Li Xiaole: Liberation of the Periphery in Samir Amin's Perspective: Essence, Logic and Possibilities
Samir Amin (1931–2018) was a renowned Egyptian Neo-Marxist theorist, an expert in dependency theory, world-systems theory, and globalization theory, and an international political economist. Amin was a prolific writer throughout his life, publishing numerous classic texts including Accumulation on a World Scale (1970), Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism (1973), The Crisis of Imperialism (1975), Imperialism and Unequal Development (1976), The Law of Value and Historical Materialism (1977), The Law of Worldwide Value (1978), The Arab Economy Today (1982), The Challenge of Globalization (2003), The Crisis of Capitalism (2003), The Liberal Virus (2007), The Reawakening of the Arab World (2014) [1], and The Spring of the Peoples (2017). In The Spring of the Peoples, Amin defined the social movements originating in the Middle East and North Africa as anti-imperialist and (potentially) anti-capitalist movements. To keep the power to create the future firmly in their own hands, the Arab people must unite, find active development paths truly suited to their respective national conditions, and join with the peoples of the world to wage a resolute struggle against imperialism and capitalism.
I. From Center to Periphery: The Historical Trajectory of the Arab World’s Shifting Status
The category of the "world system" was first proposed by Rosa Luxemburg. It broke through Marx’s ideal-type analysis of the capitalist mode of production, advocating for the expansion of the object of analysis to the non-capitalist world—that is, a world system totality composed jointly by the capitalist mode of production and a non-capitalist environment. In Luxemburg’s view, the global accumulation of capital and the realization of surplus value were achieved not through commodity production [within the core] but through commodity exchange between capitalist and non-capitalist countries. Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein was the first to define Luxemburg’s concept as the "modern world system." He emphasized that the tribes, nations, and states formed in human history did not evolve or develop in isolation but always formed certain "world-level systems" through mutual interconnectedness. In terms of timing, "from the end of the 15th century to the beginning of the 16th century, a pattern we can call the European world system was declared formed." In other words, the world system did not encompass the entire globe until the formation of a unified world market in the 16th century, marking the true formation of a global capitalist economic system. Both Luxemburg and Wallerstein described the modern world system as an economic unity.
Consistent with Luxemburg and Wallerstein, Amin’s dependency theory and world-systems theory also maintain that: 1. "Center and periphery" constitute the basic structure of the world system. 2. "The relationship between center and periphery is essentially economic." The modern capitalist system implies the emergence of the first unified global social system. This system is a world economic system ruled by the law of worldwide value. Amin believed this was not an arbitrary judgment, "but an expression of the dominance of the economy within the capitalist mode, and the subordination of politics and ideology to capital accumulation." Where Amin diverged from Luxemburg and Wallerstein was in deepening the understanding of the "center-periphery" relationship from the perspectives of global history and political economy.
By re-understanding the world system through the lens of global history, Amin broadened its temporal scope. Unlike Wallerstein, who used the year 1500 as the demarcation point for the world system, Amin argued that from 500 BCE to 200 BCE, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Western Iran in the Middle East had already achieved integration with some of the oldest civilizations in the Eastern Hemisphere, such as India and China, allowing a "global system" to emerge. This global system was an ancient world system termed the "tributary system" or "suzerain-vassal system" [2], which, along with the treaty system and the colonial system, constitutes one of the primary modes of international relations in world history. The so-called tributary system was a hierarchical, networked political order that existed in Asia and the Middle East from the 5th century BCE until the late 19th century, with China, India, and the Arab world serving as multi-polar centers. Amin argued that the general form of class society following the communal clan stage was tributary society, rather than slave or feudal society. Slavery and feudalism were not the rule; they were merely peripheral forms of the tributary mode. "Various conditions determined the specific form of each tributary society" (caste, the European feudal manor, villages subject to state bureaucracy, etc.).
