I have changed my mind, but not on this, since on THIS i made no
pronouncments.
it said nothning on the pop you cite about whether Arabia was a center or
a periph or whatr explitaiton there was or not, shichi insist again is an
empirical question, and i am gald to see that Chris C-D backs me up on that!
agf
On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Korotaev A. wrote:
> 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?
>