Zheng Jiwei and Song Xin: Western Leftist Scholars' Research on World-Systems Theory since the 21st Century

Immanuel Wallerstein is known in Western academia as a "Neo-Marxist," and his world-systems theory exerts tremendous influence in international academic circles. On August 31, 2019, Wallerstein passed away. The New York Times remarked that Wallerstein "shook up the field of sociology with his views on Western dominance of the modern world and his insights into the nature of sociological inquiry." The Journal of World-Systems Research, in "In Memoriam: Immanuel Wallerstein," noted that Wallerstein was "an innovative and influential social scientist who led a scholarly movement to build a coherent framework for understanding the emergence and development of global capitalism." Prior to the 21st century, research by Western left-wing scholars on Wallerstein's world-systems theory primarily focused on two aspects: first, affirming the value of his pioneering integrated research paradigm; and second, exploring the significance of studying the developmental issues of underdeveloped countries from a global perspective. Entering the 21st century, as economic globalization and capitalist productive forces have deepened and capitalist class relations have undergone major shifts, world-systems theory has continued to be a focal point of concern in foreign academia. Western left-wing scholars have summarized world-systems theory’s critique and transcendence of modernization theory, studied the relationship between the modern world-system and capitalism, and explored the relationship between world-systems theory and the Marxist theory of class. Combing through the research of Western left-wing scholars on Wallerstein's world-systems theory in the new century helps promote the academic community's understanding of Marxist theory and its focus on exposing the essence of capitalism.

I. World-Systems Theory and Modernization Theory

Wallerstein’s world-systems theory was born during the heyday of modernization theory’s development following the Second World War. Western left-wing scholars believe that the critique of modernization theory was the very purpose for which Wallerstein established his world-systems theory. John Bies points out: "Wallerstein argued that traditional social sciences were biased and inaccurate. This was not because of the way they researched, but the way they viewed the world. One of the main factors affecting their objectivity was a Eurocentric mentality. Simply put, everything was compared against the standards of European or Western culture." Daniel Chirot hit the nail on the head even more directly, suggesting: "Wallerstein’s world-system theory is precisely here to debunk the claims of so-called 'modernization theory'—the idea that all societies can achieve greater economic prosperity and modernity along a path similar to that followed by earlier Western societies." Cosma Sorinel summarized the tools and intellectual sources Wallerstein used to critique modernization theory from three aspects. First, Wallerstein’s world-systems theory absorbed Marx’s "dichotomy of capital and labor, the stage-based view of world economic development from feudalism to capitalism, the theory of capital accumulation, and dialectics." Second, world-systems theory adopted the French historian Fernand Braudel’s analysis of the extensive economic exchanges in the European world between 1400 and 1800. Third, Wallerstein inherited the concepts of "core" and "periphery" from dependency theory.

Entering the 21st century, modernization theory has still not vanished. In 2000, Michael Latham pointed out: "Recently, in post-Cold War analyses hailing the collapse of state socialism and the transformative power of capitalist markets, the idea of modernization has seen a revival." Consequently, some Western left-wing scholars have criticized modernization theory by studying the relationship between Wallerstein’s world-systems theory and modernization theory. Western left-wing scholars, represented by Cosma Sorinel and Agussalim Burhanuddin, have analyzed the critique and transcendence of modernization theory by world-systems theory from three perspectives.

First, world-systems theory holds that what hinders the development of underdeveloped countries is the international core-periphery ^[1] structure created by capitalism, whereas modernization theory explains this issue from a perspective internal to the nation-state. Burhanuddin argues that modernization theory blames internal factors—such as traditional culture, overpopulation, low investment, and insufficient achievement motivation—as the primary causes for the backwardness of Third World countries. Wallerstein’s world-systems theory refutes this view, criticizing modernization theory’s method of reifying the nation-state as the sole unit of analysis while refusing to discuss economic progress in terms of deeper structural factors; instead, it analyzes the development of underdeveloped countries by taking the capitalist world-economy as a unified whole. In this regard, Western left-wing scholars point out that world-systems theory maintains that world-scale capital accumulation has formed a regional structure of core-semi-periphery-periphery with specific functions in the division of labor and production. It is precisely this international structure, rather than internal national factors, that hinders the development of underdeveloped countries.

