European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

LQD The Modern World-System

by Sven Triloqvist
Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 06:20:36 AM EST

The mark of the modern world is the imagination of its profiteers and the counter-assertiveness of the oppressed. Exploitation and the refusal to accept exploitation as either inevitable or just constitute the continuing antinomy of the modern era, joined together in a dialectic, which has far from reached its climax in the twentieth century.

Diary rescue by Migeru

[editor's note, by Migeru] Originally published on 2008 march 9.

Immanuel Wallerstein lectured this week in Helsinki. He was basically predicting the collapse of Capitalism in decades, because the end of cheap labour and cheap resources means not enough profit for the profiteers. The Capitalists today, in his view, only survive by creating artificial markets and by speculation. The global system has already slipped into chaos, with new blocs challenging the US hegemon and coalescing around the EU, Japan, China, Russia, India and Brazil.

Wallerstein draws on three intellectual influences Marx, French historian Fernand Braudel and Dependency Theory.

As a post-Marxist "theory" World system theory is much based on the works of Karl Marx. In fact this is the first application of Marxism to international relations. One of the roots of the theory is the notion of Imperialism, which for many Marxists in the 20th Century was "the highest stage of capitalism, a term coined by Vladimir Lenin, who also used the terms periphery and core as a means to analyse world politics and economy.
Immanuel Wallerstein describes our world system as characterized by mechanisms, which bring about a redistribution of resources from the periphery to the core. In his terminology, the core is the developed, industrialized, democratic part of the world, which economically exploits the poor, raw materials-exporting, less developed countries - the periphery, through the means of the market. These are the world-system's spatial features. Wallerstein locates the origin of the modern world-system in 16th century Western Europe and defines:
"A world-system is a social system, one that has boundaries, structures, member groups, rules of legitimation, and coherence. Its life is made up of the conflicting forces which hold it together by tension and tear it apart as each group seeks eternally to remold it to its advantage. It has the characteristics of an organism, in that it has a lifespan over which its characteristics change in some respects and remain stable in others. One can define its structures as being at different times strong or weak in terms of the internal logic of its functioning.

Braudel claims that there are long-term cycles in the capitalist economy which developed in Europe in the 12th century. Cities and later nation-states follow each other subsequently as centers of these cycles. Venice and Genoa in 13th to 15th century (1250-1510), Antwerp in 16th (1500-1569), Amsterdam in 16th to 18th (1570-1733), London and England in 18th and 19th (1733-1896). He argued that "structures" -- a word he uses to mean many kinds of organized behaviours, attitudes, and conventions, as well as literal structures and infrastructures -- that were built up in Europe during the Middle Ages contributed to or were perhaps responsible for the success of European-based cultures up to the present day. Much of this he appears to attribute to the long-lived independence of city-states, which although later subjected by geographic states, were not always completely suppressed -- probably for reasons of usefulness.
One feature of Braudel's work is his evident compassion for the suffering of marginal people.[3] He points out the obvious: that most surviving historical sources come from the wealthy (or at least literate) classes -- those who are either rich or aspire to be. He gives importance to the apparently ephemeral lives of slaves, serfs, and peasants, as well as to the urban poor, and shows their contributions to the wealth and power of their respective masters and societies. Indeed, he appears to think that these people form the real material of civilization. His work is often illustrated with contemporary depictions of daily life, rarely with pictures of noblemen or kings.
Braudel has been considered one of the greatest of those modern historians who have emphasised the role of large scale socio-economic factors in the making and telling of history[4]. He can also be considered as one of the precursors of World Systems Theory.

