Dear Al,
I mostly agree with you and confess that did not
emphasized (but not omitted) the core-periphery aspect of W-Capitalism.
Why not to discuss it now in wsn? These issues are very close to the topic
of Wagar's paper that Chris suggested recently for discussion.
BTW Wagar seems to be free from purist objectivism, signs of which I saw
in your reply. Wagar bravely calls to discuss NORMATIVE (or values-oriented,
ethical, pragmatic) aspects of global future. Strictly objectivist prognoses
are not sufficient in our time. I also doubt in usefulness of any unique
scenario and suggest to consider multiple trajectories depending of current
choices, coalitions, conjuncture, collisions of cycles and trends, and even
of historical chances.
In my book 1992 (The Structure of Civilization and World Development
Trends) I sugested to consider three modern world-wide megatrends directly
dealing with core-periphery axis. Each megatrend (MT) is a stable complex
of positive feed-back loops of trends from main spheres of social life.
Briefly: MT1 (Inertia of growth, Assimilation, Westernization) leads
to maximal liberalization of world economy, maximal and fast profit
for the core, encreasing gap between core and periphery, forthcoming
ecological, social-political, demographical crises in periphery. Maybe US-
Latin America in relations can serve here as an example, Perestroika nad
Gaidar reforms in Russia also were done within this logic.
MT2 (Isolationism): periphery (or semiperiphery) tries to conserve its
cultural-political identity from core expansion (USSR and China until 1975-
80th, now Iran, Northern Korea); the core (or semipheriphery) tries to
protect its life level from peripheral emigrants. This MT
leads to stagnation of periphery isolates, and to crises of democratic,
humanistic principles in core countries (rising fascist-like movements
in US- militia, in France - Le Penn, in Russia - Jirinovski, etc)
MT3 (Multipolarity and World-wide social-economic-cultural programs)
includes support by the core of periphery with preserving its identity (UN,
UNESCO, FAO, ecological, medical programs etc), competition of multiple core
poles in constructing new semi- peripheries.
Thus US and Japan already constructed their semi-periphery - China and
S.E.Asia. And now its turn for Europe to build its semipheriphery on the base
of Central Europe and Russia. I consider these processes as mutually
profitable for patrons and clients.
Wallerstein notes that in such scenario vast amounts of people in
Africa, South Asia and parts of S.America would be thrown off history.
It is really a problem (maybe the greatest humanistic problem of the
coming decades) and I hope to hear smth on it from experts in wsn.
best regards, Nikolai
> Dear Nikolai Rozov:
>
> The central problem with a serious theoretical discussion of where the
> capitalist world economy is going/transforming into, is that mostly people
> have noted national changes as indicative of world transformations. The
> pre-1989 example was that the WS was heading/changing/whatever toward
> socialism, and the Soviet Union was used as an example. Now forget the
> debate over whether the USSR was real socialism, the key issue is that if
> one takes WS theory seriously, and assumes that capitalism is a
> world-economy, then any sign of transition to any other world economic
> system would have to show up in changes in the central structural
> relations of world capitalism, which, in conventional WS theory, is the
> core-periphery relation. But, in none of the "where is world capitalism
> going" discussions is their a discussion of the transformtion of this
> relation, and that is the central shortcomming of WS projections about the
> future.
>
> To put it bluntly: if one takes the global perspective seriously, then
> one must identify global structural relations (the equivalent of class
> relations within societies) that are
> changing/intensifying/transforming/etc. if one wants to make a serious WS
> prediction about the purported change in capitalism as a world system.
> Talking about what happens/has happened in this or that country, is a
> statement about relations within countries, not about global relations,
> and, further, if one believes that it is the distinctly global,
> wholeistic, nature of the world economy that is the key to understanding
> its dynamic, then one must identify changes/trends/etc. at that level if
> one is to make any sort of serious WS predictions about the changes in the
> world economy. At present that is never/rarely done. I have not
> seen/read the new Zed book IW has coming out. My guess, based on the
> past, is that shifts/changes/etc. in the core-periphery relation will NOT
> be at the heart of the predictions about the future of the world and that
> this will remain a central shortcoming to that analysis as a distinctly
> globalist understanding of the distinctly globalist character of the world
> economy/system. Further, until we begin to identify such global
> structural changes we will not be really talking about changes in the real
> WORLD economy.
>
> Yours,
>
> al b.
>
>
>
> Albert Bergesen
> Department of Sociology
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, Arizona 85721
> Phone: 520-621-3303
> Fax: 520-621-9875
> email: albert@u.arizona.edu
>
>
Nikolai S. Rozov # Address:Dept. of Philosophy
Prof.of Philosophy # Novosibirsk State University
rozov@cnit.nsu.ru # 630090, Novosibirsk
Fax: (3832) 355237 # Pirogova 2, RUSSIA
Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI
(PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history)
http://darwin.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe
/philofhi.html