The manifesto of world system theory

Modern World-System I (Paperback, Student) - Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of European World-Economy in the 16th Century
Wallerstein, Immanuel / Emerald Group Pub Ltd / 1974년 6월

월러스타인은 참으로 신기한 글쓰기 재주를 가졌다. 그의 이론은 아주 간단하게 요약된다. 그러나 그 주장은 글의 논리전개와는 무관하게 명료하다. 무슨말인가? 그가 참고하고 있는 논거는 거의 The Cambridge Economic History of Europe에서 발췌한 인용이다. 이 50년대에 발간이 시작된 이 시리즈는 대단한 권위를 가지고 있고 캠브리지에서 나온 역사 시리즈(Cambridge Histories)들 처럼 읽기에 어렵지도 않다. 그러나 월러스타인의 글쓰기는 참으로 요령부득이다. 인용을 아주 장문으로 집어넣고 자신의 주장은 그 인용에 대한 부연설명처럼 따라붙는다. 다시 말하자면 인용문을 제대로 소화하지도 못하고 있다는 말이다. 경제사에 대한 자신의 연구가 없이 그냥 브로델의 이론을 남의 글을 근거로 재생산하다보니 읽고 나서 아무 내용도 기억이 나지 않는 신기한 글을 쓰게 된 것이다. 차라리 월러스타인 이론의 근거가 되고 있는 브로델의 '물질문명과 자본주의'를 읽는 것이 휠씬 생산적이고 얻는 것이 많다. 이론 자체도 브로델이 휠씬 구체적이고 생생하다.

다음은 내가 아마존에 썼던 리뷰이다.

This book is the manifesto of world system theory. and that it was awarded by American association of sociology. Previously, the capitalism begin with the 1st industrial revolution. but Wallerstein questioned this common sense. he asserted it should be dated back to 16th century when Italian city-state prospered with Mediterrean trade. The book begins with how the feudalism fell and capitalism emerged. Volume 1 covers the shift of hegemoney in European world system from Italian city-states, Spain to Holland. The gist of his theorizing is the worldwide division of labor.
By the way, Overall points are easy to grasp. but the devils lies in the details. the book is flooded with bulks of long quotations. This distracts the attention of reader, so that lose the line of argument. Reading goes through between quotation to quotation. it even seems Wallerstein has no point of himself. I read twice to catch the logic of each chapter. but no avail. Dose Wallerstein has no ability to abbridge those quotations to his own word?
If you are interested in world system theory, I recommend to read Braudel's 'Civilization and Capitalism' instead. it's easy to follow and more systematic. and that much fun to read. Below I try to compare Braudel with Wallerstein
Power organizes the space. Organized space is the world where our perspective domiciles. There were always several worlds at the same time. For example, the premodern Chinese recognized other peoples than them. But they were outside their world. So they were barbarians who were much the same with beast. Only the one in the world which had meaning to them could be called human being. But now there is only one world on the globe. If we define it as the globalization, the history of capitalism is the process globalization over centuries since the 16th C. This is the grand image Braudel depicts before us in ¡®Civilization and Capitalism¡¯. If so, capitalism is not merely the system of exchange (or production), but the way to organize the world, in other word, the system of power. With no doubt, capitalism is the system of capitals. But capital is the power to control the flow of resources. Capital, in Marx¡¯s word, is the power to control the resources allocation in society. But the resource entails not only physical material but also human labor. No goods can be presented before us without human labor. Then trade of goods must reflect the relation of spaces where human beings dwell, whether it is done with coercion or contract. Trade could be carried out between the urban and the regional. The world Wallerstein depicts is the magnified image into global scale of such an order. The unit in that order is the nation-state. but in Braudel¡¯s image, The unit of space is not the state but the city. Capitalism is the network (or hierarchy) of cities, Braudel argues. Each has its own pros and cones. But these days Braudle¡¯s image has gained popularity over Wallerstein¡¯s, since Braudel¡¯s ¡®point-to-point¡¯ perspective fits better into the aspects of globalization. For instance, the global financial market could be better captured with Braudel¡¯s. It exists on the network of cities like New York, London, and Tokyo, not on the hierarchy of nation-states. According to Braudel, the capital and the state have its own interest and dynamic different from each other. In Wallerstein¡¯s framework, we can¡¯t spot such a distinction. But it¡¯s the point where we should begin to explain the current affair, globalization.