Some notes in defence of classical ws paradigm and possibilities of its
conceptual development in front of challenging well-argumented criticisms of
Andrey Korotaev.
As far as I know w-system in basic texts of I.Wallerstein never toughly
connected with core-exploits-periphery thesis. Definition of world-economy
(evidently relevant for Andrey-s South Arabia example) included long
transboundary chains of non-equal exchange with shifting monopolies.
Well, if ancient Arabia had some monopoly in providing spices for
Mesopotamia and Mediterranian (just as modern Arabia in oil export) - why
not to name the whole system 'w-economy' neglecting here core-periphery and
exploitation terms at all?
Typical destiny
of such cases was military envasion of such regions and transforming system
into w-empire (take f.e. ancient iron production in Anatolia) but here some
factors (mainly geographical, I suppose), defended Arabia from this
misfortune for rather long historical time.
I agree with Andrey that we should also be very cautious in using such
moral- charged terms as exploitation. Here I prefer to follow S.Sanderson
when he (if I remember well) means by exploitation situations of inequal
exchange necessarily caused by coersion and incapability of losing side to
avoid such relations.
Ancient people in principle could cease buy spices
from Arabia, so they were not exploited.
India, China since XVIII-XIX c. as well as other Western colonies could not
stop 'exchange' and were evidently exploited.
The West now is really highly dependant of Arabian oil, but being a true
core now the West uses all its other monopolies
in finance, world trade rules, conflict resolution (Israel-Arab countries),
security regime (remember Iraque 1993- 4) for balancing its lack of full
monopoly for oil resources. So it is surely nonsense to maintain that South
Arabia or Kuveit exploit USA in oil trade now. Although they have real
significant control of prices and the West allows it!
World-Empire (such as USSR as I still believe following here D.Chirot)
never would allow such thing to its periphery.
That's why I strongly disagree with I.Wallerstein's thesis of modern w-economy
as a virus desease, at least I insist that other main 'historical desease' (w-
empires) was usually much more violent, cruel, and disfunctional than w-
economies.
By core we can mean only those parts of w- economy that managed
to collect major monopolies by grasping initiative in trade, money and prices
control, transportation, markets organizing (later technological progress,
etc.)
Dear Andrey, really did such core exist in 1st mellenium BC ? I suppose
not, it seems various parts of w-economy had their own monopolies (take Greek
olive oil and amphores, Syrian wood for sailing, etc.) but you can make it
more clear.
thank you. Nikolai Rozov
rozov@cnit.nsu.ru