. One, in a word, is geography.' This covers the subject of political unity, and says this was almost impossible in Europe, and gave rise to diversity. There is a suggestion that disunity is good. There are nine references that look as if might be useful. >> Political reform is next to impossible. >It may look that way in the Anglo-Saxon countries. I think the answer is >to generate a new kind of politics, on the model of the Central European >Green parties, where struggle outside of the existing political >institutions is as important as votes and elections.The UK contingent to the EU assembly is 'Socialist'. There are two, I think, Tory members, one is for Buckinghamshire. There are liberal democrats and an assortment of others, but no Green parties. I have my doubts about Greens, at the last EU election, or the one I think in 1994 I thought I'd find out their policy on a number of issues, many of them can be found in the review by >Arno Tausch Thu, 7 Aug 1997, and in particular, 34. - >A development, that is dependent to a large extent on foreign capital, is socially polarizing and regionally exclusive. (Inward Investment) After leaving my name and telephone number with the nominated representative he called back and over about twenty minutes we talked away about general points, and he asked me to write on specific issues, more or less what have to say about democratic 'economy' with an Aminian background. There was no immediate reply, immediate to me is anything up to about six weeks. I called fifteen times, leaving my name and number on the answering machine. The local Green was out too. No, I'm afraid this bunch is part of the system. The big inward investment at present, at a cost of Ł100,000 per job to the UK, for the Korean company Hyundi, looks as if it has gone down the tubes. >> Added to this the EU hands out cash so who cannot resist taking it? Anyone who shows displeasure, and the only way to do that is take positive action, as in the Newbury by-pass and the extension of Manchester Airport, to mention just two of many hundreds, are 'listed' as 'enemies of the state'. >Well, Britain is a dependent semi-periphery of the European Union, so >it's not surprising to see Albion taking money where it can get it. But >why not elect folks to the European Parliament who'll use that money to >pay for schools and hospitals, and not asphalt and weapons systems? If >capitalism wants to abolish the nation-state, and it appears to be in >the process of doing so, then Left alternatives to Business As Usual >must go beyond national utopias. For Brits, this means dumping Labour's >Murdochian capitalism and building Green or other Left Parties; for >Americans, dumping the Democrats, etc. Local activism is meaningless >without global solidarity, and vice versa.The other Left party is the Socialist Labour party. This is headed up by Arthur Scargill who was the Pres. of the National Union of Miners. Here again I wrote to a local organisation to find out more about the basics but I am beginning to wonder if there are any basics. There is image, but not the right one, it is part 'down pit', clog dancing and coal, coal, coal. I wanted to know if policy was set on the shift of concentration in wealth, and I wanted examples to show what they had in mind. I didn't get any reply. Incidentally, if Value Added Tax, a concentrator, is reduced to zero then you automatically drop out of the EU. I think global solidarity can only come about through free trade. A start has been made in this direction, the 'Ethical Consumer' magazine gives an idea to the practical aspects of this, such as the purchase of coffee direct. The idea is to ensure the individual grower gets a return, which is typically about double the average price given by the multicorp system. the price to the consumer is about seven per cent less than supermarket retail. This method of trade is less efficient than what exists. However, the futures market has ensured the world produces enough food for two planets, with huge returns for banks and the multicorp. There still remains the ERT, I heard this 'on the street', this was a fifteen second communication to the effect that I knew what it meant. So far I have not seen the person. However, I have tried to see if I can find a reference to it, I have a suspicion there is a connection with monetary union. If this is the case then what pops up is the following, >Arno Tausch Thu, 7 Aug 1997, 35. (iv) >A sinister argument could even be, that the motives for the EMU project could be rather inner-European competition. A 'hard' EURO comprising the European mezzogiorno, would ruin exporters in the South (that made important headways against the dominance of German TNCs in Europe over recent years) while cementing the position of German and a few other multinationals - banks and companies - on an increasingly protected European home market. Then, indeed, the European Union would become what Samir Amin has contemptuously called 'The Fourth Reich' (Amin, 1997). Bearing in mind how changes have occurred in the past, and as much as no one wants to believe the above, which political party will discuss the point? William Kirk. From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 29 20:43:13 1998 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:43:09 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Cuban pride In-Reply-To: On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Georgi M. Derluguian wrote: > ...yes, Castro is a much > more legitimate ruler than Honneker or Brezhnev. He has support in the > population, although I'd be cautious describing it as "widespread". This > support had sound roots in the massive Soviet aid, and in the valliant > anti-American stance. > The question, however, is, what does this have to do with socialism? How > can you distinguish this program from nationalism? Good point. An even sharper question for Cuba-philes: is there really any difference between the Cuban national mobilization and, say, that of the Singaporeans under Lee Kuan Yew? Singapore has state socialism all over the place, ranging from Government-owned and run corporations to mandatory pension and housing funds, etc. etc. (there are also restrictions of civil liberties, and a virtual one-party state, though dissidents are generally silenced or marginalized indirectly, via lawsuits, a Government-run court system and whatnot, and not with direct violence). Still, the Government is reasonably clean, efficient and delivers quality public services at a reasonable cost. This is not to say that Cuba had much of a choice about its developmental model -- the alternative was to be terminated a la Allende, and Singapore had a lot more ideological and fiscal leeway to do things their way instead of the American way. What I do want to stress is that socialism is not this all-or-nothing, theological category; rather, we've got to start thinking about socialisms with a small "s" -- the countless ways that ordinary people resist market forces and fight capitalism and create islands of solidarity with one another the world over, maybe not overtly or with the clarity of Fidel's speeches, but resist nonetheless. -- Dennis From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 29 20:57:53 1998 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:57:50 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Who needs to know what? In-Reply-To: <34D18AF4.6ED7@wml.prestel.co.uk> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, William Kirk wrote: > Overall the transition to the 'Common Market' as it was once referred to > has been something of a disappointment. You mention the CAP program, but I'm talking about something much larger: transnational democracy, regulation, trade unionism and whatnot. Isn't this why the British ruling class fought to keep the UK out of the EU for so long? And aren't environmental laws and welfare state regulations much tougher on the Continent than in the UK? > I have my doubts about Greens, at the last EU election, or the one I think in 1994 > I thought I'd find out their policy on a number of issues, many of them > can be found in the review by > >Arno Tausch Thu, 7 Aug 1997, and in particular, 34. - >A development, > that is dependent to a large extent on foreign capital, is socially > polarizing and regionally exclusive. (Inward Investment) > After leaving my name and telephone number with the nominated > representative he called back and over about twenty minutes we talked > away about general points, and he asked me to write on specific issues, > more or less what have to say about democratic 'economy' with an Aminian > background. > There was no immediate reply, immediate to me is anything up to about six > weeks. I called fifteen times, leaving my name and number on the > answering machine. The local Green was out too. No, I'm afraid this bunch > is part of the system. > The big inward investment at present, at a cost of Ł100,000 per job to > the UK, for the Korean company Hyundai, looks as if it has gone down the > tubes. Huh? You lost me here. What does Major's inward investment policy have to do with the Greens, who have fought for sustainable, autonomous forms of self-development? And why do you paint yourself in a box here, by complaining about some local organizer who won't answer a phone call? The European Greens have websites, mailing lists, and publications galore. Do a random search on any World Wide Web search engine for "Green Party" or "Greens", and you'll find a wealth of materials and info on the topic. -- Dennis From sbabones@jhu.edu Thu Jan 29 21:15:03 1998 by jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:17:11 -0500 (EST) From: Salvatore Babones Subject: Re: Cuban pride In-reply-to: Reply-to: Salvatore Babones On the nature of "socialism", Cuban vs. Singaporean: I think that the key to differentiating socialism as a political type is to zero in on the role of the state in governance as well as in the administration of the economy. I would distinguish two dimensions to the roles that governments play: "administration" and "governance". Classically (i.e., Engels, Lenin), the socialist state may administer/plan the economy, but it does not govern, taking "to govern" to mean "to exercise a directing or restraining influence over" (Portland House Webster's, dfn. 2). It does not govern because there is no need for governance once all class distinctions have been removed. The socialist state is in this sense the polar opposite to the libreral state - strong governance without administration - the "nightwatchman state". Looking at it this way, Cuba and Singapore are (were recently) both totalitarian - high governance / high administration. The issue of nationalism - raised by Prof. Derluguian in comparing Castro to Brezhnev and Honneker - is, I think, an issue of source of legitimation, not of political structure. Thus, Castro's Cuba has been a nationalistically legitimated totalitatian state, Peel's England was a traditionally- and legally-legitimated somewhat-liberal state, Honneker's GDR was a force- legitimated totalitarian state, etc. Comments? Salvatore Babones From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Thu Jan 29 21:24:43 1998 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:23:51 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Dennis R Redmond Subject: Re: Cuban pride In-Reply-To: Dennis Redmond, I think you are confusing state socialism with state capitalism. The state owning and running parts of society makes neither that society, nor its government, socialist (state or otherwise). Andy From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Thu Jan 29 21:31:19 1998 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:31:11 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: s_sanderson Subject: Re: capitalism, socialism, and