How about Theda Scokpol's and Brenner's critique of "liberal" and
neo-smithian approaches of IW?
xxx
Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor
Comparative International Development
University of Washington
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
there are also conference papers by Arrighi and Wallerstein (His article on
_Rise and Demise of World System Theory_ is pretty useful in outlining some of
the features of the world system theory. http://fbc.binghamton.edu/).
Sure, but here's
Mine,
I'm hardly getting all bent out of shape about this question, why should I
relax?
Steve
Stephen Philion
Lecturer/PhD Candidate
Department of Sociology
2424 Maile Way
Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
Honolulu, HI 96822
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I heard Wallerstein speak recently. He was contemptuous of Marxists,
implying that they had a simplistic way of looking at the world.
Obviously, some of us do, but his characterization was all-inclusive.
And don't you think that piece was just a little fevered? The
BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2000
The Labor Department said that, in May, there were fewer announced [sic]
layoffs and fewer workers laid off than in any similar period over the past
4 years (Wall Street Journal, "Work Week" feature, page A1).
Salary increases will continue to average 4
You are correct.
Stephen E Philion wrote:
I thought Michael was addressing himself to the generalizing comment he
heard Wallerstein make, not necessarily to the theory itself.
Steve
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
What are you Doug, some kind of a commie? --jks
In a message dated Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:48:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brad De Long wrote:
Yesterday the United States! Today the OECD! Tomorrow the World! (It
ain't Utopia, but it's the only game in
Marxists are good people Mine approves of, ergo, Barrington Moore and Immanuel
Wallerstein are Marxists, even though they rejected the label, while John Roemer and
Jon Elster are not Marxists, even though they say they are. And _I_ am most definitely
not a Marxist, whatever I say I am. --jks
Stephen E Philion wrote:
Mine,
Aren't you giving labels to people in fact? I mean, would Wallerstein
accept the appelation, "World System Marxist" ? I got my MA in his dept
and I don't recall his ever using that term to describe his approach.
You excoriate anyone who uses game theory in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marxists are good people Mine approves of, ergo, Barrington Moore and Immanuel
Wallerstein are Marxists, even though they rejected the label, while John Roemer and
Jon Elster are not Marxists, even though they say they are. And _I_ am most
definitely not a Marxist,
Dennis R Redmond wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
there are also conference papers by Arrighi and Wallerstein (His article on
_Rise and Demise of World System Theory_ is pretty useful in outlining some of
the features of the world system theory.
Mine wrote:
fourth, I will appreciate if you do *not* contact me privately now or in
the
future.
enough!!
Mine, What are you talking about, contacting you privately? That post is
plainly addressed to PEN, cc'd to youwhy would I want to contact you
privately if I address the post to PEN?
Here is an interesting analysis of the US (NATO) intervention in Kosovo.
Strange he does not mention French or British (or Canadian :)) involvement.
His predictions were partly wrong but partly right as well.. In his analysis
of Milosevic's moving against Kosovan autonomy he misses the role of
This is exactly on the mark imho
Steve
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Jim Devine wrote:
I don't think Wallerstein ever claimed to be a Marxist, though he clearly
learned from Marx Marxists and Marxist can learn some from his research.
(In this, he is very similar to Barrington Moore.)
The New York Times
July 9, 2000, Sunday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section 1; Page 1; Column 6; Business/Financial Desk
HEADLINE: Suburban Genetics: Scientists Searching For a Perfect Lawn
BYLINE: By DAVID BARBOZA
DATELINE: MARYSVILLE, Ohio, July 7
Standing in long rows in Greenhouse No. 3
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
My question is that "are *geo-politics* and *geo-economics* separate" in
the way that you imply above?
Of course they are; the dialectic of capital is that politics drives
economics which in turn drives politics ad infinitum. The poles of the
I don't think Wallerstein ever claimed to be a Marxist, though he clearly
learned from Marx Marxists and Marxist can learn some from his research.
(In this, he is very similar to Barrington Moore.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Haven't read
Mine, You are a very smart person, but you keep butting up against people. This
sort of talk is not needed here.
Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
fourth, I will appreciate if you do *not* contact me privately now or in the
future.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
I wrote:
I don't think Wallerstein ever claimed to be a Marxist, though he clearly
learned from Marx Marxists and Marxist can learn some from his
research.
(In this, he is very similar to Barrington Moore.)
Originally, I'd say that Analytical Marxism was a kind of Marxism, one
Hi Jim:
Actually, it's not exactly on the mark. I want to emphasize that the
problem is not mainstream methods _per se_ as much as the way that
the Analytical Marxists decided that _only_ mainstream methods (for
example, Walrasian general equilibrium theory and game theory for
Roemer) were
I don't keep people butting up. I just don't want some people to "cc" me. that is
all I want. one can post his ideas on pen-l. he does not need to cc me, unless he
asks my approval.
Mine
Michael Perelman wrote:
Mine, You are a very smart person, but you keep butting up against people. This
Steve said he did not write to you. Maybe he did. I don't care. If you
have a gripe like that, write to him personally.
I don't keep people butting up. I just don't want some people to "cc" me. that is
all I want. one can post his ideas on pen-l. he does not need to cc me, unless he
asks
M. H. wrote:
Wallerstein's approach is circulation rather than production.
Actually, he does emphasize production. Athony Brewer, in his famous book,
_Marxist theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey_ classifies IW's world system
theory under the section of_Modern Marxist Theories of
FTR, I didn't write to her personally. Because my unix system confuses me
when I respond to messages from mass lists, sometimes I end up pressing
the wrong respond to selection and only get the individual the post was
sent from. So, I just add pen to the list. I frequently get inadvertently
cc'd
In a message dated 7/12/00 4:48:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Originally, I'd say that Analytical Marxism was a kind of Marxism, one
responding to dissatisfaction with both the "orthodox" Marxism of the 2nd
3rd Internationals and Althusserian structuralist
In a message dated 7/12/00 8:29:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a question. I realize that Robert Brenner identifies himself
with Analytical Marxism, but I'm not sure what exactly stamps
Brenner's work as Analytical Marxism (as opposed to other kinds of
Yoshie wrote:
I have a question. I realize that Robert Brenner identifies himself with
Analytical Marxism, but I'm not sure what exactly stamps Brenner's work as
Analytical Marxism (as opposed to other kinds of Marxism).
hi, Yoshie. Bob develops abstract models, like his piece in the
I wrote:
Originally, I'd say that Analytical Marxism was a kind of Marxism,
one responding to dissatisfaction with both the "orthodox" Marxism of the
2nd 3rd Internationals and Althusserian structuralist Marxism. But
combining Marxist propositions with the narrow-minded method of orthodox
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
Yoshie wrote:
I realize that Robert Brenner identifies himself with
Analytical Marxism, but I'm not sure what exactly stamps Brenner's work as
Analytical Marxism (as opposed to other kinds of Marxism).
here is Brenner/Wallerstein debate by Giovanni Arrighi!
--
Mine Aysen Doyran
PhD
Mine wrote:
World System Marxism overcomes two limitations of Analytical Marxism in
5 *weak* areas 1) methodolological individualism
Steve writes:
I've never heard world system theorists addressing themselves to the AM
question actually...and of course Marxists like Brenner, Petras,..have
Stephen E Philion wrote:
Mine wrote:
World System Marxism overcomes two limitations of Analytical Marxism in
5 *weak* areas 1) methodolological individualism
Steve writes:
I've never heard world system theorists addressing themselves to the AM
question actually...and of course
This article contains a factual error about Monsanto. Monsanto does not
have the "terminator" technology. In fact it gave public notice that it
was not going to develop it and it did not buy the company that has the
technology.. The patent for the technology is jointly held still by the
USDA and
Dear progressives,
Included in this email is some information on a labour dispute at the
University of Toronto. The part-time bookstore workers, who recently
unionized, are fighting for a fair first contract. The University of Toronto
Press, which is owned wholly by U of T, has
34 matches
Mail list logo
