Re: pie and getting the DOL straight (fwd)

> The reason, very simply, is that if there is no satisfactory answer to the
> question of why endogenous growth in the core is not possible,
world-system
> theory itself is a non-starter.  If endogenous growth in the core _is_
> possible, the core need not exploit the periphery (it is logically
possible
> that it _might_ do so, but there would be no necessity of its doing so).

The question is moot because from a WS perspective, the core cannot have
endogenous growth.

To argue that WS is a non-starter because it doesn't accept YOUR view that
the core is a separate system (which is what your argument logically
holds), is faulty reasoning.  WS, at least IW, AG, and Chis's versions,
maintain, as I have written previously, that the modern world-system is a
single system.  There cannot logically be endogenous processes within a part
of a whole, for it then ceases to be a part and becomes a separate society.

In other words, you don't accept the most basic premise of world-systems
analysis (of the modern world-system) that the core is a part of the system,
not a separate system, and that the division of labor is not empirically
accurate.   For only if it is taken as a separate system can the core
possibly have "endogenous growth."

If this is your position, then you would have to counter IW's 3 volumes
plus, and demonstrate that the periphery is a separate system, and not thus
actually not a "periphery."  But recognizing that this is your stance, if it
is, would certainly clarify the issues.

> I would be happy to see a citation of the debate you mention.

I'll send it to you when I find it.