GUNDER FRANK'S RESPONSE TO GANG OF 3 REVIEWs of ReORIENT

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fair Warning: This posting is 13 pages long
and comes with apologies for possible  duplicte/cross postings
Comments wecolme

agf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                     ANDRE GUNDER FRANK
          Visiting Professor  of  International Relations       
University of Miami           &         Florida International University  

380 Giralda Ave. Apt 704                Tel: 1-305-648 1906
Miami - Coral Gables FL                 Fax: 1-305-648 0149
USA  33134                              e-mail:agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca 

Personal/Professional Home Page> http://csf.colorado.edu/archive/agfrank/

My NATO/Kosovo Page> http://csf.colorado.edu/archive/agfrank/nato_kosovo/   
    

My professional/personal conclusion is the same as Pogo's - 
            We have met the enemy, and it is US 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GUNDER FRANK RESPONDS TO  GANG OF 3 ReORIENT REVIEWs


This is my first once over lightly response to my friends and some time
co-authors Samir Amin [5 books], Giovanni Arrighi  and  Immanuel
Wallerstein [2 books each].  Writing in Wallerstein's and Arrighi's
journal REVIEW  [XXII, 3, 1999: 291-372]  they have just critiqued my book
ReORIENT [University of California Press 1998] and rightly so, since it was 
also critical of them. However, I find it very disconcerting that they
deliberately kept me in the dark about their intentions to do so and
thereby also did not allow me to formulate a considered response to their
critiques  for inclusion in  that same issue of REVIEW.

Samir opens with the briefest of summaries of the book, which he dismisses
- yes simply dismisses, not critiques- by interspersing terminology such
as not only false but impotent, this kind of flattened history,  Frank is
forced to descend to this kind of a bland philisophy of history which has
never produced anything new worthy of attention, the dead end in which
Frank locks himself, a poor conceptualization of reality [as by] the media
and  journalistic articles, and Frank's blindness on this major issue in
modern history. We may ask, what issue is that? Capitalism, of course.
That is, and for decades has been, the ONLY theoretical issue and agenda
of discussion for Samir. As at every one of the dozens of conferences we
have attended together. this "critique"  of his is also devoted only to
HIS agenda about capitalism, never mind that it plays a deliberately
subsidiary role in the book, which he is supposedly criticizing.  So what
he writes is irrelevant to this book, and therefore calls for no further
response. All the less so, since -however innovative on other matters- on 
this issue Samir is like a broken record, which he himself says he has
been playing again and again since he first started in 1957. 

Moreover, we have already debated this issue of capitalism and its history
many times elsewhere, including in our respective contributions to Frank 
& Gills [eds]  THE WORLD SYSTEM: FIVE HUNDRED YEARS OR FIVE THOUSAND?
[Routledge 1993/1996] . Curiously, Samir returns to that theme and also
devotes several additional pages to repeating his views and writings  on 
the thousand years before 1500,
although my book does not start until 1400. In a word, about ReORIENT
Samir has virtually nothing to say except that I did not write my book
about his favorite topic of  European capitalism, but about something
else. So I also have nothing to reply.

Immanuel is also upset that I wrote the book I did and not another. But he
goes Samir one better. While Samir's "critique" is  simply to neglect the
book I wrote, Immanuel's opts for a bellicose strategy and tactic to
critique a book I did NOT write. He sets up and with a flourish knocks 
down a dozen or more straw men and repeatedly poses 'have you stopped  -
or why don't you stop - beating our wife' type questions, to which my 
simple answer is and must be ' I am not married.' And Immanuel also goes
Samir one better in his dismissive, indeed ridiculing -or is it
ridiculous?-  terminology, of which the following is only a sample:
after wading through 350 pages of text what confusion and how much
blurring poor punctuations permits, deduction is a game Frank plays 
throughout this book,  confusion compounded, a non sequitur, knocking down
an open door, a completely straw man scarcely worth so much space and 
agitation, one more straw man, there can be no rational explanation,
sneaky, clever, malicious. 

And not one, but two coups de grace, the second one given several times: I 
am a Chicago
monetarist who offers the final definitive proof of what the IMF is always
claiming and  that Frank has discovered the true European miracle [and]
emerges as the greatest spokesperson for European achievement. This is
because I happen to have a Chicago economics PhD and wrote a book designed
in part to pull the historical rug out from under the Eurocentric thesis
of the alleged European miracle and the alleged European originated and
based Modern World-System of Wallerstein, and to a make a new beginning in
mapping out the REAL  Modern World System. "Who is the Wizard of Oz at the
end of this road?" Immanuel ask in his closing sentence. It's the REAL
world. For recall that the "Dorothy on the yellow brick road" that
Immanuel evokes  recognized that her Wizard's  world  is not Kansas.
Neither is our wizard Immanuel's unreal world.

It is noteworthy but perhaps not surprising that Immanuel zeroes in on my
'deductions' and makes no mention of my inductions or of the mass of
historical empirical data from which they are derived, which occupy the
main body of the book.  What's more, this world economic and Asian
evidence empirically - and in the maps graphically - demonstrate the very
severe limitations of Wallerstein's 'system' and theory. Moreover, in all
humility, this is the first book ever to have done so for the period
before 1800,  as Giovanni recognizes in his first and last sentence. So why
not Immanuel, who huffs and puffs about alleged straw men instead.
Indeed, he dismisses the entire empirical Chapter 4  as " a straw man
scarcely worth so much space and agitation" and he virtually disregards
Chapter 2 on  world trade and Chapter 3 on money, because they  say that
there was a world out there of which  he and others took no account.. My
straw man he says is that he never denied it was there. But the issue is
not what he did not say, but what he did say about the world-system, that
it was born in Europe and only after 1750 incorporated Asia, which is
wrong, since reality was rather the opposite. Who is the scarecrow here?

Immanuel does not like my deductions, not that there is anything wrong
with deduction per se, as Immanuel surely agrees.  It is only faulty logic
deductions or good deductions from faulty premises that  we need reject,
ah and the post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments Immanuel invents and then
falsely - as he KNOWS  - attributes to me. I would not be surprised that,
like virtually every scientist, I have incurred in some such errors, which
future students will discover and hopefully correct. But that it not
Immanuel's objective or method here. Instead he repeatedly attributes
positions to me that he knows  I do not hold [e.g. European miracle] and
sets up allegedly untenable dichotomies that are not in the book, like
regional vs. global  economy. 

Immanuel also tries but fails to score a definitive blow by resurrecting
but not advancing the argument we have had for years. "Frank surely knows
that whatever position one takes on the question ' where does one locate a
mode of production' [MP] determines ones entire historiography…Perhaps
this difficult but crucial question is too hard for Frank." Not so, as
Immanuel surely knows, since  I - and other friends like Chase-Dunn and
Hall - have long since argued that he locates the very concept of MP in
the wrong place. What's more in a published exchange in 1991 [reprinted in
Frank & Gills 1993/96] Immanuel and I  disputed about the utility of the
concept of MP, and I argued that it is best to discard it altogether.
ReORIENT now brings tons of empirical evidence further to support this
argument ad nauseum. Of course, Immanuel does not like that evidence and
continues to  locate the capitalist MP where Marx Weber did, and if my
'locating' MP outside historiography determines, if not quite what mine
is, at least what it is not, i.e. Immanuel's as well as Samir's and
Giovanni's, then so be it.

I do concede one point, but not the game, to Immanuel in his pp 358-59
argument about merchandize trade balances. He cites earlier work of mine
[also in my book DEPENDENT ACCUMULATION AND UNDERDEVELOPMENT 1978] in
which I argue that the merchandize trade  surplus of the  Third World at
the end of the nineteenth century weakened it and made a vital material
and  financial contribution to the development of Europe, the United
States and the Dominions. If so, Immanuel asks, why did the merchandize
trade surplus of Asia and especially China not do the same in the 18th
century and before.  Good Question! And it deserves serious inquiry rather
than Immanuel's debating point glee. My gut feeling, which is no
substitute for analysis, is that 1. It did also strengthen Europe
and North America, 2. It may have  had some disadvantages for the
exporters, 3. The international trade system changed after 1800/50 along
with the industrial revolution, whose metamorphosis - contrary to my
critics - I never denied, but also did not seek to explain since my book
stopped in 1800. This is another case of them and many others complaining
that I did not write a book that I did not write [yet?]. So if they find it
so lacking and important, why dont they stop complaining to me and
instead write it themselves - or let us collaborate in writing it
ourselves as in the past? I have actually proposed that to them, but to
no avail.

