8/13/96, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote:
>I support in general the further development by Richard Moore the ideas of
>wide coalition with progressive ideology, participation in elections,
>special attention to mass-media, national focus and global solidarity, etc.
Good... certainly the relationship of people to world systems, and
the possibility of enlightened human intervention, deserves to be a thread
on WSN.
> At the same time within the framework of WST this political program needs a
>critical comprehension. I mean that all this designed movement and projected
>changes on national and global levels should fit to general theoretical
>structures and trajectories of WST (if we admit them to be valid), or they
>should change some basic options of these structures and scenario.
> In the most classical basis of WST developed by F.Braudel and
>I.Wallerstein the history of Western and then Global World System was treated
>as a shift of economic (+ political-military-technological) hegemony from
>Venezia, Genova, Antwerpen, Amsterdam to London-England and US.
> The question is, if the suggested program (as well as World Party, etc)
>will lead to a new stage of these shifting of hegemony, or it will be 'the
>end of this history'?
I must say I've been extremely un-impressed by the shallow analysis
and lack of deep comprehension evidenced under the name of "WST". Seems
like would-be system theorists patching together an arcane explanation for
what's obvious to everyone already, so they can feel smug with their
"insider knowledge" that no one else can follow. As such, it's trending
toward becoming a feedback-rich, self-deluding cult, rather than a
scientific endeavor.
The "SAVING DEMOCRACY" piece takes the core/periphery (aka
First-World/Third-World) as a given, and suggests shifting the focus of
political power within the core states first, to enable the possibility of
global political shifts. There was no suggestion that the basic
core-periphery organization of the globe needs to be, or is likely to be,
altered.
If this political shift were implemented globally, it would not
constitute a new stage in the shifting hegemonies -- it would only broaden
the constituencies involved in setting societal goals -- a minor shift from
a systems point of view. It might also lead to a more collaborative,
synergistic relationship between core states, and with and among the
periphery.
End of history? Certainly not. New power groupings are always
struggling for existence, and dominant ones often get soft and complacent.
The economy and technology are still in a stage of rapid development --
it's still early days for human history, regardless of the status of
democracy.
> The last version had been already suggested by Karl Marx (Communism as
>an absolute end of all vicious history of private property, class division
>and exploitation). Have we really now more solid arguments than Marx to
>persist that NOW the general historical logic will be stopped?
> Please present such arguments if you see them. I don't.
Again, I haven't suggested stopping "general historical logic".
Marx & Lenin were better at analyzing capitalism than they were at
predicting its future or the future of "communist" states. Even the
Russian Revolution was contrary to Marxian analysis. And Lenin's
predictions of capitalism's demise completely ignore the ability of systems
and people to adapt to changing circumstances.
Why, pray tell, do you hold up Marx as a paragon of "solid arguments"?
> My position is that core-periphery axis is eternal in human history but
>the qualities of the very core can and should be changed.
Then we're in agreement. BTW> "core-periphery" is much more
general than just world systems. ALL systems seem to be structured on a
core-periphery basis, from the human nervous system, to computers, to
animal-grazing patterns, to highway-systems, to shopping centers -- you
name it. What's the big deal?
> R.Moore's program seems to be "antisystemic" and "anticore", that's
>why I think it is hopelesss.
Please substantiate this characterization, if you still believe it
to be true.
Yours,
Richard