Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein (September 28, 1930, New York, USA) is an American sociologist, political scientist and neo-Marxist philosopher, one of the founders of world-systems analysis, one of the leading representatives of modern left-wing social thought.
He studied at Columbia University, studying sociology and African studies (1951, bachelor's degree; 1954, master's degree; 1959, doctorate). In 1951-1953 he served in the army.
From 1959 to 1971 he taught at the Department of Sociology at Columbia University, and was the youngest professor. In the early 1960s, he was an adviser to the Kennedy administration, and there were even rumors that he would be appointed US Secretary of State. From 1971 to 1976 - Professor of Sociology at McGill University (Montreal, Canada). From 1976 to 1999 - Emeritus Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University (New York, USA). Since 2000, he has been a leading researcher at Yale University.
From 1994 to 1998 he served as chairman of the International Sociological Association.
Since the 1960s, he has been involved in issues general theory socio-economic development. Author of world-system theory, created under the influence of the French historian Fernand Braudel.
In his opinion, “Lenin for Russia will inevitably turn out to be the central figure of the twentieth century”: “With the passage of time in Russia, the political rehabilitation of Lenin is very likely. Somewhere by 2050, he may well become the main national hero.”
Member of the editorial board of the journals “Social Evolution and History”, “Asian Perspective”, “Africa Today”, etc.
Books (4)
Analysis of world systems and the situation in the modern world
This collection includes articles, speeches and fragments from books by I. Wallerstein, an American sociologist and economist, one of the most authoritative scientists dealing with the problem of world-system analysis. According to the author, it is impossible to understand current state capitalism and its future without considering its history. Like any system, capitalism had a beginning and therefore will have an end. Its laws are not “natural,” because other societies existed earlier that lived according to different laws, but they are also not “unnatural” or contrary to human essence, because they worked successfully for five hundred years.
The problem is not the moral merits or demerits of capitalism, not the hard work or laziness of individual peoples, but the historical boundaries that exist for the development of any system. In this regard, according to Wallerstein, it is the global expansion of capitalism, the integration of the whole world into one world economy that is a harbinger of upheavals: the possibilities of external, extensive expansion have been exhausted. Almost all known sources of growth have already been mobilized. Big changes are coming.
Historical capitalism. Capitalist civilization
The world-famous American scientist Immanuel Wallerstein is the founding father of world-system analysis, the author of the three-volume book “The Modern World-System”, a number of other books and a huge number of articles.
I. Wallerstein analyzes economic functioning capitalist system, the role of the state in the accumulation of capital, the role of scientific culture as a powerful social weapon " powerful of the world this."
Particular attention is paid to various myths of the capitalist system (about progress, meritocracy, etc.), the mechanism of action of the ideological tandem “racism - universalism” is shown. I. Wallerstein, in addition, offers a “balance sheet” of the achievements and failures of capitalist civilization, as well as an analysis of those internal dilemmas that historical capitalism is not able to solve and which have already brought it to the brink of the abyss.
The book is intended not only for specialists, but also for a wide range of readers interested in sociology, economics, politics, in short, the fate of the modern world.
After liberalism
The book by the outstanding American sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein “After Liberalism” is the result of the author’s many years of work on the history of the capitalist world system and at the same time a political forecast based on an analysis of global economic and political processes of the 1990s. Contrary to the ideologists of liberal globalization, Wallerstein is convinced that the bourgeois world system is in the deepest crisis, on the threshold of changes that could lead to the emergence of a completely new world order.
Race, nation, class. Ambiguous identities
Discussion presentation of the “pain points” of socio-political history and theory of the 20th century. A joint study of the French philosopher Etienne Balibar, student and successor of L. Althusser, and the author of the now classic work “The Modem World-System”, 1974-1988 (3 vols.)) by the American Immanuel Wallerstein.
I. Wallerstein's ideas were initially presented in a number of articles. They became widely known after the publication in 1974 of his book “The Modern World-System I. Capitalist Agriculture and the Emergence of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century.” The first volume was followed by two more (II. 1980; III. 1989) and many other works. It was in them that his method acquired the name world-system approach (perspective), or world-system analysis.
Unlike A.G. Frank and F. Braudel I. Wallerstein puts the most general issues methodology of historical research. He criticizes the approach to history, which he calls developmentalist (from the English development - development). According to this view, the world consists of many “societies.” These entities are called differently: “states”, “nations”, “peoples”, but they always mean some kind of “political-cultural units”. The concept of “individual society” acts as the “basic unit of analysis.” Some believe that such societies develop in the same way, others believe that each follows its own historical path.
After World War II, a perspective that could be called developmentalism took hold. It lies in the fact that all societies are involved in development, and progressive development at that. They all develop in parallel paths and they are all equally capable of achieving the desired results.
One of these versions is liberal, most clearly represented by the work of W. Rostow “Stages economic growth. Non-Communist Manifesto." “Rostow,” writes I. Wallerstein, “views the process of change as a series of stages through which each national unit must pass. These are the stages that Rostow believes Britain has gone through. And Great Britain represents a decisive example, for it is the first state that embarked on the revolutionary path leading to modern industrial world. This led to the conclusion that this path represents a model that should be copied by other states. All that remained was to analyze how movement from one stage to another occurred, to find out why some nations moved more slowly than others, and to prescribe (like doctors) what a nation should do to speed up the process of “growth.” 216 Wallerstein I. The Present State of the Debate on World Inequality // World Inequality. Origins and Perspective of World Systems. Montreal. 1975. P. 14.
The other version is Marxist. “In the socialist world during this period,” continues I. Wallerstein, “no book equal to Rostow’s work appeared. Instead, there was the outdated scheme of evolutionary Marxism, which also set rigid stages through which each state or geographical community must pass. The only differences are that these stages covered a long historical time, and the model country was the USSR. These stages are known as slavery-feudalism-capitalism-socialism. The absurdity of this rigid scheme, which dates back to the 1930s, and its complete inapplicability at the national level was recently well shown by the Indian Marxist intellectual Irfan Habib, who showed not only the enormous significance of the concept of the “Asian mode of production”, but also the illogicality of insisting that various historical methods of extracting surplus (surplus product - Y.S.) must necessarily take place in all countries and follow in a specific order.” 217 Ibid. P. 15.
“...I agree,” the author concludes, “with his (I. Khabib. - Y.S.) fundamental position that this version of Marxist thought, which prevailed between 1945 and 1965... is a “mechanical copying” of liberal views. In essence, the analysis is the same as that of Rostow, except that the names of the stages have been changed, and the role of the model country has been transferred from Great Britain to the USSR. I call this approach the developmentalist perspective, regardless of whether it is held by liberals or Marxists." 218 Ibid.