During the more than twenty centuries examined by Amin, the global structure of the tributary system was relatively stable. However, with shifts in wealth, population, and modes of production, the structure of the global system’s center and periphery quietly began to change. First, member states under the tributary system coexisted, maintaining various forms of equal contact—trade, technology, and cultural exchange—where "tribute" was more of a political symbol. In contrast, member states in the modern world system are unequal; countries in the center occupied a leading position and played a dominant role, while peripheral countries and regions were in a subordinate and dominated position. Second, although China and India played decisive roles in the tributary system, the Middle East’s advantage lay in its geographical location as the "hub of the global system, the only region with direct links to all other places." However, stagnation in the Middle East during certain periods caused its status to slide from the "center" of the world system to the "peripheral" zone. Third, Europe gradually joined the world system and became a potential new center. After the year 1000, Europe began to develop rapidly, filled with active towns and towering monuments, fully demonstrating the massive growth in surpluses created by European agriculture. "In the 13th century, Europe and China established direct contact for the first time via Mongolian territory," which meant the Middle East was no longer a mandatory transit point and was thus excluded from the central system. Fourth, the wars fought for Jerusalem accelerated the decline of the Arab region in a direct sense. As the military campaigns for Jerusalem initiated by the Roman Catholic Pope ended, the Arab world began a process of military feudalization and self-isolation. This decline gradually ended the brilliant civilization created by the Caliphate in earlier centuries, while Europe was beginning to abandon feudalism, initiate the creation of modernity, and subsequently conquer the world. "When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, it proved to be a pyrrhic victory." Fifth, the modern capitalist system that began developing in 1500 was fundamentally different from the previous tributary system. This was not merely a matter of subverting the central status of the Middle East in favor of Europe and America; several more critical points were at play: 1. Europe and America became the dominant centers on a global scale; simultaneously, the emergence of Japan expanded the scope of the center, slowly forming the prototype of today’s "collective imperialism." 2. The tributary system collapsed, and the dominance of the social system shifted from the political and ideological levels to the economic level. 3. The tributary system was a regional, decentralized, and multi-centric social system, whereas the modern world system is a global, unified social system. The primary contradiction of capitalism in the current era is no longer the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the "center" regions, but rather the contradiction and conflict between the global exploiters and the exploited, formed by "center" monopoly capital allying with the bureaucratic-comprador class of the "periphery" to oppress and exploit the broad masses of laboring people—the proletariat, peasantry, and petty bourgeoisie—in the "peripheral" regions. This dictates that national liberation movements in the "periphery" are inevitable, with goals encompassing not only political independence but also economic liberation.
II. Peripheral Liberation: Form and Substance
Starting from long-term world-systems theory and the historical logic of the Arab states’ shifting status within the world system structure, Amin argued that the Arab movements—as the "second awakening of the peoples of the South"—are in substance national liberation movements located in the peripheral zones of the world system. To keep the power to create the future firmly in the hands of the people, the Arab world must unite, find development paths truly suited to their respective national conditions, and join with the peoples of the world to wage a resolute struggle against imperialism and capitalism.
First, the nature of the Arab movements is anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist. Amin argued that the target of the Arab movements is "collective imperialism" led by US imperialism. Unlike Lenin’s view that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, Amin argued that capitalism has always been imperialist. However, current imperialism differs from the traditional plural forms of imperialism (Germany, Japan, the US, France, the UK, etc.); today the world faces a "collective imperialism" composed of the "triad" of the US, Europe, and Japan, where contradictions and interest conflicts between imperialist states have receded to a secondary position. "Collective imperialism" is unwilling to see the rise of a democratic Egypt, for in their view, Egypt would necessarily be anti-imperialist, reject neoliberal globalization, diminish the status of Saudi Arabia, and revitalize Arab unity. Regarding the Arab movements themselves, the groups of participants and their demands are diverse. Because they lacked strong organizational leadership, the participating parties conducted multiple intense discussions to achieve maximum cohesion, reaching a "minimum common program"—anti-imperialism and escaping the trap of neoliberalization. Their proposals included: 1. Reconstructing state power; 2. Breaking free from the control of the US, Israel, and the Gulf states; and 3. Opening new types of partnerships with countries such as China, Russia, India, and South Africa.
Second, the driving force of the Arab movements is the masses of the people. The Arab movements are an exercise in the people’s struggle for sovereign power. To call the Arab movements the "Spring of the Peoples" fundamentally implies that this movement transformed the people, making their resistance more organized. Ultimately, the Arab movements were merely large-scale "movements" because they did not ultimately change the social system; the Muslim Brotherhood continued and submitted to the old system of international monopoly capitalism. As Amin stated, "Politics does not mean operating within today’s defined balance of power; it means changing the balance of power." Amin held the extreme view that the liberation movement predicted by Marx—where the whole world unites to change the capitalist system—has never happened and perhaps never will; he identified more with incremental progress. Although this Arab movement was based only on immediate plans, it was nonetheless a form of progress. In his view, liberation does not require jumping completely out of globalization all at once; as long as the process of delinking from the capitalist world system begins, it is a great step forward.
Third, the goal of the Arab movements is to establish a truly democratized Arab world. This movement has three tasks: 1. Achieving social justice, including a set of reform measures such as reclaiming privatized assets, introducing a minimum wage, and establishing new rules to protect labor rights. 2. Maintaining national independence and autonomy. One of the movement's demands was to construct a dignified, independent, and autonomous government representing Egypt that does not accept the dominance of US imperialism. 3. Achieving thorough democracy. Many believe democracy is simply bourgeois democracy and multi-party elections in the Western sense. But in Amin’s view, democracy does not just mean elections; Egyptian democracy should mean a change in everyday attitudes and the daily relationships between people. "In the Arab world, as in other regions, the democratization of politics is also a core theme." The generally high concentration of monopoly capital ensures that political power is unconditionally and thoroughly at its beck and call. While the strengthening of presidential power may appear to depend on the individual, in reality, it often inherently serves the rule of the financial oligarchy. Therefore, the Arab movements are committed to achieving thorough democracy.
