Världssystemanalysen: En introduktion

Neue Bibliothek der Sozialwissenschaften

by Immanuel Wallerstein, Oskar Söderlind (Translator)

I Världssystemanalysen - En introduktion ger Immanuel Wallerstein en koncis och lättillgänglig presentation av det vittfamnande teoribygge som han lanserade för drygt trettio år sedan. Med tiden har världssystemanalysen blivit en allt vanligare metodologisk utgångspunkt inom de historiskt inriktade samhällsvetenskaperna, och även utanför universiteten växer intresset. Inte minst i globaliseringsdebatten är teorin ett ständigt återkommande diskussionsämne. För första gången i en enda volym erbjuder nu Wallerstein en koncentrerad sammanfattning av världssystemanalysens grunder. Här ges en klar beskrivning av det moderna världssystemets kunskapsstrukturer, dess funktionssätt och dess stundande utmaningar. Wallerstein lyfter fram teorins centrala beståndsdelar: valet att överge nationalstaten som analysenhet till förmån för »världssystemet«, det långsiktiga perspektivet på historiska förlopp samt viljan att överskrida de akademiska barriärerna mellan discipliner som historia, statsvetenskap, ekonomi och sociologi. Därefter tecknas en fascinerande bild av den moderna världens utveckling – från den kapitalistiska världsekonomins uppkomst på 1500-talet, via franska revolutionens omvälvningar fram till 1968 års kulturella världsrevolution. I ett avslutande kapitel behandlas det nuvarande världssystemets förestående slutkris och vilka valmöjligheter vi har inför framtiden. Boken ger en fullödig inledning till det världssystemanalytiska arbetet författad av teorins ursprungliga arkitekt, och är avsedd för såväl den intresserade allmänheten som för universitetsstudenter och forskare.

Genres: History, Politics, Sociology, Economics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, World History

173 pages, Paperback

First published August 27, 2004

About the author

Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein was a scholar of politics, sociologist, historical social scientist, and world-systems analyst. His bimonthly commentaries on world affairs were syndicated.

Reviews

[The Conspiracy is Capitalism · Rating 5 out of 5]

World History Systems-Thinking 101:

The Good:
--On the importance of "systems-thinking" (digging beneath surface distractions to uncover the root structures; not missing the forest for the trees), see Meadows' Thinking In Systems: A Primer
--"How-the-world-works" books are often in-depth tomes, so this concise (~100 pages) overview by its most well-known proponent is much needed:

1) The Approach:
a) Space: unit of analysis = world system:
--This counters the conventional obsession with nation-states.
--Influenced by core-periphery/Dependency Theory/Unequal Exchange/anti-imperialism: the relationships between regions that cross national borders, especially useful given capitalism’s global division of labour.
--Wallerstein adds “semi-periphery” as a middle category in between “core” and “periphery”, and theorized the role semi-periphery has especially during economic downturns when the “core” looks to cut costs and outsource to viable locations (see Wallerstein’s 1976 “Semi-Peripheral Countries and the Contemporary World Crisis”).

b) Time: unit of analysis = structural time, i.e. systems have lives.
--This counters those dreary history textbooks consisting of a litany of episodic events. This also counters the search for eternal truths.
--Wallerstein applies this by theorizing the “modern world system” as a capitalist world economy starting in the long 16th century (influenced by Fernand Braudel), flourishing from the influences of the French Revolution (which popularized liberal rule where political change and sovereignty of the people became normalized), and reaching a terminal phase by the 1968 world revolutions.
--Within the life of the system (“structural time”), there is “cyclic time” to reflect the behavior of capitalist expansions and contractions (boom/busts).

c) Against artificial academic discipline boundaries: overviews the history of academic disciplines (particularly in the “social sciences”) and the need to transcend them.
--A recent emphasis is after WWII, from the domination of US university system and the rise of Global South scholars in the world university system.

2) The Theories:
a) Capitalist boom/bust cycles:
--A key application of the spatial world-system and temporal structural-time is theorizing global capitalism’s life as a system.
--Capitalism is defined as a system prioritizing (i.e. alternatives are punished) the endless accumulation of capital. Influenced by Braudel, capitalism is seen as striving for anti-market monopolism within a set of institutions (including markets, firms, states, etc.), as a truly “free market” would erode profits.
--Influenced by Nikolai D. Kondratieff (i.e. K-waves) and of course Karl Marx, this results in the following “cyclic time” analysis on the cycle of leading products:
i) Expansion: leading products have temporary quasi-monopolies (including boost from patent monopolies), stimulating economic investment and growth.
ii) Contraction: overproduction is eventually reached from competition catching up (cut prices) and market saturation (cut demand), which halts investments and leads to recession. Capitalists try to offset diminished profits by cutting costs, either by cutting wages domestically or by relocation to semi-periphery (which often see growth during the overall downturn); however, demand remains an issue (especially with wages cut).

b) Capitalist structural crisis:
--Expanding from “cyclic time” to “structural time”, Wallerstein’s theory of the terminal crisis of capitalism focuses on increasing costs squeezing profits; these costs are not completely resolved by the cycles of leading products and build up:
i) Labour: outsourcing in a finite global labour market (especially after expansion from the collapse of Soviet Bloc + China’s opening) has temporary gains, but syndical (working class) power tends to eventually increase from improving organization/education/skills to push for higher wages (thus costs).
ii) Inputs (machinery + materials): pressure to internalize costs of waste disposal, resource renewal, and infrastructure.
iii) Taxes: initially capitalists focus on security (army/police), infrastructure, and bureaucracy (mostly tax collection) but all expanding along with demand for social services.
--of course, the explanations/prioritization here is contested to various degrees by more orthodox Marxists (with their own variations on the "Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall") as well as other like Michael Hudson (who focuses on rising private debt: The Bubble and Beyond) and Eco-socialists (who focus on the environmental crisis, ex. Facing the Anthropocene: Fossil Capitalism and the Crisis of the Earth System).
--a related accessible intro is Varoufakis' Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails.

c) Other key theories involve debates around Dependency Theory (i.e. periphery's dependency on the imperial core), Marx’s “Asiatic mode of production”, the Transition debate (between Feudalism to Capitalism), and how to conceptualize history (ex. “total history” of Annales school). Common criticisms of World-Systems Analysis are reviewed: orthodox Marxists, state autonomists, cultural particularists…

3) The Heart of Radical Change:
--As you can see from the radical influences, from Latin American Dependency Theory to Marx, the World Systems tradition has the heart of radical change. This means global alternatives are well within the equation, thus shaping the analysis. For example, Wallerstein characterizes global capitalism as exploitation and does not grant the term "development" to describe semi-periphery regions that benefit from global downturns. The hope is for what Wallerstein calls "anti-systemic movements" to find use in this approach to help better understand the world's structures in order to change the system, rather than being distracted by surface symptoms.

The Questionable:
--Not missing the big picture is crucial; a failure to do so can be seen in progressive reformists who focus too much on “nationalist development” (the best of the bunch may be Ha-Joon Chang: Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism). During the systemic booms, it is fair-weather sailing, as anything and everything can seem to contribute to progressive growth. But when the inevitable crash happens, the solution remains to simply revert to the conditions of the boom phase.
--However, with grand analyses comes the risk of grand inaccuracies. I have not read Wallerstein extensively, but from his lectures he comfortably makes grand claims (framed as his “narratives”) that make me hesitant; to be fair, he is more careful with predictions as he stresses indeterminacy. Grand claims come with the territory; World Systems analysis seems to have many contrasting views resulting from the shared approach.
--Despite the Global South influences, I still think there needs to be more emphasis on such experiences and practices. I still get a sense of "economizing" at times, and not capturing the impact of imperialist violence. Consider this playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
...And these Global South perspectives in:
-ex. geopolitical economy: Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present
-ex. history: The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World
--Actual anti-systemic ideas for postcapitalism that we should push for? Try Varoufakis' Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present

[C. Varn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a solid introduction to Wallerstein's version of "World-Systems Analysis" which is a way of approaching political-economy that inherits quite a bit of the Marxist historical apparatus but moves away from the focus on the proletariat as the subject of modern history, and instead looks at the inter-relationship of structures. Still, the Marxist political economy buttresses the entire apparatus with reinforcement from systems theory and Weberian sociology even if Wallerstein is critiquing more "Orthodox" or "classical" Marxism.

