From hnashe@hnashe.com Tue Jul 2 08:08:05 1996 id af02504; 2 Jul 96 13:28 GMT Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 13:30:31 +0100 To: aquifer@ibacsata.bitnet, futurework@csf.colorado.edu, BIOREGIONAL@csf.colorado.edu, ecol-econ@csf.colorado.edu, psn@csf.colorado.edu, ipe@csf.colorado.edu, pkt@csf.colorado.edu, pkt@csf.colorado.edu, wsn@csf.colorado.edu, wsn@csf.colorado.edu, LUNDBERG@usa.net, homeless@csf.colorado.edu, trade@csf.colorado.edu, service-learning@csf.colorado.edu, peace@csf.colorado.edu, gslistec@u.washington.edu, cheme-1@ulkyvm.louisville.edu, chminf-1@lubvm.acs.indiana.edu, anurt-1@uml.hqadmin.doe.gov, geochem@u.washington.edu, psscb@u.washington.edu, forest@u.washington.edu, biodiv-1@ftpt.br, USA-TELSA@usa.net, GISBUS-L@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu, dairy-1@umdd.bitnet, aquarium@emuvm1.cc.emory.edu, gentalk@usa.net, brom-1@ftpt.br, cp@opus.hpl.hp.com, wind_thresh@opus.hpl.hp.com, wind_thresh@opus.hpl.hp.com, wind_thresh@opus.hpl.hp.com MMDF-Warning: Unable to confirm address in preceding line at relay-4.mail.demon.net From: Philip Marshall Subject: Contributors Wanted Contributors Wanted In the summer of 1996, The International Guide for Environmental Solutions will be completed. We require all information/input in the way of editorial, reference material etc mailing lists WWW sites usenet groups etc... for this free service Please visit our test site at www.hnashe.com and e-mail us with your suggestions and what you think should be included. -- Philip Marshall From harlowc@tidepool.com Wed Jul 10 02:37:47 1996 Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 01:37:50 -0800 From: Christian To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Frank and Gills' World System Rhythms Their are a plethora of positions regarding theories of long term economic cycles and from what I have gathered, also very little consensus regarding the whole issue. It seems that we have much work to do before we can truly come to grips with what exactly the k-wave is created by and consequently its historical trajectory. And within WST some scholars are arguing that they see an even longer cycle. As part of their research advocating the existence of a 5000 year World System Gunder Frank and Barry Gills have traced back what they refer to as a World System Rhythm. I'm pretty sure most of you are already familiar with this notion so I'll just quickly review the basics to set the framework for my point/question. Frank and Gills argue that a complete cycle is composed of an "A" and a "B" phase each lasting roughly 250 years. They have traced this WS-Rhythm through the rise and decline of "interlinking hegemonies"; civilizations connected through trade and production processes which seem to simultaneously rise and fall, deveolp and crumble...cyclically since 2700 BCE. The more implicit part of the whole notion is that this rhythm is actually a very long term economic cycle; driven and delimited by the process of accumulation. My first questinn is actually a request to hear from anyone who has read anything else that might support or refute Frank and Gills claim to a World System Rhythm. I was also wondering just what other people think about the theoretical validity of this concept. Is there a material way to validate such a thesis...if not how should we test it? Or is testing necessary at all, perhaps it is self evident through a reading of world historical records and literature? Is it such a useful theory that we don't need to test it? The whole idea would appear to be quite significant if it could be proved, the potential to shed light on our current historical trajectory especially excites me. However, this doesn't seem to be that easy of a task when you consider the divergence of opinion regarding the much shorter k-waves. Methodologically, how can we refute or validate the existence of a very long term World System Rhythm? Is it better thought of as a philosophy of history? More questions than answers... Regards, Christian Harlow UC Santa Cruz harlowc@tidepool.com From agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca Fri Jul 12 10:35:47 1996 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 12:35:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "A. Gunder Frank" To: Christian Subject: Re: Frank and Gills' World System Rhythms In-Reply-To: <311C676E.168F@tidepool.com> Gunder Frank replies: I have been waiting to see if anyone else will take Harlow's bait on the Gills&Frank cycle. No one has yet, so here I go, i hope briefly: Well, I have read some "tests". three of them: - bosworth in the Sanderson Ed book -wilkinson in an ISa paper, i dunno if/how now published, but he refers to it here and there - chase-dunn & willard, i also dunno published versikn, but Chris refrs to their findings here and there ALL three used Chandler's city-size data, but in different ways. 1 & 2 are pretty confirmatory, 3= Chs-D says his is heads or tails, but i think its actualy MORE confirmatory than that! Gunder Frank=me has/have since revised some of the early datings for my CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 93 bronze age world system cycles article. A dozen archaelogists etc commented on it in perint in the saame issue, some sayiung this is crazy, some that its great, and some suplying more evidence on cuycle/phase datings. At a bar with beer in Lund Sweden, an archaeologist made up a sort of table with the dates going down and different places along the absissa, and handed it around to others archs there to enter their "findings" in the boxes about this and thast place/time. Alas i dunno whatever happened to the table or to the guy who made it. Gunderfrank, thats me, - i have also sought to trace the same long cycle forwards from 1450, and in a new book Ms on 1400-1800 find that the a A phase started in 1400 in East and South ASia [and got to Europe by 1450] and CONTINUED until at least 1750. [there was NO world-wide "17th century crisis"] I am scheduled to TALK about all this at the August 96 NYC ASA meets in a pulsation/cycles plenary or somepin organized by Steve Sanderson. Its the FIRST one listed in the preliminary ASA program. Thats for empirics. As to THEORY, who knows. cheers gunder frank From chriscd@jhu.edu Fri Jul 12 11:56:25 1996 12 Jul 1996 13:52:54 -0400 (EDT) 12 Jul 1996 13:52:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 12:37:41 -0600 (CST) From: chris chase-dunn Subject: whole book now available on wsystems Sender: chriscd@jhu.edu To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu X-NUPop-Charset: English I have put up on the World-Systems Archive the collection edited by Tom Hall and myself that was published by Westview in 1991. The book is now out of print but I still get occasional requests for it. The title is _Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds_. It contains articles by Barry Gills and Andre Gunder Frank, Jane Schneider, Stephen Sanderson, Gary Feinman and Linda Nicolas, Peter Peregrine, David Wilkinson as well as Tom Hall and Chris Chase-Dunn. You can retrieve the whole book or individual chapters. The web address is http://csf.colorado.edu/wsystems/wsarch.html then choose "books" and then "chase-dunn&hall". The ftp or gopher address is csf.colorado.edu/wsystems/books/chase-dunn&hall happy reading. chris Prof. Chris Chase-Dunn Department of Sociology Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA tel 410 516 7633 fax 410 516 7590 email chriscd@jhu.edu From wilkinso@polisci.sscnet.ucla.edu Fri Jul 12 19:22:33 1996 From: "Wilkinson, David POLI SCI" To: * World Systems Network Subject: Have we got rhythm? Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 18:24:00 PDT Encoding: 36 TEXT I had meant to cc this to WSN but didn't, and have since added to it anyway.... Christian Harlow writes: >My first questinn is actually a request to hear from anyone who has read >anything else that might support or refute Frank and Gills claim to a World >System Rhythm. >I was also wondering just what other people think about the theoretical >validity of this concept. Is there a material way to validate such a >thesis...if not how should we test it?... I did an article which incidentally suggests a validation method, describes a database, and carries out a test. "Decline Phases in Civilizations, Regions and Oikumenes", _Comparative Civilizations Review_ Fall 1995, 33-78. This appeared first as an ISA (International _Studies_ Association) paper in 1992, with this overall abstract: Data on city sizes for the last four millennia are consistent with the proposition that macrosocieties with world economies and world politics ("civilizations") show long-term phases of alternating economic growth and stagnation or decline. However such phases come against the background of a strong secular uptrend; their durations are somewhat irregular; intercivilizational collisional effects interrupt, interact with, and obscure them; some such phenomena appear attributable to intracivilizational regions, or to supracivilizational oikumenes (world economies without world politics, integrated by trade but not by war and diplomacy). Nonetheless, macrosocial decline phases do exist, and their causes are accordingly of theoretical interest. There are a few pages on the Gills and Frank phases in particular, which I can send out if there's in fact any interest. From uhuru@chelsea.ios.com Sun Jul 14 14:34:59 1996 Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 16:34:05 -0500 To: WSN@csf.colorado.edu, ancfs@anc.org.za, mp@anc.org.za, studygr@anc.org.za From: uhuru@chelsea.ios.com (muhammad nassor) Subject: africalink =46rom Africalink. **************************************************** News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGE TO; UHURU@CHELSEA.IOS.COM FOR ENTREPRENEURS ,DOING BUSINESS WITH AFRICA IS THE WAY TO GO! Philadelphia,Pa-- More than Ever, Entrepreneurs are starting their own business ,creating the impetus needed for economic power within their communities . The Africalink Business Newsletter publication, provides readers with information on how to make it in the markets of the global African "diaspora". Muhammad Nassor Bey, Publisher , is a 35 year old Business Man from Philadelphia is a Former Vice President of a National Promotions Firm in Maryland. Mr. Nassor has been quoted in the Journal of Commerce,interveiwed on National Public Radio and the Voice of America Radio ,written about by Reuters and The Philadelphia Inquier and is available for commentary. Mr. Nassor is also a trade agent for the Government of Sierra Leone The overall purpose of Africalink is to stimulate economic growth in the african-american and african communities by translating the buying power of african americans into more professional and business opportunities . Africalink is also proud to announce the establishment of a Web Site at http://www.newc.com Published from Philadelphia the Africalink import - export Newsletter focuses on business activities in Africa and the diaspora , import - export contacts , events listings, business leads, business briefs, classified ads and opportunity listings . Too many people feel that Africa is a bad place to do business,ungoverned and plagued by crime and civil unrest . In fact, exactly the opposite is true, many countries in Africa are in need of many things, from auto parts to paper clips. With South Africa, Zaire and other African nations like Gabon and Sierra Leone opening up their will be tremendous opportunity for astute business persons to meet the needs for management skills, consultants, training expertise, educational tools, books and the myriad things Africa countries desire to raise the standard of living and education of their citizens. For details and a sample copy of the Africalink Business newsletter send $5.00 for a sample to Muhammad Nassor Bey 2000 Hamilton Street, suite 531 Philadelphia Pa 19130 or Call 215 223 - 9032 fax 1215 223-9358 Email: Uhuru@chelsea.ios.com Africalink is also offering High yeild investments for underdeveloped nations are now available to governments seeking to increase development by using in ground assests but without having to giving them up or losing control of those assets. for more detailed information on this matter ,contact uhuru@chelsea.ios.com ****************************************************************************= ** No Man will Do as much for you as you will do for Yourself....Do for Self! Marcus Garvey. Africalink Import Export Newsletter =46or those interested in Trade in the African diaspora,there is Africalink. Africalink import export newsletter,published monthly provides trade leads from Africa, the Arab World, The Caribbean and African America,news from the diaspora,business opportunities,maps,Nation profiles, currency conversion information, market analysis and political commentary. ________________________ We Also offer.-------------------------- =B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0HIGH YEILD INVESTMENTS FOR GOVERNMENTS SEEKING DEBT = RELEIF.=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0 =B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0WATER PURIFIERS FOR THOSE= THIRSTY NATIONS.=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0 Africalink Import Export Newsletter samples for $5.00,payable to :Muhammad Nassor Bey 2000 Hamilton st, suite 531. Philadelphia Pa 19130 U.S.A. fax 1 215 223-9358 voice 1 215 223-9032 Nothing is more powerful than an idea who's time has come ! **************************************************************************** ** From cscpo@polsci.umass.edu Mon Jul 15 16:44:20 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 18:43:08 -0400 From: "colin s. cavell" Subject: RETHINKING MARXISM Conference Announcement (Updated) To: psrt-l@mizzou1.missouri.edu, WSN@csf.colorado.edu, world-l@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu, LISTSERV@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU Rethinking MARXISM announces an International Conference .... POLITICS AND LANGUAGES OF CONTEMPORARY MARXISM December 5--8 (Thursday--Sunday), 1996 University of Massachusetts at Amherst Call for Papers and Session Proposals Join with Jack Amariglio, Etienne Balibar, John Beverly, Tim Brennan, Wendy Brown, Judith Butler, Joseph Buttigieg, Terry Cochran, Carmen Diana Deere, Samuel Delany, John Ehrenberg, Gregory Elliott, Arturo Escobar, Ann Ferguson, Alan Freeman, Martha Gimenez, Julie Graham, Ulla Grapard, Sandra Harding, Barbara Harlow, Nancy Hartsock, David Harvey, Frigga Haug, Wolfgang Haug, Makato Itoh, Joel Kovel, Wahneema Lubiano, Robbie McCauley, William Milberg, Warren Montag, Fernanda Navarro, Vicente Navarro, Kai Nielsen, Richard Ohmann, Bertell Ollman, Andrew Parker, Stephen Resnick, Frank Rosengarten, E. San Juan, Paul Smith, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Michael Sprinker, Bill Tabb, Thomas Wartenberg, Cornel West, Richard Wolff, and hundreds of others. . . For further information, see our new web site: http://www.nd.edu/~plofmarx PURPOSE: The editors of Rethinking MARXISM announce the third in the series of international conferences. The first two conferences, attended by over one thousand persons each, brought together under a common tent many different voices of the Left from around the world. "Marxism Now: Traditions and Difference," held in 1989, created a forum where new, heterogeneous directions in Marxism and the Left could be debated after the end of orthodox uniformity. In 1992, the conference "Marxism in the New World Order: Crises and Possibilities" confronted directly the challenges--theoretical, organizational, and spiritual--which face the Left and Marxism as the millennium nears. The editors of Rethinking MARXISM intend this third conference on the "Politics and Languages of Contemporary Marxism" to open new and creative spaces for political, cultural and scholarly interventions. The global restructuring of social relations now taking place (which some call a new offensive of "capital"), and the accompanying new crises and forms of resistance that, in a more or less systemic way, affect the lives of people the world over, require a strategy of cooperative dialogue between and among diverse Marxian and other communities of struggle. It is in the dialectics of these varied notions and forms of community, and in the struggles to wrestle them from the hegemony of bourgeois discourse, that the future of Marxism lies. The purpose of "Politics and Languages of Contemporary Marxism" is both to continue the ongoing dialogue among all already existing Marxisms and to nurture the development of new visions of community that will serve our shared hopes for a more ethical and uncompromisingly humane world. STRUCTURE: The conference will be held over four days, beginning at noon on Thursday, December 5 and ending in early afternoon on Sunday, December 8. There will be concurrent sessions, art/cultural events, and plenaries throughout the conference. We invite the submission of sessions that follow non traditional formats and are open to dialogue among and between presenters and audience, such as workshops and roundtables. We encourage those working in areas which intersect with Marxism such as feminism, cultural and literary studies, queer theory, postcolonial studies, and around the issues of race and ethnicity, to submit paper and panel proposals. We also encourage the submission of papers and sessions with all forms of artistic and literary modes of meaning. The plenary sessions will be interspersed throughout the conference and each plenary session will be limited to no more than two speakers. SPONSORSHIP: The conference is sponsored by Rethinking MARXISM: a journal of economics, culture, and society. LOGISTICS: The Conference will be held on the campus of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Detailed information on hotel accommodations and travel directions will be provided to all conference registrants. PUBLICATIONS: Selected papers, poems, and other forms of presentation from the conference will be published in Rethinking MARXISM and/or in a separate edited volume of contributions. REGISTRATION: Registration fees will be as follows. All conference participants will be required to register. Preregistration On Site regular/low-income regular/low-income Full conference $50/$30 $60/$40 two days $40/$25 $45/$30 one day $25/$15 $30/$15 SUBMISSION PROPOSALS: Send submission proposals to: Stephen Cullenberg, Department of Economics, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA. Fax: (909) 787-5685. Email: Stephen.Cullenberg@ucr.edu The deadline for submission proposals is September 30, 1996. *********************************************** Stephen Cullenberg office: (909) 787-5037, ext. 1573 Department of Economics fax: (909) 787-5685 University of California Stephen.Cullenberg@ucr.edu Riverside, CA 92521 From chriscd@jhu.edu Tue Jul 16 08:03:28 1996 16 Jul 1996 10:00:37 -0400 (EDT) 16 Jul 1996 10:00:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 08:45:54 -0600 (CST) From: chris chase-dunn Subject: wagar's response to wilkinson Sender: chriscd@jhu.edu To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu X-NUPop-Charset: English A special thematic section in Volume 2 of the _Journal of World-Systems Research_ is devoted to "global praxis and the future of the world-system." This section contains thirteen thoughtful comments by scholars and activists on a paper by W. Warren Wagar, the Binghamton historian who wrote _A Short History of the Future_. The section also includes Wagar's response, and to that has been added his commentary on the critique offered by David Wilkinson, Political Science, UCLA. Now that things are a bit quieter on WSN, I am wondering if subscribers might have the time and inclination to read and discuss the Wagar set. The issues -- world state formation, the world party, etc. -- overlap greatly with many of the themes that have already been considered on WSN this summer. These are matters that will be the stuff of world politics for the next decades. Have a look. http://csf.colorado.edu/wsystems/jwsr.html or csf.colorado.edu/wsystems/journals chris Prof. Chris Chase-Dunn Department of Sociology Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA tel 410 516 7633 fax 410 516 7590 email chriscd@jhu.edu From ROZOV@cnit.nsu.ru Wed Jul 17 09:08:32 1996 17 Jul 96 22:07:23 NSK-6 From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" Organization: Center of New Informational Tech. To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 22:07:12 -0600 (NSK) Subject: Fwd:Wallerstein Re: Where the World Capitalism is going? To: "Nikolai S. Rozov" From: immanuel wallerstein july 17, 1996 dear nikolai, it's a long story. basically you are hoping for and arguin for a gentle socialdemocratic resolution of the dilemmas of capitalism. good idea, but it won't happen. see our forthcoming (zed press, 1996);/...omited personal talk - N.R./ yours/immanuel At 12:17 PM 6/26/96 -0600, you wrote: >Dear Immanuel, >I would be grateful for your feedback, at least brief, on my msg to wsn, >I don't know are you in wsn now; you can send the answer to me for forwarding > My best regards, yours > Nikolai Rozov > > >We have gone far away from criticism of WS fathers. While >reflecting on Richard Moore's arguments I decided to suggest a new subject >concerning objective long-term trends of World Capitalism and >possible alternative evaluations of them. > > Three main views on this point can be seen: > a) the liberal 'mainstream' position: "free market economy and democracy >are winning, they are becoming stronger and stronger and they are really >worthy this victory" (Fukuyama, etc) > I think nobody in wsn needs arguments against this position. > > b) the left expectations of world capitalism's decline: it's a world >desease ("virus") and it is worthy its forthcoming failure (Wallerstein, >Chase-Dann) > My question: What are real visible signs of decline or crisis, which >should be stronger than all those problems and crises that world capitalism >successfully prevailed in the past (f.e. in 1810-15, 1848-9, 1914-18, 1930-32, >1939-45, 1968-69)? > > c) the left appeals for struggle against strong and threatening world >capitalism (appeals by Maoism, Trotskism in Latin America, etc, Russian >Communism, maybe in wsn by R.Moore in his struggle against 'imperialism' and >TNC) >My doubts and questions: > Historical facts tell us that in most cases of open 'hot' >struggle against world capitalism did not succeed, but ALL the local national >'successes' (f.e. in Russia since 1917, China, Cuba, N.Korea, Iran, Albania) >led inevitably to mass social disasters, poverty, frequently - mass terror. > On the contrary most "soft" and interior attemps to ameliorate >capitalism were successful, or at least, harmless (Second International and >Social-Democratic reforms in Europe in the beginning of XX, laborists in >Great Britain, socialists in Sweden, promotion of social programs in US, >France, Germany, etc). > Well, WS-theory can tell that it was possible only for core or >semipripheral countries, not for periphery. Great, but in this case the >imperative should be not a struggle against 'imperialism' (ie core countries) >transforming them to less democratric and tolerant regimes, but vice versa - >the imperative should be to try to rise the status (from periphery to >semipheriphery) of most exploited countries and peoples. > Is the last task possible without support of world capital, without >IMF, TNC, Big- 7 and all other 'devils', without appeal to moral norms of >humanism, justice,etc, even if we see so much hypocrisy in proclaiming these >values by mainstream leaders? > > My position in brief on the question posed in the subject above: > - World Capitalism seems to strengthen (not decline), > - it is not a monolite, it is rather open for reforms (much more than all >non-capitalist social regimes!), > - many long-term trends of its transformation during last 500 >years should be morally appreciated, > - the task is not to unmask hypocrisy of its social-moral ideology, but to >use this ideology as a support for 'soft' promotion of reforms for humanizing >Capitalism (first of all to work out the correspondent norms of world legal >system in international trade, debts, raw resources, etc) > >now some comments to Richard Moore's msg: >Richard Moore: >> I ask Dr. Rozov -- Why would modern imperial managers want to >> revert to expensive 19th Century techniques? > >I answer to Richard: bless God, they do not want: to be humanistic sometimes >occurs to be more profitable. > >And I ask now everybody: >1) Where World Capitalism is going from your viewpoint? >2) Isn't it possible and reasonable to create options for further >prolongation of these humanistic-profitable trends of World >Capitalism instead of its demonizing? > > Greetings from Siberia, Nikolai > > > > > >Nikolai S. Rozov # Address:Dept. of Philosophy >Prof.of Philosophy # Novosibirsk State University >rozov@cnit.nsu.ru # 630090, Novosibirsk >Fax: (3832) 355237 # Pirogova 2, RUSSIA > >Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI >(PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history) >http://darwin.