Re: Which Marxism? (fwd)

>> it is neo-smithian, if implicitly, not explicitly, because it
emphasizes
>> "trade" ,not necessarily "class" , as a dynamic force in the expansion
>> and consolidation of the capitalist world economy. note that
Wallerstein
>> puts the emphasis on capitaism as a "world economy" not  necessarily a
>> "mode of production". although they go hand in hand, it is a question
if
>> they occured simultaneoulsy.

>People need to read IW carefully before criticizing it (or citing others
>who
>mistakenly critcize it).

elson, with this polemical language we can not achieve anything. i invite
you to calm down before attacking. i cited the works of the most 
respectable Marxists whom Wallerstein himself quotes in his respectable
works. they are balibar, they are kula, they are Maurice Dobb, they are
hobsbawm, they are MARX. plus, i did _not_ present as them critics of
wallerstein. i just pointed out the contraversy about the starting point
of capitalism-- a debate, which Wallerstein himself admits in the second
volume.

"smilary a whole school of Marxist thought arrives at the same conclusion
regarding the timing of any rupture, insisting , as does Balibar, that
period between 1500 and 1750 is the period of transition to capitalism:
and that after 1750 is the period of capitlism proper" (Modern World
System II, p.5)

>Class, states, relations of production, are all
>there in IW!
>And the emphasis is not on economy!

again this is irrelevant to the subject matter of discussion.i am pretty
much aware that class, states and relations of production are in IW. the
debate was about whether capitalism emerged as a world economy  or a mode
of prouduction FIRST. as a Marxist, i buy the argument suggested by
Marx in Capital, which he describes in the primitive accumulation chapter
in details. i explained, previously, about why i am convinced by marx's
argument, and not by the periodization suggested by Wallerstein, because
britain was definetly capitalist before netherlands emerged as a
capitalist state (1650, pp.7). so, the narrative constructed by Marx is
still legitimate.

however, i am still convinced by wallerstein and the world system theory,
though i disagree with him about the starting point of capitalism.
wallerstein is definetly influenced by Braudel. i can say that although
Braudel is not a Marxist, his influence on the world system theorists is
profound.Wallerstein explictly refers to Braudel in the second
volume, page 6.

and also:

"the modern world system originated in the 16th century, the long 16th
century as Fernand Braudel called it, that is from 1450 to 1640" 
(_The capitalist world economy, essays by IW_, cambridge university
press).

>From the very first pages of WS 1,
>there
>is a strong emphasis on the states, and the forms of production that make
>up
>and explain the world division of labor.  If you take states as units of
>analysis (which
>is incorrect from a WS perspective), then you need to justify it in terms
>of
>the economy and polity (historical casality of social change).

instead of spending a lot of gas over what we think about what world
system theory is, let's turn to the original works. you argued that
states do not play a role or do not matter so much in the world economy
,referring to wallerstein and suggesting that there is one single economy
not a nation state system. i agree with this argument FULLY. however if
wallerstein really says so, he seems to be contradicting himself or
undermining the theoretical usefullness of his argument, when he says:


"the French path to strengtheing the state is well known: centralization
and uniformity... creation of the central administration" (p.118)

"Why did the French and English affect such seemingly differently styles
in the parellel search for the _strong state_" (p.119).

again statist merchantalist policies are emphasized in the form of power
struggle between the British and the French. this looks like a
classical realist argument though, which portrays states as power
maximizing entities. besides, the argument is also useful in showing
that there was no free trade paradigm as such in the 17th century.  

"In fact, the states in Restoration England and Colbertian france both
sought _consciously_ and actively to support their producing classes
against foreign competitors, to build up their merchant marine, to work
out a viable sharing of the total national product between the state and
owner producers" (p.116).

"the role of the state in the world market is in a curvilinear
relationship to the economic role of owner producers within the state. the
state is most active in states of moderate strenght" (p.114). 

 
>There are criticisms to be made of IW's theory (which must be
>distinguished
>from the ws perspective), but these aren't the convincing ones.

again you seem to be missing the general trend of my argument. i
explained previously why i buy some of wallerstein's arguments, and why i
am less convinced by his others, though i agree with the core-periphery
model in general. i expressed my concerns above. if you have any
criticisms of IW's theory, different from the ws perspective, i would be
crucious to see. may be, you have some concrete references.