The strengths of World-system analysis is that it is not afraid to look at long term trends and to critique both modernist compartmentalization and post-modernist fear of narrative. There is a tendency in this introduction to slightly over-generalize in ways that Fernand Braudel and Wallerstein's own work in history is not as given to in its more scholarly form. Another advantage to this is that is not nation-centric but does not ignore the way nation-states function as entities within the world-system. Most analyses including most Marxist ones, tend to favor one (the capitalist totality) or the other (nationalist imperialism) but are not as likely to please emphasis on the inter-relation between the two.

If there is one weak point in Wallerstein's verison of "world-system's analysis" is that it may over-state the important of 1968 as a disruptive moment. I tend to think this is a left-over of New Left symbolism as the response to the collapse of center-liberalism in the post-war world system instead of focusing on the disruptive ideologies of the current in which not only "new leftism" but also "neo-liberalism" and "neo-conservatism" emerges, and they emerge in the years before and after 1968. This is both a major and minor complaint: it is major in that this makes the ease of pin-pointing the world-system crisis much less clean than Wallerstein paint its, but it is minor because it does not damage the overall methodology of world system's theory.

IF anything, even as an introduction, I wish this book had been a bit longer to go more into specifics. Still I strongly suggest this as a read.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was my intro to Wallerstein and I've been hooked ever since. Its introductory and a quick read, so its enjoyable, but do not expect too much beyond a run over of his major ideas. Excellent are chapter one, which gives a critical history of knowledge (which we divide into the three spheres of physical and social sciences as well as the humanities) that brings us to the W's concept of historical social-science/World Systems Theory as a critique of dominant modes of looking at the world (this was a gem for me); chapter two provides his overview of the development of capitalism as a global system (as opposed to capitalism existing in Europe and states of non-capitalism or "semi-feudalism" in colonized areas) which is a much more advanced and useful explanation than 19th century Marxism. The third and fourth are on inter-state relations and future predictions around structure and culture in that I'm not so sold on. Overall refreshing and lucid read that provides great tools for understanding the world in a historical way.

[Reid tries to read · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. Some highlights:

What is capitalism?
- capitalism is: "a system which gives priority to the endless accumulation of capital" in which people/firms accumulate capital in order to accumulate more capital in a process that never ends.
- The system gives priority to this endless accumulation through structural mechanisms which penalize those who act with motivations other than to endlessly accumulate capital. On the other hand, those who try to endlessly accumulate are rewarded within the system
- Capitalism can only exist within a world economy due to the capitalists' needs for large markets. These large markets cannot be totally "free" markets however, because that would hurt the rate of profit: "Suppose there really existed a world market in which all the factors of production were totally free- that is, one in which the factors flowed without restriction, in which there were a very large number of buyers and a very large number of sellers, and in which there was perfect information (meaning that all sellers and all buyers knew the exact state of all costs of production). In such a perfect market, it would always be possible for the buyers to bargain down the sellers to an absolutely minuscule level of profit and this low level of profit would make the capitalist game entirely uninteresting to producers." Instead, capitalists need monopolies/quasi-monopolies and the machinery of a strong state to support said monopolies.
- So producers want to build monopolies to eliminate competition and thus increase their rates of profit. However there is a built-in feature that prevents this: "one producer's monopolistic advantage is another producer's loss. The losers will of course struggle politically to remove the advantages of the winners". The losers will either 1. politically struggle within the states the monopoly is located in to try and end the monopolistic advantage, or 2. persuade other states to "defy the world market monopoly by using their state power to sustain competitive producers". Both methods lead to the liquidation of monopolies over time. When this happens, enough time has usually passed for the capitalists who controlled the monopolies to have accumulated a large mass of capital, which they then invest into new products and industries.
- "The result is a cycle of leading products. Leading products have moderately short lives, but they are constantly succeeded by other leading industries. Thus the game continues. As for the once-leading industries past their prime, they become more and more "competitive," that is, less and less profitable"

core, periphery, and semi-periphery
-
- "Core-periphery is a relational concept. What we mean by core-periphery is the degree of profit­ ability of the production processes."
- Core processes are the most profitable, and since profitability is directly related to the degree of monopolization then it can be said that core-production processes are those that are controlled by a monopoly/quasi-monopoly.
- Pe­ripheral processes are those that are truly competitive.
- "When exchange occurs, competitive products are in a weak position and quasi-monopolized products are in a strong position. As a result, there is a constant flow of surplus-value from the producers of peripheral products to the producers of core-like products. This has been called unequal exchange"
- "Since quasi-monopolies depend on the patronage of strong states, they are largely located-juridically, physically, and in terms of ownership­ within such states"
- "Core-like processes tend to group themselves in a few states and to constitute the bulk of the production activity in such states. Peripheral processes tend to be scattered among a large number of states and to constitute the bulk of the production activity in these states. Thus, for shorthand purposes we can talk of core states and peripheral states"
- semi-peripheral states have a mix of core and peripheral products

- The core-like processes are always changing. In the 1800s it was textiles; today textiles are among the least profitable peripheral processes. "The pro­cess has been repeated with many other products. Think of steel, or auto­mobiles, or even computers. This kind of shift has no effect on the structure of the system itself. In 2000 there were other core-like processes (e.g. aircraft production or genetic engineering) which were concentrated in a few coun­tries. There have always been new core-like processes to replace those which become more competitive and then move out of the states in which they were originally located."

Kondratieff cycle
“A major leading industry will be a major stimulus to the expansion of the world-economy and will result in considerable accumula­tion of capital ( A-cycle)…As more and more firms enter the market of the quasi­ monopoly, there will be "overproduction" (that is, too much production for the real effective demand at a given time) and consequently increased price competition, thus lowering the rates of profit. At some point, a buildup of unsold products results, and consequently a slowdown in further production (B-cycle)”
When leading industries stop being as profitable, producers often relocate production to semi-peripheral zones where they can pay lower wages and thus bolster their rate of profit. This leads to less employment in core zones, where wage laborers can actually afford the products being produced, and therefore the market for said products shrinks.
The wages for core workers can be bolstered only as long as a pool of peripheral workers (who are paid lower wages) can kept being drawn from. Eventually, there will be no more new wage laborers outside of the current labor pool to be drawn from.