But despite all this kind of theory, the gap between “developed” and “developing” societies is not decreasing, but growing. All this indicates that this approach is not suitable and should be replaced by another - the “world-system perspective”. 219 Wallerstein I. World-System Perspective on the Social Sciences // I. Wallerstein. The Capitalist World-System. Essays. Cambridge etc., Paris, 1979. pp. 153-155 This new perspective has been slowly making its way into scientific opinion since the 1960s. It does not yet have a generally accepted name; early formulations of this view are partial, confused and unclear. But it was precisely this that manifested itself in the works of R. Prebisch, S. Furtadu, D. Ciera, A.G. Frank, T. Dos Santos, A. Emmanuel, S. Amin, P.M. Marini, U. Melotti. 220 Wallerstein I. The Present State of the Debate on World Inequality... P. 15-16.
The developmentalist approach not only contradicts reality. It is also completely untenable methodologically. It involves the creation of “ahistorical” (anti-historical) models of social change. The use of the concept of “development” inevitably implies the identification of a “stage” in the “development” of a social structure. “The decisive problem when comparing “stages,” writes I. Wallerstein, “is the definition of units, synchronous portraits (or, if you wish, “ideal types”) of which these stages are. And the fundamental mistake of ahistorical social science (including ahistorical versions of Marxism) lies in the materialization and transformation of parts of the totality into such units, and then the comparison of these units that exist only in theory, but are now presented as existing in integrity.” 221 Wallerstein I. The Rise and Future Demises of the World Capitalist System: Concepts For Comparative Analysis // I. Wallerstein. The Capitalist World-System. Essays. Cambridge etc., Paris, 1979. P. 3. In general, Wallerstein comes to the conclusion “that all the “ideal types” of the various versions of the developmentalist perspective are equally far from empirical reality.” 222 Wallerstein I. The Present State of the Debate on World Inequality... P. 22. Therefore, they must be completely abandoned.
Moving from these too abstract considerations to more concrete ones, I. Wallerstein explains why the “national state” cannot be taken as a unit of history. Now the whole world forms one single capitalist world-economy. “From this premise it follows that nation-states are Not societies that have separate, parallel histories, and parts of a whole that reflect this whole. To the extent that stages exist, they exist for the system as a whole.” 223 Ibid. P. 16. Therefore, “such a thing” as “ national development", does not exist, and "the true object of comparison is the world-system." 224 Wallerstein I. The Rise and Future Demises of the World Capitalist System... P. 4.
And this is also true of the period before the emergence of the capitalist world-economy. The “tribes” and communities that existed in previous eras, as well as nation-states, were not total systems. 225 Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System I. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origin of European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York etc., 1974. P. 348.
In general, the assumption that there is a “society” must be abandoned. 226 Wallerstein I. World-System Perspective on the Social Sciences... P. 155. We need an “alternative possibility of organizing the material world,” we need a different “unit of analysis.” This is what the world-systems approach provides. "The world-systems perspective accepts, by contrast, that social action occur in an object within which there is a division of labor, and tends to open empirically, whether such an object is unified or not unified politically or culturally, find out in theory, what are the consequences of the existence or non-existence of such unity.” 227 Ibid. And even if we talk about stages, then “these must be stages social systems, i.e. totalities. And the only totalities that exist or historically existed are mini-systems and world-systems, and in the 19th and 20th centuries there existed and still exists one single world-system - the capitalist world-economy.” 228 Wallerstein I. The Rise and Future Demises of the World Capitalist System... P. 4-5.
Along with the concept of “social system,” I. Wallerstein uses the concept of “mode of production,” meaning not so much production taken in a certain social form, but forms of distribution and exchange. I. Wallerstein based his classification of production methods on the ideas of the founder of the substantivist movement in economic anthropology (ethnology), Karl Polanyi (1886-1964), about three main forms of “economic integration”: reciprocity, redistribution and market exchange.
I. Wallerstein calls all self-sufficient economic education social systems. He primarily divides them into mini-systems and world-systems.
He writes least about minisystems. These are very small, short-lived autonomous formations, of which there were an extraordinary number. They supported their existence by hunting and gathering or simple agriculture, and they had a reciprocal, lineage, or reciprocal-lineage mode of production. In mini-systems there was a complete division of labor and cultural unity. By now the minisystems have disappeared. Essentially, when speaking about minisystems, I. Wallerstein means primitive communities that were sociohistorical organisms. Thus, all the originality of the approach here comes down only to replacing the usual terminology with a new one.
The hallmark of the world-system is self-sufficiency. As I. Wallerstein emphasizes, the “world-system” is not a “world system”, but a “system” that is a “world”. The world-system is a unit with a single division of labor and a plurality of cultures. There are two types of world-systems. One - with a single political system - worlds-empires, the other without political unity - worlds-economies. Economy worlds are unstable, they either disappear or transform into empire worlds. Empire worlds are based on a mode of production that the author calls redistributive, tributary, or redistributive-tributary.
Empire worlds are relatively large in size; there were many of them, but significantly fewer than minisystems. They existed for a long time next to minisystems. Scientists often use the term “civilization” to characterize empire worlds.
In fact, by world-empires I. Wallerstein understands powers, i.e. systems consisting of a dominant sociohistorical organism and several subordinates. As a result, sociohistorical organisms that were not part of the powers fall out of his field of vision. And such were the majority in the history of mankind. For example, the city-states of Sumer, as they were before the emergence of the Akkadian power, and the policies of archaic and classical Greece fall out. And Egypt, constantly cited by I. Wallerstein as an example, during the era of the Old Kingdom cannot in any way be classified as an empire-world. It was culturally homogeneous.
But I. Wallerstein has the most inconsistencies with world-economies. As he writes, world-economies differ fundamentally from both minisystems and world-empires in both their formal structure and mode of production. Since there is no single political power in the world-economy, the redistribution of production surplus can only occur through the market. Therefore, the mode of production in the world-economy can only be capitalist. 229 Wallerstein I. World-System Perspective on the Social Sciences... P. 159.
But he himself repeatedly emphasized, on the one hand, that world-economies existed long before the 16th century, 230 Wallerstein I. The Rise and Future Demises of the World Capitalist System... P. 5; Idem. The Modern World-System I... P. 17, 348. and on the other hand, that the capitalist mode of production began to emerge only from the 16th century. 231 Wallerstein I. The Rise and Future Demises of the World Capitalist System... P. 6; Idem. The Modern World-System I... P. 348; Idem. World-System Perspective on the Social Sciences... P. 161. In an effort to find a way out of the situation, I. Wallerstein in his later works speaks of “proto-capitalist elements” and even “proto-capitalism”. 232 Wallerstein I. The West, Capitalism and the Modern World-System // Review. 1992. Vol. 15. No. 4.
The worst situation for him is in medieval Europe. On the one hand, it was politically fragmented and therefore could not be a world-empire. On the other hand, it did not fit into the concept of the world-economy. As a result, I. Wallerstein sometimes calls it simply a world-system, without referring to a specific type 233 Wallerstein I. World-System Perspective on the Social Sciences... P. 161; Idem. From Feudalism to Capitalism: Transition or Transitions // I. Wallerstein. The Capitalist World-System. P. 142., then declares that it was not any world-system at all. 234 Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System I... P. 17.
