What do you think?
Rate this book
El capitalismo histórico
Ofrece una condensación de las ideas centrales de su estudio monumental del capitalismo como entidad histórica integrada: El moderno sistema mundial. Sigue la huella de aquellos elementos del capitalismo histórico que han cambiado y, también, de los que han permanecido necesariamente constantes. Opina que los problemas económicos y sociales de los países subdesarrollados no serán resueltos mientras éstos permanezcan dentro del contexto del capitalismo mundial.
112 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1983
About the author
Immanuel Wallerstein
208 books357 followersImmanuel Maurice Wallerstein was a scholar of politics, sociologist, historical social scientist, and world-systems analyst. His bimonthly commentaries on world affairs were syndicated.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews
July 26, 2025
Capitalism 101 (External Lens)…
Preamble:
--How we define “capitalism” reveals our analytical tools for understanding:
i) modern history: origins of capitalism/development of wealth and poverty/class struggle and divide-and-rule
ii) today’s situation: environmental crises/geopolitical tensions/rising inequality and far-Right
iii) future prospects: range of possibilities/alternatives
--2 critical tools from the “origins of capitalism” debate:
a) Internal lens:
--Brenner/Wood use this microscope lens to identify capitalism’s driver as the social relations revolution (shift to market economic coercion) specifically in 16-17th century agrarian England (internal); their application is precise and clearly presented in Wood’s The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View.
b) External lens:
--Wallerstein uses this telescope lens to identify capitalism’s driver as transformations in the “new European division of labour: c. 1450-1640”. The more I read this origins “debate”, the more my go-to theorists seem to converge (starting from different vantage points), ex. Wallerstein’s The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century.
--Beyond the “origins” debate, this lens is particular useful for analyzing the world-system (external); I quite like how Wallerstein’s 2004 World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction introduces how to think with this lens.
--Now, this 1983 book by Wallerstein (based on 2 sprawling lectures) skips ahead to what to think; the results feel more like a kaleidoscope if you are missing critical foundations to compare with. Indeed, Wallerstein here is:
i) challenging analyses of capitalism that start with an ideal definition, only to then test it in the real world to see how a country’s (nation state as unit of analysis, rather than world-system) capitalism has “developed”.
…Note: for those “capitalism vs. communism” comparisons that use US vs. USSR (already making a mess of historical context), why not also use the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) as an example of capitalism (as it is integrated and crucial to global capitalism)? Are we to assume DRC still needs to “develop” into a capitalism like the US? Where was this patience for the USSR reaching communism?
ii) Wallerstein attempts to start by describing capitalism as a historical system (“historical capitalism”).
…Note: let’s move beyond low-hanging fruits like critiquing the worst idealized definitions; instead, let’s start with the most compelling intro to compare with, like Varoufakis’ Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails which builds from the Brenner/Wood origins framing.
Highlights:
--I’m skipping the various ideas that are too briefly mentioned, esp. the 2nd lecture (a balance sheet of historical capitalism’s pros/cons, which is at the level of vagueness suitable for Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind).
--The actual structure behind Wallerstein’s kaleidoscope is his approach with the “circuit of capital”.
1) Capital (finance/production):
--“Capitalism” = endless accumulation of capital, as the system’s ultimate goal.
--“Capital” is investment for the goal of self-expansion (in contrast to accumulation that is simply saved and not invested).
--Wallerstein reminds us that social norms have long existed which conflict with this cancerous logic (i.e. view endless accumulation of capital as irrational/immoral), as well as technical barriers. These social/technical barriers occur throughout the “circuit of capital” (capital/labour/market distribution/demand purchasing power/profit/investment back into capital) and had to be displaced.
--Note: on capital, I have to add other intros:
i) Marx’s distinction (see: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1) between:
a) C-M-C (Commodity exchanged via Money for another Commodity = basic market exchange; end goal = commodity), vs.
b) M-C-M’ (Money invested in Commodity production to be sold for more Money = “circuit of capital”; end goal = profit)
ii) “Great Reversal” (which Varoufakis introduces):
a) Production-Distribution-Finance (pre-capitalist: ex. feudal serfs starting with farming the land, followed by lord extracting their share, ending with the lord selling leftovers for money to buy/pay services/issues loans), vs.
b) Finance-Distribution-Production (capitalism starts with debt, i.e. the investment to pay for the costs of inputs which are now commodified, i.e. land/labour; next, distribution of rents/wages/costs are determined before production).
…Varoufakis further emphasizes the power of centering finance (money creation): credit is future productivity brought to the present to fulfil the optimistic expectations. When things work out, this turbocharges productivity gains. But this also turbocharges capitalism’s boom/bust cycles (optimism/pessimism).
…Varoufakis also emphasizes that the “Great Reversal” hides the value creation of labour from the workers. Previously, feudal serfs had to first work the land to produce the surplus before the lord extracts their share; thus, the production process/value of their labour is relatively clear for the serfs.
…With capitalism’s “Great Reversal”, the “circuit of capital” is conveniently obscured by financial markets/accounting, a barrier for the understanding/confidence needed for workers to organize/utilize their bargaining power (Raising Expectations (and Raising Hell); My Decade Fighting for the Labor Movement). Wallerstein also highlights capitalism’s powers of abstraction later.
2) Labour (production):
--Labour availability is a key barrier. Wallerstein compares:
a) Fixed: this is the primary mode in pre-capitalist societies, i.e. kinship/bonded.
b) Variable: since markets can have variable demand (boom/bust), this is a need, i.e. labour market (wage labour). Note: this also means dispossession, i.e. serfs kicked off the land by the Enclosures to create the land/labor markets, central to Varoufakis’ framing.
…Now, Wallerstein’s world-system lens reminds us in the Global North that:
--Wallerstein also emphasizes the household unit rather than the individual, revealing capitalism’s systematic rationalization (in contrast to rationality):
i) valuation/devaluation of work, i.e. “productive” (waged) vs. “unproductive” (subsistence/household), thus institutionalized sexism/ageism.
-The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values
-Bullshit Jobs: A Theory
ii) extreme global division of labour, which also plays out domestically, thus institutionalized racism beyond traditional xenophobia.
3) Markets (distribution):
--Note: I prefer how Varoufakis introduces this topic:
a) “societies with markets”: pre-capitalist; markets for “real commodities”, usually on the boundaries; also Graeber on “human economies”: Debt: The First 5,000 Years.
b) “market society”: capitalism, with its 3 peculiar markets (land/labour/money) featuring “fictitious commodities” (nature/humans/purchasing power) since these are not “produced” just for buying/selling (referencing Polanyi).
--Meanwhile, Wallerstein starts by challenging the assumption of markets as merely the exchange between initial-producer and end-consumer (such markets pre-date capitalism), instead emphasizing the significance of “intermediate markets” (between intermediate producers) in the long commodity chain of historical capitalism.
--Wallerstein also challenges perfect competition Supply/Demand: horizontal monopoly and vertical integration (same seller/buyer), ex. 16-18th-century chartered companies/19th-century merchant houses/20th-century transnational corporations: The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power
--Key to the world-system lens is the focus on the long global commodity chain’s unequal exchange between the global core (Global North) vs. periphery (Global South). While Wallerstein acknowledges that unequal exchange has long existed, he distinguishes capitalism’s ability to keep this hidden with the seeming separation of “economics” (global markets) vs. “politics” (nation states), where prices seem to be a natural result of the impersonal global markets. The emphasis here is on “seems”, given all the politics of state protectionism/class struggle integral to capitalist imperialism:
-Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
4) Purchasing Power (consumption):
--A key contradiction in capitalism is between:
a) Capitalist’s individual interests: capitalism’s viral logic (displacing other social norms that view endless accumulation/ruthless profit-seeking as irrational/immoral) compels each capitalist to cut their own costs (where wages are a major cost) and seek monopoly.
b) Capitalist’s collective interests (i.e. capitalist class): endless profit-seeking means endless growth in production, which must be purchased or else the system crashes (since profits are the end goal). The suppression of wages means insufficient purchasing power (“overproduction”/insufficient “effective demand”). Redistribution to alleviate this faces capitalist resistance as it hurts certain individual profits. Note: we should add that disciplining workers is also key for the capitalist class to maintain labour availability: The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism
…see comments below for rest of the review…
Preamble:
--How we define “capitalism” reveals our analytical tools for understanding:
i) modern history: origins of capitalism/development of wealth and poverty/class struggle and divide-and-rule
ii) today’s situation: environmental crises/geopolitical tensions/rising inequality and far-Right
iii) future prospects: range of possibilities/alternatives
--2 critical tools from the “origins of capitalism” debate:
a) Internal lens:
--Brenner/Wood use this microscope lens to identify capitalism’s driver as the social relations revolution (shift to market economic coercion) specifically in 16-17th century agrarian England (internal); their application is precise and clearly presented in Wood’s The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View.
b) External lens:
--Wallerstein uses this telescope lens to identify capitalism’s driver as transformations in the “new European division of labour: c. 1450-1640”. The more I read this origins “debate”, the more my go-to theorists seem to converge (starting from different vantage points), ex. Wallerstein’s The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century.
