Research on World-Systems Theory by Western Left-Wing Scholars since the 21st Century

Immanuel Wallerstein is referred to as a “neo-Marxist” in Western academia, and his world-systems theory has had a tremendous influence in international academic circles. On August 31, 2019, Wallerstein passed away. *The New York Times* stated that Wallerstein “shook the field of sociology with his views on Western domination of the modern world and his insights into the nature of sociological research.” *The Journal of World-Systems Research*, in “In Memory of Immanuel Wallerstein,” pointed out that Wallerstein “was an innovative and influential social scientist who led an academic movement aimed at establishing a coherent framework for understanding the emergence and development of global capitalism.” Before the 21st century, Western left-wing scholars’ research on Wallerstein’s world-systems theory focused mainly on two aspects: first, affirming its value in pioneering a comprehensive research paradigm, and second, exploring its significance in studying the development problems of underdeveloped countries from a global perspective. Entering the 21st century, with the deepening development of economic globalization and capitalist productive forces, as well as major changes in capitalist class relations, world-systems theory has continued to be a hot topic in international academia. Western left-wing scholars have summarized the critique and transcendence of modernization theory by world-systems theory, studied the relationship between the modern world-system and capitalism, and explored the relationship between world-systems theory and Marxist class theory. Reviewing the research of Western left-wing scholars on Wallerstein’s world-systems theory in the new century helps to promote academic understanding of Marxist theory and attention to and exposure of the essence of capitalism.

伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦(Immanuel Wallerstein)在西方学术界被称为“新马克思主义”者，他的世界体系理论在国际学术界具有巨大影响。2019年8月31日，沃勒斯坦辞世。《纽约时报》称沃勒斯坦“用他关于西方统治现代世界的观点以及对社会学研究本质的见解震撼了社会学领域”。《世界体系研究期刊》在《纪念伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦》中指出，沃勒斯坦“是一位具有创新精神和影响力的社会科学家，他领导了一场学术运动，旨在为理解全球资本主义的出现和发展建立一个连贯的框架”。21世纪之前，西方左翼学者对沃勒斯坦世界体系理论的研究主要集中在两个方面，一是肯定其开创了一种综合性的研究范式的价值，二是探讨了其从全球视角研究不发达国家发展问题的意义。进入21世纪，随着经济全球化和资本主义生产力的深入发展以及资本主义阶级关系发生了重大变化，世界体系理论继续成为国外学术界关注的热点。西方左翼学者总结了世界体系理论对现代化理论的批判与超越，研究了现代世界体系与资本主义的关系问题，以及探讨了世界体系理论与马克思主义阶级理论的关系问题。梳理西方左翼学者在新世纪对沃勒斯坦世界体系理论的研究，有助于推动学术界对马克思主义理论的认识及对资本主义本质的关注与揭露。

I. World-Systems Theory and Modernization Theory

一 世界体系理论与现代化理论

Wallerstein’s world-systems theory was born during the heyday of the development of modernization theory after World War II. Western left-wing scholars believe that criticizing modernization theory was the purpose of establishing Wallerstein’s world-systems theory. John Bies pointed out: “Wallerstein believed that traditional social sciences were biased and inaccurate. This was not because of the way they studied, but the way they viewed the world. One of the main factors affecting their objectivity was a Eurocentric mindset. Simply put, everything was measured against European or Western cultural standards.” Daniel Chirot put it even more pointedly: “Wallerstein’s world-systems theory came precisely to debunk the claims of so-called ‘modernization theory’ that all societies could achieve greater economic prosperity and modernity along a path similar to that followed by earlier Western societies.” Cosma Sorinel summarized the tools and intellectual sources Wallerstein used to criticize modernization theory from three aspects. First, Wallerstein’s world-systems theory absorbed Marx’s “dichotomy of capital and labor, the stage-based view of world economic development from feudalism to capitalism, the theory of capital accumulation, dialectics, etc.” Second, world-systems theory adopted the analysis of the extensive economic exchange in the European world between 1400 and 1800 by the French historian Fernand Braudel. Third, Wallerstein inherited the concepts of “core” and “periphery” from dependency theory.

沃勒斯坦世界体系理论诞生于第二次世界大战后现代化理论发展的全盛时期。西方左翼学者认为，批判现代化理论是沃勒斯坦世界体系理论建立的目的。约翰·比斯(John Bies)指出：“沃勒斯坦认为，传统的社会科学是有偏见和不准确的。这不是因为他们研究的方式，而是他们看待世界的方式。影响其客观性的主要因素之一是以欧洲为中心的心态。简单地说，每件事都与欧洲或西方文化的标准相比较。”丹尼尔·奇罗(Daniel Chirot)更是一针见血地提出：“沃勒斯坦的世界体系理论正是来揭穿所谓的‘现代化理论’的主张，即所有社会都可以沿着类似于更早的西方社会所遵循的那样的道路实现更大的经济繁荣和现代性。”科斯玛·索里纳(Cosma Sorinel)从三个方面总结了沃勒斯坦对现代化理论进行批评的工具和思想来源。其一，沃勒斯坦世界体系理论吸收了马克思的“资本劳动的二分法、从封建主义到资本主义的阶段性世界经济发展观、资本积累理论、辩证法等”。其二，世界体系理论采纳了法国历史学家费尔南德·布罗代尔(Fernand Braudel)对1400年至1800年间欧洲世界广泛的经济交换的分析。其三，沃勒斯坦继承了依附理论“中心”和“外围”的概念。