I concede another point to Immanuel:  "The weakest  segment of the book is
the attempt to explain why the West won." And why not?  My attempt does
not have much to go on, since this is the first  time anybody has even
attempted a WORLD  [political] economic explanation of this important
historical event. Ken Pomeranz is publishing a second valiant attempt at
Princeton University Press this month. So if my attempt - or even maybe
his-  is weak, lets strengthen it instead of dismissing it. For what are
the alternatives?  I challenge Imanuel to show me or the reader a stonger
argument, his own or anybody elses. The libraries are full of '
exceptionalist European miracle' explanations  that are empirically
demonstrably wrong , theoretically much more deficient, and therefore
altogether much weaker still.  The alternative European world-economy and
Modern World-System approaches constructed and inspired by Braudel and
Immanuel himself  and Giovanni's recent work have been a big help,  but
they are far too limited in their scope and therefore as explanations also
still  weaker than my modest effort. I invite Immanuel to get off his high
horse and join me in the trenches.

Giovanni instead makes a serious critique of the book that I did write,
which deserves to be taken seriously even if he also makes some serious
misattributions that advance neither his cause nor mine.  Giovanni's
critique stands or wobbles on three legs that may be summarized as
empirical, deductive, and political. The empirical critique is that
despite having pieced together more evidence than anyone before, I have
not done enough. I agree of course. But that empirical critique is also
not good enough. Better is Giovanni's critique that on this weak empirical
basis, I  build theses or conclusion that are therefore not  sufficiently
empirically warranted.. Maybe, here and there. My defense is twofold: As
in  Giovanni's three or more legged argument, greater empirical robustness
in this leg here can lend additional support to the weaker leg there, even
if the latter leg per se is too weak to stand on by itself. Secondly,
thereby I challenge and 'guide' others to dig up more data to strengthen
all these legs and to  confirm, disconfirm or modify these theses, which I
at least identify and discuss, several for the first time anyone has
troubled to do so.

A specific example that comes under  Giovanni's critique is the relation
between demographic and economic growth. Since we have more data on
quantities and growth rates of people than of their goods, I sometimes try
to infer something about the latter from the former. Giovanni  says that
is not legit. Well, how legit it is depends - on what direct evidence we
have about the goods, what other inferential evidence we have, how
consistent the inferences are with other evidence or inferences.
Specifically, I argue that rapid population increase must have been
accompanied by rapid increases in production, especially of foodstuffs  --
if there is no evidence of growing poverty and there is evidence of
increased cropping, new crops [corn, potatoes, yucca from the Americas],
and more crops. Giovanni is not satisfied. Me neither. Lets get more and
better data. Several sinologist are digging up data and constructing data
bases that demonstrate higher growth rates of output, income, standards of
living, indeed of the life expectancy that is the ultimate 'standard' of
living, in China than anywhere in Europe before 1800.

Another example, where Giovanni is on stronger ground, is my reference to
long economic cycles. Perhaps  they are not adequately documented or even
documentable - yet.  But, contrary to Giovanni who first introduced me to
long cycles in 1972 but now disavows them, my argument neither stands on
nor falls with  such cycles.  Giovanni also falsely accuses me of
accepting or rejecting arguments on the basis of whether they consist of
or contribute to Eurocentrism, which he rightly rejects as an acceptable
criterion.  But  that is non-sense of course, since  my criterion
throughout is the evidence and only the evidence, whatever ideology it may
support. However,  the real world historical evidence does undermine
Eurocentrism - and unfortunately for my three critics the ideology of
European capitalism as well.