--Beyond the “origins” debate, this lens is particular useful for analyzing the world-system (external); I quite like how Wallerstein’s 2004 World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction introduces how to think with this lens.
--Now, this 1983 book by Wallerstein (based on 2 sprawling lectures) skips ahead to what to think; the results feel more like a kaleidoscope if you are missing critical foundations to compare with. Indeed, Wallerstein here is:
i) challenging analyses of capitalism that start with an ideal definition, only to then test it in the real world to see how a country’s (nation state as unit of analysis, rather than world-system) capitalism has “developed”.
…Note: for those “capitalism vs. communism” comparisons that use US vs. USSR (already making a mess of historical context), why not also use the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) as an example of capitalism (as it is integrated and crucial to global capitalism)? Are we to assume DRC still needs to “develop” into a capitalism like the US? Where was this patience for the USSR reaching communism?
ii) Wallerstein attempts to start by describing capitalism as a historical system (“historical capitalism”).
…Note: let’s move beyond low-hanging fruits like critiquing the worst idealized definitions; instead, let’s start with the most compelling intro to compare with, like Varoufakis’ Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails which builds from the Brenner/Wood origins framing.
Highlights:
--I’m skipping the various ideas that are too briefly mentioned, esp. the 2nd lecture (a balance sheet of historical capitalism’s pros/cons, which is at the level of vagueness suitable for Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind).
--The actual structure behind Wallerstein’s kaleidoscope is his approach with the “circuit of capital”.
1) Capital (finance/production):
--“Capitalism” = endless accumulation of capital, as the system’s ultimate goal.
--“Capital” is investment for the goal of self-expansion (in contrast to accumulation that is simply saved and not invested).
--Wallerstein reminds us that social norms have long existed which conflict with this cancerous logic (i.e. view endless accumulation of capital as irrational/immoral), as well as technical barriers. These social/technical barriers occur throughout the “circuit of capital” (capital/labour/market distribution/demand purchasing power/profit/investment back into capital) and had to be displaced.
--Note: on capital, I have to add other intros:
i) Marx’s distinction (see: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1) between:
a) C-M-C (Commodity exchanged via Money for another Commodity = basic market exchange; end goal = commodity), vs.
b) M-C-M’ (Money invested in Commodity production to be sold for more Money = “circuit of capital”; end goal = profit)
ii) “Great Reversal” (which Varoufakis introduces):
a) Production-Distribution-Finance (pre-capitalist: ex. feudal serfs starting with farming the land, followed by lord extracting their share, ending with the lord selling leftovers for money to buy/pay services/issues loans), vs.
b) Finance-Distribution-Production (capitalism starts with debt, i.e. the investment to pay for the costs of inputs which are now commodified, i.e. land/labour; next, distribution of rents/wages/costs are determined before production).
…Varoufakis further emphasizes the power of centering finance (money creation): credit is future productivity brought to the present to fulfil the optimistic expectations. When things work out, this turbocharges productivity gains. But this also turbocharges capitalism’s boom/bust cycles (optimism/pessimism).
…Varoufakis also emphasizes that the “Great Reversal” hides the value creation of labour from the workers. Previously, feudal serfs had to first work the land to produce the surplus before the lord extracts their share; thus, the production process/value of their labour is relatively clear for the serfs.
…With capitalism’s “Great Reversal”, the “circuit of capital” is conveniently obscured by financial markets/accounting, a barrier for the understanding/confidence needed for workers to organize/utilize their bargaining power (Raising Expectations (and Raising Hell); My Decade Fighting for the Labor Movement). Wallerstein also highlights capitalism’s powers of abstraction later.
2) Labour (production):
--Labour availability is a key barrier. Wallerstein compares:
a) Fixed: this is the primary mode in pre-capitalist societies, i.e. kinship/bonded.
b) Variable: since markets can have variable demand (boom/bust), this is a need, i.e. labour market (wage labour). Note: this also means dispossession, i.e. serfs kicked off the land by the Enclosures to create the land/labor markets, central to Varoufakis’ framing.
…Now, Wallerstein’s world-system lens reminds us in the Global North that:
Four hundred years at least into the existence of a historical social system, the amount of fully proletarianized labour [i.e. rely predominantly on wage labour] in the capitalist world-economy today cannot be said to total even fifty per cent.--Thus, Wallerstein emphasizes the global significance of the semi-proletariat within the capitalist world-system, where their continued access to some means of subsistence allows them to tolerate lower wages (thus, lower costs/higher exploitation for capitalists).
--Wallerstein also emphasizes the household unit rather than the individual, revealing capitalism’s systematic rationalization (in contrast to rationality):
i) valuation/devaluation of work, i.e. “productive” (waged) vs. “unproductive” (subsistence/household), thus institutionalized sexism/ageism.
-The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values
-Bullshit Jobs: A Theory
ii) extreme global division of labour, which also plays out domestically, thus institutionalized racism beyond traditional xenophobia.
3) Markets (distribution):
--Note: I prefer how Varoufakis introduces this topic:
a) “societies with markets”: pre-capitalist; markets for “real commodities”, usually on the boundaries; also Graeber on “human economies”: Debt: The First 5,000 Years.
b) “market society”: capitalism, with its 3 peculiar markets (land/labour/money) featuring “fictitious commodities” (nature/humans/purchasing power) since these are not “produced” just for buying/selling (referencing Polanyi).
--Meanwhile, Wallerstein starts by challenging the assumption of markets as merely the exchange between initial-producer and end-consumer (such markets pre-date capitalism), instead emphasizing the significance of “intermediate markets” (between intermediate producers) in the long commodity chain of historical capitalism.
--Wallerstein also challenges perfect competition Supply/Demand: horizontal monopoly and vertical integration (same seller/buyer), ex. 16-18th-century chartered companies/19th-century merchant houses/20th-century transnational corporations: The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power
--Key to the world-system lens is the focus on the long global commodity chain’s unequal exchange between the global core (Global North) vs. periphery (Global South). While Wallerstein acknowledges that unequal exchange has long existed, he distinguishes capitalism’s ability to keep this hidden with the seeming separation of “economics” (global markets) vs. “politics” (nation states), where prices seem to be a natural result of the impersonal global markets. The emphasis here is on “seems”, given all the politics of state protectionism/class struggle integral to capitalist imperialism:
The enormous apparatus of latent force (openly used sporadically in wars and colonization) has not had to be invoked in each separate transaction to ensure that the exchange was unequal. Rather, the apparatus of force came into play only when there were significant challenges to an existing level of unequal exchange. Once the acute political conflict was past, the world’s entrepreneurial classes could pretend that the economy was operating solely by considerations of supply and demand, without acknowledging how the world-economy had historically arrived at a particular point of supply and demand, and what structures of force were sustaining at that very moment the ‘customary’ differentials in levels of wages and of the real quality of life of the world’s work-forces [maintaining polarization rather than development; think back to the US vs. DRC example].-The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions
-Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
4) Purchasing Power (consumption):
--A key contradiction in capitalism is between:
a) Capitalist’s individual interests: capitalism’s viral logic (displacing other social norms that view endless accumulation/ruthless profit-seeking as irrational/immoral) compels each capitalist to cut their own costs (where wages are a major cost) and seek monopoly.
b) Capitalist’s collective interests (i.e. capitalist class): endless profit-seeking means endless growth in production, which must be purchased or else the system crashes (since profits are the end goal). The suppression of wages means insufficient purchasing power (“overproduction”/insufficient “effective demand”). Redistribution to alleviate this faces capitalist resistance as it hurts certain individual profits. Note: we should add that disciplining workers is also key for the capitalist class to maintain labour availability: The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism
…see comments below for rest of the review…
April 1, 2020
Όταν έχουμε 2020, έχεις γεννηθεί το '97 και ενδιαφέρεσαι για τη μελέτη της ριζοσπαστικής σκέψης και θεωρίας, βιώνεις μερικές μεγάλες ατυχίες.
Μία από αυτές είναι πως οι μεγάλου βεληνεκούς θεωρητικοί διάλογοι έχουν περάσει μαζί με τα αντίστοιχα κινήματα που τους γέννησαν, ίσως ανεπιστρεπτί. Η κουβέντα που ξεκίνησε ο Δομισμός το '50 - '60 απέναντι στη φαινομενολογία, αλλά και ο τρόπος που τα θεωρητικά σχήματα του '60 υπέκυψαν μπροστά στις αντηχήσεις του Μάη του '68. Η αντίσταση που άρθρωσε η θεωρία της εξάρτησης το '70 απέναντι στην παντοκρατορία της θεωρίας του εκσυγχρονισμού, που αντιστοιχούσε και σε πολύ συγκεκριμένη υλική αντιμετώπιση των χωρών του λεγόμενου Τρίτου Κόσμου. Ακόμα και μεταγενέστερες κουβέντες, όπως τα φόρουμ για την εναλλακτική παγκοσμιοποίηση. Αυτή είναι η πρώτη μεγάλη ατυχία.