revolution In-Reply-To: <01ISU7YKF16Q91WUQY@grove.iup.edu> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, s_sanderson wrote: > It would be nice if there were something better than capitalism, and > capitalism> certainly has some serious flaws, but my argument is simply > that socialism, as it has actually existed in the twentieth century, has > not produced that something better, and in fact in many respects has > produced worse. For most people in the world, state socialism, as it actually existed, produced a world far better, on equality and quality of life measures, than capitalism has produced. Capitalism, on the other hand, has produced a world of misery for more people than any other social formation in history. The death and destruction caused by capitalism out shines all other forms of tyranny. Your statement is ideology, Stephen. It is not factual. > My argument is not one-sided, all in favor of capitalism. "After carefully laying out the pros and cons of capitalism and socialism, I was naturally led to select capitalism over socialism." The selection of capitalism is guaranteed by the structure of the argument. This is transparent. "Objective" balance sheets are just more effective propaganda. > I am certainly not saying, as would a republican, that capitaism is all > good. Of course not. I don't see why the claim that you aren't a Republican should help you any; it is liberals and progressives who have been the front lines of capitalist domination and anticommunism. It was liberal Democrats who thwarted worker movements in Europe and Asia. It was liberal Democrats who launched the Cold War. It was liberal Democrats who purged communists from labor unions, governments, and the educational system. It was liberal Democrats who perpetrated the Korean and Vietnam wars. You don't have to be a Republican to be a cheerleader (Republicans are only a little more vulgar, white, and well-fed). > The critical issue involves the semiperiphery and the periphery. In the > core it is clear that capitalism wins. It depends on who you talk to. Has capitalism made life better for Native Americans in the US? And if you mean core-periphery in a transnational sense then your argument is lost anyway, since people in the core of the periphery often live better than people in the periphery of the core. And, given that the majority of the world's population lives outside the core, I don't know what relevance such a claim would hold even if it were true (a problem you seem to acknowledge). > Does the core produce greater underdevelopment in the semiperiphery and > periphery, or does development take place there nonetheless? The jury is > still out on that, to judge from the latest empirical studies. It is clear, at least from the facts of the 20th century, that if peripheral or semiperipheral countries pursue state socialist development they develop. It is also clear that if peripheral or semiperipheral countries establish economic ties with core socialist countries they develop and benefit from this association on average. The loss of these beneficial relations with the fall of the socialist world system has been damaging to state socialist countries. This is not the case in the capitalist world system, as we know, where relations with the core may lead to devastating effects. The jury can always be out, you know; that is one of the tenets of scientism. > Under these circumstances, it would seem that, right now, it is bdtter > to stay with capitalism than to foment revolution. I tend to agree with > Jack Goldstone that revolutions don't solve problems, but generally ARE > the problem. For who? It is better to stay with capitalism than to foment revolution everywhere? Is this your advice to Third World peoples? And what problem was it that the bourgeois revolution did not solve? Hasn't the bourgeois revolution generally been the problem? And how should we solve the problem of the bourgeois revolution? I am still amazed that somebody can brag on the "success" of capitalism in the "core" knowing full well that that "success" is so fundamentally based on the exploitation of the planetary masses and the biosphere. Andy From rkmoore@iol.ie Fri Jan 30 05:15:17 1998 Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:15:09 GMT Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:15:09 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: socialism vs nationalism 1/29/98, Georgi M. Derluguian wrote: >The question, however, is, what does this have to do with socialism? How >can you distinguish this program from nationalism? They are orthogonal categories. Nationalism, allow me to suggest, refers to the organization of systems (transport, finance, agriculture) on a national basis, with international systems being based on relations between nations. It can also refer to a competitive attitude toward other nations, and to patriotism (ie pride in nation). Socialism says, if I may be so bold, that whatever systems you have, whether organized locally, nationally, regionally, or globally, should be organized with the objective of public utility, rather than with the objective of private profit. Private profit can be (or not) allowed to operate, but only _because_ of whatever public utility it serves, and only under adequate public constraints. One can have socialism within nationalism, or one could have a global socialist system in which national boundaries are considered insignificicant. The two concepts are independent. In Cuba's case, it seems the regime gets support from both nationalism (defense against the US, pride in Cuban successes) and socialism (people-serving policies). Cuba is nationalist and socialist, but its nationalism doesn't extend to competitiveness - Cuba isn't trying to exploit or dominate other nations. In the West, nationally organized systems are being dismantled and are being replaced by globally organized systems (finance, policy setting, "peace-keeping", etc.). So "Cuba vs US" is really nation-based socialism vs global-based capitalism. Natonalism remains, residually, primarily in the minds of citizens, as "identity" and "patriotism". US nationalist feelings would be exploited in any invasion of Cuba, to generate public support, but it would in fact be an act of global capitalism aimed at removing a splinter in its eye: a shining empirical counter-example to everything capitalism claims to be true. rkm From rkmoore@iol.ie Fri Jan 30 05:15:24 1998 Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:15:17 GMT Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:15:17 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: EU 1/30/98, William Kirk wrote: >This all sounds like top-down neoliberalism to me, and it is very much >'under the carpet'. Indeed. Are not the political leaders (Kohl et al) who guide the EU also staunch supporters of globalization, the WTO, et al? Isn't the primary consquence of the EU to lubricate the sellout of Europe to globalization? Isn't the concept of an "economically strong Europe" (a competitor to the US and Japan) completely out of date under globalization? Isn't this well-known to the EU leaders? Aren't they simply "bait & switch" salesmen? rkm From rkmoore@iol.ie Fri Jan 30 05:15:29 1998 Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:15:22 GMT Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:15:22 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: Cuban pride 1/30/98, Dennis R Redmond wrote: >Good point. An even sharper question for Cuba-philes: is there really any >difference between the Cuban national mobilization and, say, that of the >Singaporeans under Lee Kuan Yew? >From what we've been learning on the list, it would seem that the primary difference is that Cuba is democratic and Singapore is not. In fact I can't think of another example of democracy other than Cuba. Out of that primary difference, arise the secondary differences, such as concentration of wealth, worker exploitation, etc. (in Singapore). 1/30/98, Salvatore Babones wrote: >Looking at it this way, Cuba and Singapore are (were recently) both >totalitarian - high governance / high administration. Looking at it "this way" is sophism. You're playing with words in an attempt to equate democracy with totalitarianism. You're simply rephrasing the libertarian myth that any government is by definition oppression. The only essential consequence of such double talk, other than spreading confusion, is to advance the cause of lassez-faire corporate domination. rkm From PAT.LAUDERDALE@ASU.Edu Fri Jan 30 08:15:16 1998 From: PAT.LAUDERDALE@ASU.Edu Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:15:13 -0700 (MST) To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK From PAT.LAUDERDALE@ASU.Edu Fri Jan 30 08:43:45 1998 From: PAT.LAUDERDALE@ASU.Edu Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:43:35 -0700 (MST) Subject: THE STATE OF TERROR To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK In Annamarie Oliverio's new book (SUNY Press, February 1998), Gunder Frank writes in the Foreword: Oliverio's powerful appeal is to comprehend that it is the state, including especially the academy and the media, who serve their own interests by labelling, denouncing, and persecuting the powerless as the sources of "terrorism." Concomitantly, Oliverio also appeals to our comprehension of how the same interested parties use this same power to shape our perceptions in their (largely successful) attempt to protect themselves from the terrorist label and other critiques and to exempt their polices from reform. What, for example, exempts the British state from charges of routine state and army of occupation-terrorism for twenty five-years in Northern Ireland and in its notorious H block prisons. And speaking of prisons, Oliverio asks why the U.S. is also exempt from charges of "terrorism" when more of its young African American males are locked away in prison and on parole than in "normal" society, not to mention in school? She observes that "practices such as spousal or child abuse, racism, gang violence, environmental destruction, poverty or even medical malpractice and abuse, to name a few, are not recognized as terrorism." Neither are, she observes, the violence of poverty, disease, exploitation, or oppression in the Third World, nor the economic polices imposed by the International Monetary Fund, which have aggravated the same. Why not? From cballard@cetlink.net Fri Jan 30 14:34:35 1998 From: Carolyn Ballard To: "'WSN@csf.colorado.edu'" Subject: FW: Immanuel Wallerstein on Eurocentrism Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:27:48 -0500 Forwarded for comment and/or discussion from the Communist Manifesto-150 list (CM-150). FYI...Louis Proyect maintains this list. (Andrew: Previous article excerpts by James Petras.....Petras is Professor of sociology at UNY-Binghampton) -Carolyn- The latest issue of New Left Review has an article by Immanuel Wallerstein titled "Eurocentrism and Capitalist Development" that does not mention Andre Gunder Frank by name, but unmistakably takes aim at the propositions set forward by Frank in the article I have cross-posted to various lists and which appeared originally on the Communist Manifesto mailing-list. Wallerstein's article is divided into two parts. The first takes aim at Eurocentrism and the second is a polemic against those views which Wallerstein considers an overreaction to Eurocentrism. Critics of Eurocentrism, according to Wallerstein, make 3 claims: 1) "...whatever it is that Europe did, other civilizations were in the process of doing it, up to the moment that Europe used its geopolitical power to interrupt the process in other parts of the world." 2) "...what Europe did is nothing more than a continuation of what others had already been doing for a long time, with the Europeans temporarily coming to the foreground." 