[عبدالله الوهيبي · Rating 4 out of 5]

‎اشتهر عالم الاجتماع إيمانويل والرشتاين بنظرية كبرى الأنساق العالمية أو النظم الدولية، طوّرها في عدة مجلدات ابتداء من عام 1975، والتي تهتم بوصف تاريخ أنظمة العالم الحديث وآلياته، وبناه المعرفية. بعد اشتغاله في هذا المجال لأكثر من ثلاثين عاماً يضع والرشتاين في هذا الكتاب المختصر (يقع في أقل من 130 صفحة) خلاصة نظريته وملخص أبحاثه الكثيرة. يقع الكتاب في خمسة فصول. الأول يعرض لتاريخ نشأة أفكار تحليل النظم والأنساق التاريخية الحديثة، والتي بدأ تداولها باعتبارها منهجية جديدة لدراسة الواقع الاجتماعي منذ سبعينيات القرن المنصرم. ويشرح في هذا الفصل باقتضاب ظروف تكون العلوم الاجتماعية الحديثة، وعلاقتها بالتاريخ، ودور تكوين الدول القومية الحديثة في مفاهيم الحقل، ثم أشار للتحديات التي واجهت موضوعات علوم الاجتماع في أعقاب عام 1945، بسبب صعود الولايات المتحدة كقوة عظمى، وانتشار اضطرابات العالم الثالث، وتوسع النظام التعليمي الجامعي من حيث الكليات والطلبة والجامعات، وقد أثّرت هذه التحولات في تركيبة المعرفة التي نشأت خلال السنين المائة أو المائة والخمسين الماضية، كما يقول. وكان من نتائج هذه التحديات والتحولات التمهيد لأربعة نقاشات أساسية جرت ما بين 1945 و1970 ساهمت في ميلاد حقل "تحليل النظم أو الأنساق العالمية"، وهي مفهوم المركز والأطراف، ونظرية النمط الآسيوي للإنتاج عند ماركس، وجدالات الأكاديميين حول ظروف وحيثيات الانتقال من الإقطاعية إلى الرأسمالية في تاريخ أوروبا، والنقاش الحاد حول تاريخ الكلي وأطروحة مدرسة الحوليات الفرنسية. وقد استند الحقل الجديد لثلاث أفكار نقدية أساسية، هي استبدال الدولة القومية بالنظم الدولية كوحدات للتحليل، والإصرار على دراسة الظواهر الممتدة في الحقب التاريخية الطويلة كما نظّر لها المؤرخ الفرنسي المعروف فرنان بروديل ت ‪1985‬، واعتماد منهجية توحيد الحقول المعرفية، وتجاهل الفروق التقليدية بين العلوم الاجتماعية (التاريخ، الاقتصاد، السياسة، الاجتماع) وضمها داخل إطار تحليلي واحد. وتعرّض الحقل الجديد لنقودات صارمة أشار المؤلف لبعضها في آخر الفصل ودافع عن أطروحته.  كُرّس الفصل الثاني لتلخيص أطروحة المؤلف الرئيسية والتي تنظر للنظام الدولي الحديث باعتباره اقتصاداً عالمياً رأسمالياً، وقد شرح الفصل ظروف تكوّن هذا النظام الذي نشأ أولاً في القرن السادس عشر، وتشكلاته اللاحقة، ثم يواصل في الفصل الثالث الحديث عن نشأة الدولة الحديثة وتطورها، وذلك بالتركيز على مفهوم "السيادة"، وعلاقة الدولة بالسوق، والقومية والاستعمار. وفي الفصل الرابع ينتقل للحديث عن الأيديولوجيات المؤثرة في النظام الدولي الحديث، وبرامج الإصلاح والثورة وصراعاتها، ثم دمجها أخيراً في إطار المواطنة. وفي الفصل الخامس يحلل أزمة النظام أو النسق الرأسمالي الحديث، والمؤلف يعتقد أننا نعيش الآن في فترة انتقالية تتسم بالتقلب والصراع الكبير، والتي قد تستمر كما يرى لمدة 25-50 سنة، ولذا فمن الضروري "أن نفهم ما يجري حولنا. وأن نحدد كيف نتصرف في الوقت الحاضر".
لابد من التنبيه للجذور الماركسية العميقة في أطروحة والرشتاين، والتي أشار لها سعود الشرفات في مقالة متاحة على الشبكة بعنوان:"الجذور الماركسية في نظرية فالرشتاين-النظام العالمي الحديث". وقد تُرجم مؤخراً كتاب والرشتاين "نهاية العالم كما نعرفه" عن هيئة البحرين بترجمة جيدة لفايز الصياغ، وهو يحتوي على شروحات إضافية (وهو أقدم نشراً باللغة الأصلية من كتاب تحليل النظم الدولية الصادر بالانجليزية في 2004)، وتحليلات مستفيضة في ذات السياق الذي يعمل داخله، لا سيما تشكلات النظام الدولي الحديث، وأزمات العلوم الإنسانية والمعرفة الاجتماعية الحديثة. ومن المهم للباحث والمحلل والقارئ المهتم العناية بالاطلاع على هذه الأطروحات الكلية، واسعة الخطوة النظرية، لتحسين تصوراته عن المجريات، وتحاشي الانخراط المبالغ فيه في تفاصيل النقاشات والأحداث التي تغيّب الرؤية الشمولية، وتغفل الأنظمة البنيوية الساكنة والراكدة داخل الإطار الزماني الحديث.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a response to the criticisms of Dependency Theory (and for the purposes of the review can still be treated as part of Dependency Theory). World Systems Theory, developed by Wallerstein accepts the fact ex-colonies are not doomed to be forever trapped in a state of dependency; it is possible for them to climb the economic ladder of development, as many of them have done.

However, he also believes that the global capitalism system still requires some countries, or at least regions within countries to be poor so they can be exploited by the wealthy at the top.

The book has the following chapters:

1. Historical Origins of World-Systems Analysis: From Social Science Disciplines to Historical Social Sciences
2. The Modern World-System as a Capitalist World-Economy: Production, Surplus Value, and Polarization
3. The Rise of the States-System: Sovereign Nation-States, Colonies, and the Interstate System
4. The Creation of a Geoculture: Ideologies, Social Movements, Social Science
5. The Modern World-System in Crisis: Bifurcation, Chaos, and Choices

Wallerstein’s general theory has four underlying principles:

1. One must look at the world system as a whole, rather than just at individual countries. Dependency Theory tended to argue that countries are poor because they used to be exploited by other countries. However focusing on countries (or governments/ nation states) is the wrong level of analysis – government today have declined in power, whereas Corporations are more powerful than ever. Global Corporations, and global capital, transcend national boundaries, and nation states (even wealthy ones) are relatively powerless to control them, thus in order to understand why countries are rich or poor, we should be looking at global economic institutions and corporations rather than countries. Global Economic Institutions form what Wallerstein calls a Modern World System, and all countries, rich and poor alike are caught up in it.

2. Wallerstein believes that the Modern World System is characterised by an international division of labour consisting of a structured set of relations between three types of capitalist zone:

a) The core, or developed countries control world wages and monopolise the production of manufactured goods.

b) The semi-peripheral zone includes countries like South Africa or Brazil which bear a resemblance to the core in terms of their urban centres but also have areas of rural scarcity which resemble the peripheral countries. The core contracts work out to these countries.
c) Finally, there are the peripheral countries at the bottom, mainly in Africa, which provide the raw materials such as cash crops to the core and semi periphery. These are also the emerging markets in which the core attempts to market their manufactured goods.

3. Countries can be upwardly or downwardly mobile in the world system. This is one of the key differences between World System’s Theory and Frank’s Dependency Theory. Many countries, such as the BRIC nations have moved up from being peripheral countries to semi-peripheral countries. However, most countries do not move up and stay peripheral, and the ex-colonial powers (the wealthy European countries) are very unlikely to slip down the global order.

