World Systems Theory and Marxism

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What is the difference between WST and Marxism? I know they are similar but WST thinkers seem to have some differences.

I have read Eric Wolf, "Europe and the People Without History", Janet abu-Lughard and Giovanni Arrighi. I thought Arrighi's Long Twentieth Century was very interesting=a history of cycles of capital accumulation.

I can't quite put my finger on this but it seems Arrighi departed from Marxism in various subtle ways.I have read his Adam Smith in Beijing, although I read it superficially. It was somewhat over my head and his central idea, to me, seemed kinda loopy.

I've downloaded several Wallerstein books but I aven't read them yet.

Anyway, I know WST concentrates more on geopilitics and global trade systems and Marxism more on class struggle. They use similar tools but seem to go in different directions.

Anyway is it possible to have a theory of socialism based on WST rater than Marxism? Are there such organisations?

[The Disillusionist]

World Systems Theory is, as the name might suggest, just a theory of systems, a way of looking at existing relationships. It really has little in common with Marxism because it's more of a top-down structural analysis rather than a bottom-up foundational analysis. As a result, WST really doesn't have sufficient explanatory power to be used as a self-contained approach to human society as a whole.

However, if used in conjunction with materialism, or some other approach to social theory, many various iterations of systems theory can be great operationalizers, allowing for better explanation under that social approach. As a result, I'm really into systems theory, though I still have a lot to learn about it.

Simply put, it doesn't work completely by itself, but combined with something else, it could work really well.

[The Idler]

there's a debate here
https://archive.org/details/2640Arrighi

[Stain]

Well Arrighi and Wallerstein concentrate on core-periphery relations (which is 1st and 3rd world), inter-capitalist relations instead of national bourgeoisie and labor relations, interstate system instead of nation-state system, labor as bring composed of both semi-proletariat and proletariat instead of just proletariat, unequal exchange between core-periphery as the fundamental contradiction, capitalism as a system instead of capitalism as just a mode of production, etc. They also do not buy the inevitable and teleological stagist conception of history and modes of production. Do not attribute any "progressive" role to capitalism. Etc. It like their analysis a lot and see it as an improvement over the traditional readings in many ways. Check out Wallerstein's "World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction." Great book!