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe >/philofhi.html > Immanuel Wallerstein Fernand Braudel Center Binghamton University Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 USA Tel: (1) (607) 777-4924 FAX: (1) (607) 777-4315 Email: iwaller@binghamton.edu From albert@U.Arizona.EDU Wed Jul 17 14:35:41 1996 Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 13:35:24 -0700 (MST) From: Albert J Bergesen To: "Nikolai S. Rozov" Subject: Re: Fwd:Wallerstein Re: Where the World Capitalism is going? In-Reply-To: <1DEBE3034F@cnit.nsu.ru> Dear Nikolai Rozov: The central problem with a serious theoretical discussion of where the capitalist world economy is going/transforming into, is that mostly people have noted national changes as indicative of world transformations. The pre-1989 example was that the WS was heading/changing/whatever toward socialism, and the Soviet Union was used as an example. Now forget the debate over whether the USSR was real socialism, the key issue is that if one takes WS theory seriously, and assumes that capitalism is a world-economy, then any sign of transition to any other world economic system would have to show up in changes in the central structural relations of world capitalism, which, in conventional WS theory, is the core-periphery relation. But, in none of the "where is world capitalism going" discussions is their a discussion of the transformtion of this relation, and that is the central shortcomming of WS projections about the future. To put it bluntly: if one takes the global perspective seriously, then one must identify global structural relations (the equivalent of class relations within societies) that are changing/intensifying/transforming/etc. if one wants to make a serious WS prediction about the purported change in capitalism as a world system. Talking about what happens/has happened in this or that country, is a statement about relations within countries, not about global relations, and, further, if one believes that it is the distinctly global, wholeistic, nature of the world economy that is the key to understanding its dynamic, then one must identify changes/trends/etc. at that level if one is to make any sort of serious WS predictions about the changes in the world economy. At present that is never/rarely done. I have not seen/read the new Zed book IW has coming out. My guess, based on the past, is that shifts/changes/etc. in the core-periphery relation will NOT be at the heart of the predictions about the future of the world and that this will remain a central shortcoming to that analysis as a distinctly globalist understanding of the distinctly globalist character of the world economy/system. Further, until we begin to identify such global structural changes we will not be really talking about changes in the real WORLD economy. Yours, al b. Albert Bergesen Department of Sociology University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 Phone: 520-621-3303 Fax: 520-621-9875 email: albert@u.arizona.edu From ROZOV@cnit.nsu.ru Thu Jul 18 06:53:26 1996 18 Jul 96 19:49:20 NSK-6 From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" Organization: Center of New Informational Tech. To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 19:49:00 -0600 (NSK) Subject: Re: Fwd:Wallerstein Re: Where the World Capitalism is going Dear Al, I mostly agree with you and confess that did not emphasized (but not omitted) the core-periphery aspect of W-Capitalism. Why not to discuss it now in wsn? These issues are very close to the topic of Wagar's paper that Chris suggested recently for discussion. BTW Wagar seems to be free from purist objectivism, signs of which I saw in your reply. Wagar bravely calls to discuss NORMATIVE (or values-oriented, ethical, pragmatic) aspects of global future. Strictly objectivist prognoses are not sufficient in our time. I also doubt in usefulness of any unique scenario and suggest to consider multiple trajectories depending of current choices, coalitions, conjuncture, collisions of cycles and trends, and even of historical chances. In my book 1992 (The Structure of Civilization and World Development Trends) I sugested to consider three modern world-wide megatrends directly dealing with core-periphery axis. Each megatrend (MT) is a stable complex of positive feed-back loops of trends from main spheres of social life. Briefly: MT1 (Inertia of growth, Assimilation, Westernization) leads to maximal liberalization of world economy, maximal and fast profit for the core, encreasing gap between core and periphery, forthcoming ecological, social-political, demographical crises in periphery. Maybe US- Latin America in relations can serve here as an example, Perestroika nad Gaidar reforms in Russia also were done within this logic. MT2 (Isolationism): periphery (or semiperiphery) tries to conserve its cultural-political identity from core expansion (USSR and China until 1975- 80th, now Iran, Northern Korea); the core (or semipheriphery) tries to protect its life level from peripheral emigrants. This MT leads to stagnation of periphery isolates, and to crises of democratic, humanistic principles in core countries (rising fascist-like movements in US- militia, in France - Le Penn, in Russia - Jirinovski, etc) MT3 (Multipolarity and World-wide social-economic-cultural programs) includes support by the core of periphery with preserving its identity (UN, UNESCO, FAO, ecological, medical programs etc), competition of multiple core poles in constructing new semi- peripheries. Thus US and Japan already constructed their semi-periphery - China and S.E.Asia. And now its turn for Europe to build its semipheriphery on the base of Central Europe and Russia. I consider these processes as mutually profitable for patrons and clients. Wallerstein notes that in such scenario vast amounts of people in Africa, South Asia and parts of S.America would be thrown off history. It is really a problem (maybe the greatest humanistic problem of the coming decades) and I hope to hear smth on it from experts in wsn. best regards, Nikolai > Dear Nikolai Rozov: > > The central problem with a serious theoretical discussion of where the > capitalist world economy is going/transforming into, is that mostly people > have noted national changes as indicative of world transformations. The > pre-1989 example was that the WS was heading/changing/whatever toward > socialism, and the Soviet Union was used as an example. Now forget the > debate over whether the USSR was real socialism, the key issue is that if > one takes WS theory seriously, and assumes that capitalism is a > world-economy, then any sign of transition to any other world economic > system would have to show up in changes in the central structural > relations of world capitalism, which, in conventional WS theory, is the > core-periphery relation. But, in none of the "where is world capitalism > going" discussions is their a discussion of the transformtion of this > relation, and that is the central shortcomming of WS projections about the > future. > > To put it bluntly: if one takes the global perspective seriously, then > one must identify global structural relations (the equivalent of class > relations within societies) that are > changing/intensifying/transforming/etc. if one wants to make a serious WS > prediction about the purported change in capitalism as a world system. > Talking about what happens/has happened in this or that country, is a > statement about relations within countries, not about global relations, > and, further, if one believes that it is the distinctly global, > wholeistic, nature of the world economy that is the key to understanding > its dynamic, then one must identify changes/trends/etc. at that level if > one is to make any sort of serious WS predictions about the changes in the > world economy. At present that is never/rarely done. I have not > seen/read the new Zed book IW has coming out. My guess, based on the > past, is that shifts/changes/etc. in the core-periphery relation will NOT > be at the heart of the predictions about the future of the world and that > this will remain a central shortcoming to that analysis as a distinctly > globalist understanding of the distinctly globalist character of the world > economy/system. Further, until we begin to identify such global > structural changes we will not be really talking about changes in the real > WORLD economy. > > Yours, > > al b. > > > > Albert Bergesen > Department of Sociology > University of Arizona > Tucson, Arizona 85721 > Phone: 520-621-3303 > Fax: 520-621-9875 > email: albert@u.arizona.edu > > Nikolai S. Rozov # Address:Dept. of Philosophy Prof.of Philosophy # Novosibirsk State University rozov@cnit.nsu.ru # 630090, Novosibirsk Fax: (3832) 355237 # Pirogova 2, RUSSIA Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI (PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history) http://darwin.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe /philofhi.html From ROZOV@cnit.nsu.ru Thu Jul 18 07:57:21 1996 18 Jul 96 20:49:18 NSK-6 From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" Organization: Center of New Informational Tech. To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 20:49:08 -0600 (NSK) Subject: Re: Where World Capitalism is going? Thank you Bruce for detailed scrutinizing my message and apologies for my delay to answer. My msg was not more than a sketch directed to emphasize some general ideas. But I am ready also to discuss detailes. > From: "Bruce R. McFarling" > > This suggests a view of 'world capitalism' that is a bit > too idealized for me. By the nature of the term, there would only > be one 'world capitalism' as a time, but observing a 'world > capitalism' in the late 18th century and observing a 'world > capitalism' in the late 20th centruy is a far stretch from > the two 'world capitalisms' being the *same* world capitalism. > That identification requires support. two or one, the same or another - such questions are typical for qualifying historical entities and the answers directly depend on presupposed criteria. I believe that both views (the same capitalism or the sequence of capitalisms) have proponents and reasons. My point is that besides this debate my thesis that the capitalism of 19cent. and first half of XX met and prevailed crises more sharp and dangeorus than all modern ones. > > > c) the left appeals for struggle against strong and > > threatening world capitalism (appeals by Maoism, Trotskism > > in Latin America, etc, Russian Communism, maybe in wsn by > > R.Moore in his struggle against 'imperialism' and TNC) > > My doubts and questions: > > Historical facts tell us that in most cases of open 'hot' > > struggle against world capitalism did not succeed, but ALL > > the local national 'successes' (f.e. in Russia since 1917, > > China, Cuba, N.Korea, Iran, Albania, led inevitably to mass > > social disasters, poverty, frequently - mass terror. > I find it hard to credit Castro's regime with leading > to poverty in Cuba. I don't much favor hypotheses with > consequences leading causes by that length of time. And > there's a bit of a post-hoc ergo propter-hoc problem, as > well, particularly if you note the tremendous economic > growth (sic) of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica > over this time. Castro transformed Cuba from periphery to communistic isolate. I have not insisted that to periphery in w-economy gives any guarantees for growth. They have some chances, not more (take South-East Asia that triumphally used its chance).I insist only on the guarantees for non-growth and stagnation for communistic isolates (in spite of periods of military- industrial growth by means of mass slavery as in USSR 1920-56) > > > On the contrary most "soft" and interior attemps to > > ameliorate capitalism were successful, or at least, harmless > > (Second International and Social-Democratic reforms in Europe > > in the beginning of XX, laborists in Great Britain, socialists > > in Sweden, promotion of social programs in US, France, Germany, > > etc). > > Well, WS-theory can tell that it was possible only for core > > or semipripheral countries, not for periphery. Great, but in this > > case the imperative should be not a struggle against 'imperialism' > > (ie core countries) transforming them to less democratric and > > tolerant regimes, but vice versa - the imperative should be to try > > to rise the status (from periphery to semipheriphery) of most > > exploited countries and peoples. > > Is the last task possible without support of world capital, > > without IMF, TNC, Big- 7 and all other 'devils', without appeal > > to moral norms of humanism, justice,etc, even if we see so much > > hypocrisy in proclaiming these values by mainstream leaders? > > The question supposes that it's possible *with* the support > of 'world capital'. Whatever that means, and if it means anything > *besides* the IMF/WorldBank/TNC's or the Big7. Oh, well, you are fairly precise here and I was not precise. But what the use of splitting hairs instead of principal debate? > > My position in brief on the question posed in the subject above: > > - World Capitalism seems to strengthen (not decline), > > - it is not a monolith, it is rather open for reforms > > (much more than all non-capitalist social regimes!), > > - many long-term trends of its transformation during last 500 > > years should be morally appreciated, > > - the task is not to unmask hypocrisy of its social-moral > > ideology, but to use this ideology as a support for 'soft' > > promotion of reforms for humanizing Capitalism (first of > > all to work out the correspondent norms of world legal > > system in international trade, debts, raw resources, etc) > > Primarily, however, I find it very striking to > find a position that 'World Capitalism' is *not* a monolith. > To say that it's not a monolith, is to say that it is useful > to consider it as not really an *it*, but instead as a > collection of institutions and polities. Which implies > that at a less course resolution, we are talking about > capitalisms (and other economic systems) in interaction. > So, for example, someone could identify TNC's as a > serious problem area for an issue such as sustainable > development, without *automatically* taking a position > for or against other aspects or types (or whatever) > of capitalism. > Or, in other words, 'World Capitalism' implies > 'a direction'; 'capitalisms in the world' admits > 'directions'. Surely W Capitalism (or Modern World Economy, or Global World System, as you like) can be considered as a collection of institutions and polities, as a collection of cores, semip-s and peripheries, as a collection of regional capitalisms, etc. My point is that sometimes a collection of institutions can act as a monolith (like in Iraque war) and sometimes not (as in reaction to debts, world hunger, left movements, communist countries, feminism, immigrant pression, etc.). My main point was that this System as a collection of institutions and polities is not a monolith in projecting and promotion definite image of our global future. The pragmatic sequence is that left, progressive, humanistically oriented movements (and supporting them ws-scholars) should not 'struggle' against Modern W System, making by this the most dangerous coalition of capital, governments and military power, but on the contrary it is possible and necessary to split main capitalist insitutions and polities and construct new coalition with all forces that see their future blossoming in a stable world with not encreasing but contracting gap between core and periphery. regards, Nikolai Nikolai S. Rozov # Address:Dept. of Philosophy Prof.of Philosophy # Novosibirsk State University rozov@cnit.nsu.ru # 630090, Novosibirsk Fax: (3832) 355237 # Pirogova 2, RUSSIA Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI (PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history) http://darwin.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe /philofhi.html From albert@U.Arizona.EDU Thu Jul 18 16:22:05 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 15:21:29 -0700 (MST) From: Albert J Bergesen To: "Nikolai S. Rozov" Subject: Re: Fwd:Wallerstein Re: Where the World Capitalism is going In-Reply-To: <33A0267452@cnit.nsu.ru> Dear Nikolai-- Thanks for replying. Your preference for focusing upon multiple causes, conjunctures, possibilities, influences, etc. is fine, of course. But if and when so many things are considered and if and when we are so open to anything/everything then world systemic principles are no longer guiding/making predictions about world development. Which, you know, is fine too. It is a little like Isaiah Berlin's analogy of the hedgehog and the fox: the fox knows many things--as it seems do you and Mr. Wagar--while the hedgehog knows one big thing--which it was once hoped was the distinctive insight/predictions from a world-systemic theoretical point of view. I am still of that school--I am still a hedgehog--so I still want WS theory to have some predictive power and hence be able to respond to the everyting goes/all influnces count/all possibilities exist fox-school of late 20th century thought. In that regard let me mention two things: (1) your trends which, as I hope I correctly remember from your reply you said had some core-periiphery structural aspects. But these still seem to me to be mostly about changes in countries, maybe additive to make a world-like-fact (an aggregative individualism where individual countries are the individuals) but still non-world systemic. MT1, for instance being about growth, assimilation and westernization, is still about country level change; as is MT2, Isolationism: countries are isolated, not the world-system; and MT3, world wide programs, are reaching outs from core countries to peripheral ones. (2) I would suggest that MT1-3 are themselves consequences of world systemic dynamics, not the dynamics themselves. These are descriptive outcomes, not underlying processes. For example, the whole multiple causes approach you endorse in your reply is part of a larger postmodern movement in thought that is produced by the B-phase cyclical undulation of the world-economy. The A-phase produces its own pattern of thought: generalized universalism. Put another way: A-phases produce hedgehogs; B-phases produce foxes in the life of the mind. I suppose I am a child of the post-war A-phase of expansion and universal theorizing. In the postmodern world of late 20th century thought the absence of general theory is treated in a fox-like manner as an advantage--as you argue--multiple possibilities always exist; nothing is determined. The hallmark of of today's intellectual climate. Everyone from the postmodernist lit crit types to you and Wagar believe in the reality of multiple causes, of no one prediction, of no one model, of no logocentricism, of no one world-system logic. The hedgehog in me disagrees with the fox in you. In that regard I wish to stand as a counter weight and push for the hedgehog agenda: figuring out the inner logic of the world system and from that being able to make theoretically principled predictions about the future. yours, al bergesen Albert Bergesen Department of Sociology University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 Phone: 520-621-3303 Fax: 520-621-9875 email: albert@u.arizona.edu From ROZOV@cnit.nsu.ru Thu Jul 18 20:56:14 1996 19 Jul 96 09:41:01 NSK-6 From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" Organization: Center of New Informational Tech. To: Albert J Bergesen Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 09:40:28 -0600 (NSK) Subject: Re: Fwd:Wallerstein Re: Where the World Capitalism is going Dear Al, it may be strange for you but our methodological positions are in this aspect are very close and by no means opposite! I don't like post-modern tradition in science because these falks make the water of thought not more clear but more muddy. I just as you do try to reveal the underlying logic of historical dynamics. Moreover I still think that Hempel-Popper explanation-prediction scheme (so unfashionable in recent decades) can serve us in combination with rich conceptual apparatus of WST, civilization approach, geopolitical approach, social-changes theory. My 'fox' considerations to which you reacted are limited by the initial position of widest openness to future results of research. Sure, after revealing interior logic, dynamics, maybe laws this range of possibilities becomes much more narrow and a fox should be transformed into a hedgehog. But according to specifics of social-historical reality with changing logic, changing weight of factors, changing limits of growth, self-reflection, significance of choices and conjuncture, I really don't believe in possibility of one precise long-term prognosis. I never told of 'no predictions', 'no models'! On the contrary I appeal to construct and use multiple models, make multiple predictions based on these models and hypothetical laws and then see which presuppositions and hypotheses were right or wrong. Well, stop pure methodology and lets turn to WS issues. I am very glad that you accept the idea of megatrends at least as a phenomenal description. I agree that core-periphery relations are not sufficiently elaborated here, it is really a special large task to combine the megatrend model (polispheral complex of positive feed-back loops of trends) with WS model. You wrote: > I would suggest that > MT1-3 are themselves consequences of world systemic dynamics, not the > dynamics themselves. These are descriptive outcomes, not underlying > processes. I have not now clear arguments to persuade you. But I would be grateful for explicite presenting by you or anybody else of the mentioned 'underlying processes' of 'world system dynamics' and demonstrating how really they cause MT1-3 as their phenomenal consequences. Thanks for promising discussion, yours Nikolai > Dear Nikolai-- > > Thanks for replying. Your preference for focusing upon multiple causes, > conjunctures, possibilities, influences, etc. is fine, of course. But if > and when so many things are considered and if and when we are so open to > anything/everything then world systemic principles are no longer > guiding/making predictions about world development. Which, you know, is > fine too. It is a little like Isaiah Berlin's analogy of the hedgehog > and the fox: the fox knows many things--as it seems do you and Mr. > Wagar--while the hedgehog knows one big thing--which it was once hoped was > the distinctive insight/predictions from a world-systemic theoretical > point of view. I am still of that school--I am still a hedgehog--so I > still want WS theory to have some predictive power and hence be able to > respond to the everyting goes/all influnces count/all possibilities exist > fox-school of late 20th century thought. > > In that regard let me mention two > things: (1) your trends which, as I hope I correctly remember from your > reply you said had some core-periiphery structural aspects. But > these still seem to me to be mostly about changes in countries, maybe > additive to make a world-like-fact (an aggregative individualism where > individual countries are the individuals) but still non-world systemic. > MT1, for instance being about growth, assimilation and westernization, is > still about country level change; as is MT2, Isolationism: countries are > isolated, not the world-system; and MT3, world wide programs, are reaching > outs from core countries to peripheral ones. (2) I would suggest that > MT1-3 are themselves consequences of world systemic dynamics, not the > dynamics themselves. These are descriptive outcomes, not underlying > processes. > For example, the whole multiple causes approach you endorse in > your reply is part of a larger postmodern movement in thought that is > produced by the B-phase cyclical undulation of the world-economy. The > A-phase produces its own pattern of thought: generalized universalism. > Put another way: A-phases produce hedgehogs; B-phases produce foxes in > the life of the mind. I suppose I am a child of the post-war A-phase of > expansion and universal theorizing. In the postmodern world of late 20th > century thought the absence of general theory is treated in a fox-like > manner as an advantage--as you argue--multiple possibilities always exist; > nothing is determined. The hallmark of of today's intellectual climate. > Everyone from the postmodernist lit crit types to you and Wagar believe > in the reality of multiple causes, of no one prediction, of no one model, > of no logocentricism, of no one world-system logic. The hedgehog in me > disagrees with the fox in you. In that regard I wish to stand as a > counter weight and push for the hedgehog agenda: figuring out the inner > logic of the world system and from that being able to make theoretically > principled predictions about the future. > > yours, al bergesen > > > > Albert Bergesen > Department of Sociology > University of Arizona > Tucson, Arizona 85721 > Phone: 520-621-3303 > Fax: 520-621-9875 > email: albert@u.arizona.edu > > From ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au Thu Jul 18 23:30:25 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:29:10 +1000 From: "Bruce R. McFarling" Subject: Re: Where World Capitalism is going? In-reply-to: <34A0CE693C@cnit.nsu.ru> To: "Nikolai S. Rozov" On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote: [Nikolai]: >>> My doubts and questions: >>> Historical facts tell us that in most cases of open 'hot' >>> struggle against world capitalism did not succeed, but ALL >>> the local national 'successes' (f.e. in Russia since 1917, >>> China, Cuba, N.Korea, Iran, Albania, led inevitably to mass >>> social disasters, poverty, frequently - mass terror. [myself (Bruce)]: >> I find it hard to credit Castro's regime with leading >> to poverty in Cuba. I don't much favor hypotheses with >> consequences leading causes by that length of time. And >> there's a bit of a post-hoc ergo propter-hoc problem, as >> well, particularly if you note the tremendous economic >> growth (sic) of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica >> over this time. > > Castro transformed Cuba from periphery to communistic isolate. I have not > insisted that to periphery in w-economy gives any guarantees for growth. > They have some chances, not more (take South-East Asia that triumphally > used its chance).I insist only on the guarantees for non-growth and > stagnation for communistic isolates (in spite of periods of military- > industrial growth by means of mass slavery as in USSR 1920-56) This is a shift from the position above. Above Castro's Cuba experienced an inevitable mass social disaster due to the nature of the adopting the "communistic isolate" strategy (as it has just been dubbed). It may be that in adopting this strategy Castro's Cuba has been locked out of the opportunities that many South East Asian countries have taken advantage of. On the other hand, its neighbor's that have been pursuing these opporunities have also been locked out, so it may well be that the options available to East Asian nations weren't available to small Caribbean nations. In this case, the 'social disaster' that Cuba has experienced has been to be a bit poorer and a bit healthier, under a government that is from a bit to a lot more authoritarian, depending on the Caribbean country it is being compared to. And the substantial difference between the post-Castro and pre-Castro comparison is the part about Cubans being a bit healthier than comparable neighboring countries, because it was both poorer and more authoritarian than average before it adopted the "communistic isolate" strategy. [Nikolai]: >>> On the contrary most "soft" and interior attemps to >>> ameliorate capitalism were successful, or at least, harmless >>> (Second International and Social-Democratic reforms in Europe >>> in the beginning of XX, laborists in Great Britain, socialists >>> in Sweden, promotion of social programs in US, France, Germany, >>> etc). >>> Well, WS-theory can tell that it was possible only for core >>> or semipripheral countries, not for periphery. Great, but in this >>> case the imperative should be not a struggle against 'imperialism' >>> (ie core countries) transforming them to less democratric and >>> tolerant regimes, but vice versa - the imperative should be to try >>> to rise the status (from periphery to semipheriphery) of most >>> exploited countries and peoples. >>> Is the last task possible without support of world capital, >>> without IMF, TNC, Big- 7 and all other 'devils', without appeal >>> to moral norms of humanism, justice,etc, even if we see so much >>> hypocrisy in proclaiming these values by mainstream leaders? [Bruce]: >> The question supposes that it's possible *with* the support >> of 'world capital'. Whatever that means, and if it means anything >> *besides* the IMF/WorldBank/TNC's or the Big7. > Oh, well, you are fairly precise here and I was not precise. But > what the use of splitting hairs instead of principal debate? This was not an effort to split hairs. The question *does* presuppose that this development is possible *with* the IMF / WorldBank / TNC's etc, and the track record in that respect is not very strong. Regarding the East Asian countries that are cited above as providing examples of the potential available to peripheral countries, it is arguable whether they did so by working with IMF / WorldBank / TNC 'development policy', or by working arounf it. The performance of African countries that have followed the development policy line of the day has over the years been abysmal. So, I'd like to see the specific argument that it *is* possible to raise the status of peripheral countries *with* the support of the IMF / World Bank / TNC's / etc, before looking that the (presently loaded) question of whether its possible without the support of these organizations. Virtually, Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au From edtgg@cc.newcastle.edu.au Fri Jul 19 18:28:00 1996 wsn@csf.colorado.edu; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 10:26:51 +1000 Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 10:26:51 +1000 Date-warning: Date header was inserted by cc.newcastle.edu.au From: Thomas Griffiths Subject: Re: Where World Capitalism is going? To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu A brief response to the exchanges between Nikolai S. Rozov and Bruce McFarling: >On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote: >>>> My doubts and questions: >>>> Historical facts tell us that in most cases of open 'hot' >>>> struggle against world capitalism did not succeed, but ALL >>>> the local national 'successes' (f.e. in Russia since 1917, >>>> China, Cuba, N.Korea, Iran, Albania, led inevitably to mass >>>> social disasters, poverty, frequently - mass terror. > > Bruce McFarling responded: >>> I find it hard to credit Castro's regime with leading >>> to poverty in Cuba. I don't much favor hypotheses with >>> consequences leading causes by that length of time. And >>> there's a bit of a post-hoc ergo propter-hoc problem, as >>> well, particularly if you note the tremendous economic >>> growth (sic) of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica >>> over this time. I have to agree with Bruce that attributing Cuba's current poverty to Castro's government is problematic at best, if not hard to sustain, as is Nikolai's subsequent claim that the "communist isolate" strategy (when are you arguing this strategy began, 1959?, 1961?, 1990/90?) guaranteed "non-growth and stagnation". The critical point is against who we are comparing the performance of this country / its strategy. As Cuba experienced high rates of economic growth through the 70s until the mid 1980s, and an accompanying rise in living standards, consumption rates and numerous other social indicators, how many other peripheral countries experienced comparatively disastrous results, using very different development strategies? I would have thought that WST makes this type of issue very clear. Cuba was searching for alternative strategies, following the successful overthrow of the Batista regime in 1959, precisely because of its own experience of exploitation within the w-economy as a peripheral country, and ample evidence from the Caribbean Central American region of the remote likelihood of success if more moderate and conventional approaches were taken. Cubans have indeed emerged a bit poorer and a bit healthier, as Bruce pointed out. We could add a bit better educated, better housed, with a bit more economic security... and I would argue under a government that is from a bit *less* to a lot more authoritarian as compared to its region. The results of this "communist isolate" strategy is that Cuba finds itself, 37 years later, facing many of the same problems - the need for capital, technology and markets - as do its neighbours after attempts to secure these with the support of 'world capital'. Finally, I must again support Bruce's call: > This was not an effort to split hairs. The question *does* >presuppose that this development is possible *with* the IMF / WorldBank / >TNC's etc, and the track record in that respect is not very strong. >Regarding the East Asian countries that are cited above as providing >examples of the potential available to peripheral countries, it is >arguable whether they did so by working with IMF / WorldBank / TNC >'development policy', or by working arounf it. The performance of African >countries that have followed the development policy line of the day has >over the years been abysmal. So, I'd like to see the specific argument >that it *is* possible to raise the status of peripheral countries *with* the >support of the IMF / World Bank / TNC's / etc, before looking that the >(presently loaded) question of whether its possible without the support >of these organizations. > The questions raised are absolutely crucial. It is precisely the abysmal performance of other peripheral countries that help the Castro government retain significant domestic support, despite its authoritarianism and the past 6 years of severe crisis. The ambivalence of many people to the current strategy of re-insertion into the w-economy using foreign investment, but to date without seeking IMF / World Bank support, is indicative of this. Options are limited, so I too look forward to Nikolai's specific argument. Regards and in appreciation of the great reading / debate on the WSN, Tom Griffiths, Newcastle, edtgg@cc.newcastle.edu.au From TBOS@socsci.ss.emory.edu Tue Jul 23 13:33:07 1996 23 Jul 96 15:34:06 EST5edt From: "Terry Boswell" Organization: Emory University To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 15:33:51 EST5EDT Subject: PEWS membership This message is directed at encouraging Sociologists interested in global issues to join the Political Economy of the World-System Section (PEWS) of the American Sociological Association (ASA). The World-System Section is concerned with developing a global perspective as a method of scholarly research within sociology. PEWS is the main arena for research and discussion of global issues in Sociology. In addition to organizing scholarly sessions and social gatherings at the ASA meetings, it offers awards for books, articles and dissertations, and publishes a newsletter. If you are not a current member, I want to encourage you to join (or rejoin) the World-System Section, or if you are a member, to help recruit new members. The ASA allocates sessions at the meetings depending on the member interests as indicated by section membership. This is the only way to affect the organization of the meetings other than the presidential election. We are only a few members short of the 400 needed by September 30th in order to organize three regular sessions at the meetings. Your membership will thus have a large marginal effect, adding a forum for the discussion of global issues that otherwise would not be present at the annual meetings. I should add that nearly all ASA sections have shrunk over the last year, with 10 projected to lose sessions, including PEWS. The main reason is the addition of several new sections, which has spread the membership thin. Joining PEWS now is but a small added cost that is necessary for maintaining, and expanding, the forum for examining global issues. Questions of globalization have finally reached the consciousness of the public and popular media. Unlike other "hot topics" that quickly make way for the next trend, global issues and global problems will only increase in importance as the processes of world market integration continue to accelerate. For sociologists, the Political Economy of the World-System Section is the only forum in the ASA devoted to research on global issues. ASA members can easily join PEWS by simply sending in the form below with a $10 check for dues, $5 for students (others must also join the ASA, which is required of meeting participants). Many faculty sponsor membership for graduate students. This is a great way to introduce graduate students to a supportive network of people who are pursuing global and development research. If they are ASA members, simply send in $5 along with their name and address on the form below. ===================================================================== American Sociological Association 1722 N. Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 From:_______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ ____ I am an ASA member, and want to join the Political Economy of the World-System Section. Enclosed is a check for $10.00 for Section dues for this year, $5.00 for students. ____ I am not an ASA member, but I am interested in joining the Political Economy of the World-System Section. Please send me information about membership in both the ASA and the World-System Section. Make checks payable to the American Sociological Association From ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au Wed Jul 24 22:33:42 1996 25 Jul 1996 14:32:21 +1000 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:32:21 +1000 From: "Bruce R. McFarling" Subject: W. Warren Wagar's "Praxis" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Regarding the article by Wagar and symposium of commentary published as Article 2, comments and reponse In JWSR, Volume 2, Number 2, 1996, http://csf.colorado.edu/wsystems/jwsr.html ISSN 1076-156X In "TOWARD A PRAXIS OF WORLD INTEGRATION", W. Warren Wagar writes (quoted text pp.1-3 [electronic page markers embedded in quoted text]): ________________________________________________________________ > > The theme of the 90th annual meeting of the American > Sociological Association is "Community of Communities: > Shaping Our Future." The program asks three leading > questions: must the plurality of communities now > identifying themselves throughout the world "along ethnic, > racial, gender, religious, and other lines...be blended away > to ensure civility? Or, can we have a society of vying > tribes without shared bonds and values? Or can there be a > shared framework in which many colorful elements find a new > place...[in] a community of communities?" >_______________________________________________________________ Wagar will claim to be presenting a fourth question, but he is really going to answer (1): the plurality of communities now identifying themselves throughout the world along ethnic (etc...) lines must be blended away to ensure civility. So if these were leading questions in the sense of framing to bias preferences toward (3), it didn't work on W. Warren Wagar. But to be fair, these questions are leading questions in one way or another, and they lead toward selecting (3), and W. Warren Wagar does not want to select (3), as one wouldn't if one wants to answer (1). So he criticizes the questions by parable: ________________________________________________________________ > > The authors of the program might just as well have > asked--transferring these questions to the realm of [Page > 1] domestic relations--whether husband and wife should fuse > into some kind of fabulous androgynous quadruped, go their > separate ways, or form an interdependent partnership > respecting the rights and values of each. >_______________________________________________________________ Now the analogy is fairly loose. The first option, the one that W. Warren Wagar is going to adopt below, is turned into a fantastic absurdity in the analogy, which diverts attention from the fact that he will select it -- in its original form, of course, and not in the form of the fantastic analogy. The second is quite obviously *not* a society of vying tribes without shared bonds and values. If the tribes *could* go their seperate ways, there wouldn't be nearly the problem of the tribes *vying*. In fact, I have seen that as a stronger assertion: More than five millenia ago, when the tribes *could* go their seperate ways, they *did* go their seperate ways rather than have to deal with the problem of power. Civilization happened because we ran out of unoccupited, prime real estate. And the third alternative that is posed is dispensed with by pretending that it is utopic. Real communities exist. Real communities do not rely exclusively on "mutual respect for the rights and values of each". They rely as well on institutions, rules regarding approved, permitted, and proscribed behavior, and rewards and sanctions enforcing the rules. And therefore, unless the term is explicitly redefined, we can presume that a community of communities will also have to rely on institutions, rules regarding approved, permitted, and proscribed behavior, and rewards and sanctions enforcing the rules. So in transforming the third alternative into a utopian fantasy, W. Warren Wagar evades addressing it as it was posed, and replaces it with an alternative that is much easier to dismiss. ________________________________________________________________ > > ... Obviously these > are not serious questions. No attempt is made to > problematize the issues at stake. The authors offer only > one "right" answer, the third path of partnership, of > mutualist multiculturalism, a future in which radical > feminism, fundamentalist Islam, populist libertarianism, > militant Hinduism, Marxian socialism, born-again > Christianity, megacorporate capitalism, Bosnian nationalism, > Serbian nationalism, and all the other colliding forces at > work in our whirling world somehow lie down together like > lions and lambs in the New Jerusalem and agree to eat grass, > or better yet, develop the capacity to feed themselves by > photosynthesis. It is a profoundly "nice" answer. It is > also profoundly wrong, at least for the 1990s. >_______________________________________________________________ And so the parable was only paving the way for recasting the "community of communities" alternative explicitly as a utopian fanatasy. It may well be that case that some proponents of the third alternative engage in sloppy thinking about it. It would not, in fact, be surprising if many proponents for each of the three alternatives presented engage in sloppy thinking about their favored alternatives. However, in casting the third alternative in the terms presented, only poorly thought through versions of the third alternative have been addressed. It should be obvious that a wishful-thinking community of wishful-thinking communities is not a serious alternative, and W. Warren Wagar's argument here lies on that obvious observation. However, since it is clearly an unfair reading of the third alternative, the possibility of a real-world community of real-world communities is not addressed by the argument. ________________________________________________________________ > > My own answer is to ask a fourth (and also leading) > question. "Should our society of vying tribes be > transformed into a single planetary civilization that > strives to make all people equal and free?" In other words, > should our system of predatory global capitalism flourishing > in a political environment of competing sovereign states be > replaced by a democratic, liberal, and socialist world > commonwealth? >_______________________________________________________________ And it is at this point that I would be prepared to argue that W. Warren Wagar has simply decided to select alternative 1, masking that fact by at the same time specifying some of the content that he wishes to impose on the uniform civilization. But I don't have to argue this, since W. Warren Wagar admits it in the nvery next paragraph: ________________________________________________________________ > > If you say yes, please note that you are not giving a > multiculturalist response. Your response implies, and > indeed requires, the acceptance by the great mass of > humankind of a common secular culture derived from the > intellectual revolution of the late 17th and 18th centuries > in Western Europe--from the Enlightenment and its sequels in > the 19th century. That common secular culture obviously has > roots deep in human history, but it happened to flower first > in one [Page 2] place and at one time. For many of the > same reasons, having nothing to do with race or gender, > Western Europe was also the cradle of the capitalist world- > economy. Because of the place and the time, those who > articulated the culture of the Enlightenment and its > sequels, from John Locke to Karl Marx, were almost entirely > Caucasian males. Is this a problem? No doubt. But it is > not a problem that will go away by chanting multiculturalist > mantras. >_______________________________________________________________ Again, defending the position he is proposing by posing a sloppy version of an opposition position, and then pointing out the weakness of that version of that position. Well, I don't buy it. The Enlightenment secular culture is particularly important as a progressive force because it is a tradition of more or less progressive thought from within the societies that had the means to impose their nasty old capitalist system[1] best guns and armies and ships. If the enlightenment had happened in Europe while the cradle of the capitalist world with the means to impose it on the rest of the world had been in East Asia, or East Africa, or South Asia, or Central America, it would have been the progressive tradition within the dominant culture that would have been important, except perhaps for some radical independence movements in Europe that drew on the enlightenment to show that Europeans had an indigenous progressive tradition. But that's not the most serious reason not to buy it. The serious reason not to buy it is that the solution proposed is so predictably the same old solutions magnified for the world stage. Form a political party, pursue a twin-track progressive front and underground subversion strategy, and grab the reigns of power. Habits of thought that lead along these lines is part of the problem, and so applying them on a world scale is the solution. The most constructive use I see for W. Warren Wagar's argument is as a challenge to elaborate the praxis of developing a community of commuities, as opposed to both alternative 1, the authoritarian solution W. Warren Wagar proposes to work toward (and an authoritarian solution will be the only way to impose a 'democratic world commonwealth' national government on a world-wide level), and alternative 2, the vying tribes, as we've seen for the last five millenium. Virtually, Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au [1] Yeah, this part is a bit tongue in cheek. Figuring out how much is left as an exercise for the reader. 