> From: "Bruce R. McFarling" <ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
>
> I read the sketch of the principle strategy. The question I am
> posing is at a more detailed level. Given a strategy to divide the
> vested interests in support of the status quo system, what is the reason
> for suspecting that the IMF / World Bank / Transnational Corporate
> elements of those elites are the ones that can be targetted?
my point is that the should not be omitted. J.Arrighi wrote that each
hegemony country (of F.Braudel's line since Venece-Florence up to US)
created an international institutional-financial framework that embarassed
new challenger, in any case the last had to destroy or assimilate this
framework. As R.Moore fairly noted the mentioned institutions are deeply
connected with current US hegemony. (Who is a master and who is an instrument
- it is an open question, I suspise that it is a case of mutual
instrumentality, just as described relations between the state and
capitalism in Braudels 3rd volume of Mater. Civ...).
If we wish to substitute the current order by some new one with priority
of some 'strawberry jamm'(world state, or legal-based multipolar partnership)
this transition CANNOT be thrown off the general historical logic of shifting
hegemonies.
So you were right that all these (inspired by US and World Cap. elites)
institutions as a framework of the current world order can occur most serious
obstacles for new transition.
My position is not to try to destroy them, not to make them overt
enemies, especially in initial stage, but to split them and to try to
assimilate them (with their outstanding financial, oraganizational and
personnel resourses) into a new legal multipolar framework.
>
> This is where we start to stumble into the mine-fields of paradigm
> self-defense. For the experts that are economists, the question is
> whether they will view WST as well-based theoretically. And the
> empirical analyses, when evaluated from a different theoretical
> perspective, might be evaluated as not supporting the conclusions WS
> theorists have drawn from it. It is not unknown for researchers trained
> in the currently dominent tradition in a discipline to torture
> inconvenient information until it confesses its heresy and recants.
right, and I'told that there are no guarantees of success, but in any case
the dialogue is more preferable than isolate mutually irritative activities
and mutual misunderstanding.
> For the economists in particular, I doubt that the influence of WS
> theorists on their future career prospects is going to weigh heavily on
> their mind. I don't see that it could do any harm to try, but I wouldn't
> be very hopeful of success in those terms.
I regret this reaction as well as silence of other members. If the idea
of such practical work as academic monitoring of political-economic effects of
internat.institutions' activities, where WS theorists can be really strong,
is negelcted, what talks can be about political, organizational work on
'world party', 'world state', 'wide social movements'? Here university
scholars are evidently much weaker.
I don't wish to offend anybody but it seems that all these talks of
'global praxis' will not lead to anything more than bla-bla-bla in Internet.
best, 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