And where he calls Europe simply a world-system, he defines this system as redistributive. 235 Wallerstein I. World-System Perspective on the Social Sciences... P. 161; Idem. From Feudalism to Capitalism... P. 142. Thus, he comes into conflict with his own thesis that redistribution is possible only if there is a single political power. To save the situation, he comes out with the assertion that political unity is possible not only in a highly centralized form (the “empire” itself), but also in an administratively extremely decentralized form (feudal form). 236 Wallerstein I. World-System Perspective on the Social Sciences... P. 158.
Characterizing medieval Europe as a redistributive world-system, I. Wallerstein says that it was precisely based on the feudal mode of production. 237 Wallerstein I. From Feudalism to Capitalism... P. 142. But this does not provide a way out of the situation. If in relation to, say, France X-XII centuries. You can still talk about some kind of political unity, albeit extremely decentralized (there was a king, whose vassals all the major feudal lords of France were considered), but nothing similar can be said about Western Europe as a whole, not to mention all of Europe. And during this period, the French king was least able to engage in redistribution on a national scale.
But be that as it may, from the 16th century. feudal Europe is transformed into a capitalist world-economy. The European world-economy is the only one that survived: it did not disintegrate and did not turn into a world-empire. As it developed, it gradually absorbed all the social systems existing in the world without the slightest exception. The entire modern world is one single world-system - capitalist world economy. In the above-mentioned multi-volume monograph (two more volumes are due to appear - the fourth and fifth) I. Wallerstein paints a picture of the formation of the European capitalist system and its transformation into a global one.
The world-economy is divided into core, semi-periphery and periphery. The boundaries between these parts are relative. Individual states can and do move from one division to another. The core of the world-system consists of several states, i.e. actually sociohistorical organisms. But they are not equal. One of them is the hegemon. The history of the core is the history of the struggle for hegemony between several contenders, the victory of one of them, its dominance over the world-economy and its subsequent decline. But the main thing is the relationship between the core and the periphery. Their essence lies in the fact that the core states appropriate free of charge the surplus created in the periphery countries.
When applied to modern times, I. Wallerstein’s world-system approach is one of the varieties of the concepts of dependence (dependent development). Criticizing the concept of modernization from a purely practical point of view, he said: “The great illusion of the theory of modernization was the promise to make the entire system a “core” without periphery. Today it is quite obvious that this is not feasible.” 238 Wallerstein I. Russia and the capitalist world-economy, 1500 - 2010 // SM. 1996. No. 5. P. 42.
The capitalist world-system is inevitably polarized into center and periphery, and the gap between them not only does not decrease, but, on the contrary, continuously intensifies. First of all, it is expressed in the growing impoverishment of the working masses of peripheral countries. “I think,” emphasizes I. Wallerstein, “Marx turned out to be right in one of his most scandalous forecasts, which the Marxists themselves subsequently disowned. The evolution of capitalism as a historical system does indeed lead to polarization and absolute, not only relative impoverishment of the majority." 239 Ibid.
2.10.4. World systems approach: pros and cons
If we talk in general about the constructions of F. Braudel and I. Wallerstein, then their value lies in close attention to the “horizontal”, i.e. intersocioral, connections and in an effort to develop concepts that would better reflect them. They were well able to show that, at least in modern times, it is impossible to understand the history of any specific, separate society without taking into account the influence on it of other similar societies that are part of the same sociological system, without taking into account the place it occupies in this system . Study of the system of sociohistorical organisms as a whole - necessary condition understanding the development of each individual society included in this system. A lot of interesting things were said by I. Wallerstein and the world-systemists about the relationship between the center and the periphery of the capitalist world system in our era.
But the concentration of attention on intersocioral relations led both F. Braudel, and especially I. Wallerstein, to the absolutization of these connections. This was manifested in the exaggeration of the role of the sociohistorical system and the underestimation of the relative independence of the sociohistorical organisms that comprise it. Both of them were prone to dissolution of sociohistorical organisms in the system. The absolutization of intersocioral, “horizontal” connections inevitably led not only to the denial of the existence of individual specific societies, but also to the ignoring of intrasocioral interstage, “vertical” connections.
I. Wallerstein began with a largely fair criticism of W. Rostow’s theory of stages of economic development and all linear-stage concepts of modernization in general, with criticism of the orthodox linear-stage understanding of the change of socio-economic formations. This led him to a theoretical (but by no means always practical) rejection of the concept of a separate, specific society (sociohistorical organism), of the concept of a type in general and especially of the stage type of such a society, and thus the stages of its development, and, ultimately, the stages of the world -historical development.
The collapse of the linear-stage concepts of modernization and, in general, the linear-stage understanding of history was perceived by I. Wallerstein as the collapse of the unitary-stage understanding of history in general. And this happened despite the fact that I. Wallerstein knew from I. Habib’s article about the possibility of not only a linear, but a completely different understanding of the change in socio-economic formations.
And in his criticism of the concepts of development and progress, I. Wallerstein is not alone. His views on a number of significant points are consistent with a unique approach to the process of world history, which can be called nihilistic or ahistorical. This approach is opposed to both unitary-stage and plural-cyclical understandings of history.
2.11. MODERN ANTI-HISTORICISM (“ANTHISTORICISM”)
World-systems analysis explores the social evolution of systems of societies, rather than individual societies, in contrast to previous sociological approaches, within which theories of social evolution considered the development primarily of individual societies, and not their systems. In this, the world-system approach is similar to the civilizational one, but goes a little further, exploring not only the evolution of social systems that embrace one civilization, but also those systems that embrace more than one civilization or even all the civilizations of the world. This approach was developed in the 1970s. A.G. Frank, I. Wallerstein, S. Amin, J. Arrighi and T. dos Santos.
Fernand Braudel's approach
F. Braudel is usually considered as the most important predecessor of world-system analysis, who laid its foundations. It is therefore no coincidence that the leading center for world-systems analysis (in Binghampton, at the State University of New York) is named after Fernand Braudel.
Braudel wrote about the interconnection of all societies " world-economy" It has its own center (with its own “ supercity"; in the 14th century it was Venice, later the center moved to Flanders and England, and from there in the twentieth century to New York), secondary but developed societies and outlying peripheries. At the same time, trade communications connect different regions and cultures into a single macroeconomic space.
Immanuel Wallerstein's approach
The most common version of world-system analysis was developed by I. Wallerstein. According to Wallerstein, the modern world-system originated in " long 16th century"(approximately 1450-1650) and gradually covered the whole world. Until this time, many world systems coexisted in the world at the same time. Wallerstein divides these world-systems into three types: mini-systems, world-economies and world-empires.
Minisystems were characteristic of primitive societies. They are based on reciprocal relationships.
