>Ken Hanly wrote:
> > By the way, why should it not be useful to extend the concept of
> >social class beyond the capitalist system?
> >Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
Ken, hi. Actually, it is very useful to extend the concept of social
class beyond the "nation-state", which is what the world system people
and marxists writing in the field of International Relations are trying
to do (See folks like *Van der Pijl*, Robert Cox, Gill who are mostly
informed by Gramsci's hegemonic concepts of control, historical
materialism and geo-politics of capitalism). As far as the world system
theory is concerned, it must be added, its very premises rest upon the
existence of structural differentiation of labor among regions of the
world economy. For example, "Modes of Labor Control", as introduced by
IW, is a concept used to characterize the "dual mode of labor
involvement" in a capitalist world economy: "Free labor is the form of
labor control used for work in core countries; whereas coerced labor is
used for work in peripheral areas. The combination thereof is the
essence of capitalism" (1974).
I have been recently reading Pijl's new book _Transnational Classes and
International Relations_ (Routledge, 1998). It is a unique contribution
to IPE literature, and social sciences in general. American economists
have a lot to learn from it, especially the ones misinformed by the very
premises of Anglo-Saxon/ Analytical/functionalist school of Marxism.
The book combines a lot of Marxist ideas in a very productive fashion
(Marx, Lenin, Gramsci, Poulantzas, Mandel, Wallerstein). It offers a
historical account of "transitional integration" of the capitalist
class-- the ways in which different factions of capital interests
involve in the process of globalization, transnationalization of
capitalist production and capitalist control of the world economy; Pax
Britannica; Pax Americana, etc.. I particularly liked the book. It is
very contemporary. Dennis was hinting elsewhere that US hegemony is
weakened by the rise of Japanese and European capitalisms (although I
think it is *confirmed*). Arrighi *heavily* touches upon these issues
(See his article "the Rise of East Asia and the withering away of the
Interstate System"), but this book is really *ideal* for assessing how
transitional capitalism and its current ideological mode of
accumulation (neo-liberalism) are being reinforced/ rearticulated by
different centers of the world economy; sometimes through *conflict*
other times through *cooperation* among major capitalist powers. It is a
good starting point to make sense of the globalization of neo-liberal
hegemony from a Gramscian perspective.
Mine
>
> Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
>
>> >Ken Hanly wrote:
>>
>> > >I read through this but I fail to see anything that I can
>> identify
>> > with >Marxism. I only recall capitalism mentioned once. Capitalism
>>
>> > does not >seem to enter as a unit of analysis.
>>
>> mentioned once?? In the _Modern World System_ and _The Capitalist
>> World
>> Economy_ capitalism is mentioned in *every* SINGLE identifiable
>> page,
>> probably like hundred times, in the whole book, although not
>> specifically mentioned in this *small* introductory piece. how many
>>
>> times do you mention *capitalism* in your posts, Ken?
>>
>> > >The concept of class is not mentioned as far as I could see.
>> There is
>> > >no use of the base, superstructure distinction, no mention of
>> class
>> > >conflict or class struggle or organising for revolutionary
>> change.
>>
>> there are two chapters in the _Capitalist World economy_ that
>> specifically deal with class, among other things (race, slavery,
>> rural
>> economy, etc..): 1) American slavery and the capitalist world
>> economy
>> 2) CLASS FORMATION IN THE CAPITALIST WORLD ECONOMY. In the below
>> parag,
>> note the emphasis on the importance of _dialectics_ and _class
>> analysis_.
>>
>> " SOCIAL CLASS AS A CONCEPT WAS INVENTED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE
>>
>> CAPITALIST WORLD ECONOMY AND IT IS PROBABLY MOST USEFUL IF WE USE IT
>> AS
>> HISTORICALLY SPECIFIC TO THIS KIND OF WORLD SYSTEM. CLASS ANALYSIS
>> LOSES
>> ITS POWER OF EXPLANATION WHENEVER IT MOVES TOWARDS FORMAL MODELS AND
>>
>> AWAY FROM DIALECTICAL DYNAMICS.
