Re: capitalism: magic word

Ahmet, Mine and WSN'ers --
I forwarded the Frank quotation (below) because I thought that there was
some similarity with Ahmet's point. Since Ahmet says there is no similarity,
I take his/your word for it.

Beyond that, Professor Frank's article creates some cognitive dissonance
which I find interesting. For example, what are the praxeological
implications? (Frank's article hints that there are praxeological
implications. I am curious about that.) Furthermore, when a leading
historian works on fundamental categories concerning history and
historiography, that is serious business. Is he leading an intellectual
revolution in socialist theory? The scholars who claimed that the earth was
round and not flat were making an important point. What are the implications
of saying that capitalism and socialism are/may be useless categories? One
immediate application of that could be made with respect to the anti-WTO
protest this week. The greens, labour unionists, lesbians, anarchists,
peaceniks, civil libertarians, radical democrats, et al. in Seattle were not
Marxist-socialists. You might have trouble getting them to join a party
which has "socialist" in its name. Yet they were the really existing
protestors. Facts which don't fit some existing theory. Is the Frank thesis
related to this?

By the way, "capitalism: magic word" may sound like me, but was Cakmak's
phrase to which I replied.

Gert Kohler


-----Original Message-----
From: g kohler <gkohler@accglobal.net>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: December 5, 1999 2:49 PM
Subject: capitalism: magic word


>Supporting Cakmak's point, here is a quotation from:
>
>TRANSITIONAL IDEOLOGICAL MODES : FEUDALISM, CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM by Andre
>Gunder Frank (available on AGF web site)
>
>[start quotation, the opening section of the article:]
>INTRODUCTION TO TRANSITIONS AND MODES IN THE WORLD SYSTEM
>The present "transition from socialism to
>capitalism" and the possible future "shift of hegemony from the United
>States to Japan" are occasion to re-examine several scientific tenents of
>our politics and political tenents of our social science. Among these are
>1) the "transition from feudalism to capitalism," 2) the "transition from
>capitalisnm to socialism," 3) the process of "transition" itself, 4) the
>notion of feudal, capitalist and socialist "modes of production," and 5)
>and the hegemonic rise and decline of Europe and the West in the modern
>world capitalist system. The question arises whether any or all of the
>above are based on scientific analytical categories, or whether they are
>only derived from fond ideological beliefs. Perhaps both contemporary
>political reality and available historical evidence should now lead us to
>abandon some or even all of these positions. 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. 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. 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. 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. They also shackle our
>political struggle and ability to confront and manage the development of
>this same system in the present and future.
>[end quotation]
>
>