|
my question re semi-periphery --> see
below
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard N Hutchinson wrote 19 December 2000
"Since discussions of praxis are now underway on
both lists, I am
re-posting my comments on Boswell & Chase-Dunn's new book, "The Spiral of Capitalism and Socialism," . . . . . .snip>
[re semi-periphery, as discussed in the
book]
The ace in the strategy, not quite a deus ex
machina, but the lynchpin
or engine without which the mechanism won't work, is the semiperiphery. The assumption is that the peasants and workers in the periphery have motivation, but no opportunity, while the core workers have opportunity but little motivation (see Przeworski for supporting evidence, including his analysis of the "valley of transition," also discussed on Wright's new AJS piece -- Jan. 2000). The workers and peasants of the semiperiphery have both motivation and opportunity, and thus become the locus for progressive system-level change. A key becomes "harmonization upward," the potential for core labor to join with semiperipheral labor to enforce global standards that will benefit both." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION:
What are the relative roles for world-system
change of (a) the "workers and peasants" of the semi-periphery and (b) the
"states" (governments) of the semi-periphery? If the workers and peasants are
the driving force of change, is the influence of that "force for change" via (a)
by-passing the state apparatus, (b) transmitted through the existing state, or
(c) exerted by replacing the present state and, then, transmitted through a new
state?
If you take South Africa (with/without apartheid)
as an example, you have something like (c) - the people replaced the old state
and, whatever influence they may have, gets transmitted to the world-system via
the new state [which, in effect, seems to be nothing].
If you take USSR/Russia as an example, you also
have something like (c) - the people replaced the rule of the Communist Party by
a new regime. Whatever influence gets transmitted from the people to the
world-system is complex. The initial effect was to remove a major
state-socialist regime from the world scene.
If you make another assumption, namely, that the
driving force (for world-system change) of the semi-periphery resides in the
semi-peripheral state (governments), rather than the workers and peasants, then
you are faced with the possibility that that driving force may *not* be what the
Boswell/Chase-Dunn book is envisioning - see, as examples, the states
(governments) of Mexico, Iraq, China.
On the other hand, if you think of UNCTAD, the
G15 and the G77, there is multitude of non-core states, lead by semi-peripheral
states, who are working for world-system change (anti-poverty, anti-global
inequality, etc.). What they do, falls short of the Boswell/Chase-Dunn vision,
but is not incompatible with it, if one thinks in terms of long-term
process.
The praxeological implication I see is that
movement activists should, perhaps, laugh less about UNCTAD, G15, G77 and take
them more seriously (?).
That's it. A number of loose ends. What do others
think about this matter?
Gernot Kohler
|