Yesterday the United States! Today the OECD! Tomorrow the World! (It
ain't Utopia, but it's the only game in town--unless you think, like
Lars-Erik Neilsen in the _New York Review of Books_, that Mexicans
ain't fit to assemble staplers and should go back to the subsistence
agriculture that they
Brad, that's a pretty restricted set of choices. Assembling staplers might
not be so dangerous, but most of the workers there sit in a toxic stew.
Would it be better to provide for the corn farmers with credit, with the
same access to water that the large farmers get, and with the same sort of
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Michael Perelman wrote:
Would it be better to provide for the corn farmers with credit, with the
same access to water that the large farmers get, and with the same sort of
cultural amenities available in cities -- maybe by setting up colleges in
the countryside instead
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/11/00 11:54PM
I have heard Wallerstein speak very recently too, but I don't remember
him implying that "Marxists had a simplistic way of looking at the
world". As a Marxist, of course, he is critical of *certain* brands of
marxist theory-- the orthodox developmental
Charles Brown wrote:
CB: What is the difference between "core-periphery" and "imperial center-colonies"
?
Charles, they are almost the same. Probably, I over-stated the difference in the first
place. Technically, periphery is a formerly colonized part of the world. The reason I
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
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?
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
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 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
De long wrote:
Yes! He does not seem to have learned the extent to which the
neo-liberal program is successfully advancing. Bind all prosperous
market economies of the world into one single bloc in which the
prosperous development of all is a precondition for the prosperous
Lately I'm convinced the definition of Marxist on this list for some has
become, 'I like xx, therefore they are Marxist.'
Steve
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
No. IW does *not* endorse the Smithian view implied above. He is a marxist.
Mine
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.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel.
[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
[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.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California
Yes! He [Wallerstein] does not seem to have learned the extent to which
the neo-liberal program is successfully advancing. Bind all prosperous
market economies of the world into one single bloc in which the prosperous
development of all is a precondition for the prosperous development of
Brenner, if I recall, in his latest work actually includes quite a bit of
discussion of the impact of global integration and intensified global
competition in the international political economy...
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
I have heard Wallerstein speak very recently too,
Stephen E Philion wrote:
Lately I'm convinced the definition of Marxist on this list for some has
become, 'I like xx, therefore they are Marxist.'
Steve
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
No. IW does *not* endorse the Smithian view implied above. He is a marxist.
He was taking pains to distinguish his own work from Marxism.
Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
[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
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
Or maybe I slept through the revolution
Doug Henwood wrote:
[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
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 town--unless you think, like
Lars-Erik Neilsen in the _New York Review of Books_, that Mexicans
ain't fit to assemble staplers and should go back to the subsistence
Yes, he is a _world system marxist_, as i said..
Mine
Michael Perelman wrote:
He was taking pains to distinguish his own work from Marxism.
Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I heard Wallerstein speak recently. He was contemptuous of Marxists,
implying that
32 matches
Mail list logo