3) "...what Europe did has been analyzed incorrectly and subjected to inappropriate extrapolations, which have had dangerous consequences for both science and the political world." Wallerstein views the first two claims as suffering from 'anti-Eurocentric Eurocentrism'. The most interesting paragraphs in a most interesting article is Wallerstein's terse and thought-provoking attempt to explain why capitalism rooted itself in Europe as a dominant system: "Let me be clear. I believe that, in all major historical systems--'civilizations'--there has always been a certain degree of commodification and hence of commercialization. As a consequence, there have always been persons who sought profits in the market. But there is a world of difference between a historical system in which there exist some entrepreneurs or merchants or 'capitalists', and one in which the capitalist ethos and practice is dominant. Prior to the modern world-system, what happened in each of these other historical systems is that whenever capitalist strata got too wealthy or too successful or too intrusive on existing institutions, other institutional groups--cultural, religious, military, political--attacked them, utilizing both their substantial power and contain the profit-oriented strata. As a result, these strata were frustrated in their attempts to impose their practices on the historical system as a priority. They were often crudely stripped of accumulated capital., and in any case, made to give obeisance to values and practices that inhibited them. This is what I mean by the anti-toxins that contained the virus. "What happened in the Western world is that, for a set of reasons that were momentary--or conjunctural, or accidental--the anti-toxins were less available or less efficacious, and the virus spread rapidly, and then proved itself invulnerable to later to later attempts at reversing its effects. The European world-economy of the sixteenth century became irremediably capitalist. And once capitalism consolidated itself in this historical system, once this system was governed by the priority of the ceaseless accumulation of capital, it acquired a kind of strength as against other historical systems that enabled it to expand geographically until it absorbed physically the entire globe, the first historical system ever to achieve this kind of total expansion. The fact that capitalism had this kind of breakthrough in the European arena, and then expanded to cover the globe, does not mean that it was inevitable, or desirable, or in any sense progressive. In my view, it was none of these. And an anti-Eurocentric point of view must start by asserting this." Now I have to confess that this world-system literature is pretty new to me. I have read Janet Abu-Lughod's "Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350" and it is one of my favorites. Her discussion of the prowess of the Chinese navy is something that I draw upon time and again. I picked up all of Andre Gunder Frank's books at the MR office last month and plan to get a hold of Wallerstein and Amin's works at some point. Frank's books interest me because he is a Latin American expert and I want to examine his empirical research into an area that I have had an activist involvement with over the years. I also have Jim Blaut's "Colonizer's Model of the World" on my bookshelf. Jim is a Marxism-International mailing-list regular and I enjoy his posts, even when I disagree with them. Tom Kruse urged me to look at Eric Wolf's "Europe and the People Without History" in conjunction with research I am doing on the Incas. I find all this type of literature very alluring since I hate racism. (I think that Eurocentrism is an unfortunate euphemism for racism, by the way. Kipling was not a "Eurocentrist"--he was a racist.) My problem is that it does not seem to address the underlying issue of *economic dynamics*. For example, Wallerstein speaks of the "capitalist ethos and practice" as being in conflict with non-capitalist strata who had hegemony. This is a peculiar formulation. Generally, I find it more useful to retain something of the base-superstructure paradigm of Marxism, even when one runs a risk of vulgarization. My general impression is that changes in the mode of production account for modifications of "ethos". In other words, as the city-states of Italy began to set up the prototypes of the modern factory system, such practices encouraged a new attitude toward nature, society and trade. The Cartesian revolution seems rooted in the evolving mercantile transformation of Europe rather than the other way around. Seen from this perspective, Marx retains a certain freshness, especially in light of this passage from the Communist Manifesto: "The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed guilds, now no longer suffices for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed aside by the manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labor in each single workshop. "Meantime, the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturers no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, MODERN INDUSTRY; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois. "Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages. "We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange." Louis Proyect From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Fri Jan 30 15:29:42 1998 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 17:28:43 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Carolyn Ballard Subject: Re: FW: Immanuel Wallerstein on Eurocentrism In-Reply-To: <01BD2D9C.0AC877A0@ts3-rhsc-99.cetlink.net> Carolyn, Typical Proyect vulgarity. What Wallerstein argues is that, although there may be proto-capitalist practices and ideas that correspond to those practices in all (or most) civilizations, other political-economic- cultural practices and ideas keep the tendency towards capitalistic relations in check or defeat them. What allowed capitalism to take hold in the European context, then, was a historical-conjunctural relative absence of other political-economic-cultural practices to keep capitalist tendencies at bay. The logic of this argument is identical to the logic of control theory, where we don't necessarily explain why crime happened in context A, but more why crime *didn't* happen in context B, C, D, E, etc.. But I admit I don't have Wallerstein's piece in front of me, and that is just what I gleaned from the passages quoted. Although it seems rather obvious the form of logic here (and it is problematic). Despite whatever we think of the logic of this argument, Proyect's problem with Wallerstein's discussion to "ethos," "values," and "practices," is misplaced. The capitalist ethos is part of the overall structure of capitalism. One would expect the ethos to be widespread if the system it emerges from is also widespread. At worst, Wallerstein's argument is tautological. But it does not suffer from the supposed deficit Proyect says it does in the context of "base-superstructure," a model Proyect has never really understood (and therefore cannot help but vulgarize). One must also contextualize Proyect's aversion to any explanations that permits culture and ideology to play a role to recent argument he has made on other subjects (e.g., the Holocaust). Andy From edtgg@cc.newcastle.edu.au Fri Jan 30 15:53:36 1998 wsn@csf.colorado.edu; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 09:52:07 +1100 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 09:45:17 -0500 From: Thomas Griffiths & Euridice Charon-Cardona Subject: Re: Cuba, democracy, socialism and capitalism To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK I second the appreciation for Charles McKelvey's detailed post on Cuba, much needed in the face of simplistic, and by definition uncritical, anti-communist postings which misrepresent or completely ignore the very real achievements made since the popular overthrow of Batista. I lived in La Habana for 16 months over 1994 / 95, researching a history of secondary school education since 1959 (still in preparation). I can confirm Charles McKelvey's observations about the democratic functioning of local government (Poder Popular). Family and friends in Cuba consistently cited this tier of government as being the most effective, receptive to genuine popular participation, democratic etc. Candidates nominated by the local community are well known and respected people in that community. They are obliged to give regular account of their work in public meetings and can realistically be recalled by the community if they lose confidence in their delegate. With respect to the role of the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) in the Municipal and National election processes, I feel Charles McKelvey accepts the official rhetoric a little to uncritically. The electoral commissions which develop the list of candidates for the Provincial (and National) Assemblies do have some members elected by the Municipal Assemblies. Charles acknowledges that most delegates to Municipal Assemblies are Party members (I will check the exact percentages). We should add that representatives of the Mass Organisations (CDR, FMC, UJC etc) are also allocated a place on these committees, these representatives being Party members. True the PCC does not directly and solely prepare candidate lists, and quantifying their influence in the process is problematic to say the least, but I think we must acknowledge a decisive influence for the PCC in this process. My experience in Cuba was that certain informal practices are acknowledged amongst both militants of the Party & Young Communist League, and the broader community that Charles McKelvey correctly characterises as being supportive of the system and well informed about the structure and functioning of the world economy (and, I would add, well informed about the consequences of a capitalist "alternative" for a country struggling in the periphery of that economy). These practices include the top down 'endorsement' of Party members for elected positions in all sorts of organisations and institutions, and the expectation that such suggestions, and prepared slates of candidates, be accepted. The president of the 'Felix Varela Centre' in Havana, Juan Antonio Blanco, has addressed many of these less than democratic tendencies of the "european - soviet model of socialism" in his book "Tercer Milenio: Una Vision Alternative de la Posmodernidad". Blanco makes the critique in the context of searching for a non-capitalist solution to the current social and economic crisis in Cuba. Thus while the PCC is not an electoral party as such, membership is accepted as a requirement for many positions of responsibility, ranging from nomination as a Parliamentary delegate to promotion for a school teacher. I don't think this can simply be overlooked, or dismissed with the observation that most elected / nominated people just happen to be Party members. By way of a personal anecdote, I watched delegates less than enthusiastic applause for the re-election of Vilma Espin as President of the Federation of Cuban Women at their Congress in 1995 (she has been president since its creation), in stark contrast to their enthusiasm for the new (grass-roots) vice-president elected. It was explained to me by an active supporter of Cuba's system that it was expected that Vilma be re-elected. No conspiracy, no repression, and no formal role for the PCC, just an established practice. I will agree partially with Charles McKelvey's description of Party members, but again due to experience many Cubans note that generally Party membership no longer carries anything like the community respect it once did. Many militants have seen too many "descarados" manage to move through the party not out of revolutionary or