Dependency and world system theory hold, that poverty and backwardness in poor countries are caused by the peripheral position that these nations have in the international division of labor. Ever since the capitalist world system evolved, there is a stark distinction between the nations of the center and the nations of the periphery. Cardoso summarized the quantifiable essence of dependency theories as follows:

there is a financial and technological penetration by the developed capitalist centers of the countries of the periphery and semi-periphery

this produces an unbalanced economic structure both within the peripheral societies and between them and the centers

this leads to limitations on self-sustained growth in the periphery

this favors the appearance of specific patterns of class relations

these require modifications in the role of the state to guarantee both the functioning of the economy and the political articulation of a society, which contains, within itself, foci of inarticulateness and structural imbalance (Cardoso, 1979)

I am trying to educate myself here. I am sure many of you are already aware of Wallerstein, Braudel et al

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

LQD The Modern World-System | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: LQD The Modern World-System (4.00 / 3)

No idea about Wallerstein, Braudel et al. However, I am generally sceptical about dialectical interpretations of history. As I see it, dialectics in history hypostatises metatrends into autonomous and to some degree immutable forces. But they're just trends and they do shift.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Mar 9th, 2008 at 07:24:04 AM EST

Re: LQD The Modern World-System (4.00 / 4)

But still useful in identifying historical cycle-patterns that have been longer than a human life span, though less useful for predicting the emergent future.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Mar 9th, 2008 at 08:10:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LQD The Modern World-System (none / 1)

true, although not completely.

true, because technology changes. example: Halford Mac Kinder theory of the Heartland re-evaluates logistic space after the appearance of Railway Transportation.

by findmeaDoorIntoSummer on Mon Mar 10th, 2008 at 07:54:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Must be my age, but I feel like Hegel (4.00 / 6)

is my bestest friend. If there was ever a revolutionary philosophical insight, he had the best one of all.

Meantime - nothing against the newer critics and theoreticians, but what's wrong with Lenin? Imperialism - the ultimate stage of capitalism. We're living it. How much more correct do we have to be?

Now we move into the dialectical 'solution' - or maybe a trend - the entrepreneur with a social perspective - Sven, Chris, Solveig, rg, melo, myself, and a bunch of others. Makes you feel good, does it not, Sven?

Or maybe it's the two beers talking, since my limit is really one.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 01:11:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Must be my age, but I feel like Hegel (4.00 / 2)

Ummm...is the dialectic the solution: or the problem?

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 07:50:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Must be my age, but I feel like Hegel (4.00 / 2)

It's the diagnostic tool.

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 07:52:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Must be my age, but I feel like Hegel (4.00 / 2)

Trouble is that too often it becomes an end in itself, and disappears, like the Ooozlum Bird, up its own fundament....

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 09:13:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Must be my age, but I feel like Hegel (4.00 / 5)

As I understand it, dialectic is:

"This" (thesis)

"Not this" (anti-thesis)

As you recently wrote:

"Well, it's not a question of "either/or" (synthesis)

I like this example:

Digging Deeper for an Idea---Stealing from Hegel « Working with Insight

the synthesis of color is derived from the relationship of black and white. It is a far brighter direction than gray. It contains the elements of black and white, but is MORE than either alone!

A quick google later, I discover that it doesn't seem to be Hegel's idea--

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although he never used the terms himself, the triad thesis, antithesis, synthesis is often used to describe the thought of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. It is often erroneously^[1] thought to form part of an analysis of historical and philosophical progress called the Hegelian dialectic.
It is usually described in the following way:
The thesis is an intellectual proposition.
The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis.
The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.
Hegel used this classification only once, and he attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant. The terminology was largely developed earlier by Fichte the neo-Kantian. The idea is often said to have been extended and adopted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels; yet Marx referred to them in The Poverty of Philosophy as speaking Greek and "Wooden trichotomies".

I think it's an effective model, although maybe it could be tweaked (or has already been) as follows:

either THIS (thesis 1)

or THAT (thesis 2 that contradicts thesis 1 but still proposes something)

becomes:

OTHER (synthesis of apparently opposing theses [=choices?] 1 & 2)

"Let's go to the beach"
"Let's go the mountains"
"Let's go to Vancouver!"

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 09:31:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Must be my age, but I feel like Hegel (4.00 / 6)

Well actually, I think I should say that the dialectic appears to be limited by the "common truths", and perhaps a better way of expressing what I want to say is not "either/or" but rather, "both/and".

ie moving beyond the dialectic through rebasing the assumptions....?