4. The Modern World System is dynamic – core countries are constantly evolving new ways of extracting profit from poorer countries and regions. Three examples of new ways of extracting profit from poor countries include:

a) Unfair Trade Rules: World trade is not a level playing field – The best example of this is in Agriculture – Agriculture is Africa’s biggest economic sector. It has the capacity to produce a lot more food and export to Europe and America but it can’t because the EU and America spend billions every year subsidising their farmers so imported African products seem more expensive

b) Western Corporations occasionally use their economic influence to negotiate favourable tax deals in the developing world. A good case in point here is the mining Company Glencore in Zambia – The company recently arranged a long term contract to mine copper with the Zambian government – it exports $6 billion a year in copper from Zambia, but pays only $50m in tax, while as part of the deal the Zambian government is contractually obliged to pay for all the electricity costs of mining – a total of $150m a year.

c) Land Grabs: These are currently happening all over Africa, where a western government or company buys up thousands of hectares of land in Africa with the intention of planting it with food or biofuel crops for export back to western markets. In such cases the western companies take advantage of the cheap land and gain much more than the African nations selling the land in the long term. In some case studies of land grabs thousands of indigenous peoples are displaced.

This book and the views enclosed can also be criticised in the same way Dependency Theorists can be criticised – there are more causes of underdevelopment than just Capitalism – Such as cultural factors, corruption and ethnic conflict.

In his tome, Wallerstein puts too much emphasis of economics and the dominance of Capitalism – There are other ways people can be exploited and oppressed – such as tyrannical religious regimes for example. Also, there are some areas are still not included in the World System – some tribal peoples in South America and Bhutan for example remain relatively unaffected by global capitalism.

In conclusion, Wallerstein’s concepts of Core, Semi-Periphery and Periphery are vague and this means his theory is difficult to test in practise. More importantly, most of the case-studies are dated.

All said and done, this tome is indispensable for your comprehension of International Relations theory.

Most of the rules which nations follow while playing the power games in the international arena, are delineated here.

[Göksal Caner Malatya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kapitalizmi tek tek ulus-devletlerin sınırları içine hapseden dar bakış açısına karşı, onu 16. yüzyıldan itibaren küresel ölçekte işleyen, "merkez", "çevre" ve "yarı-çevre" ülkelerinden oluşan eşitsiz bir sistem olarak okuyan ufuk açıcı bir metodoloji. Wallerstein, merkez ülkelerin bugünkü zenginliği ve demokrasisinin, çevre ülkelerin sistematik bir biçimde azgelişmişliğe mahkum edilmesi ve artı-değerlerinin sömürülmesiyle (emperyalist hiyerarşiyle) sağlandığını yapısal bir dille kanıtlar. Türkiye gibi "yarı-çevre" statüsündeki ülkelerin sistem içindeki bocalamalarını, krizlerini ve askeri darbelerini anlamak için makro düzeyde bir tarihsel perspektif sunar. Sınıf mücadelesini sadece yerel bir zemine değil, küresel bir satranç tahtasına yerleştirerek Lenin'in emperyalizm teorisini farklı bir veçheden destekleyen önemli bir teorik giriştir.

[Gina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wallerstein has such a capacious knowledge of history that he is able to make generalizations that few could get away with and remain accurate. This short, highly readable book serves first as a lucid explanation of world-systems analysis, whereby historical analysis is carried out not using not nation states as a base but a world-system, or a "spatial/temporal zone which cuts across many political and cultural units, one that represents and integrated zone of activity and institutions which obey certain systemic rules." It also serves as a short introduction to the rise of modernity, building on the work of French historian Fernand Braudel, and to the evolution of the social sciences as tools for sussing out the operations of the capitalist world economy that emerged in the sixteenth century. Wallerstein considers two other events as critical in the creation of a global culture: the 1789 French Revolution and the "world revolution of 1968." (Would Wallerstein now add the Arab Spring to that list, one wonders?) He contends that the world-system is in crisis--the book was published in 2004, and his claim seems all the more relevant today--and envisions that while some will fight the crisis by retrenching, others will pursue transformative paths. These two reactions he encapsulates as the "struggle on many fronts between the spirit of Davos [promoting neoliberalism] and the spirit of Porto Allegre," the Brazilian city that in 2001 hosted the first meeting of the World Social Forum, "not an organization, but a meeting-ground of militants of many stripes and persuasions, engaging in a variety of actions from collective demonstrations that are worldwide or regional to local organizing across the globe," with the goal of promoting democracy and social justice.

[Miles Trujillo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spectacular, accessible, and readable introductory history of the modern world. Great to recommend to people new to theory

[Francisco · Rating 5 out of 5]

*reads*

*lols*

*starts life over*

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chapter 1: Historical Origins of World-System Analysis: From Social Science Disciplines to Historical Social Sciences

Wallerstein introduces what World-System Analysis entails. One most prominent feature of this theory is its inclination towards interdisciplinary studies. He roughly divides the world into three main sectors: the state (politics), the market (economy), and civil society (sociology). These three seemingly distinct areas are, in his views, only ambiguously distinguished and it is almost impossible to overlook the other two when studying one of them. In other words, the traditional categorisation of disciplines and subjects somehow becomes reductive when trying to see the world as one single complex system. And pretty obviously, it is almost impossible, no matter how all-encompassing it claims to be, for a single theory to include everything. Wallerstein admits there are criticisms of WSA on its unidisciplinary-ness and so sort, as it does not regard the weight of other disciplines in social science. He admits that this theory is a grand narrative but ultimately "reflects reality closer than other [theories].”

Chapter 2: The Modern World-System as a Capitalist World-Economy: Production, Surplus Value, and Polarisation

Wallerstein sees the world as necessarily a capitalist world-economy. This system favours or encourages the endless accumulation of capital and, according to Marx, is the prerequisite of commencing capitalist movements. Those who do not play with the current rules would be naturally eliminated. As a result, accumulating capital becomes the norm of every individual in this system, yet the process of which could be in competition with other hoarders. For the wage-earners, according to Wallerstein, seek to be proletarianised as that means they could secure better income as 50% of their household comes from the wage itself. That is also why he thinks that individuals are situated in households, and households classes, rather than how we intuitively think of it. Nevertheless, what the individual could be in are the status-groups that represent identities, and within the households the problem of which couldn’t be perfectly reconciled. Yet between status-groups is the polarisation between universalism and anti-universalism both of which the WS provides a platform for their propagation and development while keeping the whole WS moving.

Chapter 3: The Rise of State System: Sovereign Nation-States, Colonies, and the Interstate System

The issue of sovereignty does not only happen in the local state but one that is on the international debate table as well, as the legitimacy of a sovereign sometimes does depend international acknowledgment. For the businessmen, a sovereign state is the body that has to power to control the rules of business in a certain area. Yet some business decisions do externalise some costs to the International states: impact on ecology mostly; the building of infrastructure is one key investment that is usually funded out by the state. Which means the state is actually a strong player on the international level, as it can facilitate or baffle business. Also, Wallerstein thinks that the notion of “nation” is but a myth constructed by the state in order to reinforce its authority, by dint of education, services in armies, and public ceremonies. Colonial states are by far the weakest of states as they virtually have little autonomy and tend to be exploit by other countries. Why is then a world-empire impossible? Capitalism won’t permit anything that comes before it; yet when within this capitalistic hegemony interests groups start to yearn for a larger slice of cake, the state needs to come back and regulate the situation. While the balance is restored, capital escapes again and wait for the next cycle of chaos to come about, then another hegemony of accumulation will reach its peak, thus again state intervention.

Chapter 4: The Creation of a Geoculture: Ideologies, Social Movements, Social Science

A geoculture, in Wallerstein’s own words, is the set of "values that are very widely shared throughout the world-system.” If the 19th century has a liberal geoculture, what about today’s world? A society is formed by different status-groups which have different sizes, hence impacts, on the current society. Wallersteins states that conservatism favours the structure of families, traditions, and the legitimacy of a faith/religion that is in favour of their discourse; liberalism, on the other hand, favours professionalism that places people on spots that perhaps are most suitable for them. In order to attain a liberal society, universal suffrage has to be achieved and before that, an educated population is required. This is only one side of the issue, as even universal suffrage is put into practice there are groups that are left behind. These minorities, as a result, form their little interest/status-groups and try to change the society they live in through social movements.

