WSN,
Just a few quick thoughts on these issues.
Thomas D. [Tom] Hall, THALL@DEPAUW.EDU wrote:
> >
> There are those of us, notably Chris Chase-Dunn and myself who argue, and
> we also claim the weight of evidence is on our side that the logic of
> accumulation has changed significantly at least twice since the
> neolithic. While Polanyi's initial argument that there are no markets
> until the "modern" capitalist age is clearly wrong, we maintain that
> since the rise of states some 5000 years ago tributary mode of
> accumulation dominated until late 17th early 18th century in the Low
> Countries when the first states became dominated by a form of capitalist
> accumulation [note tributary accumulation, accumulates capital, it does
> according to a tributary logic].
Regardless of the method by which capital has been accumulated, I
believe
that Chase-Dunn and Hall have confused the difference between
an "ideological mode" (or method) employed to appropriate surplus and
the "systemic-
logic". The first merely refers the manner by which the system
justifies or
masks the unequal surplus of transfer. By example, the dominant
ideologic mode
in (the) world-system(s) prior to say 1500 was indeed based on religion
(divine right
etc..) However there the logic of the system was still based on the
maintenance
of complex social structures via the acquisition and transfer of surplus
capital.
This systemic imperative of accumulation based on a structure of unequal
surplus
distribution has , inarguably i think, been the driving
force of all "world-systems" since the neolithic, that is, all complex
(hierarchical)
social systems are based on the logic of accumulation.
> While we disagree with Gunder both about keeping the hyphen in
> world-system, and that there has NOT been one world-system, but many
> since 12000 years ago, and even since 5000 years ago.
I would probably agree with this, it just seems obvious that there have
been
many relatively autonomous systems (guided by similar logics of
accumulation)
throughout the last 5000 years. However the truth is WE JUST DON'T
KNOW...
There has been nowhere near the necessary amount of work done on this...
The question of whether there has been a singular system driven by this
logic
or several spread throughout the globe is also entirely different than
whether/when
this logic came into being. The question of how many systems is indeed
an
empirical one. One that I don't think Chandler's data on the rise and
fall (and other population dynamics) of city states is reliable or valid
enough
to use to make an empirical argument; it would be better used to
augement,
other existing archaelogical data. (Correct me if I'm wrong but most of
the data drawn upon to test these various theories is Tertius Chandlers
assemblage of biblical accounts of city size).
Anywho, there are two different questions here: 1) what are the
different
logics of world-systems, and 2)How many autonomous systems can we
identify
throughout history. It also seems to me that these questions
(especially #2) are
only relevant if they offer us something through which to better
understand our
current situation...How will we know when this systems is falling into
demise,
What have been the indicators of systemic decline throughout history?
If this
debate doesn't help us to understand these types of questions then what
does it
matter whether the world system is 15,000 or 25 years old?
Cheers,
Christian Harlow
UC Santa Cruz