I think that is where Pirsig was coming from in this key passage

Phædrus would have asked, What evidence do we have that the dialectical question-and-answer method of arriving at truth comes before anything else? We have none whatsoever.
And when the statement is isolated and itself subject to scrutiny it becomes patently ridiculous. Here is this dialectic, like Newton's law of gravity, just sitting by itself in the middle of nowhere, giving birth to the universe, hey? It's asinine.
Dialectic, which is the parent of logic, came itself from rhetoric. Rhetoric is in turn the child of the myths and poetry of ancient Greece. That is so historically, and that is so by any application of common sense. The poetry and the myths are the response of a prehistoric people to the universe around them made on the basis of Quality.
It is Quality, not dialectic, which is the generator of everything we know.

from

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 10:19:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Must be my age, but I feel like Hegel (4.00 / 3)

How does this sound?

EITHER this OR (not this or) that

becomes:

A NEW CONCEPT containing more than the original 'this', 'not this', and 'that': ie moving beyond the dialectic through rebasing the assumptions....

(I'm trying to do some synthesis!)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 01:49:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

entrepreneur (4.00 / 3)

An entrepreneur is someone who organizes resources in new and more valuable ways and accepts full responsibility for the outcome.......in French the verb "entreprendre" means "to undertake"

Except that I think that responsibiity should be shared wherever possible...

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 08:20:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LQD The Modern World-System (4.00 / 7)

I was at a visual art symposium in Sheffield, South Yorkshire, the other week and the question of "periphery" and "centres" with respect to London and the symposium, but also the growth of various festivals and biennales was a running thread through the discussions.

To some degree, both in the art world and the wider economic world we're seeing the "peripheries" form networks of trade between themselves and slowly develop a bit despite the pull of the centres.

However, I also had to relate it to questions of politics. If we compare the UK and DE for instance, we see that the Lander system seems to have helped regional cities in DE retain more prominence and economic activity than those in the UK...

..........

However, on the topic of "the end of capitalism" I have to say overall I'm not convinced about "the end of cheap labour." Advances in productivity and concomitant failures to develop new areas of the economy actually suggest we'll be seeing ever more unemployed people, as wealth concentrates at the top and the reality that those at the top simply cannot consume that much starts to bite.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sun Mar 9th, 2008 at 02:50:20 PM EST

Re: LQD The Modern World-System (4.00 / 3)

In a 'connected' economy, periphery and center tend to be less polarised. Perhaps more like a spider's web than a network of equals that has no center. Physical location, though not always the same thing as the center, is no longer so powerful an element in a connected economy.

Artists of all types. but especially visual artists, have always joined together in loose non-hierarchic organizations, so it is not surprising to see alternative structures emerge.

As I have said before, I expect the growth of such technologies as WiMax, which have the potential to create city-sized networks of users - even without the Internet. More of a LocalNet.

So I see Capitalism as being destroyed from within, not because of the end of cheap labour from the periphery (which however gets more expensive all the time), but as you describe: a total disjuncion between rich and poor, power and servitude at the 'center'.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Mar 9th, 2008 at 04:52:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Posted too fast... (4.00 / 2)

And the seizing of tools by the majority to right these wrongs.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Mar 9th, 2008 at 04:53:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Spiders (4.00 / 8)

At a slight tangent,

Physical location, though not always the same thing as the center, is no longer so powerful an element in a connected economy.

I was thinking, and re-read to see if I'd got it right (I hadn't, but the idea's there): that you were saying "There's less need to be at the centre of things when the network is a web." Our local spiders, I think they're called garden spiders.

