From austria@it.com.pl Wed Oct 1 02:19:52 1997 Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:20:43 +0200 (MET DST) Reply-To: From: "Austrian Embassy" To: Subject: Re: freedom and Eastern block - Reply to Richard Moore Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:17:49 +0100 Sorry, Richard: with all the problems that exist in the transformation countries, I think the whole tone and content of the debate is absolutely mistaken. Much of what today is termed "mafia structures" had their roots in the 1960s, 1970s and even more so in the 1980s. Think about all these people who were shot or marched to death from September 1939 onwards in Poland by both occupying powers; think about the repression in the postwar years, the hardships of reconstruction, the lies, the shootings in Poznan 1956, the anti-zionist campaign 1968, the repression in Gdansk 1970, Giereks debt-ridden "socialism", the mobilization of society against the bureaucratic structures in 1980, marshall law in 1981. By all means Poland is light years away from all this - thanks be God. Yet structures have to be found that allow Central Eastern Europe and the other transformation countries a proper and rightful place in world society. The UNDP Poland has published wonderful Human Development Reports Poland in English since 1995 about these dimensions, and all participants in the "comrade" debate are kindly invited to read these materials - about the advances and contradictions of transformation. Those of you that read German, might also consult my recent Schwierige Heimkehr. Sozialpolitik, Migration, Transformation und die Osterweiterung der EU. Eberhard Verlag, Munich, 1997. I of course agree with all of you who see the dangers in the centre-periphery relationship that evolves between East and West. Again, Samir Amin, whom we all too often neglect simply because he writes in French, has provided us with pioneering insights about the global character of the "tequila effect". What are the solutions? That would be a true debate Kind regards from Arno Tausch ---------- > From: Richard K. Moore > To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK > Subject: Re: freedom and Eastern block > Date: Dienstag, 30. September 1997 16:49 > > > 9/30/97, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: > >If freedom is only a state of mind, and if physical position completely > >incapacitates judgment, then I suppose Korotayev and Schell have even less > >to say than I. > > What I find structurally interesting about the post-Soviet experience is > the variety and intensity of destabilization tactics (from devolution to > mafia infiltration, from political funding to economic pressure) that have > been employed, and the success of the media in attributing each episode to > this and that sundry cause. > > What we are seeing is the systematic accomplishment by other means of what > Napolean and Hitler both failed to achieve - the subjugation of the once > Soviet realms to Western interests. > > Andrew's charming prose can perhaps make a case for decreased personal > freedom being part of this picture, but why focus our attention on this > most-difficult-to-settle minor aspect of the situation? > > Even if Russians and others _are_ experiencing increased freedom, in some > meaningful sense, that doesn't change the fact that one-third of the > world's people are having their societies destroyed, their economies put > into chaos, and their assets robbed. All is being reduced, so to speak, to > rubble so that tried-and-proven Third-World exploitive practices can be > deployed in this vast new de-developed realm. > > > rkm > > > From wwagar@binghamton.edu Wed Oct 1 09:47:12 1997 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:46:59 -0400 (EDT) To: Dennis R Redmond Subject: Re: comrades! In-Reply-To: On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Dennis R Redmond wrote: > The problem is, the capitalist world-system is indeed cold, cruel and > unforgiving. Not every semi-periphery (which is what Russia is today) gets > to join the metropole. Taiwan made it; Argentina didn't. In many cases, > the World Bank and IMF have pursued nastily contractionary policies to > overindebted Third World countries, and market pressures have done > horrible things to large parts of Africa, Latin America and Asia. Real > wages have fallen and tiny elites have gotten fantastically wealthy from > Rio de Janeiro to Bangkok; and marketized development often has an > ecological price tag as horrendous as that exacted by COMECON, and has > been accompanied by no less draconian Government repression. > > Somehow, we've got to find ways of democratizing the global economy, > making it reward the people who really produce its wealth instead of > rewarding greedy share-holders, and giving people a voice to make their > own decisions about what gets produced and how it's manufactured -- > something which automatically excludes Party elites, one-party states, and > IMF sado-monetarism as much as Stalinism. > Dennis has sorted out the pluses and minuses quite aptly. For some people in some ways life is better in the former Soviet bloc. For other people in other ways, it's not. By the same token Stalinism was in some respects a liberation--from the Tsarist order; and in others a nightmare of paranoia and genocide. So it goes. But the point is that Tsarism, Stalinism, and the current mix of "IMF sado-monetarism" and gangster-capitalism and bourgeois democracy all belong to the era of the modern world-system. Russia was part of that system in the 19th century and Russia is part of it today. It is a system. When Dennis talks about "somehow" finding ways of democratizing it, a system that is inherently and ineluctably exploitative and undemocratic, he implies that we can tinker with it and make it work for everybody the way it should. I would argue that this is like hoping we can turn an elephant into a giraffe. If world-system theory means anything, it means that the only ultimate remedy for the inequities of the capitalist world-system is the wholesale replacement of that system by another one, by a democratic and socialist world-government. Pigs will fly before megacorporate boards abandon the bottom line or sovereign states lay down their guns. Cheers, Warren W. Warren Wagar Department of History Binghamton University, SUNY From spector@calumet.purdue.edu Wed Oct 1 10:05:10 1997 X-NUPop-Charset: English Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:05:35 -0600 (CST) From: "Alan Spector" Sender: spector@calumet.purdue.edu Reply-To: spector@calumet.purdue.edu To: psn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: URGENT-Last Ditch Effort The Section on Marxist Sociology has 391 members, up about 10% from a year ago on this date, but still NINE short of what we need to have three sessions next year instead of two. If there are ANY people out there on PSN who are members of the ASA for 1997 and who are not members of the Section on Marxist Sociology and who would like to join, please contact Jim Salt IMMEDIATELY at 813-253-3333 ext. 3651 or at jsalt@alpha.utampa.edu If you are a grad student member of ASA who has never been a member of the Section on Marxist Sociology, your first year membership (about $10) can be subsidized. If you are a regular member, the cost is small, and it will help keep progressive/critical/marxist perspectives voices as an important force within the American Sociological Association. If you've thought about it and put it off, please do it now. Alan Spector Chair, Section on Marxist Sociology We need these From andrei@rsuh.ru Wed Oct 1 10:15:55 1997 From: "Andrey Korotayev" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:16:37 +0300 Subject: Re: comrades! Reply-to: andrei@rsuh.ru Well, I have been asked a question - I have to answer it. > From: "Johannes Angermuller " > Anyway, as to the discussion about the use of "comrade" I'd like to > mention that the Soviet communists usually say "tovarishch" which seems > to be still pretty ambigous as to its political overtones in present-day > Russia (Andrey, don't you use it sometimes in the neutral meaning of > 'guy'?). Well, I am afraid that though the original meaning of "tovarishch" is really not so much far from 'guy', or just 'friend', it is NOT used in the above-mentioned context, just because of the point discussed at the moment. At present (though actually almost since 1918) "tovarishchi" in Russia is used as almost a sinonyme of "communists" - surprisingly the same can be said about some Arab countries: originally neutral rafi:q (pl. rifa:q - "friend, companion") in some places became virtually sinonymous to "communist", e.g. the bloody conflict inside the Yemen Socialist [though, actually, Communist] Party in Aden in 1986 was described by the non-coommunist Arab press as "h*arb al-rifa:q" ("the War of the Comrades"). Or, a bit stronger case. In 1983 in Aden I found out that the sausage was denoted by some part of the Adenese as "zubb al-rafi:q" (pl. "azba:b al-rifa:q") - just do not ask me what "zubb" means in Arabic! Yours, Andrey Korotayev, Moscow, RUSSIA From eberhardw@plato.ens.gu.edu.au Wed Oct 1 10:28:07 1997 2 Oct 97 02:29:02 +1000 2 Oct 97 02:28:54 +1000 From: "Eberhard Wenzel" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:28:45 +1000 Subject: Re: comrades! Reply-to: e.wenzel@ens.gu.edu.au On 1 Oct 97 at 19:16, Andrey Korotayev wrote: > At present (though actually almost since 1918) "tovarishchi" in Russia is > used as almost a sinonyme of "communists" - surprisingly the same can be > said about some Arab countries: originally neutral rafi:q (pl. rifa:q - > "friend, companion") in some places became virtually sinonymous to > "communist", e.g. the bloody conflict inside the Yemen Socialist [though, > actually, Communist] Party in Aden in 1986 was described by the > non-coommunist Arab press as "h*arb al-rifa:q" ("the War of the Comrades"). Andrey, I wonder whether our Western educated people will understand what you're saying. Greetings from *down under* to Good Ol' Mother Russia. Eberhard Wenzel MA PhD Griffith University Australian School of Environmental Studies Nathan, Qld. 4111 Australia Tel.: 61-7-3875 7103 Fax: 61-7-3875 7459 e-mail: e.wenzel@ens.gu.edu.au http://www.ens.gu.edu.au/eberhard/welcome.htm Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess. Oscar Wilde From andrei@rsuh.ru Wed Oct 1 10:39:16 1997 From: "Andrey Korotayev" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:40:03 +0300 Subject: Re: comrades!/2 Reply-to: andrei@rsuh.ru Now, my answer to Andrew: > From: Andrew Wayne Austin > On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Andrey Korotayev quoted me: > > > > The fall of the Soviet Union and fragmenting of the socialist world system > > > has meant a marked decline in freedom for over > > > one-third of world's population. > > This is a mangled quote and left to appear as pristine reproduction. I > actually wrote this: > > "The fall of the Soviet Union and fragmenting of the socialist world > system has meant a marked decline in freedom and the standards of living > for over one-third of world's population." The deleting of "and the standards of living" was entirely contious, as I belive that the problems of freedom and the standards of living should be treated separately. > Genosse ["Tambovskiy volk tebe Genosse, dorogoy Andrew! - {a Russian saying being said when someone inappropriately calls you "tovarishch"}] Korotayev wants me to ask anybody who lived under Communist Party > rule and I will find that they think they are much better off now. I will > find that they all think like Korotayev. Well, I have talked to a lot of > people from these countries, and I do hear some of them sounding very much > like Korotayev. Dear Andrew [let's stop using this "Genosse, Parteigenosse, comrade, tovarishch" - at least {PARTEI}GENOSSE seems to sound a bit dirty for you as well], thank you for your open-mindedness. I would just add that even most Russian communists (of course in private talk, not in public) do concede that they are much more free now than before 1985 - eg than can openly criticize both the Russian president and the General Secretary of their own party (they would just usually add that the freedom is not really important [the actual wording would rather be something like: "And what should I do now with all this goddem freedom?!" NU I CHTO MNE OT ETOY SVOBODY!?). Love, Andrey From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Wed Oct 1 11:11:36 1997 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:10:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Andrey Korotayev Subject: Re: comrades!/2 Andrey, Why should issues of living standards and freedom be treated separately? I don't suppose that in your mind freedom is accomplished when an individual or group can openly criticize public figures. If not, then what is freedom unless it is tied to something meaningful? I suppose I am wondering: in what way is somebody free under conditions of economic exploitation and coercion? What sort of freedom is this? Andy From andrei@rsuh.ru Wed Oct 1 11:27:02 1997 From: "Andrey Korotayev" To: Andrew Wayne Austin Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:27:35 +0300 Subject: Re: comrades!/2 Reply-to: andrei@rsuh.ru Dear Andrew, > From: Andrew Wayne Austin > Why should issues of living standards and freedom be treated separately? I > don't suppose that in your mind freedom is accomplished when an individual > or group can openly criticize public figures. If not, then what is freedom > unless it is tied to something meaningful? I am afraid the answer is very simple. You have never been deprived of the right to openly criticize public figures, so you do not understand (unlike me, or you Russian comrades) that this right is an extremely valuable asset in itself irrespective of all the living stanards. Love, Andrey From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Wed Oct 1 14:08:32 1997 id QAA02295; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:06:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:07:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Andrey Korotayev Subject: Re: comrades!/2 Andrey, Why do I have to experience the deprivation you speak of to understand this deprivation? Why are only those people denied the right to openly criticize public figures the only people who can understand how important it is to be able to openly criticize public figures? I don't understand this basis of this argument. Is this argument based on some extreme sort of historicism or standpoint relativism in which only those people who have directly experienced something can properly speak on the matter and all other claims on such matters are automatically disqualified on these grounds? This must go along with the subjectivism underlying your earlier argument regarding freedom. If this is the case, then there are no grounds for discussion, since whenever hard questions come your way you may simply say, "You haven't experienced this, so you couldn't possibly understand, and therefore I am right and you are wrong." This is a wonderful rhetorical device, Andrey; you cannot lose the argument in your mind. If your goal is to close off discussion to save an untenable position, then this seems the proper device to deploy. But if you want to have a real discussion, I don't see how constantly appealing to alleged exclusive subjective experience will advance matters. And after explaining this to me, would you be so kind as to answer my first question? What kind of freedom is it to live under conditions of economic exploitation and coercion? Andy From rkmoore@iol.ie Wed Oct 1 14:29:41 1997 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:29:17 +0100 To: wwagar@binghamton.edu From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: world-government 10/01/97, wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote: >it means that the only ultimate >remedy for the inequities of the capitalist world-system is the wholesale >replacement of that system by another one, by a democratic and socialist >world-government. Pigs will fly before megacorporate boards abandon the >bottom line or sovereign states lay down their guns. Why, Warren, do you claim a world government is necessary? Isn't democracy increasingly less maintainable once scale passes a certain point? And is it sovereign states that cause war or rather sovereign states ruled by capitalism? If capitalism is dethroned then why is world government such an obvious goal? rkm From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Wed Oct 1 14:45:05 1997 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:44:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:44:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Dennis R Redmond To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: freedom and Eastern bloc On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Arno Tausch wrote: > with all the problems that exist in the transformation countries, I think > the whole tone and content of the debate is absolutely mistaken. Much of > what today is termed "mafia structures" had their roots in the 1960s, 1970s > and even more so in the 1980s. Think about all these people who were shot > or marched to death from September 1939 onwards in Poland by both occupying > powers; think about the repression in the postwar years, the hardships of > reconstruction, the lies, the shootings in Poznan 1956, the anti-zionist > campaign 1968, the repression in Gdansk 1970, Giereks debt-ridden > "socialism", the mobilization of society against the bureaucratic > structures in 1980, marshall law in 1981. By all means Poland is light > years away from all this - thanks be God. Yet structures have to be found > that allow Central Eastern Europe and the other transformation countries a > proper and rightful place in world society. The UNDP Poland has published > wonderful Human Development Reports Poland in English since 1995 about > these dimensions, and all participants in the "comrade" debate are kindly > invited to read these materials - about the advances and contradictions of > transformation. Those of you that read German, might also consult my recent > > Schwierige Heimkehr. Sozialpolitik, Migration, Transformation und die > Osterweiterung der EU. Eberhard Verlag, Munich, 1997. > > I of course agree with all of you who see the dangers in the > centre-periphery relationship that evolves between East and West. Again, > Samir Amin, whom we all too often neglect simply because he writes in > French, has provided us with pioneering insights about the global character > of the "tequila effect". What are the solutions? That would be a true > debate. An excellent posting. It's true, the Left has not done its homework on Eastern Europe or, for that matter, the autarkic regimes of East Asia. Not to dredge up the whole sorry history of the Cold War's erasure of dialectics in the American context, but it is depressing to hear alleged radicals go on about the wonders of Soviet bread subsidies and castigate the emptiness of freedom of the press, religion, etc. Human rights ARE workers' rights, and vice versa, and socialists who forget this are no socialists at all. My own feeling is that the European Union has to play the essential role in preventing Eastern Europe from becoming a broken-down, Latin-American style neocolony of the West. The reason I'm generally hopeful about the EU -- as opposed to my own personal gloom about the USA, which is gripped by an unprecedented speculative madness and social polarization right now ("more like Bangladesh every day", as a friend of mine put it caustically) -- is that there are genuine possibilities for reconstruction. Austria, so I hear, has been making a lot of investments in Czech, Hungarian and Polish industry; Scandinavia has been bailing out the Baltics; and of course Germany has piled $100 billion a year into Eastern Germany -- which is why the Visegrad region is growing like mad. Why can't the EU get a genuinely European-sized initiative going, i.e. co-finance not just Visegrad, but the entire Eastern bloc? Given the EU's GDP of maybe $8 trillion, and the East's GDP of maybe $400 billion, I don't think the financial burdens would be insurmountable. I'm no economist, but I'd guess that the investment priorities ought to be some basic infrastructure, education, cultural exchanges, and most of all debt relief on the credits the former Communist regimes piled up during the 1970s and 1980s. The Eastern countries do have the tools to succeed, they're well-educated and are developing coherent developmental states. They could certainly learn a great deal just by studying Austria's own rise from bankrupt semi-periphery to one of the richest countries in the world -- i.e. the importance of a strong public sector, powerful trade unions, and state-run banking institutions. The point would be to avoid the tequila effect by socializing capital, ensuring that it gets invested in productive assets and workers' paychecks, instead of the bank accounts and dubious financial speculations of a narrow, greedy elite; this is basically the same strategy pursued by South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, with of course regional variations (more reliance in Singapore on multinationals, more reliance in South Korea on the giant chaebol, greater emphasis in Taiwan on the Nationalist one-party state). Of course, this would require expansive, growing markets in the EU itself -- which would play roughly the same role in the East as the US did by financing Japan and Western Europe in the Fifties, i.e. through some sort of Eurokeynesianism or other variant of a globalized Sozialdemokratie. Or so I would argue. Comments/critiques are welcome! -- Dennis From akwebb@yuma.Princeton.EDU Wed Oct 1 15:38:17 1997 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:37:08 -0400 (EDT) From: "Adam K. Webb" Reply-To: "Adam K. Webb" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: World Party In-Reply-To: This posting deals with what to many comrades seems the less compelling of our current two topics--world government. The assumption by many on our list, and in Wagar's "Short History of the Future," is that a movement such as the World Party should devote considerable attention to cross-regional mass support, including in the North. I fully support the idea of a coordinated global movement to restructure world order, but I have a simple question for all of you. Does anyone seriously expect Northern populations not to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a new order? Rather, such a movement should devise a strategy for assuming power globally over the opposition of this fifteen percent of the population. This would involve bogging the USA+EU+Japan down in pan-Southern counterinsurgency, fomenting immigrant and underclass volatility, destabilising Northern economies by disrupting transnational economic links (eg. oil), splitting the Northern leadership as it attempts to save its own necks, and ultimately carrying out an occupation of those areas of the world that consistently obstruct majority will. Such a strategy, I emphasise, would bypass Southern governments altogether as wholly irrelevant in the new transnational order. A truly global movement, in other words.... Any reactions? (I am thankful rotten tomatoes do not travel by e-mail....) Regards, --AKW =============================================================================== Adam K. Webb Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton NJ 08544 USA 609-258-9028 http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb From PAT.LAUDERDALE@ASU.Edu Wed Oct 1 17:18:24 1997 From: PAT.LAUDERDALE@ASU.Edu 01 Oct 1997 16:17:48 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 16:17:48 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: World Party In-reply-to: To: chris chase-dunn It's difficult to understand why Gunder Frank's recent works, e.g., The Cold War and Me and his book with Gills, largely have been ignored in recent postings. Even his older publications on the facades of policy and policy-makers are relevant to the many of the postings. On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Adam K. Webb wrote: > This posting deals with what to many comrades seems the less > compelling of our current two topics--world government. The assumption by > many on our list, and in Wagar's "Short History of the Future," is that a > movement such as the World Party should devote considerable attention to > cross-regional mass support, including in the North. I fully support the > idea of a coordinated global movement to restructure world order, but I > have a simple question for all of you. Does anyone seriously expect > Northern populations not to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into > a new order? > Rather, such a movement should devise a strategy for assuming > power globally over the opposition of this fifteen percent of the > population. This would involve bogging the USA+EU+Japan down in > pan-Southern counterinsurgency, fomenting immigrant and underclass > volatility, destabilising Northern economies by disrupting transnational > economic links (eg. oil), splitting the Northern leadership as it attempts > to save its own necks, and ultimately carrying out an occupation of those > areas of the world that consistently obstruct majority will. Such a > strategy, I emphasise, would bypass Southern governments altogether as > wholly irrelevant in the new transnational order. A truly global > movement, in other words.... > Any reactions? (I am thankful rotten tomatoes do not travel by > e-mail....) > > Regards, > --AKW > > =============================================================================== > Adam K. Webb > Department of Politics > Princeton University > Princeton NJ 08544 USA > 609-258-9028 > http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb > > From r.deibert@utoronto.ca Wed Oct 1 19:29:15 1997 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 00:31:12 -0400 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: "Ronald J. Deibert" Subject: Re: World Party At 05:37 PM 10/1/97 -0400, you wrote: > > Rather, such a movement should devise a strategy for assuming >power globally over the opposition of this fifteen percent of the >population. This would involve bogging the USA+EU+Japan down in >pan-Southern counterinsurgency, fomenting immigrant and underclass >volatility, destabilising Northern economies by disrupting transnational >economic links (eg. oil), splitting the Northern leadership as it attempts >to save its own necks, and ultimately carrying out an occupation of those >areas of the world that consistently obstruct majority will. Such a >strategy, I emphasise, would bypass Southern governments altogether as >wholly irrelevant in the new transnational order. A truly global >movement, in other words.... > Any reactions? (I am thankful rotten tomatoes do not travel by >e-mail....) > > Regards, > --AKW Yes, I can see it now. A ragtag group of academics, who cannot even agree on how to address each other, form an absentminded plot to divide and conquer the G7. Of course, explaining (let alone coordinating) the plan to the vast majority of people on the planet might be difficult -- it might take time. We will need translators, some khaki outfits (though certainly not from "The Gap"), and a leader to stand out front. Someone with charisma and the ability to construct lengthy polemical speeches night after night. I nominate Andrew Wayne Austin! Heck, if it doesn't succeed, we could always pitch it to Woody Allen as a sequel to Bananas!! Cheers, Ronald J. Deibert Department of Political Science University of Toronto r.deibert@utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~rdeibert/ > >=============================================================================== >Adam K. Webb >Department of Politics >Princeton University >Princeton NJ 08544 USA >609-258-9028 >http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb > > Ronald J. Deibert Assistant Professor Department of Political Science University of Toronto Toronto, Canada From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Wed Oct 1 20:51:52 1997 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:51:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Ronald J. Deibert" Subject: Re: World Party In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971002043112.0072a954@mailbox55.utcc.utoronto.ca> On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Ronald J. Deibert wrote: > Yes, I can see it now. A ragtag group of academics, who cannot even agree > on how to address each other, form an absentminded plot to divide and > conquer the G7. Of course, explaining (let alone coordinating) the plan to > the vast majority of people on the planet might be difficult -- it might > take time. We will need translators, some khaki outfits (though certainly > not from "The Gap"), and a leader to stand out front. Someone with charisma > and the ability to construct lengthy polemical speeches night after night. > I nominate Andrew Wayne Austin! Heck, if it doesn't succeed, we could > always pitch it to Woody Allen as a sequel to Bananas!! Nope, sorry, can't do it; I got comps coming up in the Spring. Andy From ROZOV@cnit.nsu.ru Thu Oct 2 03:50:58 1997 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:48:03 +0700 (NOVST) 2 Oct 97 16:48:06 NSK-6 From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:47:46 -0600 (NSK) Subject: Russia & world capitalism Dear Warren, Dennis and All i am glad that the discussion turned finally to serious issues and wish to make some comments on Russia and goals of global practice in WST context > From: wwagar@binghamton.edu > On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Dennis R Redmond wrote: > > unforgiving. Not every semi-periphery (which is what Russia is today) gets > > to join the metropole. Taiwan made it; Argentina didn't. In many cases, to confuse Moscow and Russia is a much bigger mistake than to equalize NYC with USA. Just today i returned from Moscow, now it has almost all features of blossoming European capital, including vast middle class, all kinds of advanced services, high-level consumption, etc. Moscow really belongs to a dynamic semi-periphery even with many signs of a core. On the contrary almost all provincial Russia (except maybe Nijnii Novgorod) is still a stagnation area of destroying military production and kolkhoses, with only one vital branch - getting raw materials. The political background of real mass support of communists, "patriots" (read fascists), extremists (like Jirinovski) etc make the picture very anxious and really close to worst samples of Latin America. That's why i qualify major part of modern Russia as "slipping to PERIPHERY of global world system" and i would be grateful to WST experts for feedback to this statement. My practical conclusion may seem scandalous (especially for comrades). Russia (major part of Russian population excluding communist, fascist and militant leaders) DOES NOT NEED now any crisis, crash or even fast transformation of golobal world-system. Such global crisis can only stimulate and support worst extrimist forces in Russia. What Russia really needs is an economic growth (like Chili, Brazilia, China) and involving in global economy in the role of SEMI-PERIPHERY (not only periphery with gegemonic monster of Moscow that lives on exchanging Siberian oil, gas, metals, wood for Western sigaretts, alchogol, cars). Dennis: > > Somehow, we've got to find ways of democratizing the global economy, > > making it reward the people who really produce its wealth instead of > > rewarding greedy share-holders, and giving people a voice to make their > > own decisions about what gets produced and how it's manufactured -- > > something which automatically excludes Party elites, one-party states, and > > IMF sado-monetarism as much as Stalinism. > > i share your ideals and values Dennis, but your suggestion seems to be not more than a mere moralistic utopia in an brief article "Where is World Capitalism Going" (published this April, i'll sent the version to any personal request) i tried to argue that only splitting elits of world economy, finding allies in this camp, using all opportunities of international organizations (even including IMF), legacy, liberal as well as humanistic and democraic ideology can help to ameliorate somehow the global economic regime. Warren: > modern world-system. Russia was part of that system in the 19th century > and Russia is part of it today. It is a system. When Dennis talks about > "somehow" finding ways of democratizing it, a system that is inherently > and ineluctably exploitative and undemocratic, he implies that we can > tinker with it and make it work for everybody the way it should. I would > argue that this is like hoping we can turn an elephant into a giraffe. If > world-system theory means anything, it means that the only ultimate > remedy for the inequities of the capitalist world-system is the wholesale > replacement of that system by another one, by a democratic and socialist > world-government. in fact since XVI the 'elephant' of world capitalism survived many essential transformations, including BTW the end of slavery and serfdom, powerful social programs in core states, decrease and almost end of racial segregation, rise of human rights, support of women rights, ethnic minorities, etc. Historically the 'elephant' occured to be rather flexibile and having a very high evolutionary learning ability (to use G.Modelski's terms). In terms of Warren's metaphore i suspest that the only alternative to further amelioration of existing system (that i keep suggesting) is "to kill an elephant of global capitalism". But dear 'comrades' (left-oriented Western scholars and students)! Why are you sure that namely a 'giraffe of democratic and socialist world-government' will arise from this murder? Why not a "vampire of nuclear world war" or "jackal of global stalinist totalitarianism" (as one can extrapolate from history of great violent revolutions)? Oops, you hope to avoid violence, that means that you hope to get peacefully all political, financial and military key instruments from current world elits and to pass them to new w-party and w-government. But I agree with Warren Wagar when he says: Pigs will fly before megacorporate boards abandon the > bottom line or sovereign states lay down their guns. > wouldn't it be more fruitful to begin teaching pigs to fly than to keep dreaming of bloodless end of global world capitalism? best 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://wsrv.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe /philofhi.html ************************************************************ From rragland@csir.co.za Thu Oct 2 05:34:17 1997 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:34:02 +0200 (SAT) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 13:35:26 +0200 From: Richard Ragland To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu, akwebb@yuma.Princeton.EDU Subject: Re: World Party -Reply to Adam Nice idea Adam but I feel it is a top down approach. I think Laslo knows the answer to this one. Only a world-wide regenerative movement that seeks to reconstruct the bankrupt spirit of humanity around the globe can achieve the building up of grassroot structures necessary to overcome the power and might of the super capitalist ! Sound too utopian? What is wrong with utopia? Rick From austria@it.com.pl Thu Oct 2 07:45:13 1997 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:45:57 +0200 (MET DST) Reply-To: From: "Austrian Embassy" To: Subject: Polish satisfaction with post 1989 changes Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:46:39 +0100 To all (comrades etc.) this recent bulletin contains - among others - an abstract from articles which appeared in the Polish press about the Polish post 1989 changes satisfaction rate. To give you a close-up feeling of what goes on in this country, some other news are included as well. Kind regards Arno Tausch ---------- > From: Polish News Bulletin > To: pnb@ikp.atm.com.pl > Subject: PNB, 30 September 1997 > Date: Dienstag, 30. September 1997 16:07 > > PBS Poll: Poles Happy with Post-1989 Changes > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > PBS Poll: Poles Happy with Post-1989 Changes > ============================================================ > In a PBS poll taken on September 13 and 14 on a repre- > sentative sample of 2,160 adult Poles, 37 percent of mentioned a > free market and democracy as the most desirable and important > changes which took place in Poland after 1989 and 24 percent > mentioned the country's social and economic transformations in > general, 20 percent mentioned privatisation and one in eight the > freedom of expression, personal liberty was mentioned by 5 > percent, the possibility of going abroad, 4 percent and Poland's > integration with NATO and the EU, 4 percent. > > Almost 64 percent of respondents expressed satisfaction > with the post 1989 transformations, 24 percent were displeased > with them and 11 percent did not know. > > The opinion that Solidarity contributed the most in bring- > ing about the changes was expressed by 53 percent of pollees, 48 > percent mentioned Lech Walesa, 11 percent Tadeusz Mazow- > iecki, 10 percent Leszek Balcerowicz, 6 percent the Freedom > Union (UW), John Paul II, Jacek Kuron, the Democratic Left > Alliance, Aleksander Kwasniewski were each mentioned by 4 > percent, the Church and Wojciech Jaruzelski were mentioned by 2 > percent each and 8 percent did not know. > > (Based on 30 September 1997 issue of Rzeczpospolita No. 228, p. > 2). > > ############################## > News - Economy and Business > ############################## > ------------------------------------------------------------ > AWS, UW Press for More Ambitious Economic Targets > ============================================================ > As they prepare to take charge of the economy, experts > from Solidarity Election Action (AWS) and the Freedom Union > (UW) predict that next year's budget will be restrictive and > modest. Moreover, it will have to be amended in the middle of the > year, along with a number of other laws determining government > spending and revenue, including tax regulations, pension reform, > health system reform and education reforms. > > Implementation of the 1998 budget may be difficult > because reliable information is still unavailable on the damage > done by the flooding, the UW's Tadeusz Syryjczyk told > Dziennik Prawa i Gospodarki. He added, "We must frankly tell > people that economic growth in 1998 will have to be consumed for > the reconstruction of flood-affected areas, which means that > higher wages and consumption are out of the question." > > Instead of 5.5-percent GDP growth in 1998, the govern- > ment should actually be shooting for more than 7 percent, Syryjc- > zyk said, and the outgoing government's plan to reduce inflation > to 9.5 percent is also unambitious, "The government should shoot > for 8 percent," he added. > > Similarly, the AWS's Jerzy Buzek suggested that the gov- > ernment's goal should be to reduce inflation to 4-6 percent annu- > ally "in the coming years." > > (Based on the 30 September 1997 issue of Dziennik Prawa i > Gospodarki, No. 147, p. 5). > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > PAIZ Surveys Investors > ============================================================ > Poland's positive image abroad and its dynamic economic > growth were most highly appraised by foreign investors surveyed > in mid-September by the Polish Foreign Investment Agency > (PAIZ). Positive ratings were also given to the qualifications and > motivation of Polish managers and the cooperation of local au- > thorities with foreign investors. > > The level of inflation, unemployment and political stability > and the telecommunications and banking infrastructure were > judged to be average. > > As many as 49 percent of investors mentioned the size of > the corporate income tax as the first thing which should be > changed, 42 percent mentioned the high insurance contributions > paid by employers, 20 percent customs clearance conditions, 15 > percent technical infrastructure, 7 percent VAT, 4 percent the > conditions of acquiring real estate and 4 percent the functioning > of banks. > > (Based on 30 September 1997 issue of Rzeczpospolita No. 228, p. > 9). > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Food Prices Up > ============================================================ > Between September 11-20 food prices were 0.1 percent > higher than in the first ten days of September and 1.1 percent > higher than between August 11-20, the Central Statistical Office > reported. > > Between September 11-20 only the price of potatoes, > vegetables and fruit went down, by 1.4 percent, while the price of > remaining food articles went up in comparison to August 11-20 > but by not more than 1 percent. > > On a monthly scale (August 11-20 to September 11-20) > the price of eggs rose 3.9 percent, tea 2.5 percent, meat and cold > cuts 2.1 percent and of fish, edible fats, coffee and non-alcoholic > beverages by over 1 percent. > > (Based on 30 September 1997 issue of Rzeczpospolita No. 228, p. > 10). > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Poland Opposes German Labour Restrictions > ============================================================ > The Polish government objects to the plans announced by > the German authorities to reduce by half the quota for the em- > ployment of Polish construction workers in Germany. Early in > September, Economics Minister Wieslaw Kaczmarek disclosed > that Poland had been given an ultimatum. If Poland wanted the > bilateral agreement to be extended, it had to agree to cuts in the > employment quota (currently around 20,000 workers per year on > the average). The agreement referred to was signed in 1990 and > enabled Polish firms, mainly construction companies, to operate in > Germany. > > Yesterday (September 29), Minister Kaczmarek delivered > to Germany's ambassador to Poland his reply addressed to the > German ministers of labour and economics in which Poland disa- > grees with the reduction. The allocation procedure for the 1998 > employment quota has already been started. Kaczmarek hopes > that the conflict will be reconciled during the Polish-German talks > to be resumed next week. "I hope that we will find a solution," > Kaczmarek told the press, although he did not rule out the possi- > bility that the agreement could be temporarily dissolved. > > According to the VdPD organisation from Cologne which > represents the interest of Polish companies in Germany, the > reduction of the employment quota would practically make it > impossible for Polish firms to conclude new contracts because a > smaller quota would only be sufficient to continue the projects > which are already underway. > > (Based on 30 September 1997 issues of Gazeta Wyborcza No. 228, > p. 25; Rzeczpospolita No. 228, p. 10 and Dziennik Prawa i > Gospodarki No. 147, p. 3). > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > KERM Approves 2 Technoparks > ============================================================ > The Government Economic Committee (KERM) yester- > day approved the establishment of another two enterprise zones. > The zones would be created in Cracow and Modlin, near Warsaw, > adding to the already-existing 15 zones set up over the past two > years. > > The zones would be operate in the form of technoparks > with preference for investors with advanced manufacturing tech- > nologies. > > The Cracow Technological Park would be established for > 12 years to serve companies introducing state-of-the-art technolo- > gies in electronics, biotechnology and materials engineering. The > zone would be scattered in three locations in Cracow, based on 60 > hectares of land contributed by Huta Sendzimira steel mill, > Cracow University of Technology and Jagiellonian University. > > Technopark Modlin would occupy about 1,000 hectares, > including nearly 700 contributed by the Modlin airport and 300 ha > vacated by a former state farm. The zone would invite modern > technologies in farm produce and food processing. > > Investors in enterprise zones creating a specific number of > jobs are eligible for complete exemptions from income tax for 10 > years and a 50% reduction over the following 10 years, in addition > to other privileges. > > The KERM recommended the two new zones to the > government, but the final decision on the matter will be made by > the new Cabinet. > > (Based on the 30 September 1997 issues of Rzeczpospolita, No. > 228, p. 10 and Gazeta Wyborcza, No. 228, p. 24). > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Salomon Brothers: Rigorous Policies Needed > ============================================================ > Poland's new government, most probably formed by Soli- > darity Election Action (AWS) and the Freedom Union (UW), will > have to follow rigorous tax and budgetary policies and work > toward a further reduction in the budget deficit, according to the > London office of the U.S. investment bank Salomon Brothers. > > In the short term, the new government should focus on > reducing the current accounts deficit, the experts said. To improve > foreign trade figures, it should restrain the rapidly rising domestic > demand and reduce the rate at which imports are growing. > > In the medium term, the main job for the new government > is to privatise and restructure whatever enterprises still remain in > state hands and reduce red tape to increase economic efficiency > and develop the economy's capacity for long-term growth, Salo- > mon Brothers said. > > (Based on the 30 September 1997 issue of Gazeta Wyborc- > za, No. 147, p. 3). > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Ford Has Own Bank > ============================================================ > Ford dealers in Poland began offering credits for the > purchase of cars and vans from Ford Bank Polska yesterday, > September 29. Ford thus became the first big car maker to engage > in credit activities in Poland, although General Motors is likely to > follow suit shortly, as it took control of an ailing Polish bank, > called Polbank, and is to change its name to Opel Bank next week. > > In exchange for the licence to set up its own bank in > Poland, Ford agreed to deposit 10 million zloty at 1 percent > annual interest for several years with the Poznan-based WBK > bank, which needed the money to salvage the nearly bankrupt > Bydgoski Bank Budownictwa. > > Ford Bank Polska is not a regular bank in the sense that it > does not accept deposits and its operations will be limited to > providing credit to car buyers, both buyers of new Ford cars and of > second-hand cars of any make, e.g., trade-ins accepted by Ford > dealers. The credit equal up to 80 percent of the price. Annual > interest currently ranges from 24.5 percent in the case of 12- > month loans to 27.5 percent for the maximum 60-month credit for > new cars, with slightly higher rates for pre-owned vehicles. > > (Based on 30 September 1997 issue of Gazeta Wyborcza No. 228, > p. 26). > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > GSM Telephone Network Growing Fast > ============================================================ > Within a year from the autumn launch dates of Poland's > two GSM cellular telephone operators, Era GSM and GSM Plus, > the number of telephones connected by each of the two compa- > nies has surpassed that of the telephones connected by Centertel > (around 210,000), the operator of the NMT cellular telephone > system. > > Plus is about to publish its annual report, while Era's > report will not be released until late November. Nevertheless, it is > already certain that several years will be required before the two > companies break even given the high level of initial investment. > > In the meantime, Era is in the process of issuing bonds on > the U.S. market, and it is negotiating a long term loan worth $400 > million to be granted by a syndicate organised by Citibank. Plus > has already been granted a loan by a syndicate established by Bank > Handlowy. > > Both GSM operators are planning to develop their net- > works much faster than Centertel. On the other hand, the latter > company will try to consolidate its financial position by establish- > ing the DCS 1800 cellular telephone network in Poland's largest > cities. The first DCS phones are to be connected in the end of the > year. > > (Based on 29 September 1997 issue of Dziennik Prawa i > Gospodarki No. 146, p. 5). > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > New Tariff Planned on Imported Sugar > ============================================================ > An additional duty is to be imposed by the Ministry of > Economics on sugar imported from the member countries of the > Central European Free Trade Association. The tariff is to amount > to 0.17 ECU per kilogramme, and it is to be announced before the > end of October. > > The sugar industry has been pressing for the introduction > of the additional duty wishing to sell the remaining 200,000 tons of > sugar produced last season, and claiming that the price of sugar on > the Polish market has been too low. > > (Based on 27-28 September 1997 issue of Gazeta Wyborcza No. > 226, p. 21). From cutler@Wittenberg.EDU Thu Oct 2 07:49:47 1997 Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 09:49:43 -0500 (EST) From: cutler@Wittenberg.EDU Subject: directions please To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu I'm sorry to bother the list members, but I need the directions for unsubscribing from this list. e-mail cutler@wittenberg.edu From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Thu Oct 2 08:01:03 1997 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:57:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: Richard Ragland Subject: Re: World Party -Reply to Adam In-Reply-To: Richard, Not that your argument is utopian--it is pure idealism. You are making an argument that supposes global transformation can occur upon a shift in values. All that we need to do is "regenerate" some spirit of humanity we allegedly lost. I am not certain we ever had this spirit. But I am certain that spirit only plays a minor role in structural transformation. Peace, Andy On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Richard Ragland wrote: > Nice idea Adam but I feel it is a top down approach. I think Laslo > knows the answer to this one. Only a world-wide regenerative > movement that seeks to reconstruct the bankrupt spirit of humanity > around the globe can achieve the building up of grassroot > structures necessary to overcome the power and might of the > super capitalist ! Sound too utopian? What is wrong with utopia? > > Rick > From andrei@rsuh.ru Thu Oct 2 08:10:48 1997 From: "Andrey Korotayev" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:11:43 +0300 Subject: Re: Russia & world capitalism Reply-to: andrei@rsuh.ru Just a short comment: > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:47:46 -0600 (NSK) > From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" > to confuse Moscow and Russia is a much bigger mistake than to equalize NYC > with USA. Just today i returned from Moscow, now it has almost all > features of blossoming European capital, including vast middle class, all > kinds of advanced services, high-level consumption, etc. Moscow really > belongs to a dynamic semi-periphery even with many signs of a core. > > On the contrary almost all provincial Russia (except maybe Nijnii > Novgorod) is still a stagnation > area of destroying military production and kolkhoses, with only one vital > branch - getting raw materials. This seems to be true, but: 1. One should not forget that Moscow agglomeration with its 15 000 000 inhabitants accounts for 10% of the Russia population and more than 50 % of the tax revenues the Russian budget gets (most of which is distributed to the regions through subventions). Again most of the Moscow population is imployed in industry (due to some known reasons the percent of the industrial workers in Moscow is the highest among the world capitals). 