moral commitment but as a means of personal advancement. Processes of challenging such individuals from the base are inadequate. Still, the intention of promoting the most ethical, hard working, revolutionary, rather than those that can best campaign for support, remains superior from in my opinion. The issue of party membership aside, it cannot be denied that Cuba's parliaments are more truly representative of their constituent populations, in terms of the composition of delegates, than any so-called 'liberal democracy'. This fact is a great achievement of Cuba's alternative model of democracy, as is the absence of bourgeois electioneering and campaigns and extravagant rewards for professional politicians on which it rests. Finally, while I agree with the critique of the so-called free press in capitalist countries - Chomsky's propaganda model (Necessary Illusions) is confirmed every day - there has been little space in the Cuban press for criticism of any public policy (again this has been recognised by pro-systemic Cuban academics and militants in recent years in articles in the *new* journals "Acuario"; "Temas" and "Contracorriente"). The ending of the "great debate" in the 1960s has been well documented, effectively limiting through similar informal processes what was acceptable for publication. I finish by stressing the need to reject anti-communist propaganda AND maintain a critical perspective. Identifying any criticism of Cuban policy and practice as anti-revolutionary does not achieve much in terms of contributing to constructive debate. At the same time, to deny the achievements in Cuba under the leadership of the Communist Party led by Fidel is to deny fact. As has been recently (and still not fully) demonstrated on this list, any number of statistical measures of quality of life have significantly improved since 1959. A lot more ought to be said of the way in which the economic disaster of the Cuba losing 85% of its trade overnight has been endured without losing majority support for the system. If the sort of massive unrest that US administrations have been promising for almost 40 years did not occur in the summer of 1994, it is hard to conceive of situation in which this support would be broken. Hardships have been extreme. Without the political commitment of the PCC to maintaining a minimum level of all social services for all citizens, a true disaster would have undoubtedly occurred. I agree, the Cuban Project deserves our active support. All of its shortcomings and contradictions are, of course, problems to be addressed by the Cuban people as the process of their Revolution continues, and they are being put on the public agenda with the work of people like Blanco and Fernando Martinez Heredia. I also note that Cuba is currently, more than ever, fully participating and actively seeking an improved place within the capitalist world-economy. I often wondered when in Cuba whether the solidarity movement back home would be promoting Cuba as a site for investment with big capital like "Western Mining" now exploiting Cuban labour in copper mines - in line with the official policy. In my appreciation for the Cuban project I hope I don't lose sight of the larger and more pressing anti-systmeic goal: The creation of the world party / socialist world government / socialist world-system. Thomas Griffiths. Newcastle, Australia. From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 30 16:28:31 1998 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:28:23 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: EU In-Reply-To: On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote: > > Isn't the primary consquence of the EU to lubricate the sellout of Europe > to globalization? Isn't the concept of an "economically strong Europe" (a > competitor to the US and Japan) completely out of date under globalization? No. Globalization is creating gigantic transnational macroregions in the world economy, from the Pacific Rim to Central Europe. Kohl and his clones are not con artists: they're the picked representatives of the Eurokeiretsu, whose combined financial-industrial might outweighs that of the USA, but whose role in the world economy is still second-tier. The Eurocapitalists have internal squabbles, but they're united on one thing: they're not interested in subsidizing the consumption binge of US ruling elites (the US is a net debtor to the EU/Japan). The euro is about toppling the dollar's status as world reserve currency, and ultimately, about toppling the rule of the US Empire itself. And they have the muscle to do it. EU GDP is around $8.5 trillion, and their banks have maybe $14 trillion in assets, three times the size of the US banking system. The Central European core economies are world leaders in autos, machine-tools, pharmaceutical, industrial software, semiconductors, etc. etc. etc. Compared to this, even Japan has a ways to go before it can truly face off with the Americans. Finally, you will note that countries like South Korea owe more debt to the EU plus Japan than they do to the US. Deutsche Bank is mightier than the IMF. -- Dennis From ishi@snet.net Fri Jan 30 16:29:11 1998 Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:28:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:25:24 -0800 From: Paula Sherman Reply-To: ishi@snet.net To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Colonial America Hello, I am a graduate student in Early American History at the University Of Connecticut and am currently trying to find some resources or discussions on the way that colonial America fits into world system theory. There is a group of historians who say that colonial America was capitalistic to begin with(which I am leaning towards), but just as many say that it was not and only became capitalistic around 1815. When you look at Virginia for example, colonist did not grow their own food for over twenty years. They were too busy planting fields of tobacco and stealing the food they needed from neighboring Native Americans. Colonial leaders even passed laws trying to force farmers to plant corn and other needed staples to feed the colony but colonists simply refused. But on the other side of the argument there were many farmers in the back country who had no real connection with the market economy. Is it accurate to say that every single exchange or barter that took place in a community was of a capitalist nature? The other thing that puzzles me is that when you look at the uneven development of the colonies, it seems to fit the model. The colonies were started as a post for exporting raw resources back to Europe. Much of these resources(including of course those extracted from Latin America) helped to fuel the Industrial Revolution. The places that developed the quickest like Boston, the Chesapeake, Charlestown, etc.., were all caught up in capitalism from almost the begining. The interior did not develop and many historians explain this as a problem of transportation of goods over rough territory. It was just too costly to transport some goods to coastal markets so they traded within the community. But how is this really different from the uneven development that has plagued Latin America? Development there followed the same pattern. Areas that developed the quickest were always caught up in capitalism and producing for export. This is something that I really want to understand as a historian of early America. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated since I cannot find any resources that deal with colonial America in the context of world system theory. Thanks, Paula Sherman ishi@snet.net From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 30 16:52:46 1998 Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:52:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:52:36 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: Cuban pride In-Reply-To: On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote: > >From what we've been learning on the list, it would seem that the primary > difference is that Cuba is democratic and Singapore is not. In fact I > can't think of another example of democracy other than Cuba. Think a little harder. To paraphrase Brecht, woe to the socialism which needs national-revolutionary heroes. Lee Kuan Yew, incidentally, started out as an avowed socialist in the Fifties, only to change tack on seizing power in 1959, but he certainly learned a lot about taming market forces and the importance of mobilizing capital by the public sector for long-term development. My own feeling is that the US embargo and declaration of war on revolutionary Cuba forced the Revolution to go autarkic; if something similar had happened to Singapore, then the People's Action Party might well have been forced into autarky as well. Singapore would have ended up like the Czech Republic or Lithuania: hardly poor, globally speaking, but still a dependent semi-periphery. The point is that the socialisms of the 21st century must begin to draw on BOTH experiences -- the success of the Singaporeans in standing up to the Wall Street hegemony and creating a nation-state and a national economy out of thin air, as well as the local organizing and Third World political solidarities of the Cuban revolution. Possibly China will be the vast crucible in which some sort of synthesis between economic and political mobilization will be able to happen; or maybe the new semi-peripheries of the Eurostate will lead the way. -- Dennis From agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca Fri Jan 30 16:56:20 1998 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:55:21 -0500 (EST) From: Gunder Frank To: Paula Sherman Subject: Re: Colonial America In-Reply-To: <34D28B94.31E9@snet.net> If you eliminate your question about 'capitalist yes/no' you automatically get the RIGHT answer to IT, and you can go on to questions of real analysis of what was really going on. as to colonial NA and WS, see Wallerstein MWS vol 3 and AG Frank WORLD ACCUMULATION 1492 -1789, pp 190 - 208. agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Paula Sherman wrote: > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:25:24 -0800 > From: Paula Sherman > To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK > Subject: Colonial America > > Hello, > I am a graduate student in Early American History at the University Of > Connecticut and am currently trying to find some resources or > discussions on the way that colonial America fits into world system > theory. There is a group of historians who say that colonial America was > capitalistic to begin with(which I am leaning towards), but just as many > say that it was not and only became capitalistic around 1815. > > When you look at Virginia for example, colonist did not grow their own > food for over twenty years. They were too busy planting fields of > tobacco and stealing the food they needed from neighboring Native > Americans. Colonial leaders even passed laws trying to force farmers to > plant corn and other needed staples to feed the colony but colonists > simply refused. > > But on the other side of the argument there were many farmers in the > back country who had no real connection with the market economy. Is it > accurate to say that every single exchange or barter that took place in > a community was of a capitalist nature? > > The other thing that puzzles me is that when you look at the uneven > development of the colonies, it seems to fit the model. The colonies > were started as a post for exporting raw resources back to Europe. Much > of these resources(including of course those extracted from Latin > America) helped to fuel the Industrial Revolution. The places that > developed the quickest like Boston, the Chesapeake, Charlestown, etc.., > were all caught up in capitalism from almost the begining. The interior > did not develop and many historians explain this as a problem of > transportation of goods over rough territory. It was just too costly to > transport some goods to coastal markets so they traded within the > community. > > But how is this really different from the uneven development that has > plagued Latin America? Development there followed the same pattern. > Areas that developed the quickest were always caught up in capitalism > and producing for export. > > This is something that I really want to understand as a historian of > early America. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated since I > cannot find any resources that deal with colonial America in the context > of world system theory. > > Thanks, > Paula Sherman > ishi@snet.net > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Andre Gunder Frank University of Toronto 96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616 Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071 CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Fri Jan 30 18:13:07 1998 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:13:03 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Socialism, Capitalism, and Inequality List, A Comparative Analysis of Capitalist and Socialist World Systems: A summary of Shirley Cereseto's 1982 "Socialism, Capitalism, and Inequality," The Insurgent Sociologist 11(2) Spring. In her article, "Socialism, Capitalism, and Inequality," Shirley Cereseto (1982), addresses many of the oft-heard claims about the Soviet Union and other socialist states, claims such as "communism failed," communism was "inefficient and stagnant," and "communism really didn't solve the problems of inequality." In light of the evidence Cereseto provides, these are empty claims, slogans. On a comparative basis, state socialism represents a dramatic advance over the previous conditions that existed in those countries and regions. State socialism surpassed most of the capitalist world in economic growth and social justice. Her article was published with critiques by Paul Sweezy (whose critique was fair and constructive), Chris Dunn-Chase (who criticized her challenge to world-system theory, but his argument did not move me), and James Petras (whose argument was unusually bad). Cereseto's rebuttal was excellent. But her study and her arguments were ignored after that. Cereseto's article is a comprehensive historical-comparative analysis, rich in statistical data on a wide-range of social and economic variables. Thirteen socialist countries were used in the study covering one-third of the global population. These are countries that considered themselves socialist and were under the leadership of Marxist-Leninist parties for at least two decades at the time of the research. The article compares these countries with capitalist countries using four models detailing major determinants of inequality: (1) modernization/ development theories; (2) world systems theory; (3) neo-Malthusian theories; (4) Marxist mode of production theory. Inequality was defined as (a) inequality of income distribution and (b) inequality of basic human needs. The logic of her argument is straightfoward: Marx argued that the capitalist mode of production generates several undesirable effects: e.g., the concentration of wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people, leading to dramatic income and wealth inequality; increasing levels of poverty, both absolute and relative; an increase in the size of surplus labor population; and, under capitalist imperialism, a historic "solution" to endemic crisis, subjugated regions are drained of their resources and wealth. In her study, Cereseto finds that capital accumulation, capitalist productive relations and the corresponding relations of distribution clearly produce these effects. Yet, Cereseto does not find these effects in the socialist countries she studied. Therefore, Cereseto's research goes a long way towards settling two long-standing and related disputes among neo-Marxists: first, that socialist countries were/are in fact state capitalist countries. There are many variants of this argument, but the general thrust is that, despite state-ownership of the productive means, the state in these contexts was a capitalist actor. Second, neo-Marxists argue that because the world system is a capitalist world system, so-called socialist countries were/are capitalist by virtue of their being in the same world system. Both positions hold that capitalist laws of operation and development are, in part, still in force. But if the laws of capitalist development are still in force in these so-called socialist countries, then why haven't we seen the effects that result from these laws? Cereseto writes: I view the new social formations as neither capitalist nor communist, but rather as being in the early stages of the long, arduous transition from one to the other. They are, in Marx's terms, societies in the "first phase of communism" which inevitably contain the defects of the societies from which they recently emerged. They contain many other defects as well, some of which arise from errors made while traversing the yet uncharted, obstacle-laden path to communism. Yet, the data presented here will clearly distinguish them from capitalist societies with respect to the important issues of equality. The data Cereseto employs were collected by the World Bank, the Overseas Development Council (OCD), and other sources. A large chunk of the data came from The World Development Report (1978), which contained a massive cache of data concerning socialist countries, as well as data on capitalist countries. Overall, this report covers 125 nations, or all countries with better that 1 million population. The socialist countries identified are: People's Republic of China, Korean People's Democratic Republic, People's Republic of Albania, Republic of Cuba, Mongolian People's Republic, Socialist Republic of Romania, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Hungarian People's Republic, People's Republic of Bulgaria, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Polish People's Republic, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, and German Democratic Republic. The four models tested articulate the following propositions: 1. Modernization theorists argue that the level of economic development is the major determinant of inequality, with inequality expected to decrease with higher levels of economic development. 2. World systems theorists argue that it is the position of a country in the world economy, associated with lower levels of economic development, that determines inequality. This is because the core countries pump wealth (in the form of surplus) out of peripheral nations. This is the mechanism of imperialism/neoimperialism. 3. Neo-Malthusian theorists argue that overpopulation, a barrier to development, is correlated with greater inequality. They rely on the demographic transition to explain development. 4. Marxists view the mode of production as the crucial determinant of inequality. Inequality is structural; it is embedded in social arrangements internal to a social formation. And it is processual, i.e., a product of capital accumulation. In short, it is class relational, with unequal positions rooted in relations to structures and processes of production. The independent variables used in analysis are as follows: To test the development model and compare with other models, gross national product per capita (GNP/c) as an indicator of developmental level. Economic growth was measured by GNP/c average annual growth for the period 1960-1976. Cereseto also used other measures to determine level of economic development, e.g., percent of labor force in agriculture, per capita energy consumption, and percent of population in urban areas. To test the world systems model, she measured position in the world economy by using (a) the percent of primary commodities in exports (an indicator of internal division of labor) and (b) external debts as percent of GNP (a measure of economic dependence). To test the neo-Malthusian model, she used birth/death rates, population growth rates, total national population, and total land density. Finally, in order to distinguish between socialist and capitalist countries for the major comparison in testing the Marxist model, i.e., to distinguish modes of production, she went with self-designation and Marxist-Leninist leadership, which correspond with the UN and World Bank practice of define socialist countries as "centrally planned economies" and capitalist countries as "market economies." The dependent variables, two types, are as follows: (1) Ten physical quality of life variables (PQLV). These were used to measure fulfillment of basic human needs. The Physical Quality of Life Index (PQLI). The PQLI has three components: life expectancy, infant morality, and literacy rates. She used both the index and the component variables. She also included several other measures of physical quality of life: calorie supply per capita as percent of requirements, population per physician, enrollment in secondary or higher education, female labor force as percent of total wage labor force (employment situation), percent unemployed, average rate of inflation (price stability). (2) Three variables were used to measure inequality in income distribution: (a) percent of national income received by lowest 20 percent of the population, (b) percent of national income received by top 5 percent of the population; and the Gini index for overall inequality (for the entire income distribution). Cereseto devised a classification system to test her hypotheses. The ODC ranks all countries on per capita income, then divides the countries into four categories: high, upper-middle, lower-middle, and low income. These similar countries, according to the ODC classification, are compared. However, the problem with this classification scheme is that it does not permit the comparison of capitalist and socialist countries. So Cereseto had to divide out the socialist countries for comparison. She came up with an ingenious scheme. She first arranged the capitalist countries according to per capita income and then divided them into three categories, low, middle, and high income. She then took the full range of socialist countries on per capita income and matched these with the one category of capitalist countries that subsumed the socialist level and range: the middle income group. "The lower and upper cut-off points for the middle-income capitalist category were selected so as to match the GNP/c of the lowest and highest socialist countries. Thus, the middle-income capitalist category and the category of socialist countries are almost identical in per capita income range." For other comparisons she used the full range of data, including measuring the socialist category against both the high and the low income categories for capitalist nations. This permitted Cereseto to test all four models and her main proposition. Without going into an extensive presentation of the statistical findings, the conclusions dramatically oppose the arguments made by those advocating the state capitalist thesis, as well as those who claim that these countries did not achieve significant levels of social justice. For example, we do not see what we should expect to see in "actually-existing" socialist countries if they were state capitalist countries. Instead, we see what we would expect to see in a socialist transition to communism (transition as of 1978). These data also demonstrate that the claim of "Soviet imperialism" is hollow. Findings The modernization/development model, tested by itself, is, in part, supported by the data. It predicts that the higher levels of economic development are positively correlated