Sistem Karşıtı Hareketler

by Giovanni Arrighi, Terence K. Hopkins, Immanuel Wallerstein

"Yalnızca iki dünya devrimi olmuştur. Biri 1848'de oldu. İkincisi ise 1968'de. İkisi de birer tarihsel yenilgiydi. Ama ikisi de dünyayı dönüştürdü. Her ikisinin de planlanmamış ve bu yüzden de derin bir anlamda kendiliğinden olması her iki olguyu da –başarısızlığa uğramaları olgusunu ve dünyayı dönüştürmeleri olgusunu– açıklamaktadır. Bugün 1789 Fransız Devrimi'ni kutluyoruz, ya da en azından kimi insanlar kutluyor. 1917 Sovyet Devrimi'ni de kutluyoruz, ya da en azından kimi insanlar kutluyor. 1848'i, ya da 1968'i kutlamıyoruz. Ancak bu tarihlerin, bu kadar çok dikkat çeken o iki tarih kadar, belki daha da önemli oldukları iddia edilebilir."

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Sociology, History, Nonfiction, Social Movements, Society

144 pages, Paperback

First published September 17, 1989

About the author

Giovanni Arrighi was Professor of Sociology at Johns Hopkins University. His books include The Long Twentieth Century, Adam Smith in Beijing, and, with Beverly Silver, Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System. His work has appeared in many publications, including New Left Review.

Reviews

[Ezgi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bütünlükten uzak bir kitap. Fena olmayan yazılar olsa da geneli tatmin etmedi. 80li yıllarda yazıldığı için de günümüzde yalnızca tarih kitabı olarak okunmalı. Teorik kısmının eskidiği ortada. Wallerstein’ın büyük kuramı dünya sisteminin de etkisi hemen her yazıda var diyebilirim.

Tarih kitabı olarak okunabilir olsa da bazı noktalarda yapılan analizleri abartılı. 1968 hareketine olduğundan fazla anlam yüklüyorlar. 1848 ve 1968’den başka dünya devrimi yok diyecek kadar da ileri götürüyorlar. Avrupamerkezci bakış açısını kitabın kapsadığı alanı düşünerek tolere edebilirdim. Ama kitapta Ekim ve Çin devrimleri büyük ölçüde eleştiriliyor. Hatta 68’in etkileri Ekim devrimini aştı deniyor. Yenilgiye uğrayan bir devrim için çok sorunlu bir karşılaştırma bu. Avrupamerkezciliği de bu noktalarda tolere edilebilir olmaktan çıktı.
68 hareketi devrimcilerin inisiyatifleri ve küçük öğrenci gruplarının aksiyonlarına dayanıyordu. Ülkeyi saran tüm grevlerin sonucunda oluşturulan eylem komiteleri, ne yasal temsilci ne de sendikalarla ilişki talep etti. Bu kadar kırılgan ve plansız yapılan eylemi dünya devrimi olarak sınıflandırmayı yanlış buluyorum. Etki alanı Avrupa ile sınırlı. Sınırları içinde önemini vurgulamaları daha isabetli olurdu.

[Michael David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Among the important points mentioned in the book is that an antisystemic movement, for example, a Communist rebellion, eventually fails because the organization created to effect that change, like the Bolsheviks, for example, oftentimes have different perspectives than the proletariat they claim to represent. Lenin was an intelligentsia in proletariat clothing, for example, and while these organizations ostensibly claim to represent the hoi polloi, each and every one of them have aims different from the masses.

More importantly, however, a lot of people are content with capitalism, which is why of late, there are lesser antisystemic movements: one's desire for Communism, for example, is eroded by the capitalism one currently dwells in. The dream of progress is an inviting illusion to anyone, both educated and illiterate, and both young and old: one can simply do his best, work his hardest, and money proportionate to the difficulty and quality of work he has done will be his reward.

There's little respite like that in a Communist state. As education progressed, people learned the beauty of capitalism because in capitalism, one makes his own money, and one's fate is in one's hands. Because human beings pursue freedom as one of their individual needs, Communism will tend to falter nowadays especially because of the deluge of information that reflect upon its history and the occurrences of tragedies in the past.

Although this book is too general for my tastes, I do like it and have been aided by its interpretation of anti-systemic movement.