Η δεύτερη ατυχία είναι πως η πλειοψηφία όσων έλαβαν μέρος σε αυτή την "αντεπίθεση πυρών" της ριζοσπαστικής θεωρίας απέναντι στα κυρίαρχα πρότυπα, δεν βρίσκονται πλέον κοντά μας. Και όσοι από αυτούς είναι ακόμα εδώ, είναι πάνω - κάτω στα 80, πολλές φορές και μεγαλύτεροι (βλ Μπαλιμπάρ, Νέγκρι, Αγκάμπεν κλπ). Πραγμα που σημαίνει πως σε μια λογική πορεία της ζωής, μάλλον κάποια στιγμή θα τους αποχαιρετήσεις. Κάποιες φορές τυχαίνει και τους ακούς και από κοντά (ας πουμε οι συχνές επισκέψεις του Μπαντιού στην Αθήνα), όμως κατά κανόνα τους γνωρίζεις μέσα από τα έργα τους.
Μία από αυτές τις περιπτώσεις αποτελεί και ο αμερικανός Immanuel Wallerstein, ο μόνος "αμερικανός κοινωνιολόγος που έγινε αντικείμενο λατρείας γράφοντας κοινωνική ιστορία". Ένας γίγαντας της ριζοσπαστικής σκέψης, με το δικό του θεωρητικό σχήμα, βαθειά στρατευμένος σε μια άλλη κοινωνική επιστήμη, τη κοινωνική επιστήμη που δεν παραβλέπει τη καταπίεση σε καμία γωνιά του κόσμου, όσο μακριά κι ας είναι από τα δικά μας μέρη. Και τη συνεισφορά του έργου του, αλλά και συνολικότερα τη προσωπικότητας του δεν μπορώ να τη παραβλέψω, όσες διαφωνίες και να έχω με τις αναλύσεις του.
Διαβάζοντας το βιβλίο του συμπαθέστατου Αμερικανού λοιπόν, έφυγα με λίγα προς το παρόν συμπεράσματα, κάμποσες ενστάσεις, αρκετές σημειώσεις και μία απίστευτα ενοχλητική αίσθηση πως νοσταλγώ καταστάσεις που διαδραματίστηκαν πολλά χρόνια πριν γεννηθώ.
Μία από αυτές είναι πως οι μεγάλου βεληνεκούς θεωρητικοί διάλογοι έχουν περάσει μαζί με τα αντίστοιχα κινήματα που τους γέννησαν, ίσως ανεπιστρεπτί. Η κουβέντα που ξεκίνησε ο Δομισμός το '50 - '60 απέναντι στη φαινομενολογία, αλλά και ο τρόπος που τα θεωρητικά σχήματα του '60 υπέκυψαν μπροστά στις αντηχήσεις του Μάη του '68. Η αντίσταση που άρθρωσε η θεωρία της εξάρτησης το '70 απέναντι στην παντοκρατορία της θεωρίας του εκσυγχρονισμού, που αντιστοιχούσε και σε πολύ συγκεκριμένη υλική αντιμετώπιση των χωρών του λεγόμενου Τρίτου Κόσμου. Ακόμα και μεταγενέστερες κουβέντες, όπως τα φόρουμ για την εναλλακτική παγκοσμιοποίηση. Αυτή είναι η πρώτη μεγάλη ατυχία.
Η δεύτερη ατυχία είναι πως η πλειοψηφία όσων έλαβαν μέρος σε αυτή την "αντεπίθεση πυρών" της ριζοσπαστικής θεωρίας απέναντι στα κυρίαρχα πρότυπα, δεν βρίσκονται πλέον κοντά μας. Και όσοι από αυτούς είναι ακόμα εδώ, είναι πάνω - κάτω στα 80, πολλές φορές και μεγαλύτεροι (βλ Μπαλιμπάρ, Νέγκρι, Αγκάμπεν κλπ). Πραγμα που σημαίνει πως σε μια λογική πορεία της ζωής, μάλλον κάποια στιγμή θα τους αποχαιρετήσεις. Κάποιες φορές τυχαίνει και τους ακούς και από κοντά (ας πουμε οι συχνές επισκέψεις του Μπαντιού στην Αθήνα), όμως κατά κανόνα τους γνωρίζεις μέσα από τα έργα τους.
Μία από αυτές τις περιπτώσεις αποτελεί και ο αμερικανός Immanuel Wallerstein, ο μόνος "αμερικανός κοινωνιολόγος που έγινε αντικείμενο λατρείας γράφοντας κοινωνική ιστορία". Ένας γίγαντας της ριζοσπαστικής σκέψης, με το δικό του θεωρητικό σχήμα, βαθειά στρατευμένος σε μια άλλη κοινωνική επιστήμη, τη κοινωνική επιστήμη που δεν παραβλέπει τη καταπίεση σε καμία γωνιά του κόσμου, όσο μακριά κι ας είναι από τα δικά μας μέρη. Και τη συνεισφορά του έργου του, αλλά και συνολικότερα τη προσωπικότητας του δεν μπορώ να τη παραβλέψω, όσες διαφωνίες και να έχω με τις αναλύσεις του.
Διαβάζοντας το βιβλίο του συμπαθέστατου Αμερικανού λοιπόν, έφυγα με λίγα προς το παρόν συμπεράσματα, κάμποσες ενστάσεις, αρκετές σημειώσεις και μία απίστευτα ενοχλητική αίσθηση πως νοσταλγώ καταστάσεις που διαδραματίστηκαν πολλά χρόνια πριν γεννηθώ.
September 19, 2014
A swift, lucid narrative of just what's happened these last 500 years. Wallerstein writes with wit, clarity, and concision, and his analysis swoops through time gloriously. Also admirable: his clear explanation that though Marx was a great thinker, Marx himself recognized that he was a man of his time, and that thinkers in the future would need to keep up the analysis and develop understanding of the ways Capital always continues to mutate. Wallerstein has thought, deeply, about this stuff for so long that he's well prepared to breeze through the quick version here. The book's a page-turner that you can finish in a day or two, and his predictions, made in the early 90s, are hair-raisingly accurate.
If you wonder what all the Marxian fuss is about, this is a great primer on how Capital works, from someone with a healthy willingness to disagree with Marx (or anyone else) when necessary. (He's particularly convincing in his quibble with Marx about the myth of progress.)
Highly recommended.
If you wonder what all the Marxian fuss is about, this is a great primer on how Capital works, from someone with a healthy willingness to disagree with Marx (or anyone else) when necessary. (He's particularly convincing in his quibble with Marx about the myth of progress.)
Highly recommended.
March 23, 2019
TARİHSEL KAPİTALİZM
-K.Marx KAPİTALİZM'İN 3 büyük ÇELİŞKİSİNİ kısaca şöyle anlatmıştır:
1) Özel sektörün KİŞİSEL çıkarı ile KOLEKTİF/KAMUSAL çıkar arasındaki PARADOKS
2) MALİYETLERİNİ AZALTMAK için İŞÇİLERİ İŞTEN ÇIKARMASI ve ÜRETTİKLERİNİ daha çok insana satıp KÂRINI ARTIRMAK için İŞSİZ-PARASIZ bıraktığı bu insanların MÜŞTERİLİĞİNE MAHKÛM olması
3) Kendisinin en büyük MOTORU olan "REKABET" ile yine kendisinin en büyük TUTKUSU olan "TEKELLEŞME" arasındaki PARADOKS.
-Bu açmazlarda devlet, KAPİTALİSTE YARDIM eder.
-Devletin VERGİLENDİRME-vergileri AZALTIP ARTIRMA gücü , SERMAYE birikimine doğrudan MÜDAHALE GÜCÜDÜR; RİSKLERİ topluma yayarken, KÂRLARI özelde toplar ve SERMAYEYİ YÖNLENDİRİR.
DEVLET, ENERJİ-TAŞIMA-İLETİŞİM- BİLGİ TEKNOLOJİSİ gibi vazgeçilmez ve pahalı ALTYAPILARI KAMU KAYNAKLARI İLE YAPAR ve yapılan bu zeminler üzerinden elde edilen KARLARI İSE ÖZELE YÖNLENDİRİR.
DEVLET, ayrıcalıkları KAPİTALİST KULLANSIN, DİĞERLERİNİ YOKSUN BIRAKSIN siteminin KALDIRACIDIR. Gerekli bulduğunda, elindeki EN BÜYÜK GÜÇ olan SİLAH KULLANMA TEKELİNİ devreye sokar.