Entering the 21st century, modernization theory has still not died out. In 2000, Michael Latham pointed out: “Recently, in post-Cold War analyses celebrating the collapse of state socialism and the transformative power of capitalist markets, the concept of modernization has revived.” Therefore, some Western left-wing scholars, by studying the relationship between Wallerstein’s world-systems theory and modernization theory, have criticized modernization theory. Western left-wing scholars represented by Cosma Sorinel and Agussalim Burhanuddin have analyzed the critique and transcendence of modernization theory by world-systems theory from three aspects.

进入21世纪，现代化理论依然没有消亡。2000年，迈克尔·雷迅马(Michael Latham)指出：“最近，在欢呼国家社会主义的垮台和资本主义市场的变革力量的后冷战分析中，现代化观念又复兴了。”因此，一些西方左翼学者通过研究沃勒斯坦世界体系理论与现代化理论的关系，批判了现代化理论。以科斯玛·索里纳、阿古斯利姆·布哈努丁(Agussalim Burhanuddin)为代表的西方左翼学者从三个方面分析了世界体系理论对现代化理论的批判与超越。

First, world-systems theory holds that what hinders the development of underdeveloped countries is the core-periphery international structure created by capitalism, whereas modernization theory explains this problem from the perspective of the internal conditions of the nation-state. Burhanuddin believes that modernization theory attributes the backwardness of Third World countries mainly to internal factors such as traditional culture, overpopulation, low investment, and lack of achievement motivation. Wallerstein’s world-systems theory refutes this view, criticizing modernization theory for reifying the nation-state as the sole unit of analysis while refusing to discuss economic progress from deeper structural factors, and instead analyzes the development problems of underdeveloped countries by taking the capitalist world-economy as a unified whole. In this regard, Western left-wing scholars point out that world-systems theory holds that capital accumulation on a world scale has formed a core-semiperiphery-periphery regional structure with specific functions of division of labor and production division; it is this international structure, not internal national factors, that hinders the development of underdeveloped countries.

第一，世界体系理论认为阻碍不发达国家发展的是资本主义所造成的中心—外围的国际结构，而现代化理论是从民族国家内部的角度来解释这一问题的。布哈努丁认为，现代化理论把传统文化、人口过剩、投资少、成就动机不足等内在因素归咎为第三世界国家落后的主要原因。沃勒斯坦世界体系理论反驳了这一观点，批判了现代化理论把民族国家具体化为唯一的分析单位而拒绝从更深层次的结构性因素来讨论经济进步的方法，并将资本主义世界经济作为一个统一的整体来分析不发达国家的发展问题。对此，西方左翼学者指出，世界体系理论认为世界范围内的资本积累形成了有特定的劳动分工和生产分工功能的中心—半外围—外围区域结构，正是这样的国际结构而不是国家内部因素阻碍了不发达国家的发展。

Second, world-systems theory argues that each country has a different development path within the capitalist world-system, while the view proposed by modernization theorists that national development is uniform is, in the view of world-systems theorists, absurd. Sorinel believes that modernization theory “assumes that all countries can only follow a single evolutionary development path.” In this regard, Burhanuddin further points out: “Modernists generally believe that all countries may follow a single path of evolutionary development from ‘tradition’ to ‘modernity,’ a path that can be elaborated and applied to all national cases, but they ignore the world historical development of the international structure that constrains national development.”

第二，世界体系理论主张每个国家在资本主义世界体系中都有着不同的发展道路，而现代化理论家提出的国家发展具有统一性的观点在世界体系理论家看来是荒谬的。索里纳认为，现代化理论“假设所有国家都只能走单一的进化发展道路”。对此，布哈努丁进一步指出：“现代主义者普遍认为，所有国家都可能遵循一条从‘传统’向‘现代性’进化发展的单一路径，这条道路可以被阐述和应用于所有的国家案例，但他们忽视了制约国家发展的国际结构的世界历史发展。”

Third, world-systems theory studies the world economy from a long-term historical perspective, whereas modernization theory is characterized by ahistoricity. Burhanuddin points out that Wallerstein was deeply influenced by the Annales School representative Braudel’s discussion of the *longue durée*, making history the analytical center of world-systems theory. In this regard, Sorinel believes that modernization theory ignores the world historical development of transnational structures that constrain local and national development, while world-systems theory holds that the historical experience of colonialism and foreign rule has played a distorting role in the development of many countries. World-systems theory holds that Third World countries cannot follow the Western path because they have experienced something that Western countries have not—over a century of colonial experience has completely altered the development path of Third World countries, thereby creating a historical gap between the two worlds.

