Re: w-empires & semipheriphery

Fri, 27 Oct 1995 17:32:56 -0400 (EDT)
A. Gunder Frank (agfrank@epas.utoronto.ca)

Nikolai, like Wallerstein, is totally WRONG, not because I say so but
because the evidence is overwhelemingly against him/them, in saying that
Russia and Chia were only fitfully integrated in ws since XVIII century.
They were organically connnected nd funcining parts of the ws LONG before
that.
One way that russia was, was that precisely it was an exporer of raw
material/commodities.And it still is! today, and was during Soviet time too!
just remmembmer that over 90 percent of soviet exports were oil/gas and gold.
today ther are massive contraband commodites exports. also what was the
urge behind Stalin's collectivizatin dirve after 1928? 1. to get food to the
citiies to support industrializatin and/but 2. to get wheat to EXPORT
to earn foreign exhange!
China was integrated into Ws since at last the middle of 1st millennium BC
and Chris's work on demographic/urban growth cycles in East and West Asia
supports my/Gills contention on this and Chris recognizes that,
and Russia has been in since time immemorial, vide the move of its cycles
in tandem with those in Eurasia below the motains crissing Asia from East
to west, as "hown" in my Bronze Age paper, ie for th secod and third
millennia BC!
I fear that Nikolai, along with Wallerstein and lots of w-s people is
just totaly out of the real ballpark, not to mention left field.
Sorry to be so blunt, but i am in a hrry, since i am finally truig to advance
again on my 1400-1800 world econ/syst paper [begun in march94] in which
I try to show precisely that, that these reguions,like others were
fully integrated fuctioning parts of the world eco. Indeeed, China
was its CENTER!
cheers
gunder