DEVLET'in bu SİLAH KULANMA ve YARGILAMA HAKKINI TEKELİNDE TUTMASI, ilk büyük dişe-diş savaşların konusu olmuştur. Aristo'nun 3.NÜN OLMAZLIĞI yasası (kontrol eden ve edilen dışında başka güce izin yok-FNK-) gereğince davranılmaktadır ve devletin sınırları içerisinde başka bir yargı hakkına izin verilmemekte ve üretim/emek kontrol altında tutulmaktadır.
-Kapitalistlerin çıkarlarının ORTAKLAŞMAMASI, DEVLETLERİN devam etmesinin nedenidir; hepsi kendi avantaj alanını SÖMÜRMEYİ SÜRDÜRMEK istediği için SINIRLAR vardır.
-KAPİTALİST sistem, giderek daha da çok ÜST TABAKALARIN ÇIKARINA HİZMET eder hale gelmektedir.
-EVDEN üretime katılarak çalışan YARI-PROLETERLER, ÜCRETLERİN DÜŞMESİNE ve DAHA ÇOK SÖMÜRÜYE yol açmaktadırlar.
-DİN ve MİLLİYETÇİLİK kapitalizmin dayanağıdır. Kültürel KİMLİK HAREKETLERİ ise SINIFLAR ARASI DİYALOGA İZİN vererek gelişebilecek DİRENİŞLERİ GECİKTİRMEKTE ve kapitalistlere NEFES aldırmaktadır.
-DİN KİTLELERİN (K.Marx), HAKİKAT (veritas) ve MARKSİZM ise AYDINLARIN AFYONUDUR (R.Aron); ACILARI HAFİFLETİR.
-SEÇKİNCİLİK, SOSYALİST tahayyül taşımayan saf EVRENSELCİLİK ve BİLİMSEL KÜLTÜRCÜLÜK, sınırsız kapital birikiminin akıldışılığının MASKESİ olmaktadır.
-GELECEK DÜNYA DÜZENİ, önceden söylemeye çalışmayıp ANCAK DÜŞLEYEBİLECEĞİMİZ BİZİMLERDE, "AZAR AZAR" KURULACAKTIR.
-TARİHSEL SOSYALİZM, eşitliği ve adaleti en üst düzeyine çıkaran bir tarihsel sistemin asgari tanımlayıcı özelliklerini taşıyan, insanlığın kendi yaşamı üstündeki denetimini (demokrasi) artıran ve imgelemi özgürleştiren bir sosyalizmdir.
-K.Marx KAPİTALİZM'İN 3 büyük ÇELİŞKİSİNİ kısaca şöyle anlatmıştır:
1) Özel sektörün KİŞİSEL çıkarı ile KOLEKTİF/KAMUSAL çıkar arasındaki PARADOKS
2) MALİYETLERİNİ AZALTMAK için İŞÇİLERİ İŞTEN ÇIKARMASI ve ÜRETTİKLERİNİ daha çok insana satıp KÂRINI ARTIRMAK için İŞSİZ-PARASIZ bıraktığı bu insanların MÜŞTERİLİĞİNE MAHKÛM olması
3) Kendisinin en büyük MOTORU olan "REKABET" ile yine kendisinin en büyük TUTKUSU olan "TEKELLEŞME" arasındaki PARADOKS.
-Bu açmazlarda devlet, KAPİTALİSTE YARDIM eder.
-Devletin VERGİLENDİRME-vergileri AZALTIP ARTIRMA gücü , SERMAYE birikimine doğrudan MÜDAHALE GÜCÜDÜR; RİSKLERİ topluma yayarken, KÂRLARI özelde toplar ve SERMAYEYİ YÖNLENDİRİR.
DEVLET, ENERJİ-TAŞIMA-İLETİŞİM- BİLGİ TEKNOLOJİSİ gibi vazgeçilmez ve pahalı ALTYAPILARI KAMU KAYNAKLARI İLE YAPAR ve yapılan bu zeminler üzerinden elde edilen KARLARI İSE ÖZELE YÖNLENDİRİR.
DEVLET, ayrıcalıkları KAPİTALİST KULLANSIN, DİĞERLERİNİ YOKSUN BIRAKSIN siteminin KALDIRACIDIR. Gerekli bulduğunda, elindeki EN BÜYÜK GÜÇ olan SİLAH KULLANMA TEKELİNİ devreye sokar.
DEVLET'in bu SİLAH KULANMA ve YARGILAMA HAKKINI TEKELİNDE TUTMASI, ilk büyük dişe-diş savaşların konusu olmuştur. Aristo'nun 3.NÜN OLMAZLIĞI yasası (kontrol eden ve edilen dışında başka güce izin yok-FNK-) gereğince davranılmaktadır ve devletin sınırları içerisinde başka bir yargı hakkına izin verilmemekte ve üretim/emek kontrol altında tutulmaktadır.
-Kapitalistlerin çıkarlarının ORTAKLAŞMAMASI, DEVLETLERİN devam etmesinin nedenidir; hepsi kendi avantaj alanını SÖMÜRMEYİ SÜRDÜRMEK istediği için SINIRLAR vardır.
-KAPİTALİST sistem, giderek daha da çok ÜST TABAKALARIN ÇIKARINA HİZMET eder hale gelmektedir.
-EVDEN üretime katılarak çalışan YARI-PROLETERLER, ÜCRETLERİN DÜŞMESİNE ve DAHA ÇOK SÖMÜRÜYE yol açmaktadırlar.
-DİN ve MİLLİYETÇİLİK kapitalizmin dayanağıdır. Kültürel KİMLİK HAREKETLERİ ise SINIFLAR ARASI DİYALOGA İZİN vererek gelişebilecek DİRENİŞLERİ GECİKTİRMEKTE ve kapitalistlere NEFES aldırmaktadır.
-DİN KİTLELERİN (K.Marx), HAKİKAT (veritas) ve MARKSİZM ise AYDINLARIN AFYONUDUR (R.Aron); ACILARI HAFİFLETİR.
-SEÇKİNCİLİK, SOSYALİST tahayyül taşımayan saf EVRENSELCİLİK ve BİLİMSEL KÜLTÜRCÜLÜK, sınırsız kapital birikiminin akıldışılığının MASKESİ olmaktadır.
-GELECEK DÜNYA DÜZENİ, önceden söylemeye çalışmayıp ANCAK DÜŞLEYEBİLECEĞİMİZ BİZİMLERDE, "AZAR AZAR" KURULACAKTIR.
-TARİHSEL SOSYALİZM, eşitliği ve adaleti en üst düzeyine çıkaran bir tarihsel sistemin asgari tanımlayıcı özelliklerini taşıyan, insanlığın kendi yaşamı üstündeki denetimini (demokrasi) artıran ve imgelemi özgürleştiren bir sosyalizmdir.
May 21, 2020
An extremely accessible primer on (the historical world-system of) capitalism from a predominantly historical materialist perspective, looking at household structure, the evolution of racism and institutional sexism, geographic distribution, anti-systemic movements, etc. Due to its brevity, much of what he outlines is not fully argued - though presumably is articulated in his extensive multi-volume Modern World System. Regardless, Historical Capitalism provides an absolutely necessary lens in viewing and understanding modern capitalism. I found the discussion on universalism and science/education as tools that entrench the capitalist hierarchy to be both uncomfortable and compelling - something I'll have to look into further.
It is equally critical of 'actually existing' socialism and marxism (so no need to fear proselytization) and it has held up extraordinarily well, given that it was written before the fall of the USSR.
I also laughed out loud at some points but that might be my weird sense of humour..
It is equally critical of 'actually existing' socialism and marxism (so no need to fear proselytization) and it has held up extraordinarily well, given that it was written before the fall of the USSR.
I also laughed out loud at some points but that might be my weird sense of humour..
December 26, 2017
Sermaye üretim ekseninde, yaşamlarımız dahil her şeyin metalaştırılması sürecini ele alarak başlayan Wallerstein, standart Marksist yaklaşımdan farklı bir perspektiften halen nedir diye kafa yorulan Kapitalizm sisteminin tarihselliğinin tüm işleyiş çelişkileri ile net soru ve cevapları ortaya koyarak etkileyici bir düşünüşe sevk ediyor. Sermayenin konumlanışı, yeni Pazar anlayışı, beğeni yaratma pratiği, modern bilim aynı zamanda iktidar aygıtı olan Devlet kurumunun Kapitalist sistem ile iç içe yürüyüşü, ve bunun gibi bilinen birçok ayrıntıya başka bir yönden bakış atıp İktisadi yaklaşım olarak size katkı sağlayacak bir eser olduğunu düşünüyorum.