第三，世界体系理论从长期的历史视野中研究世界经济，而现代化理论具有非历史性的特点。布哈努丁指出，沃勒斯坦深受年鉴学派代表人物布罗代尔对长时期的论述的影响，将历史作为世界体系理论的分析中心。对此，索里纳认为，现代化理论无视制约地方和国家发展的跨国结构的世界历史发展，而世界体系理论认为殖民主义和外国统治的历史经验在许多国家的发展中起到了扭转作用。世界体系理论认为第三世界国家不能走西方道路，是因为他们经历了一些西方国家没有经历过的事情——一个多世纪被殖民的经历彻底改变了第三世界国家发展的道路，从而造成了两个世界之间的历史鸿沟。

Walter Goldfrank summarized the research content outlined by Wallerstein in his critique of modernization theory—the systemic operation of the capitalist world-economy, its mode and causes of origin, its comparison with historical non-capitalist modes of production, and its ongoing transition to socialism. He further claimed that to conduct this research, three tasks are necessary: redoing our historical narratives, accumulating quantitative data on the new world-system, and examining and redefining our concepts. In Goldfrank’s view, Wallerstein focused his attention on the third issue; “to a large extent, re-cognition and re-interpretation constitute his method.” Therefore, these Western left-wing scholars believe that Wallerstein’s world-systems theory is a theory established on the basis of criticizing and transcending modernization theory.

沃尔特·戈德弗兰克(Walter Goldfrank)总结出沃勒斯坦在批判现代化理论时概述的研究内容——资本主义世界经济的系统运作、起源方式及原因，它与历史上的非资本主义生产方式的比较，以及它正在进行的向社会主义的过渡。他进一步声称，要进行这些研究，有三项任务是必要的：重做我们的历史叙述、积累新世界系统的量化数据、审查和重新确定我们的概念。在戈德弗兰克看来，沃勒斯坦把注意力集中在第三个问题上，“在很大程度上，重新认识和重新解释是他的方法”。因此，这些西方左翼学者认为，沃勒斯坦世界体系理论是在批判和超越现代化理论基础上建立起来的理论。

II. The Modern World-System and Capitalist Development

二 现代世界体系与资本主义发展

Based on the significant changes that have taken place in the capitalist world in the era of economic globalization, some Western left-wing scholars have attempted to research and explore the development process of capitalism from the research paradigm of modern world-systems theory. As Bhanudin said: "World-systems theory is both a historical explanation of the development of the capitalist system on the world stage over several centuries and a structural explanation of contemporary world phenomena." However, some Western left-wing scholars have also questioned world-systems theory, arguing that it is an established but ambiguously defined social science. Centering on issues such as the origins of the capitalist world, the redefinition of the concepts of "core" and "periphery," and the relationship between economic globalization and world-systems theory, Western left-wing scholars have engaged in exploration and debate concerning modern world-systems theory.

基于资本主义世界在经济全球化时代发生的重大变化，一些西方左翼学者试图从现代世界体系理论的研究范式出发对资本主义的发展过程进行研究与探索。正如布哈努丁所说：“世界体系理论既是对资本主义制度在世界舞台上发展了几个世纪的历史解释，也是对当今世界现象的结构性解释。”但也有一些西方左翼学者对世界体系理论提出质疑，认为世界体系理论是一种已经建立但含义模糊的社会科学。围绕着资本主义世界的起源、“中心”“外围”概念的重新界定、经济全球化与世界体系理论的关系等问题，西方左翼学者对现代世界体系理论展开了探索与争论。

First, Western left-wing scholars have investigated the origins of the modern world-system and the capitalist world.

第一，西方左翼学者探究了现代世界体系与资本主义世界的起源问题。

Some scholars believe that the development process of the modern world-system is precisely the process of capitalism's expansion globally. Other scholars argue that the modern world-system is a system encompassing the entire development process of human society, and that the capitalist world is merely a part of the modern world-system. Their divergence lies in their different definitions of the time of origin of the modern world-system.

有学者认为，现代世界体系的发展进程即是资本主义在全球范围内发展扩张的过程。另外一些学者则表示现代世界体系是一个涵盖了整个人类社会发展进程的体系，资本主义世界只是现代世界体系的一部分。他们的分歧在于对现代世界体系起源时间的不同定义。

Andre Gunder Frank once reached a consensus with Wallerstein on the birth time of the world-system: "Immanuel and I both wrote about the development of a world capitalist system originating in Europe between 1450 and 1500, and its expansion from the Western European core to more and more overseas worlds." However, after reviewing an early version of Janet Abu-Lughod's *Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350*, Frank re-examined the time of the world-system's birth. Frank believed that Abu-Lughod was a key figure in world-systems theory. She pushed the start date of the world-system back to 1250, arguing that there was an economic system in the 13th century, but that this system collapsed in the 14th century. With the collapse of this system, the modern world-system emerged. This had a very important impact on Frank's future research direction. He began to ponder a new question: Did the world-system begin before 1500? If not, "then how did this world-system emerge, when did it emerge, and why did it not emerge earlier than this time? Furthermore, perhaps the world-system has continuity across all these eras. Perhaps the beginnings and endings of seemingly different world-systems merely conceal the cyclical rises and falls of the same world-system." Frank's pursuit of these questions led him to trace the beginning of the world-system back 5,000 years. Frank claimed this was the first comprehensive critique of Wallerstein's view that the world-system theory was born at the end of the 14th century and the beginning of the 15th century. Thus, an opposition formed between the world-system school represented by Frank and the modern world-system school represented by Wallerstein.

