analysis and praxis

If you're studying world system transformations over thousands of years,
obviously morality and praxis have no immediate relevance.

But if you're responding to global events happening in real time, then
A) it's too soon to come to any definitive understanding of how it fits
into the larger scheme of things, and B) you might actually affect the
outcome.  So given that, if you think you're NOT engaging in praxis,
you're mistaken -- "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
problem."

My main interest in understanding how the world works is to better be able
to change it (Marx's 11th thesis on Fuerbach).  I have developed a taste
for theory in the abstract through my graduate school training, but that
is ultimately secondary.

Perhaps you are unaware that the entire dependency/world system
school of theory was a neo-marxist, not neo-weberian, response to
imperialism in Latin America, Vietnam, and elsewhere (nevermind the
earlier phase of Hobson, Hilferding, Lenin, Bukharin, Luxembourg, etc) 
and was formulated to assist the praxis of liberation movements?  If
you've embraced WST as a form of positivism via U.S. sociology, in other
words, you are probably in a minority on this list.

The Pakistani comrade from Binghamton (or is it the other way around?) 
made a provocative point in terms of his prediction coming true about
instability and the importance of SW Asia in the world-system vis a vis
East Asia, but that too is ultimately motivated by morality, not "pure
science."

RH