Read
November 26, 2023Wallerstein iki makalesini içeren kitapta, kapitalizmin varlığı ve ilerlemeciliği tartışıyor. Toplumsal bir olgu olarak kapitalizmin nasıl ortaya çıktığını, varlığını nasıl sürdürdüğünü çözümlemeye çalışıyor. Yazıların temel sorunu çok geniş bir süreci ve alanı kapsayan kavramı özetlemeye çalışması. Herhangi bir veri kullanmadığı için de anlaşılması zor bir metin çıkıyor ortaya. Wallerstein’ın dilinin konunun genişliğiyle başa çıkamadığını düşünüyorum. Her ne kadar diğer kapitalizm tarihi kitaplarından farklı bir tavır koymaya çalıştığını söylese de sık sık bilinen söylemleri tekrar ettiğini söyleyebilirim.
İlk kısımda tarihsel kapitalizmin yükselişini açıklıyor. Çok genel bir açıklama var, bana yeni bir perspektif sunmadı. Tarihsel kapitalizmde üretim araçlarının tamamı metalaştığında, bunun toplumdaki sosyo ekonomik yansımalarından bahsediyor. Bu toplumun proleterleşmesidir. Wallerstein garipsediğim bir biçimde eğitimli, orta sınıfın proleterleşmesine takıntılı. Sürekli olarak analiz etmeye çalıştığı ve analizin ilerlemediği bir konu oluyor ne yazık ki. Bunun dışında cinsiyetçilik ve ırkçılığın kapitalizmin ayrılmaz parçaları olduğunu söylüyor. Kitaptaki pek çok tartışma gibi bu da zamanı geçmiş bir tartışma. 80lerde yazılan bir kitap için doğal sayılır. Dönemin tavrını öğrenmek için okunabilir. Sonuç olarak da kapitalizmin çelişkileri nedeniyle kendi içini oyduğunu ve yerini daha eşit bir sisteme bırakacağını söylüyor. Eşit sistemden umudumu kesmesem de kapitalizmin iç çelişkilerinin sistemi işlemez hale getireceğini düşünmüyorum. Pek çok çelişkiyi yutarak devam etti şu ana dek en azından.
Kapitalist Uygarlık isimli ikinci kısımda ilerleme fikrini eleştiriyor. Karşı çıktığı konuları pek makul bulmadım. Doğrusu pek çok marksistin düştüğü hataya düşüyor. Teknolojik iyileştirmelerle oluşan koşulları eleştirmek doğru bir tutum değil. Ortaya çıkan koşullar ile liberalizmi karıştırıyorlar. Ortaçağdaki veba ile 80lerdeki aids krizi örneğini veriyor. Korkunç bir yıkıcılığı olan salgın ile aids krizini karşılaştırmak saçma. İnsan hayatındaki iyileştirmeleri görmezden geliyor. Bu iyileştirmeleri kabul etmek kişiyi liberal yapmıyor. Aynı iyileştirmeler için Sovyetler de çalıştı. İlerleme fikrini kapitalizmin ögesi olarak kabul etmemeliyiz. Kapitalizm öncesi toplumların proleterlerden daha iyi yaşadığını da iddia ediyor. Kapitalizmin mesai sisteminin feodaliteden bile kötü olduğunu söylüyor. Şaşırtıcı ölçüde garip bir tez. Tüm yaşamı bir aileye ait insanları hafife mi alıyor dedirtti. Mesai sisteminin yıkıcılığı yabancılaşma adı altında çok daha makul şekilde eleştirildi. Wallerstein hayal kırıklığına uğrattı. Sunduğu argümanların hepsi tartışmaya açık. Açıklayıcı ya da yenileyici bir tartışma da değil. 2024 yılında okunduğunda hükmü geçmiş tartışmalar ama dönemi için de biraz garip tezleri var. Son olarak Wallerstein’ın neden ısrarla tarihsel kapitalizm kavramını kullandığını anlayamıyorum. Tarihsel kapitalizm dediği şey kapitalizm. Kavramsal hiçbir ayrım yokken diretmesi çok ilginç.
İlk kısımda tarihsel kapitalizmin yükselişini açıklıyor. Çok genel bir açıklama var, bana yeni bir perspektif sunmadı. Tarihsel kapitalizmde üretim araçlarının tamamı metalaştığında, bunun toplumdaki sosyo ekonomik yansımalarından bahsediyor. Bu toplumun proleterleşmesidir. Wallerstein garipsediğim bir biçimde eğitimli, orta sınıfın proleterleşmesine takıntılı. Sürekli olarak analiz etmeye çalıştığı ve analizin ilerlemediği bir konu oluyor ne yazık ki. Bunun dışında cinsiyetçilik ve ırkçılığın kapitalizmin ayrılmaz parçaları olduğunu söylüyor. Kitaptaki pek çok tartışma gibi bu da zamanı geçmiş bir tartışma. 80lerde yazılan bir kitap için doğal sayılır. Dönemin tavrını öğrenmek için okunabilir. Sonuç olarak da kapitalizmin çelişkileri nedeniyle kendi içini oyduğunu ve yerini daha eşit bir sisteme bırakacağını söylüyor. Eşit sistemden umudumu kesmesem de kapitalizmin iç çelişkilerinin sistemi işlemez hale getireceğini düşünmüyorum. Pek çok çelişkiyi yutarak devam etti şu ana dek en azından.
Kapitalist Uygarlık isimli ikinci kısımda ilerleme fikrini eleştiriyor. Karşı çıktığı konuları pek makul bulmadım. Doğrusu pek çok marksistin düştüğü hataya düşüyor. Teknolojik iyileştirmelerle oluşan koşulları eleştirmek doğru bir tutum değil. Ortaya çıkan koşullar ile liberalizmi karıştırıyorlar. Ortaçağdaki veba ile 80lerdeki aids krizi örneğini veriyor. Korkunç bir yıkıcılığı olan salgın ile aids krizini karşılaştırmak saçma. İnsan hayatındaki iyileştirmeleri görmezden geliyor. Bu iyileştirmeleri kabul etmek kişiyi liberal yapmıyor. Aynı iyileştirmeler için Sovyetler de çalıştı. İlerleme fikrini kapitalizmin ögesi olarak kabul etmemeliyiz. Kapitalizm öncesi toplumların proleterlerden daha iyi yaşadığını da iddia ediyor. Kapitalizmin mesai sisteminin feodaliteden bile kötü olduğunu söylüyor. Şaşırtıcı ölçüde garip bir tez. Tüm yaşamı bir aileye ait insanları hafife mi alıyor dedirtti. Mesai sisteminin yıkıcılığı yabancılaşma adı altında çok daha makul şekilde eleştirildi. Wallerstein hayal kırıklığına uğrattı. Sunduğu argümanların hepsi tartışmaya açık. Açıklayıcı ya da yenileyici bir tartışma da değil. 2024 yılında okunduğunda hükmü geçmiş tartışmalar ama dönemi için de biraz garip tezleri var. Son olarak Wallerstein’ın neden ısrarla tarihsel kapitalizm kavramını kullandığını anlayamıyorum. Tarihsel kapitalizm dediği şey kapitalizm. Kavramsal hiçbir ayrım yokken diretmesi çok ilginç.
September 9, 2016
A book that makes sweeping generalizations with no evidence. Apparently historical capitalism is the cause of sexism, racism and runaway liberal individualism (all at once). My favorite quote: "by no means self-evident that there is more liberty, equality, and fraternity in the world toady than there was one thousand years ago. One might arguably suggest that the opposite is true.." Take your pick - live in 1014 or 2014.
September 3, 2023
tirándole este libro a la cabeza a mis amigas para que lo lean
June 4, 2021
Mixed bag. I enjoyed chapter 2, "The Politics of Accumulation: Struggle for Benefits," particularly the portions that dealt with anti-imperialist and "anti-systemic movements" as well as the impossibility of socialism in one country. I didn't particularly enjoy or glean much from the rest of the book. Though, I should add that his discussion of absolute vs relative immiseration of the global working-class in the pre-capitalist vs capitalist world-system was interesting, even if the statistics he used are somewhat misleading and now (obviously) outdated.
I'm going to plug Ellen Meiksins Wood's book The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View. Although she doesn't discuss current global inequality nearly as much as Wallerstein does, I think she offers a more convincing picture of how capitalism emerged out of feudalism - one that's more historically grounded (ironic, given the name of this book). From Meiksins Wood's/Brenner's framework, I think it's plausible to extrapolate a kind of trajectory for historical capitalism that's more defensible - as has (I believe) been done in Case Studies in the Origins of Capitalism, although I haven't read this book yet so I could be wrong. Will update once completed.
I may read Wallerstein's The Capitalist World-Economy and The Politics of the World-Economy: The States, the Movements, and the Civilizations for a more in-depth version of his argument. But for now, I look forward to reading more Meiksins Wood as well as David McNally for my political economy fix.
I'm going to plug Ellen Meiksins Wood's book The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View. Although she doesn't discuss current global inequality nearly as much as Wallerstein does, I think she offers a more convincing picture of how capitalism emerged out of feudalism - one that's more historically grounded (ironic, given the name of this book). From Meiksins Wood's/Brenner's framework, I think it's plausible to extrapolate a kind of trajectory for historical capitalism that's more defensible - as has (I believe) been done in Case Studies in the Origins of Capitalism, although I haven't read this book yet so I could be wrong. Will update once completed.
I may read Wallerstein's The Capitalist World-Economy and The Politics of the World-Economy: The States, the Movements, and the Civilizations for a more in-depth version of his argument. But for now, I look forward to reading more Meiksins Wood as well as David McNally for my political economy fix.
November 1, 2017
The author seems to share Marx's prophecy that contradictions inherent in the functioning of capitalism will inexorably tear the system apart in a structural crisis, though he is not convinced that the crisis will necessarily culminate into a classless egalitarian society. He also believes that past anti systemic struggles around the globe not only failed to dismantle capitalism, but actually reinforced the status quo, to the extent that their ultimate strategy (seizure of state power) was effectively determined by the interstate system, itself an instrument of capitalism.
However, the collapse of capitalism will no doubt open up a space for utopian projects of various forms to assert themselves. So for those among us who are still audacious enough to defend the communist hypothesis, the question is not so much one of whether capitalism is here to stay (the answer is no, if you follow Wallerstein) but of whether in the aftermath of capitalism's collapse we can come to a consensus on the form of a society that should take its place. In the best and the worst of times, can we bring ourselves to act on our convictions?
However, the collapse of capitalism will no doubt open up a space for utopian projects of various forms to assert themselves. So for those among us who are still audacious enough to defend the communist hypothesis, the question is not so much one of whether capitalism is here to stay (the answer is no, if you follow Wallerstein) but of whether in the aftermath of capitalism's collapse we can come to a consensus on the form of a society that should take its place. In the best and the worst of times, can we bring ourselves to act on our convictions?
Want to Read
March 30, 20221983 edition HB501 W425 1983 Memorial Library
Immanuel Wallerstein books https://search.library.wisc.edu/searc...
Utopistics https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... is the only Wallerstein book at city library.
Immanuel Wallerstein books https://search.library.wisc.edu/searc...
Utopistics https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... is the only Wallerstein book at city library.
Read
September 18, 2024Wallerstein’s “Historical Capitalism” is a thought-provoking primer on capitalism through history. The brevity and very high level of abstraction made for satisfying and unsatisfying reading at the same time: the former because the movement of 500 years of history is theorised in sweeping terms, the latter because none of this is explained in much detail or grounded in concrete examples.
The scope of such a small book is huge, and is centred on elucidating the interwoven processes of proletarianisation, commodification and capital expansion in the context of irresolvable contradictions between states, capital and workers. It covers fundamental notions of unequal exchange, the “interstate system” and “overproduction”, and provides an overview and critique of various “anti-systemic” (primarily socialist or communist) movements through history. Given my lack of knowledge in the subject matter and the fact that this book provides more of an overview than an argumentation, I can’t say much to the validity of what is being claimed. Many statements seemed plausible enough to me, others over-simplified. I would note that his fairly blasé dismissal of third-world national liberation movements as failures that inadvertently strengthened the capitalist world system, combined with very Trotskyist notions of the futility of “socialism in one country”, makes me sceptical of what Wallerstein’s wider politics looked like.
The final section on predictions for the future is fascinating, given the book was written primarily before the fall of the USSR from what I can tell; Wallerstein’s confidence in the inevitability and imminence of the disappearance of capitalism stands in stark contrast to the pervasive capitalist realism of current generations and might appear unconvincing to modern readers. On the other hand, his predictions on the nature of conflict between the global North and South are more in line with events that have passed since the book’s publishing, broadly classified as the “Khomeini option”, the “Saddam Hussein option” and the “boat people” option.
Overall, what I found more interesting than his diagnoses and prognoses was his general framework for understanding economic and historical processes: "world systems theory" was new to me and full of interesting conceptualisations. Markets, for example, defined as “a set of rules or constraints resulting from the complex interplay of four major sets of institutions: the multiple states linked in an interstate system; the multiple ‘nations’, whether fully recognized or struggling for such public definition (and including those subnations, the ‘ethnic groups’), in uneasy and uncertain relation to the states; the classes, in evolving occupational contour and in oscillating degrees of consciousness; and the income pooling units engaged in common householding, combining multiple persons engaged in multiple forms of labour and obtaining income from multiple sources, in uneasy relationship to the classes.” Parsing the complex subject matter through the lens of such abstractions felt analytically powerful to me at least, I just wished for concrete, empirical counterparts to the analysis.
As a stimulating starting point on the history of capitalism, this book serves its purpose well. For anyone interested in a follow-up book or a more fleshed-out and convincing argumentation, I would recommend Ellen Meiksin Wood’s “The Origin of Capitalism”.
The scope of such a small book is huge, and is centred on elucidating the interwoven processes of proletarianisation, commodification and capital expansion in the context of irresolvable contradictions between states, capital and workers. It covers fundamental notions of unequal exchange, the “interstate system” and “overproduction”, and provides an overview and critique of various “anti-systemic” (primarily socialist or communist) movements through history. Given my lack of knowledge in the subject matter and the fact that this book provides more of an overview than an argumentation, I can’t say much to the validity of what is being claimed. Many statements seemed plausible enough to me, others over-simplified. I would note that his fairly blasé dismissal of third-world national liberation movements as failures that inadvertently strengthened the capitalist world system, combined with very Trotskyist notions of the futility of “socialism in one country”, makes me sceptical of what Wallerstein’s wider politics looked like.
The final section on predictions for the future is fascinating, given the book was written primarily before the fall of the USSR from what I can tell; Wallerstein’s confidence in the inevitability and imminence of the disappearance of capitalism stands in stark contrast to the pervasive capitalist realism of current generations and might appear unconvincing to modern readers. On the other hand, his predictions on the nature of conflict between the global North and South are more in line with events that have passed since the book’s publishing, broadly classified as the “Khomeini option”, the “Saddam Hussein option” and the “boat people” option.
Overall, what I found more interesting than his diagnoses and prognoses was his general framework for understanding economic and historical processes: "world systems theory" was new to me and full of interesting conceptualisations. Markets, for example, defined as “a set of rules or constraints resulting from the complex interplay of four major sets of institutions: the multiple states linked in an interstate system; the multiple ‘nations’, whether fully recognized or struggling for such public definition (and including those subnations, the ‘ethnic groups’), in uneasy and uncertain relation to the states; the classes, in evolving occupational contour and in oscillating degrees of consciousness; and the income pooling units engaged in common householding, combining multiple persons engaged in multiple forms of labour and obtaining income from multiple sources, in uneasy relationship to the classes.” Parsing the complex subject matter through the lens of such abstractions felt analytically powerful to me at least, I just wished for concrete, empirical counterparts to the analysis.
As a stimulating starting point on the history of capitalism, this book serves its purpose well. For anyone interested in a follow-up book or a more fleshed-out and convincing argumentation, I would recommend Ellen Meiksin Wood’s “The Origin of Capitalism”.
August 10, 2016
In these two deceptively short essays, Wallerstein lays out what he believes to be the overriding principles governing the development of capitalism as a socio-economic phenomenon. He writes very broadly and vaguely, which is unsurprising given that, as he places the beginnings of "historical capitalism" in the fifteenth century, we are talking about a very long-term process which has undergone various adjustments. Unfortunately, I found the book's broadness to be a weakness, when I was hoping it would be a strength.
Wallerstein gives a rather generic account of the rise of historical capitalism. He talks about how capitalism as a self-perpetuating system of the endless pursuit of wealth accumulation developed when fully-formed capital circuits were formed; i.e. all parts of an individual's productive process were commodified. He talks about the ongoing-but-not-ubiquitous "proletarianization" of society. He says the state is an economic, rather than a merely politico-military entity, and that the balance-of-power arrangements between states have been formed out of fear of economic over-extension. He argues that sexism (the relegation of women to "non-productive" labor and the exaltation of productive labor as a status symbol) and racism have been integral parts of historical capitalism. He predicts that the capitalist system will be superseded by another, more egalitarian system when it fails due to its internal contradictions.
I didn't any of this particularly revelatory.
In "Capitalist Civilization", Wallerstein makes another standard-fare Marxian critique of the liberal idea of "progress". In addition to being antiquated, I found Wallerstein's arguments against the notion that people are generally better-off now than they were before historical capitalism (that is, before the fifteenth century) rather weak. Yes, he says, in the Middle Ages we had the Black Death; but now we have...the AIDS crisis? As horrible as the AIDS crisis was and is, I don't think it compares to the plague which killed one-third to one-half of Europe's population.
He claims that people in capitalist societies work longer and harder than those in pre-capitalist ones, but i'm not so sure. Unlike proletarians, pre-capitalist people didn't "go to work", or clock-in when they got there. Whether they were hunter-gatherers or farmers or shepherds, their work was their way of life; their entire existence was organized around it - as opposed to people in today's developed nations who work an eight-hour shift and get their food through the Burger King drive-thru instead of through days, weeks, and months of plowing or hunting. Wallerstein's criteria for our supposed lack of progress is, in mild terms, questionable.
