On Thu, 6 Jun 1996 09:58 A. Gunder Frank
wrote:
> AndreI or AndreY MISrepresents my position on WS. For me there is only ONE
> relevant one at his time/place and it already covers most of Eurasia,
> INCLUDING A's Arabia. There is no single center-periph structure in this
> WS,[as indeed my 1400-1800 AD book shows that there still was not only one
> in the whole world econ in the early modern period!] Whetehr there was
> what kind of center/periph exploitation on this or that regional level is
> an EMPIRICAL question to be answered on the evidence, not one of
> "theoretical principle".
Actually, one I wrote my message I had in front of me pages 94-96 of
Frank&Gills 1993, where the pre-Modern World System is considered to
consist of center-periphery-hinterland complexes, where center always
exploits periphery, and the only chance not to be center and not be
exploited is to be in the "hinterland" (e.g. "what distinguishes the
hinterland from the periphery is that the peoples of the hinterland
are not fully, institutionally, subordinate to the center in terms of
surplus extraction" [p.95]). It was this against which I argued.
If Prof. Frank has changed up his mind since 1993,
and considers now his position of 1993 to be wrong (stating now that
<Whetehr there was
what kind of center/periph exploitation on this or that regional
level is an EMPIRICAL question to be answered on the evidence, not
one of "theoretical principle">), then I am really glad to hear
about this.
Yours
Andrey <ANDREI@RSUH.RU (there was already one ANDREY on RSUH
when they gave me e-mail number, so they decided that I should be
andreI in order to be distinguished from andreY).
P.S. Nikolay ROZOV has just wrote on PHILOFHI:
<As far as I know w-system in basic texts of I.Wallerstein never
toughly connected with core-exploits-periphery thesis>.
Fine, if this is really so, there does not appear much to argue
against with Prof.Wallerstein either. But does everybody agree with
ROZOV's statement?