8-)# From wwagar@binghamton.edu Thu Jul 25 10:20:42 1996 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 12:20:38 -0400 (EDT) To: "Bruce R. McFarling" Subject: McFarling on Wagar Just a quick response to Bruce R. McFarling's response. Yes, my fourth alternative smells a little like the first. I think it's a different critter, but there are clearly similarities. Also, yes, I would like to challenge world-systems theorists and sociologists and anybody else to come up with a praxis of world integration or a praxis of community-building on a world scale that can prevent or at least mitigate wholesale chaos and the implosion of civilization in the next century. The refusal of most scholars nearly everywhere to move from theory and analysis to praxis has baffled me most of my life. Further, I do anticipate that beyond world integration will emerge a global community of communities, as discussed in the third book of my "A Short History of the Future." But I see no way to get there except through a transitional regime of socialist world government rooted in a shared world-view. If McFarling sees another way, excellent! Let him point it out! Regards, W. Warren Wagar From ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au Thu Jul 25 17:55:24 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 09:54:57 +1000 From: "Bruce R. McFarling" Subject: Re: McFarling on Wagar In-reply-to: To: wwagar@binghamton.edu On Thu, 25 Jul 1996 wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote: > Just a quick response to Bruce R. McFarling's response. > ... Ditto [squared], since I have to head out today. But I would like to comment on: > ... > Further, I do anticipate that beyond world integration will emerge > a global community of communities, as discussed in the third book > of my "A Short History of the Future." But I see no way to get > there except through a transitional regime of socialist world > government rooted in a shared world-view. If McFarling sees > another way, excellent! Let him point it out! If a socialist world government rooted in a shared world-view, that is sufficiently effective at self-reproduction to establish and maintain itself and sufficiently ineffective to be a "transitional regime" is actually one way to get to a community of communities, that's one situation. I am very skeptical that it is. There may be ways to build a world government that is sufficiently effective at self-reproduction to establish itself, but if one of the ways that it establishes itself is by reducing the autonomy of communities -- which would seem necessary -- then I don't see how it is leading in the direction of a community of communities. And certainly I don't see what it is in the history of the Enlightenment tradition that offers any hope of leading us in that direction. So I don't know that I see a way, full stop, and that is taking the suggestion to head off in the opposite direction to get there into consideration. And, on a pragmatic note, after the long history in the Soviet Union of constantly moving toward communism but never making much progress, the argument that we can get to a community of communities via a single world state is going to be a bit of a hard sell. Virtually, Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au From aaustin@mtsu.edu Thu Jul 25 18:25:47 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 19:26:58 -0500 (CDT) From: "Andrew W. Austin" To: "Bruce R. McFarling" Subject: Re: McFarling on Wagar In a one world government where do you flee to when your government is oppressing you? Andrew From wwagar@binghamton.edu Fri Jul 26 09:07:40 1996 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:08:12 -0400 (EDT) To: "Andrew W. Austin" Subject: Re: McFarling on Wagar In-Reply-To: On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Andrew W. Austin wrote: > > In a one world government where do you flee to when your government is > oppressing you? > > Andrew > Andrew, You left out the adjective "socialist." A socialist world government, which would also be democratic (or it couldn't be socialist), is a government that can be replaced or reformed democratically. If there is oppression, the means are at hand to fight back--through opposition parties, through the courts, through ombudspersons (= tribunes), through the media, whatever it takes. Regards, Warren wwagar@binghamton.edu From aaustin@mtsu.edu Fri Jul 26 09:31:11 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:32:25 -0500 (CDT) From: "Andrew W. Austin" To: wwagar@binghamton.edu Subject: Re: McFarling on Wagar In-Reply-To: A socialist society, if structured correctly, would have no centralized state. Socialist democracy is decentralized, stateless, and classless. If the world was comprised of autonomous socialist communities then the need for one world government would be rather absent, I think. At least I hope. Andy From dlj@pobox.com Fri Jul 26 09:40:05 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:33:58 -0400 (EDT) To: wwagar@binghamton.edu From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: McFarling on Wagar At 11:08 AM 26/07/96 -0400, wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote: >On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Andrew W. Austin wrote: >> In a one world government where do you flee to when your government is >> oppressing you? >> Andrew >> >Andrew, > > You left out the adjective "socialist." A socialist world >government, which would also be democratic (or it couldn't be socialist), >is a government that can be replaced or reformed democratically. If there >is oppression, the means are at hand to fight back--through opposition >parties, through the courts, through ombudspersons (= tribunes), through >the media, whatever it takes. > > Regards, > Warren > wwagar@binghamton.edu This is really pitiful: Warren seems to think he has answered Andrew's question! -dlj. From wwagar@binghamton.edu Fri Jul 26 11:53:12 1996 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 13:53:17 -0400 (EDT) To: "Andrew W. Austin" Subject: Re: McFarling on Wagar In-Reply-To: On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Andrew W. Austin wrote: > > A socialist society, if structured correctly, would have no centralized > state. Socialist democracy is decentralized, stateless, and classless. If > the world was comprised of autonomous socialist communities then the need > for one world government would be rather absent, I think. At least I hope. > > Andy > Dear Andy, This is one vision of socialism, the vision of William Morris in "News from Nowhere." It may well be the telos of socialist evolution, although I see no reason why a socialist society need be decentralized, if the people choose otherwise. But meanwhile there simply has to be a transitional regime of global governance, to clean up the planet, redistribute wealth, dismantle national armed forces, and dispossess the old ruling and profiting elites. Will that regime be a lovely idyllic commonwealth of handsome lads and winsome maids, a la Morris? No. Will it make mistakes? Yes. Will it go wrong, and maybe horribly wrong, from time to time? Yes. I am not talking about utopia here, but a world in which we confront real dragons and really slay them. In the process we will frequently screw up, because we are human, all too human. Does the "example" of the Soviet Union mean we will make a complete mess of almost everything? Well, in history there are no examples. Nothing ever happens exactly the same way twice. All we can do is grit our teeth and do our best. Signing off for the week, Warren From dlj@pobox.com Fri Jul 26 12:46:47 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 14:40:36 -0400 (EDT) To: wwagar@binghamton.edu From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: McFarling on Wagar At 01:53 PM 26/07/96 -0400, wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote: > Will it go wrong, and maybe horribly wrong, from >time to time? Yes. I am not talking about utopia here, but a world in >which we confront real dragons and really slay them. In the process we >will frequently screw up, because we are human, all too human. Does the >"example" of the Soviet Union mean we will make a complete mess of almost >everything? Well, in history there are no examples. Nothing ever happens >exactly the same way twice. All we can do is grit our teeth and do our >best. Signing off for the week, > > Warren I think I get it: eggs, omelette, OGPU. -dlj. From aaustin@mtsu.edu Fri Jul 26 14:51:28 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 15:52:41 -0500 (CDT) From: "Andrew W. Austin" To: wwagar@binghamton.edu Subject: Re: McFarling on Wagar In-Reply-To: The Soviet Union is not an example of socialist democracy gone astray. The Soviet Union was set up like one big corporation. It was a disaster precisely because it was a centralized, top-down, command state economy that tried to do the things that you espouse. I cannot support any plan which seeks to make all cultures and all people live under global rule. If something goes horribly wrong I would rather it be in a small autonomous community than in a totalized world-system. In fact, the problem with the world today is centralized ruling structures and hierarchies of dominations that systematically deny human freedom and crush creativity. If the world is on an evolutionary telos towards socialism then we should see decentralization and greater autonomy of community. What we see is the movement towards a world capitalist order (really already upon us) with powerful (although dissimulated) bureaucratic state and ideological structures. I do not think your world is utopian--indeed, I fear your world precisely because it is not. Andy Austin From TBOS@socsci.ss.emory.edu Fri Jul 26 15:23:13 1996 26 Jul 96 17:24:49 EST5edt From: "Terry Boswell" Organization: Emory University To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 17:24:24 EST5EDT Subject: Re: Wagar's World Contained within Autsin's critique of Wagar is a simple admission that, ironically, makes Wagar's point ring true. Austin states that, "What we see is the movement towards a world capitalist order (really already upon us) with powerful (although dissimulated) bureaucratic state and ideological structures." This is exactly right. Admitting as much completely changes the frame of debate. The question then is whether we have an undemocratic, capitalist world state or a democratic, socialist world state. What is utopian is the proposal that the world has no order. Terry Boswell ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 15:52:41 -0500 (CDT) Send reply to: aaustin@mtsu.edu From: "Andrew W. Austin" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: McFarling on Wagar Originally to: wwagar@binghamton.edu The Soviet Union is not an example of socialist democracy gone astray. The Soviet Union was set up like one big corporation. It was a disaster precisely because it was a centralized, top-down, command state economy that tried to do the things that you espouse. I cannot support any plan which seeks to make all cultures and all people live under global rule. If something goes horribly wrong I would rather it be in a small autonomous community than in a totalized world-system. In fact, the problem with the world today is centralized ruling structures and hierarchies of dominations that systematically deny human freedom and crush creativity. If the world is on an evolutionary telos towards socialism then we should see decentralization and greater autonomy of community. What we see is the movement towards a world capitalist order (really already upon us) with powerful (although dissimulated) bureaucratic state and ideological structures. I do not think your world is utopian--indeed, I fear your world precisely because it is not. Andy Austin From cscpo@polsci.umass.edu Fri Jul 26 16:12:35 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 18:12:29 -0400 From: "colin s. cavell" Subject: Re: McFarling on Wagar To: aaustin@mtsu.edu >In a one world government where do you flee to when your government is >oppressing you? > >Andrew ________ A: The Badlands B: Underground C: Another World D: Academia _________________________________________________________________________ Colin S. Cavell Department of Political Science "There can be no perfect democracy Thompson Tower, Box 37520 curtailed by color, race or poverty. University of Massachusetts But with all we accomplish all, Amherst, MA 01003-7520 even peace." Internet: cscpo@polsci.umass.edu --W.E.B. Du Bois Voice: (413) 546-3408 (1868-1963) http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~cscpo ========================================================================== From aaustin@mtsu.edu Fri Jul 26 16:40:29 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 17:41:42 -0500 (CDT) From: "Andrew W. Austin" To: Terry Boswell Subject: Re: Wagar's World In-Reply-To: <53E8A174B6@ssmain.ss.emory.edu> Terry Boswell's choice between a democratic world state and an authoritarian world state is a false dilemma. Societies do not have to have a state any more than they have to have social classes. Andy Austin From dlj@pobox.com Fri Jul 26 20:02:02 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 21:55:57 -0400 (EDT) To: cscpo@polsci.umass.edu From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: McFarling on Wagar At 06:12 PM 26/07/96 -0400, colin s. cavell wrote: > >>In a one world government where do you flee to when your government is >>oppressing you? >> >>Andrew >________ > >A: The Badlands A few years ago my wife and I travelled across the Soviet Union by train, plane, and Russian steamer from Paris to Yokohama. After a depressing time in Moscow we had a fine time in Novisibirsk, and I commented on this to our guide there. He said "Life in Siberia is wonderful. We are already in Siberia. What can they do to us?" Cheers, -dlj. >B: Underground >C: Another World >D: Academia > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Colin S. Cavell >Department of Political Science "There can be no perfect democracy >Thompson Tower, Box 37520 curtailed by color, race or poverty. >University of Massachusetts But with all we accomplish all, >Amherst, MA 01003-7520 even peace." >Internet: cscpo@polsci.umass.edu --W.E.B. Du Bois >Voice: (413) 546-3408 (1868-1963) >http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~cscpo >========================================================================== > > > > From macdonak@Meena.CC.URegina.CA Fri Jul 26 23:50:04 1996 26 Jul 1996 23:49:53 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 23:49:53 -0600 (CST) From: Kerry Subject: Re: Wagar's World In-reply-to: To: "Andrew W. Austin" On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Andrew W. Austin wrote: > > Terry Boswell's choice between a democratic world state and an > authoritarian world state is a false dilemma. Societies do not have to > have a state any more than they have to have social classes. I would disagree both with the comparison as well as your assertion. Classes are predicated upon a particular economic relationship which is unequal (the elimination of that unequal relationship eliminaates the objective basis for classes), however, there is and would be a need for coordinaating institution (state-like for the semantically challenged :)) where people can practice their democracy. I would argue that the state, in some form or other, the institution is necessary for any group of people above the personal relationship of a band. One can argue about how such an institution would be constituted but it's need would exist. Any complex societal arrangment needs such an institution. Granted, the vast majority of said institutions have been authoritarian and supportive of the existing societal inequalities, however, that does not necessarily mean that there would not be a need for such an institution. IMO, to call for the eradication of the state is idealistic, though the demand that we need an institution which fills many of the functions of the state which is more democratic is appropriate. There is a need for some sort of institution that reflects the needs of that complex social arrangement we call society. Well that's my two cents. kerry From sbabones@jhu.edu Sat Jul 27 07:42:31 1996 27 Jul 1996 09:41:57 -0400 (EDT) 27 Jul 1996 09:41:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 09:41:51 -0400 From: Salvatore Babones Subject: Re: Wagar's World In-reply-to: To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: Salvatore Babones Regarding: > > Terry Boswell's choice between a democratic world state and an > authoritarian world state is a false dilemma. Societies do not have to > have a state any more than they have to have social classes. > > Andy Austin > If, as Wagar suggests, it will take a revolution (or several simultaneous revolutions) to bring about a socialist world-state, we (or they, depending whose side "we" are on) may as well use the revolution to eliminate the state. The only reason that world-revolution would be less likely to bring about a stateless society than a socialist world-state is that it is in no one's particular class-interest to have no state, while it is in many people's class-interest to have a socialist state (bureaucrats, politicians, academics . . .). Of course, a "socialist" state founded on class interests is definitively not a socialist state. I would, however, agree with Boswell that a world socialist state is the more likely outcome (over a stateless society), though itself still fantastically unlikely. Salvatore Salvatore Babones Sociology Department Johns Hopkins University Ph.D. expected Spring '98 From aaustin@mtsu.edu Sat Jul 27 09:15:12 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 10:16:25 -0500 (CDT) From: "Andrew W. Austin" To: Kerry Subject: Re: Wagar's World Kerry, In the statement to which you respond below, I have not called for the eradication of the state (although I believe a democratic social order could exit without one). My disagreement was with Terry's categorical imperative which asserted a false dilemma. You, Terry, and Wagar may desire a democratic state institution through which the masses of the world coordinate their activities, but this desire does not make such an outcome the only possible alternative to authoritarian state structures. As for class structure, not all systems of stratification are class systems. Class systems are systems of stratification that are specific to the capitalist productive mode, with one's class position being determined by one's relationship to the productive means. A classless society is not one in which stratification has been eliminated, rather it is one in which the producer in society is not subordinated to an ownership class. Such a system as capitalism is not a naturally occurring entity. It is a human construction. As such, it can be changed by humans. The point of my remarks is that humans can construct a classless and stateless society. These social forms are not eternal, operating by some mystical "laws of nature." No human society must live under the social forms it has created for itself. The institutionalization of democracy into a monolithic entity through which all peoples must coordinate their activities is not inevitable or even desirable. There are also differing conceptions of, and varying levels in "democracy," which are not being discussed here. Wagar's understanding of democracy is objectionable generally, and his is a conception to which I would object if my posts were addressing this specifically (I have thus far only attacked the notion of a centralized world state-government). I personally believe mixed forms of direct/participatory and representative/ administrative democracy are superior political economic organizations (one paradigm being the Yugoslav model in the early-1950s, another being the Spanish model 1936-1939). But a world organized along these lines would not necessitate a world state. Andy On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Kerry wrote: > > > On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Andrew W. Austin wrote: > > > > > Terry Boswell's choice between a democratic world state and an > > authoritarian world state is a false dilemma. Societies do not have to > > have a state any more than they have to have social classes. > > I would disagree both with the comparison as well as your assertion. > Classes are predicated upon a particular economic relationship which is > unequal (the elimination of that unequal relationship eliminaates the > objective basis for classes), however, there is and would be a need for > coordinaating institution (state-like for the semantically challenged :)) > where people can practice their democracy. > > I would argue that the state, in some form or other, the institution is > necessary for any group of people above the personal relationship of a > band. One can argue about how such an institution would be constituted > but it's need would exist. Any complex societal arrangment needs such > an institution. Granted, the vast majority of said institutions have > been authoritarian and supportive of the existing societal inequalities, > however, that does not necessarily mean that there would not be a need > for such an institution. > > IMO, to call for the eradication of the state is idealistic, though the > demand that we need an institution which fills many of the functions of > the state which is more democratic is appropriate. There is a need for > some sort of institution that reflects the needs of that complex social > arrangement we call society. > > Well that's my two cents. > kerry > From timmons@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu Sun Jul 28 16:46:50 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 17:49:42 -0500 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: timmons@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (J. Timmons Roberts) Subject: Selling Internationalism to Phobics WSNers: After reading some of the posts on Wager's comments about the need for an international state(s) of some sort, I made the mistake of listening to talk radio while driving around yesterday. Only about 12 hours after the bomb at the Olympics, the host was going on about how tacky Centennial Park in Atlanta was, and how the Olympics are another example of creeping internationalism that must be stopped. My own work on global environmental problems and the flight of corporations to avoid labor and pollution regulations makes me keenly aware of the need