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 systems that embrace more than one civilization or even all civilizations of the world. This approach was developed in the 1970s by A. G. Frank, I. Wallerstein, S. Amin, J. Arrighi and T. dos Santos. In Russia, the school is represented by A. I. Fursov and A. V. Korotaev.

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  F. Braudel is usually considered as the most important predecessor of the world-system approach, which 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 “world-economy” that interconnects all societies. 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 20th century to New York), secondary but developed societies and outlying periphery. 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 the so-called. "long 16th century" (approximately 1450-1650) and gradually covered the whole world. Until this time, many “historical systems” coexisted simultaneously in the world. Wallerstein divides these “historical systems” into two types: mini-systems and world-systems (world-economies and world-empires).

  • Minisystems(eng. mini-systems) were characteristic of primitive societies. They are based on reciprocal relationships.
  • World systems(English world-system) are characteristic of complex agrarian societies.
    • World-economy(eng. world-economies) are systems of societies united by close economic ties, acting as specific evolving units, but not united into a single political entity. From the 16th century feudal Europe is transformed into a capitalist world-economy. The entire modern world represents one single world-system - the capitalist world economy. The capitalist world-system consists of a core (the most highly developed countries of the West), a semi-periphery (in the 20th century - socialist countries) and a periphery (the Third World). The history of the core is the history of the struggle for hegemony.
    • World-empires(English world-empire) are characterized by the collection of taxes (tribute) from provinces and captured colonies.

  According to Wallerstein, all pre-capitalist world-economies sooner or later turned into world-empires through their political unification under the rule of one 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.

  Regarding the future, Wallerstein rejected the theory of modernization, according to which it is possible to build a core without a periphery.

  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 of “world-systems” in the world largely make the very concept of a World-System meaningless. According to Frank, we should be talking about only one World-System, which arose at least 5000 years ago, and then, through numerous cycles of expansion and consolidation, covered the whole world (A.V. Korotaev goes even further and dates the time of the emergence of the World-System ninth millennium BC). 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, Frank interpreted the recent rise of China as the beginning of the return of the center of the World System to its “natural” place after a short-term European-North American “interlude”.

  Brief overview of the main events in the evolution of the Afro-Eurasian world-system

  We can talk about the unification of societies when the agrarian revolution began. During the X-VIII millennium BC, cattle breeding and agriculture spread in the Middle East; with such changes in societies and settlements, their level of development changes. Cultural, information and trade ties are beginning to be established. In the IV-III millennium BC, many cities began to emerge in the Middle East. Writing begins to appear, a transition to integrated agriculture and new soil cultivation technology is taking place. On this basis, the first states and civilizations arose. During this period of time, new technologies began to be introduced almost everywhere quite synchronously: the plow, the harness, the wheel, the pottery wheel. When copper and bronze appeared, these materials made it possible to expand military capabilities, and the struggle for primacy began. The political map often changes due to constant invasions of nomads. In the 3rd millennium BC, new centers of civilization emerged and developed. A little later than the 2nd millennium BC. e., a new world-system center appears in the Far East.

  In the 1st millennium BC and at the beginning of the 1st millennium AD, due to climate changes and as a result of technical innovations such as the saddle, stirrup, etc., a new type of nomadic society was created that could travel long distances on horses and are quickly turning into a mobile army. As a result, a large tract of the Eurasian steppes became the nomadic periphery of the world system.

  In the 1st century AD, due to various migrations and various military invasions of the peoples of the barbarian periphery, the cultural and ethnic picture in the world-system changed greatly.

  The most important world-system events were the Crusades, which opened up a spice trade channel from India to Europe. The creation of a large Mongol Empire in the 13th century. gave a certain influx of innovations to Europe and formed the largest trade route from China to Europe in terms of scale and efficiency. Another important event was the inclusion of South India into closer relations with other parts of the world system due to the establishment of Muslim rule there and the partial Islamization of the population.

  In the 15th century A new political military force emerges - the Ottoman Empire, which replaced the power of the Egyptian Mamluks in the region. The Turks closed the Levantine trade in spices and thereby accelerated the search for a sea route to India. It is also necessary to note the African direction of expansion of the world system. Egypt (Northeast Africa) was one of the most important regions of civilization, agriculture, and at times one of the important centers of the world-system. As a result of the efforts of Northeast Africa, Rome and Carthage, the world system began to gradually move to the south and west of Africa. We should also not forget about migration and diffusion of innovations. As a result of the opening of the sea route to India around Africa, almost the entire continent was connected with the European economy. But some areas that were located inside were included in global connections only at the end of the 19th century. or even in the twentieth century, that is, they were already incorporated into the World System.

  Criticism

  The world-systems approach has been criticized for denying the stadial nature of world history and for the unconvincingness of its extrapolation beyond the boundaries of modern capitalism.

  Literature

  • Braudel F. Material civilization, economics and capitalism, XV-XVIII centuries. / Per. from fr. L. E. Kubbel; entry Art. and ed. Yu. N. Afanasyeva. 2nd ed. M.: The whole world, 2006. ISBN 5-7777-0358-5
  • Wallerstein I.

  The article discusses the basic principles and heuristic potential of world-systems analysis. The relationship between the categories “formation” and “world-system” is described. The problem of defining the concepts “revolution” and “socialism” is touched upon. The author has attempted to apply world-system analysis to world history.

  Keywords: Marxism, world-system analysis, dialectics, socio-economic formation, world-system, world-economy, capitalism, social revolution, socialism.

  Throughout the entire space of modern socio-philosophical microscopy, Marxism, despite its regular funeral, remains the only methodology and theory that allows us to reveal the essence of the processes taking place in the world. Reactualization of the Marxist heritage, and many will agree with this, seems to A. V. Buzgalin and A. I. Kolganov the most important task in the field of modern methodology.

  The master of modern social theory, author of world-system analysis I. Wallerstein directly calls himself a Marxist, and world-system analysis is today one of the most popular methods for studying capitalism. In our opinion, within the framework of the world-system approach it is possible to present a general concept of world history; for this it is only necessary to overcome a number of difficulties.

  Traditional Marxism, as is known, appeals to the formational scheme of world history. This position brings us to the problem of complementarity of the categories “formation” and “world-system”.

  A socio-economic formation is neither a separate society (socior) nor a society in general; it is something common to all socio-historical organisms that have a given socio-historical structure. Another property of the formation is its global scale, that is, its universality.

  As an example of a formational approach, let us take the scheme constructed by A.V. Gotnoga, who uses the dialectical-materialistic method. In the history of mankind, the following successive historical stages of development have been identified: pre-class society, the Asian mode of production and capitalism. Slavery and feudalism are considered as local historical stages, accidental in relation to the natural course of world historical development. Socialism is a historical necessity.