I was outside the office having a puff a month or three back, and instead of reading a print out of an article from the web I just smoked and stared at the spider sitting at the very centre of its web. Was it a female? Surely it was. It was completely immobile, I wondered--is it alive? I gently blew on it, then a quick puff. The spider suddenly--heh....it was something like--spider suddenly jerks to attention (it's alive!) then scuttles off to the edge of the web. Maybe it lifted a leg or two a couple of times and maybe it didn't scuttle off. Anyway, I counted the legs--eight. There was another web just above this one, and on that web sat another spider, at the centre, immobile. It had its legs splayed out, each one touching a thread. Looking more closely, I saw that each leg had a tiny hook at the end...

(I know it's a big pic, but I think its worth it)

...well, not a hook, but a point--it was touching the web just with these points, resting there and I thought--wow! Subtle. So maybe I made that one scuttle away too, or maybe I didn't make either of them scuttle away, but I'm pretty sure I counted the legs on this one and came to seven. I might have compared the lower spider to the upper spider, maybe they were sitting there immobile. But I do remember one of them running to the edge of the web, scuttling under the cross plank on the door and curling up into a tiny ball.

Later, at my next puff break, I checked out the webs. Neither had a spider on it. I looked over to the wooden door to see if I could spot them. At first I couldn't but then--there they were, tiny balls looking like fluff or dirt, but each spider had poked out just two legs, the point of each rested on one strand of the web, so they had two antennae attached to the currents--

So did I say that the idea of not having to be the centre--or at the centre, that the centre is here or close by rather than over an ever-more-difficult obstacle course, not that obstacle courses are wrong or bad; they keep you fit, but....a world where not everything is an obstacle course, so--heh! The internets function as locations where the individual staring at a screen or listening on headphones can find areas where it's fun and educative and interesting and...once people start making money (business--construction--growth--abundance) through these not-just-like-an-ever-more-complicated-obstacle-course relationships...

Then with this last comment of yours, "And the seizing of tools by the majority to right these wrongs." I'm thinking: righting wrongs--even writing wrongs--can become an ever-more-complicated obstacle course, so maybe (....heh...I must be an old man, I bought a pipe); so maybe it's using the tools to live by ones rights; maybe class actions suits brought by millions of people, maybe a billion people could file various class action suits--if these kinds of things are possible, the internet is the largest and most efficient search tool for finding out--or at least starting out, because knowledge is offered in the spirit of knowledge, payment only when onerous bills are due (we need more new blades on the turbine! What, already? Didn't we buy those last ones only a year ago?)...yak yak...so yeah, righting wrongs, but maybe in a more Spock-like sense, or a post-sentimental sense: "Wrong means 'does not function effectively in its stated zone of effectiveness'." Because not everyone has the same aims; and so there are laws about the interaction with difference--this diary's about economics, right? I know it is--I'm sure it is--I just want to hit that synthesis--takes time, takes all the time it needs--where the money finds the right (functioning most effectively in its zone of effectiveness--man that is not right!)...people, the enlightened ones who have no need to rip each other off; the energy providers, the farmers, the animal husbanders or midwifferers or herders--and the merchants, taking things from one place to the other, making exchanges--why does it always have to be a rip off? The reason I understand is: "Because I am pretty going on very hard up and so the more I get out of you (no offence, apologies, etc.) the less hard up I'll be.

I dunno. Why can't microsoft just cash in its cheques? Everyone's made a pile of cash, keep the company running as a non-profit--why the constant need for more stockpiling of money? I understand about shares and shareholders, but microsoft is loaded with cash--can't it just offer it back? "Here you go, thanks! It was really useful! Here's something for your trouble!"

In return, software prices would fall to zero--and then you have to consider the salaries of those paid to produce the software....but the farmer's computer prices just dropped (also his electricity bills, and he is a she now), and so her overheads are lower--but if she's (feeling) hard up, she might just keep the price of carrots where they were, stockpile a few bank notes, you never know....it's hoarding, yes, like a squirrel. At a certain point we just go crazy and have to be stopped, by law. Ach! Well, ya know, this internet, so far I'm enjoying it! If there were less cars around I swear I'd enjoy it a bit less often. (And if it was warmer, and in a few years--it's taken the place of the tv, which took the place of the radio, which took the place of the fire in the parlour, heh....I must hit ze post for to offer...er....another spider!)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Sun Mar 9th, 2008 at 06:51:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop puffing! (4.00 / 2)

Other than that, great post.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 01:00:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spiders (none / 1)

thanks rg! your cough has gone...

for a second i perceived your sig as 'don't fight forces, EAT them'

summat to that...