安德烈·贡德·弗兰克(Andre Gunder Frank)曾与沃勒斯坦在世界体系的诞生时间上达成了共识，“伊曼纽尔和我都曾写过起源于1450年至1500年间的欧洲的世界资本主义体系的发展，以及从西欧中心到越来越多的海外世界的扩张”。但是，在评论了珍妮特·阿布·卢格伍德(Janet Abu Lughod)的《欧洲霸权之前：公元1250-1350年世界体系》的早期版本后，弗兰克重新研究了世界体系诞生的时间。弗兰克认为，卢格伍德是世界体系理论中的一个关键人物。她把世界体系的开始日期推回到1250年，认为13世纪有过一个经济体系，但这个体系在14世纪崩溃了。伴随这一体系的崩溃，现代世界体系产生了。这对弗兰克未来的研究方向产生了非常重要的影响。他开始思索一个新问题：世界体系是在1500年以前开始的吗?若不是，“那么这个世界体系是如何出现的，什么时候出现的，为什么不早于这个时间出现呢?此外，也许世界体系在所有这些时代都有连续性。或许，看似不同世界体系的开始和结束，只是掩盖了同一世界体系的周期性起伏”。弗兰克对这些问题的追问，使其将世界体系的开端追溯至5000年前。弗兰克自称，这是对沃勒斯坦声称世界体系理论诞生于14世纪末15世纪初的观点的第一次全面批判。由此，以弗兰克为代表的世界体系派与以沃勒斯坦为代表的现代世界体系派的对立形成。

The modern world-system school, represented by Wallerstein, believes that there are many systems in the world, and the modern world-system, i.e., the capitalist world-system, is merely one among many systems. The world-system school, represented by Frank, believes that there has been only one world-system throughout history. In Frank's view, pushing the study of the world-system back to 5,000 years ago was necessary because it broke the sequence of feudalism-capitalism-socialism. The world-system school regards the world-system as the aggregate of all world economies and does not believe there are differences between these economies: "Even if every economy in the world is unique, they are similar to each other in their intrinsic characteristics—all these economic systems possess the same properties such as core-periphery relations and hegemonic processes."

以沃勒斯坦为代表的现代世界体系派认为，世界上有很多个体系，现代世界体系也就是资本主义世界体系仅仅是众多体系中的一个。而以弗兰克为代表的世界体系派认为，在整个历史中只有一个世界体系。在弗兰克看来，将世界体系的研究提早到5000年之前是必要的，因为这打破了封建主义—资本主义—社会主义的顺序。世界体系派把世界体系看作是所有世界经济体的集合体，不认为这些经济体之间有什么不同，“即使世界上的每一个经济体都是特殊的，但它们在内在特征上彼此相似——所有这些经济体系都具有中心—外围关系、霸权进程等相同的性质”。

However, the modern world-system school, represented by Wallerstein and Samir Amin, opposes the view of a single world-system, arguing for the existence of multiple world-systems. They point out that the most distinctive feature of the modern world-system, as one among many world-systems, is its capitalist nature of continuous capital accumulation, hence it can also be called the capitalist world-system. In Wallerstein's world-systems theory, the production processes of the "periphery" are concentrated on the margins of the world's geographic space, while the production processes of the "core" are concentrated at the core of the world's geographic space. But it is not the first world-economy in history; it is the first world-economy to survive and thrive in this way, and it does so precisely by becoming fully capitalist. That is to say, the capitalist world, i.e., the modern world-system, originated in the 16th century.

然而，以沃勒斯坦、萨米尔·阿明(Samir Amin)为代表的现代世界体系派则反对单一世界体系的观点，认为存在多个世界体系。他们指出，现代世界体系作为诸多世界体系中的一个，最鲜明的特点是它不断进行资本积累的资本主义性质，因而又可称为资本主义世界体系。在沃勒斯坦世界体系理论中，“外围”的生产过程集中在世界地理空间的边缘，“中心”的生产过程集中在世界地理空间的核心。但它不是有史以来第一个世界经济体，而是有史以来第一个这样生存和繁荣的世界经济体，它正是通过成为完全的资本主义来做到这一点的。也就是说，资本主义世界即现代世界体系起源于16世纪。

Second, Western left-wing scholars have discussed the definition of the concepts of "core" and "periphery" in the world-system.

第二，西方左翼学者探讨了世界体系中的“中心”与“外围”概念的界定问题。

Many Western left-wing scholars point out that in recent decades, with the continuous development of capitalism, semi-peripheralization and peripheralization have undergone qualitative changes, and the geographical or territorial concepts of "core" and "periphery" are gradually becoming obsolete. Today, the relationship between production and geography, or between capital accumulation and space, is changing. New relationships have emerged among states, classes, institutions, and accumulation, and "core" and "periphery" increasingly do not conform to the geographical logic of world-systems theory, which uses specific territories to define nation-states. William Robinson argues that due to shifts in industrial leadership within the core zone, "in some less developed countries, there are also examples of traditional core-type industries. Similarly, within so-called 'core' countries, a core-periphery division of labor exists between the main centers of innovation and development." In the global society, "core" and "periphery" social zones are less delineated along national and territorial lines and more along transnational social lines. That is to say, although the functional characteristics of "core" and "periphery" remain analytically valid, their connection to specific geographic locations can only be temporary. Moreover, with the fluctuating development of the capitalist world economy, no country can guarantee its position in the world-system remains eternal.