  World-system analysis makes the historical system the unit of study. The main defining characteristic of the capitalist world-system is the division of labor that exists within it. The world-system is, along with mini-systems, one of the forms of existence of “historical systems”. They have three defining characteristics. They are relatively autonomous, have temporal boundaries and spatial boundaries. History thus appears as the growth and decay of historical systems. In the pre-agricultural era, according to I. Wallerstein, there were many mini-systems, small in space and relatively short in time, highly homogeneous in terms of cultural and governing structures. Between 8000 BC. e. and 1500 AD e. There were simultaneously mini-systems, world-empires and world-economies on the planet. Although the world-empire was the strong form of this time, around 1500 the capitalist world-economy managed to survive, grow stronger and later subjugate all other historical systems, becoming unique and global.

  However, the founder of the approach himself, due to methodological weaknesses, the main of which lies in the rejection of the dialectical method, does not seem to see logic in history, and the transition from one historical system to another is a mystery to him. Since we know almost nothing about how mini-systems work, says I. Wallerstein, it is not up to us to reveal the transition to other forms. The change around 1500 in the balance of power between world-empires and world-economies in favor of the latter for I. Wallerstein also seems mysterious and still does not have a satisfactory explanation. In this situation, it is not surprising that I. Wallerstein switched to the language of synergetics in relation to the transformation from capitalism to another historical system. For example, the author believes that a general scheme can be applied to all systems - from physico-chemical and biological to social. G. Lukács warned about the loss of the knowability of history when the dialectical method is lost or blurred. Later, E.V. Ilyenkov complained: “We often hear that the categories of dialectics are outdated, that they need to be radically reworked, brought into agreement with the latest achievements of science. But in reality, it often turns out that it is not the definitions of the categories that are outdated, but rather the superficial idea of ​​them, from which in this case they proceed.” Today, the oblivion of dialectics is often not accompanied by arguments at all. I. A. Gobozov, not without reason, sees the reasons for this in the revolutionary nature of dialectics itself, in its requirement to change existing social orders.

  Thus, at first glance, the world-system approach deprives history of logic and the ability to predict. However, given the described limitations of the approach, in our opinion, the world-system can serve as an important category for the study of specific sociohistorical organisms within a formation, and therefore the formation itself. Although the historical system is given and determined by formation, it perhaps provides an additional key to understanding the formational approach and the world-historical process in general. Let's analyze this statement in more detail.

  The longest period of human existence in time - pre-class society - is the era of the dominance of mini-systems that formed and collapsed without possessing the complex political or economic structures inherent in later societies.

  Further, the economic need for a transition to irrigation agriculture due to the drying out of the surrounding steppes leads to the emergence of the first states in the valleys of the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates. In the III-II millennium BC. e. a whole complex of states arises, and the Asian mode of production becomes a world-historical stage. A characteristic feature of this method of production is class-wide, but not owned by anyone separately, that is, state property. Specifically, this was expressed in the emergence of world-empires, which were primarily complex political structures, which allowed them to solve economic problems. The very mode of production, when the state supervised public works, required a strong political component. Yu. I. Semenov considers the cyclical nature of their development characteristic of eastern societies, since the main resource for the development of these societies - a constant increase in working time - was very limited. They arose, flourished, and then fell into decline. And this is the purest logic of a world-empire. I. Wallerstein wrote: “World-empires always had certain spatio-temporal growth limits inherent in them, going beyond which led to the point at which disintegration processes engulfed the central government, after which the world-empires contracted.”

  We must also firmly understand that a world-system is not necessarily a “world system”. A world-empire cannot become one at all; it is not a world empire, but a historical system, the development of which is carried out to a greater extent under the influence of internal factors, that is, it is relatively autonomous. It is no coincidence that I. Wallerstein fundamentally insists on the hyphen. The world-empire is characterized by a general and strong political-administrative system, and in its economic form it is redistributive.

  Although connections between world systems existed, they played a lesser role than later. One part of the mini-systems was included in world-empires, others remained independent, but world-empires were the most advanced form of historical development. They, in our opinion, were the only form of world-systems, until the emergence of the capitalist world-economy in the “long sixteenth century.” You can find examples of international trade and trade unions, but I. Wallerstein, unlike A. G. Frank, himself emphasizes that international trade is not yet a world-economy. Although F. Braudel believes that world-economies have existed since very ancient times, one can perhaps argue that societies that form an “economically unified whole” were such during this period rather due to a single political structure. The conclusion involuntarily suggests itself that the capitalist world-economy is the first world-economy, born thanks to the uneven development of the previously existing world-systems and their interaction with each other.

  The world-economy is a vast, uneven system of structures including production, dissected by numerous political structures. The accumulated profits here are distributed unequally in favor of those who are able to achieve various types of monopolies in market networks and division of labor. The world-economy builds on top of political structures and, even more than that, changes them in accordance with its needs. The capitalist mode of production is unthinkable other than a world-system; it is its realized form. The capitalist world-economy, following its internal logic, began its spatial expansion, absorbing by the end of the 19th century. all other historical systems. Moreover, unlike world-empires, the expansion process did not have internally defined restrictions. On the contrary, in order to maintain the rate of profit, the world-economy constantly requires its expansion and the inclusion of other systems in its orbit. With the advent, however, of the “end of geography,” capitalism needs the constant organization of local wars, disaster zones and hotbeds of terrorism to maintain the rate of profit at the required level. The above means that capitalism is not eternal; sooner or later it must be replaced by a different type of life structure, that is, socialism.

  Let's sum up the intermediate results. Each mode of production as a world-historical stage corresponds to a certain type of historical system. Pre-class society is a time of mini-systems. The Asian mode of production found expression in world-empires. And capitalism is impossible without a world-economy, which has a core, periphery and semi-periphery. Moreover, the formation is a universal global structure and sets the main characteristics of the historical system that represents this formation and provides the key to its understanding at the local level.

  This statement allows us to share the opinion of the Asian mode of production as a higher world-historical stage than slavery and feudalism, and to recognize the latter as local historical stages. In reality, in ancient and feudal societies there is no original type of historical systems, and therefore they are random in relation to the natural course of world-historical development. If you follow this logic, at first glance it may seem that, for example, the Roman Empire was an ancient political society. This would be a hasty conclusion for the reader, since although the Roman Empire is seen as one of the classic cases of world-empires, it was certainly not an ancient political society. The point here is that each subsequent era borrows the achievements of the previous era. Progressivity in this case is determined by the ability to generate a new type of historical systems, which is not detected at these stages.