with better PQLV scores. The three categories of capitalist countries are widely differentiated on PQLV scores, PQL variables (except on female labor force participation and inflation). However, measures of income distribution did not significantly correlate with economic growth rates. The world system model, by itself, also tests out fairly well. Those countries organized for export of primary commodities have a lower level of development, lower rate of growth, lower PQL measures, greater income inequality, and a higher rate of population growth. And, by itself, the neo-Malthusian model tests out quite well, also. I don't want to spend any time presenting the findings of the neo-Malthusian model. I wanted to present these specific findings because they show how a wide range of theoretical models can, at least in part, explain what goes on in capitalist countries, and this in turn explains their persistence (beyond their ideological usefulness). But we find that they are dismally inadequate for the task of explaining what happens in socialist countries and in explaining the differences between socialist and capitalist countries. Remember, modernization theories care less about whether a country is capitalist or socialist. These are arbitrary political distinctions for them. The real dynamic is industrialization and economic growth (see Rostow, for example). Remember, world systems theorists deny that socialist countries are even socialist. There is only one world economy, they argue, and therefore every nation functions as a part of the capitalist world system (see Wallerstein). Remember, the neo-Malthusians believe that all other variables stem from the rate of population growth. Socialism, capitalism, feudalism_it doesn't matter: the demographic transition is a statistical invariant and drives development. Now I will present Cereseto's conclusions regarding comparing modes of production model with development model, modes of production model with world system model, and the inequality gap. First, comparing mode of production model_what she identifies as the Marxist model_with the modernization/development model, she claims: "The socialist countries are significantly higher in fulfilling basic human needs and in income inequality despite the fact that, as a group, they match the middle-income capitalist countries very closely on 6 of 7 measures of economic development." Comparing socialist countries with high income countries: While socialist countries, as a group, are at a lower level of economic development and have a much lower income level, they are on par with the wealthy capitalist counties on rate of economic growth (GNP/c) and on dependent variables.... PQLI scores are almost identical. On the other hand, the socialist countries have higher means scores on...6 dependent variables, and 5 of the differences are significantly better. Comparing means scores of all capitalist and socialist nations: "On mean per capita income, the two are almost identical. Socialist countries are higher on all other measures of economic development.... Socialist countries are better on every PQL variable, and significantly better on 7 of the 9." Cereseto found that, with the exception of Yugoslavia, "which retains more capitalistic features than any other socialist country," "the data provided by the World Bank for 6 socialist countries places 5 of them above all other countries in the world on income inequality." (This is a very interesting finding regarding Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is often held up as a model of development, what they call "market socialism." But, just as we would expect, because it incorporated so many capitalist mechanisms into its economic system, it did quite poorly on matters of income equality and quality of life.) She found that elites in capitalist countries "take more than twice as much in income along as the top two groups in socialist countries." On the other hand, "the lowest 20% of the population in socialist countries receive twice as great a share of the national income as their counterparts in capitalist countries...." Thus, the data confirm the Marxist hypotheses that income equality and fulfillment of basic human needs will be higher in socialist than in capitalist countries.... [T]he development model cannot explain why the socialist countries have much greater income equality and much better PQL conditions than capitalist countries at the same level of economic development. Such findings are in opposition to the major proposition of the development model. Second, comparing the mode of production model with the world system model: "World system hypotheses are not supported by the data for the socialist countries." World system theorists view the so-called socialist countries are semi-peripheral states and regions that function to preserve the integrity of the capitalist world system. These semi-peripheral regions and states act as a buffer between the rich and the working class and the poor, analogous to the function the middle class serves in the class structure. What we should see, then, as a consequence of this semi-peripheral position, midway between core (the rich north) and peripheral (the poor south) regions, is socialist countries with a mid-level of inequality, along with the other semi-peripheral nations designated as capitalist countries. What we find, however, is that socialist countries are the highest in the world in income equality. In other words: The data do support the Marxist contention that the socialist countries constitute a separate system with different patterns of stratification. The data further support the Marxist hypothesis that the socialist countries will manifest less inequality than the capitalist periphery and semi-periphery of which they were a part in the past. What about position in the global division of labor (GDL)? How does this pan out for the world systems theorists? As we have seen, it works well when they are looking at capitalist countries. But when socialist countries are thrown into the analysis (world systems theorists ignore these countries because having to account for them makes their assertion of a single world economy problematic), we see that primary commodities in export lead to dramatically opposite effects. This point is crucial to those who suppose that the relations between the Soviet Union and other socialist countries was an imperialistic, exploitative one. Moreover, that interstate relations differ so greatly among capitalist countries versus socialist countries calls into question the assertion of a one world system logic. Whereas for capitalist countries, a high level of primary exports (subordinate position) is significantly associated with lower urban population, higher agricultural labor force, lower PQLI, fewer physicians, higher death rates, lower school enrollment, greater income inequality, and a smaller decrease in birth rates; only one of the above correlations is significant for the socialist countries, and that one is in the opposite direction. Higher primary commodity exports is significantly related to lower death rates for socialist countries. It is also related, although not significantly, to a greater decrease in birth rates, a higher supply of physicians, and to greater income equality. In summary, for capitalist countries a higher proportion of primary commodities in exports (subordinate position) is significantly associated with lower economic development, worse PQL conditions, and higher income inequality. In contrast, for socialist countries the same measure is not associated with any of the negative characteristics assumed to be results of subordinate position and dependency. Cereseto's conclusion from these finding is that degree of inequality and fulfillment of human needs are consequences not of positions in the world economy, but of class relations. Primary commodity export emphasis, role in the international division of labor, position in a world economy are not in themselves primary determinants of the internal stratification of a country. But inequality is inherent in capitalist relations--within nations and among nations. If capitalist relations are overthrown and the working class assumes power, then it is potentially in a position to alter the nature of its production, its production relations, stratification, and relations with other states_in a more egalitarian direction. This is, in fact, what occurred in the countries which became socialist societies. To reiterate an earlier point, this is a strong refutation of the state capitalist thesis, and strong enough evidence to claim that these countries were, in fact, socialist. Finally, the inequality gap. First, as expected, the gap between rich and poor has continued to increase in capitalist countries. What about for socialist countries? The Marxist model predicts that under socialism the inequality gap will narrow. Prior to WWII, those countries that would become socialist were distributed in the full range of the underdeveloped world (this is the entire world except for 14 developed countries). Three of the Asian countries that would become socialist were the poorest in the world. At the time of Cereseto's research no socialist country was in the bottom category. Every single one of them was in the middle-income range. In fact, 41 countries, covering 34% of the world's population, had per capita incomes below the poorest socialist nation. Cereseto found that for capitalist countries, when examining the correlation coefficient of GNP/c with GNP/c growth rate, that "there is a significant positive relationship ....that wealth is correlated with faster economic growth rate. Whereas, the relationship is insignificant and slightly negative for socialist countries." For socialist countries which belong to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistant (CMEA), this represents a deliberate policy of planning to narrow the gap. For socialist countries in general, however, whether or not they are members of CMEA, the data support the claim that there are no systematic, exploitative, economic mechanisms operating among socialist countries designed to maintain positions of economic dominance and subordination. "In terms of meeting basic human needs and income inequality which are primary concerns of the paper," she continues, "the data are even more striking." The dispersion on the Gini Index of income inequality between capitalist countries is almost 2 times as great as the difference in the range between socialist countries. PQLI scores within the capitalist world system range from an incredible score of 14 to 100, whereas for the socialist countries the range is quite small, from 76 to 96. The disparity within the capitalist world system on each of the PQLI components is enormous.... The range of score for the socialist countries, by comparison is very narrow... [A]t the present time, life expectancy, literacy, and infant mortality rates for all socialist countries are substantially better than the mean scores of the capitalist countries. Ironically, Cereseto points out that the goals specified in Reshaping the International Order: A Report to the Club of Rome, by the Tinbergen Group in 1976 (a study group formed by the elite capitalist organ the Club of Rome), have been surpassed by all the socialist countries, whereas only the high income groups among capitalist nations have met the Tinbergen goals. To conclude, I am going to quote extended extracts from the summary and implication section of Cereseto's paper. In contrast to the other models discussed in her paper, the data appear to be more adequately explained by the Marxist proposition that each social system has its own set of laws. The law of capitalist accumulation, with its priority on private profit maximization, inevitably