Chapter 5: The Modern World-System in Crisis: Bifurcation, Chaos, and Choices

Wallerstein thinks that the current system is in the midst of a long-term crisis, and it might not have the power to restore its perfect balance. The current capitalist world-system recuperates itself, as its creation of profits is actually a process similar to funding its employees to buy its products. The balance here is difficult to maintain, as purchasing power increases when the cost of keeping the employees increases as well. Businesses then have to look for ways to mitigate the cost and maximise the profit. For example, by relocating their business to a peripheral country, the cost of production is likely to be externalised; same thing happens when pollution becomes a problem, the business is able to run away from the already polluted land. But these forms of relocation tend to be exhausted as fewer lands are unpolluted and fewer rural ares are undeveloped around the globe. As the system becomes more shakier then ever, the false optimism of the people under oppression will then realise the systemic pitfall, and will look for external forces to compel the system for changes. Wallerstein further observes that in the long cycle of economic downturn the neoliberalists try to boost economy by abolishing trade barriers and cut taxation to encourage the flow of capital and its accumulation. Still, the world-economy today focuses too much the financial side of business: arguably a fluctuant field as there is not real production to support its operations; at the end of the day those who suffer are usually normal people. Even liberty does not promise to solve all the problems as there are the liberty of the majority and that of the minority, as there are people who want use them as a disguise to pursue non-libertarian goals. Equality, as opposed to liberty, supports the realisation of the liberty of the many, while simultaneously encourages that of the few. No matter how this goes, however, Wallersiten is optimistic in a sense that people are more aware of their rights, hence the agency to fight for them.

[Mazen · Rating 5 out of 5]

شدد كل من ديفيد هافي و سمير أمين علي أهمية أعمال ايمانويل واليرستين في تحليله لأطر عمل الأنظمة العالمية، يبدأ الكتاب بشرح كيف تم فصل العلوم الإنسانية عن الإمبريقية منذ بزوغ فجر الحداثة و كيف تم استخدام تلك العلوم في تشييد النظام العالمي الرأسمالي منذ القرن السادس عشر، تمتعت الأنظمة العالمية بمنطقتين اقتصاديتين أو نمطين من الإنتاج، إنتاج شبه مركزي يكون فيه فائض القيمة الأعلي و يتمكن فيه الرأسماليون بتحقيق أكبر كم ممكن من الأرباح، و منطقة الأطراف الجنوب المهمشة و هي التي تكون فيه أنماط انتاج بدائية ذات فائض قيمة منخفض و أحيانا مجال لنهب المواد الخام ليس إلا، يتعرض النظام الرأسمالي الإمبراطوري لنمط يدعي (دورة كوندراتيف ) و يحدث دائما خلل في كل نهاية كل دورة و هي التي تُنذر بدخول لاعبي جدد للنظام العالمي الذي يحابي مبدأ الربح و السيطرة علي شعوب التخوم، دائمًا ما تتسم نهاية كل دورة بحدوث اضطرابات و عشوئية في التوقعات نظرًا لتنامي صراع الطبقات في دول المركز، فمثلًا كانت ثورات 1848، الحرب العالمية الأولي و الثانية، و الحركة الثورية العالمية في 1968 التي حدثت نتيجة هبوط هوامش الربح لدي الرأسماليين و فشل النظام الليبرالي العالمي في تحقيق التحرر الوطني لدول الجنوب الذي وعد به بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية، كانت الثورة المضادة التي قادتها دول المركز بزعامة كل من تاتشر و ريجان تحت مسمي ( الليبرالية الجديدة ) هو الرد الرأسمالي علي تلك الحركة، حاولت الليبرالية الجديدة رفع عوامل الربح عن طريق تقليل الانفاق علي الدعم الاجتماعي ( الصحة - التعليم - المعاشات ) و أن تذهب تلك الضرائب الي أصحاب الانتاج لتقليل تكاليف الانتاج، و عملت علي تهميش و سحق الحركات العمالية في دول المركز و الجنوب و دعم صعود اليكتاتوريات التي تضمن بقاء هذا النظم أطول فترة ممكن، و لكن كان هذا أيضًا غير كافي في تحقيق نفس معدلات الربح التي جاءت الحرب العالمية الثانية، يستشرف الكاتب أن النظام العالمي لا يسمح بوجود رابحين أكثر من اللازم، و أنه مدعوم مؤسساتيًا من الدولة عن طريق أنظمة شبه احتكارية لدول المركز تحت مسمي حقوق الملكية الفكارية أو الاجراءات الاحمائية التي تمارسها تلك الدول ضد بعد السلع المعينة لضمان هوامش الربح مرتفعة للعاملين في تلك الصناعات، و لكنها عن طريق مؤسسات دولية مثل منظمة التجارة الحرة، و صندوق النقد الدولي، و البنك الدولي تقوم بتعزيز فتح أسواق في دول الجنوب لتدمير أي محاولة للنهوض تكنولوجيًا وتحقيق تصنيع بفائض قيمة أعلي يمكنه أن يقلل من معدل الربح عالميًا.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

I came to Immanuel Wallerstein's book, World-Systems Analysis, in a surprising way: it was recommended to me by an anthropologist, who represents one species of social scientist Wallerstein would consolidate into a group (the others being historians, sociologists, political scientists, economists, and their subsets.) Wallerstein's well-argued point is that these academic disciplines fail to generate a total picture of what he terms world-systems.

World-systems, Wallerstein argues, are not necessarily globe-encompassing. They are, for example, something like the Atlantic Community (Western Europe and North America), or, more diverse and less integrated, the Pacific Rim community. These are systems that, in effect, are worlds unto themselves based on their level of economic interdependence, non-violent political rivalry, cultural interpenetration, and adherence to agreed rules of commercial competition.

Wallerstein thereby attempts to leap over terms like socio-economic, socio-political, socio-cultural, etc. The core of his case, however, does revolve around the predominance of capitalism as the controlling dynamic of all these world-systems (short of war). He defines capitalism, quite lovingly, as "a historical system defined by the priority of the endless accumulation of capital."

Wel,l perhaps not so lovingly, but accurately. What else is meant by an individual possessing or "being worth" $10 billion or $25 billion? Does this not suggest that these capitalists are on an endless search to become richer?

In this short, lucid book, Wallerstein traces the evolution of our ways of thinking about capitalism and suggests, persuasively, that it is in the end an economic process that, in eternal pursuit of profits, will tear power from some regions (the Netherlands centuries ago, for example; Great Britain more recently; perhaps the U.S. in the coming decades) and relocate it in regions where the costs of producing goods and services are lower and therefore the profit margins are higher.

In the Pacific world-system, this dynamic obviously fosters the interests of China, especially since, as Wallerstein points out, there is no such thing as free trade or free markets. Rather, what we see through time, and today, is that nation-states have organized themselves to support their "firms"... and that market-distorting policies are the essence of political maneuvering in a transnational sense. China is rather brazen at that game.

All of this is also sustained, Wallerstein says, by societies, or social structures, that are shaped in ways that support and accommodate capitalism through skilled and unskilled workforces. Wallerstein is not a Marxist; he's a scholar who doesn't see how one can detach the anthropological from the sociological, political, economic and cultural elements of being human. His somewhat softly stated prediction is that inequalities of wealth distribution (the billionaires versus the people who can't afford health insurance, the ill-paid tech worker in Bangladesh versus the the potentially even worse-paid tech worker in Kenya) likely will bring on a crisis in capitalism that won't be something current world-systems will work through. For him, crisis means crisis, turning point, profound change.