2. If we add to Moscow the other "core" areas - and this is not just Nizhniy, but also StPetersburg, Saratov, Tolyatti &c, if we take into consideration that just these areas are the most populous in Russia, we shall find out that though the Russian "core" accounts perhaps for less than 5% of its territory, it accounts for about 50% of its population and about 80-90 % percent of its competetive industrial output and tax revenues with which the periphery is fed through massive subventions. One nice thing for the city-dwellers in the present-day Russia is that the villagers cannot say any more "We are feeding you" - it is rather the other way round, the Russian villages are living now to a considerable extent on the imported food, supplied by the cities with the export revenues (incidentally, Russia does not only export oil and gas - it is also the largest exporter of e.g. steel and fertilizers, and 50% of all the electonic watchs and 25% of calculators are made with Russian microchips, whereas most of the cars sold in the former Soviet republics are produced in Russia &c). Yours, Andrey (Moscow, Russia) From bill.schell@murraystate.edu Thu Oct 2 08:45:57 1997 Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 09:38:30 -0500 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: Bill Schell Subject: Re: freedom and Eastern block - Reply to Richard Moore Arno, I read your lengthy 4-part posting "Not Development, Decay" with some interest. Perhaps you could boil down some of your observations from it and apply them to the issues raised in the Anti-systemic/Comrade debate which, at its most basic level, boils down to two positions: 1. the world system is evil, exploitive and must be swept away and replaced and 2. the world system is deeply flawed but has within it tools that can be used to reform it. Many thanks in advance for your effort, > William Schell, Jr Voice: (502) 762-6572 Dept of History Fax: (502) 762-6587 Murray State University EMAIL bill.schell@Murraystate.edu Murray, KY 42071 From rkmoore@iol.ie Thu Oct 2 13:06:16 1997 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:06:06 +0100 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: freedom and Eastern block - Reply to Richard Moore 10/02/97, Bill Schell wrote: >1. the world system is >evil, exploitive and must be swept away and replaced and 2. the world system >is deeply flawed but has within it tools that can be used to reform it. My posting was along these lines... >What I find structurally interesting about the post-Soviet experience is >the variety and intensity of destabilization tactics (from devolution to >mafia infiltration, from political funding to economic pressure) that have >been employed, and the success of the media in attributing each episode to >this and that sundry cause. .... which isn't making any general claims about the world system. As regards your dichotomy... This is more usefully discussed, allow me to suggest, if we include ALL global systems - including communications, finance, transport, etc. - not just some political system-slice such as "core-periphery". This suggeston is not so outrageous, given that you invite discussion of "has within it tools". >From this perspective, 90% of the world system is simply machinery (including staffs of organizations, routine corporate and government operations, air travel, etc.) This 90% is certainly reformable and would be immediately responsive to radical policy changes from above, if they were to come. It would be to everyone's disadvantage to radically destabilize the global machine - better to keep the trains running while organizing systemic reforms. The top "10%" of the world system is another matter. To use a biological metaphor, the top 10% is the higher cognitive functions - the place where the overall system perceives its historical situation and plans its next move. This is the level that includes G7 meetings, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers, the Tri-Lateral commision, corporate think tanks, etc etc. This is the level that plans how US-NATO is to be installed as the official global police force, decides what the UN will and won't be allowed to do, and figures out how best to phase in the globalist regime so as to minimize resistance. (EU as Trojan Horse, etc.) It is only the top cognitive 10% that is inherently "evil, exploitive and must be swept away and replaced". The other 90% is "deeply flawed but has within it tools that can be used to reform it". But sweeping away that 10% amounts to a radical lobotomy, presumably leading to rapid and major observable changes in system macro-behavior. Such a revolution might be perceived emotionally as "the whole system was swept away", but it is just a matter of putting someone else at the controls. rkm From wwagar@binghamton.edu Thu Oct 2 13:08:04 1997 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:07:55 -0400 (EDT) To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: world-government In-Reply-To: On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Richard K. Moore wrote: > > Why, Warren, do you claim a world government is necessary? Isn't democracy > increasingly less maintainable once scale passes a certain point? And is > it sovereign states that cause war or rather sovereign states ruled by > capitalism? If capitalism is dethroned then why is world government such > an obvious goal? > > rkm > > Richard-- World government is essential for at least three reasons: 1. To ensure the equitable distribution of wealth and natural resources among the world's peoples. For it is not just a question of social and economic justice WITHIN nations but also AMONG nations. 2. To protect the biosphere. Managing and conserving the resources of the earth is a global responsibility, which cannot be left to sovereign states to decide as it pleases them. All such decisions must be taken democratically by the world's people as a whole. 3. To safeguard world peace. Capitalism is a major cause of wars among peoples, but it is not the only cause. Race, ethnicity, culture, and much more may divide us from one another even in socialist nations. Only a world-government would have the moral authority to separate warring factions and arbitrate disputes. And of course there are many other reasons one could adduce--including the psychospiritual dimension. A world law and state for a unified humanity would constitute a powerful symbol of our loyalty to one another as brothers and sisters of all races and cultures, with a common cosmic destiny. Global humanism would supplant nationalism and chauvinism as the ideology of the future. Working men and women have no country but the Earth! Hopefully, Warren From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Thu Oct 2 15:00:42 1997 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:00:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:00:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Dennis R Redmond To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Russia & world capitalism In-Reply-To: <243BB6D5A7A@cnit.nsu.ru> On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote: > wouldn't it be more fruitful to begin teaching pigs to fly than to keep > dreaming of bloodless end of global world capitalism? Because in the near future you could genetically engineer ptderodactyl wings onto any reasonably small mammal. No sweat there. Plus, nowadays the informatic code is mightier than the thermonuclear warhead. If capitalism ends someday, it won't be in a sea of blood, but in an ocean of emancipatory data. -- Dennis From akwebb@yuma.Princeton.EDU Thu Oct 2 17:37:52 1997 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:36:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "Adam K. Webb" Reply-To: "Adam K. Webb" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Reply to Richard Moore In-Reply-To: I question the optimism regarding how responsive the mechanical 90% of the world system is. If it were purely a question of changing personnel at the helm, we should be optimistic about electoral mechanisms. What about bureaucratic resistance every step of the way from mid-level technocrats whose whole socialisation--to say nothing of their economic interests--would predispose them against any radical transformation? It seems there would have to be a radical displacement of the entire structure AS A STRUCTURE, subsequently allowing cooperative individuals back into the administrative system only AS INDIVIDUALS. Granted, there are some transitional considerations about initially using existing administrative chains of command for maintaining basic order, but presumably that would last a few expedient weeks at most until other temporary structures were in place. Furthermore, destabilising the system and creating chaos very well could be in the interests of revolution, insofar as people would welcome the return of order. It is all a matter of who receives blame and credit. Do things not need to be irretrievably broken before they can be made genuinely new? Finally and fortunately, I can imagine no scenario, other than a nuclear war, which would break the system down everywhere simultaneously; the staged character of any uprising on that scale--eg. Southern insurgency followed by Northern collapse--would have a clear replacement of old by new while still minimising total, simultaneous breakdown beyond the point of convenience. Regards, --AKW =============================================================================== Adam K. Webb Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton NJ 08544 USA 609-258-9028 http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb From rkmoore@iol.ie Fri Oct 3 13:26:55 1997 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:26:47 +0100 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: system change (was re: Reply to Richard Moore) Adam - I appreciate your responding. My comments may seem impolitic or abrasive at times, but please understand I take these issues as having life-and-death importance to humanity - my interest is not academic and my words are directed at the ideas expressed, not at the respected citizen who typed them in. 10/02/97, Adam K. Webb wrote: > I question the optimism regarding how responsive the mechanical >90% of the world system is. If it were purely a question of changing >personnel at the helm, we should be optimistic about electoral mechanisms. >What about bureaucratic resistance every step of the way...? My main point here is that the (more or less) cognitive-10% can be analyzed separately from the (more or less) mechanical-90%. (Encircling the castle, for example, is a different kind of operation from laying seige.) Both may be tough nuts, but our strategic options are greater if we consider them separately. Whether the strategy for the 90% is to reform or replace it, "we" certainly have greater leverage if control of the 10% command structure is achieved first. I believe we have clear historical examples showing the power of a seize-command approach. If you compare the UK under Thatcher/Major with UK under the postwar semi-socialist governments, you see quite different deployments of social resources. In each case there may have been resistance from bureaucratic hold-overs, but it acted only as an annoying retarder, not as a decisive direction-changer. Globalist policies are alienating more and more segments of the citizenry worldwide - I'd expect bureaucratic support rather than resistance to more progressive command policies. Government employees are not necessarily enamored of the policies they're currently forced to execute. As for "electoral mechanisms"... why is this so lightly dismissed? I envision a day when elections are no more, and my grandaughter asks me "You mean you had the vote and you didn't try to legally organize to use it effectively?" What will I tell her?... "You had to be there to understand our blindness, dear." To wait for armageddon is like the Christians waiting for heaven - and there's no evidence for safe passage in either case. To wait for "things to get worse" is ludicrous - they're already more than bad enough: and the media will always succeed in making things seem "better than they might otherwise be". To say "conditions are too difficult for electoral revolution" is no good either: just try organizing guerilla bands under fire and see if you don't wish for the good old days we have now - re/possibility of peaceful transformation. >It seems there would have to be a radical displacement of the entire >structure AS A STRUCTURE, subsequently allowing cooperative individuals >back into the administrative system only AS INDIVIDUALS. This was by no means established. The bureaucratic-bit was a minor point and was weakly argued. Stronger arguments can be made that the mechanical-90% is in need of radical change (eg- it isn't ecologically sustainable) but that's still a long way from proving that demolition is the necessary first step. Even for simple engineering systems, you build a prototype and then user-test it. There are always unforseen problems that it's better to fix before deploying more widely. Why do people assume big problems are easier to fix than little problems, or that the approach should be particularly different? >Granted, there >are some transitional considerations about initially using existing >administrative chains of command for maintaining basic order, but >presumably that would last a few expedient weeks at most until other >temporary structures were in place. Excuse me, but what naivety! I invite you to reorganize your university in a few expedient weeks, and then re-evaluate the above estimate. >Furthermore, destabilising the system >and creating chaos very well could be in the interests of revolution, >insofar as people would welcome the return of order. Sounds more like a formula for fascism - or at best a spin of a very crooked wheel. It's the military that is best prepared to survive chaos with command intact. --- Where does this all-to-common fixation on armageddon come from? Is it a psychological symptom of unacknowledged resignment to hopelessness? Does anyone try to imagine what system breakdown would actually be like? Where does the notion come from that this could lead to anything other than some kind of warlord rule? Primitive man with modern weapons, what a combination. See Mad Max. My recommendation: take on the social-economic-political challenge of programming a non-disruptive evolutionary morph of system 1 to system 2. That's exactly the strategy being followed for the implementation of the globalist regime, by the way. And if those guys understand anything, it's organization and change thereof. rkm From wwagar@binghamton.edu Fri Oct 3 13:58:13 1997 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:58:06 -0400 (EDT) To: "Adam K. Webb" Subject: Re: World Party In-Reply-To: Adam-- Good question. So far, of course, almost everybody is kicking and screaming, and almost no one is doing the dragging, but this is just as plausible a scenario as in my "A Short History of the Future." If history proceeds rationally--don't count on that, though--it ought to be the South that exercises leadership in the World Party because the South contains the most screw-ees and the North the most screw-ers. Cheers, Warren On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Adam K. Webb wrote: > This posting deals with what to many comrades seems the less > compelling of our current two topics--world government. The assumption by > many on our list, and in Wagar's "Short History of the Future," is that a > movement such as the World Party should devote considerable attention to > cross-regional mass support, including in the North. I fully support the > idea of a coordinated global movement to restructure world order, but I > have a simple question for all of you. Does anyone seriously expect > Northern populations not to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into > a new order? > Rather, such a movement should devise a strategy for assuming > power globally over the opposition of this fifteen percent of the > population. This would involve bogging the USA+EU+Japan down in > pan-Southern counterinsurgency, fomenting immigrant and underclass > volatility, destabilising Northern economies by disrupting transnational > economic links (eg. oil), splitting the Northern leadership as it attempts > to save its own necks, and ultimately carrying out an occupation of those > areas of the world that consistently obstruct majority will. Such a > strategy, I emphasise, would bypass Southern governments altogether as > wholly irrelevant in the new transnational order. A truly global > movement, in other words.... > Any reactions? (I am thankful rotten tomatoes do not travel by > e-mail....) > > Regards, > --AKW > > =============================================================================== > Adam K. Webb > Department of Politics > Princeton University > Princeton NJ 08544 USA > 609-258-9028 > http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb > > From OWENJACK@FS.isu.edu Fri Oct 3 14:16:39 1997 From: "J B Owens" To: WSN@csf.colorado.edu Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:15:59 -0600, MDT Subject: Econ. Hist. Assn--CFP ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:42:25 -0400 Reply-to: H-NET List for World History From: Patrick Manning Subject: Economic History Assn--Sept 1998, Durham, NC--CFP From: Judith Miller, Emory University histjam@emory.edu I am forwarding this for John Brown of the Economics Department of Clark University, the chair of the program committee for the next meeting of the Economic History Association (September 1998 in Durham, NC). The themes the organizers have chosen are geared toward encouraging wide-ranging panels and toward continuing the "interdisciplinary conversations" of the most recent meeting. I hope a number of you will be interested in sending in proposals and I especially encourage graduate students to look at the information on the dissertation prizes. The deadline for paper proposals is January 30, 1998 and the addresses are below. Judith Miller, History, Emory University ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Fifty-Seventh Annual E.H.A. Meeting The 1998 Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association will be held at the Washington Duke Inn and Golf Club, Durham, North Carolina, September 25-27, 1997. The theme of the program is "Revolutions in Economic History." The theme refers to historical cases in which economic structures of long standing and apparent stability either disintegrate or are overturned by something new. "Revolutions" may include the famous upheavals of political and economic history (e.g., French, Russian, Industrial), but also sociopolitical transformations such as the Civil Rights Revolution in the United States, discontinuous changes in the norms of labor relations or family life, etc. Conventional economics has little to say about these phenomena, but history should have plenty to say. Members of the program committee are: John Brown (Chair), David Carlton, Jane Humphries, and Warren Whatley. The committee especially encourages proposals for papers and sessions that help promote intellectual conversations among scholars who may assess revolutions in economic history from differing analytical or disciplinary perspectives. To submit a proposal for a paper, send a short abstract (150 words) and a longer 3-5 page abstract to John Brown postmarked by January 30, 1997. Proposals may also be submitted by using the form available from the E.H.A. Web Site at http://www.eh.net/EHA/Announcements/EHA_sub_prop_98.html If a draft of the paper is available, please send it in addition to the abstracts. The committee welcomes proposals for entire sessions as well as for individual papers. Proposals for sessions should include abstracts for each paper in the session. The committee does reserve the right to assign papers to sessions and to accept some papers from a proposed session if the entire session is not accepted. For full consideration, proposals must be received by January 30, 1997. Submissions must include the full name, mailing address, telephone number(s), fax number, and E-mail address of all authors. Notices of acceptance will be sent to the individual paper givers by March 30, 1997. Those interested in being considered for the 1998 E.H.A. program are welcome to enter into conversations (E-mail encouraged) with any of the members of the Program Committee: John Brown (Chair) Department of Economics Clark University Worcester, MA 01610-1477 (508)793-7390 Fax: (508)855-3736 JBROWN@VAX.CLARKU.EDU David L. Carlton Department of History Vanderbilt University P.O. Box 1523, Station B Nashville, TN 37235 (615)332-3326 Fax: (615)343-6002 DAVID.L.CARLTON@VANDERBILT.EDU Jane Humphries Cambridge University Department of Economics Cambridge, England CB3 9DD (01223)335222 Fax: 01223-335475 JH100@FEP.CAM.AC.UK Warren C. Whatley Department of Economics The University of Michigan 215 Lorch Hall Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (313) 764-5256 Fax: (313) 764-2769 WWHATLEY@UMICH.EDU Those expecting to receive their Ph.D. during the academic year 1997/98 are invited to apply for inclusion in the dissertation session at the 1998 E.H.A meetings. Dissertations on U.S. or Canadian history chosen for presentation at the meetings will be finalists for the Allan Nevins Prize. Such dissertations should be sent to: Leonard Carlson Emory University Department of Economics Atlanta, GA 30322 e-mail: econlac@emory.edu Dissertations on areas of the world other than the U.S. or Canada will be finalists for the Alexander Gerschenkron Prize. Such dissertations should be sent to: Lynn Hollen Lees University of Pennsylvania Department of History College Hall Philadelphia, PA 19104 e-mail: LHLees@sas.upenn.edu Applicants must send a copy of their dissertation to the appropriate convener so that it reaches him or her by Friday, May 29. 1998. From rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU Fri Oct 3 14:32:36 1997 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:31:03 -0700 (MST) From: Richard N Hutchinson To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: System change (responding to Moore and Wagar) In-Reply-To: RKM- You make an excellent point about the necessity to think in terms of evolutionary process rather than apocalyptic scenarios. I agree that the crew currently piloting the planet are way ahead of most of their erstwhile opponents in understanding and acting on this insight. A very useful book in this regard is Kevin Kell(y/ey?)'s >>Out of Control: The Rise of Neo-Biological Civilization<<. Sure he's enamored of the "natural evolutionary" status of capitalism. We would be better off if we absorbed some of the insights he presents. (Marx thought all of capitalism's potential would have to be played out before it was surpassed.) With regard to Warren Wagar's recent proposal, I'm afraid the problem is that he proposes a blueprint, when what is needed is a plan. It is a question of process as opposed to ideal depiction of an outcome. The resistance to the capitalist world-system will arise from below (including intellectuals of course) and take on forms that we cannot currently envision. In the meantime, Samir Amin and others play an invaluable role in specifying the continuing conditions for popular resistance and revolution. But in terms of the transition to a different system, Wagar's proposal sounds too much like a utopian novel. Comradely regards, Richard Hutchinson From wwagar@binghamton.edu Fri Oct 3 15:07:10 1997 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 17:06:46 -0400 (EDT) To: Richard N Hutchinson Subject: Re: System change (responding to Moore and Wagar) In-Reply-To: On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Richard N Hutchinson wrote: > RKM- > > You make an excellent point about the necessity to think in terms of > evolutionary process rather than apocalyptic scenarios. I agree that the > crew currently piloting the planet are way ahead of most of their > erstwhile opponents in understanding and acting on this insight. Yes, because evolution is their game, evolution from partial domination and exploitation of the world's peoples and resources to total domination and exploitation. Why would they have any interest in apocalypses? > With regard to Warren Wagar's recent proposal, I'm afraid the problem is > that he proposes a blueprint, when what is needed is a plan. It is > a question of process as opposed to ideal depiction of an outcome. The > resistance to the capitalist world-system will arise from below > (including intellectuals of course) and take on forms that we cannot > currently envision. In the meantime, Samir Amin and others play an > invaluable role in specifying the continuing conditions for popular > resistance and revolution. But in terms of the transition to a different > system, Wagar's proposal sounds too much like a utopian novel. Maybe that's because it IS a utopian novel--or at least based on a utopian novel that I wrote myself, A SHORT HISTORY OF THE FUTURE. We need blueprints as well as plans, goals as well as strategies, faith as well as works. In any event, there is a plan embedded in the blueprint, a plan for world-revolutionary action spearheaded by a World Party or some other genuinely antisystemic movement or movements with global scope and membership. The point of my original post was that most so-called antisystemic movements play into the hands of the crew currently piloting our planet, and that we can and must do better. Cheers, Warren From rcniman@u.washington.edu Fri Oct 3 19:55:17 1997 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 18:55:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Ryan Casey Niman To: Richard N Hutchinson Subject: Kevin Kelly (was: System change (responding to Moore and Wagar)) In-Reply-To: For those interested - Kevin Kelly recently had an excellent piece titled 'The New Rules of the New Economy' in the September issue of Wired Magazine. Ryan C. Niman Email: rcniman@u.washington.edu On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Richard N Hutchinson wrote: > RKM- > > You make an excellent point about the necessity to think in terms of > evolutionary process rather than apocalyptic scenarios. I agree that the > crew currently piloting the planet are way ahead of most of their > erstwhile opponents in understanding and acting on this insight. > > A very useful book in this regard is Kevin Kell(y/ey?)'s >>Out of Control: > The Rise of Neo-Biological Civilization<<. Sure he's enamored of the > "natural evolutionary" status of capitalism. We would be better off if we > absorbed some of the insights he presents. (Marx thought all of > capitalism's potential would have to be played out before it was > surpassed.) > > With regard to Warren Wagar's recent proposal, I'm afraid the problem is > that he proposes a blueprint, when what is needed is a plan. It is > a question of process as opposed to ideal depiction of an outcome. The > resistance to the capitalist world-system will arise from below > (including intellectuals of course) and take on forms that we cannot > currently envision. In the meantime, Samir Amin and others play an > invaluable role in specifying the continuing conditions for popular > resistance and revolution. But in terms of the transition to a different > system, Wagar's proposal sounds too much like a utopian novel. > > Comradely regards, > Richard Hutchinson > > > > From andrei@rsuh.ru Sat Oct 4 09:27:25 1997 From: "Andrey Korotayev" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 13:35:32 +0300 Subject: Re: Russia & world capitalism Reply-to: andrei@rsuh.ru > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 18:40:34 -0400 > From: james m blaut <70671.2032@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: Russia & world capitalism > CNN today quoted somebody, I think some official of the US government, > as stating that two-thirds of the Russian economy is now in the > hands of the mafia. > > A few minutes later I read the informative postings from our Russian > comrades Andrei and Nikolai. > > I would be interested in learning their response to this dismaying > statement about the Russian economy which was aired on CNN, our main > television news organization in the US. I am afraid, unfortunately, I find this estimate close to truth. Russian media regularly publish similar figures, and my own impressions do not contradict them. Among Moscow small businesses it might even be 90%. Though, in most cases "being in hands" would mean paying "protection money" to organized criminal groups, without their actual administrative control of the firms. This point, of course, does not change the general picture for better much. Actually, I find THIS the only REALLY serious problem of the present-day Russia. Yours, Andrey From rkmoore@iol.ie Sat Oct 4 10:14:47 1997 Sat, 4 Oct 1997 17:14:24 +0100 (IST) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 17:14:24 +0100 (IST) To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: world-government 10/02/97, Warren Wagar wrote: > World government is essential for at least three reasons: > > 1. To ensure the equitable distribution of wealth and > natural resources among the world's peoples. ... > 2. To protect the biosphere. ... > 3. To safeguard world peace. ... I see. The vision is that an enlightened global state _somehow_ comes into existence, _somehow_ remains stable forever, _somehow_ is never subverted by special interests, and _somehow_ always adapts benignly and successfully to changing conditions. I dispute every one of these implicit assumptions, and suggest that the historical record agrees with me. I'd frame my own argument along two lines: (1) long term system stability, and (2) the creation scenario. (1) As regards stability - monoculture is inherently maladaptive; it is inferior to diversity. Just as the single-strain Irish potato crop all failed at once from a single blight, so would a single world government be all-at-once vulnerable to a special-interest takeover or to any other serious system perturbation (natural, economic, or political). Voluntary mutual cooperation among enlightened sovereign states would be considerably more robust over time, and would be no less difficult to achieve than a single enlightened hierarchical government. It is instructive to note here that voluntary cooperation among major European powers has been achieved _in advance_ of the upcoming (and retrograde) European federal state. (2) As regards the creation scenario - one must have a plan/scenario by which the goals are to be achieved, by which the future system is to come about. As argued in the response to Adam Webb, I believe "salvation through apocalypse" is demonstrably a dead end - is jumping from the fying pan into the fire. The best hope for enlightened governance of _any_ variety is through orderly change with ongoing stability preserved. And with democratic institutions being rapidly and systematically dismantled on a global scale, there is an historical necessity to organize for peaceful revolution with extreme urgency and singleness of purpose. International brotherhood and mutual solidarity have a critical _supporting_ role to play, but the only productive focus of _primary_ effort, under existing circumstances, is the achievement of democratic revolution within each sovereign state. And the West _must_ take the lead - if the West remains elite-capitalist dominated the rest of the world is doomed, given the West's many-times-over military hegemony. And an enlightened West - Can you imagine it? - could be ever-so effective in _guiding_ (not coercing) the rest of the world to a similar enlightened state. At every stage the MEANS IS THE END: (1) the organizing and popular "uprising" required to achieve democratic revolution is in fact the creation of the popular infrastructures necessary to support enlightened governance in a modern Western state; (2) the unfolding mutual cooperation of revolutionary democratic Western states, and the collective experience of supporting the rest of the world in joining, is in fact the creation of the very collaborative paradigm that is needed to enable ongoing world peace and cooperation. --- In closing, I dispute one of Warren's goals: "equitable distribution of wealth and natural resources among the world's peoples". For _many_ reasons - even though world trade should certainly be encouraged - an emphasis on local self-sufficiency is called for. It should be recognized here, as Michael Parenti develops in "The Sword and the Dollar", that the Third World is by no means poor - the problem is that the West has been stealing (by force) its resources for the past several centuries. A simple cessation of imperialism (including national expropriation of resources and repudiation of debts, with Western cooperation) would immediately achieve a major shift of wealth from the First to Third Worlds. Forced redistribution beyond that is inadvisable. I contend that "equitable distribution of resources" is ecologically unsound - if what you mean, for example, is that desert dwellers should have the same access to water as, say, a Norwegian. If you want to live in the desert, you'd better know how to get by with what's available there, or what you can trade for. Otherwise we'd be creating ecologically unsustainable economies all over the world, based on the centrally-planned massive re-distribution of global resources. This would be a capitalist-developers dream scenario, not the dream of one seeking a sustainable world. rkm From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Sat Oct 4 12:39:58 1997 Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:39:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: world-government In-Reply-To: Comrades, In response to Warren Wager's rather obvious reasons for world government from a democratic perspective (equitable distribution of wealth and natural resources globally, protecting the natural environment, to "safeguard world peace"), Richard K. Moore wrote several things: > The vision is that an enlightened global state _somehow_ comes into > existence, _somehow_ remains stable forever, _somehow_ is never subverted > by special interests, and _somehow_ always adapts benignly and successfully > to changing conditions. Putting aside for now my problems with Warren's argument, where is Moore getting these assumptions? Does stating that a world government is necessary for the reasons Warren enumerated automatically imply such ridiculous claims? Maintaining a global democratic order, just like maintaining a democratic order of any scale, will be a formidable task, sure. But it doesn't mean that we don't advocate one, or try to make one happen. Beating cancer is hard work, but if you want to live you at least make a go at it. Yeah, sure, a lot of people don't make it (and we miss them terribly). But this is no reason not to try. > I dispute every one of these implicit assumptions, and suggest that the > historical record agrees with me. I'd frame my own argument along two > lines: (1) long term system stability, and (2) the creation scenario. Perhaps the "historical record" agrees with Richard (facts speaking for themselves?), but until these arguments are put into some sort of cogent form how do we know? For example, take this gem: > (1) As regards stability - monoculture is inherently maladaptive; it is > inferior to diversity. Just as the single-strain Irish potato crop all > failed at once from a single blight, so would a single world government be > all-at-once vulnerable to a special-interest takeover or to any other > serious system perturbation (natural, economic, or political). How do we get from world government to monoculture? Why would a world democratic order automatically reduce all culture to a singularity? More importantly, perhaps, why is monoculture inherently maladaptive? Is this based on theory of natural selection mapped onto the social world? Sounds rather Spencerian to me: "Keep world government out of natural cultural diversity so that the process of macrosociocultural adaptation can proceed unadulterated by the hand of conscientious women and men." Using the potato famine as an analogy for the perils of world government is just about the worst analogy I have yet to hear. > Voluntary mutual cooperation among enlightened sovereign states would > be considerably more robust over time, and would be no less difficult to > achieve than a single enlightened hierarchical government. Why reify states, Richard, and then have them rule (to hope for the enlightened rule of states smacks of the silliness that Richard attributes to Warren's argument) over the world's population? As Zinn pointed out, Kissinger's argument that history is the memory of states hides the fact that there are no such things as "national interests" or "enlightened states." Ironically, under Richard's alternative scenario we may well have a totalitarian world order constituted by the mutual cooperation of totalitarian states (which is sort of what we have and the framework that Richard says we should operate within). On the other hand, the whole thrust of Warren's argument for world government, it seems to me, is to get around the possibility of interstate domination of the world's population, who, as Marx pointed out long ago, have no country. If it is difficult to imagine a global democratic government acting reasonably (I shutter anthropomorphizing such an entity in that manner) then how in the hell may be even begin to imagine hundreds of "sovereign states" coming to enlightened rule simultaneously and then cooperating for the good of all people? This reminds me of the argument that a teacher gave to me at a Christian school (Church of Christ) I attended as a boy: it is impossible to imagine a world so complex as self-created. My response (for which I was set out of the classroom) was that if this was difficult to imagine, then how may we imagine a self-caused supreme being causing the world? Some things challenge the most imaginative minds. > International brotherhood and mutual solidarity have a critical > _supporting_ role to play, but the only productive focus of _primary_ > effort, under existing circumstances, is the achievement of democratic > revolution within each sovereign state. I must have missed something. I agree that we should struggle in our respective nation-states, but how is it that with democracy being dismantled, as you claim, and at the same time there is a world capitalist state emerging, a point which I have seen you argue on this list, that national struggle is the "only productive focus of _primary_ effort"? This conclusion doesn't seem to flow from the position you have advanced so frequently on this channel. From all your extensive analysis of the transnationalization of capital and the erosion of the nation-state, Richard, how do you come up with this conclusion? > And the West _must_ take the lead > - if the West remains elite-capitalist dominated the rest of the world is > doomed, given the West's many-times-over military hegemony. And an > enlightened West - Can you imagine it? - could be ever-so effective in > _guiding_ (not coercing) the rest of the world to a similar enlightened > state. I am having trouble imagining an "enlightened West." Is your alternative scenario dependent on this possibility? > For _many_ reasons - even though world trade should certainly be encouraged > - an emphasis on local self-sufficiency is called for. It should be > recognized here, as Michael Parenti develops in "The Sword and the Dollar", > that the Third World is by no means poor - the problem is that the West has > been stealing (by force) its resources for the past several centuries. A > simple cessation of imperialism (including national expropriation of > resources and repudiation of debts, with Western cooperation) would > immediately achieve a major shift of wealth from the First to Third Worlds. > Forced redistribution beyond that is inadvisable. This conclusion is unrealistic. The assumption is that operating social laws are symmetrical. It is not usually the case in the real world that the removal of the stimulus returns the effected object back to its previous state. I also question the degree to which imperialism is the predominant form of maintaining exploitation in the present global system that is assumed in this argument. Rather capitalist hegemony has come to predominate as a method of domination and exploitation over core political and military domination. This is a shift from imperial to polyarchic domination, in which the elite republican forms of government of the core (particularly the US) are copied over into the former colonies (this does not deny that imperialism is still in force, simply that it does not characterize the present world-historical stage). These countries are determined by the same overall structural logic that determines the development of the core nations. Nations are tools of the global capitalist class and their elites--but more than this, they are caused components of the global structural logic that drives world history. There is amazing reification running all through Richard's arguments, and this, in part, explains his contradictory conclusions from week to week. > If you want to live in the desert, you'd better know how to get by with > what's available there, or what you can trade for. If you WANT to live in a desert. "Hey, pal, it's your choice to live there. Don't complain to me about lacking water. You'd better know what's available there or just live with it, buddy." I recall a comedian who advanced a similar line. Only his line was a joke. There is this (il)logic called FPS (Faulty Parental Selection) that I think works well here. In this logic we choose the parents we are born to, we choose the social class in which we are born, and we choose the geographical region in which we are born and will live. "Hey, if you don't like the bombs then just move out of the way!" > creating ecologically > unsustainable economies all over the world, based on the centrally-planned > massive re-distribution of global resources...would be a > capitalist-developers dream scenario.... How do you figure? Love, Andy From rkmoore@iol.ie Sun Oct 5 11:23:14 1997 Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 18:23:02 +0100 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: Andrew on world-government Andrew - I very much appreciate your taking the time to respond to my posting. It is unfortunate that you apparently misunderstood every one of my points. Is my writing really that unclear? Firstly, just to clarify one point, when I say "enlightened" government I refer (I hope) to what Warren Wagnar dubs "democratic and socialist" and which, I presume we all agree, is only a shorthand for "human-needs centered, democratically responsive, non-authoritarian, freedom-supporting, ecologically aware, economically savvy, minority-respecting" etc. Warren suggests that enlightened world government is not only a goal worth pursuing, but is in fact the only hope for human salavation. My main point is simply: _IF_ englightened world government might be achievable by WHATEVER MEANS, _THEN_ one might assume that enlightened national governments would also be achievable by the SAME MEANS, and should therefore be entertained as an alternative system-design strategy. 10/04/97, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: >Richard K. Moore wrote several things: > >> The vision is that an enlightened global state _somehow_ comes into >> existence, _somehow_ remains stable forever, _somehow_ is never subverted >> by special interests, and _somehow_ always adapts benignly and successfully >> to changing conditions. > >Putting aside for now my problems with Warren's argument, where is Moore >getting these assumptions? If one advocates a world government, then all of the above assumptions (whether or not you're aware of them in advance) must be fulfilled if the situtation is not to degenerate into some new variety of global domination by elites. >Does stating that a world government is >necessary for the reasons Warren enumerated automatically imply such >ridiculous claims? Why, Andrew, are they ridiculous? - please explain which can be abandoned without endangering our "democratic and socialist" regime? As I see it, they are simply the necessary conditions for system stability. >Maintaining a global democratic order, just like >maintaining a democratic order of any scale, will be a formidable task, >sure. But it doesn't mean that we don't advocate one, or try to make one >happen. ... this is no reason not to try. Hey! I'm with you here. Peace! The heroic effort IS worth pursuing (or at least emailing about). What I'm suggesting is that we be a little more open in the alternatives we consider. "World Government" is a quick-and-easy knee-jerk "first response" to solve world problems - let's please take the time to discuss the pro's and con's of different approaches. Then choose intelligently. I believe "enlightened sovereign states" can give a good running - just as I believe Europe is better off pre-Maastricht. Do you see a federalized EU as an improvement? >Perhaps the "historical record" agrees with Richard (facts speaking for >themselves?), but until these arguments are put into some sort of cogent >form how do we know? Are my arguments that in-cogent? Have you really grokked what I'm saying? I hope the above clarifications have some impact on your responses. >> (1) As regards stability - monoculture is inherently maladaptive; it is >> inferior to diversity. Just as the single-strain Irish potato crop all >> failed at once from a single blight, so would a single world government be >> all-at-once vulnerable to a special-interest takeover or to any other >> serious system perturbation (natural, economic, or political). > >How do we get from world government to monoculture? Why would a world >democratic order automatically reduce all culture to a singularity? More >importantly, perhaps, why is monoculture inherently maladaptive? Is this >based on theory of natural selection mapped onto the social world? Sorry the metaphor didn't work for you. In ecosystems it is well known that a variety of species, with overlapping habitats and food sources, is better prepared to deal with changing conditions than a mono-culture such as an avacado grove. My point was that a single global administration might not always succeed in adapting to changing conditions - I was not implying that there would necessarily be a single global social culture (you took the world "culture" too literally). The "maladaptivity of monoculture" isn't about Darwinism, but about system response-flexibility. A multi-autonomous system can respond more creatively and flexibly than a centralized hierarchical system. Right? "Two head are better than one", "Team functioning is synergistic", etc. >Sounds rather Spencerian to me: Thank you so much for only including only this one reference to the revered literature. >"Keep world government out of natural cultural >diversity so that the process of macrosociocultural adaptation can proceed >unadulterated by the hand of conscientious women and men." No, I'm not any kind of system determinist. Systems can support or subvert goals - and they must threfore be designed carefully - but the "hand of conscientious women and men" must always be at the helm ("Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"). >Using the potato >famine as an analogy for the perils of world government is just about the >worst analogy I have yet to hear. Why? A mono-political-hierarhical system, if undermined, undermines the whole world at once. With a variety of global centers, one might hope that an undermining-agent, of whatever character, might be resisted successfully in some places, and that the antibody-pattern could then be replicated (consciously and conscientiously) everywhere else. >Why reify states, Richard, and then have them rule (to hope for the >enlightened rule of states smacks of the silliness that Richard attributes >to Warren's argument) over the world's population? To answer the parenthetical remark first, you're absolutely right - hoping for the "enlightened rule of states" is PRECISELY as utopian as hoping for Warren's enlightened world government. No argument here - both may be hopeless. But as Alan Kay (a famous computer guy) says or quotes: "A great project is no more difficult than a good project" - let's go for the _best_ world system, not just the most obvious one. I reify states for several reasons. (1) they already exist and in the West include workable (if underused) democratic mechanisms - to not exploit the potential of this infrastructure while we still have it is idiotic; (2) I believe democracy is more sustainable at smaller scales (but that pre-mature national devolution is counterproductive); (3) the cultural and economic fabric of nation states, such as remains, is worth preserving. >As Zinn pointed out, >Kissinger's argument that history is the memory of states hides the fact >that there are no such things as "national interests" or "enlightened >states." Ironically, under Richard's alternative scenario we may well have >a totalitarian world order constituted by the mutual cooperation of >totalitarian states (which is sort of what we have and the framework that >Richard says we should operate within). You're getting unnecessarily nasty here Andrew. Are you trying to imply I'm in favor of totalitarian states, or what? I admit that a nation-state system might fail just as a world-system might also fail - I only ask that we consider the pro's and con's of each approach - ASSUMING that either "enlightened regime" might be achievable in the first place. I'd say some states have been more enlightened than others - there are some useful democratic & socialist precedents. "National interests" may have been an arbitrary invention of the enlightenment, and they may have been often abused, but to say there is "no such thing" is absurd - and one must assume Zinn was speaking within some particular context. Nationalism has been a real and an effective focus of economic development and social progress, we needn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. >If it is difficult to imagine a global democratic >government acting reasonably (I shutter anthropomorphizing such an entity >in that manner) then how in the hell may we even begin to imagine hundreds >of "sovereign states" coming to enlightened rule simultaneously and then >cooperating for the good of all people? I didn't say "simultaneously". I believe we need to start with what we have, which is the democratic institutions in our nations. Progress would presumably start somewhere first, and success would inspire emulation. Even if the goal is world government, I'd think this would be the best way to start. (Again - barring the "apocalypse solution"). Please consider the current situation among major Western countries. In the postwar era, barring perhaps the Suez crisis, we really have achieved a situation of "sovereign states" "cooperating for the good" in some sense. Even before modern globalization, and with a relatively ineffective UN, we haven't had competitive Western arms races, serious border disputes, competitive imperialism, serious trade wars, etc. It is no longer utopian to imagine sovereign states cooperating effectively and peacefully without global hierarchical control. Is it too much to hope that such cooperation might continue if the governments themselves had more enlightened goals? >I agree that we should struggle in our >respective nation-states, but how is it that with democracy being >dismantled, as you claim, and at the same time there is a world capitalist >state emerging, a point which I have seen you argue on this list, that >national struggle is the "only productive focus of _primary_ effort"? This >conclusion doesn't seem to flow from the position you have advanced so >frequently on this channel. From all your extensive analysis of the >transnationalization of capital and the erosion of the nation-state, >Richard, how do you come up with this conclusion? .... one step at a time, Andrew. Democracy _is being_ dismantled, which gives rise to the urgency of our situation. It is _not yet_ dismantled, which gives rise to hope. The world-capitalist-state is emerging largely by means of the undermining of national sovereignty. The "taking back" of our on-paper democratic states - based on principles of restored national sovereignty and "democratic socialism" - could be used to undo the world-capitalist-state and to pursue a better vision of a global system. That better system _might_ be a world government - but it might better be a looser federation. Isn't this worth discussing with similar sympathy/indulgence shown to all options? I argue against a hierarchical world government but I don't dismiss it as brain-dead. >I am having trouble imagining an "enlightened West." Is your alternative >scenario dependent on this possibility? Yes indeed. And wouldn't an "enlightened West" also be necessary if we were to achieve an elightened world government? It seems to me I'm hoping for only a portion of what Warren's hoping for. >The assumption is that operating social >laws are symmetrical. It is not usually the case in the real world that >the removal of the stimulus returns the effected object back to its >previous state. To be sure. Viable local ecosystems/economies have been wrenched out of shape by centuries of imperialism. Nonetheless, returning land now used for export coffee and MacDonald's beef to local agricultural use, and cancelling of Third World debts, wouldn't be a bad starting point for whatever other economic/resource adjustments need to be made. >I also question the degree to which imperialism is the >predominant form of maintaining exploitation in the present global system >that is assumed in this argument. Rather capitalist hegemony has come to >predominate as a method of domination and exploitation over core >political and military domination. Many models are true at once - don't be over-reductionist. Yes there is a capitalist-cloning missionary aspect to global control, but there is at the same time a US-NATO military regime that intervenes and bullies under one banner or another in traditional imperialist fashion. As I've argued before: "National competitive Euro imperialism has been replaced by collaborative Euro imperialism". All nations may be equal in the the face of international globalism, but some (US-Euro axis) are more equal than others. >> If you want to live in the desert, you'd better know how to get by with >> what's available there, or what you can trade for. Well yes, you can easily ridicule this statement if you choose to exaggerate its intent, but what is your attitude toward: "equitable distribution of wealth and natural resources among the world's peoples"? What does this mean? Does it mean the US Midwest is obliged to produce wheat for Africa? I'd like to see the idea more fully articulated but on the surface it seems a dubious goal - unnecessary and possibly counter-productive. Why is it necessary? Wouldn't it require centralized planning of global resource allocations? Might this not repeat the failures of previous attempts at centralized command economies? rkm From 70671.2032@compuserve.com Sun Oct 5 15:38:45 1997 Sun, 5 Oct 1997 17:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 17:35:55 -0400 From: james m blaut <70671.2032@compuserve.com> Subject: Speak out on Plutonium in Space!!! Sender: james m blaut <70671.2032@compuserve.com> To: left geog , world systems network -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Speak out on Plutonium in Space!!! Date: 05-Oct-97 at 15:05 From: "Susan Place", INTERNET:susan_placeacgate.csuchico.edu Date: 5 Oct 1997 12:14:55 U From: "Susan Place" Subject: Speak out on Plutonium in Space!!! Dear Friends and Colleagues, Geographers from northern California (Susan Place) and southern California (Ben Wisner) URGENTLY call to your attention NASA's intention to launch a deep space probe later THIS MONTH loaded with 72 pounds of plutonium. As geog raphers, environmental scientists, disaster experts, ..., mothers and fathers, human beings we need to let Congress, the media, the President (who has final launch authority), and NASA know about our concerns. In brief, the failure rate of the launch vehicle is about 10%. Although NASA swears that the plutonium payload would not be damaged if the vehicle explodes or falls into the sea off the Florida coast, there is considerable engineering and scientific doubt about their environmental impact analysis. Even if the probe is successfully launched, in order to build up speed to reach its goal (Saturn), this so-called Cassini probe will "sling slot" around Venus and miss the earth (so it is planned) by a few hundred miles at 43,000 miles per hour! A number of physicists and a former safety officer for NASA have gone on record that a slight navigational error would cause Cassini to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere with the possible result that the plutonium would vaporize and be distributed around the planet in the upper atmosphere. NASA is dicing with our children's lifes. The irony is that waiting a few years and collaborating with Japanese and European efforts, a new generation of solar power technology would provide the energy that NASA says is necessary to power the probe when it reaches Saturn. Even before one considers WHY NASA is so interested in putting plutonium in space, there is ample reason to post-pone this launch indefinitely until a thorough public debate and INTERNATIONAL scientific investigation of the possible impacts can take place. Our own suspicion is that NASA (as part of what President Eisenhower called the "military industrial complex") wants to find uses for the nuclear arms industry in a post-cold war environment. Even more ominously, this could be the "atoms-for-peace(ful)"-exploration-of-space that softens up public opinion to access a "star wars" deployment of nuclear weapons in space. Please inform yourselves more fully by viewing Internet resources such as: http://www.afn.org/~fcpj/space/cassini/facts/htm or you could call the Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice at 352-468-3295. This Cassini story was recently awarded a prize from the group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) for being the "most censored story" in the US during 1996. It is finally out of the bag, and we must act URGENTLY to delay the launch. NASA is quite embarrassed by the suddenly explosion of publicity and scientific criticism (including public statements by a former 20 plus-year veteran chief of disaster planning and safety at Cape Kennedy). As a part of their "spin doctoring" you can also access debate and criticism of the Cassini project from NASA's internet home page. In an era of global environmental and humanitarian emergencies (Rwanda genocide and mass exodus, Indonesian fires, etc.), there is a danger of communicating "urgent" needs too often. However we believe that your considered action on Cassini is of vital importance. Warmest regards, SUSAN PLACE (Chair, Dept. of Geography, CSU Chico) BEN WISNER (Director, International Studies and Prof. of Geography, CSU Long Beach) From ROZOV@cnit.nsu.ru Sun Oct 5 22:37:05 1997 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:28:46 +0700 (NOVST) 6 Oct 97 11:28:48 NSK-6 From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:28:38 -0600 (NSK) Subject: Re: Russia & world capitalism just two notes to Andrey's reply to Jim Blaut's request: > From: "Andrey Korotayev" > > From: james m blaut <70671.2032@compuserve.com> > > > CNN today quoted somebody, I think some official of the US government, > > as stating that two-thirds of the Russian economy is now in the > > hands of the mafia. > > > > A few minutes later I read the informative postings from our Russian > > comrades Andrei and Nikolai. > > > > I would be interested in learning their response to this dismaying > > statement about the Russian economy which was aired on CNN, our main > > television news organization in the US. > > I am afraid, unfortunately, I find this estimate close to truth. > Russian media regularly publish similar figures, and my own > impressions do not contradict them. > Among Moscow small > businesses it might even be 90%. > Though, in most cases "being in hands" would mean paying "protection > money" to organized criminal groups, without their actual > administrative control of the firms. This point, of course, does not > change the general picture for better much. seems to be mostly true, but... the real content of the term 'mafia' in modern Russia is radically different from American understanding. In US most part of business is legal and mafia is pushed to its 'normal' innate activities: drugs, prostitution, illegal arms trade, etc. In Russia because of stupid fiscal policy THE MOST PART OF FINANCIAL INTERACTIONS is illegal and not seldom is made by means of US $ cash (when have you seen last time a $100 bank-note? in Russia it is not less popular than roubles). The other factor is weakness of Russian courts, that caused transition of routine regulative functions (such as return of debts) to "security services" which are always connected intimately with criminal groups. All this does not mean that 2/3 of Russian economics is in hands of criminals but really means that these 2/3 are 'shadow economics' (hidden from taxes and connected with illegal symbiosis of business, state officials and criminal groups). Andrey: > Actually, I find THIS the only > REALLY serious problem of the present-day Russia. > dear Andrey, here i strongly disagree with you, i see at least two huge problems not less serious than the one discussed above first, it is non-involveness of majority of Russian population (except Moscow and few cites) into niches of modern world economy, that still causes mass support of communism and of expansionist extremism (Jirinovski, fascists, etc) second, inertia of raw materials export combined with clear tendency of world-capitalist elits (with IMF as an instrument) to develop mainly (only?) getting industries in post-Soviet Russia best Nikolai From andrei@rsuh.ru Mon Oct 6 04:40:54 1997 From: "Andrey Korotayev" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:41:50 +0300 Subject: Re: Russia & world capitalism Reply-to: andrei@rsuh.ru > Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:28:38 -0600 (NSK) > From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" > Andrey: > > > Actually, I find THIS the only > > REALLY serious problem of the present-day Russia. > > > > dear Andrey, here i strongly disagree with you, i see at least two huge > problems not less serious than the one discussed above > first, it is non-involveness of majority of Russian population > (except Moscow and few cites) into niches of modern world economy, that still > causes mass support of communism and of expansionist extremism (Jirinovski, > fascists, etc) > second, inertia of raw materials export combined with clear tendency of > world-capitalist elits (with IMF as an instrument) to develop mainly (only?) > getting industries in post-Soviet Russia > > best > Nikolai I cannot say that Nikolay has persuaded me. With respect to his two problems at least the solutions are more or less clear. With respect to the second problem there is already a rather significant progress being made: this year against the background of general 1.8% growth in the Russian industry we have 13% growth in the car manufacturing; and all the other fastest growing industries are not the raw material ones, but rather the chemical industry, metallurgy and metal processing, production of machinery, paper &c. With respect to the organized crime I do not see any such clear solutions - I do not think just the change of the fiscal policy, improvement of the Russian legal system &c will solve this problem radically (though this could make it less acute). Yours, Andrey From rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU Mon Oct 6 12:08:54 1997 Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:06:47 -0700 (MST) From: Richard N Hutchinson To: wwagar@binghamton.edu Subject: Re: System change (responding to Moore and Wagar) In-Reply-To: On Fri, 3 Oct 1997 wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote: > > > On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Richard N Hutchinson wrote: > > > RKM- > > > > You make an excellent point about the necessity to think in terms of > > evolutionary process rather than apocalyptic scenarios. I agree that the > > crew currently piloting the planet are way ahead of most of their > > erstwhile opponents in understanding and acting on this insight. > > Yes, because evolution is their game, evolution from partial > domination and exploitation of the world's peoples and resources to total > domination and exploitation. Why would they have any interest in > apocalypses? > > > With regard to Warren Wagar's recent proposal, I'm afraid the problem is > > that he proposes a blueprint, when what is needed is a plan. It is > > a question of process as opposed to ideal depiction of an outcome. The > > resistance to the capitalist world-system will arise from below > > (including intellectuals of course) and take on forms that we cannot > > currently envision. In the meantime, Samir Amin and others play an > > invaluable role in specifying the continuing conditions for popular > > resistance and revolution. But in terms of the transition to a different > > system, Wagar's proposal sounds too much like a utopian novel. > > Maybe that's because it IS a utopian novel--or at least based on a > utopian novel that I wrote myself, A SHORT HISTORY OF THE FUTURE. We need > blueprints as well as plans, goals as well as strategies, faith as well as > works. > In any event, there is a plan embedded in the blueprint, a plan > for world-revolutionary action spearheaded by a World Party or some other > genuinely antisystemic movement or movements with global scope and > membership. The point of my original post was that most so-called > antisystemic movements play into the hands of the crew currently piloting > our planet, and that we can and must do better. > > Cheers, > > Warren > > Warren- I'm well aware of your novel -- I've read it and found it quite thought-provoking. My reference to utopian novels was a bit of ironic humor. I maintain, though, that just updating the Leninist party on a world scale is not the answer. I don't have the answer, but I'm convinced that it is more complicated than your blueprint implies. I think another of Lenin's contributions might prove more relevant to our situation. He noticed the "spontaneous" formation of soviets, and called attention to this as the basis for an intensification of struggle. I believe that one of the most important roles of intellectuals is to carefully study the forms of resistance that are developing, and then to facilitate their spread, and networking among dispersed centers of resistance in far-flung corners of the world-system. A more modest role, to be sure, but more likely to succeed than attempting to implement outmoded approaches in a top-down fashion. For the emancipation of all living beings- Richard Hutchinson From gmd304@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Mon Oct 6 14:46:05 1997 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:45:55 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:45:55 -0500 (CDT) To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: Georgi Derluguian Subject: Russia's criminal economy RE CNN on Russia's criminal economy With the sad benefit of knowing a little both Russian criminals and the Washington group advising on them, let me change the focus of discussion. The question whether half, two thirds or the entire Russian economy is controlled by organized crime is meaningless. It's purpose is political -- to impress a certain sub-committee at the Hill, boost an inter-agency enterprise in DC primarily (FBI has its interest, but so does the CIA keen on redeeming itself and finding new enemies, plus the former Sovietological expert community -- in a nutshell, watch The Peacemaker movie). Nevertheless the trans-Atlantic political interests involved and the sheer simplicity of the impressionist number quoted by CNN does not mean that the problem of organized crime does not exist in Russia. In the Soviet period there was a tightly-knit (therefore well-controlled) underworld dominated by the traditional "Thieves in the Law". This institution was fostered by the Soviet orphanage system and the GULag. Curiously, it modelled itself after the professional revolutionaty underground and the popular Orthodox cult of saintly elders (startsy). The moral community of the thieves could exist as long as it was bounded. With the collapse of state socialism totally new competitors entered the scene - ethnic mafias first and foremost (this includes Russian "brigades" from the outskirts of large cities like Moscow, Kazan, or Sverdlovsk, which grew out of the teenage gangs); but also the groups of declasse professionals in coercion, such as former cops, sportsmen, paratroopers. One more group were the entrepreneurs of former Soviet shadow economy whose protection usually resided within the corrupt state apparatus. Organized crime assumed two major functions which the state couldn't under the post-1991 circumstances: regulation of competitive struggles and protection of property rights. Development of a core-like social patterns out of the post-Soviet rubble required one major condition which simply wasn't available -- an efficient, politically-controlled by the citizens, generally social-democratic state. (Effective policing, small business credit, flexible regulation, including the internal protectionism and export-oriented guidance, etc.) The prospect of small-business middle-class society was undermined by three kinds of monopolies eminently present in Russia: gigantic, generally self-serving and arbitrary bureaucracy, equally gigantic corporations and cartel-like alliances, and the organized crime. Soon the three got intertwined because they were competing after 1991 in the same field of politicized competition for the control over the existing properties and the commodity flows (the "Economy"). The process of institutionalization of controls over his field has been ongoing and unusually fluid -- several different configurations of power rose and fell already. The current demise is the break up of the bank-centered oligarchy which had emerged during the presidential elections of 1996. Will there be only one gigantic bank emerging? Will the power of the banks be eroded wholesale? No less acute are the questions whether the violent competition ("organized crime") will be curbed by the emergence of one monopolistic supergroup, or, to the contrary, the break up and mutual elimination of the competing "mafias" (I repeat that the distinction between financial groups, business cartels, and purely criminal gangs is such situation is theoretical -- state violence and coercion were privatized, along the actually applied law. The category of crime is largely irrelevant.) This situation cannot last due to the sufferings it inflicts upon the fractured power elites, although from the ordinary human standpoint it hasn't been untolerable. Curiously, neither Andrey nor Nikolai are particularly preoccupied with crime -- because, fortunately, the daily-life violence in Russia isn't higher than in large American cities. More so, I know from fieldwork that in several instances the rise of organized crime significantly relieved the situation of common citizeny by absorbing/suppressing former teenager street gangs (Kazan, Lyubertsy outside Moscow as well.) Of course, it is more dangerous to be a banker, in fact, one of the few historical situations when being a banker is considerably more explosive than being a coalminer. But the chance of a core-like Russia, if it ever existed, seems lost for a generation or more. Waiting for Gen. Lebed, Georgiï M. Derluguian Department of Sociology Northwestern University 1812 Chicago Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60208-1330 gderlug@nwu.edu tel. (1-847) 491-2741 From rkmoore@iol.ie Mon Oct 6 16:58:38 1997 Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 23:58:30 +0100 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: world-government 10/06/97, wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote: > Just read the following, as well as Andy's debate with you. I >have interpolated a few comments. You have not been responsive to the clarifications in my response to Andy. I weary of these debates because people just keep defending their same position - there seems to be very little mutual education going on. Please don't bother telling me I'm as bad as anyone else - that may be true - but the consequence is sad whatever the reason is. rkm From 70671.2032@compuserve.com Mon Oct 6 17:40:27 1997 for wsn@csf.colorado.edu; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:40:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:37:59 -0400 From: james m blaut <70671.2032@compuserve.com> Subject: russian mafia Sender: james m blaut <70671.2032@compuserve.com> To: world systems network Georgii: "The question whether half, two thirds or the entire Russian economy is controlled by organized crime is meaningless." I shouldn't quote out of context but this is a gem! "The category of crime is largely irrelevant." Another gem. "Curiously, neither Andrey nor Nikolai are particularly preoccupied with crime." I'd like to hear from Andrey and Nikolai on that statement... "Fortunately, the daily-life violence in Russia isn't higher than in large American cities." Really true? Of course, the mafia DOES prefer nonviolent methods of making money. "Of course, it is more dangerous to be a banker." Well, that's something at least to be grateful for. Probably I am not comprehending your (Georgii's) argument because it is presented in that obscure Ciscaucasian language called "Sociologese." We geographers speak more clearly although we say nothing worth listening to. Jim Blaut From hahnj@elwha.evergreen.edu Mon Oct 6 18:01:56 1997 Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:04:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeanne Hahn To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: International Political Economy Announcement (fwd) The following is the announcement of a full-time teaching position in political economy at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wa. Please contact Evergreen directly for more information or to apply, see below Jeanne Hahn Political Economy The Evergreen State College REGULAR FACULTY POSITION 1998-99 INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS/ INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY ABOUT EVERGREEN: Evergreen is a non-traditional public liberal arts college emphasizing intensive interdisciplinary study and collaborative team teaching throughout the undergraduate curriculum and three graduate programs. Recognizing cultural diversity as a defining characteristic of the 21st Century, the College has intensified its efforts to become a multicultural institution. Substantive experience and expertise in working across cultural differences are therefore highly desirable for all positions. Faculty membership is unranked with salary determined on a non-competitive open scale based on earned degrees and years of relevant experience. Faculty holding Regular positions are typically first appointed to 3-year term contracts and are eligible for permanent appointment after 3-6 years of full-time teaching at Evergreen. This announcement is for a Regular position. All positions require an advanced degree, with strong preference given to candidates with a Ph.D. or analog (e.g. MFA), and broad interdisciplinary training, experience, or interest. Candidates for all positions must demonstrate potential for excellence in teaching and in collaborative work. All positions typically rotate between specialized teaching and involvement in the general education "core" curriculum, and all typically involve interdisciplinary, team-taught, coordinated programs. Writing is emphasized across the curriculum, and the college expects all faculty to work effectively with students in writing. THE POSITION: We seek a broadly trained faculty member in economics, political economy, or a related field to teach international economics, international political economy and economic development as part of interdisciplinary programs, primarily at the undergraduate level. The successful candidate must have in-depth knowledge and study in both neo-classical economics and radical economics, as well as close familiarity with current literature in these subjects. Strong multicultural background is very important, as are developed research interests and paid or volunteer work experience in international economics, international political economy, or economic development. Teaching duties will involve all undergraduate levels, typically on interdisciplinary teams; specific emphases will rotate year by year, and will include introductory and advanced political economy and broadly interdivisional programs. Background should therefore include breadth in economics as well as depth, as well as knowledge of related social sciences, such as sociology, anthropology, or history. A Ph.D. or equivalent is strongly preferred. APPLICATION PROCEDURES: To apply, send curriculum vitae, letter of application that highlights qualifications for the position, 1-2 page statement of teaching philosophy and practice, 1-2 page statement of multicultural experience/expertise, example of scholarly or artistic work, evaluations by students, and 2-3 current letters of reference. In most cases, only files containing all of these elements will go forward to the screening committees, unless an alternative arrangement has been made. Finalists may be asked to submit additional materials. Address application and inquiries to Faculty Hiring Coordinator, The Evergreen State College, L-2211, Olympia, WA 98505, call (360) 866-6000, ext. 6861 (voice) or TDD line at (360) 866-6834, or email blodgetd@elwha.evergreen.edu. Review of completed applications will begin December 1, 1997 and continue until finalists are selected. The College reserves the right to extend searches or not offer positions advertised. All position offers are contingent on funding. Persons with disabilities can receive accommodations in the hiring process by calling the Hiring Coordinator. Committed to equal opportunity and affirmative action, TESC is working to build a diverse, broadly-trained faculty and particularly encourages applications from candidates whose race, national origin, sex, age, religion, marital status, sexual orientation, veteran status or physical disability will contribute to our diversity. From Roberto_P_KORZENIEWICZ@umail.umd.edu Mon Oct 6 18:20:46 1997 for wsn@csf.colorado.edu; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:20:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 97 20:20 EDT From: Roberto_P_KORZENIEWICZ@umail.umd.edu (rk81) Subject: PEWS membership To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Just a quick update.. At last count, the membership of PEWS at the ASA was 409, meaning that we met the required number (400) to keep all our sessions. Thanks for your work in recruiting members. Regards, Roberto Patricio Korzeniewicz PEWS Secretary/Treasurer Roberto Patricio KORZENIEWICZ Department of Sociology University of Maryland College Park MD 20742 United States Email:RK81@umail.umd.edu Phone:(301) 405-6398 From OWENJACK@FS.isu.edu Tue Oct 7 08:24:40 1997 From: "J B Owens" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 08:29:18 -0600, MDT Subject: H-AHC, Assoc Hist and Computing ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:14:42 +0000 Reply-To: fieras@africamail.com Sender: Historia y tecnologias de la informacion From: "Juan P. Torrente" Subject: New H-List: H-AHC, Association for History and Computing Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:09:49 -0400 From: "Hlatam, Florida Gulf Coast University" Subject: INFO: New H-List: H-AHC, Association for History and Computing ANNOUNCING H-AHC H-NET LIST for THE ASSOCIATION FOR HISTORY and COMPUTING Sponsored by H-Net, Humanities On-line, Michigan State University H-AHC is a moderated internet discussion forum for the Association for History and Computing. AHC exists to encourage and maintain interest in the use of computers in all types of historical studies at all levels, in both teaching and research. The H-AHC e-mail list is one part of the information distribution means of the AHC, serving at the same time as a venue for discussion of issues related to historical computing for a wide audience of scholars in the humanities and social sciences. For more information about AHC, including membership requirements, archives, and services, visit the AHC site on the World Wide Web: http://odur.let.rug.nl/ahc/ The H-AHC list is co-edited by Jan Overvoll, Jan.Oldervoll@hi.uib.no, and Raivo Ruusalepp, Raivo.Ruusalepp@hi.uib.no, both of the History Department, University of Bergen, Norway. Logs and more information about H-AHC can also be found at the H-AHC Web Site, located at http://h-net.msu.edu/~ahc. H-AHC is FREE and open to everyone with a mature and abiding interest in the use of computers in historical studies. Scholars, writers, teachers, and librarians professionally interested in the subject are particularly invited to join. Like all H-Net lists, H-AHC is moderated by the editors to filter out inappropriate posts. To join H-AHC, please send a message to: listserv@h-net.msu.edu (with no subject line) and only this text: sub H-AHC firstname lastname, institution Capitalization does not matter, but spelling, spaces and commas do. When you include your own information, the message will look something like this: sub H-AHC William Smith, Essex University Follow the instructions you receive by return mail. If you have any questions or experience difficulties in attempting to subscribe, please send a message to: Help@h-net.msu.edu H-Net is an international network of scholars in the humanities and social sciences that creates and coordinates electronic networks, using a variety of media, and with a common objective of advancing humanities and social science teaching and research. H-Net was created to provide a positive, supportive, equalitarian environment for the friendly exchange of ideas and scholarly resources, and is hosted by Michigan State University. For more information about H-Net, write to H-Net@H-net.msu.edu, or point your web browser to http://h-net.msu.edu. We look forward to hearing from you! The H-AHC Editors From wwagar@binghamton.edu Tue Oct 7 11:16:41 1997 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:16:27 -0400 (EDT) To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: This Is a Test I am sending out this message to see if it returns marked "undeliverable" as were all my messages yesterday. Warren Wagar From wwagar@binghamton.edu Tue Oct 7 11:30:17 1997 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:29:49 -0400 (EDT) To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: world-government In-Reply-To: I was unable to send this post out yesterday; it kept coming back to me marked undeliverable. Perhaps the computer gods are angry. I shall defy them once more. Warren On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote: > > Dear Richard and All, > > Just read the following, as well as Andy's debate with you. I > have interpolated a few comments. > > > On Sat, 4 Oct 1997, Richard K. Moore wrote: > > > > > 10/02/97, Warren Wagar wrote: > > > > > World government is essential for at least three reasons: > > > > > > 1. To ensure the equitable distribution of wealth and > > > natural resources among the world's peoples. ... > > > 2. To protect the biosphere. ... > > > 3. To safeguard world peace. ... > > > > I see. The vision is that an enlightened global state _somehow_ comes into > > existence, _somehow_ remains stable forever, _somehow_ is never subverted > > by special interests, and _somehow_ always adapts benignly and successfully > > to changing conditions. > > That would be nice, but nowhere did I or do I foresee such wisdom > and benevolence and good fortune. The goals of a world-government are one > thing; its success in achieving them quite another. As a practicing > historian, I would expect the world-government to perpetrate all kinds of > horrors, deliberately or otherwise. But I maintain the hope that it would > perpetrate fewer horrors than the modern world-system and that its > establishment would represent a net gain for humanity in the long term. > > > I dispute every one of these implicit assumptions, and suggest that the > > historical record agrees with me. I'd frame my own argument along two > > lines: (1) long term system stability, and (2) the creation scenario. > > > > (1) As regards stability - monoculture is inherently maladaptive; it is > > inferior to diversity. Just as the single-strain Irish potato crop all > > failed at once from a single blight, so would a single world government be > > all-at-once vulnerable to a special-interest takeover or to any other > > serious system perturbation (natural, economic, or political). Voluntary > > mutual cooperation among enlightened sovereign states would be considerably > > more robust over time, and would be no less difficult to achieve than a > > single enlightened hierarchical government. > > It is instructive to note here that voluntary cooperation among > > major European powers has been achieved _in advance_ of the upcoming (and > > retrograde) European federal state. > > Who spoke of monocultures? And even if I had spoken of > monocultures, does the "historical record" suggest that Japan, Norway, New > Zealand, and Saudi Arabia are more dysfunctional than Nigeria, Bosnia, > Brazil, and Sudan? > > > (2) As regards the creation scenario - one must have a plan/scenario by > > which the goals are to be achieved, by which the future system is to come > > about. As argued in the response to Adam Webb, I believe "salvation > > through apocalypse" is demonstrably a dead end - is jumping from the fying > > pan into the fire. The best hope for enlightened governance of _any_ > > variety is through orderly change with ongoing stability preserved. And > > with democratic institutions being rapidly and systematically dismantled on > > a global scale, there is an historical necessity to organize for peaceful > > revolution with extreme urgency and singleness of purpose. > > > > International brotherhood and mutual solidarity have a critical > > _supporting_ role to play, but the only productive focus of _primary_ > > effort, under existing circumstances, is the achievement of democratic > > revolution within each sovereign state. And the West _must_ take the lead > > - if the West remains elite-capitalist dominated the rest of the world is > > doomed, given the West's many-times-over military hegemony. And an > > enlightened West - Can you imagine it? - could be ever-so effective in > > _guiding_ (not coercing) the rest of the world to a similar enlightened > > state. > > Now who's being utopian? Not to mention Eurocentric. > > > At every stage the MEANS IS THE END: (1) the organizing and popular > > "uprising" required to achieve democratic revolution is in fact the > > creation of the popular infrastructures necessary to support enlightened > > governance in a modern Western state; (2) the unfolding mutual cooperation > > of revolutionary democratic Western states, and the collective experience > > of supporting the rest of the world in joining, is in fact the creation of > > the very collaborative paradigm that is needed to enable ongoing world > > peace and cooperation. > > > > --- > > > > In closing, I dispute one of Warren's goals: "equitable distribution of > > wealth and natural resources among the world's peoples". > > > > For _many_ reasons - even though world trade should certainly be encouraged > > - an emphasis on local self-sufficiency is called for. It should be > > recognized here, as Michael Parenti develops in "The Sword and the Dollar", > > that the Third World is by no means poor - the problem is that the West has > > been stealing (by force) its resources for the past several centuries. A > > simple cessation of imperialism (including national expropriation of > > resources and repudiation of debts, with Western cooperation) would > > immediately achieve a major shift of wealth from the First to Third Worlds. > > Forced redistribution beyond that is inadvisable. > > > > I contend that "equitable distribution of resources" is ecologically > > unsound - if what you mean, for example, is that desert dwellers should > > have the same access to water as, say, a Norwegian. If you want to live in > > the desert, you'd better know how to get by with what's available there, or > > what you can trade for. Otherwise we'd be creating ecologically > > unsustainable economies all over the world, based on the centrally-planned > > massive re-distribution of global resources. This would be a > > capitalist-developers dream scenario, not the dream of one seeking a > > sustainable world. > > > What if your desert-dwellers have nothing to trade for, and next > door some other desert-dwellers are rolling in oil? Kuwait is rich, Yemen > is poor. Is that okay? Even your not-so-enlightened Western sovereign > states recognize the need to help resource-poor or otherwise disadvantaged > regions inside their own boundaries develop their human and/or natural > resources. Under your formula I suppose Appalachia and southern Italy and > northern Brazil should be turned loose to fend for themselves. In the > long term, in a democratic world, all regions would learn to be > self-sufficient, but there would have to be a transitional period to level > the playing field. And what about safeguarding the ozone layer, stemming > global warming, preventing the destruction of tropical rain forests, > protecting the oceanic food-chain, keeping high-tech societies from > gobbling up all the mineral wealth on the ocean floor, banning plutonium > from outer space, letting countries downstream have their share of > fresh water, etcetera, etcetera? > > Cheers, > > Warren > > From chriscd@jhu.edu Tue Oct 7 11:32:38 1997 07 Oct 1997 13:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 13:26:22 -0400 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: world party and antisystemic movements To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu Thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion of Warren Wagar’s short essay about antisystemic movements. The discussion has been civil and enlightening. If you want to go back to take a look at the exchanges I recommend accessing the WSN mail archive at http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/wsn and sorting by the threads. The relevant subject headings are: "anti-systemic movements", wagar on antisystemic movements, "comrades", "world party" and " world government." Alternatively you can sort by date and read most of the posts since September 15. I see two basic issues in the debates: 1. What are the appropriate values around which we could mobilize a global movement to transform the capitalist world-system into a collectively rational and democratic global commonwealth? and 2. Should we try to reform the existing system or should we concentrate on radically transforming it? On the values question my approach is mainly pragmatic. Choose and believe those values that facilitate the mobilization of those people who have the greatest motivation and the greatest opportunity to change the system. I agree with Professor Wagar that the values of Left Enlightenment are fine. It has not been the values promulgated by the powers-that-be that are the source of the problem. Liberty, equality and sorority are fine values. These values are found in many non-European cultures as well. The problem is to construct social and political structures that realize these values in practice, rather than merely using them as legitimations for exploitation and domination. On the second question, I say we need to do both. Reform _and_ revolution. I would constitutionally prefer revolution, but I see reform as a necessary effort under the circumstances. Let me explain. The capitalist world-economy in its globalizing phase will probably cause either ecological catastrophe or thermonuclear holocaust, or both. Seeing that this is true we cannot opportunistically wait to pick up the pieces after said holocaust(s). In Wagar’s novel the World Party does not get going until the 2030s. The nuclear war that kills off two-thirds of the world’s population occurs in 2044. In my projection of world-system cycles and trends (Chase-Dunn and Podobnik 1995) the window of vulnerability to a future war among core states occurs rather in the 2020s. Seeing this now, in 1997, we must do all that we can to prevent the two possible holocausts. This means trying to reform the capitalist world-system in order to prevent these outcomes. At the same time we need to recognize that our efforts may fail, and so we should also be building the necessary organizational tools to survive and to carry through a revolutionary transformation. The combined strategies (reform and revolution) require mostly overlapping and complementary tasks. We need to form an organization that will debate, educate and strategize with the short-run and long-run goals in mind. The word "party" seems to cause a lot of difficulty. Maybe we should rather call it a "network." We need to do research on the structural causes of warfare and ecological degradation in the past and construct models of how these causes are likely to work in the future. We need to understand the connections between popular movements and the changing structures of globalized capitalism and the institutions of the global capitalist class. We need to write articles and books that explain the world-systems perspective to the broad audiences who will need to understand how things work in order to change them. It is not too early to start. chris From wwagar@binghamton.edu Tue Oct 7 11:32:49 1997 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:32:14 -0400 (EDT) To: Richard N Hutchinson Subject: Re: System change (responding to Moore and Wagar) In-Reply-To: I sent this message out yesterday, but it was returned to me undelivered. I'm trying again. Warren On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote: > > > > > Warren- > > > > I'm well aware of your novel -- I've read it and found it quite > > thought-provoking. My reference to utopian novels was a bit of ironic > > humor. > > > > I maintain, though, that just updating the Leninist party on a world scale > > is not the answer. I don't have the answer, but I'm convinced that it is > > more complicated than your blueprint implies. > > > > I think another of Lenin's contributions might prove more relevant to our > > situation. He noticed the "spontaneous" formation of soviets, and called > > attention to this as the basis for an intensification of struggle. I > > believe that one of the most important roles of intellectuals is to > > carefully study the forms of resistance that are developing, and then to > > facilitate their spread, and networking among dispersed centers of > > resistance in far-flung corners of the world-system. A more modest role, > > to be sure, but more likely to succeed than attempting to implement > > outmoded approaches in a top-down fashion. > > Richard-- > > We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm all for the spontaneous > emergence of local soviets, but to coordinate their activities worldwide > is going to take a lot more than "networking." We're talking about > subverting and replacing the mightiest world-system in history. > > Cheers, > > Warren > > From OWENJACK@FS.isu.edu Tue Oct 7 14:40:51 1997 From: "J B Owens" To: WSN@csf.colorado.edu Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:45:46 -0600, MDT Subject: Aura of the Cause ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 15:46:33 -0500 (EST) From: "ANDREW H. LEE" Subject: Opening of Aura of the Cause / Book Reception for _Stars for Spa Opening of "Aura of the Cause" On Monday, October 13 at 6:00 pm in the Atrium of the King Juan Carlos I of Spain Center (53 Washington Square South, New York, New York) there will be a lecture and panel discussion by members of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade Archives (ALBA) Board of Governors for the opening of the exhibit of selected photographs from the book _The Aura of the Cause: A Photo Album for North American Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War_. The _Aura of the Cause_ is the most detailed photographic record to date of the experiences of the volunteers who took up arms against fascism in the great cause of the 1930s. The lecture will be by curator Cary Nelson of the University of Illinois. This will be followed by a panel discussion with Peter Carroll, Chair, ALBA Board of Governors; Tony Geist, University of Washington, Seattle; Len Levenson, Abraham Lincoln Brigade Veteran; and Andrew H. Lee, New York University. The event is free of charge and open to the public. For more information contact the King Juan Carlos Center (212-998-3650 / http://www.nyu.edu/pages/kjc) or the Tamiment Library (212-998-2630). This event is co-sponsored by the King Juan Carlos I of Spain Center, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade Archives, and New York University's Tamiment Library. Book reception for _Stars for Spain_ On Wednesday, October 15 at 2:00 pm in the Portrait Room of the King Juan Carlos I of Spain Center (53 Washington Square South, New York, New York) there will be a book presentation in English for _Stars for Spain: La guerra civil espanola en los Estados Unidos_ by Marta Rey Garcia of the Fundacion Pedro Barrie of A Coruna, Spain. The presentation will about Dr. Rey's research on the impact in the United States of the Spanish Civil War and the efforts by supporters of both the Republic and Franco to sway opinion and raise material aid. The event is free of charge and open to the public. For more information contact the King Juan Carlos Center (212-998-3650 / http://www.nyu.edu/pages/kjc) or the Tamiment Library (212-998-2630). This event is co-sponsored by the King Juan Carlos I of Spain Center and New York University's Tamiment Library. From rkmoore@iol.ie Tue Oct 7 14:46:04 1997 Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:45:54 +0100 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: world party and antisystemic movements 10/07/97, christopher chase-dunn wrote: >1. What are the appropriate values around which we could mobilize a >global movement to transform the capitalist world-system into a >collectively rational and democratic global commonwealth? and >2. Should we try to reform the existing system or should we concentrate >on radically transforming it? I for one applaud Christopher's formulation, epecially the precise level of generality - "democratic global commonwealth", for example, allows different structures to be discussed (including but not limited to "world government"). >Liberty, equality and >sorority are fine values. These values are found in many non-European >cultures as well. The problem is to construct social and political >structures that realize these values in practice, rather than merely >using them as legitimations for exploitation and domination. Amen. >On the second question, I say we need to do both. Reform _and_ >revolution. Amen again. >The combined strategies (reform and revolution) require mostly >overlapping and complementary tasks. We need to form an organization >that will debate, educate and strategize with the short-run and long-run >goals in mind. Could we start with identifying and agreeing to the goals? rkm From austria@it.com.pl Wed Oct 8 03:10:27 1997 Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:11:12 +0200 (MET DST) Reply-To: From: "Austrian Embassy" To: Subject: Re: world party and antisystemic movements Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:12:03 +0100 Chris, that sound all fine, only one string of argument is basically wrong - and it seems to belong almost to the discussion culture nowadays - the prediction about "major war" between the "centers". Do you all honestly believe that America, Japan and Europe will go to war with each other about Toyotas, soya, computer chips, volkswagen and all? I have tried to argue all along in my recent works that we cannot overlook the cultural dimensions and the political sociological dimensions, even if we reject Huntington or Fukuyama for other and good reasons. My dear friends across the Atlantic - not the European Union is the element of belligerent contention in the world system, or Japans capitalism for that matter, but unequal exchange could force regions like China (still a one-party-state, much resembling Germany in the late 19th century in its semi- authoritarian industrialization drive), much of Africa and West-Central Asia into a contention-trap. I think to recall that here and there are reports about totalitarian ideologies evolving in that region, aren't they? Or is that what happens in Algeria merely a daydream? The way that Russia goes could become more similar to that of Austria in the 19th century - belated and half-hearted reforms. Does not sound all that much more plausible? A good issue for debate would be Anglo-French relations in the 19th and early 2oth century: they rather show, I think, the evolving structure of Euro-American relations in the 21st century. Peace Arno Tausch ---------- > From: christopher chase-dunn > To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK > Subject: world party and antisystemic movements > Date: Dienstag, 07. Oktober 1997 18:26 > > Thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion of Warren Wagar’s > short essay about antisystemic movements. The discussion has been civil > and enlightening. If you want to go back to take a look at the exchanges > I recommend accessing the WSN mail archive at > http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/wsn and sorting by the threads. The > relevant subject headings are: "anti-systemic movements", wagar on > antisystemic movements, "comrades", "world party" and " world > government." Alternatively you can sort by date and read most of the > posts since September 15. > > I see two basic issues in the debates: > 1. What are the appropriate values around which we could mobilize a > global movement to transform the capitalist world-system into a > collectively rational and democratic global commonwealth? and > 2. Should we try to reform the existing system or should we concentrate > on radically transforming it? > > On the values question my approach is mainly pragmatic. Choose and > believe those values that facilitate the mobilization of those people > who have the greatest motivation and the greatest opportunity to change > the system. I agree with Professor Wagar that the values of Left > Enlightenment are fine. It has not been the values promulgated by the > powers-that-be that are the source of the problem. Liberty, equality and > sorority are fine values. These values are found in many non-European > cultures as well. The problem is to construct social and political > structures that realize these values in practice, rather than merely > using them as legitimations for exploitation and domination. > > On the second question, I say we need to do both. Reform _and_ > revolution. I would constitutionally prefer revolution, but I see > reform as a necessary effort under the circumstances. Let me explain. > The capitalist world-economy in its globalizing phase will probably > cause either ecological catastrophe or thermonuclear holocaust, or both. > Seeing that this is true we cannot opportunistically wait to pick up the > pieces after said holocaust(s). In Wagar’s novel the World Party does > not get going until the 2030s. The nuclear war that kills off two-thirds > of the world’s population occurs in 2044. In my projection of > world-system cycles and trends (Chase-Dunn and Podobnik 1995) the > window of vulnerability to a future war among core states occurs rather > in the 2020s. Seeing this now, in 1997, we must do all that we can to > prevent the two possible holocausts. This means trying to reform the > capitalist world-system in order to prevent these outcomes. At the same > time we need to recognize that our efforts may fail, and so we should > also be building the necessary organizational tools to survive and to > carry through a revolutionary transformation. > > The combined strategies (reform and revolution) require mostly > overlapping and complementary tasks. We need to form an organization > that will debate, educate and strategize with the short-run and long-run > goals in mind. The word "party" seems to cause a lot of difficulty. > Maybe we should rather call it a "network." We need to do research on > the structural causes of warfare and ecological degradation in the past > and construct models of how these causes are likely to work in the > future. We need to understand the connections between popular movements > and the changing structures of globalized capitalism and the > institutions of the global capitalist class. We need to write articles > and books that explain the world-systems perspective to the broad > audiences who will need to understand how things work in order to change > them. > > > It is not too early to start. > > chris From austria@it.com.pl Wed Oct 8 03:16:21 1997 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:17:33 +0200 (MET DST) Reply-To: From: "Austrian Embassy" To: Subject: the european voice - free access to le monde diplomatique Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:18:21 +0100 ---------- > From: Le Monde diplomatique > To: Le Monde diplomatique > Subject: Octobre 1997 - Tenir > Date: Mittwoch, 01. Oktober 1997 11:00 > > > > ** Le Monde diplomatique ** > octobre 1997 > > > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/ > > > > > DANS CE NUMÉRO Tenir > ______________________________________________________________ > > « Le marché est, intrinsèquement, producteur d'inégalités », estime > Ignacio Ramonet, dans son éditorial, évoquant la « seconde > révolution capitaliste ». > > MONDIALISATION > > On le voit bien dans l'agriculture : avec la libéralisation des > échanges, celle, moderne, de l'Occident bloque le développement de > celle, sous-équipée, du tiers-monde. De même, après avoir payé deux > fois et demie la valeur de sa dette de 1980, l'Afrique est trois > fois plus endettée qu'alors, et, n'en déplaise aux statistiques > truquées de la Banque mondiale, la majorité de ses populations > vivent plus mal. En Chine, aussi, l'accélération de la « réforme » > par le XVe congrès du Parti communiste ne pourra que creuser > l'écart entre provinces riches et pauvres - comme le Guizhou. > Paradoxalement, Pékin semble suivre un « modèle » dont la crise > financière asiatique, déclenchée cet été, démontre la fragilité. > > RÉSISTANCES > > A défaut de pouvoir inverser la tendance, les victimes > sauront-elles au moins faire valoir leurs intérêts ? La victoire > remportée par les grévistes américains d'UPS est de bon augure. Le > mouvement syndical français s'efforce, lui, de tirer les leçons des > grèves de 1995. Mais, en Lorraine, il ne s'est pas remis de sa > défaite dans la bataille de la sidérurgie. > > ROUGE, BLANC, NOIR > > D'autres crises persistent. Rouge sang, celle de l'Algérie où les > massacres se multiplient, comme pour empêcher tout accord entre > pouvoir et Front islamique du salut - même si certaines villes, > comme Annaba, restent à l'écart. Les femmes, elles, tiennent, > malgré les désillusions. Blanche, couleur de la marche d'il y a un > an, la crise belge, malgré une forte mobilisation, n'aura pas > changé grand-chose. Noire, enfin, comme l'or qu'est le pétrole, la > crise rampante entre mer Noire et mer Caspienne où, sur fond de > tracés d'oléoducs, les Etats-Unis entendent refouler la Russie. > ______________________________________________________________ > > > ÉDITORIAL > > La mutation du monde, par Ignacio Ramonet. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/1997/10/RAMONET/edito.html > > Dans les revues... > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/1997/10/revues.html > > Colloques et rencontres. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/1997/10/colloques.html > > > HISTOIRE > > Ainsi était le « Che », par Ahmed Ben Bella. > > > RÉSISTANCES OUVRIÈRES > > Spectaculaire victoire des camionneurs américains, > par Rick Fantasia. > Les interrogations du syndicalisme français, par Serge Depaquit. > Offensives du mouvement social, par Annick Coupé. > Amère normalisation en Lorraine, > par Pierre Rimbert et Rafael Trapet. > La Commune de Longwy (P. R. et R. T.). > > > BELGIQUE > > L'« année blanche » vire au gris, par Jean-Marie Chauvier. > > > TCHÉQUIE > > Le « miracle tchèque » sauvé par les eaux, par Marie Lavigne. > > > ISRAËL > > « Bibi, qu'as-tu fait ? », un témoignage de Nourit Peled-Elhanan. > > > L'ALGÉRIE SOUS LA TERREUR > > Les luttes de clans exacerbent la guerre civile, > par Bruno Callies de Salies. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/1997/10/CALLIES_DE_SALIES/ > > Jours ordinaires à Annaba, par Nadjia Bouzeghrane. > Illusions perdues et espoirs des femmes, par Baya Gacemi. > > > AFRIQUE > > Un continent à l'aune du développement virtuel, > par Christian de Brie. > Sortir du cycle infernal de la dette, par Eric Toussaint. > Somaliland, le pays qui n'existe pas, par Gérard Prunier. > > > AGRICULTURE > > L'asphyxie des économies paysannes du Sud, par Marcel Mazoyer et > Laurence Roudart. > > > ASIE > > Grande pauvreté à la chinoise, par Guilhem Fabre. > Typhon financier sur les « tigres » d'Asie, par Frédéric F. > Clairmont. > > > PÉTROLE > > « Grand jeu » en Transcaucasie, par Vicken Cheterian. > Eldorado ou mirage ? (V. C.). > > > HAITI > > Dans la spirale du désespoir, par Bernard Cassen. > A Jérémie, si loin de Port-au-Prince, par Christophe Wargny. > > > MÉDIAS > > Le journalisme au défi d'Internet, par Angelo Agostini. > Révolution dans l'information, par Bruno Giussani. > > (A ce sujet, vous pouvez consulter sur notre serveur les > résultats d'une enquête menée auprès de nos lecteurs « en ligne » > par Valérie Jeanne.) > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/diplo/enquete/ > > Une étape vers l'indépendance du Monde diplomatique (I. R.) > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/1997/10/RAMONET/appel.html > > > LES LIVRES DU MOIS > > « Le Basculement du monde », un livre de Michel Beaud. > « Le Rocher et la Peine », de Fadwa Touqan, par Boutros Hallaq. > « La Tête perdue de Damasceno Monteiro », d'Antonio Tabucchi, > par Fabio Gambaro. > La pluralité des appartenances, par Norbert Rouland. > > « Amsterdam global village », un film de Johan van der Keuken, par > Dominique Godrèche. > > > > From austria@it.com.pl Wed Oct 8 08:59:03 1997 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:59:52 +0200 (MET DST) Reply-To: From: "Austrian Embassy" To: Subject: webs-sites for research on East-Central Europe Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:00:35 +0100 > > > > > > Free of charge sites to be visited > > ---------------------- > > > > > > 1) Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty > > > > http://www.rferl.org > > > > Interesting site, expressing views in line with NATO governments, with fully searchable archive, free of charge, updated > > daily, with news about the whole of the region > > > > 2) Le Monde Diplomatique > > > > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/ > > > > > > > > no comment necessary > > > > 3) Neue Zuercher Zeitung > > > > http://www.nzz.ch/ > > > > the leading Swiss daily, with a 30 days free of charge archive, with > > excellent news about the world economy and Eastern Europe > > > > 4) El Pais > > > > > > http://www.elpais.es > > > > The leading Spanish daily, with a fully searchable 1-year archive, with > > lots of background information on European monetary union, and the > ongoing > > debate about structural funds and agriculture in the EU. This paper also > > has excellent news about North Africa and Latin America > > > > 5) Die Presse Vienna > > > > > > http://www.diePresse.at > > > > > > One of Austria's leading dailies, with a fully searchable 1-year archive, > > with excellent political and economic news about the region > > > > 6) Der Standard > > > > http://derstandard.at > > > > > > see 5). For the use of the archive, you have to register > > > > 7) Warsaw Voice > > > > > > http://www.contact.waw.pl > > > > > > click then WARSAW voice > > > > The Voice is Warsaw's leading English language weekly, with a fully > > searchable archive > > > > > > 8) Rzeczpospolita > > > > > > http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl > > > > > > > > Warsaw's leading Polish language daily, with English news abstracts. > Fully > > searchable 1-year archive, as the rest of these resources, all free of > > charge > > > > > > > > resources, to be paid: > > > > > > DIALOG KNIGHT RIDDER > > > > > > http://dialogselect.krinfo.com > > > > > > > > One of the world's leading INTRANET-resources, fully searchable, amongst > > others, all meajor newswires of the world at once, Reuters Global > Textline > > with hundreds of abstracted papers, dailies, weeklies; access possible also to > > social science citation index, business newsletters etc. A paradise. > > > > > > > > Happy surfing, kind regards > > > > > > Arno Tausch > > From andrei@rsuh.ru Wed Oct 8 09:48:46 1997 From: "Andrey Korotayev" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:49:14 +0300 Subject: Re: russian mafia Reply-to: andrei@rsuh.ru > From: james m blaut <70671.2032@compuserve.com> > To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK > "Fortunately, the daily-life violence in Russia isn't higher than in large > American cities." Really true? It might sound a bit surprising, but this is true. > > "Of course, it is more dangerous to be a banker [in Russia]." And this is completely true. Yours, Andrey From chriscd@jhu.edu Wed Oct 8 09:53:37 1997 08 Oct 1997 10:59:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 10:56:50 -0400 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: world state To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu richard k. moore said: >I for one applaud Christopher's formulation, epecially the precise level of generality - "democratic global commonwealth", for example, allows different structures to be discussed (including but not limited to "world government"). Actually I agree with Warren Wagar on the necessity of a world state. Following Max Weber, a state is the monopoly of legitimate violence. that is what is needed to prevent warfare, and warfare among core states must be prevented. i disagree with those who think that the global capitalist system has transcended warfare permanently. core wars are impossible right now because there is only one superpower. but what about in 20 or 30 years near the end of the current K-wave upswing? If the US economic hegemony continues to decline the pressure for other core states to "take up the burden" of policing the world will increase and they will rearm. disamament does not solve the problem because no one throws away the recipe. and a democratic world state would be desirable on other grounds: for protecting the biosphere, for implementing a global social contract and etc. the interstate system has long been the main mechanism that has allowed capital to escape the limitations coming from labor and other movements that try to collective it. once there is a world state politics can lead to real reform rather than simply driving capital elsewhere. for purposes of global reform and revolution i propose a fusion of the first, second, third and fourth internationals with the global feminist movement, the newly globalizing labor movement, the old and new anti-neo-colonial movement and the environmental movement. if someone can provide an integrated set of principles and goals that elegantly puts all this together that would be great. In the absence of that we can procede on the basis of agreement about certain jobs that need to be done. those who are truly antisystemic will join up. those who are not will continue to cultivate their own gardens. this is what all movements face. i recognize that this is quite a different approach to central values and definitions of true antisystemness as propose by Warren Wagar. i agree with him that we need passion and that the values of secular humanism need to be reasserted in the postmodern climate of doing your own thing. but a more pragmatic and Gramscian approach to counter-hegemonic ideology may be more productive, at least in the short run. chris From wwagar@binghamton.edu Wed Oct 8 11:19:11 1997 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:15:16 -0400 (EDT) To: christopher chase-dunn Subject: Re: world state In-Reply-To: <343B9F32.1D64@jhu.edu> On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, christopher chase-dunn wrote: > Actually I agree with Warren Wagar on the necessity of a world state. > Following Max Weber, a state is the monopoly of legitimate violence. > that is what is needed to prevent warfare, and warfare among core states > must be prevented. i disagree with those who think that the global > capitalist system has transcended warfare permanently. core wars are > impossible right now because there is only one superpower. but what > about in 20 or 30 years near the end of the current K-wave upswing? If > the US economic hegemony continues to decline the pressure for other > core states to "take up the burden" of policing the world will increase > and they will rearm. disamament does not solve the problem because no > one throws away the recipe. I agree, but I would hasten to underscore Arno's recent discussion of the possibility of global wars between the core and the periphery. Core wars are imaginable; so are core-periphery wars. The problem with all futures inquiry thus far has been its over-reliance on the recent "lessons" of history and its neglect of older "lessons." Just because core wars are unimaginable in 1997, for example, they will "never" happen, which of course is a nonsensical non-sequitur, but so great is the grip of the present on our ahistorical minds that we swallow it. > > and a democratic world state would be desirable on other grounds: for > protecting the biosphere, for implementing a global social contract and > etc. the interstate system has long been the main mechanism that has > allowed capital to escape the limitations coming from labor and other > movements that try to collective it. once there is a world state > politics can lead to real reform rather than simply driving capital > elsewhere. Oh, yes. Well said. > > for purposes of global reform and revolution i propose a fusion of the > first, second, third and fourth internationals with the global feminist > movement, the newly globalizing labor movement, the old and new > anti-neo-colonial movement and the environmental movement. if someone > can provide an integrated set of principles and goals that elegantly > puts all this together that would be great. In the absence of that we > can procede on the basis of agreement about certain jobs that need to be > done. those who are truly antisystemic will join up. those who are not > will continue to cultivate their own gardens. this is what all movements > face. > i recognize that this is quite a different approach to central values > and definitions of true antisystemness as propose by Warren Wagar. Not really so different. Take feminism, for example. Obviously one of the goals of a Left Enlightenment world movement would be the permanent emancipation of womankind from the patriarchal sway of mankind. Any world movement worth its salt would insist on incorporating feminism into its ideology. All that is needed, and this is a big "all," is to make sure that feminists realize such emancipation is impossible for the rank and file of womankind in a capitalist world-economy. All you're likely to get otherwise is an opportunity for SOME women to exploit a LOT of men AND women. Feminism would also make no sense in a world reeling from eco-catastrophes or world wars. My little essay didn't address the issue, but Chris inspires me to address it now: somehow or other the so-called antisystemic movements that are not really antisystemic must be persuaded to see the big picture and BECOME antisystemic. It is not that their concerns are irrelevant to the goal of building a democratic world commonwealth, only that they are irrelevant if not concerted with many other interlocking concerns. So my idea of a World Party is not simply the idea of a party of people all over the world trying to build a world state: it is the idea of a movement to bring peace, justice, and freedom to ALL of us, which certainly includes women, people of color, workers, gays and Lesbians, Palestinians kicked out of their homeland, Jews and Hindus and Muslims persecuted because they are Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, the list is long. I would argue that a cosmopolitan secular humanist faith is the only spiritual cement that will be able to bind this coalition into a coherent striking force, but the movement will surely fail if it does not seek to incorporate every segment of humankind suffering now or slated to suffer soon because we live in a "civilization" that more closely resembles a jungle. > i agree with him that we need passion and that the values of secular > humanism need to be reasserted in the postmodern climate of doing your > own thing. but a more pragmatic and Gramscian approach to > counter-hegemonic ideology may be more productive, at least in the short > run. > > chris > Maybe. In the very short run. But we also have to keep our eye on the long run. Pragmatism is not a faith for the long run. Imagine a pragmatic Karl Marx. Not difficult. His name is Tony Blair. Cheers, Warren From wally@cats.ucsc.edu Wed Oct 8 11:56:45 1997 From: wally@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:56:35 -0700 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: wars warren wagar raises the possiblity of global war between core and periphery--two, three, many vietnams, as someone once said. well, at least so far, all the core/periphery wars have pitted a great power or two against a weak one. is there some reason to expect a decline in the ability of core states (individually and collectively) to divide the periphery and deal with "rebels" one at a time? is the short-lived success of OPEC a lesson of some kind? w From rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU Wed Oct 8 13:55:34 1997 Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:51:14 -0700 (MST) From: Richard N Hutchinson To: christopher chase-dunn Subject: Re: world state In-Reply-To: <343B9F32.1D64@jhu.edu> Chris, Warren and all- The reason I mentioned Samir Amin above all others in an earlier post is that he has most vociferously kept to the forefront the fact of the polarization brought about by actually existing capitalism. It is much more realistic, because based on this material fact to think that a global alliance might someday arise in the periphery than worldwide across the zones. So it is one thing to act in an internationalist way in the core, but another to think that the masses of the core are likely to join. This is the primary reason that talk of a world party, coming from core intellectuals, rings hollow. I believe that if such a proposal is to be realized it will have to be initiated in the periphery. In the meantime, our plan here in the core must be more modest, not in the sense of not putting forth maximum effort, but in the sense of not being so presumptuous as to think that we will >>lead<< the New International. Toward true internationalism, Richard Hutchinson From wwagar@binghamton.edu Wed Oct 8 13:56:51 1997 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:56:33 -0400 (EDT) To: wally@cats.ucsc.edu Subject: Re: wars On Wed, 8 Oct 1997 wally@cats.ucsc.edu wrote: > > warren wagar raises the possiblity of global war between core > and periphery--two, three, many vietnams, as someone once said. > well, at least so far, all the core/periphery wars have pitted > a great power or two against a weak one. is there some reason > to expect a decline in the ability of core states (individually > and collectively) to divide the periphery and deal with "rebels" > one at a time? is the short-lived success of OPEC a lesson of > some kind? > > w Yes, there is at least some reason. First of all, the peripheral states are sometimes immense, and not too poor to deploy all sorts of weapons of mass destruction. If (relatively) little Germany could take on almost the whole world in two world wars, why couldn't a militant China or India? Germany compensated for its size by its industrial capacity and sheer aggressiveness, but China or India could compensate for its shortcomings in other ways. Second, the core nations could fall out among themselves and open windows of opportunity for the peripheral nations. Third, one of the major core nations could drop out of the core (Japan in a major world depression, the United States if its people of color took charge, whatever) and lead the periphery into war or provoke the core into a preemptive strike. But I certainly agree with you that for now, the condominium of the rich nations is doing a splendid job of constraining, exploiting, and dividing the periphery. Glumly, Warren From rkmoore@iol.ie Wed Oct 8 14:05:42 1997 Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:05:31 +0100 (IST) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:05:31 +0100 (IST) To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Adieu Dear wsn, Just wanted to say thanks for letting me particpate on wsn over the past year and a half. The inflexibility of some people's fossilized positions, together with their high degree of articulate skill, was highly frustrating - but the challenge to try to "break through" was excellent practice and I was able to publish some articles based on my wsn postings (especially: "China vs. Globalism - the Final War and the Dark Millenium"). Hope to hear from some of you from time to time (note email address above). Time has come to focus my work more tightly. rkm 10/08/97, wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote: >Imagine a pragmatic Karl Marx. Not difficult. His name is Tony Blair. My everloving god - which do you not have a clue about, Marx or Blair? 10/08/97, christopher chase-dunn wrote: >Actually I agree with Warren Wagar on the necessity of a world state. >Following Max Weber, a state is the monopoly of legitimate violence. >that is what is needed to prevent warfare, and warfare among core states >must be prevented. You're playing right into their hands. From wwagar@binghamton.edu Wed Oct 8 14:15:46 1997 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:15:29 -0400 (EDT) To: Richard N Hutchinson Subject: Re: world state In-Reply-To: On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Richard N Hutchinson wrote: > Chris, Warren and all- > > The reason I mentioned Samir Amin above all others in an earlier post is > that he has most vociferously kept to the forefront the fact of the > polarization brought about by actually existing capitalism. > > It is much more realistic, because based on this material > fact to think that a global alliance might someday arise in the periphery > than worldwide across the zones. > > So it is one thing to act in an internationalist way in the core, but > another to think that the masses of the core are likely to join. This is > the primary reason that talk of a world party, coming from core > intellectuals, rings hollow. I guess that's the impression we've given in talking about a world party, but if so, it's definitely misleading. It's more than possible that the initiative for a world party and much of its mass support would come from the periphery. I have no problem with that at all. > I believe that if such a proposal is to be realized it will have to be > initiated in the periphery. In the meantime, our plan here in the core > must be more modest, not in the sense of not putting forth maximum effort, > but in the sense of not being so presumptuous as to think that we will > >>lead<< the New International. > Agreed. But maybe we can seed the clouds of the periphery with a few rain-producing ideas. I for one don't want to "lead" anybody! Cheers, Warren From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Wed Oct 8 15:15:48 1997 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:15:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Dennis R Redmond To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: world party and antisystemic movements On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Arno Tausch wrote: > unequal exchange could force regions like China (still a one-party-state, > much resembling Germany in the late 19th century in its semi- authoritarian > industrialization drive), much of Africa and West-Central Asia into a > contention-trap. Could be that this is already happening. I mean, why else would China invade Vietnam in 1979, or Indonesia stomp East Timor, if not as a distraction from/legitimation of domestic marketization? Pakistan, India and Bangladesh have also had bloody tussles in the past. But I'm not sure one can argue the same for Africa, which is far more peripheralized in the current world-system. Is Eritrea the first step in the building of indigenous developmental states all around the Great Lakes region, now that South Africa seems bent on becoming yet another broken-down raw materials rentier with an overpriced currency and an underbrained industrial policy? Or were you referring to the Maghreb countries as well? -- Dennis From phuakl@sit.edu.my Wed Oct 8 23:44:05 1997 9 Oct 97 13:45:30 +1100 From: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:45:11 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) (Fwd) [sangkancil] Letter from Borneo, burning, to IT (f News concerning this part of the capitalist world system. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- To: sangkancil@malaysia.net Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 00:27:04 Subject: [sangkancil] Letter from Borneo, burning, to IT (fwd) From: pillai@mgg.pc.my (M.G.G. Pillai) Reply-to: pillai@mgg.pc.my (M.G.G. Pillai) ________________________________________________ This week's sponsors -The Asia Pacific Internet Company (APIC) Business Internet Services. Some talk. Some do. We talk and do! for instant info ________________________________________________ FORWARDED MAIL ------- From: wpaireland@gn.apc.org Date: 06 Oct 97 Originally To: Recipients of indonesia-act Letter to the Editor, Irish Times, Monday, 6 October, 1997 Sir, - I am living on the island of Borneo, which is reputed to be the third largest on earth. For well over two months now an eerie and poisonous pall of gloom has canopied the tropical skies of south-east Asia as environmental vandalism on a massive scale is being perpetrated in Indonesia. The super-rich timber barons are burning down the rain-forest to replace it with the monoculture of palm oil trees. Schools have been told to close, huge inconvenience is caused to travellers and people have been advised to stay indoors. Recently, visibility was down to one metre in Kuching, Sarawak. The Indonesian government selfishly ignored the seriousness of the situation until the wind changed direction temporarily and blew the noxious fumes back towards them. The situation is now out of control as the coal seams near the surface are burning as well. So far 800,000 hectares have been wiped out. The unprecedented dry spell is expected to last for at least another three months due to the El Nino influence. The Indonesian authorities originally blamed the native swithen farmers of Kalimauntan, but this was a cover-up for the licensed logging and plantation companies who deliberately set these fires every year. Despite the pious platitudes being mouthed it is extremely unlikely that these legalised vandals will be brought to book. In the meantime Borneo is burning while President Suharto fiddles. - Yours etc., SEAMAS O MUIRTHILE PO Box 256 Maura Post Office BSB Borneo. -________________________________________________ List Owner: M.G.G. Pillai Free Homepages on malaysia.net - send blank Check out the malaysia.net web site on List Postings to ________________________________________________ From ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au Thu Oct 9 02:56:45 1997 9 Oct 1997 18:55:37 +1000 Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 18:55:37 +1000 From: "Bruce R. McFarling" Subject: Re: world party and antisystemic movements To: Austrian Embassy On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Austrian Embassy wrote: > Chris, that sound all fine, only one string of argument is basically wrong > - and it seems to belong almost to the discussion culture nowadays - the > prediction about "major war" between the "centers". Do you all honestly > believe that America, Japan and Europe will go to war with each other about > Toyotas, soya, computer chips, volkswagen and all? No. Clearly issues that get hearts beating faster than these issues do will emerge before any major core war takes place. So? Step back to 1900 and predict the shifting alliances of the two phases of the work war -- and no fair peeking at what actually happened to help. How far into the 20th century do we have to go before a 'core war' starts to look more likely than a continuation of fighting it out in the periphery, such as the core powers continued to do throughout the end of the 19th. Virtually, Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au From austria@it.com.pl Thu Oct 9 04:17:09 1997 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:18:17 +0200 (MET DST) Reply-To: From: "Austrian Embassy" To: Subject: Fw: Archives sur cederom : 1987-1997 Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:19:14 +0100 ---------- > From: Le Monde diplomatique > To: Le Monde diplomatique > Subject: Archives sur cederom : 1987-1997 > Date: Mittwoch, 08. Oktober 1997 15:37 > > > « Le Monde diplomatique » > sur cédérom (1987-1997) > > 250 F seulement > (prix de lancement) > > > > * Le Monde diplomatique, en collaboration avec la société canadienne > CEDROM-SNI, vous propose son nouveau cédérom d'archives. Avec > plus de 3 400 documents supplémentaires (dossiers, articles, > recensions, cartes...), cette seconde édition comporte tous les > textes du mensuel de janvier 1987 jusqu'à septembre 1997. > > Avec l'intégrale de ses numéros depuis onze ans, Le Monde > diplomatique offre à ses lecteurs, à un prix exceptionnellement > bas, un moyen de mieux comprendre le siècle qui s'achève. > > Un puissant logiciel de recherche permet de retrouver, à l'aide de > 15 clés de recherche différentes (texte intégral, mot-clé, auteur, > etc.), l'information désirée. La présence de plus de 200 cartes et > de nombreux tableaux et chronologies en fait un instrument > indispensable, notamment pour les enseignants et les étudiants. > Possibilité de copier, de coller, d'annoter, d'exporter ou > d'imprimer les textes d'origine. Utilisation conviviale. > > Configuration minimale requise : PC (Windows 3.1), Mac (Système 7). > 4 Mo de mémoire vive. Ce cédérom fonctionne indifféremment sur PC > et Mac. > > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/cederom/ > > > > > * Par ailleurs, à l'occasion du trentième anniversaire de la mort > d'Ernesto Guevara, vous trouverez dès maintenant sur notre serveur > le texte d'Ahmed Ben Bella, « Ainsi était le Che », ainsi que sa > traduction en anglais. > > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/1997/10/BEN_BELLA/ > > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/ > > > From austria@it.com.pl Thu Oct 9 04:17:17 1997 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:17:44 +0200 (MET DST) Reply-To: From: "Austrian Embassy" To: Subject: Fw: Ernesto Che Guevara Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:18:35 +0100 ---------- > From: Le Monde diplomatique > To: English edition - Le Monde diplomatique > Subject: Ernesto Che Guevara > Date: Mittwoch, 08. Oktober 1997 16:05 > > Dear readers, > > > Just a quick note today to mention that Ahmed Ben Bella's > october article on Che Guevara is available on our web site. > > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/ > > > If you are interested in the full archives of the *French* > edition of Le Monde diplomatique 1987-1997, please check > our new CD-ROM home page. Our CD-ROM is available for 250 FF > (or about $40) plus shipping. > > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/cederom/ > > > Enjoy! > > > From PAT.LAUDERDALE@ASU.Edu Thu Oct 9 11:23:49 1997 From: PAT.LAUDERDALE@ASU.Edu 09 Oct 1997 10:23:43 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 10:37:01 -0700 (MST) Subject: New Book---LIVES IN THE BALANCE To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Lives in the Balance: Perspectives on Global Injustice and Inequality (Brill Publishing, The Netherlands) now is available. The book is an extension of the June 1997 Special Issue on Justice in Controversy, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Volume XXXVIII. The book suggests that we find ourselves in a world that reflects a deep tension between the hegemonic facade of global corporate capitalism and representative democracy on the one hand, and the contingent, fragmentary quality of postcolonial life on the other. How (indeed, whether) this dialectic will be reconciled in the new millennium is not merely a question for academic consideration, but has real implications for the lives of people, especially those in the "developing" world who are caught at the interstices of these conflicting trends. This book provides a window into the souls of people struggling for self-determination, equality, and justice via a comparative, critical sociological perspective. The Library of Congress listing is: HM146.L58 1997 The ISBN is: 90 04 10875 0 The ISSN is: 0074-8684 From rkmoore@iol.ie Fri Oct 10 05:46:59 1997 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:46:52 +0100 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: a fresh start Dear wsn, My "Adieu" message got the following thought-provoking response: > Years ago (1974?) I read Thomas Kuhn's book on scientific >revolutions. One point I was impressed by is that the participants in >debates (or, perhaps here, NON-debates) never persuade each other, but >simply die off. The VALUE of the debates is their persuasive appeal to >the passive audience (often totally forgotten about by the heated >participants at the time), particularly the younger members, whose own >views are still malleable. Long after the protagonists have left the >stage, the arguments live on through the opinions and instruction provided >by their effects on the audience members, who carry them forward to the >next generation. This gives me new hope and so I re-subscribed. Allow me to re-summarize my current points... enlightened enlightened world-government national governments ------------------ --------------------- difficulty of nearly very difficult obtaining impossible plan to obtain armageddon use existing infrastructures long-term vulnerable to robustness through prospects usurpation diversity Cheers, rkm From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Fri Oct 10 07:44:46 1997 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:44:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Fresh Start In-Reply-To: Comrades, enlightened enlightened world-government national governments ------------------ --------------------- difficulty of very difficult; very difficult; obtaining not impossible not impossible plan to obtain world socialist compromise and revolution capitulation long-term movement towards "enlightened states" prospects global democracy subverted by logic of global capitalism Andy From akwebb@phoenix.Princeton.EDU Fri Oct 10 13:45:36 1997 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:42:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "Adam K. Webb" Reply-To: "Adam K. Webb" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Reply to Arno Tausch on core war (fwd) Or the second.... (?) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This did not seem to work the first time I sent it. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:33:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "Adam K. Webb" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Reply to Arno Tausch on core war I wholly agree that core war among USA+EU+Japan is unlikely; there is an illustrative remark by a character in a Milan Kundera novel, that "war among European peoples [presumably this extends to a broader category now] is now impossible--not just politically impossible, _anthropologically_ impossible." Apart from the convergence and denationalisation of economic interests, it seems that such populations no longer have the psychology for a major war involving mass sacrifice. China seems another matter, however, and by any reasonable assessment the only likely _nation-based_ challenger to the United States. I was in China for two months recently, and the simmering nationalism and desire to "prove" something vis-a-vis the West are quite evident throughout much of the population. This is no longer ideological, rather a manifestation of a nationalist desire to "stand up" and recover China's place in the world, parallel to the nationalist German inferiority complex preceding both of the last core wars. It is no coincidence that a recent poll found the most admired historical leader among Chinese male high school students to be none other than Adolf Hitler. Anyway, all of this leads to a question. I suspect that there are built-in structural shortcomings that soon will slow China's development and turn it into a more orthodox Southern state--both economically and especially in terms of mass political psychology--such that Chinese ethnic chauvinism would be nothing more than an irritating obstacle in the course of pan-Southern antisystemic mobilisation. Yet there is another possibility: that China can join the core in the next three to four decades and become the successor to the United States as global hegemon, clearly the objective of the current leadership and its "red capitalist" cronies. China's population is sufficiently large--at core GDP per capita levels, it would mean an economy and military four times the size of the USA--to permit it to fulfil growing core-hegemon responsibilities, while still declining as a proportion of global population--down from 20% to 7% in the next century, by some estimates--such that its core status would be economically supportable within a world-systems context. Furthermore, some cultural factors may particularly suit China to be the symbol of a redefined late-capitalist core: eg. a kinship-limited notion of social obligation, leading to ever more appalling amoral familism under modern capitalist conditions; a greater acceptance of "efficient" soft authoritarianism; and an intelligentsia not exactly known for critical opposition to the prevailing ideology. I doubt that this scenario in fact will materialise, but it might behoove us to prepare both analytically and practically for this contingency, since it would drastically complicate the project of antisystemic resistance. Regards, --AKW =============================================================================== Adam K. Webb Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton NJ 08544 USA 609-258-9028 http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb From akwebb@phoenix.Princeton.EDU Fri Oct 10 13:51:46 1997 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:48:19 -0400 (EDT) From: "Adam K. Webb" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Reply to Arno Tausch on core war (fwd) Or the third.... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Or the second.... (?) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This did not seem to work the first time I sent it. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:33:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "Adam K. Webb" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Reply to Arno Tausch on core war I agree that core war among USA+EU+Japan is unlikely; there is an illustrative remark by a character in a Milan Kundera novel, that "war among European peoples [presumably this extends to a broader category now] is now impossible--not just politically impossible, _anthropologically_ impossible." Apart from the convergence and denationalisation of economic interests, it seems that such populations no longer have the psychology for a major war involving mass sacrifice. China seems another matter, however, and by any reasonable assessment the only likely _nation-based_ challenger to the United States. I was in China for two months recently, and the simmering nationalism and desire to "prove" something vis-a-vis the West are quite evident throughout much of the population. This is no longer ideological, rather a manifestation of a nationalist desire to "stand up" and recover China's central place in the world, parallel to the nationalist German inferiority complex preceding both of the last core wars. It is no coincidence that a recent poll found the most admired historical leader among Chinese male high school students to be none other than Adolf Hitler. Anyway, all of this leads to a question. I suspect that there are built-in structural shortcomings that soon will slow China's development and turn it into a more orthodox Southern state--both economically and especially in terms of mass political psychology--such that Chinese ethnic chauvinism would be nothing more than an irritating obstacle in the course of pan-Southern antisystemic mobilisation. Yet there is another possibility: that China can join the core in the next three to four decades and become the successor to the United States as global hegemon, clearly the objective of the current leadership and its "red capitalist" cronies. China's population is sufficiently large--at core GDP per capita levels, it would mean an economy and military four times the size of the USA--to permit it to fulfil growing core-hegemon responsibilities, while still declining as a proportion of global population--down from 20% to 7% in the next century, by some estimates--such that its core status would be economically supportable within a world-systems context. Furthermore, some cultural factors may particularly suit China to be the symbol of a redefined late-capitalist core: eg. a kinship-limited notion of social obligation, leading to ever more appalling amoral familism under modern capitalist conditions; a greater acceptance of "efficient" soft authoritarianism; and an intelligentsia not exactly known for critical opposition to the prevailing ideology. I doubt that this scenario in fact will materialise, but it might behoove us to prepare both analytically and practically for this contingency, since it would drastically complicate the project of antisystemic resistance. Regards, --AKW =============================================================================== Adam K. Webb Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton NJ 08544 USA 609-258-9028 http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Fri Oct 10 14:39:44 1997 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:39:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Dennis R Redmond To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Reply to Arno Tausch on core war (fwd) In-Reply-To: On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Adam K. Webb wrote regarding China's possible rise to a core economy: > some cultural factors may particularly suit China to be the symbol of a > redefined late-capitalist core: eg. a kinship-limited notion of social > obligation, leading to ever more appalling amoral familism under modern > capitalist conditions; a greater acceptance of "efficient" soft > authoritarianism; and an intelligentsia not exactly known for critical > opposition to the prevailing ideology. I doubt that this scenario in fact > will materialise, but it might behoove us to prepare both analytically and > practically for this contingency, since it would drastically complicate > the project of antisystemic resistance. Why can't it also enable and encourage a wide range of new Resistance(s)? Numerous Chinese films in the Eighties and Nineties, for example, everywhere from John Woo's export-platform shoot-em-ups to Yimou Zhang's wondrous video panoramas in "Red Sorghum" and "Judou", are chockful of explicitly transnational allegories: they tend to take Western or Hollywood forms, and then give them an entirely new (and deeply subversive) content, a content more often than not as antagonistic to Sony Pictures and Polygram as to the CCP's palpable neo-nationalism. There is resistance beneath the surface of all that allegedly Confucian conformity, it's just a question of whether it turns in on itself, into a genocidal neo-nationalism, or develops outwards, into some sort of East Asian transnationalism. My own feeling is that the integrationist tendencies of East Asia have already become strong enough to put significant limits on local neo-nationalisms. China depends heavily on foreign markets and global trade, and has far more to gain from cooperating with Hong Kong's financiers than by stupid and counter-productive expropriations. That doesn't mean this can't happen, but first the global market would have to break down on some significant level (a global credit collapse, mass deflation etc.), and this isn't too likely, given the pro-expansionary monetary policies and enormous Government bailouts regularly practiced by those new creditors of the world economy, Japan Inc. and the European Union. The IMF bailout of Thailand may be a sign that this is already happening: a lot of the cash was put up by the Japanese, who also have the biggest corporate investments and FDI in Thailand. The second-biggest donor was, I believe, the Chinese/Hong Kong bloc. Might this be a sizeable quid for a future Nippokeynesian pro quo? -- Dennis From akwebb@phoenix.Princeton.EDU Fri Oct 10 17:31:52 1997 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:30:21 -0400 (EDT) From: "Adam K. Webb" Reply-To: "Adam K. Webb" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Dennis R. Redmond on China and core war In-Reply-To: I can grant the point about the anchoring of China in the global economy, but I am not sure it says anything about China's hegemonic potential. China as future hegemon would have no reason to carry out any expropriations of anyone, or to cast its nationalistic assertion in a particularly narrow way; after all, succeeding the US would require some apparent breadth of ideology to make a "Chinese century" New New World Order sustainable. My point, rather, was that eventually China _may_ be particularly suited as a _state_ to take over the central role in global policing, given its size (the US may be becoming too small proportionately for the repressive shoes it is filling, just as Britain did) and the feverishly pro-capitalist mentality of its rising technocracy. I do not doubt for a moment that there is considerable potential for resistance among China's population, and I sincerely hope that it can become part of larger Southern mobilisation ten or twenty years down the road. But as long as the current pace of Chinese development continues, and the elite are not widely recognised as the foreign toadies they are becoming, the majority of Chinese are going to be far more interested in "joining the club," and eventually _leading_ the club, than in challenging it as part of a pan-Southern project. Whether this scenario would include a core war circa 2030 to facilitate the transfer of hegemony depends on how the Chinese elite flavours that hegemony, and the extent to which transnational corporations will be openminded towards the five-star red flag as ultimate interventionist guarantor. Finally, while I think it unlikely that China in fact will be "lost to the cause" in this fashion, "World Party" advocates would be wise to plan for the worst even while hoping for the best (70% versus 30% is harder than 85% versus 15%, but still feasible). Regards, --AKW =============================================================================== Adam K. Webb Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton NJ 08544 USA 609-258-9028 http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb From ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au Sat Oct 11 00:21:52 1997 wsn@csf.colorado.edu; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:20:44 +1000 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:20:33 +1000 From: "Bruce R. McFarling" Subject: Re: Reply to Arno Tausch on core war (fwd) In-reply-to: To: akwebb@phoenix.Princeton.EDU, WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK At 15:42 10/10/97 -0400, Adam K. Webb wrote: > I wholly agree that core war among USA+EU+Japan is unlikely; there >is an illustrative remark by a character in a Milan Kundera novel, that >"war among European peoples [presumably this extends to a broader category >now] is now impossible--not just politically impossible, >_anthropologically_ impossible." Apart from the convergence and >denationalisation of economic interests, it seems that such populations no >longer have the psychology for a major war involving mass sacrifice. but (1) its not necessarily the case that the major sacrifices will be apparent up front -- and recall how few 'major sacrifices' that people in Germany made due to the war effort (yeah, you can argue that the genocide and the war effort was part of the same malignancy, but I mean due to the war effort itself) until fairly late in the conflict. If you can get the fight started, for whatever reason, and then the opponent engages in some nasty thing against your civilian population, sometimes unexpected bouts of war fever can hit a population. Virtually, Bruce McFarling, Newcastle, NSW ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au From rkmoore@iol.ie Sat Oct 11 10:30:31 1997 Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:30:15 +0100 (IST) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:30:15 +0100 (IST) To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: China's central place in the world 10/10/97, Adam K. Webb wrote: >This is no longer ideological, rather >a manifestation of a nationalist desire to "stand up" and recover China's >central place in the world, parallel to the nationalist German inferiority >complex preceding both of the last core wars. It is no coincidence that a >recent poll found the most admired historical leader among Chinese male >high school students to be none other than Adolf Hitler. The "China question" came up earlier on wsn and I turned my postings into an article "China vs. Globalization - the Final War and the Dark Millenium". In case anyone is interested: http://www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal [Cyberlib]: RKM-Political/China_vs_Globalism.txt From rkmoore@iol.ie Sat Oct 11 10:31:09 1997 Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:31:02 +0100 (IST) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:31:02 +0100 (IST) To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: world vs. national focus 10/10/97, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: > > enlightened enlightened > world-government national governments > ------------------ --------------------- > > difficulty of very difficult; very difficult; > obtaining not impossible not impossible > > plan to obtain world socialist compromise and > revolution capitulation > > long-term movement towards "enlightened states" > prospects global democracy subverted by logic