Wallerstein gives a rather generic account of the rise of historical capitalism. He talks about how capitalism as a self-perpetuating system of the endless pursuit of wealth accumulation developed when fully-formed capital circuits were formed; i.e. all parts of an individual's productive process were commodified. He talks about the ongoing-but-not-ubiquitous "proletarianization" of society. He says the state is an economic, rather than a merely politico-military entity, and that the balance-of-power arrangements between states have been formed out of fear of economic over-extension. He argues that sexism (the relegation of women to "non-productive" labor and the exaltation of productive labor as a status symbol) and racism have been integral parts of historical capitalism. He predicts that the capitalist system will be superseded by another, more egalitarian system when it fails due to its internal contradictions.
I didn't any of this particularly revelatory.
In "Capitalist Civilization", Wallerstein makes another standard-fare Marxian critique of the liberal idea of "progress". In addition to being antiquated, I found Wallerstein's arguments against the notion that people are generally better-off now than they were before historical capitalism (that is, before the fifteenth century) rather weak. Yes, he says, in the Middle Ages we had the Black Death; but now we have...the AIDS crisis? As horrible as the AIDS crisis was and is, I don't think it compares to the plague which killed one-third to one-half of Europe's population.
He claims that people in capitalist societies work longer and harder than those in pre-capitalist ones, but i'm not so sure. Unlike proletarians, pre-capitalist people didn't "go to work", or clock-in when they got there. Whether they were hunter-gatherers or farmers or shepherds, their work was their way of life; their entire existence was organized around it - as opposed to people in today's developed nations who work an eight-hour shift and get their food through the Burger King drive-thru instead of through days, weeks, and months of plowing or hunting. Wallerstein's criteria for our supposed lack of progress is, in mild terms, questionable.
June 27, 2020
I understand they're supposed to be somewhat readable essays detailing 500 years of history, but I felt like Wallerstein makes a lot of grand claims that would require entire books of their own to explore (for example, that sexism wasn't really institutionalized until capitalism). I'm sympathetic to a lot of these claims, which is why I was frustrated that there weren't any further sources to explore, or even many historical examples, either of which would have helped his argumentation greatly. I don't think name-dropping someone's work, or providing an occasional historical example, would be hard to do, and would make it even more readable.
It also doesn't help that the few "concrete" examples he provides seem pretty dated by modern standards, and seem to reveal flaws in the analytical technique of "these historical examples show us what capitalism is," rather than "capitalism is this, here's some supporting argumentation in the form of historical examples." The "Balance Sheet" Chapter is especially bad. In the section "The Quality of Individual Life", he discusses how the question of capitalism's record on improvement of material well-being is somewhat ambiguous, as people in America have cars/whatever, but people in China/India may only have one radio for their entire village! This is obviously not true today, and while I think Wallerstein would probably counter that people in other parts of the world have been taken into the "periphery", that wasn't quite his argument in the text. When relating to the absolute level of wealth, he says, "We may well have reached the top of the curve for the bottom 50 to 80 percent," which would cause me to reluctantly say that Pinker/Gates/et. al may have a point.
It's obviously easy to dunk on the wrong predictions of a book written 40 years ago, especially as some predictions, like his outlying of the possibility of lots of "boat people" in the medium-future ring very true. Still, I think it reveals the strengths of the logico-deductive analyses which Wallerstein dismisses in the introduction (I have the 2011 Verso edition): I feel like they may have supplanted what frustrated me about this book.
It also doesn't help that the few "concrete" examples he provides seem pretty dated by modern standards, and seem to reveal flaws in the analytical technique of "these historical examples show us what capitalism is," rather than "capitalism is this, here's some supporting argumentation in the form of historical examples." The "Balance Sheet" Chapter is especially bad. In the section "The Quality of Individual Life", he discusses how the question of capitalism's record on improvement of material well-being is somewhat ambiguous, as people in America have cars/whatever, but people in China/India may only have one radio for their entire village! This is obviously not true today, and while I think Wallerstein would probably counter that people in other parts of the world have been taken into the "periphery", that wasn't quite his argument in the text. When relating to the absolute level of wealth, he says, "We may well have reached the top of the curve for the bottom 50 to 80 percent," which would cause me to reluctantly say that Pinker/Gates/et. al may have a point.
It's obviously easy to dunk on the wrong predictions of a book written 40 years ago, especially as some predictions, like his outlying of the possibility of lots of "boat people" in the medium-future ring very true. Still, I think it reveals the strengths of the logico-deductive analyses which Wallerstein dismisses in the introduction (I have the 2011 Verso edition): I feel like they may have supplanted what frustrated me about this book.
Currently Reading
August 29, 2018Satır Arası grubu olarak 14. oturumumuzda Tarihsel Kapitalizm'i yorumlayacaktık, ancak hiçbirimiz kitabı bitiremedik. Bu duruma çevirinin çok kötü olması ve kitabın aslında çok ciddi bir akademik arkaplanda yazılmış olması gibi sorunlar sebep oldu. Dolayısıyla, gerçekten çabalamamıza rağmen bu kitabı hiçbirimiz yarılayamadık bile. Bu yüzden tüm takipçilerimizden özür dileriz.
Biz yine de oturumumuzu çektik, kitaba biraz dokunduktan sonra farklı konulara kaydık ister istemez :)
YouTube'da videoyu izlemek için (sadece ses kaydı) : https://youtu.be/MNpuXJ8bdTk
Podcast olarak dinlemek için: http://bit.ly/2MAdrHX
Blog yazısı: http://bit.ly/2wtPtDA
Telegram grubumuza katılmak için: https://t.me/satirarasi
Bize kitap önerisinde bulunmak için kitap öneri formumuzu doldurabilirsiniz: http://bit.ly/sa_form
Biz yine de oturumumuzu çektik, kitaba biraz dokunduktan sonra farklı konulara kaydık ister istemez :)
YouTube'da videoyu izlemek için (sadece ses kaydı) : https://youtu.be/MNpuXJ8bdTk
Podcast olarak dinlemek için: http://bit.ly/2MAdrHX
Blog yazısı: http://bit.ly/2wtPtDA
Telegram grubumuza katılmak için: https://t.me/satirarasi
Bize kitap önerisinde bulunmak için kitap öneri formumuzu doldurabilirsiniz: http://bit.ly/sa_form
September 6, 2017
Not perfect but very much worth reading. Longer review forthcoming.
August 1, 2024
This is a short, interesting book by one of the key proponents of world systems theory. For much of the time this book felt a little brief, making some grand assertions about the broad sweep of history without working through any examples in any kind of detail. The second part with its focus on the contradiction between universalism and racism-sexism as organising principles behind historical capitalism feels more insightful. Coupled with Wallerstein's focus on capitalism as a specific historical phenomenon where development and change - of whatever kind - is inevitable makes for a more interesting analysis, albeit one which remains at a very high level.
January 24, 2025
A very succinct book, likely an excellent introductory text that covers a wide area of social theory in such a small book. I was surprised at how little it relies on examples instead just describing material and ideological processes.
July 12, 2025
it's so short to have this much scope and audacity, MUST READ! i would love to read this book in like 400-500+ pg format with all the data and errything
December 19, 2022
No me convence del todo su historización del capitalismo ni su lectura de Marx. Buen libro de historia económica.
December 30, 2023
A good introduction to world systems analysis, but is ultimately still an introduction. For people who have read a good number of Wallerstein’s other works this will likely not add anything new. In particular, I found the lack of empirical data to back up Wallerstein’s claims to be somewhat frustrating at times. One probably had to read his main series—The Modern World-System to get the emotional backing to his claims.
December 14, 2020
“Tarihsel kapitalizm, sınırsız sermaye birikimi amacıyla hareket eden(yasa) zaman ve mekanla sınırlı tümleşik üretim etkinlikleri yeridir…Benim görüşüm bu tarihsel sistemin 15.yy sonrası Avrupa’sında yer aldığı, sistemin zaman içinde, 19.yy a doğru tüm yerküreyi kaplayacak biçimde mekan içinde genişlediği, bugün hala genişlemeye devam ettiğidir."
Tarihsel kapitalizm, daha önce hiç var olmamış, cinsiyetçilik ve ırkçılık adını verdiğimiz ideolojik bir aşağılama çerçevesi geliştirdi. Daha önceki tarihsel sistemlerden farklı olarak bugün bu iki şey çok daha fazlası anlamına gelir.
1. Cinsiyetçilik kadınları “üretken olmayan emek” gibi aşağılayıcı bir konuma sürüklemiştir.
2. Irkçılık üretken emeğe nimetlerden yararlanma hakkını tanımlanırken düşük düzeyde karşılıklar ödenmesine gerekçe olmuştur. En düşük nitelikli işlerde yabancılar, etnik azınlıklar çalışmaktadır.