许多西方左翼学者指出，近几十年来，随着资本主义不断发展，半外围化和外围化经历了质的转变，“中心”和“外围”的地理或地域概念逐渐过时。在今天，生产和地理或者说资本积累和空间之间的关系正在发生变化，国家、阶级、制度和积累之间出现了新的关系，“中心”和“外围”越来越不符合世界体系理论用特定的领土界定民族国家的地理逻辑。威廉·罗伯逊(William Robinson)认为，由于中心区内工业领导地位的转变，“在某些较不发达国家中，也有传统核心型产业的例子。同样，在所谓的‘中心’国家中，在创新与发展的主要中心之间也存在着中心—外围分工”。在全球社会中，“中心”“外围”社会区域更少地沿国家和领土线而更多地沿着跨国的社会路线划分。也就是说，尽管“中心”和“外围”的功能特征在分析上仍然有效，但它们与特定地理位置的联系只可能是暂时的情况。不仅如此，随着资本主义世界经济的起伏发展，任何一个国家都不能保证其在世界体系中的定位永恒不变。

Faced with numerous academic doubts about the concepts of "core" and "periphery," many scholars have attempted to redefine these concepts from multiple perspectives, even through empirical analysis. However, while describing the characteristics of "core" and "periphery" is relatively simple, providing specific, generalizable reference points for "core" and "periphery" is very difficult. On the one hand, "core" and "periphery" need to be re-understood and redefined using the logic of social science, rather than the terms of territorial or geographic statisticians or methods of empirical analysis. On the other hand, this might be, as Debra Straussfogel once pointed out, because world-systems theory, when redefining different zones, must consider not only the structural transformations existing in the current capital-based world-system structure but also the possibility of future world-system structures based on modes of production (or multiple modes) that have not yet emerged or been determined. With the continuous changes in world capitalism in the 21st century, the criteria for dividing "core," "periphery," and "semi-periphery" zones will inevitably be continuously infused with new indicators.

面对学术界对“中心”“外围”概念产生的诸多质疑，许多学者从多种角度甚至以实证分析的方式试图对“中心”“外围”概念作出新的界定。然而，虽然描述“中心”和“外围”的特征相对简单，但给出“中心”和“外围”可概括的具体参考点很难。一方面，“中心”“外围”需要用社会科学逻辑而不是领土、地理、统计学家的术语、实证分析的方法来重新认识与界定。另一方面，这或许是因为黛布拉·斯特拉斯福格尔(Debra Straussfogel)曾经指出的那样——世界体系理论在重新界定不同的区域时，不仅必须考虑到目前以资本为基础的世界体系结构存在的结构转变，而且必须考虑到未来世界体系结构基于尚未出现或尚未确定的生产模式(或多种模式)的可能性。随着21世纪世界资本主义的不断变化，“中心”“外围”“半外围”区域的划分标准也必然被不断注入新的指标。

Third, Western left-wing scholars have discussed the relationship between the world-system and economic globalization.

第三，西方左翼学者探讨了世界体系与经济全球化的关系问题。

Against the backdrop of economic globalization becoming a hot topic in academic circles since the end of the 20th century, some Western left-wing scholars believe that world-systems theory is not a theory born to study development issues, but precisely a theory produced to study economic globalization, thereby viewing world-systems theory as a "precursor" to theories of economic globalization. They regard the worldwide changes that occurred from the end of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century, which they call "globalization," as something new. However, Wallerstein denied this claim. He clearly expressed his view on "globalization": "Personally, I think it is meaningless as an analytical concept." [1]1 Immanuel Wallerstein, "Globalization or the Age of Transition? A Long-Term View of the Trajectory of the World-System," *International Sociology*, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2000, p. 249. Regarding whether world-systems theory is a theory for studying economic globalization, Western left-wing scholars have debated this from two aspects.

在经济全球化自20世纪末起成为学术界热议的主题这一背景下，一些西方左翼学者认为世界体系理论并不是一种为了研究发展问题而诞生的理论，而恰恰是一种为了研究经济全球化而产生的理论，从而将世界体系理论看作是经济全球化理论的“先驱”。他们将发生在20世纪末至21世纪初的世界性变化也就是他们所称的“全球化”视为一种新事物。然而，沃勒斯坦否认了这一说法。他明确表示了他对“全球化”的看法：“就我个人而言，我认为它作为一个分析概念毫无意义。”对于世界体系理论是否是研究经济全球化的理论，西方左翼学者从两个方面展开了争论。

On the one hand, the answer to this question depends on how the concept of "globalization" is understood. Western left-wing scholars' interpretations of "globalization" fall into three types. The first view holds that "globalization" is a development process originating at the beginning of all human history but accelerating suddenly in recent times, a geographical extension of material and cultural exchange; the second sees "globalization" as proceeding in tandem with the expansion and development of capitalism, a process that has already lasted over 500 years; the third treats "globalization" as a new change related to world development over the past few decades. Western left-wing scholars represented by Robertson point out that Wallerstein's world-systems theory belongs to the second type. In their view, long before the term "globalization" was invented, world-systems theorists had been talking about globalization. They believe that world-systems theory is a theory criticizing capitalism as an expanding system in continuous development. Over the past 500 years, the capitalist world-system has absorbed all small systems and world-empires, established market and production networks, and ultimately brought people everywhere in the world into its logic, becoming a single global structure. Therefore, by the end of the 19th century, only one historical system, the capitalist world-system, encompassed the entire world. Robertson argues that it is in this sense that world-systems theory can be regarded as a theory of globalization, even if its main architect refuses to use the term "globalization."

