connecting WST to the current events

See below for responses:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Krishnendu Ray wrote:

> A legitimate question has been raised about the connection between
> current events and world-system analysis, which I think needs a better
> response than 'we are ex-Marxists, what else would you expect!'
> 
> In the first instance we are talking so much about the attack on the
> WTC because many on this list live in the US. It may have nothing to
> do with any particular theoretical perspective. Second, talking about
> it on this list provides some therapeutic outlet for the shock and
> sorrow while avoiding the excessive flag waiving that surrounds us. It
> would be disingenuous to give a bigger reason than that.



True, it is a bigger event for the U.S. than elsewhere SO FAR.
Unfortunately that will quickly change...



> 
> Nevertheless, the question about the connection persists. And I think
> world-system analysis is often weak at making the connections between
> current politics, the medium term and long-term analysis. A case in
> point is Wallerstein's recent piece on the WTC incidents. I think, it
> is mostly generic, and what it says is 'as I have said repeatedly this
> is one more sign of the coming transition.' Well and good. Sometimes
> such statements can even be prophetic but there is a difference
> between prophecy and analysis. It does not enable us to connect our
> current position to the larger perspective, hence most commentators on
> this list have resorted to listing US misdeeds in the past. That is a
> good corrective but inadequate analysis.
> 
> In contrast I would argue that our political position should be a
> three-pronged one. First, in the immediate context it is ok to argue
> for a military/police offensive against the perpetrators on the basis
> of reasonable evidence (effectively the Chinese position). That is the
> basis on which the US in fact has re-invigorated its current hegemony,
> even Cuba, Libya, China and Russia have joined in support. Hegemony
> entails some elements of real leadership.



I do not agree with this at all, and not only do I not see how you connect
this to WST, let alone derive it from WST, I think it is counter to the
liberatory content of WST.  WST is not "pro-hegemony."



> 
>  Second, the above position has to be linked to two medium-term
> projects: (a) no invasion of Afghanistan (for reasons of US
> self-interest and the interest of the long-suffering people of
> Afghanistan) and (b) US ultimatum to Israel to negotiate in good faith
> with the PLO, or else face the withdrawal of US military and financial
> support. This is the political occasion to pursue the medium-term
> project of either prying open the US-Israel axis or making it
> politically difficult to justify it to the American public. (An
> invasion of Afghanistan will really be the terminal phase of US
> hegemony).



These positions I support, but I do not see how you derive them from WST.
(Also they are not very realistic, especially the "ultimatum to Israel.")



> 
> Third, this is also the occasion to establish the connection between
> the violence of terrorism and the silent violence of underdevelopment
> in the modern world system. Each of these levels connects and
> justifies the other. That is how I think world-system analysis
> connects to the current events. It clarifies our perspective and
> allows for certain kinds of solutions while disallowing others.
> 
> Thank you for listening.
> Krishnendu Ray
> 


Just off the top of my head it seems to me you might make the following
connections between WST and the current events:

1) As in the past, U.S. military aggression is likely to reinforce
core/periphery exploitation.

1a) A moral corollary is, since exploitation is wrong, we should oppose
this aggression.

2) The U.S. response and the responses it triggers will test the
U.S. hegemonic position.  It is impossible to predict precisely how that
position will be affected, as it entails military, political, economic,
and cultural factors that are inextricably entwined.  Perhaps if we had
enough supercomputer time we could calculate a set of most likely
scenarios.

3) Based on the particulars of "The Spiral of Capitalism and Socialism" by
Boswell & Chase-Dunn, it seems plausible to look in the current crisis for
ways to strengthen the U.N. as a counter-pole to U.S. hegemony.

4) The volatile, fragmented states of Central/Southwest Asia are becoming
even more volatile with escalating hegemonic intervention.  The U.S. faces
the possibility of overextension, but Russia, China and India will be
affected in unpredictable ways too.  While it seems possible that Pakistan
may be weakened, and India thus strengthened, that would threaten China
and may make an India-China confrontation more likely.  (This is really a
realist/geopolitical hypothesis more than a WST hypothesis -- see Randall
Collins "Macrosociology.")

4a) Regimes are likely to fall in C/SW Asia, both through imperialist
intervention and through coups and revolutions.  The U.S. may eliminate
some hostile regimes only to inadvertently create others.

5) As for the "world empire" thesis, it is certainly possible to see how
this could become more likely -- a move in the direction of direct
colonialism.  But that assumes that the forces U.S. action unleashes do
not become so powerful that they spin out of control.  Again, the short
and medium term future holds much uncertainty, and specific predictions
will almost certainly fail.

RH