Introduction to Transitions and Modes in the World System

INTRODUCTION TO TRANSITIONS AND MODES IN THE WORLD SYSTEM

The present "transition from socialism to capitalism" and the possible future

"shift of hegemony from the United States to Japan" are occasion to re-examine

several scientific tenents of our politics and political tenents of our social

science. Among these are 1) the "transition from feudalism to capitalism," 2)

the "transition from capitalisnm to socialism," 3) the process of "transition"

itself, 4) the notion of feudal, capitalist and socialist "modes of

production," and 5) and the hegemonic rise and decline of Europe and the West

in the modern world capitalist system. The question arises whether any or all

of the above are based on scientific analytical categories, or whether they

are only derived from fond ideological beliefs. Perhaps both contemporary

political reality and available historical evidence should now lead us to

abandon some or even all of these positions.

My tentative conclusion will be that ideological blinkers - or worse, mindset

- have too long prevented us from seeing that the world political economic

system long predated the rise of capitalism in Europe and its hegemony in the

world. The rise of Europe represented a hegemonic shift from East to West

within a pre-existing system. If there was any transition then, it was this

hegemonic shift within the system rather than the formation of a new system.

We are again in one of the alternating periods of hegemony and rivalry in the

world system now, which portends a renewed westward shift of hegemony across

the Pacific. To identify the system with its dominant mode of production is a

mistake. There was no transition from feudalism to capitalism as such. Nor was

there (to be) an analogous transition from capitalism to socialism. If these

analytical categories of "modes of production" prevent us from seeing the real

world political economic system, it would be better to abandon them

altogether. These categories of "transition" and "modes" are not essential or

even useful tools, but rather obstacles to the scientific study of the

underlying continuity and essential properties of the world system in the

past. They also shackle our political struggle and ability to confront and

manage the development of this same system in the present and future.

A number of recent academic publications offer a good opportunity for such a

re-examination of the (un?)holy canons in our historical science and

contemporary politics. These publications include The Brenner Debate (19xx)

on the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe, Before European

Hegemony on the westward shift of hegemony in the thirteenth century by Janet

Abu-Lughod (l989), The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers in Europe and America

by Paul Kennedy (l987), Long Cycles in World Politics during the last 500

years by George Modelski (1987), On Global War during the same period by

William Thompson, Global Formation: Structures of the World-Economy then and

now by Christopher Chase-Dunn, and other works on hegemonial changes.

Several recent articles by Wallerstein also offer a particularly revealing

opportunity to re-examine all of the issues posed in my opening paragraphs.

Wallerstein (l989 a) looked back on the last, and forward to the next, fifteen

years of "World-System Analysis: The Second Phase" at the 1989 annual meetings

of the American Sociological Association. Under the title " Under the title

"The West, Capitalism, and the Modern World System," Wallerstein (l989 b)

considers "why in Europe rather than China" in a contribution to a volume

edited by Joseph Needham. In two further articles cited below, Wallerstein

(1988, l989c) hones down the definition of his modern-capitalist-world system

and its differentia specifica from all others. These articles also offer a

good occasion for us to re-examine these issues of transitions and modes, as

well as those of origins of and hegemony in the modern world capitalist

system. I will do so in this essay from an historical perspective on a world

system history in which Europe was only a Johnny come lately and temporary

hegemon.

Wallerstein (l989b) asks what is distinctive about the modern world-system,

the capitalist world-system, and capitalism, which are the same for him.

Others might quarrel with him about these identities, but I will accept them

for now. Examination of Wallerstein's argument about this distinctiveness will

show that it is internally self contradictory and externally contradicted by

the historical evidence.