一方面，对这一问题的回答取决于如何理解“全球化”这一概念。西方左翼学者对“全球化”的解释分为三种。第一种观点认为“全球化”是一个起源于整个人类历史的开端而最近突然加速的发展进程，是物质和文化交流的地理延伸；第二种将“全球化”看作是与资本主义的扩张和发展同步进行，且已经持续了500多年的过程；第三种将“全球化”作为与过去几十年的世界发展有关的一个新变化。以罗伯逊为代表的西方左翼学者指出，沃勒斯坦的世界体系理论是第二种。在他们看来，早在“全球化”这个词被发明之前，世界体系理论家就一直在谈论全球化。他们认为，世界体系理论是对作为一种扩张性系统而不断发展的资本主义进行批判的理论。在过去500年里，资本主义世界体系吸收了所有的小系统和世界帝国，建立了市场和生产网络，最终使世界各地的所有人都进入了它的逻辑，并成为一个单一的全球结构。因此，到了19世纪末，只有一个历史体系即资本主义世界体系涵盖了整个世界。罗伯逊认为，正是在这个意义上，世界体系理论可以被视为全球化的理论，即使它的主要构建者拒绝使用“全球化”一词。

On the other hand, how capitalism is defined also touches the core of this issue. Some scholars follow the view of Max Weber, treating capitalism as a market relationship or exchange relationship, believing that any production carried out for exchange on the market for profit is capitalism. Under this definition, the function of capitalism based on market relations expands and develops, and economic globalization is also seen as an international commercial interaction of a certain intensity and scope. At the same time, Wallerstein and other world-systems theorists adopt Marx's definition, defining capitalism as relations of production for capital accumulation through the exploitative relationship between capital and labor. According to this definition, they do not characterize economic globalization as something new, but rather as an intensification of quantitative relations in the development of capitalism, which has been the dominant system in the world since the 16th century, reaching a certain stage. Robertson points out that this is precisely why Wallerstein, Giovanni Arrighi, and other scholars insist that the worldwide changes at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century can be adequately described as more of the same change, and dismiss the concept of globalization.

另一方面，如何定义资本主义也触及了这个问题的核心。一些学者遵循了马克斯·韦伯(Max Weber)的观点，把资本主义看作是一种市场关系或交换关系，认为任何为了利润而在市场上进行交换的生产都是资本主义的。在这种定义下，资本主义基于市场关系的功能得以扩展和发展，经济全球化也被视为一种有一定强度和范围的国际商业互动。同时，沃勒斯坦和其他世界体系理论家们则采用了马克思的定义，把资本主义定义为通过资本和劳动之间的剥削关系进行资本积累的生产关系。根据这种定义，他们没有把经济全球化定性为一种新事物，而看作是一种从16世纪就开始的占世界主导地位的资本主义发展到一定程度的定量关系的强化。罗伯逊指出，这正是为什么沃勒斯坦、阿瑞吉(Giovanni Arrighi)和其他学者坚持认为，20世纪末和21世纪初的世界性变化可以被充分描述为更为相同的变化，而对全球化的概念不屑一顾的原因。

III. World-Systems Theory and Marxist Class Theory

三 世界体系理论与马克思主义阶级理论

After the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, [2]2 The drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (苏东剧变) refers to the collapse of communist regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries between 1989 and 1991, ending the Cold War and leading to the dissolution of the USSR. as the world socialist movement fell into a low tide, research on class by Western left-wing scholars was marginalized, but their research continued. Entering the 21st century, especially since the 2008 financial crisis, new changes have occurred in the class structure and class conditions of the capitalist world. The trend of internationalization of the capitalist class and the working class has deepened, and class contradictions have further intensified, making the class issue once again a hot topic in foreign academic research. Against this background, Western left-wing scholars' research on Wallerstein's world-systems theory focuses on its relationship with Marxist class theory.

苏东剧变以后，随着世界社会主义运动陷入低潮，西方左翼学者对阶级的研究被边缘化，但他们的研究仍在继续。进入21世纪，尤其是2008年金融危机以来，资本主义世界的阶级结构和阶级状况出现新的变化。资本家阶级和工人阶级国际化趋势加深，阶级矛盾进一步激化，使得阶级问题重新成为国外学术界研究的热点。在此背景下，西方左翼学者对沃勒斯坦世界体系理论的研究，聚焦于其与马克思主义阶级理论的关系问题上。

Some Western left-wing scholars believe that Wallerstein abandoned Marxist class theory. For example, Robert Brenner argues that a correct explanation of capitalism requires analyzing class, commodities, and exploitation, while Wallerstein, in a non-Marxist way, mistakenly focuses on the division of labor and exchange relations based on trade, thereby excluding a full explanation of capitalist class relations. William Martin argues that, considering Wallerstein's emphasis on system dynamics and the priority of the First World–Third World exploitative relationship, class struggle does not play a sufficiently important role in Wallerstein's work. He points out that in Wallerstein's works, close attention to class structure is largely absent; for example, before Volume 4 of *The Modern World-System*, Wallerstein hardly presents class conflict.