for strong international controls and at least what Chase-Dunn used to call "A U.N. with Teeth," to enforce them. Perhaps even more is needed, along the lines of an international state. But my point today is simply that selling an international state to that segment of the "masses" who are afraid of anything on a greater scale than their municipal government is going to be tough, to say the least. How does one encourage citizenry and politicians to "give up control" to the larger bodies needed to keep our species alive? That's all. Timmons Timmons Roberts Assistant Professor Tulane University timmons@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu From ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au Sun Jul 28 19:31:24 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 11:30:08 +1000 From: "Bruce R. McFarling" Subject: Re: Wagar's World In-reply-to: To: "Andrew W. Austin" On Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:08:12 -0400 (EDT), W. Warren Wagar (wwagar@binghamton.edu) wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Andrew W. Austin wrote: >> In a one world government where do you flee to when your government is >> oppressing you? > You left out the adjective "socialist." A socialist > world government, which would also be democratic (or it couldn't > be socialist), is a government that can be replaced or reformed > democratically. If there is oppression, the means are at hand > to fight back--through opposition parties, through the courts, > through ombudspersons (= tribunes), through the media, whatever > it takes. This argument relies on a presumption that would appear to be in dispute. The presumption is that a one world government *can* be authoritarian enough to impose itself on the world, and at the same time democratic enough to permit individuals to successfully fight against oppresion. So the response begs the question: in writing the Future history, the government can be made sufficiently effective at preventing opposition to establish itself, but sufficiently ineffective at preventing opposition that it can be reformed or replaced democratically. On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Andrew W. Austin wrote: > The Soviet Union is not an example of socialist democracy gone astray. The > Soviet Union was set up like one big corporation. It was a disaster > precisely because it was a centralized, top-down, command state economy > that tried to do the things that you espouse. ... Since this was under a "McFarling on Wagar" subject line, it was ambiguous who Andrew Austin was responding to. But in any event, notice that we have an example here of a effort to establish a transnational state. Would it have remained in place longer if it was less effective at imposing top-down decisions upon the nations within the state; or would it have fallen apart sooner; or would it never have been established? Perhaps it could be compared to the West Indian Federation, which incorporated sufficient freedom for inhabitants of individual islands to express by democratic vote whether to pursue independence collectively or to pursue indpendence individually -- and when Jamaica pulled out, Trinidad and Tobago pulled out, and after a period of trying to put together a small island WI Federation, even Barbados pulled out and went it alone (see _The Agony of the Eight_). That's less than 5 million people in the Federation, at the time: it would appear that a system that only met a limited subset of the criteria for socialism still permitted too much freedom of action to permit the establishment of a trans- English-speaking Caribbean island governmnet. Which is the question I posed: how is this party effective enough to establish a one-world government in the face of organized opposition from the states that will have to be incorporated by force, while at the same time it remains open enough to opposition that it simply surrenders power in the face of internal democratic opposition? Saying that if it qualifies for labelling as socialist, it won't be oppressive, is simply evading the question: in those terms, how is this party effective enough to establish a one-world government while at the same time it is socialist enough to establish a government that can be overturned peacefully? Virtually, Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au From ROZOV@cnit.nsu.ru Mon Jul 29 08:49:54 1996 29 Jul 96 21:45:30 NSK-6 From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" Organization: Center of New Informational Tech. To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:45:24 -0600 (NSK) Subject: Re: Wagar's World Enjoying Bruce's crucial questions I dare to add some more: 1. What are any real signs of moving towards world socialist state? What can prevail real geopolitical, geoeconomic, civilizational underlying and current surface conflicts? 2. Why ecological, demographic and other crises, 'world revolution' will lead to world socialism, not to confrontation of much more severe versions of modern regimes? Doesn't history and theory of revolutions' results tell that initial popular dreams always were crashed and most cynical, demagogic parts of previous elits win the game? Isn't world socialism a mere chimera non- worthy for discussion? 3. Even if after terrible disasters some collective force manages to get all world power and proclaims itself 'socialist' what factors save it from fast shifting to totalitarian anti-utopia? 4. What really proponents of world socialism mean by 'socialist' besides 'good' or 'humanistic'? What political-economic regime would have a world socialist state? What would be the destiny of non-state capital, property, institutions? If they become subordinate to the world state why will not beaurocracy grasp ALL power and eliminate democracy? If they preserve current autonomy what will be the difference from capitalism? If just taxes encrease (as in Sweden model) for global programs realization what are guarantees against giant corrupcy of giant pyramids of officals? 5. Why nobody of Western scholars say a word of amelioration of international LEGAL system? (For Russian intelligentsia, so tired from revolutionaty, state and emperal ideologies, the West is a symbol of idea of Law, legal approach to social problems, and high art for making coalitions). Why in these discussions the only voice from Siberia calls for legal approach and rational coalition-making? best wishes from Novosibirsk Akademgorodok (I am already here, but really there is much to lose) Nikolai Rozov rozov@cnit.nsu.ru > Which is the question I posed: how is this party effective enough > to establish a one-world government in the face of organized opposition > from the states that will have to be incorporated by force, while at > the same time it remains open enough to opposition that it simply > surrenders power in the face of internal democratic opposition? Saying > that if it qualifies for labelling as socialist, it won't be oppressive, > is simply evading the question: in those terms, how is this party > effective enough to establish a one-world government while at the same > time it is socialist enough to establish a government that can be > overturned peacefully? > > Virtually, > > Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW > ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au > > From ROZOV@cnit.nsu.ru Mon Jul 29 09:18:55 1996 29 Jul 96 22:15:50 NSK-6 From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" Organization: Center of New Informational Tech. To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 22:15:39 -0600 (NSK) Subject: Re: Where World Capitalism is going? returning to the net, my answers to Bruce McFarling criticisms and questions: Bruce: > In this case, the 'social disaster' that Cuba has > experienced has been to be a bit poorer and a bit healthier, under a > government that is from a bit to a lot more authoritarian, depending on > the Caribbean country it is being compared to. And the substantial > difference between the post-Castro and pre-Castro comparison is the part > about Cubans being a bit healthier than comparable neighboring countries, > because it was both poorer and more authoritarian than average before it > adopted the "communistic isolate" strategy. sure Cuba was not a real isolate but Soviet satellit (this Communistic w- empire was as I believe, following D.Chirot, was isolated in many aspects from world cap. economy.) One should take into account enormous economic aid of USSR to Cuba. At the same time I confess that the custom for anti-reading of Soviet ideological information (in this case on pre-Castro regime) played a bad joke here with me. > Bruce: > The question *does* > presuppose that this development is possible *with* the IMF / WorldBank / no, it presupposes only that all main capital and respectable international resources should be envolved into new wide humanistic-oriented coalition, why not IMF besides all others? > TNC's etc, and the track record in that respect is not very strong. > Regarding the East Asian countries that are cited above as providing > examples of the potential available to peripheral countries, it is > arguable whether they did so by working with IMF / WorldBank / TNC > 'development policy', or by working arounf it. really no, the fortunate constellation of historical, geopolitical, and cultural factors helped them The performance of African > countries that have followed the development policy line of the day has > over the years been abysmal. it is really so, as I pointed in my book 'the structure of civilization...1992' the reason is that periphery needs not (only) money but accepting new social and cultural patterns (education, infra-structure, life- style, political culture, legal culture, etc). without aid of this type no money (from IMF or elsewhere) will help > So, I'd like to see the specific argument > that it *is* possible to raise the status of peripheral countries *with* the > support of the IMF / World Bank / TNC's / etc, before looking that the > (presently loaded) question of whether its possible without the support > of these organizations. there some favorite for IMF examples (Hana, Tanzania) but I am not an expert here and by no means I am a proponent of IMF (its policy of opening Russia only for grasping by the West her raw resources seems to me revolting) at the same time I see no serious counter-arguments why not to consider IMF as one of potential members of new humanistic coalition has IMF humanistic demagogy? yes, and so it is possible to play on it once again, Bruce, why not to discuss principal problems of ways of moving to more humanistic future? my best regards, thanks for detailed examination of my msgs Nikolai Rozov rozov@cnit.nsu.ru From wwagar@binghamton.edu Mon Jul 29 09:23:16 1996 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 11:20:07 -0400 (EDT) To: "Bruce R. McFarling" Subject: The World Party: Too Weak or Too Strong? Dear Bruce, Your question at the end of this morning's post is perfectly fair. "How is this party effective enough to establish a one-world government in the face of organized opposition from the states that will have to be incorporated by force, while at the same time it remains open enough to opposition that it simply surrenders power in the face of internal democratic opposition?" In "A Short History of the Future" I take the easy way out--the world in the aftermath of a cataclysmic North-South war is so shattered that most of the survivors embrace the regime of the World Party without needing much persuasion. Some states and remnants of states put up a fight, but they are too weak to prevail. Thereafter the World Party, learning from many past horrors, insists on ruling democratically and gradually, over the decades, attracts mounting opposition. It loses its resilience, but in the final crisis imposes martial law in a last-ditch effort to save itself. So it does not "surrender" power gracefully, but in effect the power has drained out of it, and the world order is then radically restructured to permit the rise of autonomous communities of all shapes and sizes and flavors. Also helping to smooth the transition is the bioengineering of a new, more altruistic human type (this part will be dismissed by all social science purists as a neo-fascist fantasy, but the progress of genetics in recent years convinces me such a thing is eminently possible). In a world not shattered by a catastrophic war (or environmental or economic collapse), the World Party would obviously have a much more awesome task. I have no idea whether it could succeed. In my scenario it is not even formed until the 2030s, and until the war breaks out (in 2044) it makes little progress. The short-term prospects for Homo sapiens are bleak, as Wallerstein keeps telling us. All I am trying to do is plant the idea that an alternative to drift, disintegration, and despair is imaginable. Best wishes, Warren From aaustin@mtsu.edu Mon Jul 29 09:54:02 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 10:55:13 -0500 (CDT) From: "Andrew W. Austin" To: wwagar@binghamton.edu Subject: Re: The World Party: Too Weak or Too Strong? In-Reply-To: On Mon, 29 Jul 1996 wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote: > shapes and sizes and flavors. Also helping to smooth the transition is > the bioengineering of a new, more altruistic human type (this part will be > dismissed by all social science purists as a neo-fascist fantasy, but the > progress of genetics in recent years convinces me such a thing is > eminently possible). I might have missed something. But this is satire, right? Andy From cr4@axe.humboldt.edu Mon Jul 29 10:49:56 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 09:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Robinson Subject: Re: McFarling on Wagar In-reply-to: To: "Andrew W. Austin" On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Andrew W. Austin wrote: > > A socialist society, if structured correctly, would have no centralized > state. Socialist democracy is decentralized, stateless, and classless. If > the world was comprised of autonomous socialist communities then the need > for one world government would be rather absent, I think. At least I hope. > > Andy > Greetings, Such a "correct" socialist structure has had no functioning model as of yet (at least since the advent of the agricultural "revolution" in that some argue that tribal nomadic societies generally approximate a "socialist" society *I find the evidence for this mixed at best*). In fact, such a conceptual model may not be consistent with the intrinsic dynamics of human social ecology as it exists at present. In other words, it may be that "you can't get there from here". Certainly, the self styled socialist societies up till now have been highly centralized entities in the social, political and economic realms. Possibly, a more functional goal would be a decentralized system of increasing economically (and thus potentially socio/politically) autonomous "regions" that are "bound" by a centralized global system of standards and values derived from as generalized a consensus as is possible. Such a system can promote greater levels of individual participation in local planning and fiscal matters and potentially provide vital social innovation, the variation a global system will require to adapt in a sustainable manner to the ever volatile future. At least there are some working micro models as precedence for such a future (as opposed to the "correct" socialist concept). Regards, Christopher M Robinson The Humboldt Sustainable Community Project The HumboldtNation admin@humnat.org From aaustin@mtsu.edu Mon Jul 29 11:41:05 1996 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 12:42:22 -0500 (CDT) From: "Andrew W. Austin" To: Christopher Robinson Subject: Possibilities (Was Re: McFarling on Wagar) Christopher, I appreciate the pragmatism in your position. I agree with what you have written here. I believe that democratic structures should be global, and that people all around the world should work together to build as much consensus as possible regarding how they will conduct their lives in a global world-system. Coordination is important in such a world-system, and democratic structuring (and these forms can vary) is the best way to proceed. When I say that socialist democracy, when correctly structured, would have no centralized state, this assertion is in no way contrary to anything you have said here. Moreover, a coordinated democratic world-system could very well have member cultures whose political economic systems vary considerably. When I say they would be classless and stateless I mean first that the reclamation of the productive means, land, and resources by the producers in society eliminates social class (although this does not necessarily mean social stratification will cease to exist) and that a context where producers democratically control the productive forces would not necessarily require a state. As for the notion that "we can't get there from here," I am not a determinist. Historic levels of productive foundation and capacity do set up further social transformation. And certain technical and epistemic elements must be in place before the next technological/ideational leap can manifest. But, in the final analysis, social forms are constructed by humans and, therefore, can be changed by humans. We currently enjoy the productive capacity to move onto the level of global socialism (of course, alterations in distribution of social wealth would have to take place). I see nothing preventing this from becoming a reality, except a well- entrenched global ruling elite who control the means of ideological production and the planetary military capability. One final note. In a discussion this general, where we are mapping ideal types onto a global context, particularly in a conflict-systems paradigm, delineations will always retain a character of idealism. We are operating here at the most general level of abstraction. Andy From chriscd@jhu.edu Mon Jul 29 13:33:02 1996 29 Jul 1996 15:31:21 -0400 (EDT) 29 Jul 1996 15:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 15:25:20 -0400 From: Christoph Chase-Dunn Subject: Terence K. Hopkins Colloquium (fwd) To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Mentoring, Methods and Movements: A Colloquium in Honor of Terence K. Hopkins Thursday August 15, 1996 New York Hilton & Towers The Green Room 1335 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 Students and colleagues will honor Professor Terence K. Hopkins' four decades of contribution to scholarship and graduate education on the occasion of his official retirement from the Sociology Department at SUNY-Binghamton. The colloquium sessions focus on three of the central intellectual preoccupations that have marked Hopkins' life-work. ___________________________________________________ Session I: Graduate Education: the Formation of Scholars (10 a.m.-12:00 noon) Panelists: Giovanni Arrighi, Walter Goldfrank, William G. Martin, Ravi Palat, Immanuel Wallerstein _____________________________________________________ 12:00 noon-1:30 p.m. Break for Lunch ___________________________________________________ Session II: Methods of World-Historical Social Science (1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.) Panelists: Richard Lee, Resat Kasaba, Philip McMichael, Betty Petras, Beverly Silver _____________________________________________________ 3:30-4:00 p.m. Coffee Break _____________________________________________________ Session III: Scholars and Movements (4:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m.) Panelists: Rod Bush, Nancy Forsythe, Patricio Korzeniewicz, Aiguo Lu, Cedric Robinson, Evan Stark __________________________________________________ TERENCE K. HOPKINS is a product of the Columbia University Sociology Department in its heyday of the 1950's. He was an assistant to Merton and to Goode, and in his spare time was an integral member of the team of Karl Polanyi's vast project on comparative economic systems. He wrote the 'theoretical' essay for Trade & Markets in Early Empires. And he completed a brilliant dissertation on small groups (!) in 1959. He joined the Columbia faculty in 1958 and remained there until 1970. In the 1960's, he conducted research in Uganda, and spent two years teaching at the University of the West Indies in Trinidad. He was a member of the Executive Committee of the Ad Hoc Faculty Group at Columbia during the 1968 rebellion. He came to Binghamton in order to found its program of graduate studies in sociology, and he remained its Director for two decades. He created a very original pedagogical and intellectual structure which has been the strength and the fame of the Binghamton department. One of the founding fathers of world-systems analysis, he has been generally considered its methodologist-in-chief . A member of the Executive Board of the Fernand Braudel Center since its establishment in 1976, he has been a coordinator of a large number of its research projects, and has had a profound and lasting influence both on the research of the FBC and on the work of graduate students in sociology. ___________________________________________________ Colloquium sponsored by the Binghamton Sociology Graduate Student Alumni Association (in-formation). For additional information contact: Resat Kasaba: kasaba@u.washington.edu Bill Martin: wgmartin@uiuc.edu Beverly Silver: silver@jhu.edu --------------------------------------------------- From ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au Mon Jul 29 20:05:55 1996 30 Jul 1996 12:05:12 +1000 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 12:05:12 +1000 From: "Bruce R. McFarling" Subject: Re: Where World Capitalism is going? In-reply-to: <53DCDB2963@cnit.nsu.ru> To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote: > returning to the net, my answers to Bruce McFarling criticisms and questions: > > Bruce: > > In this case, the 'social disaster' that Cuba has > > experienced has been to be a bit poorer and a bit healthier, > > under a government that is from a bit to a lot more authoritarian, > > depending on the Caribbean country it is being compared to. And > > the substantial difference between the post-Castro and pre-Castro > > comparison is the part about Cubans being a bit healthier than > > comparable neighboring countries, because it was both poorer and > > more authoritarian than average before it adopted the "communistic > > isolate" strategy. > sure Cuba was not a real isolate but Soviet satellit (this Communistic > w-empire was as I believe, following D.Chirot, was isolated in many > aspects from world cap. economy.) One should take into account > enormous economic aid of USSR to Cuba. Just as, when considering the cases of Rep. Korea and Taiwan one should take into account the economic aid of USA to these formerly 'frontline' states. > At the same time I confess that the custom for anti-reading of > Soviet ideological information (in this case on pre-Castro regime) > played a bad joke here with me. The best (as in most effective) propaganda has a substantial element of truth mixed in. The pressing poverty of the majority of the Cuban people contrasted to the wealth of a small elite is part of the truth component of the mix. On the other hand, I don't know of any evidence that the Castro regime has solved the problem of succession, so to me the questions are how the post-Castro regime maintains some of the good that Castro's government did against the pressure that can be expected from the United States to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and how Cuba re-integrates with the economies of the rest of the Caribbean. > Bruce: > > The question *does* > > presuppose that this development is possible *with* the IMF / WorldBank / > > no, it presupposes only that