  So, having made a brilliant contribution to the explanation of the structure, logic, dynamics and contradictions of capitalism, which inevitably lead it to crisis, world-system analysis stops at the problem of a socialist alternative. A compelling concept of world history must be predictive. To accomplish this within the framework of world-system analysis, it is necessary, in our opinion, to overcome terminological ambiguity. I. Wallerstein describes two types of historical systems: world-empires and world-economies. “World” in both cases means a system, but the concepts of “empire” and “economy” lie on different planes. An empire is usually called a form of government, and an economy is one of the spheres of public life. Since the world-empire is such primarily due to its political structure, it is more appropriate to call this type of historical systems world-politics. This terminological replacement eliminates confusion and the possibility of confusing the reader, and allows us to define an alternative historical system as a world-society. The world-society is a historical system that develops on a truly human basis and includes the entire society, in all the diversity of its life forms, and politics and economics, along with other spheres of society, must be harmoniously combined in systemic unity. As shown earlier, the advent of a world-society (socialism) is a historical necessity and humanity’s only chance for a decent future. But the need for a transition to a socialist social system does not mean its inevitability. Humanity has a choice: either to perish as a result of the deepening and aggravation of the contradictions generated by capitalism, or to curb the social element by making a socialist revolution.

  It is customary to call the type of change during the transition from one stage of social development to another revolutionary. Or, in other words, a “cataclysmic leap” from one mode of production to another as an alternative to reform. The process of revolutionary change is experienced by the productive forces (productive revolution), the economic system (economic revolution), the social-class and legal superstructure (socio-political revolution), ideological institutions and forms of social consciousness.

  In view of the complexity of this revolution and its intermediateness between two - lower and higher - formations, A. M. Seleznev proposes to designate it with the term “socio-economic revolution”. These are: anti-slavery, anti-feudal (capitalist) and anti-capitalist (communist) revolutions. The transition to the slaveholding system from the primitive communal system, as well as the formation of the latter, is more appropriately called the term “leap”. Without being distracted here by the very scheme of world history defended by A. M. Seleznev, we summarize that a revolution is an inter-formation stage in the world-historical process, representing a period of coexistence of at least two structures, which during it change places, and the dominant structure of the old formation becomes subordinate dominant in the new and formerly subordinate in the old. The author also condemns the identification of the socio-economic revolution and the socio-political one.

  Yu. N. Nazarov distinguishes political and economic stages in the social revolution. A political revolution is a necessary condition for a radical change in property relations, that is, an economic revolution - the final stage of a revolution in the mode of production, which represents a qualitative transformation of the entire system of social production and management on the basis of new property relations. Accepting the interpretation of a political revolution as a coup that changes the type of power (form of government) and does not affect the economic foundations of society, common in Western social science, the author deprives the concept of revolution of totality, dividing society into various spheres absolutely, and not conditionally.

  G. A. Zavalko calls a common drawback of many researchers of the “sociology of revolution” the unclear relationship between revolution and evolution: either a complete break or a complete merger. He himself distinguishes two types of revolutions:

  Revolution-replacement (for example, bourgeois revolution);

  Revolution-emergence (socialist revolution).

  In the first case, power is taken by a class that has already been formed in the bowels of the old society. In the second - a class that arises during the revolution itself. Obviously, such a division does not bring clarity, and every now and then we will discover traits of one type in another.

  B. Kapustin declares the purpose of his essay “On the subject and uses of the concept revolution” to help clarify the subject of the concept “revolution”. The author further clarifies that by clarification he does not mean achieving a definition that - due to its logical and conceptual perfection - would “finally” eliminate the discrepancies of “revolution”. B. Kapustin proposes to remain with the concepts (in the plural) of revolutions as products of theories of specific events that are within the competence of historical political sociology, and not at all a speculative “meta-historical” theory of one kind or another. According to the author, it turns out that he decided to clarify the unclear, to define the indefinable. In this case, the author apparently has no doubt about the appropriateness of his work. The impossibility of a final definition of “revolution” is due primarily to the fact that its existence as an analytical tool cannot in any way be completely isolated from its existence as a product and instrument of the cultural imagination and political-ideological trope - if only due to the fact that any thinker always in some way positioned in a specific cultural and political context and dependent on it, believes B. Kapustin. If we continue this logic, it is necessary to stop any research on society altogether, and the work of B. Kapustin itself has no more value than thousands of others. The dignity of a scientist does not lie in the claim to the ultimate truth, but in the open recognition of his position and its defense. It is always possible to distinguish an ideologist or writer from a scientist by relying on the apparatus of science itself.

  For I. Wallerstein, the problem looks no less complicated. Revolution, in the tradition of Marxist parties and especially in the tradition of the Bolsheviks, came more and more to symbolize the violent overthrow of the bourgeois government by the proletariat, or at least the overthrow of a reactionary government by progressive popular forces. Wallerstein poses a number of contradictions and questions that require ambiguous answers.

  What is more important: the Industrial Revolution or the French?

  Does a revolution constitute a spontaneous uprising or disintegration of an existing power structure, or is a revolution only if such an uprising is then directed in a certain direction by a revolutionary party?

  When did the French Revolution begin - with the storming of the Bastille or with the actual coming to power of the Jacobins?

  Did the Russian (October) Revolution begin with the storming of the Winter Palace or with the beginning of revolutionary movements?

  Does the revolution end with the seizure of state bodies? After all, later they began to believe that the revolutionary process did not stop there.

  Is the Algerian revolution in the same category as the Vietnamese revolution or are they completely different?

  In Cuba, the revolution before the seizure of power was non-Marxist and not even socialist, and after it was Marxist and socialist. In Zimbabwe, the rhetorical path taken was reversed.

  The Mexican Revolution no longer seems so revolutionary today.

  What to do with the Chinese Revolution today?

  Russian revolutionaries are now a historical memory, not particularly revered in modern Russia.

  Despite 150-200 years of revolutionary history, the whole world today speaks the language of the “market”.

  I. Wallerstein calls numerous popular uprisings around the world in 1968 “World Revolution”. One gets the impression that I. Wallerstein is moving closer to the postmodernists. It is not surprising that the author considers revolution to be an unviable concept today. Having never defined what a revolution is, I. Wallerstein further calls for participation in determining its strategy.

  Such confusion in the definitions of revolution disorients the researcher; the concept of a socialist revolution remains unclear.

  Perhaps everything will fall into place if we recognize that the coming socialist revolution is the only possible one. Let's expand on the statement. Since a revolution is truly a comprehensive revolution in all spheres of public life, the process of transformation of socio-political structures within state borders as a result of domestic political or even international struggle cannot be considered a revolution. Although, undoubtedly, in a number of states such transformations have borne fruit of general historical significance. In addition, history has proven, once again confirming the thesis of K. Marx, that within the framework of a single country a progressive world-historical formation cannot take shape.

  It is appropriate to recall the statement of L. D. Trotsky: “The completion of the socialist revolution within a national framework is unthinkable... The socialist revolution becomes permanent in a new, broader sense of the word: it does not receive its completion until the final triumph on our entire planet... since capitalism has created the world market, the world division of labor and the world productive forces, to the extent that it prepared the world economy as a whole for socialist reconstruction.” Although in the next sentence L. D. Trotsky calls revolution a process, in general it follows from the text that he also understands revolution as a stage in the development of society, a transition from capitalism to socialism.

