ADDENDA
1. One might soppose that the "uncomfortable data" of South Arabian
type could be fitted into the traditional WS models through
Frank&Gills' notion of "hinterland" (e.g. Frank, Gills 1993: 94-96).
However, this cannot be considered to be entirely satisfactory. The
problem here is that if we drop the "exploitation-by-the-core"
criterium, by all
the other possible system criteria South Arabia was an integral part
of the Circum-Mideterranean WS. On the other hand, one should not
neglect some "center-like" "capital-accumilating" properties of the
South Arabian element of the WS. The real problem here is that this
element had properties of "centre", "periphery" and
"hinterland" at the same time.
And that is one of the main points why I suggested to think together
about the working out of some less primitive categories, more
appropriate for the description (without the current
oversimplification) of the real complexity of the real world-systems
whose structure now appears to be far more complex than the "founding
fathers" suggest.
2. Now I shall have to quote again from the previous Wallerstein's
posting:
Wallerstein wrote on Thu May 30 00:51:02 1996:
> i believe that unequal exchange
> only exists within systems, and when trade is between systems, it is equal,
> and therefore non-exploitative. and i believe with him that <a society can
> export products which it does not value, but which are valued in other
> areas>. indeed, i believe that is what constitutes trade between systems.
I think irrespective of all the disagreements between Frank and
Wallerstein and all the differences in their terminology they both
have the same misleading underlying logic. This logic is that if you
get across a system which does not "behave" as you think it must
behave, than this system is simply not a system. A very easy solution
indeed.
I am afraid this attitude of the "founding fathers" is very
misleading, dangerous and harmful. It actually blocks any serious
study of the world-systems which differ from the type which they
initially described ("core exploits periphery") but the study of
which is not less important. I mean "non-exploitative" world-systems.
I think this initial attitude has affected rather badly the WS
research producing e.g. an unjustifiably pessimistic and
"negativistic" perception of the WS. Of course if you neglected the
study of the "non-exploitative" world-systems (by simply declaring
them to be non-systems) how can you reasonably study the realistic
ways of making our own WS less exploitative?
3. Of course, one might say that the data which I presented (in my
posting of 3 June 1996) in
support of my thesis of South Arabian peripheral center exploiting the
Mediterranean core one do not constitute any rigorous proof of
that this exploitation actually took place. I am entirely ready to
agree with this. To be more cautious I would rather interprete these
data in another way: if there was any exploitation in the South
Arabian - Mediterranean relations, it was the exploitation of the
Mediterranean core by the South Arabian periphery, but not the other
way round. However, one should not exclude the "non-exploitative"
interpretation here either.
However, I would stress that this could be said
about practically any cases of "core-exploits-periphery" too. I would
stress that the "core-exploits-periphery" thesis must be treated in
most cases only as a hypothesis which should be corroborated for any
separate case again and again. Actually, up to my knowledge nobody
has ever proved this in a really rigorous way (even with respect to
the Modern world-system). Even in the apparently evident cases this
is not really evident. Take for example the Roman world-empire of the
2nd cent. CE. The Roman center apparently exploited the provinces
through taxes. But did the provinces get anything in return for their
taxes. Yes they did. E.g. the level of safety and stability
incomparable with any pre-imperial situation, incredibly improved
communication infrastructure &c &c. Did all this cost the taxes?
Maibe, yes. Maybe, not. Up tp my knowledge nobody has ever shown how
the value of the taxes and the value of the "state services" could be
really rigourously compared. One could even doubt that this will be
ever possible. Hence, I do not
understand why the "core-exploits-periphery" thesis is so often
treated as a proved truth. Anyhow, I am strongly against the current
attitude that one should start the study of any world-system with the
a priori assumption that its core must be found to exploit its
periphery. It should be rigorously proved again and again for any new
case (and incidentally for all the "old cases" too). And the
alternative possibilities should never be neglected.
4. The "capital-accumulation" assumption of the WST looks for me as a
much more sound, much less shaky one. However, one doubts why the
capital accumulation should nessesarily imply exploitation. If we
use with Ekholm&Friedman "the word 'capital' to refer to the form of
absract wealth represented in the concrete form of metal or even
money that can be accumilated in itself and converted into other
forms of wealth" (1993 /1982/: 68), why capital accumilation could
not be conducted through the systematic equal exchange of "other forms of
wealth" and services in return for the "abstract wealth"?
5. Incidentally, I have just received
(from Marc W.D. Tyrrell [mwtyrrel@ccs.carleton.ca])
a rather interesting suggestion on
the possible ways of the WST reconstruction which I cannot avoid
quoting:
>You might want to considered a
>remodeling based on interlocking cybernetic systems, where the "world"
>component refers to the perceptual world of the cultures involved. If
>transport and communications technologies serve to store, transmit,
>and remodel cultural (quasi-independant cybernetic) perceptual
>systems, "worlds", then it may well follow that the model proposed by
>Chris Chase-Dunn (luxury exchange, military exchange, bulk good
>exchange) works, except that "exchange" serves to stabilize and
>regularize the "world" (cf Sahlins, "Stone Age Economics", ch. 6).
Yours,
Andrey
Dr Andrey Korotayev, Senior Research Fellow
Oriental Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
12 Rozhdestvenka, Moscow 103753, Russia
ANDREI@RSUH.RU