leads to uneven development, to growing concentration of wealth at one end of the pole and poverty at the other end. The difference material conditions of life them, in turn, produce different rates of population growth. In a socialist society, with the means of production publicly owned, with the imperative of private profit maximization eliminated, production can theoretically be planned to meet basic human needs of the entire population. With improvement in economic conditions, in security, in public health and educational services, in opportunities for employment of women, population growth would decrease. These assumptions and propositions appear to be supported by the data examined in this study. The main value of this study and the major implications stem from the findings which support Marx's proposition that social relationships are governed by laws which are distinctive and specific to each social system. Research which studies only capitalist societies or which includes socialist countries intermingled and not distinguished as a separate system contributes to the belief that the relationships found in these many studies are universal and inevitable processes.... The data in this study contradict such assumptions. The evidence demonstrates that socialist countries, with planning geared toward meetings the basic human needs of the entire population and toward decreasing inequality have made important strides toward such goals in a relatively short period of time even through most began at a very low stage of economic development. Andy From thall@DEPAUW.EDU Fri Jan 30 22:27:02 1998 31 Jan 1998 00:26:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:26:58 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas D. [Tom] Hall, THALL@DEPAUW.EDU" Subject: early colonial period and wst To: Network World-Systems Paula, >From the east coast perspective, probably the best source would be Wilma A. Dunaway's _First American Frontier_ (1996 U NC Press). From the direction of Mexico, my first book _Social Change in the Southwest, 1350-1880_ [U. Press of Kansas 1989] locates colonial actionn in a world-system perspective. James Lang's two books _Commerce and Conquest_[1975] and _Portuguese Brazil_ [1979] both academic are also useful. I have an article in JWSR Vol2 that reviews much of the relevant literature--the bib, not the article, could be quite useful.. tom Thomas D. [tom] Hall thall@depauw.edu Department of Sociology DePauw University 100 Center Street Greencastle, IN 46135 765-658-4519 HOME PAGE: http://www.depauw.edu/~thall/hp1.htm From rkmoore@iol.ie Sat Jan 31 03:55:47 1998 Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:55:34 GMT Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:55:34 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: cj#767> Learning from Cuba 1/31/98, Thomas Griffiths & Euridice Charon-Cardona wrote to wsn: >many Cubans note that generally >Party membership no longer carries anything like the community respect >it once did. Many militants have seen too many "descarados" manage to >move through the party not out of revolutionary or moral commitment but >as a means of personal advancement. -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- rkm's Law of Organizations Every organization, regardless of its original purpose (religious, artistic, educational, political, commercial, charitable, etc), eventually adopts self-perpetuation and aggrandizement as primary objectives. Internally every organization, no matter its original ethos, in the end obeys the usual laws of group sociology, which include personal aggrandizement via organizational politics. -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- There seems to be an exception to this rule in the case of certain kinds of grass-roots organizations which are light on administration and heavy on popular participation. Thus the various popular organizations in Cuba (Municipal Assemblies, Mass Organisations, etc) seem to be retaining their democratic integrity with reasonable robustness. But the Communist Party, evidently, may be in danger of sliding down the organizational slippery slope toward becoming an elite corrupted by self-interest. If the Cuban structural model is to be recommended for wider emulation (:>) then perhaps a leadership-cadre organization should be omitted from the plan. Why does Cuba have a Communist Party organization? If it serves useful purposes, can those be served in another way, one more democratically robust? I'm talking about _structural_ emulation for the rest of us, by the way, not a transplantation of Cuban communism. The revolutionary leadership cadre in Norway or Canada, for example, might have minimal interest in marxism. But _any_ leadership cadre, if given a supporting organization, is in danger of becoming self-serving. It might be better for the leaders to be, for example, "unorganized wise elders". In sufi tradition, which is acutely aware of "my" organizational law (I paraphrased it from them), there are no sufi organizations. Sufi teachers live regular lives and their spiritual work is done as individuals and small groups. Furthermore, emulation of the Cuban model does not require major consitutional revisions. Most of the party-political apparatus that currently oppresses us is a matter of custom, not Constitutional prescription. I saw very little in our recent Cuban testimonials that couldn't be implemented, in essentials, under the US Consitution, for example. rkm To join cyberjournal, simply send: To: listserv@cpsr.org Subject: (ignored) --- sub cyberjournal John Q. Doe <-- your name there From rkmoore@iol.ie Sat Jan 31 03:56:05 1998 Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:55:55 GMT Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:55:55 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: cj#768> Re: EU & globalism >rkm wrote: >> Isn't the primary consquence of the EU to lubricate the sellout of Europe >> to globalization? Isn't the concept of an "economically strong Europe" (a >> competitor to the US and Japan) completely out of date under globalization? 1/30/98, Dennis R Redmond wrote to wsn: >No. Globalization is creating gigantic transnational macroregions in the >world economy, from the Pacific Rim to Central Europe. Kohl and his clones >are not con artists: they're the picked representatives of the >Eurokeiretsu, whose combined financial-industrial might outweighs that of >the USA, but whose role in the world economy is still second-tier. This is the standard apologetic for the EU. It fails to stand up to analysis, and in particular it ignores that globalization has undermined the whole notion of "national" as a focus of economic identity and activity. The EU will simply be a very large nation, and as we have already seen in the US and Japan, the prosperity of corporations is no longer of much relevance to the prosperity of the nations which were once called home. Domestic neoliberalism, a core element of globalization, takes the nation out of the economic loop. The nation has (under mature globalization) minimized power to regulate economic activity and minimized benefit from the flow of money in the economy. The ideal globalist nation is one which is in debt to the IMF and which has little in its budget other than debt retirement and police forces. We have seen the future, and it is the Third World. Japanese TNC's, for example, are becoming entities whose stock is traded globally and which produce goods in Asia for exportation to world markets while paying minimal taxes to anyone - what has that, really, to do with Japan? Kohl and his clones _are_ con artists. One of the most direct pieces of evidence is the zealousness with which neoliberal fundamentalism is being made part of the Eurpeanization process. Why was the Maastricht Treaty so strongly neoliberal? Why wasn't it closer to the center of European economic practices? Why does the initial Euro currency need to be bundled with a major shift toward austerity budgeting? The answer, quite simply, is that the elite knew union could be made into a winning political concept, and they decided to use the unification process to smuggle their own globalist camels. Thus they are softening up Europe - the home of the core's most robust democracies - prior to the full globalist assault. You won't see Brussels opposing the MAI the way Canada is beginning to do - or the way France might if it were charting its own best course. >Eurocapitalists have internal squabbles, but they're united on one thing: >they're not interested in subsidizing the consumption binge of US ruling >elites (the US is a net debtor to the EU/Japan). The euro is about >toppling the dollar's status as world reserve currency, and ultimately, >about toppling the rule of the US Empire itself. Again, you're completely missing that globalization has fundamentally transformed the meaning of "nation" and "imperialism". There is no US Empire - that was a _possible_ postwar scenario, but it failed to materialize. Globalization is the _alternative_ to a US Empire. When the US fought in Vietnam, it was not to make it a colony - it was to maintain the boundaries of the periphery on behalf of the core-periphery system generally. The US had wanted France to accomplish the border-patrol function, but Ho was too much for the French. And when the US attacked Iraq, it was not to take control of Iraq - it was in pursuit of globalist objectives - in particular to establish the legitimacy by precedent of a neo-imperialist ordering paradigm, aka the "NWO": Pentagon + NATO = Judge Dredd. The US dollar is the flywheel that more or less stabilizes the global economy. Similarly the Pentagon has been since 1945 the stabilizer of the core-perphery system. It is abundantly clear from the postwar experience that these considerable US-wielded powers have been used to support global capitalism generally, not US aggrandizement in particular. The various "miracles" (German, Japanese, Korean, whatever) have been the intent of US policy, not accidental by-products. Capitalist interests have firmly controlled major US policy making since 1945, partly because of the immense corporate war-production infrastructure developed during the war. It just so happens that the vision of that elite has been "open global markets" rather than "a global US sphere of interest". Europe acceded to this vision by giving up its colonies. Neo-imperialism is collective imperialism. The core has given up national competition, and hence the raison d'etre for a strong nation state. Since the collapse of the out-of-system socialist block, which removed another nation-binding force, the collapse of the nation state has been rapid. You (Dennis) and others are rationalizing the EU by means of an analysis which is long past its use-by date. rkm From rkmoore@iol.ie Sat Jan 31 03:56:14 1998 Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:56:04 GMT Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:56:04 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: Colonial America 1/31/98, Paula Sherman wrote: >There is a group of historians who say that colonial America was >capitalistic to begin with(which I am leaning towards), but just as many >say that it was not and only became capitalistic around 1815. Dear Paula, The American economic model was split at the beginning. The North was capitalist-trending, and overturning Britain's ban on industrialization was an important Northern motivation for Independence. The South was feudal rather than capitalist, making most of its money from cotton exports, with a good portion going to Britain. If as you say capitalism began to become a significant force in the North c 1815, then that means the lead-up to the Civil War occupied 40+ years. The capitalist North wanted protectionist policies to nurture industrial development, while