Peace is not the absence of war -- peace is the absence of fear. Ursula Franklin

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 08:40:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Old sig back in place (4.00 / 2)

Good ol' R.Buckminster Fuller.

!.~)>

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 09:05:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Posted too fast... (4.00 / 2)

It's the double movement Double Movement:

Polanyi called the continuing tension and conflict between the efforts to establish, maintain, and spread the SRM and the efforts to protect people and society from the consequences of the working of the SRM "the double movement." On one side was a concerted philosophical and legislative program to establish the SRM from the enclosures of the 1790s through the Poor Law Reform of 1834 to the Ricardian Bank Charter Act of 1844 and the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. The other side was a widely varying, unorganized set of movements, legislative reforms, and administrative actions to limit the effects of self-regulation, from the Chartists through early legislation to limit the hours and places of work of women and children, through the growth of labor unions, and through the emergence of the Bank of England as lender of last resort, to reimposition of tariffs on foodstuffs, and to the first legislation presaging the welfare state. As the SRM was impaired in operation, justifications for international economic cooperation and the liberal state weakened.

The unregulated market reduces man and nature alike to nothing more than a bundle of goods to be bought and sold. There is no human spark, no soul, no love. Just the cash and carry. And confronted with the commodification of human life and social relations, society rises up and regulates the market in order to ensure that it (society) survives. The devils in the details though, and as the experience of the Great Depression and WWII shows, living through it can be utter hell.

I was shocked to see this diary up. I just,just used the quote about the modern world system in a write up of interviews I've just finished. Syncronicity.

Either that or the events of St. Patrick's day have permanently scrambled my brains. What sick bastard thought it was a good idea to name something with Guinness in it an Irish car bomb?

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 11:12:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Posted too fast... (none / 1)

The interviews sound interesting. Be interesting to see a diary when the work is made public.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 11:55:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LQD The Modern World-System (4.00 / 4)

Sven Triloqvist:

So I see Capitalism as being destroyed from within

maybe it's just the negative part of capitalism that will founder, the part that colludes behind the curtain to manipulate markets, a capitalism that has forgotten its roots and become its shadow.

capitalism |ˈkapətlˌizəm|
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

there will always be trade and periodic surpluses (symbolised into capital), as nature manifests in cycles, by no means all predictable.

he who guards the yam stash, granary, treasury, or community valuables will always be privy to temptations than the others with less responsibility.

while patiently waiting for everyone to get the memo about the futility of egoism, the best we can do to obviate, or at least minimise corruption of trust, is to set up systems that are as accountable as possible, and educate people to revere honesty in public service, rewarding it generously, and setting examples of harsh punishment for abusers.

i'd imagine that's how it used to play out, when communities were small enough for all to know each other. the punishment part still happens in china.

and if it's utopian to hope that people will eventually see it in their own best interest not to hoodwink others, then surely it's even more so to expect that the very notion of private property will be completely eschewed in favour of something more...altruistic, a blend of the best of christianity, buddhism and marxism, perhaps?

+ a two-pronged attack on corruption, the first raising children with a strong sense of self-worth and capacity for shame, i.e. a moral code, and secondly, creating systems that are ever harder to game, as there are many more people looking for weaknesses, as if they want to exploit them, but with the opposite intent, that of building democratic systems of government that will stand the tests, and be worthy of passing down to generations who will refine them further.

