As a student of Wallerstein, I assure you that he has been saying very
similar things since (at least) the early 80s e.g. Amin, Arrighi, Frank
and Wallerstein, /Dynamics of the Global Crisis, /1982./
/
Of course I can disagree with the argument - it lacks, as does most of
Wallerstein's theoretical "notions," historical specificity. The
observation that "the present crisis does not lend itself to the kind of
transitions that have previously characterized capitalism" is NOT a
problem. It is precisely the point!!!!
As JD said below -capitalism is always changing and creating
previously-unknown situations that's typical if not universal. I'd be
surprised if the system stayed the same for any length of time.
Schumpeter, I think, was was also quite clear on the historical specificity of
eras of capitalism when he wrote that the society that emerges at the end of a
long wave is totally
unlike the society that existed at the beginning of the long wave and it is not simply a
quantitative matter - "add as many coaches as you want, you will never get a
railroad" - but a qualitative matter.
If this is the case, if it is always changing then each mode of
regulation is unique and historically specific and the resolution to the
crisis of a mode of regulation has to be unique and can not correspond
to "the kinds of transitions that have previously characterized
capitalism."
Hence, I reject Wallerstein's argument and the implicit structural
functionalism of his thinking.
The is the essence of historical specificity. capitalism is always
changing, etc
Sandwichman wrote:
What Wallerstein is arguing is that there are structural features of
the current version of capitalism that don't lend themselves to the
kind of transitions that have previously characterized capitalism. You
can disagree with that argument. But simply pointing to precedent
doesn't respond to the claim that the current situation is
unprecedented.
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it's the end of capitalism as we know it! But since
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Carl Dassbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a crisis of regulation (ala Aglietta). A new mode of regulation.
for sustaining the extended reproduction of Capital is one possible
consequence. Obviously, there are others but I personally doubt we will see
the end of the capitalism (as a political economy). Wallerstein has been
predicting the "end" for too long to be taken seriously. If you are always
predicting the "end," sometimes it will appear as though you are correct.
Concentrated and directed pressure towards what????
Jim Devine wrote:
ken hanly wrote:
The new system will be the results of an infinity of individual
pressures. What sort of nonsense is that. I do not see any evidence that the
present crisis is leading to a new system that is not capitalist. At most it
will lead to some changes in existing capitalism involving regulation of
financial markets globally if possible and more government involvement as a
means of bailing out or hospitalizing ailing parts of the system until they
recover and handed back to private profiteers.
There certainly seems no difference in the US political system.
Everything is framed in terms of the two capitalist parties and the same
illusions are sold about change and the same bipartisan imperialist foreign
policy espoused by both parties.<
Right. Instead of an "an infinity of individual pressures," what's
needed is concentrated collective pressure.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
--
Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange
days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
