I basically agree with many of the points advanced by Bergeson,
Roberts and Grimes in the on-going discussion about the future of
PEWS. I do not wish to add another lengthy posting to the
discussion, only briefly reflect on a few issues.
Unfortunately, PEWS appears to be victim of the iron law of
oligarchy and I think this goes a long way to explaining why
PROCESS is neither public nor collective. But one can not simply
blame the "elites"- oligarchies generally arise in organizations
because of a "double" apathy on the part of the membership. On
the one hand, the membership is generally uninterested in
participating in decisions or, for that matter, the organization
and, on the other, the membership tolerates the rule of the
elites.
I suggest that one way to encourage and ensure discussion and
participation in PEWS is through WSN. While I doubt if WSN was
begun as a forum for PEWS, that can now be one of WSN's
functions. (If this is a problem, a new list for PEWS can also be
started.) Maybe CCD (the WSN list owner) knows the overlap
between PEWS and WSN, I don't, but we (PEWS members) could easily
say that one of the benefits of PEWS membership is an "automatic"
subscription to WSN (or some other list). I think this would
promote more discussion in the section and simplify, as well as
reduce the cost of, the distribution of material such as the
Newsletter. (Of course, people without access to e-mail would
still receive the Newsletter via regular mail.)
I have already said too much, so let me conclude with a question
about direction, the future and the past: Has the W-S
perspective turned into a dogma with its own jargon which
excludes those who don't speak the jargon? A concrete
instance/question, is Arrighi's new book THE LONG 20TH C.,
`World-System'?
Carl Dassbach
---------------------------
Carl H.A. Dassbach E-mail: DASSBACH@MTU.EDU
Dept. of Social Sciences Phone: (906)487-2115
Michigan Technological Univ. Fax: (906)487-2468
Houghton, MI 49931 U.S.A.