  Further. The transition from one antagonistic world-historical stage (formation) to another is also not a revolution. And the point here is not even that it is difficult to determine spatial and temporal boundaries in these transitions. Precisely their absence, apparently, is a property of a genuine revolution, since it must be worldwide (or it will not be at all), and is a constant movement forward, since socialism is not a utopia, not a frozen form of an “ideal, good society of the future” , but a developing society, following the path of human liberation, the development of his abilities and the realization of creative possibilities.

  Here it is appropriate to recall another important thesis, known from the creative Marxist heritage: the first step of a person towards revolution is the awareness of alienation as a personal and social problem, awareness of oneself as a function, a puppet of external social forces alien to Man. Revolution is not just a change in the poles of power, but a complex process that liberates a person. The standard charge against Marxism is that it places man at the mercy of impersonal social forces, thereby ignoring human personality, will and morality. But this accusation is based on a caricature of the Marxist paradigm. From the point of view of classical Marxism, man is a being endowed with consciousness and will, a subject, and not an object of history. Protest against capitalism arises when a worker recognizes himself as an individual, suppressed by external social forces alien to man.

  Recognizing the presence and importance of transitional inter-formation stages within a class society, we note that the nature of society after such changes remains class, that is, in the most general form does not change.

  Thus, revolution, in our opinion, should be considered the process by which, in the words of K. Marx himself, the “prehistory” of human (class) society ends and its (classless society) “history” begins. When humanity takes a step from the “realm of necessity” to the “realm of freedom”. From this position, it seems convincing to us that the transition from a pre-class (primitive communal) society to a class revolution is also not a revolution. It is generally accepted to consider revolution a process; in accordance with the above, it turns out that revolution is a process of implementing socialist transformations, which are also not limited and cannot degenerate into a frozen form of society. This position relieves us of the need to separate these two processes, to look for where one ends and the other begins. These two processes do not just merge into one stream in our head, they are inconceivable separately. Revolution is socialism, socialism is revolution.

  But how will the revolution take place - the transition from one historical system to another? Fundamentally important here is the remark of Yu. I. Semenov that there never were and could not be sociohistorical organisms that would go through all stages of historical development. Socio-historical formations have always been primarily stages of development of human society as a whole. It is not necessary, and indeed impossible, for each individual society to go through all stages of historical development. When the advanced part of humanity reached capitalism, then for everyone, without exception, those stages of development that they themselves had not gone through turned out to be already passed. However, K. Marx himself was against turning his sketch of the emergence of capitalism in Western Europe into a theory about a universal path that all peoples must follow. The situation described by Yu. I. Semenov was possible because the previous historical systems were not world-wide and new historical systems were formed on the periphery of the old ones, adopting their achievements. But the capitalist world-economy included the whole world. This fact once again confirms that the transition to a world-society can only occur on a global scale. Capitalism, having embraced the entire world, did not leave a geographical periphery for the formation of a new historical system, but made possible its birth in its depths thanks to the development of productive forces.

  The world-economy has divided the entire world into two global categories: exploiters (center) and exploited (periphery). Yu. I. Semenov calls this conflict of interests a global class war. On this basis, the scientist comes to the conclusion that, having put an end to exploitation by the West, the periphery will thereby cease to be the periphery and become the center, and for Western countries the only way out will be the elimination of capitalism. To this it can be objected that, having gotten rid of the external exploiter of the country, the peripheries themselves will become one in relation to their internal periphery. The West, too, will certainly reproduce the structure of the world-economy on a smaller scale and bring down the full power of exploitation on the “internal Third World,” the phenomenon of which is already becoming more and more serious today. But even such a scenario seems unlikely, since the West is only strengthening its military presence on the periphery in order not to lose economic benefits. History and modernity have proven that capital, sensing a threat to the “invisible hand of the market,” will immediately turn into a completely “visible fist” and will not stop in the face of armed conflicts of any level. It is appropriate to remember here that the first attempts to transition to a new historical system arose precisely on the periphery of capitalism and encountered insurmountable difficulties. However, the theoretical potential of Marxism is enormous due to the richness of its tools. In this case, we mean the “law of peripheral development” formulated by G. A. Bagaturia: a new system arises on the periphery of the existing, old system. And yet the peripheral societies failed to transition to socialism. Does the law really not work or does it not always work? The law works - it is the law because it always works. It’s just that we can find the periphery not only in the geography of the world-system, which would be familiar to us. The inability of the geographical periphery to overcome capitalism on its own has already been revealed. This means that the periphery on which the world-society is formed must be sought in the ways and forms that have a subordinate position in the world-economy. To do this, it is necessary to overcome the common belief among many that world-systems analysis stops at the spatial structure of capitalism. But unapplicable does not mean inapplicable. We should not forget that the most important concept of this approach is the concept of a system. A system can be considered an entity in which there is a single control center and a periphery dependent on it. This scheme, in our opinion, can also be applied to the class structure of the world system. An appeal to history will show us that there was no slave revolution, and the bourgeoisie had nothing to do with the feudal mode of production. These classes were on the periphery in relation to the central class conflict of the previous systems. Today, A. Negri and M. Hardt see the driving force of systemic transformations in the sphere of immaterial labor, the importance of which is increasingly increasing. This sphere is still in a subordinate position compared to the dominant sphere of material labor, as a periphery dependent on the core.

  Thus, the subject of the revolution must become the proletariat, engaged in the sphere of non-material production. Let us only recall that M. Hardt and A. Negri call this subject of the struggle against global capital the Multitude and emphasize that it is formed in the depths of global capitalism and points the way to a departure from it, forming a different society on its own

  The diversity of theories and views existing today in international political science can ultimately be reduced to three paradigms:

  realistic (including classical realism and neorealism),

  liberal (traditional idealism and neoliberalism),

  · neo-Marxist Bazhanov E. Where is humanity going?: On trends in international relations in the 21st century / E. Bazhanov, N. Bazhanova // Observer - Observer. - 2009. - No. 6. - P. 10..

  Each of these paradigms is based on its own understanding of the nature and character of international relations. These paradigms, naturally, do not exhaust the content of the theory of international relations. The last two decades have been marked by the intensive development within its framework of such directions as transnationalism and institutionalism, constructivism and postmodernism; international political economy and the sociology of international relations are becoming increasingly independent; There are differences, and often quite significant ones, within the framework of these paradigms themselves. At the same time, these paradigms remain the most widespread today, and the core discussion on the theory of international relations, which largely determines the path of its development, remains the debate between neorealism and neoliberalism. This gives grounds not only to consider the above three paradigms as “basic” for international political science, but also to analyze on their basis the very state of the latter. Ibid. - P. 11..