一些西方左翼学者认为沃勒斯坦放弃了马克思主义阶级理论。如罗伯特·布伦纳(Robert Brenner)认为，对资本主义正确的解释需要分析阶级、商品和剥削，而沃勒斯坦以一种非马克思主义的方式错误地专注于基于贸易的劳动分工和交换关系，从而排除了对资本主义阶级关系的充分解释。威廉·马丁(William Martin)认为，考虑到沃勒斯坦强调系统动力和第一世界——第三世界剥削关系的优先次序，阶级斗争在沃勒斯坦的工作中并没有发挥足够重要的作用。他指出，在沃勒斯坦的作品中，对阶级结构的密切关注在很大程度上是不存在的，例如，在《现代世界体系》第4卷之前，沃勒斯坦几乎没有展现出阶级冲突。

However, some scholars argue that Wallerstein not only did not ignore class but remained within the Marxist tradition and expanded Marxist class theory on a global scale. Chamsy el-Ojeili points out from two aspects that Wallerstein from the very beginning regarded class as an element in the world-system related to struggles for power, wealth, and status, and that criticizing Wallerstein for ignoring class is highly inappropriate. On the one hand, Wallerstein's flexible model of class is constantly being formed, rather than being an eternal, static, unchanging category; compared to a static conceptualization of class theory, it can closely attend to the intractable but urgent issues of class consciousness and class action. On the other hand, Marx was concerned not only with capitalists extracting economic surplus from laborers but also with core states extracting economic surplus from peripheral states through unequal exchange, and Wallerstein is continuing this work of Marx.

但也有学者认为沃勒斯坦不仅没有无视阶级反而仍处于马克思主义传统之内，并在全球范围内扩展了马克思主义阶级理论。查姆西·爱尔—奥杰利(Chamsy el-Ojeili)从两方面指出，沃勒斯坦从一开始就将阶级看作是世界系统中与争夺权力、财富和地位的斗争有关的要素，批评沃勒斯坦无视阶级是很不恰当的。一方面，沃勒斯坦灵活的阶级模式是不断形成的，而不是永恒的、静态的、不变的范畴，相比于静态概念化的阶级理论来说可以密切关注阶级意识和阶级行动棘手但紧迫的问题。另一方面，马克思关注的不仅是资本家从劳动者那里获取经济剩余，而且是中心国家通过不平等交换从外围国家获取经济剩余，而沃勒斯坦正在继续马克思的这项工作。

Amin also gave Wallerstein high praise, believing that Wallerstein made an ingenious supplement to Marxist class theory. Taking Wallerstein's analysis of the French Revolution as an example, Wallerstein argues that the French Revolution was not a domestic event in France, but the product of escalating conflicts between France and Britain competing for hegemony in the capitalist world-economy. On the one hand, class struggle can be described as an internal factor within each country; on the other hand, inter-state relations can be described as an external factor. Amin points out that Wallerstein considers the second aspect to be the determining factor, "In my view, although Wallerstein goes too far in this direction, he does have good reason to fully attribute the role played by the French Revolution in establishing the modern world-system to it." [3]3 Samir Amin, "Wallerstein's World-Systems Theory," in *The Essential Wallerstein*, New York: The New Press, 2000, p. xv. Although Wallerstein's view of treating external inter-state relations as the decisive factor influencing revolution is erroneous, it is commendable that his expansion of class theory has played a certain pioneering role.

阿明也给予了沃勒斯坦高度的评价，认为沃勒斯坦对马克思主义阶级理论进行了巧妙的补充。以沃勒斯坦对法国大革命的分析为例，沃勒斯坦认为法国大革命不是法国国内的事件，而是法国和英国在资本主义世界经济中争夺霸权的冲突不断升级的产物。一方面，阶级斗争可以描述为每个国家的内部因素；另一方面，国家间的关系可以描述为一个外部因素。阿明指出，沃勒斯坦认为第二方面是决定因素，“在我看来，尽管沃勒斯坦在这个方向上过于偏激，但他确实有充分的理由把法国大革命在建立现代世界体系中所起的作用完全归功于它”。尽管沃勒斯坦将国家间的外部关系看作影响革命的决定性因素这一观点是错误的，但值得肯定的是他对阶级理论的扩展起到了一定的开拓。

Buhanuddin agrees with Amin’s assessment and believes that, from an analytical perspective, world-systems theory represents a breakthrough in Marxist class theory. “He adopted Marx’s class viewpoint, thereby providing his own class stratification system on a global scale. Therefore, it can be considered that Wallerstein’s ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ typologies are similar to Marx’s ‘bourgeoisie’ and ‘proletariat.’ That is, core countries are the upper class, peripheral countries exploit the working class, and semi-peripheral countries are the middle class.” At the same time, Buhanuddin points out that the difference between these two theoretical analyses lies in the fact that “Wallerstein’s social strata operate on a global scale, rather than within the scope of a single country. Wallerstein’s world-system is a social reality composed of interconnected classes represented by countries in three regions under the capitalist mode of production. This means that the class structure of a particular country must be interpreted as subordinate to the international capitalist division of labor. Such an analysis will help explain the performance of various countries in international interactions.”