With Brexit and the unilaterist nativism of Trump, we are seeing a turning away from the verities that have underpinned the endless pursuit of capital for several hundreds of years. This means not only revised trade arrangements (the commercial dimension of a world-system) but also revised immigration arrangements (a sociological dimension of a world system). While the EU pursues ever-closer union, the US and UK are heading in another direction, and issues like recapturing runaway factories, with huge socio-cultural impacts on places like Cleveland, Ohio and Janesville, Wisconsin, gain in salience, provided that said runaway factories are not recaptured to benefit undocumented aliens (which is exactly how a true capitalist would like to see things turn out.)

Wallerstein works in sharp observations on how capitalism also affects the environment, irreplaceable natural resources, infrastructure, and taxation. He suggests that that there are two fields of study: the so-called natural world and the social world. Someone created the natural world, or it just happened, but we created and continue to create the social world. And we are divided into three camps: Conservatives, Liberals, and Radicals (of the left and right) There's no need to explain what these camps are all about. I suspect anyone reading this note already knows. In a sense, that's the odd strength of this book: almost everything here is what everyone already knows. It's a very straightforward treatise about how we tend to overlook general truths because, like anthropologists or specialists in other social disciplines, we are wedded to fascinating particularities.

Who was it who jokingly came up with a course title, "All Previous Thought, 101"? Was it me, many decades ago? Or was it Wallerstein, an eminent Africanist, if you will, who in mid- career began to see larger unities in human affairs than either academe or mere geography suggest.

[Cengiz · Rating 5 out of 5]

This short but comprehensive book takes up the structures of knowledge of the modern world system which economically is based on capitalist mode of production. Even though this system is at worldwide scale
there are different jeocultures and political actors in it. Therefore, it is not possible to form a world empire.
Epistemologically this system is grounded on the Newtonian Laws of Motion, Cartesian Duality and Baconian scientism. It is based on reason and experimental science and modern was formed on these pillars. In the early 19'th century according to the needs of the rising capitalist bourgeoisie class after sceince had broken with philosophy new social sceinces emerged such as history which helped the formation of nationalism. Besides history, economy to study markets, political science to study the state and sociology to study society. Historians adopted a new method which suggested archieves, concrete proofs and the objective historical events which excluded kings' and generals personal stories, mythes and legends.

[Joma Geneciran · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a re-read. I taught this this semester at the University of California, Irvine. It's a good intro text for undergrads; however, I would only assign chapters 1-3. He is much weaker on the cultural, so-called 'geoculture' front. One word of warning, Wallerstein simplifies his work in this to a fault (imo). For example, watershed years are 1848, 1968, the French Revolution but ignores all the other major ruptures in the capitalist world-economy (the Haitian Revolution), formal 'abolition' of the Trans-Atlantic trade (1808-36); the Bolshevik revolution; all the realignments during 1919 in India, China, Korea, Ottoman; Chinese rev, etc. Granted, this is a short (100pg) primer.

I would assign his 1974 essay "The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis" which can be found in Comparative Studies in Society and History

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's written at an absurdly high level of abstraction, but that's what makes it all the more amazing how insightful and prescient it is. i.e., at first I was like how could you possibly derive any "laws" or even "patterns" when you're so zoomed out of the particularities of (say) global trade, but it turns out that (to me at least) the *historical* analysis at this level is really the main point, and imo it's brilliant. I feel like I have a genuinely helpful new framework to understand certain changes/upheavals in historical social systems, and more importantly a way to derive lessons for the present from this past.

[Nate Huston · Rating 4 out of 5]

Only touched very briefly on this book, but I was very intrigued. I'm not sure if I agree with all of the author's premises, but I like where his head's at. Basically, Wallerstein says the world is way too complex to derive much value from examining only one single aspect of it. His thoughts regarding core and periphery, whether they are necessarily borne out in today's markets and international interactions, are nonetheless compelling and worth a thought or two.

[Eren Buğlalılar · Rating 3 out of 5]

İlk bölümleri çok iyiydi. Fakat daha sonra Dünya Sistemleri Analizi'nin belkemiğini oluşturan merkez-çevre ayrımına, bağımlılık kuramına ilişkin çok az şey bulabildim. Özellikle yarısından sonra enerjisi iyice düşüp, DSA'nın ikincil konuları olan milliyetçilik, ırkçılık, cinsiyetçilik ve bunların ulusal yansımalarıyla uğraşmaya başlamış. Sonlara doğru teoriden iyice ayrılıp özetin özeti bir tarih veriyor.

[Ben P · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short few chapters that discuss the ways global capital and states interact. Liked the characterization of “core” enterprise (monopolized and profitable, eg high technology) and “peripheral” enterprise (competitive, low margins, eg resource extraction and agriculture).

Wanting to read more about dep theory/WSA.

[Gabriel Avocado · Rating 4 out of 5]

i know i filed this under marxist theory/philosophy but it should be noted that world systems analysis is not marxist per se. plenty of prominent marxists like samir amin were both marxist and world systems analysts so its very much compatible.

i think as a primer to the theory it does an okay job. tho i think wallersteins approach in making world systems accessible to everyone means if youve so much as dabbled in marxist theory, you will find yourself a little bored by the explanations. however, i still think its valuable for the concept of core/semi-periphery/periphery. after doing some research, ive found some criticism of world-systems and, as a marxist, i find them somewhat valid, particularly how it downplays the role of class struggle locally almost entirely. i think there is a happy middle here that marxism explains better but the language of world-systems is still valuable, particularly as i write this from the semi-periphery.

[Patric Esh · Rating 2 out of 5]

The general information given to support the theory is common sense. Because the information is common sense, I accept the overall theory as valid (core, semi-peripheral, peripheral) . Yet, the rest of his analysis is lacking sufficient evidence, strong, clear backing to the evidence given, or the history he depicts is skin deep or wrong. I understand the book is an introduction, yet the arguments still need to be clear and justifiable for me to want to learn more. Some in site citations would be nice, so I can review where he got his information. I know this is brief and if you would like more details in my review please contact me.

[Stephen Pinna · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book sets out to be a brief introduction to World-Systems Analysis and in that, I believe it is successful. It also holds a glossary and bibliographical list for further reading (both concerning World Systems Analysis and critiques of it.

In dealing with the critiques of World Systems Analysis, I believe the author is as fair as he can be. When it comes to persuading one on the validity of World Systems Analysis, I think the text falls flat - though this is a somewhat unfair judgement since the text is not meant to be a polemic. Given its length, I think it would make a good required reading for a class dealing with political theories or historical theories.

[kalyx · Rating 4 out of 5]

with great relief i admit i was wrong, wrong, wrong; no idea what possessed amin-grieving me to dismiss this in late 2018 besides my general emotional turmoil, accompanying compulsive literary inhalation, and slightly too-dogmatic hold to certain readings of history. phenomenal that this is so clear while so dense; certainly there's little new to me but i'm grateful that it cleaned out my desk drawer and sharpened all my tools, so to speak. highly-recommended both as an introduction and as a defragmentation.

[Adam Deedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting and broadly accessible read, which has changed my thinking politically and perhaps morally.

This book offers an insight, which I have never been exposed to before, on the capitalist system that we live in today, making me want to read further into Wallertsein's writings and has aided in the forming of my own opinions on our world-system and where the future may take us.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazingly concise. I'm hooked. I want to read more. I picked it up after reading "Industrial Society and Its Future". I wasn't aware this was a field of study. I understand it may be a post-fact narrative that fits but doesn't predict or explain the world correctly but I want the tools and want to hear the views.