Tarihsel kapitalizm, daha önce hiç var olmamış, cinsiyetçilik ve ırkçılık adını verdiğimiz ideolojik bir aşağılama çerçevesi geliştirdi. Daha önceki tarihsel sistemlerden farklı olarak bugün bu iki şey çok daha fazlası anlamına gelir.
1. Cinsiyetçilik kadınları “üretken olmayan emek” gibi aşağılayıcı bir konuma sürüklemiştir.
2. Irkçılık üretken emeğe nimetlerden yararlanma hakkını tanımlanırken düşük düzeyde karşılıklar ödenmesine gerekçe olmuştur. En düşük nitelikli işlerde yabancılar, etnik azınlıklar çalışmaktadır.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 3, 2021
Immanuel Wallerstein, 20 ve 21. yüzyılda yaşamış bir deha olarak hatırlanacak şüphesiz. İlk olarak 1983 yılında ele aldığı bu kitapta bahsettiği, tarihsel bir sistem olarak kapitalizm'in sebep olacağı salgın hastalıklardan, Güney'den Kuzey'e olan tekneli insanların göçünden, giderek artacak kaos benzeri iç savaşlardan ve diğer onlarca kehanetten hangisini şuanda görmüyor ve yaşamıyoruz?
Kitabın ilk kısmı, belki biraz da çeviri sebebiyle bana oldukça ağır gelse de, "Bir Bilanço" adlı başlıkta kapitalizmi mercek altına tutarak "ilerlemeyi" sorguladığı kısım, beni gerçekten çok etkiledi. Bu tarz kitapların sadece bir ilgi alanı olarak değil, analitik düşünme kabiliyetlerimizi artırması ve içinde yaşadığımız dünyanın iktisadi sistemini anlamamız açısından da başucu kitabı olarak atfedilmesi gerektiğini düşünüyorum ve herkese tavsiye ediyorum.
Kitabın ilk kısmı, belki biraz da çeviri sebebiyle bana oldukça ağır gelse de, "Bir Bilanço" adlı başlıkta kapitalizmi mercek altına tutarak "ilerlemeyi" sorguladığı kısım, beni gerçekten çok etkiledi. Bu tarz kitapların sadece bir ilgi alanı olarak değil, analitik düşünme kabiliyetlerimizi artırması ve içinde yaşadığımız dünyanın iktisadi sistemini anlamamız açısından da başucu kitabı olarak atfedilmesi gerektiğini düşünüyorum ve herkese tavsiye ediyorum.
November 18, 2019
A decent beginning and the world system stuff is pretty good. A complete jump ship at the end though, where he suddenly decries all communism at utopian, and says we should go for something else, but offering no theory behind that something else. I'd just recommend reading the first 2 chapters and leaving it there.
January 24, 2009
i am forever indebted to him.
June 15, 2012
I really love the cover of this book. I remember this being sold to me as a kind of contemporary Marxism. I have positive feelings about this book, but not much else
June 12, 2024
Kitabın bu genişletilmiş basımı iki ana bölümden oluşuyor, ilki 1992 yılında Tarihsel Kapitalizm başlığıyla ikincisiyse 2012 yayınlanan Kapitalist Uygarlık başlığı adını taşıyor. İlk kitabın ilk bölümü kapitalizm tarihinin çıkışına, sistemin işleyişine dair konuları barındırıyor. Ancak bu bölümde kitabın dili o kadar ağır ki her bir cümle başka bir kitaptan alınmış gibi cümlelerin birbiri arasında bağlantı yok. Ekonomik jargonun bu satırlarda ağırlığı hissetmek mümkün. İkinci bölümse artık günümüz dünyasındaki kapitalizmin yerine odaklanıyor. Dil olarak daha sade ve anlaşılır. Aynı yazar tarafından farkı dönemlerde kapitalizm konusunun ela alınması açısından farklı bir sentez sunuyor.
This expanded edition of the book consists of two main parts, the first published in 1992 under the title Historical Capitalism and the second published in 2012 under the title Capitalist Civilization. The first part of the first book covers topics regarding the emergence of the history of capitalism and the functioning of the system. However, in this section, the language of the book is so heavy that there is no connection between the sentences, as if each sentence was taken from another book. It is possible to feel the weight of economic jargon in these lines. The second part now focuses on the place of capitalism in today's world. The language is simpler and more understandable. It offers a different synthesis in terms of addressing the subject of capitalism in different periods by the same author.
This expanded edition of the book consists of two main parts, the first published in 1992 under the title Historical Capitalism and the second published in 2012 under the title Capitalist Civilization. The first part of the first book covers topics regarding the emergence of the history of capitalism and the functioning of the system. However, in this section, the language of the book is so heavy that there is no connection between the sentences, as if each sentence was taken from another book. It is possible to feel the weight of economic jargon in these lines. The second part now focuses on the place of capitalism in today's world. The language is simpler and more understandable. It offers a different synthesis in terms of addressing the subject of capitalism in different periods by the same author.
January 3, 2018
I don't know why the author insists on "historical capitalism": the word capitalism has worked fine so far. But alright...
While otherwise fine and sometimes insightful (particularly on the "ethnicization of labor" and the role of racism in propping up "historical capitalism"), Chapter 3 takes a hard turn into a screed against the Enlightenment ("ideology of universalism") and at times explicitly equates nationalism and labor socialist movements. Both, he argues, have fallen into the "trap" of inevitable progress, but he goes no further to mention their incredible differences. It's incoherent at best and poisonously confusing at worst.
At some point the Enlightenment is nearly blamed for racism (!) - and as for an alternative, the author offers none except maybe "civilizational alternatives" by which I think he means something like moral relativism. Frustrating little book.
The author's political forecast becomes clear in the last pages: "Communism is Utopia, that is nowhere... There is no interest in a ‘socialism’ that claims to be a ‘temporary’ moment of transition towards Utopia." The choice society faces is not socialism or barbarism. Rather, everything hinges on whether the world bourgeoisie chooses reforms ("assuming 'socialist' clothing") or simply allows the system to perish. As though the oppressed have no decision in the matter...
While otherwise fine and sometimes insightful (particularly on the "ethnicization of labor" and the role of racism in propping up "historical capitalism"), Chapter 3 takes a hard turn into a screed against the Enlightenment ("ideology of universalism") and at times explicitly equates nationalism and labor socialist movements. Both, he argues, have fallen into the "trap" of inevitable progress, but he goes no further to mention their incredible differences. It's incoherent at best and poisonously confusing at worst.
At some point the Enlightenment is nearly blamed for racism (!) - and as for an alternative, the author offers none except maybe "civilizational alternatives" by which I think he means something like moral relativism. Frustrating little book.
The author's political forecast becomes clear in the last pages: "Communism is Utopia, that is nowhere... There is no interest in a ‘socialism’ that claims to be a ‘temporary’ moment of transition towards Utopia." The choice society faces is not socialism or barbarism. Rather, everything hinges on whether the world bourgeoisie chooses reforms ("assuming 'socialist' clothing") or simply allows the system to perish. As though the oppressed have no decision in the matter...
Read
July 9, 2022Like reading Marx without the sunny optimism. In this 4000-foot summary of his worldview, Wallerstein borrows much of Marx's framework, placing a greater emphasis on the relations between Core and Periphery, but largely rejects his account of capitalism as (initially) a progressive force, and is much more ambivalent about the future that will replace it. In fact, Wallerstein seems pretty sour on the notions of "progress" and "science" in general. It's easy to see the intellectual through-line from Wallerstein to contemporaries like Jason Hickel.
It's somewhat unfair, given that it is basically meant to be a summary, but I found the book's habit of grand assertions with cursory evidence (there are almost no statistics) a little grating. Individual sections, like the one on why semi-proletarianization of the labor force persists -- since unremunerated household work, mostly by women, essentially subsidizes wage labor -- can be astute. But everything has to be fit into a vast, totalizing theoretical system, where materialist explanations are assumed to precede almost everything, and inconvenient facts are dismissed.
From what I hear Wallerstein's work on core-periphery relations is worth reading. But I don't feel like I added much useful knowledge to my somewhat shallow understanding of Marxianism.
It's somewhat unfair, given that it is basically meant to be a summary, but I found the book's habit of grand assertions with cursory evidence (there are almost no statistics) a little grating. Individual sections, like the one on why semi-proletarianization of the labor force persists -- since unremunerated household work, mostly by women, essentially subsidizes wage labor -- can be astute. But everything has to be fit into a vast, totalizing theoretical system, where materialist explanations are assumed to precede almost everything, and inconvenient facts are dismissed.
From what I hear Wallerstein's work on core-periphery relations is worth reading. But I don't feel like I added much useful knowledge to my somewhat shallow understanding of Marxianism.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews