In “The Rise
and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System”, Immanuel Wallerstein
presents the notion of a “world system” as the means to analyzing the
international system. By providing a historical account of how capitalism
flourished in Europe and subsequently spread on to Asia and Africa, Wallerstein
has attempted to highlight how the global world order shifted from the
establishment of a “world empire” to a “world economy”, and thus draw a
trajectory to the ultimate collapse of a capitalist system in favour of a “socialist
world government”.
While
tracing the path followed by Europe in arriving at its current stage of
development, Wallerstein highlights three interrelated features of the
capitalist system of exchange: the rise and fall of Mercantilism, the
entrenchment of structural positions in the world economy and the subsequent
colonization that occurred. Following the European world system’s decision to
forgo expansion in favour of the development of stable political and economic
structures internal to the states, Europe partially withdrew from the world
market. However, it was within this framework of isolation that (what
Wallerstein has described as the European nations’ “race” to diversify economic
activities) that the core, peripheral and semi-peripheral states established
their positions in the world economy. Rapid industrialization, coupled with
improved military, transport and communication, allowed for European states to
move towards the status as a ‘core’ in the world economy. However, the
geographic expansion of the European world economy and a decline in
mercantilism was imminent. In an attempt to locate sources of raw materials and
new markets for manufactured goods, the world economy subsumed the “mini-systems”
such as the Russian and Ottoman empires, into the broader world-system.
In addition,
Wallerstein has argued that the structural positions occupied by states are not
fixed and are subject to change. As a result of the expansion the world economy
and the increasing emphasis placed on industrial rather than agricultural
capitalism, nations which had an advantage in the manufacturing sector were
able to gain “political ascendancy”; hence, signifying a shift towards the
core. Furthermore, the “Scramble for Africa” resulted in the exploitation of
untapped sources of raw materials and labour, creation of new markets and
allowed for a shift from manufacturing towards provision of infra-structure to develop
these peripheral nations.
Given the
trajectory faced by European nations and subsequent creation of a world
economy, Wallerstein argues that while the capitalist mode of production may be
crucial to the growth of the world economy, there exists a contradiction within
the system itself: “whereas in the short run the maximization of profit
requires maximizing the withdrawal of surplus from immediate consumption of the
majority, in the long-run the continued production of surplus requires a mass
demand which can only be created by redistributing the surplus withdrawn”. The
creation of an “urban proletariat” as a result of the process of manufacturing
has led to an increase in the “anti-capitalist mass spirit” which manifests
itself as trade unions and socialist parties aiming to challenge the bourgeoisie
of the prevalent system. In addition, the increase in supply of agricultural
commodities has outstripped the increase in demand for the goods culminating in
a “bottleneck of demand”. Therefore, alongside capitalist tendencies, there
exists a need for “social liberalism or welfare state ideology” in order to
prevent greater unrest in the international system.
In essence,
what Wallerstein argues is that states are interdependent; however, owing to
the economic balance of power, conflict between them is inevitable. Therefore,
there is a need to tweak the capitalist system to incorporate redistributive
measures, in order to prevent complete exploitation of the proletariat at the
hands of the bourgeoisie and the subsequent organization of the former to challenge
the latter.
Fantastic post - great summary and analysis. And I like that you use the phrase "economic balance of power" to explain how conflict is inevitable between states that are interdependent. Then could one argue that capitalism is a cause for conflict? Well, if you look at the academic literature on this topic, recent scholarship argues that there is a "capitalist peace". Erik Gartzke argues that, just as with the "democratic peace", capitalism in fact leads to peace, not war. How does the capitalist peace theory mesh with Wallerstein's piece?
ReplyDeleteThe capitalist system in essence then can't survive primarily because it lacks the redistributive capabilities and because of a lack of resources for masses to consume, the absence of a demand will lead to the eventual demise of the system.
ReplyDelete