[Tornike Chivadze · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's always better to read introductions which are written by the authors of original theory. this book is nice example of this ... its encourages you to read more about world system theory and history. Highly recommended for beginners and general public

[Dave Pier · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great, but way too condensed. A whole life's thinking reduced to blog post length. A good appetizer for his longer works

[Sebb · Rating 2 out of 5]

It is symptomatic that while in the final chapter Wallerstein proclaims the breakdown of the longstanding liberal consensus since the French Revolution, he exemplifies the continuance and deepening of the selfsame consensus.

First of all, it has to be said, Wallerstein in several regards provides welcome correctives to a wide variety of misguided avenues of analysis. A focus on economic relations, as poor as the actual analysis is, shifts the focus from more culturalist explanations of phenomena. The titular focus on world systems counters nationalist explanations that don't take the international division of labour seriously. Finally, there is a salutary, if perhaps facile, criticism of official or vulgar Marxism, which in the book goes by the name "orthodox" Marxism, and with it, a criticism of overly schematic analyses that trample over mixed modes of economic organisation, impose rigid stages for developement and overly deterministic accounts of historical change.

However useful some of these constructs may be particularly the notions of long systems and longue duree, the analysis that is to substitute the models criticised leaves too much to be desired, even in an "introductory" work, for it to constitute a serious way forward.

After an introductory chapter detailing the course of academic disciplines since the French Revolution and the illustrious pedigree of world-systems analysis that seems in large cogent, despite the lack of citations and a couple of errors in the details that a simple reading threw up, Wallerstein jumps right into sketching out the undergirding structure of the theory in chapter 2, arriving straight away at the biggest theoretical failing is unfortunately also the most important underpinning of the theory, specifically the theory of unequal exchange. Wallerstein jumps over a couple of steps in the argument, but he essentially argues that profits occur due to the existence of monopolies. The way this is supposed to work is he posits a structural advantage for buyers in exchange, such that in normal market conditions, buyers would be able to argue sellers down to the cost of production (or as he says a cent above this). In order to get around this, and through various means more or less linked to the state, sellers are able to turn the tables of structural advantage and organise themselves in oligopolies in order to demand a permium in the sales price that amounts to the profit. Wallerstein is then able to build his entire analysis of this story, to a desciption of developed economies being so due to being the home of monopolised industries, which then generates global inequalities between states as non-monopolised industries in the periphery drive the profits down through competition.

The problems with this just-so-story crop up at every level of analysis. First of all, the analysis runs onto the shoals from the very beginning in trying to locate the source of profit in exchange. There must be a continuity between the current world-systems and previous ones in producing more than is consumed. In the same way, a slave or serf has to produce more than they themselves consume in order not only to support other social elements but in order to say replenish the seed grain, so workers in the capitalist world-system must produce more with the means of production made available by capitalists, thus producing profit. If there is no surplus-product that is then merely transformed into money during market exchange, it is a wonder anybody in the market has the money to pay the monopolists' profits, as opposed to profit merely being redistributed from the competitive to the monopolised industry. In fact, Wallerstein undercuts his own argument by saying that sellers drive the price to the cost of production thus undermining continued production through a lack of profitability. It thus turns out they couldn't drive the price down so much or else they wouldn't have anything to buy.

The canard also fails as an explanation for unequal exchange. For one thing, monopolised industries do not necessarily correlate with stellar profitability, especially in the case of raw materials. Russia is either the largest or second-largest oil producer in the world and arguably no industry is more monopolised than oil production and yet it would take a very enthusiastic systems theorist to say Russia is a core country. Wallerstein further adduces the example of the British textile industry in the 19th century in his defense, yet it's hard to characterise that as monopolised given the profusion of owner-proprietor owning one or at most a couple of mills. Granted the use of steam looms was nationally monopolised but it was neither the case that Britain was the only country producing cloth (there obviously being plenty of handicraft handloom production), or even that there was an oligopoly of large producers in collusion to keep prices high. The answer to unequal exchange likely is a combination of a generalised use of labour-saving technologies across industries in developed economies, structural advantages for finished goods producers (it being harder to switch to a different producer of finished goods due to cross-compatibility and overhauling production lines than it is to buy identical lithium or coal from a different source), and yes, there being also a place for monopoly rents as an explanation for differential profits.

After giving this explanation of profits in the grand old liberal tradition from the perspective of the individual small business owner competing against everyone else, and having thus obviated the category of exploitation, he of course arrives at an exposition that will be built upon later of the conviction that being a proletarian is in fact the thing everyone longs to be. He explains people are not in fact individuals, but are parts of households that engage in income sharing (they are in fact both on different levels of analysis, and different households in different times and places often have different expectations of income sharing) and can receive one of 5 types of income.

Having thus explained away profits previously, profits are not one of the 5, which are wages, subsistence production, petty commodity production, rent (which thus is taken to include at least some profits) and transfers. It is further hard to see how subsistence production constitutes an income, when it does not produce any money. At most it obviates the need to increase one's income. Given this confusion, he writes himself into saying in addition to subsistence agriculture, writing one's own emails is a form is also a form of subsistence because one is not paying for a secretary. Presumably not paying for someone to spoon soup into one's mouth is also a form of subsistence and a very prevalent one at that. Which category the income a small business owner derives slots into is hard to see. Perhaps it is a combination of the rent off the capital used to start the business and the income one pockets by not hiring a manager, but then this would really be a form of subsistence making a mess of the whole thing. But we now arrive at the kicker, not only are wages one of many forms of income, they are the best one. The argument goes as such: it is necessary to give waged emplyees enough money to repoduce themselves and their families, but it's also possible for the worker's household to supplement this income with the other 4 sources. If the other 4 sources form the majority of the household's income the wage-earner(s) can accept lower salaries and still maintain themselves, thus making household that survive mostly from working for wages better off. Here we have the beginning of a trend to ignore power relationships when analysing structural links.

First of all, what is ignored is there is only one labour market, not 2 separate ones, one for proletarian households, and one for non-proletarian households. If non-proletarian households drive down wages, then proletarians have to get the same reduced wages without the further means to sustain themselves, presumably either working more, becoming non-proletarian households by receiving transfers from the state (thus undermining their own priviledged status) or not reproducing their households, say by not having children. Which brings us to the postulate that families must earn a minimum to reproduce themselves (one of the only things Wallerstein copies from Marx, it of course being one of the things that is true only to an approximate degree). Wallerstein seems to assign a large degree of long-sightedness to capitalists, such that they pay enough wages to their workers because they see that if they don't they will undercut themselves in a couple of decades. It is really giving capitalists too much credit to say they will never steal from tomorrow to pay for today especially when they may go under before tomorrow. The fact that in the West we live in a crisis of social reproduction and have been for some time, with continuously fewer younger people starting families and having children would seem to imply precisely that you can pay less than the requirement for social reproduction and not see adverse effects until far in the future. Not to mention that each individual capitalist is trying all the time to lower his own salaries while trying to get the other to pay for social reproduction, for example, though taxes. Historically this was even worse, with the open maw of early modern cities gobbling the surplus rural population and capitalists certainly not providing this minimum wage necessary for social reproduction.
History also militates against this best of all possible incomes. During the early modern period, there was a long period of enclosure of common lands that allowed a budding rural proletariat to work as little as possible for wages or not at all. This enclosure happened through acts of parliament at the behest of agricultural entrepreneurs and landlords who presumably did this for the privilege of paying their workers more. Not only this but presumably a buy-to-let landlord whose household's income largely comes from their properties, but then be an inviting target when looking for a job, since employers could pay them close to nothing at all (perhaps a cent). It is clear this analysis will not do. In fact, every additional income one can get amounts to an increased ability to not take the first job offer one gets, and to quit a bad one and be supported for a limited period while looking for a better one. This additional income from outside the wage relationship amounts to an increase in bargaining power and a levelling of the power imbalance between employee and employer. But this is again the quagmire Wallerstein reaches when obviating exploitation and poses the main problem to be solved precisely exclusion from exploitation.