[Nikos Tzhmas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Διαβάζοντας τον "Ιστορικό Καπιταλισμό" του Wallerstain, βρίσκει κανεις την εξής κριτική στα αντισυστημικά κινήματα: το ότι τα πράγματα πήγαν στραβά δεν είναι απόρροια προσωπικών λαθών, ούτε άλλαξαν ιδέες ή "ξεπουλήθηκαν". Η αποτυχία των μέχρι στιγμής αντισυστημικών κινημάτων έγκειται στο γεγονός πως κατέκτησαν τη κρατική εξουσία. Παρ'ότι αυτό είναι αναγκαίο, έχει ένα ταβάνι στο βαθμό αλλαγής που μπορούν να φέρουν τα κινήματα αυτά, καθώς ο ιστορικός καπιταλισμός παίζει σε άλλο γήπεδο - έδρα του δεν είναι το έθνος κράτος, αλλά το παγκόσμιο διακρατικό σύστημα, η κοσμοοικονομία, το σύνολο χωρών που αν και με διαφορετικά πολιτεύματα, συνδέονται μέσω της συσσώρευσης κεφαλαίου και του καταμερισμού εργασίας σε παγκόσμια κλίμακα. Άρα η κρατική εξουσία μπορεί να βοηθήσει, μπορεί και να απειλήσει το κοσμοσύστημα, αλλά όχι να το αλλάξει, και έτσι λοιπόν τα κινήματα αυτά βιώνουν τις επακόλουθες αντιφάσεις.

Το βιβλίο "Ιστορικός Καπιταλισμός" γράφτηκε το 1980, το διάβασα το 2020. Η ερώτηση με την οποία με άφησε ήταν η εξής: αν αυτή είναι η κριτικη στα κινήματα που κατέκτησαν ή είχαν ως στόχο τη κρατική εξουσία, τότε τι έχει να μας πει ο Wallerstein για τα κινήματα που στόχο είχαν "να αλλάξουν τον κόσμο χωρίς να καταλάβουν την (κρατική) εξουσία". Αυτονομίστηκα κινήματα δηλαδή που εμφανίστηκαν πρώτη φορά σχεδόν 20 χρόνια μετά τον "Ιστορικό Καπιταλισμό". Και εδώ έρχεται αυτό το βιβλιαράκι, ή τουλάχιστον έτσι νόμιζα.

Το όμορφο σκίτσο του Latuff που απεικονίζει τους Ζαπατίστας με προετοίμαζε ακριβώς για την αναμέτρηση με αυτό το ερώτημα. Τι σημαίνει η αυτονομία/αντεξουσία για το κοσμοσύστημα; πως επιδρά ο Holloway στον Wallerstein; Τι σημαίνει για την αριστερά το πέρασμα από τον Lenin στον Fidel, και από εκεί στον Subcomandate Marcos; Δυστυχώς το βιβλίο δεν το απάντησε, καθώς δεν έθεσε αυτό το ερώτημα. Κεντροβάριζε κυρίως στις καπιταλιστικές κρίσεις και τις τάσεις των κινημάτων, αλλά λίγο πιο γενικά απ'οσο θα έπρεπε. Τελικός προορισμός το παγκόσμιο κοινωνικό φόρουμ για την εναλλακτική παγκοσμιοποιήση, και ο ρόλος που παίζει στη προσπάθεια ανάδυσης μιας "παγκόσμιας αριστεράς", η οποία θα κοιτάξει στα ματια το κοσμοσύστημα.

[Burak · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kitap, 20. yüzyıldaki ulusal hareketler ile sınıf hareketlerinin bir karşılaştırması ile başlıyor. Ulusal hareketlerinin kimi özelliklerinin sınıf (sosyalist) hareketle iç içe geçse de bunların bir ve aynı şeyler olarak ele alınmaması gerektiğini söylüyor. Daha sonrası 1789 (Fransız Devrimi) ile 1848 (Avrupa devrimleri) arasındaki sürekliliğin benzer bir şekilde 1917 (Ekim devrimi) ile 68 hareketi arasında da olduğunu iddia eden tartışmalı bir iddia ile ortaya çıkıyor. Bu noktada "geleneksel sol" ile yeni sol arasındaki gerilime dair tespitler yapıyor ve geleneksel solun açmazlarına işaret ediyor. 68 hareketiyle gelişen yeni solun, Avrupa'da değişen sınıfsal yapı ile birlikte, sistem karşıtı hareketler bağlamında çok daha önemli bir yer tuttuğunu söylüyor. Bugünden baktığımızda özellikle Avrupa merkezli neo-Marksist ya da post-Marksist düşünürlerin tezlerinin bir tekrarını görüyoruz. Kitabın tartışmaya değer bir noktası ise son sayfalarda verilen üç örnek; İran Devrimi, Irak-İran savaşı ve göç/mülteci sorunu. Kitabın 1991'de yazıldığını göz önünde bulundurduğumuzda, yazarların bu üç olaya karşı "sistem karşıtı hareketler" penceresinden bakanların bile tutarlı bir konum almakta zorlandığını vurguluyor. Aradan 30 yıldan fazla geçerken, belki bu başlıklar güncelliğini yitirmiş olsa da benzer temalarda (ki göçmen meselesi çok daha canlı bir tartışma haline geldi) sosyalistlerin ve "aktivistlerin" hala tutarlı bir strateji ve politika geliştiremediğini görüyoruz.

[Özgen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dünya sistemi karşısında tarihsel muhalefet hareketlerinin durumu, Eski ve Yeni Sol, bir muhalefet hareketi olarak Milliyetçilik, sistem karşıtı hareketlerin yakın geleceği ele alınıyor.