Finally, the prospects for the Arab movements may lean toward socialism, thereby bringing about a "Second Awakening" for the Arab world. To say that the Arab movements bring a "People's Spring" represents Amin's personal aspirations; he actively called for the movements' success. Before the manuscript was submitted for publication, the movements had not yet ended; thus, the claim that they would bring a People's Spring was more of a prediction and a beautiful vision. Of course, we now know that the movements failed, and the Arab world continues to wander in the marginalized periphery [3] under domination, unable to become an active force in restructuring the world.
There are many reasons for the failure. First, the movements lacked long-term goals. While peasants' demands for land, workers' demands for wage increases, the middle-class demand for democracy, and women's demands for rights were all realistic goals, the movement as a whole lacked a broader strategy and objective, causing it to inevitably lose its fighting spirit and direction. Second, the movements lacked strong organizational leadership. The retreat of the radical left and Communist parties was one reason for the failure. The Arab movements took the path of nationalism, the Communist parties were co-opted and marginalized by nationalism, and the radical left experienced a comprehensive defeat in the Arab region, no longer representing any alternative path but becoming part of the establishment. Furthermore, the failure was closely related to the persistent vitality of capitalism. In this sense, The People's Spring represents the possibilities brought by the people's active resistance; it means that various movements and struggles to resist and intercept imperialism are legitimate, and that the struggle for secular democratization still holds important significance at present.
III. Can the Periphery Carry the Hope for Human Emancipation?
Amin's books and articles enjoy high prestige in international academic circles, which is closely related to his firm radical left stance and original ideas. Utilizing the structuralist "center-periphery" explanatory paradigm, Amin proposed the theoretical hypothesis that the capitalist world system causes Third World peripheral countries to depend on developed countries at the center. He advocated for a socialist path of "delinking" [4] from the globalized, monopolistic capitalist system. His academic contribution lies in revealing that "unequal development in peripheral capitalism is a historical product of center-periphery relations, the result of continuous, world-scale capital accumulation that benefits the center." The essence of "center-periphery" relations is the imperialist invasion and rule of peripheral Third World countries by central capitalist countries. This is achieved through "five monopolies" [5] that firmly manipulate the political, economic, cultural, and ecological dimensions of peripheral countries, as well as their direction of social development and power over resource allocation.
Consequently, socialist movements must necessarily begin from the capitalist "periphery." Amin believed that the history of the world in the first half of the 20th century was a history of the struggle and liberation of peripheral nations. The 1905 Revolution in Russia, a semi-periphery, created conditions for the arrival of the 1917 Socialist Revolution; the 1911 Xinhai Revolution [6] in peripheral China led to the long years culminating in the founding of socialist China in 1949; the 1910 Mexican bourgeois movement lasted until the reformist Lázaro Cárdenas took office as president in 1934; and the Non-Aligned Movement of Asian and African countries at the 1955 Bandung Conference, and so on. Their commonalities lie in two points: first, they all opposed imperialism and refused to submit to central capitalist countries; second, they all started from the periphery. Therefore, Amin asserted that peripheral liberation has been placed on the historical agenda.
Our question is whether the peripheral liberation so strongly championed by Amin represents the inevitable law of human emancipation, and whether it can carry the space of hope for human emancipation. I believe that peripheral liberation itself does not represent the inevitable law of human emancipation; the theory of peripheral liberation reflects, from one side, the narrowness of measuring the political and economic structures of central capitalist countries. There are two reasons for this.
First, from a practical perspective, peripheral liberation lacks a long-term socialist strategy and objective, and it lacks a historical subject; the "delinking" path is also inconsistent with reality. Looking at the reality of the Arab movements, the anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist movements in peripheral countries lacked a long-term socialist strategy because of the retreat of radical left alliances and a superficial understanding of socialism. For instance, the Latin American socialist movement shows two types of anti-capitalist struggle: one has clear, radical goals, namely the abolition of private capitalist ownership and its replacement by workers' ownership; the other is less radical, seeking only substantial and important changes in labor-capital relations. Yet both types are called "movements for socialism." Thus, the goals and methods of struggle of the so-called "21st-century socialism" in Latin America are themselves vague. In this sense, Amin emphasizes the urgency of constructing a global socialist system today because polarization on a worldwide scale has reached unprecedented proportions: "It has become an urgent task to re-coordinate human exploration at the level of universality and the level of respecting national differences, using means inconceivable to bourgeois thought and methods beyond bourgeois practice." But as for what socialism actually is, Amin believes that Marx did not provide a complete definition, viewing it only as a more efficient, more just, and higher-order civilization. In Amin's view, "whether or not to choose a policy of breaking with the world market is the primary criterion for measuring whether a country is taking a socialist or non-socialist path." The prescription Amin offers the vast number of peripheral nations is to "delink" from the global economic system, withdraw from the capitalist world system, and carry out socialist movements.
