Re: pie and getting the DOL straight (fwd)

>IW argues that there is development of the system which results in core
>and
>peripheral areas.   States don't have their own economies, hence they
>can't
>have their own "logic of development."  What happens in part of the
>system)
>is a result of the development of the whole system (including that part).

what about soviet socialism then? was it just a pawn?

it all depends on how you operationalize the _state_. states are not
abstract entities. they are _concrete_ formations embedded in material
relations, class interests and so forth, determined by local as well
as international forces. this is the definition of the _capitalist state_ 
true that states are _not_ independent from international dynamics, but
they are not irrelevant none the less.  

my recollection of Wallerstein's argument is that it is quite state
centric, despite his claims to the contrary.all the book is a discussion
on _hegemonic powers_ , which are basically _states_. okey, he talks about
world economy and single division of labor but why is the empshasis on
core _states_ --Netherlands, Britain, France-- then?. i suspect a
_hegemony_ driven hegelian logic here.  

regards,

Mine Aysen Doyran