"Yalnızca iki dünya devrimi olmuştur. Biri 1848'de oldu. İkincisi ise 1968'de. İkisi de birer tarihsel yenilgiydi. Ama ikisi de dünyayı dönüştürdü. Her ikisinin de planlanmamış ve bu yüzden de derin bir anlamda kendiliğinden olması her iki olguyu da –başarısızlığa uğramaları olgusunu ve dünyayı dönüştürmeleri olgusunu– açıklamaktadır. Bugün 1789 Fransız Devrimi'ni kutluyoruz, ya da en azından kimi insanlar kutluyor. 1917 Sovyet Devrimi'ni de kutluyoruz, ya da en azından kimi insanlar kutluyor. 1848'i, ya da 1968'i kutlamıyoruz. Ancak bu tarihlerin, bu kadar çok dikkat çeken o iki tarih kadar, belki daha da önemli oldukları iddia edilebilir."

Wallerstein ve Dünya Sistemi Analizi hakkında daha fazla şey öğrenmek, ve bu analiz biçimiyle yapılmış çalışmaları izlemek için Fernand Braudel Ekonomiler, Tarihsel Sistemler ve Uygarlıklar İncelemeleri Merkezi’ni (http://fbc.binghamton.edu) ziyaret edebilirsiniz.

[Sinan Öner]

Italian Sociolog Professor Giovanni Arrighi's work "Anti-Systemic Movements" with Professor Terence Hopkins, Professor Immanuel Wallerstein, other social scientists, is very useful book to understand "current questions" since 1980s in the world. In "Anti-Systemic Movements", we see a detailed explanation of global social and political movements during "the crisis of world capitalism". Professor Arrighi, Professor Hopkins, Professor Wallerstein, they think about the old, historical social movements - peasant, working class, petty bourgeoise movements which continue in different ways in the world, also, they think about the new, current social movements - environmental, anti-nuclear, peace, students, the new democracy movements. For the Professors who wrote "Anti-Systemic Movements", at the end of 20. Century, the importance of "anti-systemic" movements increased, social scientists must work to describe "anti-systemic movements" with their new social scientific tools, what can the role of "anti-systemic movements" be in the conditions of crisis of world capitalism, social scientists answer this question with the knowledge about the global "anti-systemic movements".

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

I believe I was either walking around Seattle or San Francisco when I went into an anarchist bookshop and found this book recommended on the shelf. I had never heard of it, so picked it up. It has become pretty foundational for situating my understanding of many of the media activist groups/movements I study. The authors provide a broad yet easy to understand framework to conceptualize the change in social movements since the 1960s. Although this might be a little simplified, it nonetheless provides a good conceptual frame which to test out their theory and see where it applies and where it needs to be modified in regards to present day struggle. I highly recommend reading it if you are concerned with social movements or general formations of resistance.

[Federico Julian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un libro que presenta los cambios en los movimiento antisistemicos a lo largo de los últimos doscientos años. Me parece una reflexion pertinente para pensar los objetivos dentro de los movimientos sociales en el siglo XXI, las limitaciones de seguir anclados a viejas concepciones y aspiraciones y la necesidad de ir más allá.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Representative of world-systems theory generally, in that it’s (a) written by three of The Guys (b) categorically dubious on transition debate stuff and (c) helpful in framing both the analytic and political importance of internationalism

[Juan Gonzalez · Rating 2 out of 5]

Puede estar bien como aproximación a sociología y al estudio del análisis de clases y de la Teoría del Sistema-mundo, pero se queda muy corto para alguien que ya haya tenido contacto con el tema.

[Oralmajority · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid account of the development the inter/national political system from the 19th to the late 20th century; the political-economic account is also quite good, if remaining at the descriptive level (e.g. of the key tendencies towards financial centralization and the de-industiralization within core countries), rather than offering a substantive Marxian critique of systematic causes in the manner of Brenner or even Harvey.

Also a decent, if quite stiff, account of the qualitative, historical changes in the "social base" and the implications for political praxis; of course, these are not the thinkers to read regarding practical matters (though they're critique of both Old and New Left politix and their endorsement of nontraditional and previously marginal forms of struggle arguably have paved the way for more timely and radical work in this area).

[sube · Rating 2 out of 5]

Quite a few interesting arguments on what 'anti-systemic movements' must do in the wake of 1968, creating a new paradigm, same way 1848 created a new paradigm with its promises fulfilled with 1917 in its argument, however it's too basic, in my opinion. Some the theoretisations on the relationship of status-groups and class as categories I found good, however, but generally I didn't find it too interesting, though it might be more interesting as an introduction.

[Panagiotis Thanopoulos · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ενδιαφέρον αλλά λίγο πολύ τα ίδια αναλύονται και στο Συγκρουση Πολιτισμων; Η Μεγαλη Εικονα και το Μελλοντικο Συστημα και μάλιστα πιο περιγραφικά.

[(unknown) · Rating 2 out of 5]

cold warriors last even longer than the cold war.