of > global capitalism > Thank you, Austin, for responding in such dialog-encouraging terms. I cannot envision your "world socialist revolution". Where would it start? If it starts in the periphery, why wouldn't it be successfully suppressed through standard neocolonial measures? If it starts in the core, why would it not exhibit itself first as the "enlightened national governments" I argue for? And why would "enlightened national governments" necessarily involve "compromise and capitulation"? Why can that be avoided on a world scale but not on a national scale? It seems obvious to me (and I invite rebuttal) that if the core is opposed to socialist revolution then it won't happen. Similarly, if the core is reformed along revolutionary socialist lines (including the cessation of capitalist-driven neocolonialism), then the periphery would inevitably follow. In fact I also favor "world socialist revolution", but I think it can only be achieved by starting with socialist democratic revolution in core states. Once achieved, the question is then what administrative form is most stable over time. I've argued that a single centralized administration would suffer from intrinsic instabilities and suspectibiity to subversion - and I believe no one has tried to rebut this. rkm From rkmoore@iol.ie Sat Oct 11 10:31:15 1997 Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:31:07 +0100 (IST) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:31:07 +0100 (IST) To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: sub-national and regional structures 10/11/97, a wsn contributor wrote to me privately: > Where would you put: > enlightened local governments (town / city / county) > enlightened subnational regional governments > enlightened international regional governments >in your table? _Following_ enlightened socialist democracy in nation states, I would favor significant devolution of taxing power and decision making to smaller units such as bioregions, cities, etc. Such devolution would strengthen democracy - by keeping lines of communication more localized, and minizing the power-brokering that occurs at larger scales. Devolution could also be expected to facilitate environmental sensitivity - people aren't likely to allow their own environs to be polluted if they have the power to prevent it. >And (recalling the importance of the King / City >alliances in building effective (even if unenlightened) national >governments in both the European and Japanese feudal systems, what >role might sub-national units have to play in the development of >super-national governance? There would always be forces pushing for power to be transferred to larger units - where manipulation and subversion by special interests is easier to accomplish. This is how nation-states arose and it is how globalization is currently being driven. The "eternal vigilance" of democratic forces would always need to be on-guard to prevent such power concentration. Democracy needs to be bottom-up, with larger-scale collaboration being just that - collaboration - not centralized usurpation of power. We need to start with nation states because the infrastructures exist. After success at that level, smaller and larger structures can be fashioned in a way that supports democracy and prevents the formation of large capitalist power concentrations. rkm From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Sat Oct 11 11:50:36 1997 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:50:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: world vs. national focus In-Reply-To: On Sat, 11 Oct 1997, Richard K. Moore wrote: > Thank you, Austin, for responding in such dialog-encouraging terms. I don't know how to read this. Is this sarcasm, or are you serious? > I cannot envision your "world socialist revolution". Where would it start? > If it starts in the periphery, why wouldn't it be successfully suppressed > through standard neocolonial measures? If it starts in the core, why > would it not exhibit itself first as the "enlightened national governments" > I argue for? With the transnationalization of capitalism a new mode of resistance and struggle has become necessary. This involves, in addition to national and local struggles, the trans-boundary organization of the revolutionary classes produced by world capitalism. Perhaps one should not launch a revolution in the "periphery" because it could be snuffed out. This has been the outcome of such struggles so far (except in Russia, China, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam--like 1/3 to almost 1/2 of the population of the planet). Perhaps one should not try to launch a revolution in the "core" nations where polyarchic domination is so locked into the logic of capital that such attempts (especially disconnected from a global strategy and with the a priori desire to only go as far as "enlightened national states" in "mutual global cooperation," as Richard Moore has suggested) can only result in compromise and capitulation. Don't read any sarcasm into that last sentence. I would not have thought that I needed to clarify this, but a world socialist revolution means this: WORLD socialist revolution. If it is a world revolution then it is not a revolution in the "periphery" or in the "core." > And why would "enlightened national governments" necessarily involve > "compromise and capitulation"? Why can that be avoided on a world scale > but not on a national scale? Who said it can be avoided on a world scale? Compromise and capitulation, just like corruption, etc., are always dangers in any revolutionary struggle. What I was saying was that the logic of the interstate system guarantees compromise and capitulation. It is the struggle for a world order based on socialist principles that can get around the negating power of nation-states. > It seems obvious to me (and I invite rebuttal) that if the core is opposed > to socialist revolution then it won't happen. Similarly, if the core is > reformed along revolutionary socialist lines (including the cessation of > capitalist-driven neocolonialism), then the periphery would inevitably > follow. What is the "core"? You mean the people who live in the areas you arbitrarily call the "core"? Or do you mean the capitalists and their states who rule over the worker and the peasant? The world is ruled by a global capitalist class. They oppose socialist revolution, granted. And I assume they would also oppose "enlightened national states," if by "enlightened" one means socialism (which is what I think was agreed upon somewhere in this discussion). Indeed--it is not socialist REVOLUTION per se that capitalists are opposed to, but SOCIALISM itself (violence is not a problem for the ruling class). > In fact I also favor "world socialist revolution", but I think it can only > be achieved by starting with socialist democratic revolution in core > states. But you just said that if the "core" (which I take to me the powers that be) doesn't want it it ain't gonna happen. So how is it gonna happen in any scheme? That socialist revolutions have occurred in the "periphery" but not the "core" is pretty good evidence that revolution in the core, without a transnational organization guiding revolution on a global strategic level, would be a remote possibility. Compromise and capitulation is really the only avenue left open to the workers and the farmers in a strategy of national reform. > Once achieved, the question is then what administrative form is most stable > over time. I've argued that a single centralized administration would > suffer from intrinsic instabilities and suspectibiity to subversion - and I > believe no one has tried to rebut this. I think you have been clearly rebutted by those who have responded to you and in the works of many I have read. The logic of the interstate system functions to maintain the capitalist world order. An important requirement to move onto world socialism is to transcend the interstate system that works to maintain capitalist relations. Once the logic of capital has been transcended--that is, once the infrastructure upon which the modern world-system rests dissolves--then the political-juridical forms will also be dramatically transformed. Change is asymmetrical, and the interstate system in some form may persist, but this doesn't mean that our priority should not be to finish the job. It is entirely antithetical to this course of action to assert that an interstate system, born from the same logic that spawned capitalism, is superior to global democracy. It seems obvious to me that until we abolish this system in its totality we cannot move onto world communism, and the way through to a stateless/classless world order is to bring the material discourse of the global population in line through the ordering of a world democratic government. Thus, capitalism is replaced by a working socialism, and the interstate system is replaced by a world democratic government. The destruction of capitalist logic will be most complete and will result in the most rational achievement if this project is carried out on a global scale. And we should build the revolutionary and post-revolutionary organs of the future in the present, not only political organs, but cultural, ethical, legal, etc organs as well. Does this mean that struggle should not continue anywhere and everywhere? Of course not. Through trans-boundary organizing we must harness the revolutionary impetus and expand its implications. Does this mean that reform should not be pursued? Of course not. Everywhere workers and farmers, minorities and women, children and the elderly, should work to weaken the hold capital has over our lives by any means necessary; reform is one of those means and should be used. But we should be clear about what our goals are (maybe a stateless, classless global order is not a worthy goal for you, Richard). What we definitely do not need is to state a priori that our goal is to live in a world of international relations where "enlightened states" exist in "mutual cooperation." If a state becomes enlightened through struggle and reform, then good on those people who achieved that. But that should only be regarded as a step in the march towards a global world order based on democratic socialist principles. The ultimate goal should be communism. Andy From akwebb@phoenix.Princeton.EDU Sat Oct 11 12:42:42 1997 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:42:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "Adam K. Webb" Reply-To: "Adam K. Webb" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Reply to RKM on China, enlightened nation states, and core revolution In-Reply-To: There are two sets of issues that I want to address. First is China. I know your scenario of an anti-global China being suppressed by NATO, but I see two problems. First, I see far less opposition among the Chinese leadership to global capitalism than you do. There is little daylight between Zhu Rongji's and Alan Greenspan's visions of the future. The notion that Chinese political circles retain any substantive commitment to a non-Western social model is a myth propagated by the Chinese leadership itself--because ordinary Chinese might not be entirely comfortable with an open shift to capitalism--and by the Western leadership--which is either outdated in its understanding of China, seeking a Huntington-style outlet for aggressive impulses, or collaborating with the Chinese leadership by providing opportunities for symbolic China-West conflict to distract the Chinese public from the sell-out underway. My question to you, in light of this: _if_ Chinese development continues (a very big if), is it not most plausible that China can assume the role of global bully relatively smoothly, much as the transfer from Britain to the USA occurred in the 1940s? What I do not quite understand is why you assume 1) that the Chinese elite is hostile to the world-system as a world-system, and does not wish simply to flourish within it, and 2) that the interests NATO protects would not be prepared to replace telephoning Washington in English with videophoning Beijing in Mandarin whenever the unwashed brown masses misbehave. Zhu Rongji speaks louder than Mao Zedong, and Alan Greenspan speaks louder than Ronald Reagan. Second, the geographic focus of the revolution: > If it starts in the periphery, why wouldn't it be successfully suppressed > through standard neocolonial measures? With increasing global integration, it is not wholly inconceivable that pan-Southern insurgency could destabilise the world-system sufficiently to split the Northern leadership and weaken Northern popular support. The population ratios of North and South are evolving even more in favour of the latter, and transnational migrant communities in the North can become a volatile Trojan horse when the crisis comes. Furthermore, there are important constraints in exactly how violent the North can be and still retain any hope of restoring order. Once Southern revolutionary consciousness reaches that level, nothing can ever be the same again. The harsher the TNC response, the greater their future vulnerability, and they will realise that. This dynamic could go through a couple of revolt-repression cycles before Goliath collapses, but Goliath _will_ collapse. > And why would "enlightened national governments" necessarily involve > "compromise and capitulation"? Why can that be avoided on a world scale > but not on a national scale? I am not sure how compelling I find my immediate response, and I would not wish to be suspected of rational-choice leanings, but here it is anyway. Once capitalist restoration occurs in any polity, it will tend to spread to others. If restoration has a certain uniform probability of occurring, having a greater number of polities will increase the chance that at least a few of them will begin the process sooner rather than later, meaning that the entire system reverts sooner than it typically would if n=1. On the other hand, with a single global polity and a longer likely duration before capitalist restoration, the greater the likelihood that enduring structural and particularly sociocultural changes can be carried through, such that the reversion probability declines steadily over time towards 0. > If the core is reformed along revolutionary socialist lines (including > the cessation of capitalist-driven neocolonialism), then the periphery > would inevitably follow. In fact I also favor "world socialist > revolution", but I think it can only be achieved by starting with > socialist democratic revolution in core states. > rkm I find it wholly implausible that core populations would ever support revolutionary socialism even within a national context after the capitalist indoctrination of the last century. Furthermore, I think many of the "revolutionary contingent" on the list would envision substantial North-South redistribution as part of the world revolution. Expecting Northern populations to submit to "an end to neocolonialism" without Southern militia patrolling their streets is probably even less credible than asking the top 10% of the US population to cheer pitchfork-wielding masses marching on the New York Stock Exchange. Why do many who favour revolution so persistently decline to make a hard and realistic assessment of the side that most of the Northern citizenry will choose? It is entirely appropriate to _hope_ for more mixed Northern opinion when the time comes, and to cast the struggle in such a way that the minority of Northerners who endorse it can be drawn into the project, but optimism must not cloud our judgement. Regards, --AKW =============================================================================== Adam K. Webb Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton NJ 08544 USA 609-258-9028 http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb From wwagar@binghamton.edu Sun Oct 12 09:36:57 1997 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 11:36:45 -0400 (EDT) To: Andrew Wayne Austin Subject: Re: world vs. national focus In-Reply-To: Andy has stated the case for a concerted world movement with the utmost cogency. Local, regional, and national effort should not be discouraged; on the contrary. But the only conceivably effective antisystemic response in the long term is a world-sized response, to match and contest the world-sized systemic juggernaut that faces us. And speaking of China, I would feel a whole lot better if some of the participants in this debate sported Chinese surnames. As long as their most admired figure in history was not Adolf Hitler. ... Good God. Cheers, Warren From rkmoore@iol.ie Sun Oct 12 19:08:09 1997 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 02:08:00 +0100 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: Andrew on "world vs. national focus" 10/11/97, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: >rkm had written >> I cannot envision your "world socialist revolution". Where would it start? >With the transnationalization of capitalism a new mode of resistance and >struggle has become necessary. This involves, in addition to national and >local struggles, the trans-boundary organization of the revolutionary >classes produced by world capitalism. This makes sense as stated, depending on the full meaning of "new mode of resistance". >Perhaps one should not launch a >revolution in the "periphery" because it could be snuffed out. This has >been the outcome of such struggles so far (except in Russia, China, Cuba, >Korea, Vietnam--like 1/3 to almost 1/2 of the population of the planet). You offer useful examples. The snuffing of the Soviet rebellion took quite a while, but has finally been achieved; the destablization has been so thorough that I don't envision much useful coming from that quarter in the near future. We might see apocalyptic scenarios due to residual nuclear weapons, but without any ideological import, other than the final destruction of the once bastion of socialism. Vietnam is struggling to get into the global economy and seems also unlikely to be a center of periphery revolution. Cuba and Korea (along with Iraq, Libya, and Iran) are in fact examples of "periphery rebels" (with varying motivations and ideological orientations). By looking at how these nations are being dealt with by the globalist system we can see exactly what is in store for periphery-originated rebellions.... * Each is regularly demonized in the media and favorable stories never appear. * Major "indictments" are formulated against each (Iran: terrorism and dangerous weapons; Korea: nuclear fuel; Cuba: dictatorship; etc.); these are kept at the low boil in the media - to justify intervention whenever desired. * Thus each is isolated from the world community; each is subjected to capricious sanctions and abuses; and each serves as a chilling example to other nations that might consider rebelling against the NWO regime. Cuba is an example of a periphery rebel-state which is sincerly motivated by democratic socialism, and in which solidarity between people and government has been largely maintained. Clearly this view can be debated, but I suggest that it is precisely the "democratic socialist" SUCCESS of Cuba that motivates US emnity toward it. Policy makers (eg, Kissinger?) have actually said on the record that it is the example of Cuba's socialist path which is considered threatening to "US interests". I'd say Cuba's treatment is a microcosm of what would happen with any enlightened periphery revolutionary center that arises in future. With Iraq sanctions we see how the blockade-tactic can be successfully generalized outside Uncle Sam's "back yard". China is a unique case. Containment/isolation was employed for a time, and then Nixon initiated the still-current policy of constructive engagement. As long as China is militarily stalemated by US Pacific forces, and as long as China doesn't pursue provocative policies, this quid-pro-quo can continue indefinitely. Under these circumstance China is not functioning as a revolutionary center: it is being voluntarily "contained via engagement" - independent of its internal ideology. China is not "enlightened" in our sense - it lacks the necessary democratic component. China is also compromising its socialist principles in order to become a bigger player globally - further moving it away from ever being an enlightened periphery center. If China ever does try to "take on" the globalist regime, it will do so in traditional nationalist terms, with the objective of Asian hegemony. Structurally China is a geopolitical problem, a leftover from the pre-globalist days of competitive nationalism - the last untamed nation state of world-class magnitude. In summary, it would be inaccurate to characterize "1/3 to almost 1/2 of the population of the planet" as being examples of "unsnuffed periphery enlightened revolutions" - in case that's what you (Andrew) were implying. >Perhaps one should not try to launch a revolution in the "core" nations >where polyarchic domination is so locked into the logic of capital that >such attempts ... can only result in compromise and capitulation. You did agree, did you not, that "enlightened national governments" are "very difficult - not impossible" to achieve? "Compromise and capitulation" MIGHT occur, but we can try and hope instead for success - or have you changed your assessment? Elipses from previous quote: >...(especially disconnected from a global strategy and with the >a priori desire to only go as far as "enlightened national states" in >"mutual global cooperation," as Richard Moore has suggested)... You are not describing my position - you're not even close. All of this discussion is about seeking a GLOBAL STRATEGY to achieve democratic socialism - we are discussing different architectures for that strategy. >I would not have thought that I needed to clarify this, but a world >socialist revolution means this: WORLD socialist revolution. If it is a >world revolution then it is not a revolution in the "periphery" or in the >"core." Ok, fine. This is one end of the spectrum of revolutionary focus, and I'd be happy to discuss it along with others. You suggest focusing on an all-at-once global movement; I suggest focusing on many national transformations in parallel; some others suggest local groups starting self-suffiencient communes; there are many points on the revolutionary-center spectrum. Instead of trying to rule out particular tactics in advance, why don't we objectively chart out the relative risks, advantages, and feasibilities of various points on the spectrum and make a rational choice? >What I was saying was that the logic of the interstate system >guarantees compromise and capitulation. Would this imply, for example, that the US has not the wherewithall to assert itself as a democratic socialist state if it chooses to do so? In any case could you clarify what you mean and explain briefly what it is about the interstate system that "guarantees compromise and capitulation"? >It is the struggle for a world >order based on socialist principles that can get around the negating power >of nation-states. Could you sketch a step-by-step scenario of how this might unfold? >> It seems obvious to me (and I invite rebuttal) that if the core is opposed >> to socialist revolution then it won't happen. Similarly, if the core is >> reformed along revolutionary socialist lines (including the cessation of >> capitalist-driven neocolonialism), then the periphery would inevitably >> follow. > >What is the "core"? You mean the people who live in the areas you >arbitrarily call the "core"? Or do you mean the capitalists and their >states who rule over the worker and the peasant? I use "core" in the same sense as most others on wsn: the "core nations" include the US, Japan(?), and the major EU powers, and one could debate the inclusion of a few others. These core nations are mostly capitalist controlled at present, and collaboratively and systematically suppress peripheral uprisings, as discussed earlier above. The enlightened "reform" of the core would come about when "the people who live in the areas" organize themselves and assert themselves politically and electorally - taking over national control from captitalist-puppet politicians. >> In fact I also favor "world socialist revolution", but I think it can only >> be achieved by starting with socialist democratic revolution in core >> states. > >But you just said that if the "core" (which I take to me the powers that >be) doesn't want it it ain't gonna happen. So how is it gonna happen in >any scheme? What I said is that as long as core states oppose peripheral revolution, such revolution will be suppressed. But I believe capitalist rule can be overthrown in core states - again: we both agreed this was not impossible. >That socialist revolutions have occurred in the "periphery" but >not the "core" is pretty good evidence that revolution in the core, >without a transnational organization guiding revolution on a global >strategic level, would be a remote possibility. As you have said, a "new mode of resistance and struggle has become necessary". In the past, local revolution has sometimes succeeded, at least temporarily. Under globalization, a UN-sanctioned systematic suppression system has been deployed, as discussed above, and as seen in Iraq, Bosnia, Albania, etc. Periphery success is now the most remote possibility. >Compromise and capitulation is really the only avenue left open to the workers >and the farmers in a strategy of national reform. You have not established this, but have simply stated it repeatedly as an assumption. >> Once achieved, the question is then what administrative form is most stable >> over time. I've argued that a single centralized administration would >> suffer from intrinsic instabilities and suspectibiity to subversion - and I >> believe no one has tried to rebut this. > >I think you have been clearly rebutted by those who have responded to you >and in the works of many I have read. I'm sorry but I most vehemently disagree. Everyone has simply stated that "world revolution and government is necessary" and have listed advantages to that approach, but no one has responded substantively with relative considerations of stability. (Except Adam Webb - see my other posting of today.) >The logic of the interstate system >functions to maintain the capitalist world order. On the contrary, the nation-state system has become an impediment to the "capitalist world order" and destabilization of the nation state system is the primary objective of capitalist-driven globalization. rkm From rkmoore@iol.ie Sun Oct 12 19:08:14 1997 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 02:08:06 +0100 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: Adam K. Webb on China, enlightened nation states, and core revolution 10/11/97, Adam K. Webb wrote: > My question to you, in light of this: _if_ Chinese >development continues (a very big if), is it not most plausible that China >can assume the role of global bully relatively smoothly, much as the >transfer from Britain to the USA occurred in the 1940s? I can't imagine such a scenario. Can you? Britain simply didn't keep up its military dominance - it was eclipsed by at least the US, Japan, and Germany. The US is taking care not to lose its dominance - is in fact bleeding its population dry to maintain hegemony. >What I do not >quite understand is why you assume 1) that the Chinese elite is hostile to >the world-system as a world-system, and does not wish simply to flourish >within it, I'm simply going by what the Chinese elite themselves have stated - that they see China's "rightful role" as being an Asian hegemon. This is flatly contradictory to stated "US interests". >and 2) that the interests NATO protects would not be prepared >to replace telephoning Washington in English with videophoning Beijing in >Mandarin whenever the unwashed brown masses misbehave. Are you serious? The US/NATO axis is serving very well as agent of international capitalism - why would it allow its position to be usurped? >> If it starts in the periphery, why wouldn't it be successfully suppressed >> through standard neocolonial measures? >Once Southern revolutionary >consciousness reaches that level, nothing can ever be the same again. The >harsher the TNC response, the greater their future vulnerability, and they >will realise that. This dynamic could go through a couple of >revolt-repression cycles before Goliath collapses, but Goliath _will_ >collapse. US/Euro imperialism has been refined over centuries and is operating today more efficiently and effectively than ever before. The trends are contrary to your scenario. >> And why would "enlightened national governments" necessarily involve >> "compromise and capitulation"? Why can that be avoided on a world scale >> but not on a national scale? >Once capitalist restoration occurs in any polity, it will tend to spread >to others. This is a point to be considered in the "risk" column of a nation-state approach, just as "susceptible to all-at-once subversion" is a point in the "risk" column of a world-government approach. Neither point is sufficient in itself to totally rule out either approach >If restoration has a certain uniform probability of occurring, >having a greater number of polities will increase the chance that at least >a few of them will begin the process sooner rather than later An interesting line of argument, but I suggest it be discussed in a context where the full spectrum of options is "on the table". >I find it wholly implausible that core populations would ever support >revolutionary socialism even within a national context after the >capitalist indoctrination of the last century. Perhaps you're right, but I believe it is less implausible than any other scenario leading to revolutionary change. I believe we all agree that overcoming capitalist domination will by no means be easy - I'm simply arguing that sound strategizing requires that all options be considered fully and none be rejected outright at the start. >Expecting >Northern populations to submit to "an end to neocolonialism" without >Southern militia patrolling their streets is probably even less credible >than asking the top 10% of the US population to cheer pitchfork-wielding >masses marching on the New York Stock Exchange. What? Most of the northern population doesn't believe neocolonialism even exists. They consider that a "conspiracy theory". >Why do many who favour >revolution so persistently decline to make a hard and realistic assessment >of the side that most of the Northern citizenry will choose? I don't know anyone personally who favors domination and exploitation of the periphery. They accede to it because they are told it isn't happening, not because they favor it in principle. rkm From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Sun Oct 12 22:25:21 1997 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:24:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Wayne Austin Reply-To: Andrew Wayne Austin To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Andrew on "world vs. national focus" In-Reply-To: On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Richard K. Moore wrote: > In summary, it would be inaccurate to characterize "1/3 to almost 1/2 of > the population of the planet" as being examples of "unsnuffed periphery > enlightened revolutions" - in case that's what you (Andrew) were implying. My point was that peripheral revolutions have occurred, and that these revolutions swept up 1/3 to 1/2 of the world's population at one point or another. This is a rather incontrovertible factual statement. It is significant that these revolutions produced social formations representing real improvements over their pre-revolutionary conditions. That these social formations ultimately submitted to global capitalist logic is pretty good evidence for my argument that either we all do this at once (and by "at once" I do not mean with a snap of our fingers) or we face the sort of degeneracy and ultimate fate that is befalling the socialist world system (it cannot be said to be such a system anymore). I suppose I am disagreeing with Stalin's "socialism in one country." That's okay; I have disgreed with Stalin a time or two. > You did agree, did you not, that "enlightened national governments" are > "very difficult - not impossible" to achieve? "Compromise and > capitulation" MIGHT occur, but we can try and hope instead for success - or > have you changed your assessment? There is little within the realm of social action that is impossible. It is probably impossible that we will be able to cheat ecological limits forever, and there may be some other things that seem rather impossible. But that there may one day emerge an interstate system of enlightened national states is within the realm of the imaginable. Only I do not see this as very probable. BTW, I should say that in my little 2X6 I meant to say imply that if states get to enlightenment it won't be through the revolutionary path, which is to say that is will be very difficult - not impossible. > You are not describing my position - you're not even close. All of this > discussion is about seeking a GLOBAL STRATEGY to achieve democratic > socialism - we are discussing different architectures for that strategy. National struggle is not a global strategy. If the people everywhere work to overthrow their governments for the purpose of developing a world socialist order, then we are talking about a global strategy. You bring this up in a moment. You see the parallel coordination of socialist revolutions. This is possible, I suppose, but extremely improbable. > Would this imply, for example, that the US has not the wherewithall to > assert itself as a democratic socialist state if it chooses to do so? In > any case could you clarify what you mean and explain briefly what it is > about the interstate system that "guarantees compromise and capitulation"? How long would the US last as a democratic socialist state in the context of a capitalist world order? I can't find the place in my imagination where the US is a democratic socialist state. > Could you sketch a step-by-step scenario of how this might unfold? I unflinchingly punt on this question. This is not a strategy for one person to dream up. It wouldn't be very democratic of me to decide how the world should go about making a global socialist order. I am simply arguing that of the roads to socialism out of a transnational capitalist system a global socialist movement strikes me as a far more likely course than an attempt to co-ordinate the democratization of hundreds of capitalist nation-states. About the "core," I was only making more obvious the anthropomorphic way you were using the term. I was just trying to back away from extreme reification. Your argument had the form that "the core won't like this or that." I accept the short hand, I just feel more comfortable with shaking out the lingo every once and a while. > What I said is that as long as core states oppose peripheral revolution, > such revolution will be suppressed. But I believe capitalist rule can be > overthrown in core states - again: we both agreed this was not impossible. I agree, it is not impossible. But don't exploit my unwillingness to make absolutist statements. I am trying to be reasonable. > You have not established this, but have simply stated it repeatedly as an > assumption. Within the context of a global capitalist order it seems axiomatic that the route to democratization of individual nation states and of any degree must come through compromise and capitulation. I cannot substantiate this other that basing it on the logic of the interstate system as I see it. > On the contrary, the nation-state system has become an impediment to the > "capitalist world order" and destabilization of the nation state system is > the primary objective of capitalist-driven globalization. I disagree. And this is a point which I have changed my mind on over time. Social welfare systems and too much democracy are impediments to the capital accumulation. But nation-states are an integral part of maintaining the structure of global capitalism. Nation-states serve to bound labor, to break up the potential of industry-wide unionization and its potentially radicalizing effect on workers throughout the world, and a host of other things. States have militaries, states have gulag systems, and states have legitimating ideologies. That structural adjustment and austerity has become a feature of the transforming of the nation-state apparatus does not mean that the nation-state has been diminished as a tool of domination. Indeed, it may be more effective in its streamlined form. It is being transformed, not dissolved. Andy From ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au Sun Oct 12 22:59:39 1997 wsn@csf.colorado.edu; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:59:18 +1000 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:58:56 +1000 From: "Bruce R. McFarling" Subject: Re: world vs. national focus In-reply-to: To: wwagar@binghamton.edu, WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK References: At 11:36 12/10/97 -0400, wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote: > > Andy has stated the case for a concerted world movement with the >utmost cogency. Local, regional, and national effort should not be >discouraged; on the contrary. But the only conceivably effective >antisystemic response in the long term is a world-sized response, to match >and contest the world-sized systemic juggernaut that faces us. Efforts to prevent (impending or imagined) ecosystem collapse are necessarily driven to a global scope by the global scope of corporate capitalist institutions. In Polyani's double-movement, the protective reaction occurs at the same level as the action it is protecting against precisely because efforts at protective reaction at lower levels turn out to be futile. What role does life-support defense have in a global movement, and how would anti-systemic responses driven by social purposes reconcile themselves with anti-systemic responses driven by ecosystemic goals? Virtually, Bruce McFarling, Newcastle, NSW ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au From ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au Sun Oct 12 23:12:31 1997 wsn@csf.colorado.edu; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:12:11 +1000 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:11:47 +1000 From: "Bruce R. McFarling" Subject: Re: Adam K. Webb on China, enlightened nation states, and core revolution In-reply-to: To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK At 02:08 13/10/97 +0100, Richard K. Moore wrote: > >10/11/97, Adam K. Webb wrote: >> My question to you, in light of this: _if_ Chinese >>development continues (a very big if), is it not most plausible that China >>can assume the role of global bully relatively smoothly, much as the >>transfer from Britain to the USA occurred in the 1940s? > >I can't imagine such a scenario. Can you? Britain simply didn't keep up >its military dominance - it was eclipsed by at least the US, Japan, and >Germany. The US is taking care not to lose its dominance - is in fact >bleeding its population dry to maintain hegemony. And it took two goes and decimation of a generation for Britain to get to the point that it was willing to hand over the role of global bully. In other words, as long as we are drawing loose historical analogies, if the US / China relationship is pictured as similar to turn of century Great Britain / US, why is this picture more compelling than the picture of Great Britain / Napeolonic France. Hey, for the latter case, both Napoleonic France and China have more or less had a revo and a terror or two. Virtually, Bruce McFarling, Newcastle, NSW ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au From rene.barendse@tip.nl Mon Oct 13 06:50:29 1997 id <01BCD7DE.E9059520@amsterdam-051.std.pop.tip.nl>; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:50:05 +-100 From: barendse To: "'wsn@csf.colorado.edu'" Subject: Re: Adam K. Webb, Bruce McFarling, Richard K. Moore Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:49:07 +-100 >10/11/97, Adam K. Webb wrote: >> My question to you, in light of this: _if_ Chinese >>development continues (a very big if), is it not most plausible that China >>can assume the role of global bully relatively smoothly, much as the >>transfer from Britain to the USA occurred in the 1940s? And it took two goes and decimation of a generation for Britain to get to the point that it was willing to hand over the role of global bully. In other words, as long as we are drawing loose historical analogies, if the US / China relationship is pictured as similar to turn of century Great Britain / US, why is this picture more compelling than the picture of Great Britain / Napeolonic France. Hey, for the latter case, both Napoleonic France and China have more or less had a revo and a terror or two. Right. I have three problems with that: From kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my Mon Oct 13 10:00:40 1997 From: kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 00:00:34 +0800 (MYT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:58:36 +0800 To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Reply to Arno Tausch on core war (fwd) At 4:39 am +0800 11/10/97, Dennis R Redmond wrote: > by those new creditors of the world economy, Japan Inc. and the European > Union. The IMF bailout of Thailand may be a sign that this is already > happening: a lot of the cash was put up by the Japanese, who also have the > biggest corporate investments and FDI in Thailand. The second-biggest > donor was, I believe, the Chinese/Hong Kong bloc. Might this be a > sizeable quid for a future Nippokeynesian pro quo? But note that this was organized under the auspices of the IMF. Further, when an Asian bail-out fund, ostensibly independent of the IMF, was proposed by the Japanese, it was quickly shot down. Recall too that the World Bank book on the East Asian Economic Miracle was funded by the Japanese, but ultimately subject to spin-doctoring within the World Bank -- see Robert Wade's piece in the NLR on this. In brief, hegemonies are not so easily shifted, and not especially when it appears the Japanese remain relatively content to let things be more or less as they now stand. Which may or may not back up Adam Webb's arguments.... Incidentally, isn't it curious how Hegel's owl of minerva takes wing again -- bookstores in SE Asia are full of books by management gurus and others celebrating the 'miracle', books penned and put into press perhaps six months or a year ago, now ironically appearing on the shelves in a sort of mocking of reality. This also a virtual repeat of the books on Japan in the early 1990s, just as the whole shebang was about to implode; and Japan has still to recover from that... From rkmoore@iol.ie Mon Oct 13 11:09:09 1997 Mon, 13 Oct 1997 18:09:01 +0100 (IST) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 18:09:01 +0100 (IST) To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: revolutionary change and reality Capitalism is organized on a global scale. Hence resistance to capitalist domination must also involve a global strategy and global action. This much everyone here seems to agree with. Beyond this many of our "core" posters seem possessed by a semi-religious fixation on antique marxist analysis - dangerously out of touch with current reality. Also we see a messianic fixation on a global revolutionary movement - pinning hopes for salvation on an event which has as much likelihood - and over which we have as much control - as the second coming of Christ. This quasi-religious detachment from rational analysis is further evidenced by the fact that there seems to be no interest on the list in the actual architecture of today's globalist system. My many postings on this topic are generally received as disturbances from the "periphery" of thought - either ignored or dismissed. Most ironic on a list dubbed "world systems". Our experts evidently want to steer our world-system vehicle by peering in the rear-view mirror, with occasional reference to a fantasy map of a utopian future. Actually looking around at current reality seems to be off-topic. Perhaps this is simply the general "academic condition" - since reality is messy, it easier to deal with fossilized analytical systems or imaginary utopian futures. I suggest that in a battle situation the mentality of a general is more useful than the mentality of an historian. A good general looks at reality, at the balance of forces, at the available resources, and at the full spectrum of strategic options. A bad general is fixated by what he's learned about past battles and is always re-fighting yesterday's wars. Our Western nation states, even though they have long been co-opted by capitalist forces, nonetheless offer us by far the most accessible and powerful platform from which to launch any kind of counter offensive. Although our experts seem oblivious to this plain fact, it is well known to our capitalist masters and that is why dismantlement of the powerful and sovereign nation state is the centerpiece of their current globalist revolution. They are quite aware that all effective resistance to their designs (worker rights, environmentalism, brakes on interventionism, etc.) all arise from our "excessively democratic" Western nation states. The fixation on an all-at-once global revolution, and the downplaying of a more nation-centered approach, only serves to distract us from deploying the resources available to us and to delay revolutionary action while the globalist regime consolidates its unprecedented level of control over our lives and our options. It is not only analytically wrong, but extremely dangerous. I accuse our experts of being counter-revolutionary dupes, playing into the hands or our oppressors. rkm btw> won't be able to respond for the rest of this week. From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Mon Oct 13 12:18:44 1997 id OAA02585; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:17:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:18:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: revolutionary change and reality In-Reply-To: Richard, Has it come to this? The old anti-communist line that Marxism is a quasi-religious sentiment and destroys its adherent's capacity for rational thought? Oh please. Is your back really that bad up against the wall in this argument, Richard? Do you want us to consider the reasonableness of your work in light of the historical materialist framework? Do you actually believe you will come out looking okay after that? Andy From rene.barendse@tip.nl Mon Oct 13 13:37:20 1997 id <01BCD817.2CA094A0@amsterdam-038.std.pop.tip.nl>; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:32:50 +-100 From: barendse To: "'wsn@csf.colorado.edu'" Subject: Rest truncated posting Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:32:21 +-100 Post truncated - old problem and I don't know how to fix it. Right. I have three problems with that: From akwebb@phoenix.Princeton.EDU Mon Oct 13 14:39:32 1997 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:38:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "Adam K. Webb" Reply-To: "Adam K. Webb" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Moore, Barendse, and a disheartening scenario In-Reply-To: (I have temporary consolation for Warren over the lack of Chinese surnamed contributors. I use a Chinese name for dealing with non-English-speaking Chinese: "Wei Yadang") On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Richard K. Moore wrote: > I can't imagine such a scenario. Can you? Britain simply didn't keep up > its military dominance - it was eclipsed by at least the US, Japan, and > Germany. The US is taking care not to lose its dominance - is in fact > bleeding its population dry to maintain hegemony. It seems that the two _primary_ reasons why hegemony passed to the US were 1) that the US population, and thus economy, were significantly larger and consequently more capable of sustaining hegemonic responsibilities, much as presumably was the case with the Netherlands earlier, and 2) that US national ideology was more "purely" liberal and thus suited to the evolving legitimacy of global capitalism. Now whether I can imagine a transfer of this type depends, as I believe I made clear initially, mainly on the course of Chinese economic and political development. If China draws closer to core per capita income levels (which I doubt, and from a revolutionary strategic standpoint hope is not the case), then its economy would be vastly more suited to hegemonic responsibilities than the US economy. There is no way that the US could continue to play its current role with an economy one-quarter the size of China's, any more than Britain could have continued in 1945 even if the will had been there (and to some extent it was, eg. Churchill). Thus condition (1) could be met. Condition (2) depends on the stability and ideological formulation of Chinese capitalism. The Chinese "red capitalist" elite clearly envisions turning the current authoritarianism into a new "East Asian" paradigm, as evidenced in their praise of Singapore and their new corporate-dominated representation system in Hong Kong. This freewheeling capitalism combined with technocratic public administration, public apathy, and depoliticised civil society could very well be highly suited to the New World Order. If the Chinese state can prevent the post-miracle Brazil scenario (stagnation, popular resistance, etc.) that I suspect will occur, then condition (2) also could be met. > I'm simply going by what the Chinese elite themselves have stated - that > they see China's "rightful role" as being an Asian hegemon. This is flatly > contradictory to stated "US interests". I think the Chinese elite's position is a little more ambiguous than that. First, what about their longstanding conflict with India over the appropriateness of regionally-based influence spheres? India wishes to be a regional hegemon in the Indian Subcontinent and Indian Ocean; China vociferously rejects the notion of geographically demarcated spheres of influence. Second, to the limited extent that China wishes to be an "East Asian hegemon," that is either a stepping stone to more diffuse global influence (otherwise its cultivation of Africa over the last twenty years would be a waste of diplomatic energy), or a position defined only in opposition to US strength in the area. Third, even if there is a regional focus of China's hegemony in an interim stage, providing Zhongnanhai is "safely" in the hands of "right-thinking" Kennedy School graduates (within ten to fifteen years, I suspect) why is that _necessarily_ less acceptable to the United States than French hegemony in West Africa? I could imagine a scenario in which, once Chinese global superiority is realised by the US to be inevitable, such an interim accommodation/partnership would be seen as a proving ground (just as the growing US role in Latin America and Oceania in the late 1800s partly was). > > The US/NATO axis is serving very well as agent of > international capitalism - why would it allow itself to be usurped? I am not sure which part of "itself" is relevant--the flags or the interests under the flags? The former are less important than they were; the latter are very pragmatic about which mercenaries they choose. > Most of the northern population doesn't believe neocolonialism even > exists. They consider that a "conspiracy theory". > I don't know anyone personally who favors domination and exploitation of > the periphery. They accede to it because they are told it isn't happening, > not because they favor it in principle. They may not throw the word "neocolonialism" around their coffee tables, but they have a very clear sense of their relative position in the world and the risks that a less than assertive position vis-a-vis the South would entail. Huntingtonian machismo is not simply a product of the Washington-London-Paris policy environment; propaganda about the need to return