Devine, James:
Ulhas writes:There is no undiffrentiated mass of nations called the Third
World.
Of course. What's constant amongst these countries, though, is the
relationship between the center and the periphery, the relationship of
domination and subordination. In addition, some countries are
Ulhas:
1. How does one know this without having studied in depth each social
formation in the periphery so-called?
Good point. That is why read over 2000 pages on Argentina in order to
prepare a series of posts. In general, there is far too much blather on the
internet about such questions, even
Everyone knows that the US balance of
payment deficit an engine of growth on the Asia-Pacific region and China
is
biggest beneficiary there. What domination/subordination model is involved
here?
Ulhas
- US trade balance deficit means that the USA pays only 75% of its
importations. The
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27729] Re: core vs. periphery
Ulhas writes:There is no undiffrentiated mass of nations called the Third World.
I wrote:
Of course. What's constant amongst these countries, though, is the relationship between the center and the periphery, the relationship of domination
Devine, James wrote:
I should mention that I am far from being a hard-core Wallersteinian
(especially since I don't read his stuff very often). In some ways,
the core/periphery distinction is useful, while in some ways it's not:
the model doesn't seem to allow for the fact that
Title: core vs. periphery
Ulhas notes:the binary image of the world as consisting of the Core and the periphery is a myth.
it's never been binary: Wallerstein, for example, talks about the semi-periphery. Others talk about places like Los Angeles (where I live, BTW) becoming like
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27713] Re: core vs. periphery
Ulhas writes:There is no undiffrentiated mass of nations called the Third World.
Of course. What's constant amongst these countries, though, is the relationship between the center and the periphery, the relationship of domination