Complex agrarian societies are characterized by world-economies and world-empires. World-economies are systems of societies united by close economic ties, acting as certain evolving units, but not united into a single political entity. World empires are characterized by levying taxes (tribute) from provinces and conquered colonies.
According to Wallerstein, all pre-capitalist world-economies sooner or later turned into world-empires through their political unification under the rule of a single state. The only exception to this rule is the medieval European world-economy, which turned not into a world-empire, but into a modern capitalist world-system. The capitalist world-system consists of a core (the most highly developed countries of the West), a semi-periphery (in the twentieth century - socialist countries) and a periphery (the Third World).
André Gunder Frank's approach
The version of world-system analysis developed by A. Gunder Frank differs markedly from this. Frank draws attention to the fact that statements about the possibility of the simultaneous existence of tens and hundreds in the world “ world-systems“in many ways make the very concept of the World System meaningless. According to Frank, we should be talking about only one World-System, which arose at least 5,000 years ago, and then, through numerous cycles of expansion and consolidation, covered the entire world. During the evolution of the World System, its center has repeatedly moved. Until its movement in the 19th century, first to Europe and then to North America, this center was located in China for many centuries. In this regard, observed in Lately Frank interpreted the rise of China as the beginning of the return of the center of the World System to its “ natural" place after the short-lived European-North American " interludes».
Immanuel Wallerstein (b. 1930) - American thinker, founder of world-systems analysis, representative of neo-Marxism. In 1994-1998 he was president of the International Sociological Association.
Wallerstein is an opponent of the traditional formational and civilizational approach to history. It offers a new paradigm social development. Wallerstein considers the historical system to be the appropriate unit of social analysis. Wallerstein gives a definition of a historical system, the main characteristic of which is the division of labor. “A historical system can be defined as a society characterized by a division of labor with integrated production structures, a set of organizing principles and institutions, and a specific period of its existence.” Wallerstein considers the main task of sociologists to be the analysis of historical systems.
The main concept of the concept developed by Wallerstein is the capitalist world-system, which arose in the 16th century, included the whole world in the 19th century and is characterized by the desire for endless accumulation of capital and division into the center, semi-periphery and periphery. Wallerstein considers the capitalist world economy to be a system of hierarchical inequality of distribution. The countries of the center are interested in the weakness of the countries of the periphery.
The countries of the center are characterized by knowledge-intensive production, high concentration of capital, powerful bureaucracy, highly developed education and science, and urbanization.
Peripheral countries are characterized by non-knowledge-intensive industries, low concentration of capital, weak bureaucracy, the spread of religion and superstition, and the predominance of a rural way of life.
The semi-periphery occupies a middle, intermediate position between the center and the periphery. Wallerstein included the USA, Japan and the EU among the countries of the center. Wallerstein included countries such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, South Korea, Mexico, Venezuela, Egypt, etc. in the semi-periphery.
Wallerstein included the poor countries of Latin America and Africa, as well as some Asian countries - Burma, Bangladesh, etc. among the countries of the periphery. “This world-system was formed during the 16th century, and the division of labor that initially developed in it included most of Europe, as well as parts of the Americas.
This world-system expanded territorially for many centuries, successively incorporating more and more new regions into the system of division of labor adopted within it.
East Asia was the last large region to be incorporated in this way, and it was only in the mid-19th century that the world-system of modernity could be considered truly global, the first of the world-systems to cover the entire globe.
The capitalist world-system is a totality of the world-economy, determined by the relations between the center and the periphery, and a political structure consisting of its constituent parts. international system sovereign states."
Wallerstein believes that the world-system is characterized by cyclical development. The contradictions of the world-system appear in a series of cyclical rhythms. The largest cycles of development of the world system are cycles for hegemony and Kondratieff economic cycles, consisting of a downward and upward phase.
Each cycle for hegemony in the world-system includes three stages: the war for hegemony, the hegemony of the winning power in the war, the weakening of the hegemon, which is accompanied by the emergence of new contenders for hegemony and preparation for war.
The war for hegemony, each of which lasted about 30 years, involves the two most powerful countries of the core. In each subsequent cycle, the former hegemon becomes a junior ally of the new hegemon. According to Wallerstein, being a hegemon in the world-system is difficult, since the hegemon must have a strong bureaucracy and a powerful army, which require significant financial costs. The hegemon ensures the absence of armed struggle between powers in the world system.
According to Wallerstein, periods of hegemony in the history of the modern world-system lasted, as a rule, from 25 to 50 years. “In my opinion, there are only three examples of this: the United Provinces in the mid-17th century, the United Kingdom in the mid-19th century, and the United States in the mid-20th century.” The end of the period of domination and the emergence of the hegemon as simply one of the leading powers is characterized by a decrease in the level of stability in the world system and a state of fragile peace.
Wallerstein believes that the modern world-system, like any other historical system, sooner or later ceases to exist.
The end of a historical system, preceded by the achievement of a bifurcation point, is followed by a transition to a new historical system. “The modern world-system, like any system, cannot develop forever and will come to its end when historical trends lead it to a point where the fluctuations of the system become so large-scale and chaotic that they will be incompatible with ensuring the viability of its institutions. If this point is reached, a bifurcation will occur, and as a result of an era of transition (chaotic), the system will be replaced by one or more other systems."
Wallerstein believes that social change is the replacement of a historical system of one type by a historical system of another type.
An example is the displacement of feudalism by capitalism in Western Europe. Wallerstein notes that replacing a historical system of one type with another system of the same type does not constitute social change. “An example is the events in China, when the Ming Dynasty was replaced by the Manchu Empire. These empires differed from each other in many aspects, but not in essence.
We are currently experiencing a process of deep transformation of our world-system, but we do not yet know whether this will entail fundamental social change or not. When considering the current historical system, the appearance of social change can be very deceptive. The details may change, but the qualities that define the essence of the system may remain the same. If we are interested in fundamental social change, we should try to detect long-term trends and distinguish them from cyclical rhythms, and also to predict how long these long-term trends can gain momentum without disturbing the equilibrium underlying the system.”
Wallerstein believes that the modern capitalist world-system is in the process of ending its crisis and will cease to exist in a few years. Wallerstein believes that this crisis will last from 1990 to 2025/2050. The results of the crisis are impossible to predict. According to Wallerstein, the new system that replaces it may be either better or worse than the modern world-system. Wallerstein argues that the transition to a new system will be characterized by turmoil and chaos, since the results of this transition are unknown.
“Fundamental change is thus possible, although never certain, and this calls for moral responsibility, urging us to act rationally, with honest intentions and determination to find a better historical system.
We cannot know what its structure will be, but we can determine the criteria that allow us to call a historical system essentially rational. This system is predominantly egalitarian and largely democratic.
A historical system cannot be egalitarian unless it is democratic, because an undemocratic system distributes power unequally, which means it will distribute everything else unequally. It also cannot be democratic if it is not egalitarian, since the inegalitarian system presupposes that some have more material assets than others, and will therefore inevitably have more political power."