Argentina, Grenada, Iraq, Panama, etc. to their rightful places did not create its own resonance among the relevant Northern populations. And on Mon, 13 Oct 1997, barendse wrote: > And it took two goes and decimation of a generation for Britain to > get to the point that it was willing to hand over the role of global bully. > In other words, as long as we are drawing loose historical analogies, if > the US / China relationship is pictured as similar to turn of century Great > Britain / US, why is this picture more compelling than the picture of > Great Britain / Napeolonic France. Hey, for the latter case, both > Napoleonic France and China have more or less had a revo and a terror > or two. To go back to the beginning of this post, neither condition (1) nor condition (2) plausibly held. The French economy/population size was not superior to Britain's, and thus could not permit France to fulfil the hegemonic role more effectively. And Napoleon's disparaging comment about Britain as a "nation of shopkeepers" does not bespeak great ideological suitability for the bully's shoes. China, on the other hand, _potentially_ could fulfil both requirements if history is sufficiently unkind and inconvenient to grant the Chinese Huntingtons their wish. Finally, I have an additional thought. I believe it was Joshua Goldstein (?) who suggested that hegemonic succession occurs when one rising power challenges the old hegemon, is defeated by an alliance between the old hegemon and another (slightly stronger) rising power, and then the second rising power becomes the new hegemon. Should this be the case, one disheartening possibility is that a pan-Southern transnational revolutionary movement circa 2015 challenges the US-EU-J core, US-EU-J core allies with a moderately prosperous China to suppress the uprising, US-EU-J suffer some ideological discrediting globally and some economic damage from immigrant/underclass volatility during the crisis, and China is left standing relatively unscathed as the new capitalist hegemon. Chinese authoritarianism would seem far more credible than residual US-EU-J notions of humanitarian restraint as the response to Southern insurgency; TNC patience could yield, in such a crisis, to nostalgia for the decisiveness of June 4, 1989, except this time PLA tanks would roll over people in Calcutta, Nairobi, Teheran, etc. And a moderately developed China might even be able, simultaneously and somewhat paradoxically, to cast itself as a more pro-Southern hegemon in touch with the needs of the world's poor because of its own history. Since I am fond of China-Brazil comparisons, this outcome would be "Ordem e Progresso" on a world scale. This combination of brutality and mirage would hold at least until the revolutionary forces regroup and broaden their critique to focus it more on China. The practical implication of this scenario is that those who favour global revolution should cast the struggle in such a way as, among many other things, to forestall any such reconstructive pretences on the part of Chinese or other rising elites. There should be no "third choice" whatsoever between US-EU-J and world revolution. Any thoughts on that? Regards, --AKW =============================================================================== Adam K. Webb Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton NJ 08544 USA 609-258-9028 From wwagar@binghamton.edu Mon Oct 13 15:26:47 1997 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:26:39 -0400 (EDT) To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: revolutionary change and reality In-Reply-To: On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Richard K. Moore wrote: > > Capitalism is organized on a global scale. Hence resistance to capitalist > domination must also involve a global strategy and global action. This > much everyone here seems to agree with. > > Beyond this many of our "core" posters seem possessed by a semi-religious > fixation on antique marxist analysis - dangerously out of touch with > current reality. Also we see a messianic fixation on a global > revolutionary movement - pinning hopes for salvation on an event which has > as much likelihood - and over which we have as much control - as the second > coming of Christ. If you look only at the present day, nothing progressive seems to have much likelihood of coming to pass. For all the reasons all of us keep citing. > > This quasi-religious detachment from rational analysis is further evidenced The secularly religious aspect of Marx's faith and the faith of many others in a coming democratic world commonwealth is nothing for which any of us owes you the slightest apology. Nor is it detached from rational analysis: on the contrary it is based on, and attached to, rational analysis of the dynamics of global capitalism. > by the fact that there seems to be no interest on the list in the actual > architecture of today's globalist system. My many postings on this topic > are generally received as disturbances from the "periphery" of thought - > either ignored or dismissed. Most ironic on a list dubbed "world systems". We dwell on actual architecture and current situations almost obsessively. > > Our experts evidently want to steer our world-system vehicle by peering in > the rear-view mirror, with occasional reference to a fantasy map of a > utopian future. Actually looking around at current reality seems to be > off-topic. Perhaps this is simply the general "academic condition" - since > reality is messy, it easier to deal with fossilized analytical systems or > imaginary utopian futures. I see. We can perform much more adequately if we don't have a clue where we want to wind up. > I suggest that in a battle situation the mentality of a general is more > useful than the mentality of an historian. A good general looks at World-system theory is grounded, just like Marxism, in a careful and detailed analysis of the trends, patterns, and cycles of world history. Perhaps this is just being "academic" and "useless" on our part, but I disagree. > reality, at the balance of forces, at the available resources, and at the > full spectrum of strategic options. A bad general is fixated by what he's > learned about past battles and is always re-fighting yesterday's wars. A bad revolutionary is fixated on the present and knows nothing of history or social science. > The fixation on an all-at-once global revolution, and the downplaying of a > more nation-centered approach, only serves to distract us from deploying > the resources available to us and to delay revolutionary action while the > globalist regime consolidates its unprecedented level of control over our > lives and our options. > > It is not only analytically wrong, but extremely dangerous. I accuse our > experts of being counter-revolutionary dupes, playing into the hands or our > oppressors. Warning! Testosterone levels exceed optimum for clear thinking. I have not detected the presence of ANY counter-revolutionary dupes on this network. Even Richard K. Moore is NOT a counter-revolutionary dupe. The only things we suffer from are an excess of zeal and a deficit, indeed an almost total absence, of world-historical influence. But I'm glad you're back on line anyway. Cheers, Warren [Failed Messiah, Self-Deluded Utopist, etc.] From cjl@UVic.CA Mon Oct 13 16:02:15 1997 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:13:24 -0700 From: "Clifford J. Larabie" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: revolutionary change and reality References: I offer a few comments with some trepidation generated from two sources: first, I have been following this interesting discussion only sporadically; second, my approach to theory is somewhat more eclectic than many (though certainly not all) of the contributors to this list. I don't consider the latter to be a general handicap but will admit in advance that it can certainly be read as such in specific instances. If you don't read the world through a particular theoretical lens--a failing which I may overcome (or succumb to) in time--you invariably encounter inconsistencies. Here I console myself on two fronts: I am not convinced that there is a theoretical framework which can truly claim to escape all inconsistencies; and I am leaning toward the notion that inconsistencies are an inherent part of reality--whether that reality is socially constructed or not. Richard K. Moore wrote: > > Capitalism is organized on a global scale. Hence resistance to capitalist > domination must also involve a global strategy and global action. This > much everyone here seems to agree with. I am willing to accept the first claim regarding the global nature of capitalism but must withhold judgment with respect to the third claim of unanimity, given my acknowledged lack of familiarity with all the previous postings. I do, however, take issue with the middle claim. It is presented as though it follows with some logical necessity from the first claim, which of course it does not. Moreover, even a cursory survey of some other disciplines which entertain the notion of non-linear dynamics--economics, evolutionary biology, physics, to name a few--should surely raise the question of whether this claim has an unassailable or even defensible empirical, contingent foundation. I suggest that in journal after journal, across disciplines, we are increasingly faced with examples of seemingly globally insignificant quantitative disturbances effecting qualitative (global, systemic) change. Why is it, then, that we insist that socio/political/economic systemic change must occur through a global anti-systemic movement or a variation of some Gramscian counter-hegemonic collaboration? I am not summarily ruling these out but, at the same time, I am not convinced that these are the only options. I am not suggesting that 'social scientific answers' will be found by grasping for the holy grail of the so-called 'hard sciences'. That grail is largely illusory, in my opinion. In light of the accumulating literature in the philosophy and history of science, the sociology of knowledge, and so on, which clearly establishes the social, political, cultural, and economic influences which impact various research programmes, I do think it is worth reflecting upon the question of why the social sciences--and especially those social scientists committed to change--are so recalcitrant in developing new notions of social cause and effect. Are we committed and theory-bound to the point of unhealthy constipation? > Our Western nation states, even though they have long been co-opted by > capitalist forces, nonetheless offer us by far the most accessible and > powerful platform from which to launch any kind of counter offensive. I am not convinced that this is the case either. There are several theoretically driven 'histories' of the emergence of the nation-state. (Fortunately, most social sciences, including International Relations, now recognize that nation-states do have a history.) This being the case, I think it is fair to say that--whichever history you adopt--the nation-state developed in response to spatially and temporally specific circumstances. Since its inception, it has undoubtedly and profoundly impacted social organization and modes of thought. It is by no means clear to me, however, that the present historical juncture is such that the nation-state is either 'the most accessible' (I have strong reservations) or 'powerful' (some other organizations are more powerful than some nation-states) platform from which to effect change. Finally, and in a largely unrelated vein, I must admit that I am often awed and generally strongly swayed by materialist arguments, and I have encountered some of the most awing and swaying on this list. I remain troubled, however, by the following--which I will no doubt put badly. It seems to me that it would be impossible for us to build institutions or social relations that reflect the material bases of our lives, or to effect social change, in the absence of the conceptual apparatus to recognize those material bases or to envision difference. Much has been written and debated about systemic change but very little, in my assessment, about conceptual change. I raise this issue out of a genuine interest--and, of course, as another thrust at those who refuse to step, even momentarily, out of the comfort of their theories. Regards, Clifford J. Larabie From phuakl@sit.edu.my Mon Oct 13 20:28:16 1997 14 Oct 97 10:30:25 +1100 From: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:30:09 +0000 Subject: Re: Moore, Barendse, and a disheartening scenario Here's something from a Chinese surname contributor! (Chinese-Malaysian) Singapore and China are becoming increasingly close allies. My prediction is that as the reality of Chinese capitalism and the current ideology of "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" becomes even more untenable, official Chinese ideology will surreptitiously change to resemble that of Singapore's. Singapore's ideology: elite rule by scholar-bureaucrats/technocrats, (Revival of the traditional Chinese scholar-bureaucrat Mandarin) "We deliver the goods and you shut up and follow orders" Western values are decadent and are responsible for its decline. Asians ought to turn to "Asian Values". Singaporean version of the American Dream - Singapore as a true meritocracy (notwithstanding the fact of subtle discrimination against its Malay population). State-sponsored capitalism. Little mention is made of the fact that Singaporean prosperity is due largely to its competitive success in attracting capital and investment from Japan, USA, Europe etc. Similarly, little mention is made of the fact that foreign skilled labor is another major factor. I remember reading somewhere that 1/3 of the faculty of the National U. of Singapore are Malaysian and that 1/4 of its bureaucracy are Malaysian also (Malaysian = overwhelmingly Chinese-Malaysian). Also, that emigration from Singapore is high in relation to its population size. Having worked in Singapore for 2 years, I can testify to the fact that Weber's prediction of the "iron cage of rationality" certainly applies to Singapore! P.S. Goh Keng Swee (principal architect of Singapore's economic success) is an economic adviser to the Chinese regime. Goh has a PhD in economics from LSE. Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:38:03 -0400 (EDT) Reply-to: akwebb@phoenix.Princeton.EDU From: "Adam K. Webb" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Moore, Barendse, and a disheartening scenario (I have temporary consolation for Warren over the lack of Chinese surnamed contributors. I use a Chinese name for dealing with non-English-speaking Chinese: "Wei Yadang") On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Richard K. Moore wrote: > I can't imagine such a scenario. Can you? Britain simply didn't keep up > its military dominance - it was eclipsed by at least the US, Japan, and > Germany. The US is taking care not to lose its dominance - is in fact > bleeding its population dry to maintain hegemony. It seems that the two _primary_ reasons why hegemony passed to the US were 1) that the US population, and thus economy, were significantly larger and consequently more capable of sustaining hegemonic responsibilities, much as presumably was the case with the Netherlands earlier, and 2) that US national ideology was more "purely" liberal and thus suited to the evolving legitimacy of global capitalism. Now whether I can imagine a transfer of this type depends, as I believe I made clear initially, mainly on the course of Chinese economic and political development. If China draws closer to core per capita income levels (which I doubt, and from a revolutionary strategic standpoint hope is not the case), then its economy would be vastly more suited to hegemonic responsibilities than the US economy. There is no way that the US could continue to play its current role with an economy one-quarter the size of China's, any more than Britain could have continued in 1945 even if the will had been there (and to some extent it was, eg. Churchill). Thus condition (1) could be met. Condition (2) depends on the stability and ideological formulation of Chinese capitalism. The Chinese "red capitalist" elite clearly envisions turning the current authoritarianism into a new "East Asian" paradigm, as evidenced in their praise of Singapore and their new corporate-dominated representation system in Hong Kong. This freewheeling capitalism combined with technocratic public administration, public apathy, and depoliticised civil society could very well be highly suited to the New World Order. If the Chinese state can prevent the post-miracle Brazil scenario (stagnation, popular resistance, etc.) that I suspect will occur, then condition (2) also could be met. > I'm simply going by what the Chinese elite themselves have stated - that > they see China's "rightful role" as being an Asian hegemon. This is flatly > contradictory to stated "US interests". I think the Chinese elite's position is a little more ambiguous than that. First, what about their longstanding conflict with India over the appropriateness of regionally-based influence spheres? India wishes to be a regional hegemon in the Indian Subcontinent and Indian Ocean; China vociferously rejects the notion of geographically demarcated spheres of influence. Second, to the limited extent that China wishes to be an "East Asian hegemon," that is either a stepping stone to more diffuse global influence (otherwise its cultivation of Africa over the last twenty years would be a waste of diplomatic energy), or a position defined only in opposition to US strength in the area. Third, even if there is a regional focus of China's hegemony in an interim stage, providing Zhongnanhai is "safely" in the hands of "right-thinking" Kennedy School graduates (within ten to fifteen years, I suspect) why is that _necessarily_ less acceptable to the United States than French hegemony in West Africa? I could imagine a scenario in which, once Chinese global superiority is realised by the US to be inevitable, such an interim accommodation/partnership would be seen as a proving ground (just as the growing US role in Latin America and Oceania in the late 1800s partly was). > > The US/NATO axis is serving very well as agent of > international capitalism - why would it allow itself to be usurped? I am not sure which part of "itself" is relevant--the flags or the interests under the flags? The former are less important than they were; the latter are very pragmatic about which mercenaries they choose. > Most of the northern population doesn't believe neocolonialism even > exists. They consider that a "conspiracy theory". > I don't know anyone personally who favors domination and exploitation of > the periphery. They accede to it because they are told it isn't happening, > not because they favor it in principle. They may not throw the word "neocolonialism" around their coffee tables, but they have a very clear sense of their relative position in the world and the risks that a less than assertive position vis-a-vis the South would entail. Huntingtonian machismo is not simply a product of the Washington-London-Paris policy environment; propaganda about the need to return Argentina, Grenada, Iraq, Panama, etc. to their rightful places did not create its own resonance among the relevant Northern populations. And on Mon, 13 Oct 1997, barendse wrote: > And it took two goes and decimation of a generation for Britain to > get to the point that it was willing to hand over the role of global bully. > In other words, as long as we are drawing loose historical analogies, if > the US / China relationship is pictured as similar to turn of century Great > Britain / US, why is this picture more compelling than the picture of > Great Britain / Napeolonic France. Hey, for the latter case, both > Napoleonic France and China have more or less had a revo and a terror > or two. To go back to the beginning of this post, neither condition (1) nor condition (2) plausibly held. The French economy/population size was not superior to Britain's, and thus could not permit France to fulfil the hegemonic role more effectively. And Napoleon's disparaging comment about Britain as a "nation of shopkeepers" does not bespeak great ideological suitability for the bully's shoes. China, on the other hand, _potentially_ could fulfil both requirements if history is sufficiently unkind and inconvenient to grant the Chinese Huntingtons their wish. Finally, I have an additional thought. I believe it was Joshua Goldstein (?) who suggested that hegemonic succession occurs when one rising power challenges the old hegemon, is defeated by an alliance between the old hegemon and another (slightly stronger) rising power, and then the second rising power becomes the new hegemon. Should this be the case, one disheartening possibility is that a pan-Southern transnational revolutionary movement circa 2015 challenges the US-EU-J core, US-EU-J core allies with a moderately prosperous China to suppress the uprising, US-EU-J suffer some ideological discrediting globally and some economic damage from immigrant/underclass volatility during the crisis, and China is left standing relatively unscathed as the new capitalist hegemon. Chinese authoritarianism would seem far more credible than residual US-EU-J notions of humanitarian restraint as the response to Southern insurgency; TNC patience could yield, in such a crisis, to nostalgia for the decisiveness of June 4, 1989, except this time PLA tanks would roll over people in Calcutta, Nairobi, Teheran, etc. And a moderately developed China might even be able, simultaneously and somewhat paradoxically, to cast itself as a more pro-Southern hegemon in touch with the needs of the world's poor because of its own history. Since I am fond of China-Brazil comparisons, this outcome would be "Ordem e Progresso" on a world scale. This combination of brutality and mirage would hold at least until the revolutionary forces regroup and broaden their critique to focus it more on China. The practical implication of this scenario is that those who favour global revolution should cast the struggle in such a way as, among many other things, to forestall any such reconstructive pretences on the part of Chinese or other rising elites. There should be no "third choice" whatsoever between US-EU-J and world revolution. Any thoughts on that? Regards, --AKW =============================================================================== Adam K. Webb Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton NJ 08544 USA 609-258-9028 From GregoryS9@aol.com Mon Oct 13 23:21:03 1997 From: GregoryS9@aol.com by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:20:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:20:58 -0400 (EDT) To: WSN@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Subject: Call for Papers on Race SOCIAL JUSTICE: A Journal of Crime, Conflict & World Order CALL FOR PAPERS SPECIAL ISSUE on "Toward a Praxis for Racial Equality" We are seeking papers that address the strategic and practical implications of new theorizing about race. In recent years, we have witnessed the development of new ways of conceptualizing "race" in cultural and ethnic studies, the social sciences, feminism, and humanities. A great deal of this work has resulted from the impasse in the struggle for racial equality globally and in the West, where the old models of gender-neutral "self-determination" and civil rights have foundered with the revival of neoliberalism and the widespread attack on state-guaranteed equalities. We would like to receive articles that address some of the important practical implications of the new theorizing, such as (but not limited to): * Possibilities for alliances between different populations of color; * The future of integration; * The role of the state in guaranteeing social and economic equality; * Cross-border and transnational organizing; * The role of gender, sexuality, and the body in racial politics; and * Grassroots activism. Editors: The editors for this special issue are Elaine Kim, professor of Ethnic Studies, U.C. Berkeley, co-author of East to America: Korean American Life Stories (The New Press, 1996) and Anthony M. Platt, professor of Social Work, California State University, Sacramento, author of E. Franklin Frazier Reconsidered (Rutgers, 1991). Deadline for submissions: February 15, 1998, to be considered for inclusion in the special issue. Article submissions should not exceed 30 double-spaced 8.5 by 11 manuscript pages, preferably in a 12-point font and with one- inch margins. The page length includes the "Notes" section (for substantive additions to the text) and the "References" section (where full citations amplify the abbreviated in-text references for books or periodicals, e.g., by author name and publication date). Word counts would roughly be: full-length articles (8,000 words); commentaries and issue pieces (4,000 words). Include a brief biographical sketch with complete mailing address and e-mail. Submissions should be sent as follows: Three copies, plus disk (Macintosh or PC-compatible 3.5") to: Attn.: Elaine Kim and Tony Platt Social Justice P.O. Box 40601 San Francisco, CA, 94140, USA e-mail: SocialJust@aol.com From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Mon Oct 13 23:27:54 1997 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:27:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:27:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Dennis R Redmond To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Reply to Arno Tausch on core war (fwd) In-Reply-To: On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my wrote regarding the Thai bailout: > But note that this was organized under the auspices of the IMF. Further, when > an Asian bail-out fund, ostensibly independent of the IMF, was proposed by the > Japanese, it was quickly shot down. > Recall too that the World Bank book on the East Asian Economic Miracle was > funded by the Japanese, but ultimately subject to spin-doctoring within the > World Bank -- see Robert Wade's piece in the NLR on this. But the fortunes of the ideology-industry (and it is indeed an industry nowadays) are not the same thing as the economic fundamentals and social organization of Japanese industry. Sure, MITI doesn't have the last word on an English-language publication designed to preach the virtues of neoliberalism to the neolib faithful. But what does that have to do with the Mitsubishi keiretsu's investment policies? Very little. Sure, the chattering classes will chatter and the management gurus will guru-ize, but at the end of the day, East Asia will do what East Asia wants and to hell with the Americans or their IMF/World Bank satrapies, because East Asia is a net creditor to the Americans, and not the other way around. -- Dennis From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Mon Oct 13 23:40:49 1997 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:38:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Dennis R Redmond To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Moore, Barendse, and a disheartening scenario In-Reply-To: <76424C1033@pmail.sit.edu.my> On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, DR. PHUA KAI LIT wrote: > P.S. Goh Keng Swee (principal architect of Singapore's > economic success) is an economic adviser to the > Chinese regime. Goh has a PhD in economics from > LSE. Score one for the Asiastate. Maybe Mahathir is onto something after all with his notion of an Asian currency bloc. Any thoughts on how an emerging East Asian "keiretsu politics" might work in practice? I presume Singapore and Hong Kong would be the high-tech service-sector, cultural and ideological metropoles for industrialization further inland, or is this already happening? -- Dennis From ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au Tue Oct 14 02:40:19 1997 wsn@csf.colorado.edu; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:39:03 +1000 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:39:03 +1000 From: Bruce McFarling Subject: Re: US vs GB hegemony comparisons To: barendse , wsn@csf.colorado.edu I'm not sure whether or not the rest of the truncated posting got to wsn (I saw two, equally truncated, versions), but Dr.R.J.Barendse forwarded a copy to me. My response below. >From: barendse >To: "'wsn@csf.colorado.edu'" >Subject: Rest truncated posting >Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:32:21 +-100 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Right. I have three problems with that: > >1.) Contrary to what some WSN'ers are arguing not even during the height of its power around 1860 Britain was a truely `global bully'. In Europe (always the main concern of British foreign policy) it was an economic giant but a military pigmy dwarved by Prussia, France or Russia (and even Austria and Italy). In Africa Britain had to share some power with France; in Asia with Russia and later on Japan and in America obviously with the USA - there was never any question of Britain `bullying' the USA to accept the seccesion of the Southern states, for example. By 1900 Britain had to share power not only with the USA but with Japan in Asia, France and Russia in Europe, Africa and Asia. Even in the financial markets (where, alone, British supremacy was unchallenged) one of the causes of the rise of the City was the propensity of French peasants to save - with their investments in South America, the Ottoman empire or Russia being chanelled through London (and Paris was always a close rival to London as a source of investment). British power was never as absolute in the nineteenth century as we now often think by analogy of the US-supremacy after World War II. > >2.)And even during ITS height in the 1950's the US had partly voluntarily (partly involuntarily) to share some power in the Middle East and (southern) Africa with Britain, in West Africa with France and in Europe with France and Germany. If Britain abdicated from world-power that was not in World War II but only in 1967; remember Harold Wilson saying in 1965 (mind you) that `our frontiers are on the Himalaya' or the British interventions in Kuwait or in Oman in the sixties ? And, obviously, there was still the USSR as a rival to the USA (and it is now often too easy to forget that in the 1950's the USSR was generally considered to be much more succesful than the USA and with good reasons as a very serious challenge to the US - militarily and economically). So, even in the 1950 and 60's the USA was only a limited bully. And this even more so since > >3.)with the invention of the ICBM the possibilities of any nuclear power to exert military pressure on another nuclear power are very limited. I think that with the spread of weapons of mass-destruction (first to national states the second stage will be to various insurgency movements) military power as a mean of cohersion is becoming increasingly obsolete. And this not only applies to war between major powers but increasingly to all-out war between national states as well. If, to mention one possible example, Israel were really to perform an all-out attack on Damascus, Syria would use chemical and probably biological strikes on Israel, with Israel retaliating with nuclear attacks on Syria. This would devastate the entire region. > >Now, these are still relatively small powers - does anybody seriously think that China would risk the obliteration of its own territory and most of Asia in really bullying another nuclear power (say Russia, the US or even Japan) ? I don't like using this arrogant word but in `reality' the modern military machines are like Tyranosaurus Rex: awesome killing machines which are this cumbersome as to be virtually doomed to extinction (this is M.van Creveld's comparison whose `Future of War' should really be read in this respect). In my view any historic comparison goes completely awry in the nuclear age. > >What we do witness is that states instead of to military power resort to economic bullying (we see plenty of this nowadays) and, two, supporting various insurgent groups and seccesionist movements. This, I think, was already the strategy used against the USSR during the `second cold war' in the Carter and Reagan-era and it is possible that the US will in future use those kind of tactics against China and very much maybe vice-versa. (But, again, think about it - what could China do in the USA, then ? Supply tanks to the Black Muslims perhaps, land commandos to aid Californian seccesionists ?) > > These are all interesting speculations but on the moment it sounds more like the script for an episode of the `X-files' to me. > >Well - in future the truth will be `out there' > >Cheers >Dr.R.J.Barendse >rene.barendse@tip.nl > My first reaction is that (1) says that GB was nowhere near the hegemon that the US was right after WWII, and (2) says neither was the US. SO now that we've established that neither of them were the hegemon that the US was right after WWII, where does that leave the comparison? My second reaction is along the lines of the first, but in more detail. The whole damn point of the 'hegemon' concept is that there is an intermediate level of influence between an imperial power and one among several powers in a balance of power, and that intermediate level is quite clearly and distinctly first among several powers in a balance of power. That does *not* imply enough power to go impose you sovereignty on another power -- since, after all, that would be an imperial power. The odd thing (not necessarily unique, but not historically normal) about the capitalist system is that a hegemon is *not* on the path between one of many power and imperial power (in either direction) but on the path starting and ending at one of many powers. So 'hegemon' is not "as powerful as it gets, PERIOD", but "as powerful as it seems to get in THIS period". Perhaps a clue *is* to be found in the extreme centralisation of power in the US after WWII, but especially in how hard the US government worked, on behalf of American corporations, to eliminate that extreme disparity. So, *of course*, GB was not unrivalled in Africa. It simply on average got the bits it wanted the most, and left its rivals with less desirable properties (look, for example, at the difference between fraction of African land area in English speaking African countries and the fraction of African population in English speaking African countries for a rough notion of the relative agricultural productivity of the bits the English ended up with). Hegemony is a distinct and qualitative step *less* powerful than imperial power, though the hegemon's 'empires' (or neo-empires) in the periphery confuses the issue. The third reaction is to the third point. I don't believe for a minute that military power is becoming obsolete. If mass national armies are becoming obsolete, something else will take their place. If the core powers get to the point that they are itching to fight it out, they'll figure a way to fight it out. Your buckeye correspondent in OZ, Virtually, Bruce McFarling, Ourimbah, NSW ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au From timber@ksu.edu Tue Oct 14 13:20:20 1997 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:20:15 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:20:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Michael F Timberlake To: world system network Subject: women, work, and the world-system I'm interested in learning about research and theorizing about women, work, and the world-system, particularly that which would relevant to the periphery and semi-periphery. I'm knowledgeable on this up to about 1990 (e.g., Kathryn Ward's Women Worker and Global Restructuring), so references 1991- present would be particularly helpful. ______________________________________________________ Michael Timberlake Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas 66506 USA FAX 913-532-6978 Phone 913-532-6865 _______________________________________________________ From akwebb@phoenix.Princeton.EDU Tue Oct 14 13:42:10 1997 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:40:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Wei Yadang Reply-To: Wei Yadang To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Confucius spins in grave In-Reply-To: <76424C1033@pmail.sit.edu.my> On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, DR. PHUA KAI LIT wrote: > Singapore and China are becoming increasingly close allies. > My prediction is that as the reality of Chinese capitalism > and the current ideology of "Socialism with Chinese > Characteristics" becomes even more untenable, official > Chinese ideology will surreptitiously change to resemble that > of Singapore's. I agree, but I would point out that the "surreptitious change" already basically took place circa 1980, not 1997. Most Westerners are not prepared to recognise, and the Chinese leadership certainly is not prepared to admit, that "socialism with Chinese characteristics" has no substantively distinct content. Ever since Deng Xiaoping returned to power, the elements in Zhongnanhai have interpreted "socialism" as nothing more than economic growth and an income structure based on "merit" rather than ascription. Even the "spiritual civilisation" that is supposed to balance economic brutality does not go beyond discouraging public spitting (a worthy goal, as anyone who has visited China will attest, but hardly a societal model). Believe me, "ideologically correct" Chinese get tied in logical knots if you press them on the implications of China's current path. > > Singapore's ideology: elite rule by scholar-bureaucrats/technocrats, > (Revival of the traditional Chinese scholar-bureaucrat Mandarin) > "We deliver the goods and you shut up and follow orders" > Western values are decadent and are responsible for > its decline. Asians ought to turn to "Asian Values". > Singaporean version of the American Dream - Singapore as > a true meritocracy (notwithstanding the fact of subtle discrimination > against its Malay population). > State-sponsored capitalism. > > Having worked in Singapore for 2 years, I can testify to the > fact that Weber's prediction of the "iron cage of rationality" > certainly applies to Singapore! I deeply take issue with any comparison between Confucian and Singaporean ideology. Confucius would spin in the grave to imagine that traditional Chinese thought was being appropriated by the unsavoury likes of Lee Kuan Yew and Zhu Rongji. Technocratic authoritarianism fundamentally contradicts all the core tenets of Chinese political philosophy, including the sociomoral content of "merit," elite social obligation, primacy of society over economy, etc. "Xiang4 qian2 kan4" ("looking forward," or "looking towards money," a play on words often used to describe the current entrepreneurial mood) hardly qualifies. The Singaporean and Chinese leadership should trace its intellectual heritage back to Kemal Ataturk, because their appeal to superficial cultural assertion masks the huge discontinuity that they in fact are introducing to East Asian society and thought. Calling the Sino-Singaporean route "Confucian" makes about as much sense as calling Wall Street "Christian." A revolutionary challenge to the Greater Chinese segment of the transnational elite thus must take it to task on that count, and cease the "social democratic" attacks on its supposed "continuation" of Confucian "authoritarianism," for such an approach only plays into the hands of the superficial cultural nationalists. Rather, we must seek to appropriate the Chinese philosophical legacy--as well as its counterparts elsewhere--and turn it to purposes that resonate more with its genuine content. Turn the hypocrites' hypocrisy against them.... Regards, "Wei Yadang" =============================================================================== Adam K. Webb Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton NJ 08544 USA 609-258-9028 http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb From chriscd@jhu.edu Tue Oct 14 14:06:46 1997 14 Oct 1997 16:01:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:59:09 -0400 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: Re: women, work, and the world-system To: timber@ksu.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu References: i can recommend that articles by val moghadam. these are listed in her vita which is on the world-systems archive at http://csf.colorado.edu/wsystems/archive/bios/moghadam.htm there were at least two excellent sessions on these topics at the ASA meetings in Toronto. check the program. chris From chriscd@jhu.edu Wed Oct 15 13:39:07 1997 15 Oct 1997 15:18:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:15:26 -0400 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: call for papers: RC02(Economy and Society), International Sociological Association To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu Call for Papers We have now prepared the program of the XIV World Congress of Sociology, to be held in Montreal, Canada, July 26 - August 1, 1998. The Congress theme will be Social Knowledge: Heritage, Challenges, Perspectives. Our Committee will be responsible for fifteen two hour sessions. We hope to be able to accommodate up to 60 papers, about the same number as in Bielefeld in 1994, although with fewer sessions. The session chairs will schedule only four to five oral presentations per session, although more papers may be listed in the Programme Book, and can be distributed at the sessions. Papers may also be presented in poster format, if their number justifies this forumula. Everyone listed in the Programme Book will receive an official invitation to participate in the Congress. Those interested in presenting a paper should contact the appropriate session chairs listed in the Preliminary Program as soon as possible, and forward to them a draft of your abstract by December 15, 1998, at the latest. International Sociological Association XIV World Congress of Sociology Montreal, Canada, July 26 - August 1, 1998 Research Committee on Economy and Society Call for Papers Preliminary Program The Global Challenge of System and Society Program Chair: Dennis L. McNamara, Sociology Dept., ICC 593, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057 USA; tel: 1-202-687-3603, fax: 1-202-687-7326 mcnamard@gunet.georgetown.edu __________________ Monday, July 27 Session 1 14:00-16:00 COMPARING WORLD SYSTEMS: THE EVOLUTION OF ECONOMIES AND SOCIETIES Cochairs: 1) Christopher Chase-Dunn, Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA. chriscd@jhu.edu; tel: 410-516-7633; fax: 410-516-7590. 2) Jonathan Friedman, Department of Social Anthropology, University of Lund, P.O. Box 114, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden; jonathan.friedman@soc.lu.se; tel. 464611 2830; fax: 46 46 10 4794. Session 2 16:30-18:30 ENTREPRENEURSHIP, MARKETS, AND SELF-EMPLOYMENT. Cochairs: 1) Dr. Dieter Boegenhold, Bremen University, Research Unit Work & Region, Parkallee 39, 28209 Bremen, Germany. Boegenhold@nwn.de. tel. (home): 49-4403-1441; fax (office): 49-421-218-2680; other phone: 49-421-218-4059; other fax: 49-4403-1371. 2) Dr. Vadim Radaev, head of Research Dept. of Economic Sociology and Labour Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Economics, Krasikova, 27, Moscow 117218, Russia; vadim@radaev.msk.ru; tel: 095-129-18; fax: 095-310-70-01. Session 3 19:30-21:30 DYNAMICS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AT THE END OF THE CENTURY. Cochairs: 1) Arnaud Sales, Professeur Titulaire, Departement de sociologie, Universite de Montreal, C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montreal, Quebec, H3C 3J7 Canada; tel: (514) 343-7310; fax (514) 343-5722; sales@ere.umontreal.ca; 2) Marja Alestalo, University of Helsinki, Dept. of Sociology, P. O. Box 18 (Unioninkatu 35) 00014 University of Helsinki, finland; tel. 358-9-191 23964; fax 358-9-191 23967; marja.alestalo@helsinki.fi. Joint Session with RC 23. __________________ Tuesday July 28 Session 4 14:00-16:00 ECONOMY AND EDUCATION - COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES. Cochairs: 1) Jöchen Tholen, University of Bremen, dept. of Knowledge Transfer, P.O. Box 330 440, D-28334 Bremen, Germany. tel. 49-(0) 421-2183286; fax 49 (0) 421-2182680. email: jtholen@uni-bremen.de. 2) Prof. Kenneth Roberts, The University of Liverpool, Dept. Of Sociology, Eleanor Rathborne Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool L69 72A, United Kingdom. Tel: 44-151-7942971; fax: 44-(0)151-794300; d.m.oconnor@liverpool.ac.uk Session 5 16:30-18:30 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY - CONTENTION AND CORRUPTION. Chair: Magoroh Maruyama, Aomori Graduate School, Aomori Koritsu Daigaku, Goushizawa Yamazaki, 153-4, Aomori City, 030-01, Japan. Fax 81-17764-1667; fax 81-17764-1544. ______________ Wednesday July 29 Session 6 9:00-12:00 ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY - PRECEDENT AND PROSPECT. Chair György Lengyel, Chair Department of Sociology, Budapest University of Economic Sciences, Budapest, Fovam ter 8, 1093 Hungary; tel: (361) 1175-172; fax: (361) 2175-172; szoc_lengyel@pegasus.bke.hu Session 7 14:00-16:00 TRADE, TRUST, AND INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMATION. Cochairs: 1) Dennis McNamara, Sociology Dept., ICC 593, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057 USA. Tel: 1-202-687-3603; fax: 1-202-687-7326; mcnamard@gunet.georgetown.edu. 2) Yonghak Kim, Sociology Dept, Yonsei University, 134 Shinchon-Dong, Seodaemun-Ku, Seoul 120-749; T 82-2-361-2426. email: yhakim@bubble.yonsei.ac.kr Session 8 16:30-18:30 WOMEN AND DEVELOPMENT. Cochairs: 1) Mariosa Dalla Costa, Istituto di scienze politiche, University di Padova/Fac. Di sc. Polit, Via del santo u-28, Padova 35123, Italy. Tel: 39-(0)49-827-4-024; fax: 39-(0)49-827-4-029. 2) Giovanna Franca Dalla Costa, psicologia generale, Universita di Padova/Faculta di psicologia, Piazza Cavour 23, 35122 Padova Italy. Tel: 39.(0)49.828.655-574 Session 9 19:30-22:30 Dinner for Participants and Members of the Committee. Please reserve this evening for the event. ___________ Thursday July 30 Session 10 14:00-16:00 THE INTERESTS AND INSTITUTIONS OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM. 1) Leslie Sklair, Department of Sociology, The London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, England. Tel. 44-71-405-7686; fax. 44-71-955-7405; L.sklair@lse.ac.uk. 2) Renato Boschi, IUPERJ, Rua da Matriz 82, Botafogo, CEP 22260, Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil. T 55-21-286-0996; F 55-21-286-7146; Email rboschi@pub3.lncc.br Session 11 16:30-18:30 RC 02 BUSINESS MEETING - ELECTION OF NEW EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Session 12 19:30-21:30 SOCIO-ECONOMICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT. Cochairs: 1) Corinne Gendron, CRISES-UQAM, DJpartement de Sociologie, C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville, MontrJal (QuJbec) Canada H3C 3P8. Tel: 514/342-6202; fax 514/987-6913; 2) Jean-Guy Vaillancourt, DJpartement de sociologie, UniversitJ de MontrJal, C.P. 6128, succursale A, MontrJal (QuJbec) H3C 3J7. Tel (514) 343-5959; fax (514) 343-5722. Email vaillje@ere.umontreal.ca. Joint Session with RC 24, Environment and Society. __________ Friday July 31 Session 13 14:00-16:00 THE NEW CORPORATISM: INNOVATIONS IN SOCIAL COORDINATION ACROSS WORLD MARKETS. Cochairs: 1) Matilde Luna, Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, UNAM, Ciudad de las Humanidades, Circuito Mario de la Cueva, Ciudad Universitaria, 04510 Mexico, D.F. Mexico. Tel: (52-5) 622-74-00 ext. 251; fax: (52-5) 665-24-43; mluna@servidor.unam.mx. 2) Christina Puga, Directora, Facultad de Ciencias politicas y sociales, UNAM, Circuito Mario de las Cueva, Diudad Universitaria, 04510 Mexico, D.F., Mexico. Tel: (52-5) 665-78-99; fax: (52-5) 666-83-34; puga@sociolan.politicas.unam.mx Session 14 16:30-18:30 INNOVATION, TERRITORY, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH. Cochairs: 1) Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay, TJlJ-UniversitJ, Professure and director of research, 1001, rue Sherbrooke Est, 4th floor, PO box 670, station AC@ Montreal, Quebec Canada H2L 4L5. Tel: (514)522-4046, ext 4280; fax: (514) 522-3608; dgtrembl@teluq.uquebec.ca. 2) Daniel Villavicencio, GLYSI/MARSH 14, av. Berthelot, 69363 Lyon CEDEX 07, France. Tel: (33) (0) 4 72 72 64 00; fax: (33) (0) 4 72 80 00 08. -Or- Dept. Politica y Cultura, Univ. Autonoma Metropolitana-Xoch., Calz, de Hueso 1100, Col. Villa Quietud, Mexico D.F. C.P. 04960. Tel: (525) 7 24 51 10 & 7 24 52 79; fax: (525) 5 94 91 00; vcdh3758@cueyatl.uam.mx Session 15 20:30-22:30 To be arranged. From phuakl@sit.edu.my Thu Oct 16 03:24:32 1997 16 Oct 97 17:24:49 +1100 From: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu, ksoo@indiana.edu, lchan@usmh.usmd.edu, chew@sunchew.ece.uiuc.edu Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:24:12 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) (Fwd) [sangkancil] Will Asia's Economic Tigers Recover F ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- To: sangkancil@malaysia.net Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:00:15 Subject: [sangkancil] Will Asia's Economic Tigers Recover From the Crisis? (fwd) From: pillai@mgg.pc.my (M.G.G. Pillai) Reply-to: pillai@mgg.pc.my (M.G.G. Pillai) ________________________________________________ This week's sponsors -The Asia Pacific Internet Company (APIC) Business Internet Services. Some talk. Some do. We talk and do! for instant info ________________________________________________ FORWARDED MAIL ------- From: dfiddle@mn.uswest.net (Dennis L. Fiddle) Date: 15 Oct 97 Originally Posted On: alt.culture.indonesia Captive Of a Boom Gone Bust Will Asia's Economic Tigers Recover From the Crisis? By Keith Richburg Sunday, October 12, 1997; Page C01 The Washington Post A gray-white haze blankets an area more than half the size of the continental United States, obscuring skyscrapers, closing schools and airports, and sending thousands to hospital emergency rooms with respiratory problems. The mishaps pile up -- a plane downed, a cargo ship sunk. Local currencies continue their downward slide, and now three countries (Thailand, the Philippines and, most recently, Indonesia) have run to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) seeking multibillion-dollar bailouts. Southeast Asia, a region that once looked like it could do no wrong, suddenly seems on the brink of an economic, social and environmental abyss. Just a few months ago, the dinner table talk there was of how long the region's double-digit growth could be sustained. Now the stories are of rising suicides and laid-off bankers in Bangkok forced to take jobs as taxicab drivers. So this is the Asian economic "miracle"? The miracle was always a bit of a myth, infused with a heavy dose of hype. But that is to be expected, since to many Westerners, this vast, diverse, heavily populated part of the globe known as East Asia has always been the subject of wild exaggeration and oversimplified analysis. In the 1980s, the popular notion in the West was of "the Japanese challenge," when an army of economists warned that the Rising Sun was set to overshadow the United States with its superior technology and business acumen. That gave way in the '90s to "the China threat," in which the West was to be engulfed by Communist China's huge economic potential and superpower ambitions. There were the "tiger" economies of North Asia, then the "cubs" of Southeast Asia, all soon destined for developed-world status by a combination of sound economic policies, free trade and astute leaders. For Western economists fixated almost exclusively on growth rates, the countries of Southeast Asia could do no wrong. Leaders like Indonesia's Suharto, Malaysia's Mahathir Mohamad, and Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew were uncritically hailed as "visionaries" and "nation builders" whose policies and personalities should be emulated across the rest of the non-Asian developing world. It was only to be expected that many Asians themselves soon started buying into the Western hype. A decade ago, the great lament among Southeast Asians I talked with was of the region's debilitating inferiority complex, deeply imbued after years of European colonialism (or in the case of the Philippines, American colonialism), war, occupation, poverty and underdevelopment. The West was to be envied, and emulated, they said. But after a decade of 8 percent to 10 percent growth, beginning in the latter half of the '80s, a new regional doctrine took root -- the notion of Asian superiority. Self-confidence eventually gave way to hubris. Instead of wanting to emulate the West, an alternative was espoused, a philosophy called "Asian values" that often became simply an eloquent justification for non-representative, authoritarian government. When a Western politician, a human-rights group or a newspaper reporter would raise questions about a Southeast Asian government's treatment of a dissident, or restrictions on political activity, the reply was abrupt and predictable: Don't tell us how to run our affairs since, after all, we've managed to produce growth rates that are the envy of the world. Or, a variation on the theme: Reducing poverty is a more important "human right" than voting in elections, or Asian leaders have a "social contract" with their people by which high growth gives autocrats a cushion not only against outside complaint but internal dissent. If the "Asian miracle" sounded too good to be true, that is because it was. The Southeast Asians adopted what were conventionally perceived to be the right economic policies: low taxation, high savings, openness to trade and foreign investment, heavy investment in education, capital spending to develop infrastructure and modest, strategic government intervention in key sectors of the economy. But the impressive growth rates masked underlying, fundamental problems -- environmental neglect and degradation, rampant corruption at the top, weak and unregulated financial and banking systems, and a dangerously widening gap between the wealthiest beneficiaries of the boom, mainly in the major cities, and the vast majorities of the rural poor. A few problems stand out that should have been warning signs. Most of the countries kept their currencies artificially pegged to the U.S. dollar way too long. The policy helped their exports sell cheaply on world markets when the dollar was weak. But as the dollar strengthened in world markets, the Southeast Asian exports became less competitive. Countries that prided themselves on education are now also being slammed for neglecting it; they passed stage one, extending literacy to their populations, but they failed the more advanced test of training enough skilled young people in the higher-level technical fields like engineering. As a top World Bank official said here in Hong Kong last month, "We've always applauded East Asia for literacy, but the problem is in vocational education and higher education. You can't rely on low-wage labor as an engine for growth any longer." Nor did regional economic planners count on the increased competition from mainland China, with a supply of cheap labor far greater than Southeast Asia's. The region's slump in exports almost directly correlates with China's rise as an export competitor. And China wisely floated its currency, the yuan, in 1994. Traditional Asian values as I understood them meant thrift, hard work, high savings and respect for family. But returning to Asia in early 1995, after four years away from the region, I found a lot of that had changed. Southeast Asians in the cities were in the mad grip of conspicuous consumerism -- new designer boutiques in newer and larger shopping malls, Mercedes-Benzs and BMWs clogging the streets, cellular phones as permanent attachments on designer belts and cognac as the drink of choice. On Bangkok's notorious Patpong, the red-light strip of hostess bars, even the prostitutes now had the most modern Ericsson and Nokia cell phones shoved into the back pockets of their tight jeans. When I lived in Manila, from 1986 until the fall of 1990, I rented an apartment on Roxas Boulevard overlooking Manila Bay for about $400 a month. When I returned in 1995, the same apartment was being sold as a condominium with an asking price of close to $1 million. That apartment inflation underscores a serious underlying distortion. Much of Southeast Asia's miraculous boom was built not on rising productivity but on simple speculation -- and property and stocks were the hottest buys. Instead of gambling on mahjongg and baccarat, a new breed of urban Asian yuppie in Hermes neckties and Armani suits was betting on condos in Manila and Bangkok, or on stock in Hong Kong real estate firms. There seemed to be no end to the good times rolling, as long as governments kept promising the growth rates would keep going up. A Malaysian friend -- a longtime journalist who lived in the United States and now works with a Kuala Lumpur think tank -- told me over lunch recently how the region's speculative boom and the profligate spending of the mostly young beneficiaries reminded him of his time in the American South, when the Reagan boom years gave way to the savings and loan crisis. "What's happening in Asia now happened in the U.S. in the '80s -- the materialism, the consumption, the S&L crisis," he said. The S&L's got a multibillion-dollar congressional bailout, but as my Malaysian friend put it; "Here, the governments can't bail out the banks, so we need the IMF. "It was all based on sunset industries," he told me. "There was no productivity increase, no innovative ideas. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. The U.S. went through that and came out a lot stronger -- the downsizing came in. And you wrung the fat out of the economy and repositioned yourself for five more years of growth. We, too, are going to come out of this stronger than ever. This forces you to make changes you had to make, anyway." Therein lies the real challenge facing a region -- and a generation -- now absorbing the shock of its first major economic slowdown in a decade. The current crisis is a slap in the face, but also a potential opportunity, if Southeast Asians and their leaders will grab it. My bet is that Southeast Asia will emerge from its current crisis stronger. The countries of the region are at peace with each other. Internally, they have moved beyond the debilitating ethnic and linguistic divisions that still bedevil much of Africa and have left that unfortunate continent on the sidelines of global economic advancement. Asian governments might now begin to bring some order to their messy financial systems, by bringing in the kind of regulation that would have prevented the Thai finance institutions from becoming so overextended with bad loans. The catastrophic "haze" -- a euphemism for plain old smog caused by the burning of September and October -- could force governments to place more emphasis on environmental concerns. They might also now take a hard look at the corrosive problem of corruption, which is a significant impediment to private investment and tears at the social consensus needed for sustained development. Some economists might argue that a certain measure of corruption is tolerable in a fast-growing economy. But at a time of economic retrenchment, people will care when it is the son of a president or prime minister who gets a lucrative government contract with no competitive bidding. The economic meltdown, if it continues, could also have profound implications for the nascent forces stirring for more democracy in some of Southeast Asia's more closed and authoritarian regimes. With economies falling, longtime autocrats, such as Suharto and Lee Kuan Yew have lost some of their shield of invincibility. The so-called social contract -- "let us rule, we'll make you prosperous" -- could begin to erode under the pressures of falling incomes. A decline in living standards could even begin to shake the comfortable middle class in places like Jakarta out of some of its political complacency, and lead to popular demands for more responsive governments. It already has happened in Thailand, where the parliament was forced by public pressure to adopt a new "reformist" constitution aimed at shaking up the old money-dominated political system. Or, instead of making the needed adjustments, leaders may lash out at perceived outside "enemies" -- and that means the West. Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir has already led the charge, with his verbal broadsides against currency speculators and the Western media. "People will start looking for scapegoats," said Michael DeGolyer, a political scientist at Hong Kong's Baptist University. The danger, he said, is that some Asian leaders may move from a doctrine of "superiority" to "insularity." He added, "Neither of those is going to work." I'll put my money on Southeast Asians making the right decisions, since pragmatism and flexibility have proven two hallmarks of this dynamic region. Southeast Asia should bounce back. A region of high-growth rates coupled with transparent, responsive governments, free of corruption and friendly to the environment -- now that would be a true Asian miracle worth emulating around the world. Keith Richburg, based in Hong Kong, covers Southeast Asia for The Washington Post. CHRONOLOGY OF CRISIS Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia -- not long ago considered "underdeveloped nations" -- have been among the fastest-growing economies in the world during the past decade. But the rapid growth was based on weak foundations, such as inadequate supplies of skilled workers, overborrowing by companies, bad lending practices by banks, overpriced real estate and artifically maintained exchange rates designed to make products cheaper in export markets. The boom started becoming a bust in 1996 and early 1997, as some of these weaknesses came home to roost. As the dollar strengthened, Southeast Asian products became more expensive abroad, hurting exporters. As the economies weakened, businesses could not pay debts and banks were saddled with bad loans, especially in Thailand. Investors -- including international currency speculators -- were losing confidence in the region and began to sell, driving the value of currencies and stock markets disastrously downward. Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia have received assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Malaysia is promising reforms to restore confidence. From gernot.kohler@sheridanc.on.ca Thu Oct 16 08:45:01 1997 Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:44:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:44:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Gernot Kohler To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: "globalization from below" In-Reply-To: On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Richard K. Moore wrote: > > Capitalism is organized on a global scale. Hence resistance to capitalist > domination must also involve a global strategy and global action. This > much everyone here seems to agree with. > .....snip> Some reputable leftists are using the slogan "globalization from below" as a guide for theory and praxis. Is this notion anything wsn'ers can live with? --gk From austria@it.com.pl Thu Oct 16 09:17:39 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:18:23 +0200 (MET DST) Reply-To: From: "Austrian Embassy" To: Subject: Fw: October edition: "A world transformed" Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:19:29 +0100 For the sake of cultural plurality in my electronic high-tech-beloved but parochial America, let me please include for a last time Le Monde's English edition for October 1997, in order that though mightest visit it in future! With intercontinental kindest regards Arno Tausch ---------- > From: Le Monde diplomatique > To: English edition - Le Monde diplomatique > Subject: October edition: "A world transformed" > Date: Donnerstag, 16. Oktober 1997 14:06 > > > > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/ > _________________________________________________________________ > > Le Monde diplomatique > > > { english edition } > > October, 1997 > > > > > > LEADER > > A world transformed > by Ignacio Ramonet > > We are in throes of a global transformation which could be called a > second capitalist revolution. The new technology and world market > have changed the pillars of modern democracy, with progress and > social cohesion giving way to communication and the market. The > key players are now associations of states, global companies and > NGOs. Should we agree to be governed by the WTO rather than the > UN? > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1997/10/leader.html > > > ON THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF CHE GUEVARA'S DEATH > > Che as I knew him > by Ahmed Ben Bella > > Algeria's first president remembers his friendship with like-minded > revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, and the special, and highly > informal, relationship which developed between Algeria and Cuba in > the 1960s. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1997/10/che.html > > > EUROPE > > The "white year" turns to grey > by Jean-Marie Chauvier > > A year ago 300,000 people took to the streets in Brussels in the wake > of the appalling Dutroux child murders. A "white" movement of > protest took hold of the entire country, including the unions and > workers. But the demand for accountability has touched on other > murky areas in the nation's life and it also poses the problem of > a moral backlash. In this atmosphere of national crisis, Belgium > is uncertain where to go next. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1997/10/belgium.html > > > > Bitter fruits of modernisation in Lorraine > by Pierre Rimbert and Rafael Trapet > The Longwy commune > > Twenty years after the collapse of Lorraine's steel industry, the > region was earmarked for modernisation. It has come to earth > with a shock. For it has fallen prey to the global sharks, > attracted by investment subsidies before they move on > elsewhere. But resistance is building up once more as > Lorraine remembers its famous past battles. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1997/10/lorraine.html > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1997/10/longwy.html > > > ASIA > > Jostling for oil in Transcaucasia > by Vicken Cheterian > Eldorado or mirage? > > The September agreement between Russia and Chechnya to let > Azerbaijani oil flow through Russia and plans for other > pipelines has brought relative calm to the troubled Caucasus. > But will it make for lasting stability in the region? For the > countries bordering the Caspian and the Black Sea, as well as > for Russia and the United States, much is at stake. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1997/10/caspian.html > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1997/10/caucasus.html > > > ALGERIA FILE > > Algeria in the grip of terror > by Bruno Callies de Salies > > Since the summer we have seen the horrific slaughter of innocent > civilians, reputedly by armed Islamist groups, and there are > growing rumours of a coup. The central conflict between the > authorities and the Islamists has given way to fierce > divisions within the forces on either side. As the FIS has > distanced itself from the Islamist extremists of the GIA and > the security forces have reinforced their activities, the > remaining militants have resorted to knives, and confusion > grows. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1997/10/alger1.html > > Everyday life in Annaba > by Nadjia Bouzeghrane > > As the massacres continue, the whole of Algeria seems to be > drowning in a sea of blood. But some parts have escaped the > bloodshed. One such place is Annaba. Despite the shadow of > the late President Boudiaf's assassination there in 1992, the > town's chief concerns are economic. Already, steps have been > taken to attract foreign investors and create jobs by > resurrecting the steel industry and agriculture, and > investing in tourism and housing. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1997/10/alger2.html > > Hopes and lost illusions > by Baya Gacemi > > The women who fought side by side with the men to win Algeria's > independence have had to battle against a patriarchal society > and a reactionary family law. Now they are aghast to find > their daughters donning the veil. But appearances can be > deceptive. This new generation is deciding for itself what > modernity means to them. They will not be told what to do by > politicians, Islamic or otherwise - and they are bringing > home the money. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1997/10/alger3.html > > > AFRICA > > The virtual development of Africa > by Christian de Brie > > In the last months the international finance institutions have > been trying to promote the idea that Africa is on the road to > prosperity. But the statistics are dubious and figures > frequently manipulated to disguise the fact that structural > adjustment on a Western growth model has led to growing > poverty. And the people of Africa are the victims. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1997/10/africa.html > > Somaliland, a forgotten country > by Gérard Prunier > > The Republic of Somaliland, which broke away from the rest of > Somalia in 1991, has been denied recognition or aid. But poor > and isolated as it may be, it is pursuing a peaceful blend of > democracy and cultural tradition rarely found among its > neighbours which do receive international aid. Altogether it > is a unique experiment and an example to the rest of the > continent. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1997/10/somali.html > > > TECHNOLOGY > > Journalism and the challenge of the Internet > by Angel Agostini > > The Internet is creating big changes in the field of journalism. > Hoping to appeal to a youthful public which is fast > abandoning the printed word, the world's leading newspapers > are creating a presence for themselves on the Net, and making > imaginative efforts to transform the whole business of > providing news and information. In these still uncharted > waters, the least that can be said is that the new "reader" > will have access to unlimited information. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1997/10/internet.html > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > For more information on our English edition, please visit > > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/ > > To subscribe to our free "dispatch" mailing-list, send an > (empty) e-mail to: > > dispatch-on@london.monde-diplomatique.fr > > > To unsubscribe, send an (empty) e-mail to: > dispatch-off@london.monde-diplomatique.fr > > > From phuakl@sit.edu.my Fri Oct 17 03:17:30 1997 17 Oct 97 17:20:09 +1100 From: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:19:42 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) (Fwd) [sangkancil] SGNEW: Report by International Commis Money talks! ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- To: sangkancil@malaysia.net Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:03:54 Subject: [sangkancil] SGNEW: Report by International Commission of Jurists (fwd) From: pillai@mgg.pc.my (M.G.G. Pillai) Reply-to: pillai@mgg.pc.my (M.G.G. Pillai) ________________________________________________ This week's sponsors -The Asia Pacific Internet Company (APIC) Business Internet Services. Some talk. Some do. We talk and do! for instant info ________________________________________________ FORWARDED MAIL ------- From: forum@sintercom.org Date: 16 Oct 97 Originally To: sintercom-newsletter@list.sintercom.org --- start --- Report To the International Commission Of Jurists Geneva, Switzerland On a Defamation Trial in the High Court Of Singapore Goh Chok Tong Vs J. B Jeyaretnam August 18-22, 1997 1. BACKGROUND: 1.1 This was the first of eleven defamation actions commenced in January 1997 against Mr. Jeyaretnam, Secretary-General of the Workers' Party of Singapore, by the nation's Prime Minister (Mr.Goh), its Senior Minister (Mr. Lee Kwan Yew), and nine members of the Peoples' Action Party, including the two Deputy Prime Ministers and two Cabinet Ministers. 1.2 Because each of the eleven suits was brought on the basis of certain words spoken by Mr Jeyaretnam at an election rally for the Singapore General Election of January 1997, it was (during the course of the trial) agreed by all remaining plaintiffs that the trial judge's ruling on whether or not the words spoken were defamatory would be binding in all cases. The words were: "Mr.Tang Liang Hong has just placed before me two reports he has made against, you know, Mr. Goh Chok Tong and his people". 1.3 The plaintiffs in the following ten cases agreed that if Mr. Goh succeeded on the issue of liability, each of this cases would involve only the court's assessment of damages. 1.4 Singapore's leadership has a longstanding reputation for using defamation actions as a mechanism for removing opposition members from the Singapore parliament: far from tolerating critical remarks (not even those spoken or written in the heat of an election campaign), Messrs Goh and Lee have been swift to commence actions, to succeed with them, and to obtain such unconscionably high damages (and costs) as to bankrupt their opponents. 1.5 The Registrar of the High Court of Singapore provided this observer with a printout of all defamation actions heard to completion in the jurisdiction since 1959 (when the Peoples' Action Party first came to power). It shows the following: Actions by PAP politicians: Year Litigants Damages awarded 1979 Lee Kwan Yew v Jeyaretnam S$130,000 1988 Lee Kwan Yew v Seow Khee Leng S$250,000 1989 Lee Kwan Yew v Jeyaretnam S$230,000 1990 Lee Kwan Yew his son, and Goh Chok Tong v International Herald Tribune S$650,000 1994 Lee Kwan Yew v International Herald Tribune S$400,000 1996 Lee Kwan Yew & Son v Tang Liang Hong S$1,050,000 Actions by Non- PAP politicians: Year Litigants Damages awarded 1996 Company (imputation of incompetence) S$20,000 1995 Importer (imputation of bogus goods) S$100,000 1994 Bank (imputation of negligence) S$50,000 1992 Architect (imputation of fraud) S$60,000 1992 Architect (imputation of unethical conduct) damages S$45,000 1981 Lawyer (imputation of dishonesty) damages S$25,000 1969 Lawyer (imputation of insolvency) S$7,350 Mr Jeyaretnam sued Goh Chok Tong in 1987 (Imputation of trickery; defence of fair comment) and failed; the Workers' Party sued two PAP members, one the Attorney General, in 1974 (imputation of accepting of accepting foreign funds; and subversion; defence of privilege), but failed. 1.6 Earlier in 1997, Goh Chok Tong and the ten plaintiffs in the present actions has sued Mr Tang Liang Hong another Workers' Party candidate, who had alleged they conspired to defame him. Mr. Tang fled the jurisdiction, stating that he feared for his life. In his absence, all eleven suits were heard and the plaintiffs won damages totalling S$5, 825,000: Goh Chok Tong awarded damages of S$600,000, S$450,000 and S$350,000 (Total:S$1.4 million) Lee Kwan Yew awarded damages of S$550,000, S$400,000 and S$300,000 (Total:S$1.25 million) Lee Hsien Loong (son) awarded damages of S$350,000 Tony Tan Keng Yam awarded damages of S$350,000 Lee Yok Suan (son) awarded damages of S$300,000 Six other PAP members awarded damages of S$1,350,000 and $1,075,000. (NB: An appeal against these judgements was heard in Singapore on 23 and 24 September 1997, and the Appeal Court's decision was reserved.) 1.7 The abovementioned cases, it should be remembered, are only those that went to verdict. Many others have been brought by PAP members (including present plaintiffs) and settled out of the court. Few details of those are available. 1.8 One example of a settled case was reported to this observer by another defendant (an Opposition election candidate). In an election speech, he spoke words to the effect of: "Membership of the PAP is a wise career move" He was threaten with an action, and choose to apologise and pay $200,000, rather than face what he regarded as an inevitable verdict, and a crippling order for costs. The defendant, a retired man, had to sell his home to pay the S$200,000. 1.9 Mr Jeyaretnam had, in late June, made an application to the High Court for the ad hoc admission of an English QC (Mr George Carman) to represent him - on the grounds that he could get no expert local advocate to accept a case against the PAP leadership, and his application succeeded - although solely on the grounds that the defamation case was sufficiently difficult and complex to warrant a QC. Mr Goh, who opposed the application, then himself applied for the admission of an English QC (Mr Thomas Shields), and his unopposed request was granted. 2. THE DEFENDANT: 2.1 The personal circumstances of Mr Jeyaretnam are recited in the observers's report to the ICJ in respect of the 27 June 1997 application for ad hoc admission of Carman QC for the present hearing. 3. THE PLAINTIFFS: 3.1 The plaintiff is the Prime Minister of Singapore. 3.2 The plaintiffs in the associated actions are: Lee Kwan Yew, former Prime Minister and now the Government's Senior Minister; his sons Lee Hsien Loong (BG Lee), Deputy Prime Minister, and Lee Yok Suan, Minister for Trade and Industry, Tony Tan Keng Yam, Deputy Prime Minister; Teo Chee Hearn (Rear Admiral Teo), Minister for Education; Ch'ng Jit Koon, Senior Minister of State; Ow Chin Hock, (Dr Ow), Minister of Foreign Affairs; Chin Harn Tong, PAP Member of Parliament; Ker Sin Tze (Dr Ker), PAP Member of Parliament; and Seng Han Tong, PAP Member of Parliament. 4. THE TRIBUNAL: 4.1 The trial was presided over by Justice S Rajendran, without a jury. 4.2 It was reported to this observer that Justice Chao Hick Tin (who heard the plaintiffs' case against Tang Liang Hong) had been listed to hear the present matters, but - after he granted Mr Jeyaretnam's contested application to admit the QC - was replaced, and informed of the Government's displeasure. The High Court Registrar, however, has said that the trial judge was assigned to the cases, routinely, by himself and the Chief Justice. 5. THE ADVOCATES: 5.1 Shields QC appeared with Singapore juniors for Mr Goh. 5.2 Carman QC appeared with a Singapore junior for the defendant. 5.3 Throughout the hearing, counsel for the remaining ten plaintiffs sat at the bar tables. Despite being asked at the beginning of the trial to agree that the judge's decision on liability would be binding in each case (whereupon the lawyers could have withdrawn), the other plaintiffs' counsel remained for the duration of the hearing and only informed the Court that they agreed to be bound by the ruling on liability on the final day of the trial. That would mean that if Goh won a verdict, their cases would involved assessment of damages only. Their remaining in court may have been a deliberate tactic, calculated to hugely increase the costs the defendant would have to pay if all plaintiffs obtained a verdict. There was certainly no forensic reason for multiple counsel to remain for the entire five days. 6. OBSERVATION OF THE TRIAL: 6.1 Before the trial, this observer sent his ordre de mission to Justice Rajendran in his chambers. The judge sent out word that he would not see the observer until the hearing was over. It was, however, noted that the judge received a visit in his chambers during the hearing from Justice J Clifford Wallace of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, who was visiting Singapore privately, and who then spent a day observing the trial. 6.2 The ICJ observers were given a table at the side of the courtroom, High Court officials were unfailingly accommodating and courteous to the observers. 6.3 At all times, the courtroom was filled to capacity with spectators, and each day many were turned away. The spectators included interested members of the public, law students, lawyers, and a very large contingent of international and local journalists. 6.4 The entire trial was observed, except for the first part of the opening address by the plaintiff's counsel. 7. MEDIA INTEREST IN THE TRIAL: 7.1 Media coverage of the trial, both in Singapore and abroad, was extensive. The (Singapore) Straits Time's coverage was remarkable for its pro-Government bias: On 19 August, the morning after the trial started, the Straits Times reported on its front page that "Lawyers acting for Mr JB Jeyaretnam initiated talks for an out-of-court settlement ......said (the) press secretary to Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong last night". It is hard to imagine any jurisdiction in which such a report would not amount to a contempt of court. Further, there is reason to believe the allegation was untrue. On August 20, purporting to cover Carmen QC's cross examination of Mr Goh, the newspaper elected as its front-page headline "Jeya's action was "like throwing a Molotov cocktail", a self- serving and entirely hyperbolic claim made in evidence by the plaintiff, but the newspaper counsel: that Goh's belief in democracy and a free press was limited to "responsible" press; that his government did not censor offending publications, but merely "curtailed their circulations", that it would be "very wicked....cowardly and oppressive" to use the courts to silence political oppositions - but that Goh had commenced and settled numerous libel actions, and had banned the Asian Wall Street Journal. By contrast with the domestic coverage, the International Herald Tribune carried a Reuters' report which it headlined "Goh's Motives Questioned in Singapore Defamation Case", and reported the Prime Minister's denial of the question "You and your ten political colleagues saw this as a method of causing financial oppression on this 71-year-old man because you wanted him out of Parliament, and thought the court would provide a convenient method." Also on 20 August, the Straits Time's report was that "Yesterday's cross examination drew intermittent laughter from the public" failing to explain that the laughter was at the expense of Mr Goh. Elsewhere, the newspaper purported to report that in asking a question about Goh's "demeaning the high office of Prime Minister". Carman QC "took issue....rising in pitch", which was untrue, and went on "But Mr Goh did not rise to the bait". On 21 August, covering shields Q C's cross examination of Mr Jeyaretnam (in which no concessions were won from the witness), the paper's from page story was headlined "Jeya pleads ignorance" (of the contents of the Tang police reports about which he spoke) but that Shields QC "argued however that he must have known the contents". Much of the coverage was spent on the questions asked by the plaintiff's counsel, despite the fact that the answers did not favour his case. One example: "But the QC rejected his explanation..." 8. THE TRIAL: 8.1 The plaintiff's case was that the words spoken by the defendant (see 1.3, above) carried the imputation, whether alone or with the aid of extrinsic facts taking in the history and nature of Mr Tang's complaints against the several plaintiffs, that Goh was guilty of the crimes of criminal defamation and conspiracy. 8.2 The defence case was that the law of defamation will not permit an inference of guilt from the mere fact that a complaint has been made to the police. 8.3 Shields QC opened his case at substantial length on 18 August. On August 19, he called his only witness (the plaintiff), whose evidence was given in affidavit form and who was then cross examined. 8.4 On 20 August the defendant was called in his own cases. Again, he was the only witness. He wass cross examined. 8.5 Both counsel addressed on 21 August, and Shields QC completed his address on 22 August. On damages, Shields QC quantified the award he sought at S$200,000 (S$50,000 for aggravated damages). The aggravation upon which he relied was substantially that Carman Q C's conduct of defence (his cross examination of the Prime Minister) was "offensive". The defendant's case was that the words were not defamatory (least of all in the terms of the imputation of guilt, as pleaded) and that - because Mr Goh was awarded S$600,000 for precisely the same imputation when it was published by Mr Tang - damages, if there were any, should be no more than one dollar. 8.6 Justice Rajendran then adjourned, reserving his decision for "some weeks". 9. CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL: 9.1 Justice Rajendran conducted a courteous and efficient trial. Counsel was given time, if they needed it, to prepare their submissions. Both parties, when in the witness box, were heard without judicial interruption. 9.2 It was somewhat startling to see the court attendant serve the Prime Minister, when he was in the witness box under cross examination, with a pot of tea, milk and sugar, on a tray. No such refreshment was provided to Mr Jeyaretnam, but the event probably had more to do with the court attendant's priorities thay anything sinister. 9.3 Justice Rajendran's interventions were so few as to be remarkable. He sat through many hours of counsel's submissions without asking any questions or making any comments. 9.4 There were, however, two interventions by the judge which raised some concerns with his observer. The first was when Carman QC was cross examining the Prime Minister, and raised the subject of political repression in Singapore. He used the words "climate of fear". Rajendran J then said words to the effect of "I will not allow questions on that subject", to which Carman QC responded: "Am I not allowed to put (my client's) case? Is that what you want me to do in Singapore?" Almost immediately, Shields QC intervened to tell Rajendran J that he did not object to questions on the subject that the judge had said he would not permit: but that the question ought to be rephrased because of its form. Rajendran J then permitted the cross examination to continue. The second intervention by the judge was at the very end of the trial. Rajendran J had, by then, listened to some nine hours of addresses on the law of defamation as a it applied to the present case. As Shields QC was completing his submission, the judge asked several questions that betrayed an almost total ignorance of the technicalities of this specialist area of law. As one of the most senior lawyers present (he represented one of the group of plaintiffs) said to this observer; "It was like playing baseball, getting to third base, and finding the umpire doesn't know the rules of the game". The significance of appointing to such a sensitive case a judge patently unfamiliar with defamation law escaped few of the lawyers present. 9.5 After both counsel had completed their submissions on liability and damages, Rajendran J adjourned the court saying "some weeks are indicated" (before his judgement would be delivered). That, too, was somewhat troubling. This was a simple enough case: only two witnesses, and the crucial issue was whether or not the plaintiff's imputation arose. As to that question, all the relevant precedents pointed to a verdict for the defendant. The general view of the lawyers present was that Rajendran J should have been able to deliver his verdict immediately after the plaintiff's submission in reply, or within hours of it. Some were concerned that the judge may have reserved for reasons other than to deliberate on the law and the evidence, but other saw the delay as quite normal. 10. THE JUDGEMENT: 10.1 On 29 September 1997, Rajendran J's judgement was handed down. In short, he found for the plaintiff, and awarded compensatory damages of S$10,000 with aggravated damages of a further S$10,000. 10.2 The judge ordered that the defendant pay 60 percent of the plaintiff's costs. This is the more significant financial penalty on the defendant, in that it will in Goh's case alone amount to some S$100, 000 and the ten separate actions (even if heard together) will multiply that figure. 11. COMMENTS ON THE JUDGEMENT: 11.1 The published judgement runs to 142 pages, which is barely believable. As noted above, this was a simple case - hardly justifying such an extraordinary excursus. An analysis of the judgement gives rise to the following observations: 11.1.1 The judgement recites the background facts at great length, dealing first with the conflict between the PAP leadership and Tang Liang Hong. Tang was subjected to vilification and defamation by the PAP leaders in the general election campaign, and had threatened legal action if he did not receive an apology. Goh refused, prompting Tang to give an interview to the Straits Times in which he said the PAP leaders "are defaming (me), assassinating my character. They concocted lies..." In turn, Goh demanded a withdrawal of Tang's words. Tang then filed two police reports against Goh and others. 11.1.2 In summarising the fact, the judgement records that Jeyaretnam did not "overly" assert that the plaintiff was lying or conspiring the keep Tang out of parliament - but that he did state his opinion that Tang did not warrant the attacks made on him. 11.1.3 The judgement then sets out the words (see 1.3 above) spoken by Jeyaretnam, telling the crowd at an election rally that Tang had just placed before him the reports he made to police. He said nothing about their comments. 11.1.4 The evidence established that it was Goh Chok Tong and Lee Kwan Yew who released the contents of the Tang complaints to the mass media generally, on the morning after they were filed with the police. The judgement recites the litigation against Tang, and its outcome. 11.1.5 Rajendran J than moves on to discuss "the Law of Defamation and Freedom of Speech". He begins by spending time on inapplicable United States law (New York Times v Sullivan) and irrelevant English Law (Derbyshire County Council v Times); the defence of justification (which was not pleaded in the present case). He then moves to the Jeyaretnam defence - that, the words are not defamatory - with which he eventually agrees, but that is by no means the end of the case. 11.1.6 The judgement notes: "the defendant did not go so far as to suggest any complicity on the part of the (Singapore) judges in (the plaintiff's alleged misuse of the courts to bankrupt political opponents). To the contrary, the defendant specially informed the court that he has every confidence in the impartiality and fairness of the court". And goes on "to briefly address this issue" of political leaders resorting to the courts to pursue their claims in the light of the principle of the independence of the judiciary. He refers to the Constitutional obligation upon the judges to discharge their duties without fear or favour. The judge then states he will decide the issues "frankly and in accordance with established legal principles". 11.1.7 Thereafter, the judgement turns to Legal Principles - dealing with the fundamental (and elementary) concepts of publications (which was not in issue); then leaping to special damages (also not in issue); the meaning of "defamatory" in general; the 'ordinary reasonable recipient' test; the non-issue of the defendant's intention in speaking the words; and the non-issue of whether the recipient need to believe the words spoken; and the non-issue of the plaintiff's perception of the meaning of the words. 11.1.8 When the judgement turns to the question of whether the words spoken were defamatory, a great deal of time is spent on reciting first-principles law dealing with innuendo meanings (none was pleaded by the plaintiff). The judge then notes that he was invited by the plaintiff's counsel, in the event that he found the imputation pleaded did not arise, to consider what lesser shades odf defamatory meaning arose. Inevitably, the judgement rejects the plaintiff's imputation (of guilt). Rajendran J followed the House of Lords' decision in Lewis v Daily Telegraph and the English Court of Appeal decision in Mapp v News Group in doing so. Then, doing the plaintiff's work for him, Rajendran J proceeds to formulate a defamatory imputation that he considers does arise from the words spoken by the defendant: the Plaintiff may have conducted himself in such a manner that it is possible he will be investigated or some offence or other. 11.1.9 The judgement then proceeds to consider whether extrinsic facts would have been known to the audience, the judge was satisfied that the audience "would know full well the background against which the defendant's comments were made"; and that the words must have imported the meaning that in Mr Tang's view, the plaintiff had committed an act of serious enough proportions to merit a police report, and that (Tang) was inviting a police investigation... 11.1.10 Moving on to reject a submission that the defendant had adopted Tang's words, the judgement finds another imputation arises: that the issue was of sufficient gravity that the police would not dismiss it as a mere nuisance although it is indeed difficult to follow this reasoning and its conclusion. The judgement continues: the defendant's words.....carry the suggestion that the plaintiff may, in making those allegations against Mr Tang have done something wrong. 11.1.11 Rajendran J decides the liability issue by referring to the various imputations he found to arise, and holding that the plaintiff had established the lesser defamatory meaning (sic) referred to above. His claim against the defendant therefore succeeds to the extent. 11.1.12 Next, the judge considers the defendant's liability for republication of his words by the Straits Times (the issue was whether republication was the natural and probable consequence of his action). Here, he finds against the defendant. 11.1.13 At page 90 of the judgement, Rajendran J turns to the issue of the quantum of damages. He considers recent development in England, where the Court of Appeal has called for a more considerate proportionality between libel damages and those awarded to plaintifffs "rendered helpless cripples or insensate vegetables" by personal injuries, but considers himself bound by the dictum of Lord Hailsham in Brooms v Cassell. No fewer then 28 pages are spent in deliberating on the factors relevant to the assessment of damages. 11.1.14 Dealing with the issue of aggravated damages, the judgement considers the plaintiff's claim that damages were aggravated by Carman Q C's "wide-ranging attack on the credit and credibility of the prime Minister", and in particular to cross examination referred to at 9.4 above. International media reporting of this aspect of the hearing was relied upon by the plaintiff as a further aggravating factor. The judge points out that the cross examination relied upon as aggravating damages was expressly not objected to by Shields QC, and expresses the view that the cross examination was, although an attempt to politicise the case, proper and relevant. Yet the judge says: Had (Mr Shields) protested more vigorously during the cross examination... I would have been prepared to intervene. 11.1.15 But then comes a passage in which the judge finds of the cross examination that In the end, Mr Carman's allegation were not made out. There was no proof. The allegations were spectacular but unsubstantiated....... Mr Carman was not entitled to raise the issue if he had no sustainable grounds for doing so.....in this case the rhetoric was an attack on the plaintiff as Prime Minister....the questions were directed at....the press in order to denigrate the Prime Minister and the way he governs Singapore. For such conduct aggravated damages is payable. 11.1.16 Compensatory damages of S$10,000 were awarded (taking particularly into account the "high standing and reputation of the plaintiff" - of which no evidence was called); and aggravated damages of a further S$10,000 were added on the basis of the defendant's recklessness in speaking the words and the conduct of his defence at the trial. 11.1.17 Referring to other ten cases against the defendant, Rajendran J declared that it remained for those plaintiffs to prove they were identified by the defendant's words; and added, in reference to the remaining plaintiffs' claims for aggravated damages: it remains to be seen whether the defendant persists in conducting his defence in the same fashion as he did in this case. 11.1.18 In making his costs orders, the judge was highly critical of the plaintiff's pleadings and their "unreasonable assertions" which resulted in the case being "overstated". Accordingly, the plaintiff was awarded only 60 percent of his costs (which it is understood will be in the vicinity of S$100,000). 12 THE DECISION - SOME CAUSES FOR CONCERN: 12.1 The most troubling aspect of the decision is the judge's undue deference to the plaintiff. He came to the court as an ordinary citizen, not as the Prime Minister, but it is impossible to escape the impression that Rajendran J treated him as a litigant of higher status than he was entitled to. That attitude informed not just the award of aggravated damages, but findings of fact on issues (notably reputation and injury to it) where no evidence was adduced. 12.2 The finding that the words were defamatory - but not as pleaded by the plaintiff - is equally of concern. For the judge to formulate a "lesser meaning" in a court system that is strict in its pleadings seems at best unfortunate, in that natural justice is denied to a defendant who may well wish to plead justification to the imputation that was eventually formulated, but had no opportunity to do so. In the present case, a plea of truth to the imputation(s) as formulated by the trial judge would have been entirely appropriate. It would be unfortunate indeed if the judge's articulation of a lesser meaning imputation were irregular within the Singapore judicial system - because it would strongly suggest that the Prime Minister had been given specially favourable treatment to avoid the embarrassment of losing his case. Reviewing the High Court Registrar's printout, it would certainly appear that unsuccessful plaintiffs have failed because their imputations did not arise (see, especially., Bored Pilling v Huat & Ors (1994); Bok v Lim (1989); Overseas Chinese Bank v Business Times (1994); Straits Times v Workers Party (1986). It is also noteworthy that non-PAP plaintiffs who failed to prove reputational harm in another case were awarded contemptuous damages of S$10 (Rahman & Ors v Eddit &Ors (1995). (signed) Stuart Littlemore QC St. James Hall Chambers 169 Philip Street, SYDNEY 2000 Australia 1 October 1997 --- end --- -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -________________________________________________ List Owner: M.G.G. Pillai Free Homepages on malaysia.net - send blank Check out the malaysia.net web site on List Postings to ________________________________________________ From austria@it.com.pl Fri Oct 17 05:09:32 1997 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:10:32 +0200 (MET DST) Reply-To: From: "Austrian Embassy" To: Subject: Fw: Geopolitique du chaos Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 12:11:37 +0100 This will interest you all. Kind regards Arno Tausch ---------- > From: Le Monde diplomatique > To: Le Monde diplomatique > Subject: Geopolitique du chaos > Date: Donnerstag, 16. Oktober 1997 17:49 > > > Géopolitique du chaos > > > un livre d'Ignacio Ramonet > > > > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/livre/geopol/ > > Editions Galilée. Collection « L'espace critique ». > 15x24, 160 pages, 148 F. > > > > Le directeur du Monde diplomatique propose une grille de lecture > originale, judicieuse et claire pour bien comprendre l'actuel > désordre du monde. > > Mondialisation, cyberculture et chaos politique > > Dans un monde interdépendant, la protection de l'environnement > relève désormais de la haute politique. Il faut des réponses > globales à des questions cruciales sur la démographie, la > techno-science, l'effet de serre, le sous-développement, le système > de sécurité, etc. Mais l'envergure des défis fait douter du futur. > > Le rythme précipité et la profondeur des transformations > géopolitiques, en cette fin de millénaire, change le sens et la > perception de notre état. Annoncent-elles une ère de grandes > turbulences ? Beaucoup le craignent qui constatent à quel point la > chute des régimes d'Europe de l'Est, l'unification allemande, la > guerre du Golfe, l'éclatement de l'URSS, la mondialisation de > l'économie, la renaissance de la Chine, la nouvelle hégémonie des > Etats-Unis et la double faillite du communisme et de > l'ultra-libéralisme bouleversent la donne stratégique dessinant un > nouveau paysage planétaire. A quoi ressemble celui-ci ? Quels > États, quelles forces, quelles idées émergent dans ce contexte ? > Quel est le système de pensée dominant ? Quelles chances, quels > risques pour les citoyens ? > > I. R. > > ______________________________________________________________ > > Sommaire > > - Introduction. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/livre/geopol/intro.html > > 1. La mutation du futur. > > 2. La néohégémonie américaine. > > 3. Régimes globalitaires. > > 4. Le système PPII. > > 5. Montée de l'irrationnel. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/livre/geopol/irrationnel.html > > 6. Le matin des tribus. > > 7. Les rébellions à venir. > > 8. L'agonie de la culture. > > 9. L'ère Internet. > > - Postface. Le modèle archipel. > > ______________________________________________________________ > > Prix : 148 F (environ 30 $ am.). Si vous désirez commander ce livre, > veuillez vous adresser à : > > * Librairie Interférences, 33, rue Linné, 75005 Paris. > tél.: 33 1 47 07 70 06 ; > fax : 33 1 45 35 58 84 ; > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/librairie_interferences/ > > mél.: 101466.1065@compuserve.com > > > Paiement par cartes VISA, Mastercard, ou American Express. > > Les éditions Galilée offrent les frais de port aux lecteurs > du « Monde diplomatique sur Internet ». > > > From rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU Fri Oct 17 12:10:04 1997 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:06:20 -0700 (MST) From: Richard N Hutchinson To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Antonio Negri Imprisoned In Italy (fwd) I encourage you to consider signing this petition. Antonio Negri has been one of the leading theorists of anti-systemic movements since the 1960s, and is now incarcerated in Italy. Richard Hutchinson ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:53:53 -0700 From: Arm The Spirit Reply-To: ats-l@burn.ucsd.edu Subject: Antonio Negri Imprisoned In Italy [Antonio Negri, the author of "Marx Beyond Marx", among other works, and "patron saint" of the Autonome groups in Italy in the 1970s, recently returned to Italy after fourteen years in exile. He is in need of the support of other revolutionary socialists and I encourage you all to participate in this E-mail petition campaign. - Peter Urban, Irish Republican Socialist Movement] Antonio Negri Imprisoned In Italy Many on the left will have come across Antonio Negri's writings on Marxist theory and related topics. His involvement in Italian politics during the 1970s led to him spending fourteen years in exile - a particularly dramatic version of an experience shared with many politically active academics in the 60s and 70s. What is more unusual about Negri's situation is that he chose to go back after a decade and a half, as an act of support for those who are still in prison or in exile. The petition at the end of this message calls on the Italian state to introduce an amnesty for all political prisoners from the period and to abrogate the emergency laws under which they were tried. There's an E-mail address for signatures. Laurence Cox, An Caorthann ----- Freedom For Toni Negri! - PETITION FREEDOM FOR TONI NEGRI PUTTING AN END TO THE "YEARS OF LEAD" IN ITALY Toni Negri has been in prison in Rome since July 1, 1997. He has been sentenced to more than 13 years in prison, not counting another conviction that is now in the appeal process. After residing in France in exile since 1983, he returned to Italy voluntarily in the hope that his action would contribute to the resolution of the problem of the exiles and prisoners who are wanted or convicted for the political activities of the 1970s in Italy, the so-called "years of lead". About 180 people are still in Italian prisons under these charges and about 150 are in exile, the majority of them in France. Toni Negri was a professor at the University of Padua and his writings are well-known throughout the world. He was arrested on April 7, 1979 and accused of "armed insurrection against the powers of the State". To support this accusation, his accusers presented him as the secret leader of the Red Brigades, the armed group that had kidnapped and assassinated Aldo Moro, President of the Christian Democratic Party. Negri has always denied this absurd accusation and he was later formally acquitted of this charge. Charges against him were modified numerous times. After four and a half years of preventive detention, he was elected to parliament as a representative of the Radical Party and was consequently released from prison. When the Chamber of Deputies subsequently voted by a narrow margin to strip him of his parliamentary immunity and send him back to prison, he fled to France. The court procedures against him continued in his absence and led to convictions under several charges and in several different trials. At the time, Amnesty International denounced the serious legal irregularities of Negri's trial and those of his colleagues at the University of Padua. During his exile, Toni Negri worked in France as a teacher at the University of Paris VIII, at the College International de Philosophie, and as a social science researcher. He published numerous books during this period. Due to his notoriety Negri has become the emblematic figure of the Italian radical Left of the 1970s. Beginning in the Autumn of 1969 there began in Italy a period of intense social conflicts that were exacerbated by the very ambiguous role of certain State agencies in what was called a "strategy of tension", in other words, the manipulation of the neo-fascist groups responsible for a deadly bombing campaign at such sites as Piazza Fontana and the Bologna train station. The radicalization of the Italian extra-parliamentary Left and the social movements led a large number of activists toward the path of wide-spread political violence and a few of them toward armed struggle. Between 1976 and 1980, tens of thousands of activists were pursued by the police and more than five thousand arrested. Hundreds of long-term sentences were handed out on the basis of emergency laws that are still in effect, including principally the so-called law of the "repentants". This law makes the testimony of accused persons who have "repented" the sufficient basis for the conviction of others, and allows for them to be set free in return for having turned State's evidence. Another emergency measure allows for preventive detention to extend retroactively up to twelve years. This measure is radically incompatible with the principles of the rule of law and the basic rules of penal procedure as they are defined by articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and protected by the European Court of Human Rights. One can assume that the highly contestable nature of such legislation is what has led Italy's democratic neighbors such as France and Great Britain to have serious doubts about these cases and not to act on the majority of the more than seventy requests for extradition presented by Italian authorities, regardless of the political party in power. For the same reason, undoubtedly, the over five hundred refugees who have been accepted in France over these years have never been disturbed or harassed. These refugees have integrated into French society, finding work and building families. Now they do not want to risk their futures and the lives they have constructed in order to resolve twenty-five-year old sentences that were handed down in such dubious emergency conditions. The object of this appeal should not be interpreted in any way to condone the real or supposed activities of those pursued and convicted for their activities during the "years of lead". The refugees have declared unambiguously that the "war" is over. "That period has ended." A democracy worthy of that name must be able to turn the page. Today these nearly four hundred exiles and prisoners are excluded from Italian society. A problem of this order cannot be resolved on a case by case basis, but must be addressed with a general solution. A bill for an "indulto" (a reduction of sentences by a vote of parliament) was introduced nine years ago but has not yet come up for a vote. Such a bill would have positive effects, but it would not resolve the refugees' problems. The only solution for Toni Negri and his unfortunate companions would be an amnesty. The only amnesty that has been passed in Italy was in 1946, which Togliatti supported with regard to the fascists. On the other hand, for the activities linked to France's war in Algeria and concerning actions of a gravity more or less equivalent to those committed in the 1970s in Italy, France granted an amnesty to both the deserting soldiers and the members of the OAS. Since we support the principles of the rule of law and the re-establishment of human rights everywhere for everyone, as Italy prepares for integration into the new Europe, we ask urgently that the Italian members of parliament respond favorably to this appeal for clemency by passing an amnesty law as soon as possible. We also ask the representatives of the European Union to take appropriate measures to insure the swift release of Toni Negri. If he symbolized one era, then his release will symbolize another, calmer one. Finally, by repealing the series of exceptional measures that are incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights, Italy would live up to its central role in the new Europe. ------------------------------------------- PETITION Having understood the circumstances, we support the appeal in favor of the release of Toni Negri in order to put an end to the "years of lead" in Italy. Toni Negri was in France for fourteen years. He sought refuge there in 1983 after serving four and a half years of preventive detention in Italy. He has now returned voluntarily to Italy where he has been sentenced to prison for eminently political reasons on the basis of an arsenal of emergency measures (such as convictions based solely on the testimony of "repentants" and extended preventive detention) that are incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights. He has been in prison since July 1, 1997 and his release (which will likely be only a work release) has still not come about. Four hundred people are excluded from Italian society on the basis of political activity conducted twenty years ago. The more than 150 refugees in France do not want to destroy the lives they have constructed in order to address these sentences based on emergency measures. European authorities on the Right and the Left have not extradited the refugees back to Italy, and they have thus expressed sotto voce their disdain for the Italian procedures. The wide-spread political violence of the Italian social struggles, which has been conflated under the label of Italian "terrorism," is something that ended long ago. Can a democracy apply to those accused of political crimes (twenty years after the fact) measures more severe than those used in common criminal cases? The release of Toni Negri must finally lead toward an amnesty that has been too long in coming. Only the abrogation of the emergency measures and the parliamentary passage of an amnesty bill can finally put an end to the "years of lead". As long as these conditions are not met, we urge the countries of the European Union to guarantee the residency of the Italian exiles. We ask finally that the members of parliament of the other countries of the Union and those of the Strasbourg Assembly do all they can to resolve these problems. Please send signatures to Yann Moulier Boutang by fax or e-mail. fax: +331.45.41.53.91 E-mail: Yann.M.Boutang@wanadoo.fr (Include your name or title, address, and telephone, fax, or e-mail address.) From OWENJACK@FS.isu.edu Fri Oct 17 13:49:19 1997 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:52:05 -0600 (MDT) From: "J B Owens" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:53:45 -0600, MDT Subject: Global Problems Text--request for feedback FYI. Jack Owens ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:57:11 -0400 Reply-to: H-NET List for World History From: Patrick Manning Subject: Global Problems Text--request for feedback From: Richard H. Robbins, SUNY at Plattsburgh I've just finished a book for Allyn & Bacon, Publishers tentatively entitled Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. The book will be part of their anthropology offerings and is directed primarily to upper-level courses, although I think it may get some use in introductory-level courses as well. Since the book draws generously from world-systems approaches, as well as history and economics in general, I would appreciate knowing whether or not it might be of interest to historians who teach world history, or sociologists who deal with global issues. The table of contents along with the introduction to each chapter is available on my web site at http://www.plattsburgh.edu/legacy/global.htm If for some reason that doesn't work you can reach it at http://www.plattsburgh.edu/legacy/ At that point you need to just select Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. Any feedback will be appreciated. The book is due out for the Fall of 1998. The web site also has some additional material, particularly a selected internet resource page, that may be of some use for classroom use. The Capitalist Legacy site contains material that I used last year for a course we did on the internet. From asajh@UAA.ALASKA.EDU Sun Oct 19 13:39:58 1997 Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 11:51:00 -0700 From: Andrew Hund Subject: GENETIC ENGINEERING MISTAKES "GENIE IN BOTTLE" To: psn-cafe@csf.colorado.edu boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01BCDC85.44B98020" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BCDC85.44B98020 charset="iso-8859-1" Brussels, Belgium 14 October 1997 =20 Many mistakes are occurring in the laboratory and the environment as a = result of genetic engineering, but the warning signs are being largely = ignored, Greenpeace revealed in a new report published today.=20 The report, "Genetic Engineering: Too Good to go Wrong?" is the first = compilation of a number of different genetic engineering developments = around the world which have produced quite unexpected, and often = alarming results, including genetically engineered bacteria which:=20 a.. unexpectedly killed beneficial soil fungi;=20 b.. escaped into sewers through human error and unanticipated = pathways=20 c.. have become toxic to plants or survived when they weren't = expected to.=20 Author of the report, Dr Doug Parr, says it shows that things will = inevitably go wrong in genetic engineering, against all the best = predictions. As genetic engineering deals with living organisms which = reproduce, and as most of the industry is focused on engineering plants = for agricultural applications, the mistakes will be very difficult to = control once out in the fields.=20 "It's like the genie in the bottle: once it's out, you cannot put it = back. There is very little appreciation of the inherent unpredictability = of the science of genetic engineering. Already there are too many cases = of things going wrong," said Parr.=20 Yet Governments seem awe-struck by the genetic engineering industry, = which produces most of the scientific output on the subject. The boom in = the biotechnology industry relies on "good news" to keep share prices = up, thus creating strong pressure on the source science.=20 "The science of genetic engineering is unpredictable, but few, from = scientists to Governments, dare raise the fact that today's 'Golden = Goose' of industry is laying some rotten eggs," said Susan Leubuscher, = of Greenpeace's European Unit.=20 "In a few years' time, it will be easy to say 'we shouldn't have done = it'. Do we have to have a disaster on the scale of BSE before the = European Commission finally wakes up and bans genetic experiments in our = agriculture and our food?" said Leubuscher.=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:=20 Susan Lebuscher or Isabelle Meister on ++32 2 280 1400=20 Andrew Hund http://cwolf.uaa.alaska.edu/~asajh/Soc/ ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BCDC85.44B98020 charset="iso-8859-1"
 

Brussels, Belgium 14 October 1997 =20

Many mistakes are occurring in the laboratory and the environment as = a result=20 of genetic engineering, but the warning signs are being largely ignored, = Greenpeace revealed in a new report published today.=20

The report, "Genetic Engineering: Too Good to go Wrong?" is = the=20 first compilation of a number of different genetic engineering = developments=20 around the world which have produced quite unexpected, and often = alarming=20 results, including genetically engineered bacteria which:=20

  • unexpectedly killed beneficial soil fungi;=20
  • escaped into sewers through human error and unanticipated = pathways=20
  • have become toxic to plants or survived when they weren't = expected to.=20

Author of the report, Dr Doug Parr, says it shows that things will = inevitably=20 go wrong in genetic engineering, against all the best predictions. As = genetic=20 engineering deals with living organisms which reproduce, and as most of = the=20 industry is focused on engineering plants for agricultural applications, = the=20 mistakes will be very difficult to control once out in the fields.=20

"It's like the genie in the bottle: once it's out, you cannot = put it=20 back. There is very little appreciation of the inherent unpredictability = of the=20 science of genetic engineering. Already there are too many cases of = things going=20 wrong," said Parr.=20

Yet Governments seem awe-struck by the genetic engineering industry, = which=20 produces most of the scientific output on the subject. The boom in the=20 biotechnology industry relies on "good news" to keep share = prices up,=20 thus creating strong pressure on the source science.=20

"The science of genetic engineering is unpredictable, but few, = from=20 scientists to Governments, dare raise the fact that today's 'Golden = Goose' of=20 industry is laying some rotten eggs," said Susan Leubuscher, of=20 Greenpeace's European Unit.=20

"In a few years' time, it will be easy to say 'we shouldn't have = done=20 it'. Do we have to have a disaster on the scale of BSE before the = European=20 Commission finally wakes up and bans genetic experiments in our = agriculture and=20 our food?" said Leubuscher.=20

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:=20

Susan Lebuscher or Isabelle Meister on ++32 2 280 1400

Andrew Hund
http://cwolf.uaa.alaska.= edu/~asajh/Soc/
------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BCDC85.44B98020-- From chriscd@jhu.edu Mon Oct 20 12:06:44 1997 Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:04:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:01:05 -0400 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: george modelski and evolutionary politics To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu This to announce George Modelski's new home page on Evolutionary Politics: http://weber.u.washington.edu/~modelski/evolution.html This site is linked to the Bios subdirectory of the World-Systems Archive. Please check out George's page and send me other relevant links for the World-Systems Archive. chris chase-dunn From zow@ns.twinwave.net Mon Oct 20 14:42:33 1997 From: "Otto W. Ziegelmeier" To: WSN@csf.colorado.edu Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:44:50 +01:0 Subject: can you help me?! For a thesis with the title "women/men and computers" I look for informations and research works about the following topics and questions: 1. How often (week/month) and how long (hours a day) are young people using a computer? 2. Which positive and negative consequences (changes in the usual behavior, thinking and acting) are known by frequent computer use of young people? 3. Which social consequences causes the computer? (good and bad) 4. Research works, material about the interaction "women/men and computers". 5. Which social and sociological questions result from the relationship "women/men and computers"? 6. Which ethical questions arise from the relationship "women/men and computers"? I would be very grateful to you for your help and informations! Yours sincerely Otto W. Ziegelmeier zow@twinwave.net zow@twinwave.net From athan.kokkinias@utoronto.ca Mon Oct 20 16:36:34 1997 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:24:19 -0400 To: zow@ns.twinwave.net, WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK From: "Athanasios (Tom) Kokkinias" Subject: Re: can you help me?! Dear Otto, As a roundabout way, why don't you try any of Neil Postman's books on media, technology (including computers) and how these various media have contributed to the present state of affeirs (note, I withold from commenting on your below suggestion for comments on this issue either "good" or "bad".) I think that the work he has done is instructive, though, unfortunately, I am not versed enough on Postman to offer suggestions for research along his lines of work. A tid-bit I hope helps, Regards, Tom At 05:44 PM 30/09/97 -0400, Otto W. Ziegelmeier wrote: >For a thesis with the title "women/men and computers" I look for >informations and research works about the following topics and >questions: > >1. How often (week/month) and how long (hours a day) are young people >using a computer? >2. Which positive and negative consequences (changes in the usual >behavior, thinking and acting) are known by frequent computer use of >young people? >3. Which social consequences causes the computer? (good and bad) >4. Research works, material about the interaction "women/men and >computers". >5. Which social and sociological questions result from the >relationship "women/men and computers"? >6. Which ethical questions arise from the relationship "women/men and >computers"? > >I would be very grateful to you for your help and informations! > >Yours sincerely >Otto W. Ziegelmeier >zow@twinwave.net >zow@twinwave.net > From athan.kokkinias@utoronto.ca Mon Oct 20 17:45:18 1997 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:40:43 -0400 To: To: From: "Athanasios (Tom) Kokkinias" Subject: Re: can you help me?! >Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:24:19 -0400 >Reply-To: athan.kokkinias@utoronto.ca >X-nder: owner-wsn@csf.colorado.edu >From: "Athanasios (Tom) Kokkinias" >To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK >Subject: Re: can you help me?! >X-To: zow@ns.twinwave.net, WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK >X-Sender: athan.kokkinias@mailbox47.utcc.utoronto.ca >X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN > >Dear Otto, > >As a roundabout way, why don't you try any of Neil Postman's books on >media, technology (including computers) and how these various media have >contributed to the present state of affeirs (note, I withold from >commenting on your below suggestion for comments on this issue either >"good" or "bad".) > >I think that the work he has done is instructive, though, unfortunately, I >am not versed enough on Postman to offer suggestions for research along his >lines of work. > >A tid-bit I hope helps, > >Regards, Tom > > > >At 05:44 PM 30/09/97 -0400, Otto W. Ziegelmeier wrote: >>For a thesis with the title "women/men and computers" I look for >>informations and research works about the following topics and >>questions: >> >>1. How often (week/month) and how long (hours a day) are young people >>using a computer? >>2. Which positive and negative consequences (changes in the usual >>behavior, thinking and acting) are known by frequent computer use of >>young people? >>3. Which social consequences causes the computer? (good and bad) >>4. Research works, material about the interaction "women/men and >>computers". >>5. Which social and sociological questions result from the >>relationship "women/men and computers"? >>6. Which ethical questions arise from the relationship "women/men and >>computers"? >> >>I would be very grateful to you for your help and informations! >> >>Yours sincerely >>Otto W. Ziegelmeier >>zow@twinwave.net >>zow@twinwave.net >> > > From PAT.LAUDERDALE@ASU.Edu Mon Oct 20 19:31:24 1997 From: PAT.LAUDERDALE@ASU.Edu 20 Oct 1997 18:31:09 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:39:01 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: can you help me?! To: "Otto W. Ziegelmeier" Marie Mies and Claudia von Werlhof have written cogently on most of the issues. Their research is highly critical of the genesis of the technology, many of the primary uses of the computer, who controls the technology, the issue of gender in this context, and who has been left beside or burried by the "information highway." Their work is a resonable balance to the obvious advantages and the overblown kudos. On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Otto W. Ziegelmeier wrote: > For a thesis with the title "women/men and computers" I look for > informations and research works about the following topics and > questions: > > 1. How often (week/month) and how long (hours a day) are young people > using a computer? > 2. Which positive and negative consequences (changes in the usual > behavior, thinking and acting) are known by frequent computer use of > young people? > 3. Which social consequences causes the computer? (good and bad) > 4. Research works, material about the interaction "women/men and > computers". > 5. Which social and sociological questions result from the > relationship "women/men and computers"? > 6. Which ethical questions arise from the relationship "women/men and > computers"? > > I would be very grateful to you for your help and informations! > > Yours sincerely > Otto W. Ziegelmeier > zow@twinwave.net > zow@twinwave.net > From phuakl@sit.edu.my Mon Oct 20 19:53:59 1997 21 Oct 97 09:57:15 +1100 From: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:56:43 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) [sangkancil] SG DAILY: Washington Post: The (Open) Road ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- To: sangkancil@malaysia.net Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:20:00 Subject: [sangkancil] SG DAILY: Washington Post: The (Open) Road to Singapore (fwd) From: pillai@mgg.pc.my (M.G.G. Pillai) Reply-to: pillai@mgg.pc.my (M.G.G. Pillai) ________________________________________________ This week's sponsors -The Asia Pacific Internet Company (APIC) Business Internet Services. Some talk. Some do. We talk and do! for instant info ________________________________________________ FORWARDED MAIL ------- From: forum@sintercom.org (Wynthia Goh) Date: 20 Oct 97 Originally To: sgdaily@list.sintercom.org The Washington Post The (Open) Road to Singapore By Nora Boustany Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, October 17, 1997; Page A32 The Washington Post=20 While issues of immigration are becoming a flash point between conservative and liberal ideologues here, other countries have decided to take a leaf out of the book of the American immigrant experience. Singapore's ambassador here, Heng-Chee Chan, has unveiled an enterprising national initiative to attract immigrants, urging young and adventurous professionals seeking a bright future to "go west" -- farther, farther and farther west until they hit Asia, a region she described as "full of opportunities". Singapore's post-colonial educational system is growing stronger and more productive every year, she said in an interview, but "we recognize that we need more people to contribute to our vision for an intelligent city, a city of the future." The idea of seeking immigrants stemmed from a survey of thriving societies, such as those of the United States and Britain, which prosper because of their openness and diversity, she said. "We discovered that societies that are open remain innovative and move on." Such demographic engineering, she said, is aimed at keeping Singapore's economy dynamic and in perpetual renewal through "cross-fertilization" in the fields of information technology, engineering, pharmaceuticals, and research and development, as well as banking. "You will continue to see growth in these [diverse] countries," she said. "That is why Singapore is quite confident in recruiting talent." Singapore, one of Asia's four "economic tigers," is fighting the notion that recent glitches in Southeast Asian economies indicate that the much talked about miracle of regional growth is a myth. She insists that although there may have been some hype about the economic miracle all along, no one can deny the last 30 years of steady growth took some countries from the developing stage to the advanced developing stage, with growth rates of 7 percent and beyond into double digits. "It did not come out of nothing but because of sheer hard work and the right package of policies, so maybe the word miracle was a misnomer," she added. No country can sustain such growth forever, she said. "Now there is a correction that is needed, and there will be a period of painful but necessary adjustment," Chan said of her government's response to a recent bout of currency fluctuations that led the Singapore dollar to slip vis a vis the U.S. dollar. Before globalization, she said, weaknesses in the economy remained hidden; now they are more accessible and subject to pressure. The "Contact Singapore" labor strategy to lure professionals there was launched in Boston on Oct. 2 but applies nationwide, Chan said. Elsewhere around the world, the program has attracted many young Australians and Europeans, but it is open to all nationalities, she said. However, it also is drawing a lot of mid-career professionals who would like to spend some time in Asia. Chan said salaries being offered are high and competitive with Silicon Valley standards. "Economies today are borderless; people go wherever their life phase takes them," Chan said, noting that English is the main language in Singapore and, yes, it does have Brooklyn Bagels. =20 =A9 Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All articles are posted here in the public interest. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the list-owner. -________________________________________________ List Owner: M.G.G. Pillai Free Homepages on malaysia.net - send blank Check out the malaysia.net web site on List Postings to ________________________________________________ From phuakl@sit.edu.my Mon Oct 20 19:55:20 1997 21 Oct 97 09:58:47 +1100 From: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:58:27 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) [sangkancil] SG DAILY: Economist: Send in the Clowns (fw ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- To: sangkancil@malaysia.net Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:18:56 Subject: [sangkancil] SG DAILY: Economist: Send in the Clowns (fwd) From: pillai@mgg.pc.my (M.G.G. Pillai) Reply-to: pillai@mgg.pc.my (M.G.G. Pillai) ________________________________________________ This week's sponsors -The Asia Pacific Internet Company (APIC) Business Internet Services. Some talk. Some do. We talk and do! for instant info ________________________________________________ FORWARDED MAIL ------- From: forum@sintercom.org (Wynthia Goh) Date: 20 Oct 97 Originally To: sgdaily@list.sintercom.org The Economist October 11th 1997 Send in the clowns Singapore Bureaucrats in Singapore are surely the envy of their counterparts elsewhere. Their meticulously planned city boasts high employment, safe streets, minimal congestion, cleanliness (at least when Indonesia is not burning its forests), helpful media and citizens who are usually well-behaved. Some of them, however, do venture one complaint: that Singapore is a little, well, dull. Hence a government drive to inject some gaiety and spontaneity. And who better to liven up the atmosphere than a few street performers? So the authorities have decided to roll out the red carpet for the island's musicians, actors, jugglers, snake charmers and sword swalloers. After a two-year ban, busking is back. On closer inspection, however, the carpet appears to be composed of fine strands of red tape. To apply for a licence, buskers must belong to a government-approved arts group and persuade a special committee of their "artistic merit". Their licence allows them to busk only at a specified place and at certain times. They must promise not to involve members of the public in their routines, avoid "inappropriate behaviour", and stay away from busy areas, such as subways and shopping centres. Then they have to secure the permission of shopkeepers, police and local authrities. For the intrepid souls who survive these administrative hurdles, the rewards will be intangible. The new scheme requires performers to turn over all their takings to charity (although they may deduct expenses such as travel, instrument repair and snake food). In a country that issues permits for satellite dishes, car radios, copiers, prostitutes, hournalists, air-conditioning installers and gibbons, the idea of licensing buskers has a certain bureaucratic inevitability. But the new regulations have met with a distinctly cool reception. Callers to radio chat shows have denounced the rules as "murdering" the arts. "They've carried the whole thing too far," says Leo Lim, a blind accordion player, who makes an honest (if illegal) living by playing melancholy tunes to rush-hour crowds in an underpass near bustling Orchard Road. For the past ten years, Mr Lim has played a game of hide-and-seek with the police, refusing to stop despite having had three accordions and dozens of harmonicas confiscated.=20 Officials say the idea is to promote art, not to nourish ragtag street performers like Mr Lim. Without stringent standards, they fear, busking might degenerate into a disguised form of begging (which, of course, is also illegal). So foreign buskers are expressly forbidden, lest the island's tidy parks are overrun by grubby backpackers. Arty types fume that the authorities miss the point of busking: it is an informal and spontaneous transaction where talent is rewarded with cash, and rubbish with cold stares. But spare a thought for Singapore's hapless regulators. Relaxing the city-state's tight grip on its citizens - while reassuring its cranky hardliners that social chaos will not ensue - requires of bureaucrats a finesse sword-swallowers might envy. =A9 Copyright 1997 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All Rights Reserved=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All articles are posted here in the public interest. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the list-owner. -________________________________________________ List Owner: M.G.G. Pillai Free Homepages on malaysia.net - send blank Check out the malaysia.net web site on List Postings to ________________________________________________ From chriscd@jhu.edu Tue Oct 21 15:09:35 1997 Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:06:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:06:08 -0400 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: [Fwd: ISA WG01 Call for Papers] To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu by jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) chriscd@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:10:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:13:16 +0200 From: isa@sis.ucm.es (International Sociological Association) Subject: ISA WG01 Call for Papers Apparently-to: chriscd@jhu.edu To: chriscd@jhu.edu Reply-to: isa@sis.ucm.es To: Members of the International Sociological Association ISA XIV World Congress of Sociology, Montreal 1998 Working Group on Sociocybernetics & Social System Theory, WG01 CALL FOR PAPERS November 1, 1997, is the extended deadline for individual participants to submit 250-word abstracts to session chairs whose names, addresses and email addresses are available at: http://www.ucm.es/info/isa More elaborate session descriptions can be found in our Newsletter 4, available at: http://www.kiarchive.ru/pub/misc/science/sociocybernetics/WG01 Call, fax or email if you have any questions: Felix Geyer, WG01 Program Coordinator. Office phone: 31-20-5270652, office fax: 31-20-6224930, home phone and fax: 31-35-538 3646, email: geyer@siswo.uva.nl Please email a copy of your abstract to geyer@siswo.uva.nl, and also email him to ask for Newsletter 4 in case you have problems accessing our Moscow website. Session 1. Dealing with Complexity Session 2. Nonequilibrium Social Systems Theory Session 4. Sociocybernetics and Human Values Session 5. Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to the Study of Natural and Cultural Systems Session 6. Analyzing Complex Societal problems Session 7. Socioceonomic Long Waves and Fututre Scenarios Session 8. Diversity management Session 9. Francophone Session: Les Complexites des Systemes Observateurs Session 10. Constructing Sociocybernetic Society - Towards an Integration of Society, Technology, Information, and Ecology Session 12. The Role of Cybernetics in Political Organizations and Social Culture Session 13. Sociocybernetics as a Symptom of Practising Science beyond Disciplinarity Session 14. Sociocybernetics: Bridging Society and Ecology for a Sustainable Future Session 15. Autopoiesis: Implications for Social Theory Session 16. Political Organizations, Systems Approach, and Social Change Session 17. Why Society? An Axiological Approach to Sociocybernetics From dasa3000@mondrian.sgol.it Wed Oct 22 10:52:56 1997 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:48:00 +0200 To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK From: "Danilo D'Antonio" Subject: Map of the liberties Best regards at all! Does someone know if there is something like a map of the liberties of the various Countries in the World? Something like a thermometer to determine the degree of freedom in a Country? Many thanks in advance, Danilo D'Antonio --- LABORATORIO EUDEMONIA oO$Oo Cosa seminerai oggi? Via Fonte Regina, 23 - 64100 - Teramo - Italy tel & fax: 0861/415655 - e.mail: dasa3000@sgol.it http://www.freeyellow.com/members/eudaemony/ From cscpo@polsci.umass.edu Wed Oct 22 23:19:27 1997 Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:19:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:18:49 -0400 From: "colin s. cavell" Subject: Re: Map of the liberties To: dasa3000@mondrian.sgol.it Danilo, "Freedom House" is a US-based non-governmental organization yet often parrots the U.S. foreign policy agenda and shares U.S. foreign policymakers values and perspectives on the world. Their web page is accessible at the following URL: http://www.freedomhouse.org/ They publish "Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties" and their assessments are also available on their web site. To give you some hint of their line, here is a paragraph from their web page: Freedom House is PROMOTING US ENGAGEMENT ABROAD by sponsoring conferences on the theme of rebuilding a bipartisan foreign policy consensus. The themes include promoting market democracies, public diplomacy, and a commitment to Atlanticism. The purpose is to mobilize bipartisan backing to support the spread of democracy and market transitions. Some participants include: President Bill Clinton; J. Brian Atwood, Administrator, AID; Jeane Kirkpatrick, AEI; Rep. Robert Livingston, R-LA; & financier George Soros. ______________________________________________________________________________ Colin S. Cavell Asked by Time if he should make some Department of Political Science gesture on human rights during his trip, University of Massachusetts he retorted that China abolished Thompson Tower slavery in Tibet when the communists Box 37520 moved into the area in 1950, as Amherst, MA 01003-7520 America did during the Civil War, and VOICE: (413) 546-3408 "I believe the American people should INTERNET: cscpo@polsci.umass.edu be happy to see that." http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~cscpo --AP story on Press Interview with Chinese leader Jiang Zemin 19 Oct 1997 16:01 EDT ============================================================================== Best regards at all! Does someone know if there is something like a map of the liberties of the various Countries in the World? Something like a thermometer to determine the degree of freedom in a Country? Many thanks in advance, Danilo D'Antonio --- LABORATORIO EUDEMONIA oO$Oo Cosa seminerai oggi? Via Fonte Regina, 23 - 64100 - Teramo - Italy tel & fax: 0861/415655 - e.mail: dasa3000@sgol.it http://www.freeyellow.com/members/eudaemony/ From phuakl@sit.edu.my Fri Oct 24 04:58:15 1997 24 Oct 97 19:02:09 +1100 From: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:01:41 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) [sangkancil] Many forests set on fire over land disputes This information is new to me. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 21:36:46 +1000 To: sangkancil@malaysia.net From: Bala Pillai Subject: [sangkancil] Many forests set on fire over land disputes (ST fw) Reply-to: Bala Pillai ________________________________________________ This week's sponsors -The Asia Pacific Internet Company (APIC) Business Internet Services. Some talk. Some do. We talk and do! for instant info ________________________________________________ **forwarded message** Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 04:19:46 -0400 Reply-To: Southeast Asia Discussion List Sender: Southeast Asia Discussion List From: Alex G Bardsley Subject: Fwd: IN: Many forests set on fire over land disputes (StraitsTimes) X-URL: http://straitstimes.asia1.com/pages/stsea7.html [1][LINK] OCT 23 1997 ______________________________________________________________ Many forests set on fire over land disputes, says research centre ______________________________________________________________ JAKARTA -- Many of the forest fires ravaging Indonesia are being used as a weapon in disputes over land rights between big companies and local farmers, according to a report published here on Tuesday. The report by the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, based in Bogor near Jakarta, said many of the blazes had been "deliberately started as a weapon in social conflict". "At the heart of this problem are conflicts over land, resulting from unclear and insecure property rights and land-allocation policies that take too little account of established -- albeit informal -- local claims," said the report. It was compiled following the Alternative to Slash-and-Burn Programme launched by scientists from 15 countries after the last major Indonesian forest fires in 1994. The group carries out three programmes in west Africa, South-east Asia and Latin America. "Millions of people live in the forestland areas but because they have no security of tenure, they can be evicted at any time to make way for development projects," the study said. "Large companies had been known to burn land to drive out smallholders. Smallholders have been known to burn trees established by large companies to retaliate against perceived injustice. In these conflicts, fire is a powerful weapon for both planters and farmers. "Aside from contributing to social conflict, 'land grabs' by large companies that displace local people also undermine incentives at the community level to prevent, report and fight fires," it added. -- AFP. _________________________________________________________________ Copyright © 1997 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved. -________________________________________________ List Owner: M.G.G. Pillai Free Homepages on malaysia.net - send blank Check out the malaysia.net web site on List Postings to ________________________________________________ From B.K.Gills@newcastle.ac.uk Fri Oct 24 10:33:26 1997 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 1997 09:27:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 09:27:41 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: ipe@csf.colorado.edu Sender: owner-ipe@csf.colorado.edu From: "Vera M. Britto" To: INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY Subject: Re: Western Hemisphere Conference Against NAFT & Privatizations (fwd) > PLEASE SHARE WITH OTHERS, REPOST, REDISTRIBUTE. > (Apologies for Multiple Messages) > > >REMINDER: THIS CONFERENCE HAS LIMITED CAPACITY. Those who want to attend >should send in their registration forms and fees ASAP, and if hotel rooms >are needed, make reservations. > >WESTERN HEMISPHERE WORKERS' CONFERENCE AGAINST NAFTA & PRIVATIZATION >BUILDING GLOBAL UNIONISM AND INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY > >November 14-16 in San Francisco > >Ramda Inn, Downtown San Franicsco (Civic Center BART Stop) >$103 per night single; $103 double; $118 triple; $133 quad. > >Delegations expected from Mexico, Boliva, Dominican Republic, Brazil, Peru, >Uruguay, Argentina, Ecuador, Haiti, Guadeloupe, Dominica, Guyana, Chile, El >Salvador, in addition to from throughout U.S. and Canada (partial >list-others may be added) Delegations will include leaders of major union >federations, unions, human rights & social justice, and other peoples' >organizations. > >Registration Fee: $85 ($105 Canadian) > or $65 for all sessions except Friday night banquet. > (some partial scholarships available based on need) > >Make checks payable to: Western Hemisphere Conference >Send to WHC c/o SF Labor Council >1188 Franklin St., #203, SF, CA 94109 > >(Registration fee does not include lodging but does include banquet dinner.) >All principle sessions will be simultaneously interpreted into four >languages (English, Spanish, French/Creole, Portuguese). > >For information, and registration forms & hotel reservations, call: Ed >Rosario, Conference Coordinator (415) 681-5868 or >(415) 440-4809. Fax: (415) 440-9297. > >Childcare available by advance arrangement. > >VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED and can receive reduced registration fee for work >performed. >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Conference Schedule: (subject to revision) > >Friday, November 14 > >2-5 Registration >4-6 Reception Cash Bar >6 Banquet >7-9 Progam: Toward Global Unionism >9-? Social Events/Receptions/Delegation Gatherings > >Saturday, November 15 > >8-9 Registration continues >8:30 Plenary I: Testimony from each region of the > impact of NAFTA, privatizations, globalization, and the > neo-liberal agenda > >Noon Lunch Break > >2-4 Issues Workshop Panels (1-6) >4-6 Issues Workshop Panels (7-12) > >6:15 Dinner Break > >8:30-10 Sector/Industry Workshops > >10-? Social Time > >Sunday, November 16 > >9-1 Plenary II: Workshop Reports, Conference Declaration, Closing Remarks > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Endorsers include: (partial list) Bay Area Labor Councils, CA Federation of >Labor, ILWU, >UFW, UE, FLOC, APALA, LCLAA, Public Citizen, 50 Years is Enough, Support >Cmte. for Maquiladora Workers, Global Exchange, International Forum on >Globalization, War Zone Educational Found., Peace & Freedom Party, and many >other labor & community & solidarity organizations from around the U.S., >Canada, and Latin America. > > From kukreja@ups.edu Wed Oct 29 13:49:52 1997 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:41:57 -0800 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: Sunil Kukreja Subject: Luce Professorship The following announcement is for a faculty position in the Political Economy of Southeast Asia at The University of Puget Sound. I would appreciate your assistance in posting it on WSN. Thanks. Sunil Kukreja Assoc. Prof. ------------------------------------ LUCE PROFESSOR OF THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SOUTHEAST ASIA The University of Puget Sound invites applications for the position of Luce Professor of the Political Economy of Southeast Asia. We seek an outstanding teacher-scholar with a deep interest in and commitment to interdisciplinary study and the liberal arts who can, through interdisciplinary teaching and research, advance our understanding of the economic, political, social, cultural, and environmental changes taking place in Southeast Asia and their impacts on and relationship to regional, international, and global affairs. We are especially interested in strengthening our students' abilities to examine the impact of rapid economic growth and technological change in Southeast Asia on the political, social, and cultural institutions and processes of this region. The Luce Professor will be expected to contribute to the curricula of the designated department, the Political Economy Program, and the Asian Studies Program as well as the University's Core Curriculum. Teaching load is three courses per semester. Other duties include advising students and participation in projects serving our institutional mission. This tenure-track appointment will be made at the assistant or associate professor level in an appropriate social science department (Comparative Sociology, Economics, Politics and Government) and in the Political Economy Program. A doctoral degree in a related field, and a commitment to liberal arts education required. Candidates should possess language facility sufficient to conduct research in Southeast Asia. The official job listing is posted at http://www.ups.edu/ipe/luceprof.html From chriscd@jhu.edu Thu Oct 30 07:47:04 1997 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:43:07 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: [Fwd: Luce Professorship] To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu 29 Oct 1997 15:55:47 -0400 (EDT) ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:49:50 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:41:57 -0800 From: Sunil Kukreja Subject: Luce Professorship Sender: owner-wsn@csf.colorado.edu To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Reply-to: kukreja@ups.edu The following announcement is for a faculty position in the Political Economy of Southeast Asia at The University of Puget Sound. I would appreciate your assistance in posting it on WSN. Thanks. Sunil Kukreja Assoc. Prof. ------------------------------------ LUCE PROFESSOR OF THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SOUTHEAST ASIA The University of Puget Sound invites applications for the position of Luce Professor of the Political Economy of Southeast Asia. We seek an outstanding teacher-scholar with a deep interest in and commitment to interdisciplinary study and the liberal arts who can, through interdisciplinary teaching and research, advance our understanding of the economic, political, social, cultural, and environmental changes taking place in Southeast Asia and their impacts on and relationship to regional, international, and global affairs. We are especially interested in strengthening our students' abilities to examine the impact of rapid economic growth and technological change in Southeast Asia on the political, social, and cultural institutions and processes of this region. The Luce Professor will be expected to contribute to the curricula of the designated department, the Political Economy Program, and the Asian Studies Program as well as the University's Core Curriculum. Teaching load is three courses per semester. Other duties include advising students and participation in projects serving our institutional mission. This tenure-track appointment will be made at the assistant or associate professor level in an appropriate social science department (Comparative Sociology, Economics, Politics and Government) and in the Political Economy Program. A doctoral degree in a related field, and a commitment to liberal arts education required. Candidates should possess language facility sufficient to conduct research in Southeast Asia. The official job listing is posted at http://www.ups.edu/ipe/luceprof.html From chriscd@jhu.edu Thu Oct 30 07:49:21 1997 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:46:40 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: [Fwd: Job Opening] To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu 29 Oct 1997 13:38:51 -0600 (CST) by mcfeeley.cc.utexas.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/mcfeeley.mc-1.21) 29 Oct 1997 13:36:47 -0600 (CST) (from otero@sfu.ca); Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:36:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:36:48 -0800 From: Gerardo Otero Subject: Job Opening Sender: owner-lasnet@mcfeeley.cc.utexas.edu To: lasnet@mcfeeley.cc.utexas.edu Reply-to: otero@sfu.ca ** Please Distribute Widely ** POSITION OPENING - November 30, 1997 Application Deadline NCOORD National Program Organizer The National Coordinating Office on the Refugees and Displaced of Guatemala (NCOORD) seeks a National Program Organizer. This is a full-time position, located in Washington, D.C. to conduct overall coordination of NCOORD programs in the U.S. and Guatemala. Travel will be done for promotion, training, and consultation as needed. NCOORD's Guatemala Accompaniment Project (G.A.P.) works to provide a measure of security to Guatemalan communities by facilitating human rights accompaniment and community-to- community relationships. Coordination with grassroots groups provides legislative policy initiatives as well as support for development and accompaniment work in the Guatemalan communities served. RESPONSIBILITIES: - Communicate and coordinate with NCOORD director and G.A.P. staff - Organize Guatemala Accompaniment Project - Motivate and support U.S. sponsoring communities - Oversee and support work in U.S. and Guatemala - Volunteer recruitment and coordination - Program/personnel evaluation and development - Maintain contact/information flow between U.S. and Guatemalan communities - Facilitate material aid allocation to communities - Initiate urgent action campaigns when necessary (with support of NCOORD staff) - Write articles for the NCOORD newsletter - Initiate policy recommendations related to accompaniment and the office - Fund raising and development tasks QUALIFICATIONS - Personal commitment to non-violence - Previous experience in an organizing/management position - Enjoy working with people, ability to motivate volunteers - Ability to organize and prioritize tasks. Flexible hours include some weekends and some evenings. - Computer literacy - Familiarity with fund raising methods - Flexibility, adaptability and patience - Knowledge of Guatemala and Spanish preferred BENEFITS - $26,000 annual salary - Health insurance - Flexible vacation Deadline: extended to November 30, 1997. Send resume, a letter of interest and names and phone numbers of three references to: Chris Gilbreth, Director NCOORD 1830 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20009 tel: 202/265-8713 fax: 202/265-0042 email: ncoord@igc.apc.org **************** NCOORD Guatemala National Coordinating Office on the Refugees and Displaced of Guatemala 1830 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20009 Tel: (202) 265-8713 Fax: (202) 265-0042 email: ncoord@igc.org From chriscd@jhu.edu Thu Oct 30 13:00:48 1997 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 14:57:11 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: RC02 session, World Congress of Sociology To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu International Sociological Association XIV World Congress of Sociology July 26 - August 1, 1998, Montreal, Canada RC02, Economy and Society Title: Comparing world-systems: the evolution of economies and societies. Organizers: Christopher Chase-Dunn Department of Sociology Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA chriscd@jhu.edu Jonathan Friedman Department of Social Anthropology University of Lund P.O. Box 114 S-221 00 Lund Sweden jonathan.friedman@soc.lu.se Please send proposals for papers to the organizers no later than January 15, 1998