Judging by the constituent forces of the Arab social movements, there was a lack of wide participation from the radical left and a lack of strong leadership from Communist parties; hence, there was no long-term strategy or objective. Amin believed that because social democracy occupies a dominant position among the proletariat in the Arab world, the working class is no longer the fundamental driving force for transforming the world; instead, national liberation movements have risen to become the primary driver of historical progress. This situation is similar to Africa, where for about ten to twenty years in modern African history, nationalism was prevalent. These nations held similar visions of modernization and uniting the people, but they were far from Marxism; they did not recognize class and thought that anti-imperialism could unite everyone. "Under normal circumstances, this movement would eventually transform into a socialist revolution." In fact, this is unrealistic. In The People's Spring, Amin proposed the need to redefine the historical subject—a new historical subject capable of controlling development and directing it toward socialism. But as we see now, the facts are before us: the Arab movements not only failed to achieve their expected goals but also caused the masses to pay a heavy price.
Second, from a theoretical perspective, the theory of peripheral liberation is itself non-exhaustive and vague; it cannot serve to lead and inspire the struggles of peripheral countries and regions. This is manifested in several aspects. First, the logic of polarized development between center and periphery does not delve into the problem of uneven development within peripheral capitalism. That is, Amin rarely mentions the forms of uneven development inside peripheral countries, which is a matter of particular concern for classical Marxism. Currently, even within developed capitalist countries, there are core areas and peripheral regions; as the world's most powerful capitalist country, although the United States has the highest total GDP, its development is also very uneven—the Northeast coast along the Atlantic develops rapidly, while the West and South develop slowly due to various reasons. Furthermore, unevenness occurs at all levels of social development, not just in the realms of international political and economic relations. Peripheral theory does not sufficiently account for this.
Second, it fails to adhere to the Marxist paradigm of production and class analysis. Amin claimed on various occasions to adhere to a "living Marxist theory," and his work represents a vision of establishing laws of capital accumulation on a worldwide scale, striving to explain the impact of external capitalist expansion on peripheral countries. In his view, the modes of capital accumulation are divided into two types: 1. "Self-centered" [7] accumulation in developed countries; 2. "Outward-oriented accumulation" in peripheral countries. The essential difference between the periphery and the center lies in the outward-looking nature of the peripheral economy; the periphery is integrated into the world system according to the needs of the center. The unreasonable aspect of this view is that it fails to highlight the class nature and the analytical framework of production in the peripheral accumulation mode. As Robert Brenner stated, "The origins of capitalism do not lie in trade itself, but in class formation and class struggle, arising from the internal contradictions of pre-capitalist modes of production." Additionally, regarding the discussion of the logic of capital, Amin focuses on capital accumulation, "limiting himself to the sphere of commodity exchange and circulation, without touching upon the sphere of production." As is well known, Marx's Capital first discusses the production of capital, because without production there is no distribution or exchange, and thus no realization of surplus value.
Third, regarding the expression of the primary contradiction of the world. From the standpoint of the Marxist theory of globalization, the contradiction between center and periphery is not the fundamental contradiction of today's international society, but merely a specific contradiction in one aspect of global international relations determined by the fundamental contradiction. The basic contradiction of contemporary international society in the process of globalization can be expressed as: the contradiction between the globalized large-scale production—based on the pursuit of well-being by the people of all countries—and the hegemonistic world pattern dominated by international monopoly capital. Amin clearly did not start from the fundamental contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production to examine the world's basic contradictions.
The construction of a "community with a shared future for humanity," as one of the fourteen basic strategies of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, is the only correct solution to the basic contradictions of contemporary international society. Thus, as soon as the concept was introduced, it demonstrated an unstoppable and great power. Its greatness comes from the pursuit of well-being by people of all countries, from the historical law that the development of productive forces determines the relations of production and the economic base determines the superstructure, and from the general trend of human historical development.
Of course, Amin's theory also offers much for us to learn from. One point is that it reminds us of the need to think about the following questions in a broader scope: how to explain the uniqueness and world-historical significance of China's path of socialist revolution and construction; and how to discuss global justice, as well as domestic justice, equity, and efficiency and their interrelationships, from a perspective of modernity that differs from the capitalist world system.