There is a kernel in what he says in that there has historically been a sexual division of labour with men engaging to a larger extent in wage work and women in what he terms subsistence, with men dominating due to having control of the actual income the wage. But according to Wallerstein, women should have been just as able to dictate terms to men since they controlled the income from subsistence.

After this atrocious economic treatment, we receive some breathing space in chapter 3 with the discussion of the inter-state system. While by no means groundbreaking, this chapter is at least not obviously wrong. Wallerstein adeptly describes the relationship between strong states and weak states as one of power imbalance that maintains structural inequalities (for once power imbalances are neither passed over, nor explained away) through the medium of the relationship between these 2 and the national champions of strong states that can expect support against the weak states form their own state. He also describes the struggle between capitalists and workers through the state for who is to pay for various externalities like infrastructure, waste, and resource depletion. He also insightfully points out that in the current would-system, every state becomes a nation-state by producing a nationalism. There is a strong implication, not fully worked out, that the nation-state is the expression of the state given a particular state capacity and capillary ability, being able at least to enforce a uniform dialect through the school system.

The vision of the future Wallerstein leaves us with betrays another fundamental obviation of power relations in distinguishing between the liberties of the minority and of the majority. On the face of it, it seems plausible. One should want that the majority gets to implement its will in some things and lets individuals decide in others, however, it cannot be the case that both the majority and the minority hold the balance of power and get to implement their will. Either power rests with the majority or it rests with any one minority. The goal of any egalitarian movement cannot be anything else than to try to modify power relations such that the balance rests with the majority. Beyond that one can only hope that that majority will exercise its power wisely and tactfully. The only alternative is to rest one's hopes that some elite will defend individual liberty more vigorously and less in their own interest than the broadest stratum defending their own rights at the same time they defend everyone else's.

Beyond deep theoretical issues, there is a complete lack of citations even for the more controversial statements like the support of workers' movements for coerced labour, at the same time as there is a generally unfair treatment of the workers' movement, implying that any opposition to upper-class women's and ethnic minority organisations is an opposition to women's and ethnic minority rights. In addition, there is as well as the presence of more verifiably false statements, like the Soviet Union adapting development theory, when this was a Cold War response to historical materialism for consumption in the Third World, making the work overall a fairly shoddy piece of scholarship, even as an introductory text.

[Gijs Limonard · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall some well made points on the inner workings of the world of human affairs; felt general and a bit dated in places but that was to be expected.

"The medieval university had had four faculties: theology, medicine, law, and philosophy. What happened in the nineteenth century was that almost everywhere, the faculty of philosophy was divided into at least two separate faculties: one covering the “sciences”; and one covering other subjects, sometimes called the “humanities,” sometimes the “arts” or “letters” (or both), and sometimes retaining the old name of “philosophy.” The university was institutionalizing what C. P. Snow would later call the “two cultures.” And these two cultures were at war with each other, each insisting that it was the only, or at least the best, way to obtain knowledge. The emphasis of the sciences was on empirical (even experimental) research and hypothesis testing. The emphasis of the humanities was on empathetic insight, what later was called hermeneutic understanding. The only legacy we have today of their erstwhile unity is that all the arts and sciences in the university offer as their highest degree the PhD, doctor of philosophy."

"In the nineteenth century, the faculties of science divided themselves into multiple fields called disciplines: physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, zoology, mathematics, and others. The faculties of humanities divided themselves into such fields as philosophy, classics (that is, Greek and Latin, the writings of Antiquity), art history, musicology, the national language and literature, and languages and literatures of other linguistic zones."

"The process we have been describing—expansion of the world-economy when there are quasi-monopolistic leading industries and contraction in the world-economy when there is a lowering of the intensity of quasi-monopoly—can be drawn as an up-and-down curve of so-called A- (expansion) and B- (stagnation) phases. A cycle consisting of an A-phase followed by a B-phase is sometimes referred to as a Kondratieff cycle, after the economist who described this phenomenon with clarity in the beginning of the twentieth century. Kondratieff cycles have up to now been more or less fifty to sixty years in length. Their exact length depends on the political measures taken by the states to avert a B-phase, and especially the measures to achieve recuperation from a B-phase on the basis of new leading industries that can stimulate a new A-phase."

"The bottom line is that the modern world-system has made as a central, basic feature of its structure the simultaneous existence, propagation, and practice of both universalism and anti-universalism. This antinomic duo is as fundamental to the system as is the core-peripheral axial division of labor."

"idiographic-nomothetic. This pair of terms was invented in Germany in the late nineteenth century to describe what was called the Methodenstreit (battle of methods) among social scientists, one that reflected the division of scholarship into the TWO CULTURES. Nomothetic scholars insisted on replicable, “objective” (preferably quantitative) methods and saw their task as one of arriving at general laws explaining social realities. Idiographic scholars used largely qualitative, narrative data, considering themselves humanists, and preferred HERMENEUTIC methods. Their principal concern was interpretation, not laws, about which they were at the very least skeptical. (Note that idiographic is different from ideographic. “Idio-” is a prefix derived from Greek and means specific, individual, one’s own; hence idiographic means of or relating to particular descriptions."

[Ron Peters · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’d heard of Wallerstein’s book – I had it bookmarked on Amazon – but I was reminded of it again while reading a book on Canadian immigration (http://tinyurl.com/2p9xarcw), so I picked it up. It’s only 109 pages, but the information in it is tightly packed. It concerns an analytic approach I knew nothing about.

World-System Analysis (WSA) has been applied to wide ranging subjects like the fall of feudalism and rise of capitalism, globalization, the rise and fall of states, income inequality, global obesity, social unrest, sexism, racism, and imperialism.

There are two kinds of world-systems: world-system economies (e.g., capitalism) and empires. WSA is a multidisciplinary approach to world history and social change that emphasizes world-systems (not nation states) as its unit of analysis. It unites the analysis of society, economics, and politics. WSA divides the world into core countries (with high-skill, capital intensive, naturally oligarchic industries), periphery countries (with low-skill, labor intensive, extractive industries), and semi-periphery countries. Wallenstein calls this the division of labor.

Our current world-system has been rooted in capitalism since the sixteenth century, i.e., since the discovery and exploitation of the Americas. At different times different nations became the hegemon within the system: first the Netherlands, then England, then the U.S. The structure of the world-system is unified by its division of labor, but it is still dynamic. Oligarchic, “it” industries lose profitability and fade over time, and countries change their status over time, partly due to demographic shifts and partly due to technological change (e.g., communications, transport).

Some key aspects of WSA include a focus on the longue dureé (the slow modification over time of systems that continue to strive to reproduce themselves), and the “development of underdevelopment” (core countries actively creating underdevelopment in the periphery). The final chapter, on “The Modern World-System in Crisis”, was especially cogent to me. It is too complex to summarize here, but it centers on the analysis of Kondratiev waves (economic supercycles) of expansion and contraction.

Reading this led me to join the World Social Forum. It also made me want to read: Ferdinand Braudel’s massive magnum opus on Civilization and Capitalism (which has been moldering on my bookshelf for years), David Christian’s Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History, and Fred Adams’ The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity.