The Crisis and the Future: Socialism or Barbarism?

As was discussed in the fourth section of this chap­ter, a crisis is a period in which a historical system breaks down because the 'contradictions of the system have come to the point that none of the mechanisms for restoring the normal functioning of the system can work effectively any longer' (Wallerstein 1994: 15). If we accept Wallerstein's diagnosis that the modern world-system has entered such a period, then there are two crucial О questions which we must address. First, how long is the crisis likely to last? Second, what is likely replace the current world-system?

In answer to the former, Wallerstein argues that the crisis will probably persist for between twenty-five and fifty years. However, he believes that no one is in a position to answer the later question with any precision. The modern world-system will certainly be replaced by another system or systems. However, the nature of the replacement or replacements will depend on the outcome of political struggles in years ahead. Recall that Wallerstein argues that in a period of crisis the prevailing struc­tures lose much of their power to determine out­comes within the system. Rather, individual and collective action can actually influence the course of events to a far greater extent than is the case when the system is functioning effectively.

There is no doubt that Wallerstein himself hopes that the struggles of future decades will result in some form pi socialist world governments indeed, he argues mat one of the important tasks facing scholars like himself in coming years is to map-out plausible alternatives to the prevailing order. However, he also stresses that the establishment of a socialist order—even if desirable—is by no means inevitable. A crisis is a period of uncertainty and any number of outcomes are possible. Indeed, the present crisis might well result in an order which is even less palatable than the decaying modern world-system.

The point for Wallerstein is that we are in a posi­tion to make a difference. Humanity Tan either struggle to create a just and humane society, or it can allow another system to develop which intensifies the despair, destruction, and cruelty so characteristic of the contemporary world. To echo a long-standing slogan of the revolutionary left, humanity must choose between 'socialism or barbarism

Key Points

• Despite the apparent stability of the modern world-system, Wallerstein claims that it is now entering into a period of terminal crisis.

• Crisis can be accounted for through a combi­nation of economic, political, and geocultural factors.

• Wallerstein claims that the form of the world-system which will replace the existing one is not inevitable. It is possible for individual action to influence the type of world-system that will emerge.

World-System Theory and Globalization

In this chapter, we have attempted to trace the ori­gins of world-system theory, and in particular the version developed by Immanuel Wallerstein. In this concluding section we will discuss how world-system theorists view the phenomenon of global­ization.

As was outlined in the first chapter of this book, globalization is the name given to the process whereby social transactions of all kinds increas­ingly take place without account for national or state boundaries, with the result that the world has become 'one relatively borderless social sphere'. The particular trends pointed to as typifying global­ization include: the growing integration of national economies; a growing awareness of ecological inter­dependence; the proliferation of companies, social movements, and intergovernmental agencies oper­ating on a global scale; and a communications revolution which has aided the development of a global consciousness.

World-system theorists would certainly not seek to deny that these developments are taking place, nor would they deny their importance, but they would reject any notion that they are somehow novel. Rather, in the words of Chase-Dunn, they are 'continuations of trends that have long accompa­nied the expansion of capitalism' (1994: 97).

According to world-system theorists like Wallerstein, the globe has long been dominated by a single integrated economic and political entity— the modern world-system—which has gradually incorporated all of humanity within its grasp. Within this system, all elements have always been interrelated and interdependent. 'National economies' have long been integrated to such an extent that their very nature has been dependent on their position within a capitalist world-econ­omy. The only thing 'new' is an increased aware­ness of these linkages. Similarly, ecological processes have always ignored state-boundaries, even if it is only recently that growing environ­mental degradation has finally allowed this fact to permeate into public consciousness.

The growth of multinational corporations cer­tainly does not signify any major change in the structure of the modern world-system. Rather, they form part of a long-term trend towards the further integration of the world-economy. Neither, is inter­national contact between anti-systemic move­ments a new development. In fact, as even the most cursory examination of the historical record will amply attest, such movements, be they socialist, nationalist, or ecological in character, have always drawn inspiration from, and forged links with, sim­ilar groups in other countries. Finally, the much-vaunted communications revolution is the latest manifestation of a long-term trend in the world-system whereby space and time are becoming increasingly compressed.

Whilst the intensity of cross-border flows may be increasing, this does not necessarily signify the fun­damental change in the nature of world politics proclaimed by so many of those who argue that we have entered an era of globalization. World-system theorists insist that the only way to discover how significant contemporary developments really are is to view them in the context of the deeper struc­tural processes at work in the world-system. When this is done, we may well discover indications that important changes are afoot. Wallerstein, for exam­ple, regards the delegitimation of the sovereign-state as one manifestation of the crisis engulfing the modern world-system. However, the essential first step in generating any understanding of those trends regarded as evidence of globalization must be to map-out the contours of the modern world-system itself. If we fail to do so, we will inevitably fail to gauge the real significance of the changes which are occurring.

Another danger of adopting an ahistoric and uncritical attitude to globalization is that it can blind us to the way in which reference to global­ization is increasingly becoming part of the ideolo­gical armoury of elites within the world-system. Globalization is now regularly cited as a reason to promote measures to reduce workers' rights and lessen other constraints on business. Many politi­cians and business leaders argue that unless busi­nesses are allowed to function without constraints, they will not be able to compete in a globalizing economy.

Such ideological justifications for policies which favour the interests of business can only be coun­tered through a broader understanding of the rela­tionship between the political and the economic structures of the world-system. As we have seen, the understanding proffered by the world-system theo­rists suggests that there is nothing natural or inevitable about a world order based on a global market. The current world-system, like all other his­torical systems, will eventually come to an end. Therefore, rather than accept the inevitability of the present order, the task facing us is to lay the foundations for a new world-system—a global soci­ety which is more just and more humane than our own.