the South was firmly committed to free-trade so as to maximize cotton revenues. This and similar conflicts are what caused the Civil War: that war signified capitalism's defeat of feudalism and its establishment as the hegemonous US economic pardigm. >From that starting point it took the US some four score years to achieve global (or at least free-world) military hegemony, thus establishing the geopolitical context necessary for globalization to develop: the ultimate capitalist dream. rkm From rkmoore@iol.ie Sat Jan 31 03:56:20 1998 Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:56:11 GMT Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:56:11 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: Cuban pride rkm wrote: >> >From what we've been learning on the list, it would seem that the primary >> difference is that Cuba is democratic and Singapore is not. In fact I >> can't think of another example of democracy other than Cuba. 1/30/98, Dennis R Redmond responded: >Think a little harder. To paraphrase Brecht, woe to the socialism which >needs national-revolutionary heroes. What is the evidence that Cuba's socialism depends on the personal intervention of Castro? And what is the evidence that it is "hero" status rather than ongoing leadership contributions that explain his long incumbency? As we have seen, Cuba is not following the all-powerful-central-party model that Brecht was commenting on, nor is Castro in any way building a personal-dictator regime as did Stalin or Mao. >The point is that the socialisms of the 21st century must begin to draw on >BOTH experiences -- the success of the Singaporeans in standing up to the >Wall Street hegemony and creating a nation-state and a national economy >out of thin air, as well as the local organizing and Third World political >solidarities of the Cuban revolution. What is the evidence that Wall Street was unhappy with or non-supportive of Singaporean development? Many nations were initially permitted localized development strategies in the postwar system, provided they didn't embrace overly anti-capitalist policies. You seem to be saying that Cuba is a model of political prowess and Singapore is an example of economic prowess. I suggest Cuba's _economic_ prowess is superior to Singapore's, based on the accomplishment/resources ratio and the US hinrance/help ratio. The more equitable distribution of Cuba's wealth and services is an additional bonus in the comparison. Cuba can be drawn on for _BOTH_ "experienences", and Singapore's friendly fascism can be left in the dust where it belongs. >Possibly China will be the vast >crucible in which some sort of synthesis between economic and political >mobilization will be able to happen; or maybe the new semi-peripheries of >the Eurostate will lead the way. Whether or not China retains any socialism, its political experience offers nothing but negative examples to the student of democracy. rkm From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 31 20:31:09 1998 Received: from gladstone.uoregon.edu (gladstone.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.14]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id UAA08409 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 20:31:07 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (dredmond@localhost) by gladstone.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA19626; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 19:31:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 19:31:03 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: "Richard K. Moore" cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: EU & globalism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote: > Japanese TNC's, for example, are becoming entities whose stock is traded > globally and which produce goods in Asia for exportation to world markets > while paying minimal taxes to anyone - what has that, really, to do with > Japan? Everything. Japanese TNCs are competitive because of a huge hidden infrastructure of national subcontractors, small and medium-size firms, plus a canny and effective developmental state which invests in education and retraining and socializes the cost of R & D for big firms. Also, the Japanese multis are not autonomous actors in the sense of American corporations or their rentier elites: most of 'em are part of still larger "keiretsu" or organized financial-industrial networks (examples include Mitsubishi, the Fuyo group, Sumitomo, etc.). Typically, the members of the keiretsu own each other's shares, do business with one another, and share the costs of financing via a central bank or banks (so, for instance, Mitsubishi Electric, a powerhouse electronics firms, takes out loans from the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, a $700 billion behemoth rightly regarded as the Godzilla of all banking institution, and shares strategic management data, personnel and market information with the other members of its group, thus facilitating long-term planning). It's important to stress that the keiretsu are not centrally-organized bodies as such, but communities of interest, where each firm or bank has a certain amount of say in how things are run, but where management decisions are flexibly decentralized -- indeed, where more money is made available for small and medium-size firms than in supposedly entrepreneurial America. The EU core economies -- principally, Central Europe -- does something similar: Deutsche Bank et. al. play similar roles in fostering the "Mittelstand" of creative small firms, who network with Siemens and Daimler-Benz for contracts. Interestingly, despite all the talk of the neoliberal hegemony, many of the better-run and more successful American firms are starting to do something similar, via strategic alliances and whatnot: Hewlett-Packard is a classic network operator, and Microsoft shows signs of doing the same thing via tie-ups with cable firms, NBC etc. In true dialectical fashion, global capitalism is forcing firms to create what are essentially non-market structures of sharing and cooperation in order to remain competitive -- something Leftists with plans to change the world into a more cooperative and sharing place ought to take careful note of. -- Dennis From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Sat Jan 31 20:55:35 1998 Received: from mailhost.cas.utk.edu (MAILHOST.CAS.UTK.EDU [128.169.76.44]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id UAA09980 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 20:55:32 -0700 (MST) Received: from moe by mailhost.cas.utk.edu with SMTP (8.8.7/mailhost.utk) id WAA21849; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:55:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:55:23 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin X-Sender: aaustin@moe To: Dennis R Redmond cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: EU & globalism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Dennis R Redmond wrote: > In true dialectical fashion, global capitalism is forcing firms to > create what are essentially non-market structures of sharing and > cooperation in order to remain competitive -- something Leftists with > plans to change the world into a more cooperative and sharing place > ought to take careful note of. What does this mean? I mean, I am interested in the behavior of TNCs, but the way this is worded. Andy From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 31 22:05:02 1998 Received: from gladstone.uoregon.edu (gladstone.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.14]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id WAA12362 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:05:01 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (dredmond@localhost) by gladstone.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA26017 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:04:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:04:58 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: EU & globalism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Dennis R Redmond wrote: > > > In true dialectical fashion, global capitalism is forcing firms to > > create what are essentially non-market structures of sharing and > > cooperation in order to remain competitive -- something Leftists with > > plans to change the world into a more cooperative and sharing place > > ought to take careful note of. > > What does this mean? I mean, I am interested in the behavior of TNCs, but > the way this is worded. It means, basically, that in the midst of the current relapse into neoliberal barbarism, capitalism is beginning to eat itself. It's not just the increasing networking of the professional classes who work for the TNCs, it's economic, too: that allegedly invincible and autonomous market is requiring bigger and bigger Government bailouts and regulation, in order to avoid a 1929-style implosion. We've gone from S & L bailouts in the Eighties to Japanese bank bailouts in the Nineties, to West Germany's bailout of the ex-GDR, and now the bailout of the whole damn Pacific Rim economy (a neat one-third of the world economy). At the same time, global capitalism is spawning whole new techniques of workplace input and democracy, via the electronic media as well as a multinational labor-force with the potential of organizing itself into global unions and Left parties. Which isn't to say it'll automatically happen -- this is our job as activists, of course. But the potential for a 21st-century socialism is being created in front of our very eyes. OK. I'm way, way over quota on my WSN postings, so I'll shut up now & let other folks have their say for awhile. -- Dennis From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Sat Jan 31 23:27:50 1998 Received: from mailhost.cas.utk.edu (MAILHOST.CAS.UTK.EDU [128.169.76.44]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id XAA14700 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:27:45 -0700 (MST) Received: from moe by mailhost.cas.utk.edu with SMTP (8.8.7/mailhost.utk) id BAA24415; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 01:27:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 01:27:39 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin X-Sender: aaustin@moe To: Dennis R Redmond cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: EU & globalism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dennis, The potential for a paralyzing dialectic is that, with the expansion and intensification in the integration of global communication systems and organizations, the working class becomes more completely incorporated into the logic of global capitalism. I fear that what appears as "global capitalism...spawning whole new techniques of workplace input and democracy, via the electronic media..." actually represents a greater level of ideological and structural hegemony, a quantum leap in the technology of domination. Transnationalizing struggle is the key, of course, and industry-wide organizing is a good strategy, but compromise is also the road to co-optation and neutralization, especially in the context of globalization. A period of transnational organizing along traditional lines may be analogous to the era of labor co-optation in the historic fashioning of the capital-labor accord following WWII. Like you, I believe the potential for socialism is present. I envision a much more revolutionary path, one that will grow out of the inevitable decay or collapse of global capitalism. We must organize for this. And you are right when you say that a movement will not happen by itself. But we also have to be careful and not follow our predecessors down the path of compromise. Compromise is the enemy of justice. Anything short of dismantling capitalism is defeat. Thanks for the clarification. Andy