Second, world-systems theory asserts that every country has a different developmental path within the capitalist world-system, whereas the view proposed by modernization theorists—that national development possesses a uniformity—is seen by world-systems theorists as absurd. Sorinel believes that modernization theory "assumes all countries can only follow a single evolutionary path of development." To this, Burhanuddin further points out: "Modernists generally believe that all countries may follow a single path of evolutionary development from 'tradition' to 'modernity,' a path that can be articulated and applied to all national cases, but they ignore the world-historical development of the international structures that constrain national development."

Third, world-systems theory studies the world economy from a long-term historical perspective, whereas modernization theory is characterized by ahistoricism. Burhanuddin points out that Wallerstein was deeply influenced by the Annales school representative Braudel’s discourse on the longue durée ^[2], placing history at the center of world-systems theory analysis. In this regard, Sorinel believes that modernization theory ignores the world-historical development of transnational structures that constrain local and national development, while world-systems theory holds that the historical experience of colonialism and foreign rule played a reversal role in the development of many countries. World-systems theory maintains that Third World countries cannot follow the Western path because they experienced things the West did not—the experience of being colonized for over a century fundamentally altered the developmental path of Third World countries, thereby creating a historical chasm between the two worlds.

Walter Goldfrank summarized the research content outlined by Wallerstein in his critique of modernization theory: the systemic operation of the capitalist world-economy, the modes and reasons for its origins, its comparison with historical non-capitalist modes of production, and its ongoing transition toward socialism. He further claimed that to conduct these studies, three tasks are necessary: redoing our historical narratives, accumulating quantitative data for the new world-system, and examining and re-determining our concepts. In Goldfrank’s view, Wallerstein focused his attention on the third task; "to a large extent, re-cognition and re-interpretation is his method." Therefore, these Western left-wing scholars believe that Wallerstein’s world-systems theory is a theory established on the basis of critiquing and transcending modernization theory.

II. The Modern World-System and Capitalist Development

Based on the significant changes occurring in the capitalist world during the era of economic globalization, some Western left-wing scholars have attempted to research and explore the developmental process of capitalism from the research paradigm of modern world-systems theory. As Burhanuddin stated: "World-systems theory is both a historical explanation of the development of the capitalist system on the world stage over several centuries and a structural explanation of contemporary global phenomena." However, some Western left-wing scholars have raised doubts about world-systems theory, regarding it as an established but substantively ambiguous social science. Centering on issues such as the origins of the capitalist world, the redefinition of the "core" and "periphery" concepts, and the relationship between economic globalization and world-systems theory, Western left-wing scholars have launched explorations and debates regarding modern world-systems theory.

First, Western left-wing scholars have explored the origins of the modern world-system and the capitalist world. Some scholars believe that the developmental process of the modern world-system is the process of capitalist development and expansion on a global scale. Other scholars suggest that the modern world-system is a system that covers the entire process of human social development, and the capitalist world is merely one part of the modern world-system. Their divergence lies in the different definitions of the starting point of the modern world-system.

Andre Gunder Frank once reached a consensus with Wallerstein on the birth date of the world-system: "Immanuel and I both wrote about the development of the world capitalist system originating in Europe between 1450 and 1500, and its expansion from the West European center to an increasing amount of the overseas world." However, after reviewing an early version of Janet Abu-Lughod’s Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250–1350, Frank re-examined the date of the world-system's birth. Frank believed Abu-Lughod was a key figure in world-systems theory. She pushed the start date of the world-system back to 1250, arguing that there was an economic system in the 13th century, but this system collapsed in the 14th century. Transitioning from the collapse of this system, the modern world-system emerged. This had a very significant impact on Frank's future research direction. He began to ponder a new question: Did the world-system begin before 1500? If not, "then how did this world-system emerge, when did it emerge, and why did it not emerge earlier? Moreover, perhaps the world-system has continuity across all these eras. Perhaps the apparent start and end of different world-systems merely mask the periodic fluctuations of the same world-system." Frank’s pursuit of these questions led him to trace the beginning of the world-system back to 5,000 years ago. Frank claimed this was the first comprehensive critique of Wallerstein's view that world-systems theory was born at the end of the 14th and beginning of the 15th centuries. Thus, an opposition formed between the "world system" school represented by Frank and the "modern world-system" school represented by Wallerstein.