Wallerstein identifies four trends that undermined the foundations of the capitalist world-system and thereby determined the crisis into which the modern world-system entered.
The first trend is the destruction of the rural way of life (deruralization). “This precarious reserve army of labor, consisting of members of the lower class willing to work for a minimum wage, has remained for five hundred years in all regions of the world the most important element maintaining profit margins. But no group of workers stayed long in this category, and this army had to be periodically replenished. Deruralization makes such practices impossible.”
The second trend is the environmental crisis. Environmental problems will force governments to make difficult choices: either reduce their spending and direct funds to solve environmental problems and their further prevention, or oblige capitalists to internalize the corresponding costs, which will lead to a reduction in the ability to accumulate capital.
The third trend is the democratization of the world. Most people understand democratization to be a demand for equal rights to three basic goods: a reasonable income, a decent education and medical care. Wallerstein believes that as democratization expands, people demand that the minimum acceptable level of these goods be constantly increased. Wallerstein notes that even for the countries of the center, the provision of basic goods of this level is not cheap, while for the countries of the semi-periphery and periphery these requirements are practically impossible to meet. In order for everyone to have access to an acceptable level of these goods, a transition from the modern world-system to a completely different historical system is necessary.
The fourth trend, according to Wallerstein, is that states are gradually losing their power and that there is a decline in traditional anti-system movements. Traditional anti-system movements de facto guaranteed the preservation of the existing world-system, as they reassured social dangerous classes that the future belonged to them or their children, and that a more just society would soon be created. Wallerstein believes that the patience and optimism of the dangerous classes was based on the promises of anti-system movements. In the last few decades, the dangerous classes have stopped believing in the promises of these movements.
Wallerstein notes that entrepreneurs in a capitalist world-economy rely on government assistance to provide them with a monopoly in the economy. States and monopolies in the capitalist world economy act together, since states are weapons in the hands of monopolists. “For four centuries, states have guaranteed order and the existence of monopolies, which are the most important means of large-scale accumulation of capital. But states can no longer fulfill their regulatory function. The democratization of the world and environmental problems have created extremely high demands on government agencies, putting most of them on the brink of a fiscal crisis.” Wallerstein believes that states lose their power because they lose the legitimacy that their people give them. This happens because peoples are losing faith in the future improvement of their situation.
Wallerstein notes that the French Revolution spread two ideas into the modern world-system. The first is that political change is a constant and normal phenomenon. The second is that sovereignty embodies the people. These ideas could be adopted by “dangerous classes,” which could lead to chaos and a state of instability in the world-system.
According to Wallerstein, “dangerous classes” are people who do not have a decent social status, but want to be participants in political life. Wallerstein classifies landless peasants, immigrants, the urban proletariat and artisans as such classes.
The privileged classes calmed the dangerous classes through social ideologies and social movements. The main social ideologies were conservatism, liberalism and socialism.
“They all represent certain points of reference when trying to answer the question of who embodies the sovereignty of the people: the so-called free individuals, as liberals believe; so-called traditional groups, according to conservatives; or all members of society, as socialists believe.”
The three main ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries were political programs for managing change and embodied three modes of management. Conservatives say political change needs to be slowed down. According to liberals, it is necessary to choose the only correct pace.
According to socialists or radicals, political change must be accelerated. Liberalism became the dominant ideology and formed the basis of the geoculture of our system, turning conservatism and socialism into movements dependent on liberalism. The dominance of liberalism continued until 1968. “All world-systems have geocultures, although it may take some time for such a geoculture to become established in a given historical system. I use the word "culture" here in the sense traditionally used by anthropologists, as a system of values and basic rules that, consciously and unconsciously, govern the rewards and punishments of a society and create a system of illusions that should convince the members of a society of its legitimacy." Wallerstein points out that in any world-system there are always people who do not accept the values of geoculture, but geoculture exists subject to the acceptance of these values by the majority.
Liberalism argues that only those people who are capable of rational thought should have the right to make important public decisions. Liberals propose to exclude those who are unable to think rationally from public life until they learn to think rationally. Liberals consider this discrimination to be justified.
Wallerstein considers the revolution of 1848 to be the beginning of real social movements and national liberation movements. After the revolutions of 1848, liberals immediately proposed a program of concessions to satisfy the demands of these movements and restore order and stability to the world-system. “The program of concessions—suffrage, elements of the welfare state, unifying racist nationalism—has been remarkably successful throughout the Euro-American world and has made the capitalist system able to weather all storms except those of the last two decades.”
Wallerstein notes that from 1870 to 1945 the formation of the main anti-system movements took place, and from 1945 to 1970 they prevailed everywhere. Wallerstein believes that all successful anti-system movements sought first to achieve political power and then to transform the world-system. “This line was followed by socialist movements that appealed to the working class; ethnonational movements that appealed to those united by a common cultural heritage; and nationalist movements that used signs of territory and citizenship as defining features of their “nation.” It is the movements of the latter type that we call “national liberation”. Wallerstein notes that the anti-system movements of the 19th century opposed power, but their opposition was constantly softened and the intention to transform the world-system was constantly postponed. Thus, according to Wallerstein, anti-system movements over time turned from oppositionists into guarantors of the stability of power structures. Wallerstein believes that after coming to power, anti-system movements were forced to make concessions to the rulers of the world-system, that is, the power of the movements was limited to certain conditions. The justification for anti-system movements was the argument that these concessions are not permanent, but temporary, and that the world-system will soon be transformed and a bright future will come.
Wallerstein argues that over time, the leadership of the new government becomes as corrupt and arrogant as their predecessors. Wallerstein notes that abuses of nomenclature and economic problems can be removed from power by the victorious movements. Wallerstein believes that one of the reasons for the worldwide revolution of 1968 was the inability of movements to achieve the previously set goal of transforming the world-system. “Suddenly, voices were heard everywhere wanting to know whether the failures of the anti-system movements were due to the actions of hostile reactionary forces or to the collusion of revolutionaries with supporters of the old regime. In no third world country where national liberation movements were in power did they escape such criticism. The loss of hope to catch up with the leading powers everywhere, in one country after another, resulted in the loss of influence of the movements themselves.” Wallerstein believes that the era of US hegemony in the world system has come to its logical conclusion. US hegemony lasted from 1945 to 1990. US dominance extended to the political, economic, ideological and cultural spheres. Wallerstein believes that the main features of this period are that US hegemony reached its apogee in the period from 1967 to 1973, the US and the USSR conflicted only formally, the countries of the periphery believed in the possibility of achieving self-determination and national development, 1970-1980. were a period of worldwide economic crisis. "IN economically in the 1970s-1980s. what happened was that as a result of the decline in phase “B” of the Kondratieff cycle or stagnation in the world economy, state budgets almost everywhere were subjected to compression, and negative impact was especially painful in the peripheral and semi-peripheral zones of the world economy.”
