capitalism: magic word (fwd)

I want to ask a couple of questions to Prof. Frank, if he does not
mind. I want to make sure what the concept of "transition" exactly means 
in his article. these are just questions not comments. thanks.

Mine

>TRANSITIONAL IDEOLOGICAL MODES : FEUDALISM, CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM by
>Andre
>Gunder Frank (available on AGF web site)

>My tentative conclusion will
>be that ideological blinkers - or worse, mindset - have too long
>prevented
>us from seeing that the world political economic system long predated the
>rise of capitalism in Europe and its hegemony in the world.

I guess, you mean the "world economic system" prior to the rise of
the "capitalist world system" .but, was it a "system" at all? or was it
just a loosely connected world empires? for example, what does it
mean conceptually to be outside or inside the system in a pre-capitalist
world system?

I thought that the "modern world system" only originated in Europe, and
then incorporated outside regions into its system.

>The rise of
>Europe represented a hegemonic shift from East to West within a
>pre-existing system. If there was any transition then, it was this
>hegemonic shift within the system rather than the formation of a new
>system.

here, i have a conceptual problem. what is the pre-existing system
charecterized by? socially, economically and politically speaking? do you
mean that the transition from feudalism to capitalist world system was not
a systemic change? if not, what sort of change was it? evolution,
revolution or long duree? was it a change within a system?
then, what is the origin of the system?

>We are again in one of the alternating periods of hegemony and
>rivalry in the world system now, which portends a renewed westward shift
>of
>hegemony across the Pacific. To identify the system with its dominant
>mode
>of production is a mistake. There was no transition from feudalism to
>capitalism as such. Nor was there (to be) an analogous transition from
>capitalism to socialism.

so only "systems" change, not productions? what about a change from a
"capitalist world system" to a "socialist world system" if we want to use
a systemic vocabulary? can a systemic change occur without a change in
production? or can a radical transformation occur with outside
intervention (revolution let's say)?


>If these analytical categories of "modes of
>production" prevent us from seeing the real world political economic
>system, it would be better to abandon them altogether. These categories
>of
>"transition" and "modes" are not essential or even useful tools, but
>rather
>obstacles to the scientific study of the underlying continuity and
>essential properties of the world system in the past.

so, there is only "continuity" rather than systemic change?


please, i have no intention of objecting. my questions are sincere. i am
just trying to learn the vocabulary. 

thanks very much,


Mine Doyran
Phd Student
Politics
SUNY/Albany