Re: the Frank challenge

An interesting dilemma:

Either Frank is right and "capitalism" is an ideological construct, or
else he is wrong, capitalism exists, and it is "historical materialism"
which turns out to be an ideological approach to writing world history.  
Either way, the notion that one can characterize distinct world-systems on
the basis production, exchange or even accumulation appears to be trapped
between Scylla and Charybdis.  

On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, g kohler wrote:

> with reference to the posting of 25 Jan 2000 by Professor Frank, entitled
> "Gunder Frank's Response to Gang of 3 Reviews of ReOrient"
> 
> the last paragraph, entitled "The Bottom Line" contains the statement: 
>"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."
> 
> This kind of iconoclasm appeals to my taste buds and I have two questions
> arising:
> (1) does this mean that the category of "capitalism" has the 
>epistemological
> status of an "ideal type" a la Weber?
> (2) if the category of "capitalism" is out of synch with reality, as Frank
> says, how can the left define (positively) what it is for and (negatively)
> what it is against? If Frank is right, then it would seem that "the left"
> would have a major task at its hands with respect to redefining itself --
> not only "reorient" the world-system, but also "reorient" itself (the 
>left),
> given the fact that "capitalism" is traditionally a major component of the
> self-definition of the left (in an antithetical way).
> 
> Gert Kohler
> Oakville, Canada
> 
> 

-- 
Boris Stremlin
bc70219@binghamton.edu