According to Wallerstein, formally the USA and the USSR were ideological enemies waging a Cold War since 1917. In reality, the positions of American and Soviet ideology were similar and corresponded to the basic ideas of geoculture. The USSR and the USA entered into an agreement according to which the USSR could do whatever it wanted in Eastern Europe, divided by China and Korea, and the USA - in the Western European zone. In addition, the USSR should not have counted on economic assistance from the United States.
Wallerstein believes that the USA and the USSR had their own ideological programs to reduce the gap between the countries of the center and the periphery. In the United States, this ideological program was proposed by US President Woodrow Wilson in 1917, emphasizing the need for self-determination of nations and subsequent national development. “Leninism, ideologically, is considered to be the direct opposite of Wilsonianism. In reality, the programs were identical in form: political changes had to occur first in order to achieve sovereignty; then had to follow economic changes" Formally, Leninism and Wilsonianism competed with each other, so each of the ideologies focused on differences from the ideology of its rival. The ideas of Leninism and Wilsonianism about the correct way to achieve self-determination of nations differed. The Wilsonians believed that a gradual path to achieving national sovereignty was correct, and Leninism, in turn, advocated a revolutionary, faster path to achieving national independence. Wilsonians believed that national sovereignty should be granted. Leninists believed that decolonization should be captured. According to Wallerstein, the USSR actually helped the United States in pacifying the “dangerous classes” of the world system.
By the end of the 60s. the process of achieving national independence was almost universally completed, but the same could not be said about national development. As a result, according to Wallerstein, this became one of the reasons for the worldwide revolution of 1968. “All the speeches were imbued with two main ideas, no matter what local specifics were mixed into them.
The first of them was the idea of protest against US hegemony in the world system and secret collusion with the USSR, which contributed to the strengthening of this hegemony. wallerstein civilization kondratieff capitalism
The second is the idea of protest against the ineffectiveness of the so-called Old Left movements that have come to power in many guises around the world. They were accused of being too integrated into the dominant world system, and little remained of their former anti-systemism.” Wallerstein believes that the national development of all states within the framework of a capitalist world economy is impossible.
The process of endless accumulation of capital is inextricably linked to the existence of a hierarchical system in which surplus value is distributed unevenly both between states and between classes. Wallerstein points out that social mobility between the levels of the world-system is extremely difficult; it is extremely difficult to rise from the periphery to the semi-periphery or from the semi-periphery to the center, thus the structure of the world-system is basically preserved. In the history of the world-system, there has never been a transition from the periphery to the center.
If the rise of one of the states of the world system occurs, then this will certainly be followed by the decline of some other state. The development of one world economic state turns into the decline of another state. In a capitalist world economy, many countries cannot develop simultaneously.
Wallerstein does not give precise forecasts for the future development of the world-system. “In the period 2000-2025, it seems to me, we will not be able to predict who exactly will “command the parade” - the Japanese in an alliance with the Americans or the EU.
Their real and geopolitical power will be too balanced.” China will act as a semi-peripheral zone for Japan and the US, and Russia will act as a semi-peripheral zone for the EU. Wallerstein points out that the South in 2000-2025. Most likely, there will be no profit from the development of the world economy, and the confrontation between North and South will intensify.
As a result of the deterioration of the situation in the South, there will be an increase in migration from the South to the North and the introduction of legislation by the North that will limit the social and political rights of migrants. Wallerstein notes that the income and status of the middle class will deteriorate, so the world-system will be forced to either limit the accumulation of capital or come to terms with the consequences of mass discontent of the former middle classes.
In addition, there will be an increase in democratization and a decline in liberalism. Wallerstein also notes that in 2000-2025. the ability of states to maintain order will decrease, which will naturally lead to the inability to contain the spread nuclear weapons. The people, disillusioned with the state as a guarantor of stability and order, will begin to seek protection from various ethnic, religious and linguistic groups. Wallerstein believes that this period will also be characterized by the spread of AIDS and other diseases. Wallerstein notes that democracy and liberalism are opposed to each other, because liberalism arose as a means of opposing democracy.
Democracy is characterized by opposition to power and authoritarianism and the desire for equal influence on the political process at all levels. Democracy requires a fair distribution of socio-economic rewards.
“Liberalism was fundamentally anti-democratic. Liberalism has always been an aristocratic doctrine - it preached “the power of the best.” Let's be fair - liberals defined the “best” not based on birth, but rather on the level of education. But the best are always a group smaller than everyone else. Liberals wanted the power of the best, the aristocracy, precisely in order to prevent the power of the whole people, democracy.”
The capitalist world economy, according to Wallerstein, is characterized by class conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, national inequality and racial inequality. Wallerstein believes that the main conflict is class conflict. The capitalist world economy is based on the contradictory economic interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; this contradiction causes class conflicts.
The process of endless accumulation of capital within the framework of the capitalist world economy is possible only with an uneven distribution of the concentration of capital and surplus value. The uneven distribution of capital leads to sharp polarization between the poor countries of the South and the rich countries of the North. This polarization and hierarchization is justified by liberalism, racism and nationalism. Different nations and ethnic communities occupy different positions within the world system. The countries of the core, the rich North, which exploits the poor South, and the countries of the periphery are interested in this inequality. National and racial inequality serves as justification for a multi-level system of exploitation. “Race and racism carry out the intra-zonal unification of the central and peripheral zones in their struggle with each other, while nation and nationalism carry out the intra-zonal division of these zones in a more complex, both intra- and inter-zonal, competition for preferential positions in the hierarchy. Both categories constitute a claim to privilege in the capitalist world-economy.” Wallerstein notes that the capitalist world-economy is characterized by the following forms of domination: the dominance of people over animals and nature, the dominance of men over women, the dominance of city dwellers over villagers, middle-aged people over old people and children, heterosexuals over homosexuals. All these diverse systems of inequality intersect with each other, reinforcing each other. After the 1968 revolution, some forms of discrimination were relaxed.
Etienne Balibar, who co-authored Wallerstein's book Race, Nation, Class. Ambiguous Identities,” states that he largely shares Wallerstein's views, but nevertheless points out some differences in views. “Balibar says that he is not inclined to agree with the thesis of the existence of a world bourgeoisie, except perhaps in the long run. He believes that by using a somewhat excessively abstract and global model in the analysis, I neglect to analyze specific specific moments.” Balibar also reproaches Wallerstein for neglecting the importance of the “social factor” and giving too much importance to the division of labor.
Bibliography
- 1. Wallerstein I. The end of the familiar world: Sociology of the XXI century / Transl. from English edited by B. L. Inozemtseva. - M.: Logos, 2004.
- 2. Wallerstein I. After liberalism / Transl. from English M. M. Gurvitsa, P. M. Kudyukina, L. V. Fedenko, ed. B. Yu. Kagarlitsky. -- M.: Editorial URSS, 2003.
