Thank you Bruce for detailed scrutinizing my message and apologies for
my delay to answer.
My msg was not more than a sketch directed to emphasize some general ideas.
But I am ready also to discuss detailes.
> From: "Bruce R. McFarling" <ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
>
> This suggests a view of 'world capitalism' that is a bit
> too idealized for me. By the nature of the term, there would only
> be one 'world capitalism' as a time, but observing a 'world
> capitalism' in the late 18th century and observing a 'world
> capitalism' in the late 20th centruy is a far stretch from
> the two 'world capitalisms' being the *same* world capitalism.
> That identification requires support.
two or one, the same or another - such questions are typical for qualifying
historical entities and the answers directly depend on presupposed criteria.
I believe that both views (the same capitalism or the sequence of
capitalisms) have proponents and reasons. My point is that besides this
debate my thesis that the capitalism of 19cent. and first half of XX met
and prevailed crises more sharp and dangeorus than all modern ones.
>
> > c) the left appeals for struggle against strong and
> > threatening world capitalism (appeals by Maoism, Trotskism
> > in Latin America, etc, Russian Communism, maybe in wsn by
> > R.Moore in his struggle against 'imperialism' and TNC)
> > My doubts and questions:
> > Historical facts tell us that in most cases of open 'hot'
> > struggle against world capitalism did not succeed, but ALL
> > the local national 'successes' (f.e. in Russia since 1917,
> > China, Cuba, N.Korea, Iran, Albania, led inevitably to mass
> > social disasters, poverty, frequently - mass terror.
> I find it hard to credit Castro's regime with leading
> to poverty in Cuba. I don't much favor hypotheses with
> consequences leading causes by that length of time. And
> there's a bit of a post-hoc ergo propter-hoc problem, as
> well, particularly if you note the tremendous economic
> growth (sic) of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica
> over this time.
Castro transformed Cuba from periphery to communistic isolate. I have not
insisted that to periphery in w-economy gives any guarantees for growth.
They have some chances, not more (take South-East Asia that triumphally
used its chance).I insist only on the guarantees for non-growth and
stagnation for communistic isolates (in spite of periods of military-
industrial growth by means of mass slavery as in USSR 1920-56)
>
> > On the contrary most "soft" and interior attemps to
> > ameliorate capitalism were successful, or at least, harmless
> > (Second International and Social-Democratic reforms in Europe
> > in the beginning of XX, laborists in Great Britain, socialists
> > in Sweden, promotion of social programs in US, France, Germany,
> > etc).
> > Well, WS-theory can tell that it was possible only for core
> > or semipripheral countries, not for periphery. Great, but in this
> > case the imperative should be not a struggle against 'imperialism'
> > (ie core countries) transforming them to less democratric and
> > tolerant regimes, but vice versa - the imperative should be to try
> > to rise the status (from periphery to semipheriphery) of most
> > exploited countries and peoples.
> > Is the last task possible without support of world capital,
> > without IMF, TNC, Big- 7 and all other 'devils', without appeal
> > to moral norms of humanism, justice,etc, even if we see so much
> > hypocrisy in proclaiming these values by mainstream leaders?
>
> The question supposes that it's possible *with* the support
> of 'world capital'. Whatever that means, and if it means anything
> *besides* the IMF/WorldBank/TNC's or the Big7.
Oh, well, you are fairly precise here and I was not precise. But what the use
of splitting hairs instead of principal debate?
> > My position in brief on the question posed in the subject above:
> > - World Capitalism seems to strengthen (not decline),
> > - it is not a monolith, it is rather open for reforms
> > (much more than all non-capitalist social regimes!),
> > - many long-term trends of its transformation during last 500
> > years should be morally appreciated,
> > - the task is not to unmask hypocrisy of its social-moral
> > ideology, but to use this ideology as a support for 'soft'
> > promotion of reforms for humanizing Capitalism (first of
> > all to work out the correspondent norms of world legal
> > system in international trade, debts, raw resources, etc)
>
> Primarily, however, I find it very striking to
> find a position that 'World Capitalism' is *not* a monolith.
> To say that it's not a monolith, is to say that it is useful
> to consider it as not really an *it*, but instead as a
> collection of institutions and polities. Which implies
> that at a less course resolution, we are talking about
> capitalisms (and other economic systems) in interaction.
> So, for example, someone could identify TNC's as a
> serious problem area for an issue such as sustainable
> development, without *automatically* taking a position
> for or against other aspects or types (or whatever)
> of capitalism.
> Or, in other words, 'World Capitalism' implies
> 'a direction'; 'capitalisms in the world' admits
> 'directions'.
Surely W Capitalism (or Modern World Economy, or Global World System, as
you like) can be considered as a collection of institutions and polities,
as a collection of cores, semip-s and peripheries, as a collection of
regional capitalisms, etc.
My point is that sometimes a collection of institutions can act as a
monolith (like in Iraque war) and sometimes not (as in reaction to debts,
world hunger, left movements, communist countries, feminism, immigrant
pression, etc.).
My main point was that this System as a collection of institutions and
polities is not a monolith in projecting and promotion definite image of
our global future. The pragmatic sequence is that left, progressive,
humanistically oriented movements (and supporting them ws-scholars) should
not 'struggle' against Modern W System, making by this the most dangerous
coalition of capital, governments and military power, but on the contrary it
is possible and necessary to split main capitalist insitutions and polities
and construct new coalition with all forces that see their future blossoming
in a stable world with not encreasing but contracting gap between core and
periphery.
regards, Nikolai
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