all main capital and respectable international > resources should be envolved into new wide humanistic-oriented coalition, why > not IMF besides all others? What you claim is the only presupposition *still* presupposed that this development is possible *with* the IMF / World Bank / etc. Because, if the participation of these institutions is antagonistic to development, then that is reason enough that they should be excluded. To label them as 'resources' doesn't address the question of what they are resources *for*. What do we make of an institution faced with a small island nation of about 100,000 people, with both imports and exports at about 50% of its GDP, who advises that the nation should reduce barriers to trade and increase its degree of openness, and if it does not it will not recieve the IMF 'stamp of approval' and access to international credit that goes with it? It is an open question whether or not it can be used for development, but if it someone wishes to argue that it can, it seems that they should specify how the IMF is going to be reformed to take up such a different role from the one they presently play. > > TNC's etc, and the track record in that respect is not very strong. > > Regarding the East Asian countries that are cited above as providing > > examples of the potential available to peripheral countries, it is > > arguable whether they did so by working with IMF / WorldBank / TNC > > 'development policy', or by working around it. > really no, the fortunate constellation of historical, geopolitical, and > cultural factors helped them Yes. So that it is quite possible this constellation of factors helped them work around the obstacles presented by the IMF / WordlBank / TNC 'development policy'. For example, their ability to go around the back of the multi-national economic institutions to the US, and plead a special case to the U.S. State Department: if the intervention of the US for geopolitical reasons is required to overrule the normal decisions of the multi-national economic institutions in order to permit support for an effective development policy, that sounds like the multinational institutions are obstacles that must be overcome. One way to provide the some of the same benefit to nations that are in positions with less leverage is to eliminate the obstacles altogether. > it is really so, as I pointed in my book 'the structure of > civilization...1992' the reason is that periphery needs not (only) > money but accepting new social and cultural patterns (education, > infra-structure, life-style, political culture, legal culture, etc). > without aid of this type no money (from IMF or elsewhere) will help Precisely. But it does not follow that *any* type of new social and cultural patterns will do the job: in fact, the difficulties faced by different nations suggest that the effective combinations are likely to be far outnumbered by the ineffective combinations. And it therefore does not follow that the new social and cultural patterns that will be promoted by the IMF / WorldBank / TNC / etc. multi-national economic institutions are social and cultural patterns that will help. Since it does not follow, it is a point that must be established in order to support the argument that the IMF / WorldBank / TNC / etc. multi-national economic institutions can be useful as resources for economic development policy. And that is a point that must be established in order to support a call for to draw on the 'resources' of the IMF / WorldBank / TNC / etc. muti-national economic institutions in support of development. Labelling them as resources does not automatically qualify them as useful in the development process. >... > there some favorite for IMF examples (Hana, Tanzania) but I am not an expert > here and by no means I am a proponent of IMF (its policy of opening Russia > only for grasping by the West her raw resources seems to me revolting) > at the same time I see no serious counter-arguments why not to consider > IMF as one of potential members of new humanistic coalition I'm not arguing against considering it: I'm simply arguing that since the proposal is to include a system of economic institutions that are not *presently* playing that role, the position that they can be reformed to play that role cannot be taken on faith. That positions requires presentation of *how* these institutions will be reformed to play this role. > has IMF humanistic demagogy? yes, and so it is possible to play on it I don't see the relevance of the IMF demagogy. The folkviews that are prevalant in an institution regarding what it is doing and why, and the actual impact of the institution, are not always closely related. How do you propose to play on IMF 'humanistic demagogy' to modify the structure of the institution? > once again, Bruce, why not to discuss principal problems of ways of > moving to more humanistic future? Some would argue that the system of multi-national economic institutions including the IMF, WorldBank, Trans-National Corporations, and others *are* one of the principle problems. You are supposing that they can be reformed to provide part of the solution. I can't address your argument that they can be reformed in this way until I see it. Virtually, Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au From ROZOV@cnit.nsu.ru Mon Jul 29 23:50:26 1996 30 Jul 96 12:45:38 NSK-6 From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" Organization: Center of New Informational Tech. To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 12:45:14 -0600 (NSK) Subject: Re: McFarling on Wagar I strongly support Christopher's suggestion. Just some notes. > From: Christopher Robinson > > Possibly, a more functional goal would be a decentralized system of > increasing economically (and thus potentially socio/politically) > autonomous "regions" why not to begin with EU, NAFTA, Russia with CIS, Japan with S-East Asia, India with South Asia, etc? > that are "bound" by a centralized global system of > standards am I right that these standards should have the status of international law? > and values in my book 'The Values in the Problematic World'(forthcoming) I tried to elaborate philosophically strictly a system of such values, including: i) cardinal values (life, health, dignity, basic human rights), ii) subcardinal values (ecological, political, economic options necessary for realization of cardianal values) and iii) ethos values (diversal cultural values, f.e. religious that can and should be supreme for correspondent populations). >derived from as generalized a consensus as is > possible. Such a system can promote greater levels of individual > participation in local planning and fiscal matters and potentially > provide vital social innovation, the variation a global system will > require to adapt in a sustainable manner to the ever volatile future. > > At least there are some working micro models as precedence for such a > future (as opposed to the "correct" socialist concept). alas, this picture is still very idealistic. What about to utilize the great intellectual (and ctitical!) power of WSA in order to work out the main possible structure of this system and the way towards it? best regards, Nikolai Rozov Nikolai S. Rozov # Address:Dept. of Philosophy Prof.of Philosophy # Novosibirsk State University rozov@cnit.nsu.ru # 630090, Novosibirsk Fax: (3832) 355237 # Pirogova 2, RUSSIA Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI (PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history) http://darwin.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe /philofhi.html From macdonak@Meena.CC.URegina.CA Tue Jul 30 00:01:01 1996 30 Jul 1996 00:00:37 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:00:37 -0600 (CST) From: Kerry Subject: Re: Wagar's World In-reply-to: To: "Andrew W. Austin" On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Andrew W. Austin wrote: > In the statement to which you respond below, I have not called for the > eradication of the state (although I believe a democratic social order If you check the bottom of this post you will see that you did use the term "stateless", so you can see wherein my presumption arose (p.s. thanks for appending my reply, as I had forgotten the exact argument. I have a terrible habit of a "leave and forget" when it comes to my posts.) > could exit without one). My disagreement was with Terry's categorical > imperative which asserted a false dilemma. You, Terry, and Wagar may > desire a democratic state institution through which the masses of the > world coordinate their activities, but this desire does not make such an > outcome the only possible alternative to authoritarian state structures. I concur, their are alternatives, my only assertion was that there needed to be some sort of state-like institution of which I provided a version I thought was desirable. My argument was what I saw as the denial of the need for an institution, which IMO is something that is necessary for any society. I agree with you later assertion that what humanity hath made humanity can destroy and create anew. :) > As for class structure, not all systems of stratification are class > systems. Class systems are systems of stratification that are specific to > the capitalist productive mode, with one's class position being determined > by one's relationship to the productive means. A classless society is not > one in which stratification has been eliminated, rather it is one in which > the producer in society is not subordinated to an ownership class. Such a > system as capitalism is not a naturally occurring entity. It is a human > construction. As such, it can be changed by humans. Again if you read my reply, you will see that is exactly what I said. You used the term class and state together in a compartive manner. I was simply pointing out how the two were different in their theoritical construction. I simply wanted to point out that whereas I thought "class" could be eliminated, at least objectively (the Soviet Union being an example), the state or similiar institution was necessary. Also if you reread my reply you will see that I never said made any assertion that class was the only means of stratification; on the contrary my remarks were that it's objective conditions could be eliminated I never commented upon the subject, nor did I make any reference to stratification per se. Again I was responding to your assertions, which did not say anything about stratification. > The point of my remarks is that humans can construct a classless and > stateless society. These social forms are not eternal, operating by some > mystical "laws of nature." No human society must live under the social > forms it has created for itself. The institutionalization of democracy > into a monolithic entity through which all peoples must coordinate their > activities is not inevitable or even desirable. Granted society is a social construction, however, whereas we may be able to eliminate class as an objective condition or even other forms of stratification, we will always need some sort of state-like institution. To argue otherwise is to adopt an existentialist postion, IMO, it negates that we are social beings, born and raised in a social environment. We are created ourselves by the simply fact of being raised. > There are also differing conceptions of, and varying levels in > "democracy," which are not being discussed here. Wagar's understanding of > democracy is objectionable generally, and his is a conception to which I > would object if my posts were addressing this specifically (I have thus > far only attacked the notion of a centralized world state-government). I > personally believe mixed forms of direct/participatory and representative/ > administrative democracy are superior political economic organizations > (one paradigm being the Yugoslav model in the early-1950s, another being > the Spanish model 1936-1939). But a world organized along these lines > would not necessitate a world state. I would agree, however, there needs to be discussion on how those institutions would work on a global scale. The Spanish model would probably be something of a confederation, whether or not this institution is or could be called a "world state" is debatable (and IMO taxonomic or semantic debates are of secondary importance.) The question in my mind is how, given the situation that we find ourselves is how does one get from here to there? How can humanity move away from capitalism, regardless of where we end up? That seems to me to be the central question that the left has wrestled with for the past 100 to 200 years (or longer, depending on who on includes in the term "left".) Anyways, I don't actually seeing us as on opposite sides of the fence on this matter. I simply responded to a part of you arguement that interested me. kerry > > On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Kerry wrote: > > > > On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Andrew W. Austin wrote: > > > > > > > > Terry Boswell's choice between a democratic world state and an > > > authoritarian world state is a false dilemma. Societies do not have to > > > have a state any more than they have to have social classes. > > > > I would disagree both with the comparison as well as your assertion. > > Classes are predicated upon a particular economic relationship which is > > unequal (the elimination of that unequal relationship eliminaates the > > objective basis for classes), however, there is and would be a need for > > coordinaating institution (state-like for the semantically challenged :)) > > where people can practice their democracy. > > > > I would argue that the state, in some form or other, the institution is > > necessary for any group of people above the personal relationship of a > > band. One can argue about how such an institution would be constituted > > but it's need would exist. Any complex societal arrangment needs such > > an institution. Granted, the vast majority of said institutions have > > been authoritarian and supportive of the existing societal inequalities, > > however, that does not necessarily mean that there would not be a need > > for such an institution. > > > > IMO, to call for the eradication of the state is idealistic, though the > > demand that we need an institution which fills many of the functions of > > the state which is more democratic is appropriate. There is a need for > > some sort of institution that reflects the needs of that complex social > > arrangement we call society. > > > > Well that's my two cents. > > kerry > > > From aaustin@mtsu.edu Tue Jul 30 00:32:34 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 01:33:49 -0500 (CDT) From: "Andrew W. Austin" To: Kerry Subject: Re: Wagar's World Kerry, Thanks for your post. One thing you said helps me clarify my position. When you use the term "state-like," I would use the term "government." I do not view stateless societies as governmentless societies. As you noted, and here we agree, I do believe there needs to be a governmental structure (obviously from my arguments, this structure would be decentralized, loosely federated, based on an amalgamation of socialist democracy and anarchosyndicalism). I just feel the state model (in all its variable forms) is a coercive social institution that we can do with out. The dilemma posited earlier--how does one square a centralized world state coercing a multitude of cultures under one authority with social democracy?--gets to the crux of the matter. I don't see how that is possible (not unless the concept of "democracy" is mangled). Andy From andrei@rsuh.ru Tue Jul 30 05:11:59 1996 From: "Korotaev A." Organization: rsuh To: "Daniel A. Foss" Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 14:53:10 +0300 Subject: Re: trade in perspective Reply-to: andrei@rsuh.ru On Wed, 19 Jun 96 19:22:24 CDT Daniel A. Foss wrote: > Exactly! There is no good reason to suppose that the trade amounted to > much, or the profits either immense or dependable, relative to the total > economic activity of Arabia. The same is true of the silk trade in relation > to the total economic activity of Roman-Byzantine and Chinese empires. Yet > even a very small amount of ancient or medieval trade could have enormous > political and ideological consequences. The extent to which this was true > was itself variable, tending to have been rather less in China than in > the Mediterranean world. That is, the extent of Chinese commercialization > was, to a European observer, disquised in Antiquity and Medieval times > by the apparent stability of ideological and political forms. Though > this was itself variable over time. > > Let's look at the events at both ends of the Silk Route which could > have destabilized the trade in Late Antiquity. > > China: > 577. Northern Zhou conquers nothern Qi, unifying North China. > 581. Yang Jian seizes power, founds the half-Mongol Sui dynasty. > 589. Sui conquers Chen regime in South China, unifying the empire. > 617. Assassination of second Sui ruler. > 618. Li Yuan seizes power, founds the half-Turkish Tang dynasty. > > Byzantium-Persia: > 540. Khusro I sacks Antioch. Outbreak of war over Lazica due to Persian > ambition to close off the branch of the caravan route to China which > ran through the Caucasus to Byzantine territory. > 541. Belisarius invades Persia. > 542. Outbreak of Bubonic Plague in Constantinople and Antioch. This epidemic, > the first of many recurrences until the eighth or early ninth centuries, > was to reduce populations everywhere except in East Asia (and Arabia). > Epidemic reached Britain by 549. Byzantine empire subsequently vulnerable > to invasion by Arabs, Slavs, and Avars. > 545. Ghassanids and Lakhmids at war with each other without support from > Byzantine or Persian governments. > 554. Byzantine conquest of Ostrogothic Italy completed (536-554). > 555. Two Byzantine monks illicitly obtain silkworm eggs in Ceylon and return > to Constantinople. Byzantine silk industry founded shortly thereafter. > (Silk production later spreads to Italy and Spain.) > 562. Byzantine-Persian peace treaty covers Arab allies. > 565. Death of Justinian (527-565). Successor Justin II (565-578) ends > subsidies to Ghassanids. > 572. Byzantines lose Dara to Persians. First westward shift of the border > on the Silk Route through Mesopotamia since 363. > 591. Byzantine army in the Persian capital, Ctesiphon, supports bid for the > throne by Khusro II. > 602. Khusro II destroys the Lakhmid base at Hira. > 602. Phocas murders Maurice and seizes power. > 602. Persians begin raids into Byzantine Syria. > 610. Heraclius overthrows and kills Phocas. > 614. Persians conquer and occupy entire Byzantine Near East. > > Now, with lengthening periods of Byzantine-Persian warfare, the border > would have been closed for those periods, with trade shifting to Aden and > the Hijaz route, in principle. But the same periods of major power warfare > would have seen simultaneously an intensification of tribal warfare between > Arab allies, who would have found pillage much more profitable than the > traders found their trade. Assuming, of course, that these activities were > distinct, which they were not. > > We do not have explicit Byzantine and Persian statements which rationalized > military activities in terms of trade. Trade in fact was merely one factor > imposing its logic on the activities of ruling classes, states, bureacracies, > armies, and monarchs. The motives of the latter were not necessarily well > understood by the historians who reported them, whether trade was a > consideration or not. > > Staring at this confusion, we may easily say, if we so desire, that > our theories have dissolved altogether. Dear Daniel, I am finally back in Moscow and can now reply to your extremely intersting message in more detail. Your list of events in Arabia and its vicinities in the 6th - early 7th centuries AD is very relevant and illuminating. Yet, to my surprise you have managed to miss one of the most relevant (for our discussion) events - the Persian occupation of Yemen by the end of the 6th century AD; whereas this is just what can explain the "Crone - Simon Paradox" which seems to puzzle us a bit. (Just to remind, the Paradox is that: as P.Crone has shown very clearly, there does not seem to have been any reasonable place for the massive overland Yemen - Syria caravan trade traditionally ascribed to 6th century Meccans, as after the development in the 1st century BC - 1st century AD of a well-established Mediterrania - Yemen - India sea route there was no sense in the transportaion of any reasonable commodity amounts from Yemen to Mediterrania by the ardious Transarabian way. On the other hand, as was shown by R.Simon almost simultaneously [at least for the English-reading public] with P.Crone, there is still some evidence for the Meccan overland trade between Yemen and Syria). The Persian occupation of Yemen seems to be a real clue here. The sea trade with Yemen seems to have been extremely risky for the Greek merchants already in the last quarter of the 6th century taking into consideration the very unstable situation in Yemen at that time (the first Persian occupation, internal strife &c). And, of course, one can hardly imagine any reasonable sea trade by the Greek merchants with Yemen after the final Persian occupation taking into consideration the immense Greek-Persian hostilities just at that time. These circumstancies appear to have been precisely those which created a niche for the reasonably (though in no way extremely) profitable Meccan overland Transarabian trade. Hence, in fact there does not seem to be any real contradiction between R.Simon and P.Crone - actually, Simon has shown that the reasonably profitable Meccan Transarabian trading network existed, but it was a rather late phenomenon, having arisen in a more or less full-fledged form in the 90s of 6th and the very beginning of 7th cent.AD (which correlates very well with Daniel's & my "chronicle" of the WS events of the time). Yours, Andrey Korotayev, Senior Research Fellow Oriental Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 12 Rozhdestvenka, Moscow 103753, Russia, ANDREI@RSUH.RU From chriscd@jhu.edu Tue Jul 30 09:12:30 1996 30 Jul 1996 11:10:57 -0400 (EDT) 30 Jul 1996 11:10:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:13:44 -0700 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: the world party To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Organization: Johns Hopkins Department of Sociology thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion of the world party and the world state. i agree with warren wagar, except for a few details. there needs to be a world state to sort out the problems that capitalism and human social evolution have created. a state is a monopoly of legitimate violence. governance, commonwealth, federation, all these words will be needed but fundamentally the problem is to create a monopoly of legitimate violence. this because one of the main unsolved and cyclical products of capitalism is warfare. and warfare under modern technological conditions is species suicide. in this regard things are somewhat worse than wagar imagines. because he accepts the position that world wars occur during Kondratief downswings he thinks the likely time for the next one is 2044. unfortunately goldstein has shown that world wars are most likely to occur at the end of k-wave upswings. that would be some time in the 2020s. some see the possibility of global ecological disaster within a similar time frame. the second problem is this. the world party cannot simply wait for the capitalist world-system to destroy itself and most of the people on earth. it must act to prevent that from happening. even though a world state is the best solution as an instrument for creating a more just and sustainable world