 > on the other hand,wallerstein suggests that
capitalism would
be > impossible in a closed economy. it needed commercial relations among
> >states in order to survive. according to his argument, the capitalist
> >world economy came into being in the 17th century, in a fully developed
> >form, when the United Provinces emerged as a first hegemonic capitalist
> >state in pursuit of expansion and colonial domination.

>IW argues that capitalism as a social system emerged 1450-1550, and the
>short article "The three paths..." explain the division of labor in which
>the
>class relations of the second serfdom in Poland were created as part of
>the
>systems division of labor.

i know the article. it is "three paths of national development in the 16th
century". he says, referring to Braudel, 1450-1640 is the starting of
period of capitalism. (p.37).

the 17th century refers to the period, running from 1600 to 1750. it
designates the period when Netharlands emerged as a first hegemonic power
(1625-1650) (p.39, Volume II) in the expansion and consolidation of the
world economy.. i had netharlands in my mind above, which is consistent
with W's periodization. the long 16th century, however,designates the
dissolution of feudalism and the starting point of
capitalism (as a world economy)(periods between 1450 to 1550).


>Given the fact of the division of labor, this
>is
>much
>more convincing than focusing only on conditions in Poland -- indeed, how
>did
>a "Poland" as a nation-state come into being except as part of the
>world-system?

i was NOT talking about Poland as a nation state. Poland was not even a
nation state in the 16th century(in the capitalist sense). it was still
feudal ruled by barons. in fact, wallerstein quotes Kula several times in
the second volume (look at the index, p 131-135, 137-38,140, 236).
Kula explains why Poland did not experience the kind of structural
trasformation to capitalism, as it happened in Europe, till the 18th
century, and why  the mode of production remained essentially feudal. he
looks at the internal as well as external dynamics of backwardness,
underdevelopment and agricultural economy. he is a respectable marxist
writing about the periphery.



>The above terminology is confused: for IW and others, states are not the
>units of
>analysis (though they are often units of observation).

i may agree with this... but i still beleive that there is too much
emphasis on the _state_ despite the claims to the contrary. (see the
quotes above)

>The unit of
>analysis
>is the society
>-- the world-system.

OKI..

>Capitalism is the entire system, not simply the
>wage-labor
>form of production (which was first predominant in the system in
>agriculture
>in
>western Europe, England above all).

OKEY. here is the key argument. capitalism is FIRST OF ALL a mode of
production. it needs to reproduce itself to be able to reproduce the 
system globally. it is qualitatively distinct from feudalism. it is based
on profit and surplus expropriation from the worker, and also a market
mechanism. (by definition). it is a system in which the ownerswhip and
instruments of production is not in the hands of the state, but in the
dominant classes.
 
>Second, there is a long debate about "external" vs "internal" known as
>the
>Dobb-Sweezy
>debate.

yes...

>IW and others superceded it by showing that (AGAIN) a DIVISION
>OF LABOR, hence the boundaries of states, are not the boundaries of the
>system.  Indeed,
>the states are a product of the system.   One can't presume states were
>there all along, as natural phenomenon.

i did not argue the otherwise. may me you could clarify your statement.

>Third, as for Marx, it is true that WS is different, but read IW's peice,
>"Marx and
>Underdevelopment" and note how Marx explained, for example, that without
>slavery,
>there would be no factories in England.  Marx was focused on factory
>wage-labor
>because he thought the revolutionary class would emerge from it.  But he
>never
>completed his analysis, which developed in the direction from abstaction
>to
>historical concreteness, from England to the entire system, from the
>1850s
>to
>1450s.

i do not follow your argument here. marx argued that wage labor was
another slave labor(factory conditions were horrible--prolongation of
working day), however it was historically and qualitatively
different from slavery. in slavery, you sell your body. your body is the
capital because there is no market mechanism to produce capital. in
capitalism, you sell your labor as an instrument of
exchange and production. it is the source of profit. you sell your labor
in return for wages which does not exist under slavery because there is no
wage system there. bourgeois juridical contract justifies this relation. 
capitalism is a historically UNIQUE and CONCRETE form of exploitation,
first originated in england with the emergence of wage system. it is
historically contingent.

regards,

Mine Aysen Doyran
phd candidate
SUNY/Albany  
dept of pol scie
md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu