In conventional Marxist theory and the World Systems theory, the nature and dynamics of capitalism depends on the essential antagonism between capital and labor. In fact, the origins of World-systems theory as is explicated by Wallerstein, is based on the axial division of labor between the core countries and the peripheries (Semi-peripheries are stuck between protecting themselves from competition while they receive some of the depleted core products, calling it a “development”) which comprises an economic world system. There are similarities with how Marx and Engels argue about the social division of labor being a necessity for capitalist production process and the capitalist world order. When we talk about the dynamics of capitalism also, there are similarities with respect to how both these theories explain the rise of capitalism and the development of capitalism. In Engels’ works, the rise of the bourgeoisie is attributed to the fall of the Feudal Order. The existing burghers of the guilds as a response to the Church and the feudal lords, called for a liberal order that was based on the “Natural Law”. Alongside the development of Utopian socialism (Engels specifically refers to St. Simon, Fourier and Owen ), there was a rising proletarianization of the workforce. The rise of the bourgeoisie was a movement towards doing away with the monopoly of practices in the Church, however the class chasm between the capitalists and the workers still existed in these places. Marxism also argues, that the existence of the Proletariat(a class which depends entirely on its sale of labor) did not occur prior to the Industrial revolution in the 18th century, even though the poor and the wage working class still existed. The very definition of the proletariat is those who earn wages only by selling their labor. For the World Systems theory analysis, there could be an existence of proletariat within a family, since individuals themselves do not fall into the class, as it argues that the family is a better unit of analysis which contains both proletariat and semi-proletariat tendencies (depending on the share of incomes that comes from wages). This is quite different from how the Communist Manifesto defines the proletariat and how it associates a larger class division rather than divisions based on the family (in fact the Communist Manifesto also attributes a very different role to the family). Similarly, there is an emphasis on how monopolistic (or quasi-monopolistic tendencies) are central for a capitalist world order to survive (this is also similar to the Monopoly Capitalism view held by some Marxist scholars).
According to Marxism, the transformation of individual means of production (owned privately by small artisans, guild workers and peasants) into socialized instruments of labor was completed through three modes of cooperation, manufacturing and modern industry. And this created the need for mechanized production and the need for “commodities”. The division of labor was no longer spontaneous, since it was based on the working of the factory and in that crude way more “efficient”. It competed out the spontaneous division of labor. But this socialized production went hand-in-hand with capitalist appropriation as concentration of workers in industries and factories increased. This private appropriation with socialized production also meant that, capitalism inherently proceeded on an anarchic path (note that the anarchy of capitalist production does not depend on any other institutions, but on the basic antagonism of the classes, the state only acts as an upholder of bourgeoisie interests). Thus, while at the individual scale the industry was organized, there was no organized system as a whole for capitalism. The modern interpretation of a capitalist crisis is based on how both profit-squeeze and due to rapid accumulation of capital and rising demand for labor would deplete the reserve army of labor. This in turn would improve workers’ powers and the profit share would fall. A more Keynesian view would be to show how a reduction in wages can contribute to an underconsumption crisis. While the crisis of Feudalism (where the rate of growth of population might outstrip the rate of growth of production of food was true), in my view the capitalist crisis is based on the crisis of overproduction and accumulation of capital, since this was what was also central to the Marxist interpretation of crisis. Wallerstein approaches the same issue of profitability by arguing at rising costs of capitalists. In the current capitalist world system, capitalists have actually run out of geographical zones that can be converted to peripheries. Moreover, the movement towards rising environmental degradation coupled with an increasing demand of education, health and provision of infrastructure are problems that the current capitalist order faces. Another aspect of the changes in global capitalist order since the 1968 revolution, has been attributed to how the rise of marginalized groups with reference to racism and sexism have also had a significant impact on the capitalist world order. Thus, there are important changes (such as the move from a more developmental view to a globalization view), tax cuts etc. which determined how a system moved once it bifurcated. The choice of which path is taken again depended on how the parameters of the capitalist system responded.
Overall, I feel that the World Systems theory as a neo-Marxian view is relevant in expressing how an international solidarity of the workforce can be achieved by understanding that capitalism moves through phases of expansion and crisis (in this regard the emphasis that Wallerstein puts is on the role of the World Social Forum vs the Davos forum). That crisis is not simply a measure of how GDP falls in two quarters, but a central tendency of long run cycles, is central to both Marxism and World systems theory. While the theory of bifurcation and chaos is an important way of looking at how long run cycles work, I feel that historical materialism and dialecticism of Marxist theories are somehow diluted in Wallerstein’s arguments because of at least two reasons: 1) Historical Materialism and Class Struggle attributes the importance of economic power in determining social structure and hence class antagonism (rather than markets, the state, the trans-household institutions, the households) should be our major analysis 2) Dialecticism does give importance to changes in a system and would possibly see long run cycles as a rigid way of looking at the system . However, we must understand that while Marxian theories were a useful tool in analyzing industrial capitalism, World Systems theory throws a light on the future of capitalism (financial capitalism with the declining role of the Central bank and increasing risks) and the increasing environmental costs of capitalism. Moreover, it is an analysis of historical development of countries and therefore deserves recognition with respect to how it explains several aspects of the modern society such as the rise of feminism, universalism vs minority rights alongside capitalism.
Swayamsiddha Sarangi 
Leave a comment