- 3. Balibar E., Wallerstein I. Race, nation, class. Ambiguous identities / Trans. from fr. A. Kefal, P. Khitsky with the participation of A. Markov, ed. O. Nikiforov, P. Khitsky. - M.: Logos, 2004.
- 4. Wallerstein I. Analysis of world systems and the situation in modern world/ Translated from English. P. M. Kudyukina, general editor. B. Yu. Kagarlitsky. - St. Petersburg: University Book, 2001.
Pechatnova Yulia Vadimovna, 2nd year student (351 gr.) Faculty of Law Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "Altai State University", Barnaul [email protected]
Worldsystem analysis as a new look at social structure
Abstract. The article is devoted to identifying the main aspects of world-system analysis as a new approach for the study of social structures. The relevance lies in the fact that the research is carried out based on consideration modern concepts, which have not lost their theoretical and practical novelty due to the small degree of study, since science is not widely represented by specialists working in the field of world-system analysis. Key words: society, macrosociology, world-system analysis, I. Wallerstein.
The relevance of the work lies in the fact that the research is carried out on the basis of consideration of modern concepts that have not lost their theoretical and practical novelty due to the small degree of study. This is explained by the fact that books, in particular, those edited by I. Wallerstein during the USSR period were not available to the Soviet reader; since the 1990s, the situation has not changed much, and I. Wallerstein’s works did not always fall under the discerning gaze of Russian scientists. Only in the 2000s did the Russian public begin to show interest in I. Wallerstein, which resulted in the appearance of several scientific publications in which attention was paid to world-system analysis. The revaluation of technocratic approaches to the development of society stimulated the emergence of new global concepts. Nature and depth of modifications planetary scale clearly highlight that the world community is undergoing a phase systemic crisis social basis. A reflection of this fact was the exaggeration of the technogenic sphere to the detriment of the social one. Analysts differ in political, legal and socio-economic interpretations of the reflection of world reality. However, everyone proceeds from the fact that world life is in turbulent state. In this regard, the vector of its future development may change under the influence of new concepts of a holistic view of current realities. At the same time, there is a revival of interest in the school of world-system analysis. A fundamentally new approach to the study of social evolution, based not simply on the analysis of individual societies (a feature of previous sociological theories), but on seeing the world through the prism of the system, is called world-system analysis. In a sense, the world-system approach has similarity with civilization, but extends the subject of research further and deeper, exploring systems that cover all civilizations of the world. Scientific interest in the study this approach its novelty represents, because the development of the concept of worldsystem analysis dates back to the 1970s, but over the past decades has not received proper dissemination and coverage in scientific discourses. Science is not widely represented by specialists working in the field of worldsystem analysis. The work highlights the controversy of A.G. Frank with I. Wallerstein regarding the approach to defining the basic unit of a system and measuring the historical duration of its existence. Also, from the galaxy of domestic social philosophers, some positions on this issue of the Soviet scientist A.I. are presented. Fursova. The leading center for world-system analysis (in Binghampton, at the State University of New York) is named after the French historian Fernand Braudel (1902-1985), who is considered the main predecessor of world-system analysis, who laid its foundations. Therefore, it seems logical to begin considering the phenomenon of the world system by studying scientific heritage F. Braudel on this issue. Since the Enlightenment, philosophers and social scientists, relying on the idea of progress and likening history to natural science, have understood historical time as a linear and irreversible process. At the beginning of the 20th century, a different understanding of social time was formed, endowing it with symbolic and semantic meaning, which predetermines the spread of alternative research directions. In the middle of the 20th century, the methodological works of F. Braudel, devoted to new approaches to the study of social sciences, appeared on the social and humanitarian scientific scene. In particular, the scientist devotes significant attention to the consideration of the phenomenon of historical duration, delving into the study of the genius of K. Marx. F. Braudel sees the secret of the power of thought of Marxism in the creation of a construction of social models that was unique at that time, when immersed in the changing flows of time, their true strong and fundamental structure would remain unchanged. The perpetuation of these models was reflected in the fact that the scientific community began to perceive social models K. Marx as unchangeable laws, a priori explanations, automatically inherent in all societies. At the same time, subjecting K. Marx’s concept to critical reflection, F. Braudel notes the rigid interpretation of social laws, which limits the creative power of the most powerful system of social analysis created in the last century, which can only be restored in a long-term analysis, which is understood as a harmonious dialogue of social sciences. F. Braudel defines the concept of world-economy - this is a space that affects “only part of the Universe, an economically independent piece of the planet, capable of being basically self-sufficient, such that its internal connections and exchanges impart a certain organic unity.” Braudel identifies three rules for the existence of the world economy. The first rule is the delineation of the territory, marked by slowly varying limits of space. The second rule is the prosperity of the dominant capitalist center. The third rule is the hierarchy of different zones, thanks to which the center embodies all advanced innovations, the “neutral zone” represents underdeveloped areas, and the periphery is characterized by archaism, and therefore, susceptibility to exploitation. Thus, the reason for the existence of a world economy lies in the presence of one vast economy that permeates all territories. Today, all trends towards integration processes are justified by globalization. It turns out that society, in its desire to create a global economic space, is striving to erase the boundaries between world-economies and create a large-scale single world-economy. The question of which country will become its heart remains open.F. Braudel is convinced that the definition of the country of the heart of the world economy depends, first of all, on history; moreover, the political power of the state must coincide with economic advantage: “success depends on your inclusion in the circle of the chances that a given era provides, on turns, on savings. Power accumulates, just like money.” “Secular trends” (secular trends) of F. Braudel are similar to the concepts of the economic cycle and assume the cyclical development of capitalist world-economies: “A world-economy can move its center, revise its peripheral areas.” The non-linear nature of Braudel’s world-economy is determined by historical movements of development centers. Thus, during the period of the first secular trend (XIII century), the world's economic advantage was concentrated in the Italian city-states. The center of the second moved to Spain and Portugal, and later Holland (from the 16th century). The beginning of the third secular trend was marked by industrial revolution, who moved the world economy to England (XVIII century), then in the first half of the XX century. in America. F. Braudel emphasized the peculiarity of the world economy in its constant confrontation with a strong opponent, who was always waiting for a mistake and an opportunity to take advantage of it. Thus, the determining motive for the formation of centers of world economies is non-random accidents. Developing the thought of F. Braudel, one can create an integral chain of accidents that predetermined history. The phenomenon of accidents ultimately translates into an unknown pattern and gives rise to the movement of the centers of world economies. Thus, the fantastic adventure of the Crusades accelerated the commercial rise of the Christian world and Venice; the fall of Venice was followed by the active growth of European cities, which gave rise to the era of great geographical discoveries, which showed the world the New World, which to the 20th century took a contending role in the new world economy. F. Braudel’s concept has a clear difference from the Marxist model, primarily in the fact that the French historian abandons the laws of the stages of the historical process and studies the development capitalist relations not within the framework of a nation-state, but at the level of transnational world-economies.F. Braudel does not deny the Marxist model of history, but only opposes some of the ways of its application. The identification of a new dimension of history and a specific historical subject in the form of the structures under study allowed Braudel to create an original model of historical research. First, the “structures of everyday life” are considered, then the economic structures themselves and the social structures that arise on their basis, including their state and legal shell, are analyzed. In conclusion, it is shown how a world economy appears as a result of the identified structures. These are the origins of the analysis of the world system, laid by F. Braudel. greatest contribution The development of Braudel's ideas is influenced by the actively developing direction of modern social science - world-system analysis, the founder and theorist of which was I. Wallerstein. The recognized father of the founder of world-system analysis is the American sociologist, neo-Marxist philosopher Immanuel Wallerstein (b. 1930), who created and headed the Center for the Study of Economies, Historical Systems of Civilizations (Binghamton University, USA). World-system analysis is unique and fundamentally different from other disciplines, primarily in its unusual object of study. This is not a market like in economics, not civil society as in sociology, not the state as in politics, it is the world taken as a system
worldsystem.
