Re: globalization

sorry first words in my reply got cut off. they were sorry for
brevith/non[pclarityOn Thu, 19 Jun 2003, GlobalCirclenet wrote:

> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:22:30 -0600
> From: GlobalCirclenet <webmaster@globalcircle.net>
> To: Duncan and Joan Craig <dunkers@pacbell.net>, franka@fiu.edu
> Cc: tacer@alumni.bilkent.edu.tr, Luke Rondinaro <larondin@yahoo.com>,
>      wsn@csf.colorado.edu, Barry Gills <gills@hawaii.edu>
> Subject: 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
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> 




    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

               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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~