Riverside and IROWS

Trip Start May 26, 2007
1
11
15
Trip End Jul 06, 2007


Loading Map
Map your own trip!
Map Options
Show trip route
Hide lines
shadow

Flag of United States  , California
Tuesday, June 5, 2007

This entry has a limited distribution for those who may have more interest in academic / political work. But my time there was absolutely a thrill. I visited Chris Chase-Dunn who is the other leading developer of World-Systems Analysis after Wallerstein. Chris is spluttering spark-plug of a man, with immense energy and enthusiasm. His enthusiasm and commitment and a very direct speaking style could be easily mistaken for aggression, but it really is hi-octane. A very supportive scholar, he has arranged sponsorship from various bodies to enable me to stay, paying for the hotel accommodation and an honorarium for giving a paper, and he personally took me to lunch every day. We ate lunch at a campus cafeteria called the "barn" and apparently Bob Dylan played there in the sixties! I had been allocated an office for work space, but to tell the truth most of the three days were spent deep in conversation.


Chris sees himself as a veteran of the 'world-revolution of 1968' and kept me immensely amused about his draft induction, when he was thrown out of the draft office because he told them he wanted to go into the army to organise American soldiers politically! He also told some other interesting stories about Central America! In many ways, like Mike whom he knows, they both still operate as SDS (Mike) / Wobbly (Chris) organisers in their working life. As I still function a bit like an old time cadre too, I am immensely appreciative and sympathetic.

Chris liked my emerging synthesis on the great divergence that I had proposed with Ken, adding to it that the mandarin class had sound political reasons for keeping merchants at arms length, and it had to do with maintaining their political position in the empire. (Suddenly as I write this, I am wondering if this might nit be the class interpretation behind China's famous 1423 shift from an expanding, maritime. Commercial power into a preservative, internally focussed empire. Must write this to various people and see).

Chris's own institute - Institute for Research on World-Systems (IROWS) publishes a journal (Journal for World-Systems Research), has a website with lots of fascinating working papers, and regularly organises speakers and papers (like me!) There are some very interesting people working there. My paper was well attended, about 25 students and staff, (and 1 strange guy whom Chris thinks may be a cop) and good questions. I basically gave the paper on contemporary Marxist historiography that I gave at UWA some weeks ago, but with a world -systems twist in the ending, in which I suggested the emerging paradigm of primitive accumulation and state centred class struggle could be integrated into the world systems paradigm by a radical rethink of the terms. If we separated world-systems, as systems of commercial, political and ideological networks, characterised by a hegemonic core -periphery relationship of unequal exchange, from the idea of a capitalist  world-economy characterised by exploitative relations of production, and then saw both as dedicated to what the late AG Frank called the 'cumulation of accumulation', the world-system through plunder and tribute and price manipulation, and the world-economy through surplus value extraction, we could in fact integrate the two traditions. The two systems basically exist side by side from the early 16th century, the world-system still centred on China, to whom most of the world's silver flows, while the world-economy grows up around the Atlantic. The latter eventually provides the conjunction in terms of 18th and 19th century industrialisation which permitted Europe to take over the world-system. In this schema, I was suggesting the paradigm I was talking about showed how the capitalist world-economy evolved out of England and into the rest of the world, while the world-system analysis showed the more ancient form on supra-regional interactions, until the merger of the nineteenth century. The idea wasn't accepted, but I didn't expect it to be, as it would need a detailed case to argue it, but this is the guts of what I'll write up in the next two weeks for my Milwaukee paper.

The main work of IROWS has been the modelling of macro scale long term social change, so they undertake comparative analysis of historical world-systems, from the very small to the massive, and try to account for rise and demise, upswings ad contractions, cycles of war and peace and so on. It is a fascinating way to look at history, and one that would probably leave most historians bewildered, with their cult of the isolated 'fact'. I am not sure I am fully convinced but then I have a massive reading list t catch up on when I get back too! But my initial joking description, that these guys were 'Sociologising history' has some pertinency here!

Chris' other area of work is mapping future social change. To this end he is very active within the World Social Forum, both as one of the key movement intellectuals and as well as a researcher of the Forums. He had been closely involved with the Bamako declaration of the 2006 WSF, issued by Samir Amin to call for work into establishing a new Global Party (apparently Amin uses the term "Fifth International"!), and the Nairobi WSF this year, where one specific outcome was the issuing of many manifestos about future organisation for social change. One outcome of this is his new project to re-examine the history of the Comintern and previous Internationals from a technical, operational aspect, to build on past experience in developing a multi-lingual, internationalist operation.