Deductions, contradictions and questions not asked nor answered:
Giovanni claims but never shows that my deductions don't stand up to
inspection or even prove to be contradictory. But that is only because
my deductions and even inductions  do not correspond to HIS [or Samir's
and Immanuel's] logic or paradigm,  which is in turn contradictory in
terms of mine as I demonstrated to him   about THE LONG TWENTIETH CENTURY
long ago personally and in part again in ReORIENT, which argues that he
cannot insist on global financial innovations in pre 1500 Southern Europe
in a global economy centered on China.  Giovanni commends  my thesis that
the global whole is more than the sum of and helps shape its parts. But he
condemns me for allegedly denying that the parts also form the whole. But
of course that critique is absurd; since the book is full of cases and
analyses of how parts, eg. China and its trade, the Americas and its
silver, Europe and its commerce, and much smaller geographical, sectoral
and other parts helped transform the whole.  "Frank never tells us
anything about such specifics" Giovanni writes. That this claim is absurd
as well is shown by the 36 pages of index that list all manner of
specifics - in a book devoted to the general whole. "The book is all about
unity and not at all about diversity" he also charges. Not so. Although
the book does emphasize unity - and that is its merit as recognized even
by Giovanni  although alas not by Samir and  Immanuel - it also shows how
that same unity generates diversity within it. That is why Giovanni's
charge that "Frank joins the chorus of neoliberal ideologues in reviving
the belief in self-regulating markets" is as   wide off the mark as it is
unfair. Market yes, but NOT the "liberal creed" that it solves the world's
problems  through equalization. Where in the world did Giovanni find that
in any of my writings or in our personal talks over the 30 years we have
known each other? 

Like Rome, Japan was not made in a day, but Europe was. Impossible says
Giovanni . No, it is both logically possible and empirically substantially
true if we consider the transformation in and through Europe between 1750
or even 1800 and 1850. He claims that I "carefully suppress" all evidence
of lower growth in Asia and higher in Europe. That is both a low blow and
empirically quite untrue, since the book and also its chapter 6 contains
all sorts of evidence on lower Asian growth then and there, and Giovanni
knows that I am not one to fudge the data in  my favor - indeed he says I
"do not even spare some of his [my] earlier writings" when the evidence
contradicts them.   

The greatest weakness of ReOrient  is "the purposeful exclusion from the
analysis of political-military power." Yes and no and maybe, with certain
reservations.  Purposeful the exclusion was not, I can assure Giovanni,
unless it be as the Primus mobile. But whatever the intentions, it is true
that the political analysis is weak , and that is a weakness. However, how
weak that is, depends.  Giovanni believes that political-military
institutions and power exert far-reaching influence or even determine
economic relations. I dispute this belief  in Chapter 4 theoretically  and
de facto throughout the book.  My a-political weakness is therefore
crippling only if Giovanni is right, and it is only a relatively minor
weakness if I am right. For instance, Giovanni claims that I do not ask
and hence do not answer why China should have had a capital shortage but
Europe a capital surplus. But I DO ask precisely that question and I give
an answer, satisfactory or not.  Of course my answer cannot   satisfy
Giovanni because  it is in these political-military factors where  "I [GA]
suspect that here ultimately lies the answer to the question that Frank
should have asked but never did…[about] the greater capacity to
concentrate surplus capital from all over the world in European financial
markets."  Well, bully for Giovanni's suspicion and also for my
demonstration of how the use of the Europeans political-military power in
Africa and the Americas - for in Asia they were scarcely able to exercise
any - were vital for European capacity to amass capital also from Asia.
But of course the capital they concentrated to  Europe still remained an
only very small part of all world capital.  Giovanni also charges that I
cannot see the politico-military origins of the industrial revolution
itself. Well, that depends on whether its origin did or did not lie there.
If that means the highly touted state formation and the inter-state system
within Western Europe, there is plenty of evidence that it did not
generate the industrial revolution, and there is also plenty of evidence
that world economic factors did, which ReORIENT is the first book to
examine.

THE BOTTOM LINE
The bottom line and read thread of these three friends' and also other
critiques is CAPITALISM. None of the three is willing to contemplate or
even examine the evidence that the theoretical concept - indeed
terminology - of "capitalism" may be an ideological  construct  that is
out of synch with world historical reality. That very suggestion is so
intellectually and even personally threatening to them that they have to -
among friends -- resort to Giovanni's  relatively begnign distortions of
my argument, Immanuel's  biting sarcasm and grotesque and even
counter-factual charicatures also of me personally, and Samir's complete
neglect of the book and its argument altogether. Alas,  their use of these
tactics and deployment of such weapons on a muddied capitalist
battleground of their own choosing only displays their own weakness.  Each
for his own reasons as well for the albeit be it anti-capitalist
ideological reason they share simply will not allow them to  confront
reality or face the issue posed by real world history. That even these
themselves pioneering scholars, former co-authors of mine, and long time
friends are so paralyzed and  hamstrung is further evidence of how sorely
we need a new departure to ReORIENT