Immanuel Wallerstein

everyone wants development - new policies to replace the old ones whihc ‘failed’

1. Development is the development of what?

2. Who or what has in fact developed"

3. What is the demand behind the demand for development?

4. How can such development occur?

5. What are the political implications of the above?

p 4 - development usually includes death at the end

p 6 - capitalism has legtimized the view that we can and should asways have more, and has made it seem plausible

p 6 - capitalism has always had great stratafications

16th century Europe began accumulating capital - differences in wealth and well being

p 7 - by 1600 the peripherial countries were doing less well - had been doing fine in 1450

monopolies either in technology or government protection

p 8 - the winners and loosers change constantly

p 9 - people did not want to be incorporated by the capitalists, but capitalism encouraged advances in weapons

p 10 - colonies had to be strong enough to survive and be usefol, but not too strong

p 10 - of course thisgs have gotten better for the top 10-20%, but has it really for the majority?

p 11 - since 1945 tremebdous growth - excessive urbanizaiton leads to higher labour costs

p 12 - international unions, independence in countries, and welfare states have played an important role

p 12 - duality of greater equality and catching up with the leader (USA)

p 13 - these things rarely go together

p 13 - political groups thought the catching up was more important, revolutionaries thought the equality was, but that they would get equality through catching up

p 13 - befroe 1945 it seemed lke the pie was getting biger fast enough to satisfy everyone

p 14 - the antisystemics had the problem that the rich would not support them and the poor were too busy or hoping too much to support them

p 14 - because they never got into power the contradiction of seeking both growth and equality did not surface

p 15 - the growth of peripheal zones meant that as the former poor got richer they needed new non-accumulating poor to sell to

p 15 - now there can be no more geographic expansion - zero sum game now

p 16 - national development is bad - only a few could actually achieve it and they can only do so at the expense of others

p 16 - most states have governments which want to catch up, but that doesn’t really help the individuals

p 17 - attack the flows of surplus whihc are staying in the states - pay the poor workers more -- don’t give it to the government!

p 19 - growth through equasity, not the other way around - must have liberty in it as well