  In the 1950s-1960s. largely under the influence of the disillusionment with the experience of “real socialism” that has spread in Western countries, Marxism takes the form of neo-Marxism. Neo-Marxism is based on the conviction that, as world capitalism develops, the demarcation of interests of rich and poor countries of the “North” and “South” progresses.

  One of the leading representatives of modern left-wing social thought is Immanuel Wallerstein, a famous modern American sociologist, macroeconomist and geopolitician. He was born in New York in 1930. After graduating from Columbia University, at the first stage of his scientific career (1955-1970) he studied African societies. Since 1976, Wallerstein has been a professor of sociology at the State University of New York and director of the Center for the Study of Economies, Historical Systems and Civilizations. F. Braudel Mukhaev R.T. Geopolitics. - M.: UNITY-DANA, 2007. - P. 249..

  The main work of I. Wallerstein is “The Modern World-System” Wallerstein I. Analysis of world systems and the situation in the modern world / Translated from English. P.M. Kudyukin under the general editorship. B.Yu. Kagarlitsky. - St. Petersburg: University Book, 2001. - 416 pp. In total, three volumes of this grandiose work were published, for the first volume of which in 1975 I. Wallerstein was awarded the Sorokin Prize of the American Sociological Association Zavalko G. World capitalism through the eyes of I. Wallerstein / / Almanac East. - 2005. - No. 3. - P. 22..

  His main contribution to the development of social sciences is the development of an original theory of world systems, which is geopolitical in nature. From a methodological point of view, Wallerstein begins his analysis with the global economic system, or, as he calls it, the world-system. It should be noted that the world-system theory developed by Wallerstein is based on the principles of comprehensive historical analysis proposed by the French historian Fernand Braudel. It synthesizes sociological, historical and economic approaches to social evolution. For the first time, the term “world-economy” (l "economie-monde) was used by F. Braudel (Braudel F. Material civilization, economics and capitalism in the XV-XVIII centuries. Vol. 1. Structures of everyday life. - M.: Nauka, 1986. - P. 42), but the holistic concept of world-system analysis was developed not by him, but by I. Wallerstein..

  According to I. Wallerstein, the world-system can be of three types.

  1. A world-empire consisting of several local cultures annexed by conquest. For example, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, Russia during the era of serfdom.

  2. A world-economy made up of independent nation-states. The only historical example here is Europe from modern times to the present day, which from the continent has grown to a global capitalist world-economy, including existing and existing socialist countries.

  3. World-socialism, which, according to I. Wallerstein, is a hypothetical system that has never been implemented anywhere by Romanovsky N.V. Sociology and sociologists in the face of global cataclysms (regarding the polemics of M. Archer and I. Wallerstein) (PDF) // Sociological Research. - 1998. - No. 4. - P. 56..

  The world-economy has a three-level structure. At its center, or core, are highly developed states that dominate economic relations, extract additional profits from the global division of labor, and determine world politics (in the modern world, these are highly developed countries). The periphery of the world-economy consists of countries that supply raw materials to the core countries and are therefore economically and politically dependent on the latter. Peripheral countries are governed by weak, corrupt governments (these are underdeveloped countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America) Wallerstein I. Geopolitical divisions in the 21st century // Economic strategies. - 2006. - No. 5-6. - P. 14.. Semi-peripheral countries of the world economy (states of Central and Eastern Europe, rapidly developing countries of Southeast Asia) occupy an intermediate position between the states of the core and periphery. They produce less technologically advanced products and are dependent on the high technologies of the core countries, but use their advantages when trading with the countries of the periphery. Ibid. - P. 15..

  The world-economy went through three stages in its development.

  The first stage (XV-XVI centuries) is the stage of the emergence of the world-economy from the feudal economic-political system (according to the typology of I. Wallerstein from the world-empire). At this stage, as a result of geographical discoveries and colonial expansion, the countries that formed the core of the system (Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Great Britain), and some others that conquered the colonies, gained access to ultra-cheap labor and natural resources of the peripheral regions, which were thus annexed to world-economy. This ensured the initial accumulation of capital and the development of the world-economy at the second stage (XVI - first third of the 17th century). But each part of this system has its own character of work. In the core countries there is a free labor market, and control over the quality of labor is of an economic nature. This leads to continuous improvement in the qualifications of workers and the quality of goods. In the semi-peripheral zone, control over the labor force is non-economic, coercive in nature, the workers themselves are less qualified, and labor exists in such forms as corvée and sharecropping. Slave labor predominates in peripheral zones Wallerstein I. Analysis of world systems and the situation in the modern world. - P. 178..

  At the third stage of world-economy development, the role of political processes increases.

  Firstly, the role of states in regulating the economy is increasing.

  Secondly, a developing economy makes it possible to strengthen state structures through the training of a large number of officials and, thirdly, to form permanent national armies, which, fourthly, serve to strengthen and internal stability of states. The strengthening of states and the strengthening of their role in the economy causes increased competition between them in the international arena, the ascent of some and the descent of others. Ibid. - P. 221..

  The modern world-economy has acquired a global character, including all continents, seas and oceans within its borders. Like other world-systems, it functions cyclically on the basis of extremely long cycles that include war and the struggle for hegemony. Ibid. - P. 224..

  This, in a nutshell, is the methodology of I. Wallerstein. In exploring the problems of the capitalist world-economy, it is very fruitful. An undoubted achievement is the study of horizontal connections within the world-economy. But an undoubted problem for the world-system approach turned out to be the relationship between the world-economy and individual societies.

  The existence of individual societies (Wallerstein calls them nation-states) is considered secondary, derived from the existence of social systems. According to Wallerstein, it is not socio-historical organisms that unite into systems, but, on the contrary, systems give rise to socio-historical organisms. Undoubtedly, this view is due to the fact that the main subject of Wallerstein's research is modernity. It is precisely modernity that is characterized by a very strong reverse influence of the interstate system on its constituent national states; Wallerstein transferred this situation to the past, when such influence was much weaker.

  Despite the fact that Wallerstein identifies different types of social systems and different modes of production, he does not have a stage typology - he does not believe, as one might assume, that humanity develops from the stage of mini-systems to the stage of world-systems. Wallerstein denies the concepts of “progress” and “development”, seeing in history only changes that have no direction Wallerstein I. Analysis of world systems and the situation in the modern world. - P. 234..

  The inclusion of new zones in the world-economy, writes Wallerstein in Volume III of the Modern World-System, was accompanied by the transformation of neighboring zones into external arenas. “From the point of view of the capitalist world-economy, the external arena was a zone whose products the capitalist world-economy needed, but which resisted (perhaps only culturally) the import of manufactured goods in return and quite strongly maintained its advantages politically” Ibid. - P. 241.. When India was included, China acquired the quality of an external arena, when some parts of the Ottoman Empire were included - the Balkans, Anatolia, Egypt, then others - the "Gracious Crescent", the Maghreb - became external arenas. The same thing happened with Central Asia after the inclusion of Russia, and with the West African savannah after the inclusion of the West African coast. But in the end, the resistance of all external arenas was broken and they were included in the capitalist world-economy Ibid. - P. 242..

