Comments on: World-Systems Analysis, by Immanuel Wallerstein

By: Phil Henshaw

Phil Henshaw — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:44:41 +0000

There’s a corresponding general natural systems science that seems to correspond to this, with a somewhat more rigorous empiracal method, that asks equally open questions.

Complex systems and their organization are environmental learning processes one can study by their developmental paths, and exhibit a predictable sequence that helps direct questions about future turns in their development.

General notes start on my domain page, and my research work is linked from my consulting page too, http://www.synapse9.com/HDS.htm

pfh

By: Beemer

Beemer — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:27:05 +0000

What’s the point of describing the existing world if not to speculate wildly about how things might be different? Hello!

I wonder if we’re moving toward homogeneous production, or just toward the decentralization of products, so that everyone is producing something wanted by somebody somewhere, and there’s nothing that everybody has to have. That’s what the long-tail effect and the continuing development of custom/computer fabbing sort of feels like it’s pushing toward to me. Hyperfragmentation of the market until it’s all just point-to-point producer direct to consumer, and everything interesting has to do with connecting the two together…

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:29:42 +0000

Yeah, I think he was describing the existing world, so things like “advanced social tech” and “post-scarcity civilizations” didn’t come into play, although it’s interesting to speculate how societal systems would evolve under those conditions.

Homogenous production I think is where he wants things to head, to give each state an equal chance at being a core producer, with states specializing in certain areas. I think this is the direction things are starting to move, with “semi-peripheral” states like Brazil, India and China closing in fast on the already-core group of America, Europe, and Japan.

By: Beemer

Beemer — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:07:13 +0000

Well, I’m thinking in a speculative context, so I’m interested in barriers to reaching that state, not overall likelihood of getting there. So I guess that implies that to have such a system, you’d need some kind of advanced social tech to help keep things glued together despite divergent priorities. Probably also depends on what is meant by “political center”; I imagine there are variations on that idea that might mitigate divergence as well.

Hmm, there’s another logical possibility, which is not to have axial division of labor, but totally homogeneous production, so that every region is equally core (and/or periphery). Arguably appropriate for post-scarcity civilizations…

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:19:47 +0000

I think Wallerstein would argue that situation would be an improbability. Without a unifying political center, the cultures surrounding core versus periphery production would diverge. Agrarian regions and industrial regions would develop different cultures as they prioritize different things. Nation-states can overcome this by using the myths of nationalism to create a single culture, but without a political center, the culture would fragment.

By: Beemer

Beemer — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:41:53 +0000

So under this system, what would a world-system with essentially a single culture but multiple political centers, axial division of labor look like? (That being the logical third possibility.)