Re: globalization

In a nutshell then, may we say Capitalism as an ideology revolves around
blind faith in the market, and in recent centuries decades it drives the
powers that be to dismantle centuries of socially imposed restraints and
ethical norms? 

--paul, webmaster http://globalcircle.net
peace and liberty, sustainability and justice

get daily Global NetNews Summary - email to:
globalnetnews-summary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com 
OR globalnetnews-summary-subscribe@lists.riseup.net
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 6/18/2003 at 10:37 AM Andre Gunder Frank wrote:

>you write below
>
> In my opinion, it does not really matter if globalisation has been
>present for 150 years, 500 years, 5000 years or Neolithic ages.
>
>Barry Gills & I have in our contrtibution to our 500 or 5,000 year book
>been very explicit about  that great difference it does make. Consider
>only to begin with the Marx to Wallerstein claim that  continuoous capital
>accumulation is the sine qua non differencia especifica between capitalism
>and all else. You cannot have it both ways, that capitalism and hence
>capital accumulation is only 200 [Wolf] or 500 [Wallerstein] or 7-800
>[Bruadel] years old, AND that accumulation is 5,000 or other large number
>of years old. To keep the faith, some have therefore attributed to us the
>theis that capitalism is 5,000 years old. But of course any such claim
>wold make NONsense of "capitalism", which would be rendered as NOT
>differnt from anything else since the neolithic. Of coure that is NOT our
>position. On the contrary, we are forced bby thde evidence and the logic
>of the argument to tbe conclusion that ''capitalism'' is an ideological
>category wihout any distinguishing historical empiricaal
>content. Therefore, best cut the gordina knot and free ouselves from the
>shackles that this concept imposes on oour analysis - blinders as on a
>jhorse, that prevent us from seeing all reality as it reallly is, both the
>reality outside the blinder and alas also the realith inside the blinders,
>whch is mistaken for something special thaat it is not. 
>
>On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 tacer@alumni.bilkent.edu.tr wrote:
>
>> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:56:49 EEST
>> From: tacer@alumni.bilkent.edu.tr
>> To: Luke Rondinaro <larondin@yahoo.com>, wsn@csf.colorado.edu
>> Cc: franka@fiu.edu
>> Subject: Re: globalization
>> 
>> Even if our globalization is 5000 years old, we must admit that she has
>grown up quite fast for last hundred years. From my point of view, the
>unchanging parts of the story are brief: First, core-periphery
>relationship and dynamics of horizontal dependency: For several millennia,
>allocation of resources had not been evenly distributed among continents
>and as properly stated, the Fall of the East preceded the Rise of the
>West. Illustrations of this situation are abundant in historical
>materials. Secondly, global trade is a meta-chronic reality of societies;
>there has always been - there will always be. By means of
>trans-continental trade routes, Globalisation always existed.
>Nevertheless, those similarities, do the really suffice to draw the
>boundaries of the term itself? I am in doubt… 
>> 
>> Please do not take offence, for I do not refer to forum discussions here
>but general discursive climate of World-System theory. There is an
>infertile discussion among world-systems scholars on the beginnings of
>world-system chronology. In my opinion, it does not really matter if
>globalisation has been present for 150 years, 500 years, 5000 years or
>Neolithic ages. This issue itself does not need to be auctioned and if we
>step backwards any further in the history, we might find ourselves
>discussing “the global challenge of T-rex and Brontosaurus” – for
what
>reason? Does it help us to understand the essence of capital accumulation
>process more fully? Or does it provide a full-fledged analysis of market
>formation in early civilisations? Again, I doubt it does…
>> 
>> I suspect serious misconceptions and misnomers on general discussion.
>Especially if we go into details of ancient economy, it is evident that
>the idea behind economic relationship of modern times definitely is not
>same as we suppose for ancient times. I will not go into detail of this
>for now, but at first hand we should differentiate between primitive
>surplus and accumulated capital, then distinguish staples from markets. 
>> 
>> Let me illustrate more precisely:
>> Saving up livelihood to keep good conditions for tomorrow, or
>accumulating resources to build up a cistern has nothing to do with
>capital accumulation. Those kinds of activities can even be attributed to
>animal species; like ants accumulating grains in their hive to feed next
>generations. As any other animal species in the world, human beings were
>also determined to protect their communal vitality. I argue that
>distinctive feature of capitalist accumulation is a “profit for
>investment, investment for profit” loop. This loop requires and involves
>an appropriate class casting whose tasks and duties are defined in a
>capitalist mode of resource allocation, otherwise we cannot draw a line of
>distinction between profit-driven activities and public benefit
>expenditures. Using aggregated surplus for militarist superiority or
>meeting religious needs appears to me as non-economic activities. Thus
>what I believe, saving for future, or investments that are subjected to
>re-production of l
>>  ife (building aqueducts, cisterns) are pre-capitalist activities,
>better should be named as early public expenditures. 
>> 
>> Another issue is market autonomy that I consider as prerogative of
>capitalist world-systems. I believe in the existence of self-governed
>markets as I believe its is a product of economic liberalism. In ancient
>economies markets were dominated by a rather complex set of institutional
>structures, customs, taboos and religious affiliations. Specific
>role-definitions were involved in market participation and even the
>locations of staples or marketplaces were determined by a number of
>non-economic criteria. In such circumstances, it would not be appropriate
>to refer early-market formations in designing the fundamentals of modern
>economic system.
>> 
>> My arguments are open to discussion. Your comments and criticisms are
>welcome, and any reading suggestions are strongly appreciated.
>> 
>> Thanks for your interest and best regards 
>> 
>> Ozgur Tacer
>> METU Sociology, MA.
>> 
>> --  
>> He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not
>become a monster. When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into
>you. 
>> Nietzche
>> 
>
>
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>               ANDRE    GUNDER      FRANK
>
>Senior Fellow                                      Residence
>World History Center                    One Longfellow Place
>Northeastern University                            Apt. 3411
>270 Holmes Hall                         Boston, MA 02114 USA
>Boston, MA 02115 USA                    Tel:    617-948 2315
>Tel: 617 - 373 4060                     Fax:    617-948 2316
>Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/     e-mail:franka@fiu.edu
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~