Analyzing the works of I. Wallerstein on this issue, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. The concept of world-system analysis occupies an ambiguous position in social scientific thought, but leans toward neo-Marxist trends.
Today, of all socio-philosophical movements, the teaching, in particular, of the most prominent representative of the school of world-system analysis, I. Wallerstein, to a greater extent serves as the personification of neo-Marxism. This is not about establishing a global renaissance of Marxism, which has already disappeared beyond historical horizons. Nowadays, the world system looks more complex; at least, scientific consciousness has reached a new level of development, which allows us to evaluate many fundamentally important concepts differently (for example, social stratification, which is complicated to the limit by the new post-industrial reality). However, the methodological principles are similar for both theorists. K. Marx drew a lot from the arsenal of natural science, relying on a linear approach to the phenomenon of development, which was based on the axiom of its progression and irreversibility. World-system theory is a “reboot” of Marxism with the latest developments in the field of non-linear constructions, the theory of the development of nonequilibrium systems.2. Worldsystem theory is an alternative theory of rational knowledge.
I. Wallerstein argues that today's world is shaken by the dominance of two realities: globalization and terrorism. The first brings hope, the second brings danger. Most researchers are guided by Margaret Thatcher's motto: TINA - There Is No Alternative - (trans.: there is no alternative), arguing that there is no alternative to globalization and that all states must come to terms with its extremes. The problem is that the researcher studies social phenomena, breaking them down separately: politics, economics, sociology, culture, law, without realizing that these spheres exist mostly in our imagination, and not in real life. The phenomena are so intertwined that one necessarily presupposes the other, one influences the other, and any phenomenon cannot be understood without taking into account the contents of other cells.
Thus, world-system analysis postulates the study of social phenomena in an indissoluble unity. Proponents of the world-system concept argue that individual disciplines within which research is conducted only hinder, and do not contribute to, understanding the world,3. The object of study of world-system analysis replaces the standard unit of analysis in the form of the nation-state and represents the world through the prism of systematicity and historicity - the world-system. Thus, social reality is not limited to numerous nation-states, but represents something more that should be called the world-system, which is a social formation with its own history.4. The world system is a territorial-temporal space that covers many political, economic, legal and cultural units, and is a single organism that is subject to uniform systemic laws.5. The definition of the “location” of the world system in “Timespace” is ambiguous. According to I. Wallerstein, similar to civilizational approaches, the existence of several world systems that are experiencing certain stages of development is substantiated. According to A. Frank, the world system is the development of the same global community with its subordinate peripheries, which periodically transforms its power.
6. The evolution of the world system consists of a transition from a world empire (political power as the dominant) to a world economy (trade is the dominant one).
American economist Karl Polanyi (1886-1964) argued that there are three forms economic organization: reciprocity (according to the principle “you - to me, I - to you”), redistribution (when goods rise from the bottom up the social ladder, and then partially come back from there) and the market (when the exchange takes a monetary form and takes place on public platforms). This is how it happened. that three types of historical systems - mini-systems, world-empires and world-economies - once again confirmed the existence of Polanyi’s three forms of economic organization. In minisystems, the economy was built on the principles of reciprocity, world empires practiced redistribution, and world economies practiced market exchange. 7. Expression of skepticism towards the fact of the existence of globalization in the modern world system.I. Wallerstein describes the world system within the framework of the methodology of synergetics and comes to an unexpected conclusion: the world system of capitalism today does not globalize the world, but is in a nonequilibrium state, which is clearly impossible to determine today, therefore “...reading the current reality as global is erroneous.” 8. World system methodology analysis postulates a single-disciplinary approach to the study of society. True, I. Wallerstein himself sometimes violates the logic of his stated approach, and instead of a systemic, holistic image of social reality creates a summary mosaic construction.9. Worldsystem analysis is a litmus test that reveals the state of the world community.
10. The modern world system is in a state of crisis, which is generating an increase in violence, the level of social tension, etc.
11. Worldsystem analysis is intended to revolutionize the classical approach to the study of social science disciplines, including legal ones. Initially, the “general designer” of worldsystem analysis intended to create a new discipline in this intellectual field; the plan of the ideological inspirer has not yet been implemented, but does not exclude the possibility of implementation in the near future However, as the trend shows, world-system analysis is gradually moving beyond the scope of macrosociology and extending its influence to other branches of social science. Thus, in the event of the emergence of a separate scientific discipline of world-system analysis, the subject of its study will cover the sum of macro-analyses: political, economic, legal. In this regard, the heuristic significance and high appreciation of the school of world-system analysis of I. Wallerstein is especially seen. The methodological significance of world-system analysis for the theory of state and law is manifested in the following perspectives: 1) Formulation, along with civilizational and formational approaches to the typology of states, of a qualitatively new, but combining characteristics of both of the above, world-systemic. 2) Consideration of existing legal systems through the prism of world-system analysis. 3) Formation of a world-system theory of the origin of state and law, as well as a world-system theory of legal understanding. Links to sources 1. Braudel, F. Time of the world. Material civilization, economics and capitalism, XV–XVIII centuries. T.3 / Ed. N.V. Rudnitskaya. –M. : Progress, 1992. –681 p.
2.Braudel, F. History and social sciences. Historical duration / Ed. I.S. Kona //Philosophy and methodology of history, 2000. –P. 115–142.3. Wallerstein, I. World-system analysis: introduction: Transl. from English N. Tyukina. –M. : Publishing house “Territory of the Future”, 2006. –248 pp. 4. Poletaeva, M.A. Globalization as a cultural problem: analysis of Western scientific discourse (I. Wallerstein and S. Huntington) / M.A. Poletaeva // Bulletin of the Moscow State Linguistic University, 2012. – No. 11 (644). -WITH. 5671.5. Syzdykova, M. At the origins of world-system analysis / M. Syzdykova // Interuniversity Bulletin, 2010. –1(11). -WITH. 6771.