society (call it socialism, call it democracy, call it a collectively rational and democratic global commonwealth, call it strawberry jello) there is not likely to emerge a world state strong enough to prevent a war among core states in the next twenty five years even if we try very hard, which we should do. given the high probability of nuclear annihilation, that means looking hard at possible substitutes for the world state. one possibility, though it may not be much more likely than a world state, is a renewed US hegemony. yes folks. that is what i said. this is a hard conclusion for someone who spent his youth opposing US imperialism. talk me out of it. chris p.s. this line of reasoning is spelled out in more detail in Chase-Dunn and Podobnik, "The next world war: world-system cycles and trends" _Journal of World-Systems Research_ 1,6 1995. From chriscd@jhu.edu Tue Jul 30 09:34:03 1996 30 Jul 1996 11:31:16 -0400 (EDT) 30 Jul 1996 11:30:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:33:43 -0700 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: new special thematic section on anthropology and the world-system in JWSR To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Organization: Johns Hopkins Department of Sociology Volume 2 of the _Journal of World-Systems Research_ now contains a new special thematic section on anthropology and the world-system. This section was edited by Nick Kardulias of Kenyon College. It contains an introduction by Nick and eleven articles by ethnographers and archaeologists about their use of world-systems concepts. Also included is a witty commentary on the articles by Darrell La Lone. I will post the table of contents separately. You can retrieve any of these you want from http://csf.colorado.edu/wsystems/jwsr.html chris From wwagar@binghamton.edu Tue Jul 30 11:14:57 1996 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 13:15:04 -0400 (EDT) To: chris chase-dunn Subject: Response to Chris Chase-Dunn In-Reply-To: <31FE50D8.5BB8@jhu.edu> Just a few postscripts to Chris's comment of 30 July. I am not a firm believer in the thesis that world wars occur during Kondratieff downswings. In fact I am not enough of a sociologist to believe that world wars must occur during any part of any cycle. The greatest world war ever was brewed in the murky vat of the Great Depression, but its baleful predecessor came during a time of general prosperity. A further point. My argument that the next world war may occur in 2044 is not really an argument at all: it is a scenario, one among many that I might have chosen. I do not believe that another world war is inevitable, or that it has to come during a downswing, or that it could not happen in the 2020s. There is enough instability and injustice in the present world-system to allow it to erupt at almost any time, and there are enough problems in the present world-economy to produce runaway inflation, famine, and environmental collapse in a matter of a decade or two. For example, as Lester Brown asks, who will feed China? China is on a collision course with catastrophe and this matters profoundly to everybody else on earth. Of course I agree with Chris that the World Party must not wait for the capitalist world-system to destroy itself. It would have to do its best to prevent such a thing, because there is no way that the death of one or two or five billion people can be justified. There is no way to justify the death of anybody. But as Chris goes on to say, the World Party might not be able to keep the system from suicide. Maybe a renewed US hegemony will turn out to be the least of the various evils in store for humankind. Better red, white, and blue than dead? In any event, the one thing this discussion has not elicited, to any great extent, is attention to praxis. The session at the ASA last summer that started all this was supposed to be devoted to praxis. How do we get from here to there? Even if we can't agree on what's happening here and what's needed there--and that's par for the course in left circles--couldn't we at least focus for once on appropriate means? If the World Party is a pipedream, what would be better? If it's not a pipedream, how should it be organized, how should it operate, what kind of politics should it pursue? To echo Chris, how do we prepare strawberry jello? Warren From chriscd@jhu.edu Tue Jul 30 12:05:48 1996 30 Jul 1996 14:04:27 -0400 (EDT) 30 Jul 1996 14:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 14:06:54 -0700 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: table of contents for JWSR special section To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Organization: Johns Hopkins Department of Sociology Special Thematic Section on Anthropology and World-Systems Number 3 P. Nick Kardulias Introduction to the Thematic Section Number 4 Thomas D. Hall Worls-Systems and Evolution: An Appraisal Number 5 Mark T. Shutes Tailored Research: On Getting the Right Fit Between Macro-Level Theory and Micro-Level Data Number 6 Peter N. Peregrine Legitimation Crises in Premodern Worlds Number 7 Gary M. Feinman The Changing Structure of Macroregional Mesoamerica: With Focus on the Classic-Postclassic Transition in the Valley of Oaxaca Number 8 Rani T. Alexander The Emerging World System and Colonial Yucutan: The Archaeology of Core-Periphery Integration, 1780-1847 Number 9 Lawrence A. Kuznar Periphery/Core Relations in the Inca Empire: Carrots and Sticks in an Andean World System Number 10 Robert J. Jeske World Systems Theory, Core Periphery Interactions and Elite Economic Exchange in Mississippian Societies Number 11 P. Nick Kardulias Multiple Levels in the Aegean Bronze Age World-System Number 12 Ian Morris Negotiated Peripherality in Iron Age Greece Number 13 Peter S. Wells Production within and beyond Imperial Boundaries: Goods, Exchange, and Power in Roman Europe Number 14 Darrell La Lone Commentary on "Leadership, Production, and Exchange: An Evaluation of World-Systems Theory in a Global Context" From BAMYEHM@woods.uml.edu Tue Jul 30 14:57:06 1996 From: BAMYEHM@woods.uml.edu Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 16:56:50 EDT To: WSN@CSF.COLORADO.EDU Subject: trade in perspective Just a small note to Andrey Korotaev's bringing in P. Crone and R. Simon to testify in contradictory fashion on the Arabian trade; it is worth keeping in mind that Simon's evidence is much more persuasive, and his reading of the sources certainly more wide-ranging than Crone's. Crone's evidence is largely philological (and questionable even as such), and her reading of the sources seems more attentive to a pre-set ideological agenda. Mohammed A. Bamyeh New York University The Gallatin School 715 Broadway New York, NY 10003-6806, USA From dlj@pobox.com Tue Jul 30 15:08:48 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 17:02:30 -0400 (EDT) To: chriscd@jhu.edu From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: And Velikovsky for President... At 11:13 AM 30/07/96 -0700, chris chase-dunn wrote: > >given the high probability of nuclear annihilation, that means looking >hard at possible substitutes for the world state. one possibility, though >it may not be much more likely than a world state, is a renewed US >hegemony. yes folks. that is what i said. this is a hard conclusion >for someone who spent his youth opposing US imperialism. talk me out of >it. > Kondratief (sic) waves, hunh? Like what's your sign, man? You could be on to something Cosmic. Like. -dlj. From aaustin@mtsu.edu Tue Jul 30 21:09:13 1996 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 22:10:30 -0500 (CDT) From: "Andrew W. Austin" To: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: And Velikovsky for President... Comrades, I still haven't figured out the theory these ramblings draw upon. I figured that this thread was just a bunch of bored boys of summer trolling off, but I am beginning to believe that you guys are serious about these fantasies. Hey, if you can get articles published with this stuff, what's the problem, right? In case you guys miss it while you are busy musing about long waves and the functional imperatives in the evolution of world-systems, there is a global corporatist transformation going on right now, with real people behind it, and they are crushing liberty and democracy. When did cyclical theory in world historiography die out, again? Was it with Spengler? Was it with Sorokin? Well, no matter, it was a long time ago. Andy From sbabones@jhu.edu Tue Jul 30 23:22:42 1996 31 Jul 1996 01:22:02 -0400 (EDT) 31 Jul 1996 01:22:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 01:21:46 -0400 From: Salvatore Babones Subject: Re: And Velikovsky for President... In-reply-to: To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Andy and the rest of WSN: Just to set the record straight - Sorokin was not a cyclical theorist. He is often interpreted as such because of his Ideational - Ideographic - Sensate division of western history. But if you actually READ the Social and Cultural Dynamics (instead of relying on commentators who have not themselves read the work), you will find Sorokin *explicitly* emphasizing that he postulates no theory of historical cycles, neither for western history (which he examines) nor for non-western history (which he does not examine). He merely postulates that cultures are unified systems, not accidental congeries. This in marked contrast to Pareto, Sorokin's theoretical alter-ego. In other news: please excuse my ignorance (as well as my poor taste in such prosaic comments on such a poetic posting) - who is Velikovsky? Salvatore Salvatore Babones Sociology Department Johns Hopkins University Ph.D. expected Spring '98 From sbabones@jhu.edu Tue Jul 30 23:41:59 1996 31 Jul 1996 01:41:38 -0400 (EDT) 31 Jul 1996 01:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 01:41:29 -0400 From: Salvatore Babones Subject: Re: And Velikovsky for President... In-reply-to: To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: Salvatore Babones WSNers, Once again, I find myself taking exception to your (well, only relatively) rosy view of the world: Andy to WSN: "In case you guys miss it while you are busy musing about long waves and the functional imperatives in the evolution of world-systems, there is a global corporatist transformation going on right now, with real people behind it, and they are crushing liberty and democracy." I'm still waiting for an example of a free and democratic society. The U.S. is pretty good as things go - I'd rather be here than in Singapore, that's for sure - but I would hardly call getting to choose between two elite-anointed candidates (plus the occasional eccentric millionaire) for each office every few years hardly strikes me as democracy. Of course, I'm a Greek; I grew up on Thucydides, not Hamilton. So far as liberty goes, I think it's great that I can go west and buy an assault rifle any time I want, but I'm not even entitled to due process in traffic court. So, I'm sorry to observe to this list one more time: corporations may do all sorts of evil things around the world (who knows - a few may even do good things here and there), but they can't be taking away the liberty and democracy that we've never had. Salvatore PS - I don't own any corporate stock, either directly or through a pension plan. But I'll admit: I'd like to. Salvatore J. Babones Sociology Department Johns Hopkins University Ph.D. expected Spring '98 From macdonak@Meena.CC.URegina.CA Wed Jul 31 00:11:47 1996 31 Jul 1996 00:11:40 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:11:39 -0600 (CST) From: Kerry Subject: Re: Response to Chris Chase-Dunn In-reply-to: To: wwagar@binghamton.edu On Tue, 30 Jul 1996 wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote: > Just a few postscripts to Chris's comment of 30 July. I am not a > firm believer in the thesis that world wars occur during Kondratieff > downswings. In fact I am not enough of a sociologist to believe that > world wars must occur during any part of any cycle. The greatest world > war ever was brewed in the murky vat of the Great Depression, but its > baleful predecessor came during a time of general prosperity. I would agree, Kondratieff's economic theory is deterministic, mechanistic, instrumental and other bad things :). He attempted to create a grand theory of capital accumulation to explain why capitalism had failed to fall apart. I dislike because it's not only non-dialectical but it negates humanity (given that the two are dependent I guess I'm being redundant ... oh well). > Of course I agree with Chris that the World Party must not wait > for the capitalist world-system to destroy itself. It would have to do > its best to prevent such a thing, because there is no way that the death > of one or two or five billion people can be justified. There is no way to > justify the death of anybody. But as Chris goes on to say, the World > Party might not be able to keep the system from suicide. Maybe a renewed > US hegemony will turn out to be the least of the various evils in store > for humankind. Better red, white, and blue than dead? And that way only those who resist the support of dictatorships go missing or tortured. As for the rest they are simply exploited, forced to work in unsafe conditions, are underemployed, dieing many years before their time (using our lifespans in the North as a comparison). That is better. Wars are simply dramatic death, out of the ordinary. More people die in Canada in industrial accidents than those who are murdered. People have been so commodified and objectified that they are no longer even personell they are human resources. No different than a wrench or plow. The system perpetuates a "state of violence" in the way that people are organized. Granted, here in the North and for those in affluent positions war is a justifiably poorer alternative, however, to argue that Pan America is the answer (or to be fair, the lesser of our evils) is not something that is so apparent. It depends more upon where one is sitting as to whether or not that is an appropriate choice. By the way, what is this "World Party"? Is it B.Y.O.B.? :) > In any event, the one thing this discussion has not elicited, to > any great extent, is attention to praxis. The session at the ASA last > summer that started all this was supposed to be devoted to praxis. How do > we get from here to there? Even if we can't agree on what's happening > here and what's needed there--and that's par for the course in left > circles--couldn't we at least focus for once on appropriate means? If the Means? Hmmmmm? Given that praxis is the combination of theory and action in a dialectical relationship I'm not so sure how an "appropriate means" can be accomplished. This is not to say that we are emascualated or incapable of action (a la Marcuse's great refusal), its only that there is always a kind of "fast food", instant gratification, that seems to embrace certain elements within the left - let's' do something, anything approach. I would submit that much of the angst within the left arises from that need to do it now. It has been said that Rome wasn't built in a day and neither was capitalism and I don't think that it's eradication is going to be accomplished in a few years or even decades. It seems to me that much of what has happened with the left is that it sees that the system is bad and we only need to do this or that and the whole thing will change. This was the hope with the Russian Revolution and we all saw how that worked itself out. The current fad is variations on Schumacher's "small is beautiful". Regardless, the left constantly sets itself up for disappointment; which has lead to a kind of retreat (a la the Frankfurt School boys) or resignation and embracing the "enemy", IMO. > World Party is a pipedream, what would be better? If it's not a > pipedream, how should it be organized, how should it operate, what kind of > politics should it pursue? To echo Chris, how do we prepare strawberry > jello? It isn't simply politics it is social interaction, society needs to be changed. The seisure of the state, whether by force as in the case of the various communist movements, or by the ballot box, as with the numerous democratic socialist governments, just dosen't work. The state is embedded within a system of pre-existing social practices which happers what it can do (Marx is much more elegant upon this point in the German Ideology). IMO, the only way that society will change is when the way that people interrelate changes. Thus stealing an old feminist cleche "the personal is political", we need to change the way that people think and act towards one another; new institutions, networks of interaction, need to constructed. This all takes time and it needs to powerful enough to withstain the hegemonic social norms in order to sustain itself as an alternative. This will take decades or possible centuries or it could simply be a footnote of history (as many of the counter-hegemonic attempts during the Middle Ages were.) The strategy needs to contain certain elements: 1) the critique of the existing systems needs to be continued and disseminated; 2) counter-hegemonic institutions or personal practices need to tried out; 3) that those institutions must also be open to critique; 4) that "support systems" need to be created to provide sustenance (in a subjective sense) to those groups; 5) that people appreciate that what they are doing may only bear fruit for their children's children (if lucky); and, finally (in the sense that I can't think of anymore at the moment :)) that dialectical reasoning becomes more prevalent. This may work or it may not, but the nice thing is that we have time or at least take the time. If the world blows up well that would be unfortunate and we should attempt to insure that the probability is minimized but that shouldn't make us attempt to force something that can't be forced. Or then again I could be off in left field :) kerry From ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au Wed Jul 31 01:38:13 1996 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 17:36:30 +1000 From: "Bruce R. McFarling" Subject: Re: the world party In-reply-to: <31FE50D8.5BB8@jhu.edu> To: chris chase-dunn On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, chris chase-dunn wrote: > thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion of the world party > and the world state. > i agree with warren wagar, except for a few details. there needs to > be a world state to sort out the problems that capitalism and human > social evolution have created. a state is a monopoly of legitimate > violence. governance, commonwealth, federation, all these words will be > needed but fundamentally the problem is to create a monopoly of > legitimate violence. this because one of the main unsolved and cyclical > products of capitalism is warfare. and warfare under modern > technological conditions is species suicide. Two points come to my mind here. First, my own query was focused on the feasibility of a one world state *as specified* by Wagar. If *that* one world state is not feasible, the above argument would indicate a necesity to work toward a one-world state as a first priority, and as the next priority struggle toward the type of one-world state we desire. On the other hand, I don't see any movement more likely to lead to a dramatic escalation in the current level of warfare than an effort to build a one-world government and wrest sovereignty from the nation-state. And in order for the less centralized multi-lateral institutions implied by the 'community of communities' alternative to be effective, the constituent communities cannot be as large as the present day US, Russia, China, India, etc. So either way, whichever is feasible and/or desireable, some fundamental changes at the level of the present-day nation-state may be necessary, in order to effectively manage the problem that Chris Chase-Dunn identifies. > in this regard things are somewhat worse than wagar imagines. because he > accepts the position that world wars occur during Kondratief downswings > he thinks the likely time for the next one is 2044. unfortunately > goldstein has shown that world wars are most likely to occur at the end > of k-wave upswings. that would be some time in the 2020s. And the above line of argument would only reinforce this conclusion. > some see the possibility of global ecological disaster within a similar > time frame. [As an aside, not dlj, who recently surfaced on wsn to troll against the use of long-cycle theory in World-System theory, but has been trolling on ecol-econ (ecological economics) against the idea that ecosystemic crises are a threat that must be taken seriously. I've got my fingers crossed that WSN list members won't rise to take the bait.] Even more problematic, on the time scales of higher-level ecosystem processes, global ecological disaster could occur within this time frame while it takes much longer for its full effects to be felt. An interstate system in which a clear and present danger is necessary (and even then often not sufficient) to provoke effective multi-lateral action is a serious obstacle in addressing problems with delayed onset of the most severe effects. > the second problem is this. the world party cannot simply wait for > the capitalist world-system to destroy itself and most of the people > on earth. it must act to prevent that from happening. > even though a world state is the best solution as an instrument for > creating a more just and sustainable world society (call it socialism, > call it democracy, call it a collectively rational and democratic global > commonwealth, call it strawberry jello) there is not likely to emerge > a world state strong enough to prevent a war among core states in the > next twenty five years even if we try very hard, which we should do. So, while I am not persuaded of the premise, I mostly agree with the assertion. > given the high probability of nuclear annihilation, that means looking > hard at possible substitutes for the world state. one possibility, > though it may not be much more likely than a world state, is a renewed > US hegemony. yes folks. that is what i said. this is a hard conclusion > for someone who spent his youth opposing US imperialism. talk me out of > it. OK, I'll have a go at it. Renewed hegemony would only prevent war if it was successful and preemptive. And in a sense, that is precisely how hegemony works: it is not a static structure that makes for a dominant power, but the effective exercise of its advantages in a way that successfully renews its advantages. The re-emergence of tri-polar trading bloc structures that Tieting Su wrote of in last year's JWSR tells us of the growing ineffectiveness of US efforts to renew its dominant advantages. Is increasingly intense conflict between the US and rival nation- states, in an effort to re-impose US dominance, a strategy that reduces the likelihood of war? I don't think it is. This may be simple-minded, but I would see a strategy that reduces the intensity of conflict between the US and rival nation-states as a strategy that would be more likely to reduce the likelihood of war. That calls for a rethink of the economic Life Space of the US as originally envisioned in the 1930's. Consider when North and South America was considered to be insufficient as a an economic 'Life Space' for the US, one reason to look to the Western Pacific Rim as adding the missing element was the distance of the Western Pacific Rim from Europe as opposed to the West Coast of the US. At the time the strategy underrated the dangerousness of conflict with Japan. However, the only other direction in which to push, eastward across the South Atlantic to Africa, would have immediately involved the US in conflicts with European powers -- and even worse, would have immediately