Re: globalization

To Frank, I'm curious what it is in my "nutshell" you said NO to. I agree
Capitalism is an ideology; what occurs in the real world is not really an
"ism" but includes many variants of statist intervention in the economy
mixed with elements of "free" markets. 

--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 6/19/2003 at 5:40 PM Duncan and Joan Craig wrote:

>Andre Gunder Frank wrote:
> > NO. that may be so for thiose who like/support ''capitalism" and have
> >  taken up its flag as thjeir own to run with. But it is not so for
> > thos who are againsr capitalsim, from Marx and his followers to
> > ''non-=scioentific"socialists and humanists of all kinds. But for all
> > it is an ideology to be pro or con as well as sjpposedly a real
> > thing. I think none of the above gunder frank
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, GlobalCirclenet wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:24:34 -0600 From: GlobalCirclenet
> >> <webmaster@globalcircle.net> To: franka@fiu.edu,
> >> tacer@alumni.bilkent.edu.tr Cc: Luke Rondinaro
> >> <larondin@yahoo.com>, wsn@csf.colorado.edu, Barry Gills
> >> <gills@hawaii.edu>, franka@fiu.edu Subject: 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.
> >>>>
> >>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> > I would respectfully disagree. Perhaps the "institutional 
>structures,customs, taboos,religious affiliations" were/are themselves 
>functions of capital accumulation. The history of capital accumulation 
>is the history of middlemen whose milieu and raison d'etre were/are 
>these cultural differences; partitions which may have been artificially 
>and consciously nurtured to preserve the pivotal role of the middlemen. 
>It has always been advantageous to keep the markets and sources 
>seperate. What better way than by strengthening regional differences of 
>language, religion and custom? It is not only the land trade routes that 
>were used for transport of goods. It was Buckminster Fuller who spoke of 
>the "Great Pirates", a maritime culture that formed the land-locked 
>colonies. He details how the brightest youth in the villages were used 
>as a natural resource; thus began the Royal school of Economics, and the 
>Royal School of Engineering. In other words, the emergence of a 
>specialized, compartmentalized way of knowledge that prevented the 'best 
>and brightest' from gaining a total systems overview that would 
>constitute a threat to the power of the global pirates. The delineation 
>he uses to mark the emergence of the industrialized phase of capital 
>accumulation is when the pirates extended their rail ship-launching 
>capabilities furthur into the lands interiors; thus becoming the 
>railroad barons.
>As for the statement that it doesn't matter how long this globalization 
>existed; I would also disagree. It is also a function of this 
>partitioning (so critical to the preservation and furtherance of capital 
>accumulation) that in the east we find every emperor becoming the "Huang 
>Ti" (First Emperor)or the Yuan Dynasty (Beginning); a tactic that has 
>it's analogue in the west as the 'New Deal' or the 'Great Society'. It 
>is a tactic that reinforces the illusion of capital accumulation as a 
>naturally occurring, progressive evolution.
>
>Duncan Craig
> >
> >