Peace is not the absence of war -- peace is the absence of fear. Ursula Franklin

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 07:41:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LQD The Modern World-System (4.00 / 4)

network also have hierarchies. it just that the most central places need not to be spatially close. it's a remapping.

world-system theory is ripe for the taking. Kondratieff cycles are stoned-age tools. yet a more correct theory cannot be promotted in explicit terms.

in the limit situation, you can say the absolute truth, as long nobody hears you. in more day to day terms, you can describe the world accurately, as long you write in french or german or italian, but not in english. you can say it in a 4am tv programme which common working people cannot attend, while big-tits cinema is announced in outdoors.

the german historicist school can be presented to students of history of oeconomics, but it is not touched in subsequent semesters.

by findmeaDoorIntoSummer on Mon Mar 10th, 2008 at 07:38:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LQD The Modern World-System (4.00 / 5)

in more day to day terms, you can describe the world accurately, as long you write in french or german or italian, but not in english.

There's a lot of truth to that, but it doesn't mean that you don't find British or American authors writing about it. Wallerstein is American although I believe his school, McGill, is in Canada.

As part of my international relations coursework, I've encountered a lot of Wallerstein. There's a lot I like, but I think that there's an excessive focus on states, and a failure to recognize that there's a power differential internal to states, i.e. between the wealthy and the working classes, that is every bit as important as tht between them. And over the course of history the boundaries have often been blurry.

I'm inclined towards a more realist approach that sees power as the key variable, capitalism in this sense is perhaps the most ingenious system of domination ever developed becuase it deludes the masses into believing they choose the system by their own free will. When in reality it confronts them as a social fact that was made by man, and can be remade, but only at great cost.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 11:29:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LQD The Modern World-System (none / 1)

it doesn't mean that you don't find British or American authors

Sure. F. William Engdahl is one of the best analysts of today. I'm waiting for his article on future centers of financial power (part 6 and last of a long series).

by findmeaDoorIntoSummer on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 11:58:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LQD The Modern World-System (4.00 / 9)

Your opening quotation reminds me of the concept of the global insurgency...

Counterpunch.org: Inside America's Animal House (by Chris Floyd on June 4, 2004)

Rumsfeld also issued this stark warning to the world: the illegal invasion of Iraq is just "the beginning" of what is no longer merely a "war on terror" but is now an all-out death-struggle with what Rumsfeld called--in a major slip of the mask--"global insurgency."
Note carefully the change in rhetoric--the change in target--from "terrorism" to "insurgency." An "insurgent" is someone who rises up within a given domain to resist or overthrow the ruling power. George Washington was an insurgent; so was Pol Pot. But a perceived "global insurgency" can only be aimed at a global power--one whose domain encompasses the entire planet. What Rumsfeld is clearly saying is that anyone anywhere who resists the world-spanning will of the American Empire will be subject to "the path of action." That's the blood-and-iron terminology that Bush himself used to describe his policies in the official "National Security Strategy" he issued--just months before killing more than 10,000 civilians in Iraq.

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 at 06:24:28 AM EST

Re: LQD The Modern World-System (none / 0)

I prefer the motif: Thesis, Antithesis, Transformation - the creation of a new reality made up not simply of opposing elements of the old, but of an entirely new paradigm, incorporating, to be sure, elements of the old, but transformed into a new frame or context which creates a new dynamic.

For instance, dependency theory basically posited that imperialism systematically underdeveloped the third world by robbing all its resources. There was no way that the third world could develop whilst it remained integrated within a world order dominated by the first world. The only solution was a revolution which overthrew the national "comprador elites" who sold out to the interests of international capital even after nominal political independence had been achieved from the imperial powers. Development of third world economies could only take place by withdrawing from the imperialist world order.

However such a theory couldn't explain the rise of, firstly, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, S. Korea, and latterly that of China and India as well - despite their ever greater integration/incorporation into a global world order. Globalisation has transformed the nature of Capitalism itself - so much so that many of its chief antagonists now come from the first world itself, and many of its most enthusiastic supporters and beneficiaries come from what were previously dirt poor "Third World" countries.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Mon Mar 17th, 2008 at 08:39:04 PM EST

LQD The Modern World-System | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]