  The division of the world-economy into core and periphery disappears not as a result of the inclusion of new countries in the core, but as a result of the gradual elimination of capitalism. “The weakness of capitalism lies in the embodiment of its own goals, in its complete self-realization. As its system as a whole becomes more and more commodity-based, its capacity for unequal distribution and, consequently, for the accumulation of capital decreases, since the distinction between the center and periphery. However, commodification does not mean the automatic death of capitalism: left to their own devices, the dominant forces in the KME will try to slow down the pace of development, and national development programs can, under these conditions, become a means of such braking, saving capitalism." Ibid. - P. 245..

  Thus, I. Wallerstein is a supporter of the neo-Marxist approach to the analysis of the capitalist economy. For him, the market is a symbol of rationalism, a developed form of control over the measure of labor and consumption, not identified with capitalism. The modern world-economy, according to Wallerstein, exists thanks to market rather than capitalist relations. It is developed markets that are the structures that support the stability of the global world-economy. Wallerstein comes to conclusions very similar to those of K. Marx, but comes his own way. We are dealing here not with a variant of Marxism, but with an independent confirmation of the correctness of some of the provisions of K. Marx, which came from the concept that claimed to replace Marxism.

  Interview with social historian Immanuel Wallerstein. Wallerstein is well-known for his world-system theory, in which he offers a critical alternative to system realist approaches to international relations. It can be said that while realists start from a system to analyze and predict history, world-system theory starts from history to analyze and predict a system. In this in-depth conversation, Wallerstein explains, among other things, why capitalism has run its course and why we need to overcome the artificial divides between different fields in social science and between philosophy and science in general.

  What do you think is the challenge or central topic of debate in contemporary international relations scholarship? And what is your proposed solution to such a problem or your position in the ongoing controversy?

  In my analysis of the modern world-system, I argue that we are experiencing a structural crisis: this system is essentially unsustainable, the world is in a state of chaos, from which we will not emerge in the next twenty to forty years. This crisis is caused by a lack of surplus value and, accordingly, a loss of potential income. The system is at a bifurcation point: in a situation where there are two alternative exits from the existing crisis that make it possible to create a new stable world system.

  The most important thing at the moment is the struggle between two hypothetical alternatives, one of which the world must choose. It is very difficult to strictly identify these two directions, but generally speaking, some people will try to create a new world-system that reproduces some of the basic features of the existing system, without being capitalist. However, it will still remain a system of hierarchy and exploitation. Others will go in the direction of an alternative system, relatively democratic and relatively egalitarian. For now, we are speaking in very general terms, since the structural elements of such a future world-system cannot be known in advance. But obviously one of these solutions will be, in my opinion, a better world-system, and the other will be at least as bad, or perhaps even worse, than the world-system we currently have. So this is a real political struggle.

  Again, it is completely impossible to predict which outcome we will ultimately arrive at; The only thing we can be sure of is that the current system will not survive and that an outcome will come. We will create, as Ilya Prigogine famously said, order out of chaos. This is my fundamental theoretical position.

  How did you come to your current studies in international relations? What people, books, events inspired you, how did you come to your ideas?

  The most important political event of my entire life was what I call the world revolution of 1968. In my opinion, this was a fundamentally transformative event. I was working at Columbia University during the unrest, but this is just a biographical commentary on major events in political and cultural life.

  I tried many times to analyze what exactly happened then and what the consequences were. I am convinced that 1968 was more important than 1917 (Russian Revolution), 1939-1945 (World War II) or 1989 (the fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union) - those dates that are usually cited when talk about key historical events. These events simply had less transformative power than the 1968 revolution.

  If we talk about people who influenced me, I would name Karl Marx, Fernand Braudel, Joseph Schumpeter, Karl Polanyi, Ilya Prigogine and Frantz Fanon.

  What qualities (inclinations, skills) does a student need to have in order to become a specialist in the field of international relations or simply learn to understand the world globally?

  I think this is a really difficult task, but at the same time quite doable. I consider simply “getting a PhD,” as perhaps some other authors on your site answered, to be insufficient.

  Deep knowledge of the modern world-system, which is at least five hundred years old, is a sine qua non; knowledge of the epistemological problems facing modern social science is also important; In addition, a fundamental understanding of how the capitalist world-system has functioned as a system (including as an interstate system) over the past few hundred years will be essential.

  Another issue - perhaps even more important - is the need to read classic works. Of course, everything that classical authors say should always be analyzed anew, since they were limited by the world in which they lived and thought. But one of the real problems for students is that they don't always actually read Adam Smith or Marx or Freud. Instead, they read books about them. When they say “Marx said such and such,” they really mean “such and such an author said that Marx said such and such.” Such statements are not only passed through an unnecessary filter, but in three cases out of four they are simply erroneous or at least distorted. People who retell the opinions of classical authors often take their words out of context, or quote them too sparingly, or simply misinterpret the original text. If you try hard, you can turn Marx into an apologist for capitalism and a Marxist out of Smith. So an important rule for students is that any author interested in studying should be read in the original.

  In addition, there is the problem of knowledge of languages. Students, especially in the United States, should study many more languages ​​than usual, since translations of these authors are an all-too-known problem. Marx and Weber, like most other important figures in social science, have been translated with a huge number of errors. One of the things I tell students all the time is to “learn languages” despite the cultural biases that exist in the West. But if you really don’t want to or really can’t do this, then at least read the original texts in translation.

  Is the world more equal now than it was 500 years ago?

  No. This is stated by those who look at the top 20% of the world's population in terms of real income. Indeed, this part of the population is doing much better than previous generations. But if you look with me at the gaps between the top 1%, the next 19% and the remaining 80% globally, you get a different picture. Since, for example, 60% of the population of Switzerland belongs to the top 20%, it is true that Switzerland is a more egalitarian country than a century ago. But on a global scale, the picture is diametrically opposite: the gap between the top 20% and the bottom 80% has grown very much - and continues to grow.

  It is also true that the gap between the top 1% and the next 19% has been closing for some time. But what neoliberalism has done, and intentionally, is to restore the gap between the 1% and the 19% below it. This is what Western voters (and most of that 19% live in the West) are complaining about today: their real incomes are falling while the top 1% are becoming filthy rich.

  Aristotle seems to have written that "law is reason without passion." If law is reason without passion, then what is the market that does not even consider law to be its inherent value?

  First of all, I disagree with this statement because the law is always interpreted. Of course, after being written down and sacralized, the law seems to be unchangeable and independent of circumstances. But there is always a human factor in applying the law to specific situations. The law is always interpreted and must be interpreted, and therefore it is plastic. And therefore controversial.