The modern world-system school, represented by Wallerstein, believes that there are many systems in the world, and the modern world-system—that is, the capitalist world-system—is merely one among many. Conversely, the world system school, represented by Frank, believes there is only one world system throughout all of history. In Frank’s view, it is necessary to move the study of the world system to 5,000 years ago because this breaks the sequence of feudalism–capitalism–socialism. The world system school views the world system as the aggregate of all world economies and does not believe there are differences between these economies: "Even if every economy in the world is unique, they are similar to each other in their internal characteristics—all these economic systems possess the same qualities of core-periphery relations and hegemonic processes."

However, the modern world-system school, represented by Wallerstein and Samir Amin, opposes the single world system view, believing instead that multiple world systems have existed. They point out that as one among many world systems, the modern world-system's most distinctive feature is its capitalist nature of constant capital accumulation, and thus it can also be called the capitalist world-system. In Wallerstein’s world-systems theory, "peripheral" production processes are concentrated at the edges of global geographic space, while "core" production processes are concentrated at the heart of global geographic space. But it is not the first world-economy in history; rather, it is the first world-economy in history to survive and flourish in this manner, and it does so precisely by becoming fully capitalist. That is to say, the capitalist world—the modern world-system—originated in the 16th century.

Second, Western left-wing scholars have discussed the definition of the concepts of "core" and "periphery" within the world system. Many Western left-wing scholars point out that in recent decades, as capitalism has continued to develop, semi-peripheralization and peripheralization have undergone qualitative transformations.

The geographical or territorial concepts of "core" and "periphery" are gradually becoming obsolete. Today, the relationship between production and geography—or between capital accumulation and space—is shifting. New relationships have emerged between the state, class, institutions, and accumulation; "core" and "periphery" increasingly fail to conform to the geographical logic of world-systems theory, which defines nation-states by specific territories. William Robinson argues that due to shifts in industrial leadership within core zones, "there are examples of traditional core-like industries in some less developed countries. Likewise, in so-called 'core' countries, there exists a core-periphery division of labor between major centers of innovation and development." In global society, "core" and "periphery" social regions are delineated less along national and territorial lines and more along transnational social lines. That is to say, while the functional characteristics of "core" and "periphery" remain analytically valid, their connection to specific geographical locations may only be a temporary circumstance. Furthermore, with the ebb and flow of the capitalist world-economy, no single country can be guaranteed a permanent position within the world-system.

Faced with numerous academic challenges to the concepts of "core" and "periphery," many scholars have attempted to provide new definitions from various perspectives, even through empirical analysis. However, while describing the characteristics of "core" and "periphery" is relatively simple, providing specific, generalizable reference points is difficult. On one hand, "core" and "periphery" need to be re-understood and redefined using the logic of social science rather than the terminology of territory, geography, or statistics, or the methods of empirical analysis. On the other hand, this may be because—as Debra Straussfogel once pointed out—world-systems theory, when redefining different regions, must account not only for the structural shifts existing in the current capital-based world-system structure but also for the possibility of future world-system structures based on modes of production (or multiple modes) that have not yet emerged or been determined. As world capitalism continues to change in the 21st century, new indicators will inevitably be injected into the criteria for dividing "core," "periphery," and "semi-periphery" regions.

Third, Western Leftist scholars have explored the relationship between world-systems and economic globalization. Against the backdrop of economic globalization becoming a hotly debated academic topic since the end of the 20th century, some Western Leftist scholars argue that world-systems theory was not a theory born to study development issues, but precisely one generated to study economic globalization, thereby viewing it as a "precursor" to economic globalization theory. They view the world-shaking changes occurring from the late 20th century to the early 21st century—what they call "globalization"—as something new. However, Wallerstein denied this claim. He stated his view on "globalization" clearly: "Personally, I think it is meaningless as an analytical concept." Western Leftist scholars have engaged in debate regarding whether world-systems theory is a theory for studying economic globalization from two perspectives.

On one hand, the answer to this question depends on how the concept of "globalization" is understood. Western Leftist scholars provide three interpretations of "globalization." The first view holds that "globalization" is a developmental process originating at the very beginning of human history that has recently accelerated sharply, representing the geographical extension of material and cultural exchange. The second view sees "globalization" as a process that moves in tandem with the expansion and development of capitalism and has already persisted for over 500 years. The third view treats "globalization" as a new change related to world developments over the past few decades. Western Leftist scholars, represented by Robinson, point out that Wallerstein's world-systems theory belongs to the second category. In their view, long before the word "globalization" was invented, world-system theorists were already talking about globalization. They believe world-systems theory is a critique of capitalism as a continuously developing, expansive system. Over the past 500 years, the capitalist world-system has absorbed all small systems and world-empires, established markets and production networks, and ultimately brought all people across the globe into its logic, becoming a single global structure. Therefore, by the end of the 19th century, only one historical system—the capitalist world-system—covered the entire world. Robinson argues that it is in this sense that world-systems theory can be seen as a theory of globalization, even if its primary architect refuses to use the term.