This visit was amazingly fruitful. Good contacts, some new ideas. I have been asked to submit my paper for the journal. Invited to come back and work in the institute, even just to write my thesis. Asked to comment on Chris's most recent papers and also asked to join in his Global Party / Comintern research project! Above all, I have gained a sense of community and intellectual / political network, an acknowledgement from prominent scholar-activists that I am on the right track, and that is welcome, encouraging and pleasing. Final words from Chris were almost cadre instructions: "You guys have done a SF before, now go and do it again. It's the right time. Meet quarterly to review your progress, leave it to individuals and groups, keep it simple. Organise space and open it, concentrate on communicating to other groups how to use the space. Don't micro-manage!" There you are, orders received comrade!
Report as Spam

Comments

jdcroft
jdcroft on

Your papers on World Systems Theory
Hi Cedric

I like what you said about the Capitalist World System emerging in Western Europe within an already existing system, eventually working to coopt it. It comes close to my ideas.

Basically I have been looking at the world systems theory approach for some time. I feel it is the best theoretical construct we have to date.

I consider the world system has had three phases.

1. What I call 'Type 1' - is its originating phase, from what has been called the Uruk Phase until Early Iron Age I. This began in Southern Iraq, and expanded from at least as far as Central India, and Shang China to the Sudan and East Africa, and from possibly as far north as the Baltic Amber Coast. The 'Central Area' received its greatest development during the Late Bronze Age treaties of Rameses II and Hattusilis III.

It has four pulses
1. The Uruk Age pulse (pre-literate)
2. Early Bronze Age Pulse (ending with the Akkadian collapse and the Old Kingdom collapse in Egypt)
3. Middle Bronze Pulse ending with the Thera explosion and the Hittite attack on Babylon (end of Indus).
4. The Late Bronze Age Pulse; the Egyptian New Kingdom followed by the Late Bronze Age collapse (rise of Shang)

2. What I call 'Type 2' - begins with the Axial Age changes identified by Karl Jaspers. It also related to McNiels 'closure of the Oecumene, and is driven by a huge social and economic reorganisation starting in NE Iran (Zarathushtra), and then in the Levant (Phoenicians and Palestine), Northern India, Northern China, and then the Greeks. Basically it occurred around two structures - the Scythian changes on the steppe, and the new militaristic states that that created (Assyria, Media, Lydia, Chou China, Northern India for starters. The second structure it is created around is the reorganisation of long distance trade under Phoenician and Aramaean and later Greek and Arab middle men, coinage and the Alphabetic script.

This may have had as many as 7 pulses
1. The Rise and Fall of the Assyrian Empire - down to 612 BCE
2. The Neo Babylonian and Persian Period - to 332 BCE
3. The Hellenistic to Early Empire period - down to 170 CE
4. The Late Empire period - to 570 CE
5. The Tang-Abbasid Period - to 850 CE
6. The High Medieval Period - to 1349 CE
7. The Early Modern Period - to 1780 CE

3. What I call 'Type 3' - begins in Western Europe and is organised in the period between 1648 and 1715 (Westphalia and Utrecht), based upon the nation state and the multinational corporation (The Dutch East India Company being one of the first).

Its pulses are related to the Kondratief ~50 year cycle, modified by a 200 year overlapping of various technologies (wind and water power - to coal and steam - to oil and electricity). Periods of transition from one technology to another tend to be periods of revolutionary struggle and world war.

And with global warming, nuclear proliferation and peak oil, this Phase 3 is fast approaching its demise and collapse.

Regarding the organisation of these phase system, I tend to see civilisations as central components. Civilisations tend to have a core and a periphery, with a hinterland as the intermediate zone between core and periphery. Cores may fuse and at times fragment.

Civilisations are based upon a triple accumulation

1. Of territory (they tend to be geographically expansionistic)
2. Of population (they tend to grow in population density)
3. Of accumulated capital wealth (they tend to grow economically).

In each case there is an effect of the irresistable forces of expansionism meeting the immovable object of finite environmental and biological (demographic) constraints, which set limits.

Civilisations within the world system also tend to organise themselves around what I call the 4 C's

1. Coercion - the militaristic caste
2. Control - the bureaucratic caste
3. Commerce - the mercantile caste
4. Conditioning - the hieratic caste

These are not 'pure' types and there is always the possibility for an alliance between a group of these against one of the others.

I tend to feel that the World System 'system' is in a stage of early breakdown today. Eventually we will see the whole of the period Phases I, II and III themselves, as a transitional process between the pre-civilised, pre-historic stages, and a post-civilised, post-historic stages. The nature of this post-civilised, post-historic period is still unclear. I feel we are fast approaching a bifurcation point (if we are not there already).

Thoughts anyone?

Warm regards

John Croft

Add Comment

Use this image in your site

Copy and paste this html: