Re: pie and getting the DOL straight (fwd)

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

Why don't you read what IW writes about Communist states (as anti-
systemic movements with state power)?

> 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.

No one says states are irrelevant, certainly not IW.  On the contrary, IW as
an entire
collection of essays stressing the importance and role of the states:
The Politics of the World-System.

> 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.

You're not getting the argument apparently.  The point is that states are
not independent
socieites.  States are rather among the more efficacious mediating forces of
the world-economy
for a vareity of reasons.  Read the above mentioned book for IW's views, or
read in more detail
any of his works.

There are concrete reasons that core, sp, and p areas consist of states,
having to do with, among other things, currencies, protectionist measures,
militaries, the
truncated labor market (restrictions on immigration), fixed capital
investments, etc.