entangled the US in conflicts among European powers. But today? The US is focused on the Pacific Rim and conflict with Japan over overlapping trade blocs in the Pacific Rim -- while Africa is uncontested. Of course, pursuit of a South Atlantic strategy would require the US to re-think its relationship with both South American and African nations -- and in particular, the difference between economic interests of the US and the economic interests of those trans-national corporations that have their flagship headquarters in the U.S. This intersects with the question I raised in a different thread, as to whether it is sensible to view the current multi-national economic institutions as potential resources for development. In any event, *if* the US trade bloc could be re-oriented to reduce the overlap between the core of the US trade bloc, the core of the Japanes trade bloc, and the core of the German trade bloc, that seems to me to be a more promising strategy to reducing the threat of substantially expanded warfare than a drive by the US to re-assert itself as global hegemon. Virtually, Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au From ROZOV@cnit.nsu.ru Wed Jul 31 04:41:19 1996 Received: from mx.nsu.ru (mx.nsu.ru [193.124.209.71]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with SMTP id EAA17338 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 04:40:58 -0600 (MDT) Received: from cnit.nsu.ru by mx.nsu.ru (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA14579 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 17:36:54 +0700 Received: from CNIT/MAILQUEUE by cnit.nsu.ru (Mercury 1.21); 31 Jul 96 17:36:57 NSK-6 Received: from MAILQUEUE by CNIT (Mercury 1.21); 31 Jul 96 17:36:43 NSK-6 From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" Organization: Center of New Informational Tech. To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 17:36:39 -0600 (NSK) Subject: Re: the world party Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <59CF579F6@cnit.nsu.ru> Dear Chris, completely supporting you in peaceful and humanistic aspirations I need an answer for the following questions and comments > From: chris chase-dunn > > the problem is to create a monopoly of > legitimate violence. even if this statement is accepted you cannot deduce from it the necessity of world state and even world party (such party will be strongly associated with starving for world power with all negative sequences), there is another alternative: to preserve monopoly of legitimate violence of nation-states (or their united regional forces) on their territories but only if these states (or unions) are appropriate to definite globally accepted values and correspondent legal standards (see my yesterday reply to Chris Robinson). So not a world party but maximally wide coalition of all kinds of social, political, economic, and cultural(f.e. religious) forces is needed for working out and accepting this set of values and standards. A world state is not necessary to make nation- states to respect these standards; if a wide coalition of core and semiperipheral nations subscribe to these values and legal standards, the threat of global economic, political, and cultural ostrakism will be more efficient and much less dangerous than world state for shifting to global totalitarianism >this because one of the main unsolved and cyclical > products of capitalism is warfare. this traditional Marxian thesis is by no means evident now and needs serious argumentation, I would be grateful if you share it with us, at least in main points. Were there in the world less warfare before capitalism? (even if to date capitalism since Phoenicians as you did in the book 'Comparing W-Systems') Diakonoff communicates that in 3-1 millenia BC in all Central civilization even merchants going to foreign countries with very peaceful purposes had no such notion as 'foreign country'. ENEMIES COUNTRY was the only existing concept that times! to struggle now for ceasing warfare - yes, but to hope that having destoyed capitalism we solve this problem seems to me now very naive. In the eve of XX Bolshevics in Russia just in this way hoped that they cease ALL warfare, ALL exploitation, ALL corrupcy, ALL classes, ALL crimes, ALL prostitution, and even adulter by destroying capitalism, because they considered all these sins to be its products. To think so in the end of XX ? - strange... > there is not likely to emerge > a world state strong enough to prevent a war among core states in the > next twenty five years even if we try very hard, which we should do. yes, but why nothing was sayed on nuclear disarmament and possibilities to use existance of subjectivity of core-states leaders, governments, public opinion, electorate? You talk on wars and Kondrattieffs presumes doctrine of historicism (fairly criticised by K.Popeer in 'The Poverty of Historicism') as some objective historical course independant of epiphenomenal human consciousness. I suggest to discuss the the legal world order (including tax policy, custom policy,investment policy, etc) that makes gradually arms production and trade non-profitable, but ecological, medicine, educational production more and more profitable. In parallel a wide propaganda should begin for persuading leaders and peoples not to raise but to contract armaments, to subordinate ALL military operations ONLY to the judgements of international Court acting in the framework of globally accepted legal order. Is it a very difficult task? - yes it is, but not more than to manage to construct over nations a world state with all needed monopolies, or to legitimate prolongation and to give such monopolies to US hegemony. > > given the high probability of nuclear annihilation, that means looking > hard at possible substitutes for the world state. one possibility, though > it may not be much more likely than a world state, is a renewed US > hegemony. yes folks. that is what i said. this is a hard conclusion > for someone who spent his youth opposing US imperialism. talk me out of > it. US has too deeply rooted tradition for double standards concerning the care of America with US-citizens, and peoples of all other world. The last feel it rather well and that's why this idea will hardly go. Why not to discuss multi-polar partnership with monopoly for legitime military operations based on accepting global legal standards? I would not even argue against the leading role of US in this partnership, but such political, military, economic forces of EU, Japan, Russia, China, India, Brasilia, South Africa, maybe Turkey, Egypt, and Iran (as leaders of correspondent geopolitical regions) should be necessarely presented in this partnership. Isn't it more realistic and less dangeorous than idea of world state and US hegemony? my best regards, yours Nikolai Nikolai S. Rozov # Address:Dept. of Philosophy Prof.of Philosophy # Novosibirsk State University rozov@cnit.nsu.ru # 630090, Novosibirsk Fax: (3832) 355237 # Pirogova 2, RUSSIA Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI (PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history) http://darwin.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe /philofhi.html From chriscd@jhu.edu Wed Jul 31 09:00:26 1996 Received: from jhuml2.hcf.jhu.edu (jhuml2.hcf.jhu.edu [128.220.2.87]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id JAA29299 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 09:00:21 -0600 (MDT) Received: from soc.jhu.edu.jhname.hcf.jhu.edu (chris.soc.jhu.edu) by jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu (PMDF V5.0-7 #13870) id <01I7PXX05NOG9GVND0@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu> for wsn@csf.colorado.edu; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 10:59:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from soc.jhu.edu.jhname.hcf.jhu.edu (chris.soc.jhu.edu) by jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu (PMDF V5.0-7 #13870) id <01I7PXWNDYJ49GVL2B@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu> for wsn@csf.colorado.edu; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 10:59:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 11:01:58 -0700 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: [Fwd: the world party] To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Message-id: <31FF9F96.7CB9@jhu.edu> Organization: Johns Hopkins Department of Sociology MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 10:59:41 -0700 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: the world party To: aaustin@mtsu.edu Message-id: <31FF9F0D.381E@jhu.edu> Organization: Johns Hopkins Department of Sociology MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 References: dear andy, thanks for your contributions to the discusssion of the world party. you are right that there is a theoretical basis behind the thinking of some of the participants. i would recommend that you have a look at Thomas R. Shannon, _An Introduction to the World-Systems Perpective_ Westview Press, 2nd edition 1996. on Kondratief waves see Joshua Goldstein, _Long Cycles: Prosperity and War in the Modern Age_ Princeton UP 1988. regarding your mention of the global corporatist transformation, this is the answer to wagar's question about praxis. the task is to formulate a global response to neo-liberalism. this will involve a new labor internationalism, a popular and cordinated approach to the environment, reforming the United Nations to make it more democratic and effective, and coordinated national efforts to elect popular governments that can coordinate their efforts to resist exploitation by the megacorps. lets do it! chris From chriscd@jhu.edu Wed Jul 31 09:29:16 1996 Received: from jhuml2.hcf.jhu.edu (jhuml2.hcf.jhu.edu [128.220.2.87]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id JAA00968 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 09:29:13 -0600 (MDT) Received: from soc.jhu.edu.jhname.hcf.jhu.edu (chris.soc.jhu.edu) by jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu (PMDF V5.0-7 #13870) id <01I7PYXC8N009GVND0@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 11:27:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from soc.jhu.edu.jhname.hcf.jhu.edu (chris.soc.jhu.edu) by jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu (PMDF V5.0-7 #13870) id <01I7PYX0KGZI9GVL2B@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 11:27:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 11:30:30 -0700 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: Re: the world party To: ROZOV@cnit.nsu.ru Cc: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Message-id: <31FFA646.202C@jhu.edu> Organization: Johns Hopkins Department of Sociology MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <59CF579F6@cnit.nsu.ru> Nikolai Rosov suggests: > Why not to discuss multi-polar partnership with monopoly for legitime >military operations based on accepting global legal standards? I would >not even argue against the leading role of US in this partnership, but >such political, military, economic forces of EU, Japan, Russia, China, >India, Brasilia, South Africa, maybe Turkey, Egypt, and Iran (as leaders >of correspondent geopolitical regions) should be necessarely presented >in this partnership. ok. lets call it a multipolar partnership, not a world state. fine. how can we make this happen? chris chris From aaustin@mtsu.edu Wed Jul 31 09:40:35 1996 Received: from frank.mtsu.edu (frank.mtsu.edu [161.45.128.109]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id JAA01541 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 09:40:29 -0600 (MDT) Received: by frank.mtsu.edu (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA298087698; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 10:41:38 -0500 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 10:41:38 -0500 (CDT) From: "Andrew W. Austin" To: Salvatore Babones Cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: And Velikovsky for President... In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 1. Not that is matters (since it was simply an tool for levity), but of course Sorokin's metahistory, in addition to being supremely functionalist and eschatological, was rhythmic and cyclical. Much of the metahistorical work following Nietzche posited historical cycles (Kroeber, Dawson, Toynbee, Mumford, etc.), indeed relied on them to make their historical systems meaningful. Sorokin, for example, posited the ultimate collapse of the modern era (he was antimodernity) and an inevitable return to the medieval psyche. If this isn't cyclical I don't know what is. Sorokin's historiography was tautological and teleological; shorn of human actors, it was a system left to move on its own and thus necessitated rhythms to explain transformation. Parsons borrowed much of Sorokin's functional frame in the development of his own systems theory (although it became ahistorical), and it too suffers from these same problems. 2. Regarding our 'never having democracy.' Democracy exists in degrees, beginning with total democracy and running to no democracy. Prior to the incorporation of the planet, there was more democracy and liberty. Prior to the development of state systems there was even more democracy and liberty. Therefore, the human being has, in history and prehistory, enjoyed democratic societies, and it is these standards of democracy to which I compare the (hyper)modern era. We are clearly less free and less democratic that 90% of the generations before us. Corporatism is destroying what democracy and liberty we have remaining. We are moving towards a totalized corporate world-system. It isn't inevitable (unless we do nothing to stop it) and it isn't functional -- real human beings in real positions of power are purposely constructing an authoritarian world-state in which all the peoples of the world will be ensnared. 3. I am moving, and will be gone for a while (not sure I will be back here). This has been an interesting channel, and I appreciate the lively debate. However, I think much of what goes on this channel suffers from a very intellectually bounded view of the world, one where some very broad concepts and theories reduce the ability to think about the world to very narrow eschatologies. It is a form of groupthink, or paradigm lock. Systems theories in this closed paradigm, where the theories must meet criteria laid down by foundational axioms, in this case axioms of questionable validity, lose their critical edge, and become, as the last series of contributions clearly shows, illegitimate teleologies with all the trappings of a Nostradamus. This explains the ridiculous appeals made to "human nature" made by Sanderson and Moore several weeks back. One who posits the inevitability of social stages must have the very nature of the individual locked into the telos. World history then becomes an unfolding of nature, and becomes intelligible through a rejection of all mysticism and ideologies, this rejection being the work of positive science, the one true epistemological system which will reveal the Truth of the world. Andy From dasmith@orion.oac.uci.edu Wed Jul 31 11:32:52 1996 Received: from orion.oac.uci.edu (orion.oac.uci.edu [128.200.80.20]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id LAA08152 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 11:32:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: (from dasmith@localhost) by orion.oac.uci.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) id KAA15092; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 10:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 10:32:47 -0700 (PDT) From: David Smith To: world-system network Subject: Finally -- a REAL SOLUTION! Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Gee -- and I thought that this wide-ranging debate about how to escape worldwide corporate domination while also avoiding global nuclear annihilation, was sorta interesting! Maybe even "important"! But now I learn that, actually, y'all are suffering from "narrow eschatologies," "groupthink" and "paradigm lock"! How disappointing... but, glad it's so easy to "change channels"! dave smith sociology, uci From harlowc@tidepool.com Wed Jul 31 13:42:58 1996 Received: from tidepool.com (tidepool.com [206.54.58.3]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with SMTP id NAA12221 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 13:42:56 -0600 (MDT) Received: from harlowc.tidepool.com (ts12.tidepool.com [206.54.58.112]) by tidepool.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA02174; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 12:34:29 -0700 Message-ID: <3138B2F6.5F13@tidepool.com> Date: Sat, 02 Mar 1996 12:43:34 -0800 From: Christian MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WSN CC: harlowc@tidepool.com Subject: Positive Science: Emancipatory Epistemology? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A. Austin illuminates: >World history then becomes an unfolding > of nature, and becomes intelligible through a rejection of all mysticism > and ideologies, this rejection being the work of positive science, the one > true epistemological system which will reveal the Truth of the world. > > Andy Andy is this satire? Or is this, finally, your idea of how we can create an equitable global social structure; through positive science? Positivism is antithetical to liberation of the global contradictions that we are dealing with here. Not to mention that over 60 percent of the funding for this type of science is issued by the respective core government's defense depts. in order to maintain or improve their positions in the world system, which to some degree insures that it won't be used to create a better global future. Positivism has been so wholly discredited as a social science that I needn't address its methodological faults here. However, when used as a social scientific epistemology its primary function is instrumental control of human subjects. Not Truth, control. I hope that you haven't left yet so you can share with us how we can use positivistic epistemology in order to avoid world war or to free ourselves from the coporate fascistic oligarchy. Sincerely, Christian Harlow UC Santa Cruz From macdonak@Meena.CC.URegina.CA Wed Jul 31 17:35:18 1996 Received: from meena.cc.uregina.ca ([142.3.100.6]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id RAA16734 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 17:35:16 -0600 (MDT) Received: from Meena.CC.URegina.CA by Meena.CC.URegina.CA (PMDF V5.0-6 #9167) id <01I7QBQMRZSWA3CTFK@Meena.CC.URegina.CA>; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 17:34:56 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 17:34:56 -0600 (CST) From: Kerry Subject: Re: Wagar's World In-reply-to: To: "Andrew W. Austin" Cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Andrew W. Austin wrote: > When you use the term "state-like," I would use the term "government." I > do not view stateless societies as governmentless societies. As you noted, > and here we agree, I do believe there needs to be a governmental structure > (obviously from my arguments, this structure would be decentralized, > loosely federated, based on an amalgamation of socialist democracy and > anarchosyndicalism). Ah, our terminology has led us to this :) I would use "state" as the form or style of the way that people organize the way that they govern themselves, applying the necessary adjective where there are fundamentally different strutures (e.g. the feudal state or the nation state); and, use government as the variations upon that style (e.g. democratic government). Though when I use the term "state-like" I'm opening the possibilites on how humans can organize themselves; in a way that would fulfill the roles that the state currently occupies but or such a radical different configuration that one could not call it a state (using my terminology). > I just feel the state model (in all its variable > forms) is a coercive social institution that we can do with out. The > dilemma posited earlier--how does one square a centralized world state > coercing a multitude of cultures under one authority with social > democracy?--gets to the crux of the matter. I don't see how that is > possible (not unless the concept of "democracy" is mangled). I presume that in this case you are using "state" to refer to the nation state that is characteristic of capitalism. Given that you have narrowly defined "state", there is no way to disagree as you have set it up to be a self-fullfilling prophecy ("state" has, for you, only a coercive authoritarian definition). I think you narrow use of "state" limits debate and may cause some confusion (as it did for me). I think you may wish to consider aligning your terminology more with existing theories on the state. It would limit some confusion. It's up to you. kerry p.s. Read that you were leaving us for a spell. I'll miss the debate. I was getting us to the discussion. From ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au Wed Jul 31 18:00:47 1996 Received: from BROLGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU (cc.newcastle.edu.au [134.148.4.24]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id SAA17530 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 18:00:38 -0600 (MDT) Received: from cc.newcastle.edu.au by cc.newcastle.edu.au (PMDF V5.0-7 #10124) id <01I7RA512S4WA8HUTW@cc.newcastle.edu.au> for wsn@csf.colorado.edu; Thu, 01 Aug 1996 09:59:18 +1000 Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 09:59:18 +1000 From: "Bruce R. McFarling" Subject: Apology to dlj To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I have been told by dlj that he does indeed think that the threat of ecosystemic catastrophe is serious, so much so that he considers the Montreal Treaty to be real important. I'm sorry that I misrepresented his position. The theory I had developed to explain to myself why he has been trolling on ecol-econ was flawed, and I withdraw it, and admit that I am entirely unable to explain either that behavior, or his recent effort to troll on wsn. Virtually, Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au From ms44278@huey.csun.edu Wed Jul 31 22:26:25 1996 Received: from huey.csun.edu (huey.csun.edu [130.166.1.6]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with SMTP id WAA20803 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 22:26:24 -0600 (MDT) Received: (ms44278@localhost) by huey.csun.edu (8.6.12/8.6.4) id VAA01709; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 21:27:30 -0700 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 21:27:29 -0700 (PDT) From: mike shupp To: "Nikolai S. Rozov" cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Wagar's World In-Reply-To: <535B7B2503@cnit.nsu.ru> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote: > 5. Why nobody of Western scholars say a word of amelioration of international > LEGAL system? (For Russian intelligentsia, so tired from revolutionaty, state > and emperal ideologies, the West is a symbol of idea of Law, legal approach > to social problems, and high art for making coalitions). Why in these > discussions the only voice from Siberia calls for legal approach and rational > coalition-making? I think the West is in the emotional doldrums right now, hamstrung by unemployment, slowly growing economies, interminable debates about nationalism and social ills, and inept politicians. (in fact, I think we've just been through a long-wave depression, concealed by massive government deficits, but I'm not an economist, so it is just my view. However, if I'm right, our spirits will revive considerably in another couple of decades, and our willingness to build broader coalitions and tackle new projects.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ms44278@huey.csun.edu Mike Shupp California State University, Northridge