Re: what does the semi-periphery want?

Gert-

I'll answer below so I don't forget the points.
I'm not "teaching" anything here -- just making it up as I go along.


On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, g kohler wrote:

> Richard,
> 
> let's say these (see your post below) are some of the "details" which
> Professor Wagar encourages us to discuss and let's say we both like the
> broad outlines of the book (Spiral). And let's say we both agree that
> global-Keynesian or transnational-socialist schemes can only be 
>implemented
> if there is mighty pressure from below. No problem with all that. Let's
> focus on the role of the semi-periphery as a detail.


Good.


> 
> I see two problems.
> (1) The "Spiral" is, in my opinion, a bit inconsistent on the role of the
> semi-periphery. In one part of the book it observes, as a matter of
> historical observation, that the world revolutions of the past 200-300 
>years
> were happening when the people/the workers of the core developed 
>widespread
> disaffection with the status quo. In another part, it argues, with respect
> to the future, that the semi-periphery is the most dynamic zone which may
> produce change/restructuring of the world-system. I see an inconsistency
> here. Or did I read that incorrectly?


I think B&C-D fail to be crystal clear about their scenario.  I didn't
bring up their concept of "world revolution" in my summary because I don't
think they've chosen the best name for it.  If I get them right, the idea
is based on the concept "world polity," and refers to shifts in values
rather than shifts in state power.  So just as you can have a
"revolution" which changes regimes but not the social structure, they
seem to be referring to a "revolution" of values without changing regimes.  
And with the shift to a *world* polity, rather than societal polity, they
see the semiperipheral working class as key, but the working class and
other progressive forces of the core as essential in rallying to the side
of the SP forces, together creating the necessary alliance to bring about
a system-level change.  But this change is not a leninist-style
revolution, rather it is a basically reformist change (under duress
though) premised on an unusual constellation of forces:

1) an emergent multi-state core, centered in the EU,
2) a critical mass of (hopefully democratic) revolutions in the SP,
        and
3) a strong core-based alliance of movements supporting the SP
        revolutions.

The "world polity" premise is that there would be shared values among
these three forces sufficient that a "radical reform" might be possible
and bring about the beginnings of global social democracy.

As I say, B&C-D could be more clear, but this is my understanding of their
best-case scenario.


> 
> (2) When you observe what is happening in Central and Eastern Europe at
> present, you find a tremendous catching-up-with-the-West mentality, in
> economics, politics, and even culturally. Poland and Hungary, for example,
> are on such a catching-up/hugging-the-West wave, which does not fit the
> semi-periphery as the deus-ex-machina or lynchpin thesis.


It seems to me that this has already been complicated by the resurgence of
popularity of the old regimes and parties.  After a misguided euphoria,
there now seems to be a widespread sense of betrayal, and at least the
possibility of other paths than neoliberalism.


> 
> Actually, I see a third problem:
> (3) Let's say the semi-periphery is the most dynamic, change-seeking zone 
>of
> the world-system, there is the possibility that such dynamism could turn
> into a kind of fascist or Napoleonic path, rather than socialism.


That is certainly true.  And I raised that with respect to the periphery
as well.  A development which may prove to be crucial is the development
of vast megacities throughout the semiperiphery *and* periphery.  These
cities bring people together in a way that may very well facilitate
organizing of a sort not previously possible in mainly agrarian
countries.  My prediction is that one of more of these megacities will be
the site of a new form of organizing that will spread globally and give
rise to a new generation of young militants, a New New Left, that will
introduce a new game, a novel element hard for us "20th century minds" to
predict in any detail.


> 
> I understand these three points as questions, sort of like a dumb 
>Keynesian
> willing to learn something.
> 
> (By the way, I thought your "rock the MDGT" a while ago was rather neat.)
> 
> Gert


Rock the Multilevel Dialectical Global Totality (MDGT)!

Richard



> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard N Hutchinson <rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU>
> To: g kohler <gkohler@accglobal.net>
> Cc: wsn@csf.colorado.edu <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Date: June 26, 2000 8:31 PM
> Subject: Re: what does the semi-periphery want? (G15 communique)
> 
> 
> >Gert-
> >
> >In "Spiral" (SCS) the crucial role of the semiperiphery is that it is 
>more
> >likely to be the site of (democratic) socialist revolutions, which can
> >leverage progressive change at the world level.
> >
> >So the communique from the current heads of state doesn't bear on B&C-D's
> >scenario.
> >
> >In regard to the various proposals on the list recently for "global
> >keynesianism," the problem is that the current Powers That Be won't
> >implement any such thing.  Some sort of radical change in the power
> >structure will be necessary before any such plan becomes feasible.
> >
> >SCS presents one such scenario.
> >
> >RH
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>