Re: the Frank challenge

        I quite agree with A.G. Frank's point, though I would point out that
even granting the potential for some form of 'objective' ontology of
'reality,' as he is posing, we still require ideologies/theories that
mobilize, because half of any society's conception of itself deals with
'anti-systemic' discourses and the other half is dealing with opposing these
groups. ;-)  
        I wonder if any society, as a process, lives in this 'objective
reality' anyway, when the political process of ideas that are warped around
different interests, is able to stand out from the welter of biases, or be
biased itself.  I suppose I am questioning neutrality, though while feeling
that a neutral appreciation of political context can be employed in the
social sciences towards a more 'ontological' integration of empirical
evidence INTO theory, instead of the other way around as theory is typically
employed--where people have a theory and then select evidence. 

        Regardless of this position, the debate, whether through Marxism or
liberalism, as has been written of many times before, is a move towards
tacitly agreeing on several points in terms of their discourses. The agenda
for both marxist and liberalist is basically 'set' as a group. This has a
great influence on the overall background metanarratives and empirical
information we are comfortable or uncomfortable in discussing. I summarize
several points below where marxists and liberalists are mostly in agreement,
in terms of the mobilizations of ideas:

         (1): a presumed separation between the state and the accepted
construct of 'the economy' which blinkered both of their analyses of society
and power.  If we are going to discuss the social construction of
capitalism, we should discuss the contexts in which something called 'the
economy' came to exist, somehow separate/neutral from state politics or
state relationships. As a discourse strategy, this was very useful in the
context of the 1800s, for Marxists in mobilizing away from and
delegitimating state politics as a route to change based on their
ideologies.  It was equally useful for 'capitalists' (simply a term for
people with lots of money here, without any ideological rigor implied)
interested in delegitimating state attempts to moderate the economic
stratification with redistribution, as well as delegitimating Marxist
frameworks of analysis of 'the future.'  Ideas are strategies, instead of
ontological categories. They exist only in social contexts, and should be
treated as entirely contextual, instead of philosophical statements.  It's
simply a question of whether some are considered more justifiable than
others as concepts. I realize within the past 30 years state appreciations
have been brough into the literatures of both ideological frameworks,
however, the 'morality' of either side deals more with the profession of a
separation. 

        (2) 'salvation' through more economies of scale, both lived IN THE
PRESENT aimed at a future that was oriented toward positing the present was
nothing important. In other words, present conditions were unfortunately
interpreted within an ideological framework that basically denies any
attempt to adjudicate present costs/benefits.  Both became millinarianists.
The discourse because a conflict between two very thick headed ideological
sides, disagreeing on method of 'economic development' in expanding 
markets. 

        (3) both had an ignorance of the environment, as a consequence to
their adherence to 'future' benefits of economies of scale.  I am aware of
the huge amount of literature attempting to green Marx at the present, and
there is certainly some work within the early Marx that does have an
interest in human/environmental relationship, I agree. However, I take the
sudden rush of attempt at this project as a case in point that Marx's
interest was mostly the 'human/human' interactions within a society.  On the
'liberalist' status quo side, I am aware of the move toward green
consumerism and ecological modernization strategies. All of these approaches
still connect with the 'salvation through economies of scale' metanarrative
that liberalism and marxism both share. As such, they will always fail to
integrate the environment in any useful fashion.

        (4) along with economies of scale adherence, both saw large social
stratification and individualization, in their 'future' visions, as a
desirable point. For the liberals, following Smith and others, the division
of labor was seen as beneficial. For the Marxists, it was beneficial,
because the proletarianization was seen as playing into the hands of 'the
revolution.' Marxists in state power typically promoted the political
dismantling of rural and communal forms of agriculture to this 'future'
benefit in mind. Even through early sociological work (Durkheim) the
attitude towards social stratification was seeing it as a 'neutral'
activity, something akin to ecological competition of species for food, than
results of political decisions that either maintained organizations or
demolished them in a political economy and demotion of more localized
economic relationships, as a 'future. Any attempt to adjudicate between a
present a  'future' is oxymoronic: it undermines the point of adjudicating,
because one is weighing costs against a counterfactual future, which fails
to exist, instead of attempting to go around and actually tally up the 
costs. 

        (5) Both saw themselves as 'different' than a constructed
'feudalism' which was defined as static, which if anyone knows anything
about presumably 'feudal' states, particularly Europe, it was a welter of
economic change for centuries. Both saw themselves, once more 'living in the
future,' as different than feudalism. The entire move to 'bring the state
back in' to social theory as well as political economic critique I feel
shows that state/'economy' interactions pose a dichotomy that fails to exist
in any way at all. It's a discourse dichotomy, that serves certain
politically obfuscating 

        (6) Both saw themselves as substitutes or replacements for
epistemological views we consider 'religious.' For Marx, religion was the
great competitor to his version of the world. For liberals, particular
'forms of consumption would set them free.'  As much research on human
happiness has shown, happiness it has very little correlation with buying
material items in great profusion.

        (7) Both are incapable of dealing with the very demonstrable social
stratification and economic situations along lines of ethnicity, gender,
sexuality, handicapped status, you name it--which interact with the state.
Both liberalist and Marxist frames leave the world in an economically
reductionistic framework, instead of a framework that would integrate
different power groups in the state, gender/sexuality/ethnicity/etc.
differences and constructions, and religious frameworks, urban and rural
political conflicts, organizational structures--into an historical and
relational model of political economy. Research on 'upper class' groups show
an incredible deal of division, and solidarity only in the context of being
challenged. If much of what I have said failed to 'scan' in most people's
minds, I take it as granted that. As Comte and later Norbert Elias were fond
of pointing out, our theoretical perspectives determine what empirical data
we seek out to analyze.

        If you ask me, the past 150 years or so, are arguments about METHOD
instead of arguments about AGENDA setting itself, though they go through the
motions of pretending to be just that. Of course the actual procession of
history is required to discuss this as a moving average of ideas, actions,
organizations, yet 'sides' can be identified coming out of the conflicts. 
         People talk of hegemonies typically in terms of those in state
power relationships. I would add that hegemonic power can equally be
theorized, in states, as a form of 'dual hegemony' or 'nested hegemony,' [or
humorously, a 'dueling hegemony'] where both systemic and 'anti-systemic'
groups/alliances fall into a iterative position with each other, and where
BOTH define the social/cultural views as a group in an unquestioning way.
        I am less arguing that Marxist and liberal discourses were a
'mistake' for the context and the historical moment. I am asking that we
understand that THEY WERE A DUAL CONTEXT, and that  we are dealing with
historically derived ideas in human networks coming up against what they
both posed and accepted as something novel in human history. Frank's
argument about 5000 years of a 'world system' falls into the category of
rejecting this original presumption. I would place myself in this category
as well, though for related empirical rationales that have a different
theoretical bent. Personally (and emprically), I find that 'what happened'
in the early 1800s was a change in the scale of urbanization and urban
markets, the increasing distanciation between the urban and rural, and a
substantive change in the actors within and political ways states are
'formally' organized and legitimated. However, social relationships of
power--relationally speaking--were only an extention of a theme as different
interests worked within the state and across them to fashion a social world.
For me nothing 'novel,' has happened except an expansion of scale and the
related distanciations, and in the early 1800s, merchants began to work
within the state directly instead of indirectly. This 'view' is in
compliance with Franks position of the '5000 year' world system, though it
adds a bit more specificity and capacity to address the contextual
variabilty of the underlying phenomena.


Regards,


Mark Whitaker
University of Wisconsin-Madison





At 11:40 PM 1/29/00 -0500, 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
>
>