Question 1. What is the World System theory and how does it explain the structure of the international system and actions of states?
World-systems theory is a macrohistorical paradigm of research of international relations that examines the social evolution of the economies, historical systems and civilizations as a structural relationship within the broad historical and geographic community, the so-called "world-system". World-systems analysis is considered as an alternative to traditional interdisciplinary social sciences, since it criticizes stadial concepts of history, is focused on supranational perspective and rejects the dichotomous opposition between East and West (Halsall, 1997).
The key concept of this approach is the concept of the "world-system", which is understood as limited in space and time, coherent and integrated set of structural units – communities (world-empires, the world-economies, civilizations, ethnic groups et al.), in which all objects and elements of structure are bound by a common logic of economic, political, and other relationships forming an internal hierarchical order. According to Wallerstein, the world-system is an alternative possibility of organizing the material world: it provides a special unit of analysis of horizontal connections between historical societies and, in general, between historical and geographical regions, ethnic groups and economies (Halsall, 1997).
The world-system has a hierarchical structure of concentric "central" zones, "semi-periphery" and the "periphery". Centre (or a so-called “core”) is a zone of economic, military, political, cultural and technological predominance in the system (Halsall, 1997).
Periphery is predominantly backward and remote from the center communities and economies, which are dominated with traditionalist forms of production and social organization. Periphery is the concentration of the general population of the world-system, its resources and unskilled labor (Halsall, 1997).
Semi-periphery is formed from the economies and communities that take an intermediate position. It consists of dynamic and expansionist-minded actors of international relations which have risen from the periphery, as well as of former leaders who had lost their hegemony (Halsall, 1997).
The views of Marx and Engels on international politics and relations had some similarities with the views of classical German philosophy. Just as Kant, the founders of Marxism considered it to be possible to achieve eternal peace, but the path to it was not through moral perfection, but through class struggle and revolution. Destruction of private property and classes had to become the condition of spread of simple moral standards characteristic of relations between the peoples. But as long as this objective was not achieved, Marx and Engels, following Hegel, believed wars and conflicts between nations to be inevitable and unavoidable (Muzaffar, 2008).
Marxist understanding of the problems of world politics and international relations was based on the ideas of economic determinism. The very world politics could appear only after the formation of the world market. According to Marxism, the bourgeoisie was transforming into a cosmopolitan force becoming the ruling class on a world scale. At the same time, the proletariat was transforming into a kind of international community without their own country, but with common class interests. The proletarian revolution, designed to put an end to the domination of capital, was to acquire a global nature. World Revolution was intended to put an end not only to social, but also to national antagonisms, and to turn all humanity into a single entity that knows neither class distinctions, nor national boundaries (Muzaffar, 2008).
As it is known, the basis of society and of international relations, according to Marxism, included not natural beginning of the human psyche, but socio-economic relations in the society, which to a great extent determine the behavior of ordinary individuals, as well as government officials. Therefore, the main source of internal conflicts among Marxists was considered class and wealth inequality, human exploitation and other shortcomings of the bourgeois system. The most common cause of international discord, according to the Marxists, was the greedy interests of the national bourgeoisie. Therefore, the establishment of international peace was possible only through a radical restriction of the power of the bourgeoisie (Muzaffar, 2008).
Works Cited
Halsall, P. “Summary of Wallerstein on World System Theory”. Fordham University. 1997. Web. 8 Jun. 2016.
Muzaffar, P. “Is Marx Relevant to International Relations Today?” E-International Relations Students. 31 Jan. 2008. Web. 8 Jun. 2016.