On the other hand, how capitalism is defined also touches the core of this issue. Some scholars follow Max Weber’s view, seeing capitalism as a market or exchange relationship, arguing that any production for exchange on the market for profit is capitalist. Under this definition, the functions of capitalism based on market relations expand and develop, and economic globalization is viewed as a form of international commercial interaction with a certain intensity and scope. Meanwhile, Wallerstein and other world-system theorists adopted Marx’s definition, defining capitalism as a relation of production characterized by capital accumulation through the exploitative relationship between capital and labor. According to this definition, they do not characterize economic globalization as something new, but rather as a quantitative intensification of the dominant capitalist development that began in the 16th century. Robinson notes that this is precisely why Wallerstein, Giovanni Arrighi, and other scholars insist that the global changes of the late 20th and early 21st centuries can be adequately described as "more of the same," and why they dismiss the concept of globalization.

III. World-Systems Theory and Marxist Class Theory

Following the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe ^[3], as the world socialist movement fell into a low ebb, research into class by Western Leftist scholars was marginalized, though their work continued. Entering the 21st century, especially since the 2008 financial crisis, new changes have appeared in the class structure and class conditions of the capitalist world. The internationalization of the capitalist and working classes has deepened, and class contradictions have further intensified, making class issues once again a focal point of research in foreign academic circles. In this context, Western Leftist scholars’ research on Wallerstein’s world-systems theory has focused on its relationship with Marxist class theory.

Some Western Leftist scholars believe Wallerstein abandoned Marxist class theory. For instance, Robert Brenner argues that a correct explanation of capitalism requires an analysis of class, commodities, and exploitation, whereas Wallerstein erroneously focused on the trade-based division of labor and exchange relations in a non-Marxist manner, thereby excluding an adequate explanation of capitalist class relations. William Martin argues that, given Wallerstein’s emphasis on systemic dynamics and the prioritization of First World–Third World exploitative relations, class struggle does not play a sufficiently important role in Wallerstein’s work. He notes that close attention to class structure is largely absent from Wallerstein’s writings; for example, prior to the fourth volume of The Modern World-System, Wallerstein showed almost no class conflict.

However, other scholars argue that Wallerstein did not ignore class but remained within the Marxist tradition, expanding Marxist class theory to a global scale. Chamsy el-Ojeili points out from two perspectives that it is highly inappropriate to criticize Wallerstein for ignoring class, as he viewed class from the beginning as an element within the world-system related to struggles for power, wealth, and status. On one hand, Wallerstein’s flexible class model is one of constant formation rather than eternal, static, or immutable categories; compared to static conceptualizations of class theory, it allows for close attention to the difficult but pressing questions of class consciousness and class action. On the other hand, Marx was concerned not only with capitalists extracting economic surplus from laborers but also with core countries extracting economic surplus from periphery countries through unequal exchange, a work that Wallerstein is continuing.

Amin also spoke highly of Wallerstein, believing that Wallerstein provided an ingenious supplement to Marxist class theory. Taking Wallerstein’s analysis of the French Revolution as an example, Wallerstein argued that the French Revolution was not a domestic event within France, but the product of the escalating conflict between France and Britain for hegemony within the capitalist world-economy. On one hand, class struggle can be described as an internal factor within each country; on the other hand, relations between states can be described as an external factor. Amin noted that Wallerstein considered the latter to be the determining factor: "In my view, although Wallerstein is too extreme in this direction, he indeed has sufficient reason to attribute the role played by the French Revolution in establishing the modern world-system entirely to it." Although Wallerstein’s view that external relations between states are the decisive factor influencing revolution is incorrect, it is worth affirming that his expansion of class theory has played a pioneering role.