>>
>> "THERE IS A SHORT RUN LOGIC IN THE FORMATION OF CLASS. IT IS THE
>> GRADUAL
>> PERCEPTION OF COMMON INTEREST (THAT IS SMILAR RELATIONSHIP S TO THE
>> OWNEERSHIP AND THE CONTROL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTON, AND SMILAR
>> SOURCES
>> OF REVENUE) AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOME ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
>> TO
>> ADVANCE THESE INTERESTS IS AN INDESPENSABLE ASPECT OF BARGAINING"
>>
>> "THUS CLASSES ARE FORMED,-- BUT THEY ARE THEN REFORMED. THIS IS WHAT
>>
>> MAO MEANT WHEN HE SAID PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA "THE CLASS
>> STRUGGLE
>> IS BY NO MEANS OVER"
>>
>> "THIS CONTINIOUS RE-ERUPTION OF THE CLASS STRUGGLE AFTER EACH
>> POLITICAL
>> RESOLUTION IS IN MY VIEW IS NOT A CYCLICAL PROCESS, HOWEVER, BUT
>> PRECISELY A DIALECTICAL ONE. FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CLASS,
>> HOWEVER
>> TRANSIENT THE PHENOMENON, TRANSFORMS THE WORLD SYSTEM"
>>
>> > >Nothing on dialectics, about socialism and so on and on.
>>
>> actually, he wrote a book called _Anti-systemic Movements_ with
>> Hopkins
>> and Balibar.
>>
>> > >World System Marxism seems like Analytical Marxism, Marxism in
>> >name
>> > only.
>> >
>>
>> World System Marxism overcomes two limitations of Analytical Marxism
>> in
>> 5 *weak* areas 1) methodolological individualism 2) ahistoricism 3)
>> centrality of nation state 4) non-hierachical vision of capitalism
>> and
>> exchange 5) neo-classical treatment of historical stages through
>> which
>> capitalism is approximated as the ideal (modernization theory). The
>> *specificty* of IW's analysis is that he *extends*, by analogy,
>> Marx's
>> analysis of class exploitaiton between capitalist and worker to
>> analysis
>> of the relationship between *core* and *periphery*, reorienting
>> (globalizing) the centrality of class towards *capitalism as a
>> world
>> system*. So capitalism emerges as a transnational phenomenon with
>> transnational classes at the core of the analysis, not a nation
>> state a
>> phenomenon confined to the charecteristics of X, Y, Z country.
>> There
>> is no Turkish capitalism, for example, there is a semi-peripheral
>> status
>> and this status more or less defines where you are positioned within
>> the
>> world system; economic and political wise.
>>
>> Commentary on his book:
>>
>> "In the capitalist world economy, IW FOCUSES ON THE TWO CENTRAL
>> CONFLICTS OF CAPITALISM, BOURGEOIS VERSUS PROLETERIAN AND CORE
>> VERSUS
>> PERIPHERY IN AN ATTEMPT TO DESCRIBE BOTH THE CYCLICAL RHTYMS AND THE
>>
>> SECULAR TRANSFORMATIONS OF CAPITALISM, CONCIEVED AS A SINGULAR
>> WORLD
>> SYSTEM. THE ESSAYS INCLUDE DISCUSSIONS OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF CLASS
>> AND
>> ETHNONATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS, CLARIFICATION OF THE MEANING OF
>> TRANSITION
>> FROM FEUDALISM TO CAPITALISM, THE UTULITY OF THE CONCEPT OF THE
>> SEMI-PERIPHERAL STATE, AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SOCIALIST STATES
>> TO
>> THE CAPITALIST WORLD ECONMY"
>>
>> Mine
>>
>> > CHeers, Ken Hanly
>> >
>> > Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://fbc.binghamton.edu/iwwsa-r&.htm
>> >
>> --
>>
>> Mine Aysen Doyran
>> PhD Student
>> Department of Political Science
>> SUNY at Albany
>> Nelson A. Rockefeller College
>> 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
>> Albany, NY 12222
>>
>> ____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
>> Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
>> Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633
>> ___________________________________________________________
>
--
Mine Aysen Doyran
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222
____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________