  As for the market, we must distinguish between a hypothetical market and a real market. The hypothetical market operates in accordance with the purely objective laws of supply and demand, which influence prices and thereby the behavior of rational and selfish individuals. But in reality this hypothetical market never existed in the capitalist world-system. There is no doubt that the capitalists themselves are most opposed to this hypothetical market, because if this hypothetical market actually operated, they would not earn a penny. The only way for capitalists to make serious money is to have quasi-monopolies. And in order to obtain these quasi-monopolies, they need multifaceted government intervention; and the capitalists are fully aware of this. Consequently, all talk about this hypothetical market is ideological rhetoric. That's not how the market actually works; and any rich capitalist, if he is not crazy, will confirm this. Free market economists won't tell you this, but no capitalist believes in market autonomy.

  You claim that the 1968 revolution put an end to the idea of ​​centrist liberalism. Since then, however, liberal capitalism has become even more deeply entrenched in the world. How would you generally describe the changes that have taken place in the world from this point of view?

  Before 1968, the ideology of what I call “centrist liberalism” played a leading role in the intellectual, economic and political world for more than a hundred years, relegating both conservative and radical doctrines to the periphery, turning them into avatars of centrist liberalism. And as a result of the world revolution of 1968, the following happened: the idea that a priori the only acceptable idea of ​​the world is centrist liberalism collapsed; and we are back in a world in which there are three main ideological positions: real conservatism, real radicalism and the third - centrist liberalism, which, of course, has not gone away, but has again become one of three possibilities and is no longer considered the only viable intellectual position.

  When you talk about “liberal capitalism,” you are talking about what is often called “neoliberalism,” which is not at all the same thing as the centrist liberalism that previously dominated the world. It is rather a form of conservatism. He constantly tried to reverse three trends that were negative from the point of view of conservatism: rising costs of training and hiring, rising capital expenditures and rising tax costs. And neoliberalism - known by many names, including globalization - is an attempt to reverse these trends and reduce these costs. He was somewhat successful in this, but all these attempts showed (I say “all” because there have been quite a lot of them over the last five hundred years) that it is impossible to return costs to the level at which they were previously. It is true that personnel costs, investments and taxes rose from 1945 to 1970 and fell from 1970 to, say, 2000, but they never returned to 1945 levels. They went up two points, but only went down one. This is what usually happens in history.

  I think the era of neoliberalism is coming to an end; its effectiveness has been exhausted. And globalization as a term and concept will be forgotten within a decade, since it no longer has the required effect on people, which is to make everyone believe Mrs. Thatcher’s preaching that “there is no alternative.” From the very beginning this was an absurd statement: alternatives always exist. But a large number of countries fell for it anyway - at least for a while.

  These days, the rhetoric of neoliberalism as the only possible path is clearly a failure. Look at Europe, look at President Sarkozy in France - he is an open protectionist. You can't tell me a single European country that is willing to stop subsidizing its farmers; since this is completely impossible at the domestic state level from a political point of view and at the same time completely contradicts neoliberal logic. Mandelson wants to cut subsidies at the European level, but he does not have the necessary political support, as Sarkozy made very clear to him.

  It is necessary to distinguish talk from reality. The reality is that European countries are not just protectionists, but are becoming increasingly protectionists, and will continue to do so over the next ten years, as will Japan, China, Russia and the United States. The pendulum swing between protectionism and freewheeling production has been a constant process for the last 500 years, approximately every 25 years we move from one to the other, and right now we are moving back into the protectionist period.

  Your world-system theory speaks of a certain dialectic that culminates in the modern, capitalist, world-system. Is there an end to this dialectic or will it continue forever?

  No, this cannot go on forever, no system can exist forever. All systems are historical - this is true for physical and chemical systems, for biological systems and, a fortiori, for social systems. Each of them has its own life: they arise at a certain moment, they survive in accordance with certain rules, and then they move too far from the equilibrium state and lose their viability. Our system has moved far from the equilibrium state, so that the processes (quite describable) that maintained a fluid equilibrium for five hundred years are functioning with continuous failures, and therefore we have suffered a structural crisis.

  So no, this world-system will not last forever, it will not even last longer than forty to fifty years. Moreover, these will be very unpleasant years.

  I have already named the three main expenses of capitalists: personnel, investments and taxes. They always have to bear all three types of expenses and always want to keep them as low as possible. There have been structural issues that have allowed costs for these three factors to increase over the last five hundred years as a percentage of price increases. Now the prices are so high that you can no longer actually accumulate capital to any significant level, making the game no longer worth the candle. This means that capitalists will no longer be interested in capitalism because it no longer works for them. Therefore, they look around for serious alternatives in which they can maintain their privileged position in a different type of system. After five hundred years of successful operation, the vibrations of this system have now become so strong and uncontrollable that no one can cope with them.

  You argue that 21st-century scholars should focus on developing a unified understanding of the driving forces of history rather than studying isolated economics or politics, and that to do this they may even need entirely new terminology. Can you talk about how to approach this large-scale challenge?

  If I knew how to bridge the gap between the vocabularies of politics, economics and culture, I would already be very far ahead. Unfortunately, I am as much a product of social conditions as anyone else.

  We are talking here about different problems that should not be confused. The first is that the social sciences divide the real world into three spheres: political, economic and sociocultural. This division, introduced by classical liberalism, was subsequently carried over into the world of science and now serves as the basis of modern social knowledge. However, this is a very unfortunate type of approach to social reality, since it involves the division of the single human experience into artificially distinguished spheres, each of which claims to be of greater importance than the others, which leads to an underestimation of the inextricable connections that connect them together. The way out of this situation is to create a single

  Immanuel Wallerstein on world systems, the inevitable end of capitalism, and comprehensive social science

  According to an American scientist, the most corrupt countries are the USA, Germany, France and the UK.

  At the Gaidar Forum in Moscow, US professor Immanuel Wallerstein said the day before that Russia does not control oil prices and exchange rates, linking the problem to determinism and the role of the individual in history. The BUSINESS Online correspondent also learned about the worst properties of capitalism and why mafia structures are a pattern in the current world.

  AND FINALLY THERE IS THE MAFIA!

  At the Gaidar Forum in Moscow in the red (symbolically!) hall of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, world-class experts discussed yesterday does capitalism have a future?. One of the most interesting speakers was a professor from Yale University (USA) Immanuel Wallerstein. It was he who once said that by 2050, Vladimir Lenin in Russia could well become the main national hero. But at the forum Wallerstein did not speak about the leader of the world proletariat. To begin with, the professor decisively refuted the fairly widespread opinion that corruption is most developed in poor countries.

  “Let's talk about corruption,” the professor suggested. - I will never believe that corruption was highest in poor countries - there is simply not enough money there for corruption to be high. Where should corruption be dealt with? These are the USA, Germany, France, Great Britain. These are rich countries and they are corrupt. If you have to pay money, as a manufacturer, to a corrupt politician or anyone else who can block your activities, it is a tax, it is a fee. It does not matter to the manufacturer who he pays - legally to the state or to a corrupt intermediary. It’s still taxes, and they’re increasing.”

  Wallerstein also recalled: “And finally, there is the mafia! She says: "Your money or your life!" And people choose money. And all this becomes, so to speak, a normal way of income, this lasts for several generations. The mafiosi are eliminated, but a new mafia appears and replaces the previous one. And now the infrastructure of the world system is so massive that there are more opportunities for the emergence of mafia structures. All these processes have led to an increase in production costs. But it is not growing in a simple way - costs are growing like this: two steps up, one step down.”

  CAPITALISM IS BAD, BUT IT CAN BE EVEN WORSE

  “Let's look at the period from 1970 to 1984,” the professor suggested. - You can measure the change in costs and see that they are very significant. But the capitalists, their upper strata, are trying to resist this - to reduce the cost of personnel, reduce costs associated with production, reduce taxes... This is really true, and they succeed. If you compare costs in 1970 with costs in 2010, you will see that costs in 2010 are less than in 1970. However, they are higher in 2010 than in 1945. Two steps up, one step down." Wallerstein gave an example of a longer period of time: “If we look at what has happened over 400 years, we will see the same thing: two steps up, one down. Over these 400 years, there is a certain trend, which I would call a secular, secular trend.”

  The professor also commented on the graph shown: “There is an abscissa curve, there are percentage indicators, time goes by here. And you see that at first we have 80 percent - and at this moment the fluctuations begin, which manifested themselves in all dimensions. And these fluctuations reveal structural crises. One is favorable for the existing classes, but not for the capitalist system, which reproduces the worst properties of capitalism: hierarchy, exploitation and, above all, polarization. That is, it reproduces all three of these indicators. There are many possibilities to change this, but they may be more unacceptable systems than the capitalist system. Another branch of the system is relatively democratic... We don’t know what it will look like, who will win this battle of two possibilities. Impossible to predict!

  A BUTTERFLY FLATS WINGS, AND THIS AFFECTS THE CLIMATE AT THE OTHER END OF THE PLANET

  The professor noted that such predictions are associated with the concept of determinism and free will: “We usually say that these are some abstract philosophical questions. Is the world deterministic ( determinism - the philosophical doctrine of the natural causality of all phenomena of the objective world -approx.. edit.), or is there free will? This is a philosophical question, a question of historical shifts. There are moments in time when things are determined, and there are moments when there is free will. What are these moments in time? In normal system operation this is determinism. It doesn't matter what the equilibrium is ( balance -approx.. edit.) - the pressure of the system pushes you back towards equilibrium. Here are two examples: the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. If you trace their consequences over 50 to 70 years, you will find that the enormous changes brought about by the social movements that led to this revolution have come back over time.

  The normal operation of the system is a deterministic moment. But when you move to a structural crisis, instead of large fluctuations that turn into small fluctuations, small fluctuations, on the contrary, grow into large fluctuations. And in this system free will prevails. This means that the impact of an individual is of great importance, this is the so-called butterfly effect (“ "butterfly effect" is a term in natural sciences denoting a property of some chaotic systems: a small influence on the system can have large and unpredictable consequences somewhere else at another time -approx.. edit.) . Here is a butterfly flapping its wings, and this affects the climate on the other side of the planet. Because at least it has a small impact, it changes the equation, and over time it grows and grows and grows.”

  THERE IS NO QUESTION: WILL RUSSIA BE CAPITALIST?

  From the audience (remember - red hall) Professor Wallerstein was asked: “What is your opinion about economic integration? We see that in each region - Asia, North America, Eurasia - certain phenomena appear. The Eurasian Economic Union came into force on January 1. This economic integration, does it provide more opportunities for global growth? How will it affect economic growth over several years?”

  “This question is the culmination of all comments regarding Russia and capitalism! - Wallerstein exclaimed. - People ask the question: can Russia become a capitalist country? What should she do with her strategy? Today the Prime Minister made some proposals and discussed problems. From my point of view, Russia is now and has long been part of the capitalist world system. There is no question: will Russia be capitalist? You already live in capitalism. And the question for Russia is: how can it best get along in this capitalist system in order to maximize the well-being of citizens, in order to strengthen the country in the geopolitical aspect.”

  The professor continued: “Returning to whether it would be better for Russia if it were more liberal. The Prime Minister was just talking about this: it will be better for Russia if it is more socially democratic. This is the position of most people who talk about redistribution within the country. But Russia does not control these aspects - it all depends on the price of oil, the exchange rate and so on. This is not subject to Russian control. It is part of a larger system, and that larger system behaves differently. And the ability of the Russian state as a state to have a strong influence on oil prices or exchange rates is, in my view, very limited.”

  Specifically regarding the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union, Wallerstein said: “If you look at the geopolitical aspects, at the choices that Russia is making in terms of integration, I don’t like that word... Russia must take advantage of its geopolitical opportunities: move closer to Europe, move away from Europe or to break away from Europe altogether... All this is part of the uncertainties and instability of the system, all this is part of the general chaotic situation. And again Russia is doing what everyone else is doing - it will try to do one thing, another, a third... It is looking for better opportunities, better options. And this is not easy. I'm glad I'm not President Putin, he has a difficult job. It would be difficult if someone else were president. This job is actually very difficult. Russia's internal disputes mirror what is happening in other countries. Maybe in a different form, since you have a different interethnic situation, you have a different degree of development of industry and education. Russia, of course, is not Brazil or Ukraine. And all the decisions that will be made in Russia will be different from those that will be made in Brazil, Ukraine or the United States. But the debate continues - how to maximize our position in this uncertain world?

  Reference

  Immanuel Wallerstein(English: Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein) - American sociologist and neo-Marxist philosopher, one of the founders of world-systems analysis, one of the leading representatives of modern left-wing social thought.

  Born September 28, 1930 in New York (USA). Studied at Columbia University. He received a bachelor's degree in 1951, a master's degree in 1954, and a doctor of philosophy in 1959. From 1959 to 1971 he taught at the Department of Sociology at Columbia University. 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.

  Winner of the 2004 Kondratiev Gold Medal "for outstanding contributions to the development of social sciences." Wallerstein began his scientific career at Columbia University, studying sociology and African studies. Since 1960, he has been working on issues of the general theory of socio-economic development. Author of world-system theory, created under the influence of the French historian Fernand Braudel. In an essay titled “Does India Exist?” Wallerstein develops the theory of states.

  According to Wallerstein, “Lenin for Russia will inevitably turn out to be the central figure of the twentieth century” and “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.”