Burhanuddin agrees with Amin’s assessment and believes that, at an analytical level, world-systems theory represents a breakthrough for Marxist class theory. "He adopted Marx’s class perspective, thereby providing his own system of class stratification on a global scale. Therefore, it can be considered that Wallerstein’s 'core' and 'periphery' typologies are similar to Marx’s 'bourgeoisie' and 'proletariat.' That is, core countries are the upper class, periphery countries are the exploited working class, and semi-periphery countries are the middle class." Meanwhile, Burhanuddin points out that the difference between these two theoretical analyses is that "Wallerstein’s social strata operate on a global scale rather than within a single nation. Wallerstein’s world-system is a social reality composed of interconnected classes represented by countries in three regions under the capitalist mode of production. This means that the class structure of a specific country must be interpreted as subordinate to the international capitalist division of labor. Such an analysis will help explain the performance of various countries in international interaction."

Chirot also concurs, arguing that Wallerstein was strongly influenced by Marxism and emphasized the exploitative nature of capitalism. However, he did not rely solely on the internal class structures of individual societies; rather, he proposed a theory in which entire societies could be categorized into broad classes reflecting more classical Marxist class categories. Within this, the "ruling class" in the world capitalist system consists of the ruling classes of the most powerful core countries, who compete with one another for hegemony. At the same time, Chirot believes the core of Wallerstein’s world-system thought is that revolutions outside core capitalism will challenge the privilege of human and material resources that core countries easily exploit, thereby leading to world-wide revolution. He argues: "For Wallerstein, unless revolutionary movements within individual societies—or even within several of them—can successfully trigger a capitalist revolution, it is impossible to successfully dismantle capitalism."

Whether criticizing or endorsing Wallerstein’s world-systems theory, Western Leftist scholars have, through their debates and research on this issue, pushed the academic community to pay attention to and research class issues within the capitalist world. On one hand, scholars represented by Martin believe that world-systems theory identified the problem of class formation on a global scale, but that the class issue clearly remains unresolved. In Martin's view, as the world situation develops and proletarian protest activities prevail, it is evident that today, almost no labor movement is unaware of the global nature of capital, the increasing gap between rich and poor, and the necessity of trans-national and trans-racial connections. Within capitalist core countries...

These developments not only "failed to provide stable zones of labor exploitation and labor peace abroad," but "further prompted a new global understanding of the systemic characteristics of capital accumulation. These developments require world-system researchers to develop new concepts and study capital-labor relations, especially the new class formations and forms of labor organization situated on the 'core-periphery' boundaries across countries and continents." Taking the study of feminist movements as an example, he points out that in the past, the older generation of the Left believed that women's liberation would have to wait until after the revolution, the seizure of state power, or the establishment of a socialist state. However, to understand such progress that transcends the nation-state today and move toward a global movement composed of localized movements, there is a greater need for the world-system as a whole to commit collectively to addressing racial oppression and anti-systemic movements. On the other hand, some Western Leftist scholars have achieved certain results in the study of class struggle on a world scale. First, many scholars have noted the existence of class alliances at national borders, recognizing that the bourgeoisie in these areas conspire together when safeguarding their own interests. Second, the state itself is regarded as a mediator in the grand drama of class struggle within the scope of the world economy. Third, Wallerstein’s impatience with descriptive occupational or class terms (such as slave owners, professionals, and peasants) resulted in a loss of understanding regarding the role their activities play in the operation of world capitalism.

World-system theory is a theoretical system formed in response to the realities of the changing capitalist world during the process of globalization; it absorbs nourishment from Marxist class theory and critiques Western capitalist modernization theory. It has not only revived historical sociology but also established a theoretical system for explaining the differentiation of world capitalism. As Robertson stated: "Wallerstein has made a massive contribution to our thinking and research on the contemporary world by reminding us of the historical and large-scale nature of the processes consistent with world capitalism. If we are to understand the current period of globalization and global crisis, we must have a long-term historical perspective—a perspective that identifies enduring cycles, trends, structures, and patterns of structural change." Although world-system theory has sparked many controversies among Western Leftist scholars in the 21st century—even regarding its fundamental concepts—it has also gained greater influence through these debates, thereby promoting the overseas academic community's understanding of Marxist theory and its focus on exposing the essence of capitalism. Following Wallerstein's passing, many well-known foreign newspapers and journals published commemorative and critical articles on him. It can be expected that the international academic community will continue to pay close attention to world-system theory.

(Notes omitted)

(Author's affiliation: School of Marxism, Renmin University of China)

Network Editor: Zhang Jian Source: New Vision (Xīn Shìyě), Issue 4, 2021