布哈努丁赞同阿明的评价，并认为从分析层面上来看世界体系理论是对马克思主义阶级理论的一个突破。“他采纳了马克思的阶级观点，从而在全球范围内提供了自己的阶级分层体系。因此，可以认为沃勒斯坦的‘中心’‘外围’类型与马克思的‘资产阶级’‘无产阶级’是相似的。也就是说，中心国家是上层阶级，外围国家是剥削工人阶级，半外围国家是中产阶级。”同时，布哈努丁指出这两种理论分析的区别在于“沃勒斯坦的社会阶层在全球范围内运作，而不是在一国范围内运作。沃勒斯坦的世界体系是由资本主义生产方式下的三个地区的国家所代表的相互联系的阶级组成的社会现实。这意味着，特定国家的阶级结构必须被解释为国际资本主义分工的下属。这样的分析将有助于解释各个国家在国际交往中的表现。

Chiro also agrees with their view, arguing that Wallerstein was strongly influenced by Marxism and emphasized the exploitative nature of capitalism. However, he does not rely solely on the internal class structure of individual societies but also proposes a theory whereby entire societies can be subsumed into broad categories reflecting a more classical Marxist class schema. Within this, the “ruling class” of the world capitalist system is composed of the ruling classes of the most powerful core countries, which compete with each other for hegemony. At the same time, Chiro believes that the core of Wallerstein’s world-systems thought is that revolution outside the capitalist core will confront the privileges of human and material resources easily exploited by core countries, thereby leading to a world-scale revolution. He argues: “For Wallerstein, unless revolutionary movements within a single society, or even within several societies, can successfully trigger a capitalist revolution, it cannot successfully dismantle capitalism.”

奇罗也赞同他们的观点，认为沃勒斯坦受马克思主义的强烈影响，强调资本主义的剥削性质。但是，他不仅仅依赖于单个社会的内部阶级结构，还提出了一个理论，即整个社会可以归纳为反映更古典的马克思主义阶级的大类。其中，世界资本主义体系中的“统治阶级”由最强大的中心国家的统治阶级组成，这些国家相互争夺霸权。同时，奇罗认为，沃勒斯坦世界体系思想的核心是中心资本主义之外的革命会对抗中心国家易于利用的人力和物质资源的特权，从而导致世界范围的革命。他认为：“对于沃勒斯坦来说，除非单个社会内部，甚至其中几个社会内部的革命运动能够成功引发资本主义革命，否则它不可能成功地瓦解资本主义。”

Whether criticizing or endorsing Wallerstein’s world-systems theory, Western left-wing scholars, through their debates and research on this issue, have advanced academic attention to and study of class issues in the capitalist world. On the one hand, scholars represented by Martin argue that world-systems theory points to the problem of class formation on a global scale, but the class problem has clearly not been resolved. In Martin’s view, with the development of the world situation and the prevalence of proletarian protest movements, it can be seen that today, hardly any labor movement is unaware of the global nature of capital, the increasing polarization between rich and poor, and the necessity of cross-national and cross-ethnic solidarity. The capitalist core countries “have not only failed to provide stable zones of labor exploitation and labor peace abroad,” but “have also prompted a new global awareness of the systemic characteristics of capital accumulation. These developments require world-systems researchers to develop new concepts and study capital-labor relations, especially new class formations and labor organization forms at the ‘core’-‘periphery’ boundaries that cross nations and continents.” Taking the study of feminist movements as an example, he points out that in the past, the older generation of the left believed that women’s liberation would have to wait until after revolution, the seizure of state power, or the establishment of a socialist state. However, understanding such progress that transcends the nation-state today, and moving towards a global movement composed of movements in different localities, requires more of the world-system as a whole to work together on racial oppression and anti-systemic movements. On the other hand, some Western left-wing scholars have achieved certain results in the study of class struggle on a world scale. First, many scholars have noted the existence of class alliances across national borders, recognizing that the bourgeoisie in these places will collude to protect their own interests. Second, the state itself is regarded as a mediator in the grand drama of class struggle within the world economy. Third, Wallerstein’s impatience with descriptive occupational or class terms (such as slave owner, professional, peasant) has led to a loss of understanding of the role their activities play in the functioning of world capitalism.

不论对沃勒斯坦世界体系理论是批判还是认可，西方左翼学者都在对这个问题的争论与研究中推动了学术界对资本主义世界阶级问题的关注和研究。一方面，以马丁为代表的学者认为，世界体系理论在全球范围内指出了阶级形成问题，但阶级问题显然没有得到解决。在马丁看来，随着世界形势的发展和无产阶级抗议活动的盛行，可以看出，在今天，几乎没有哪一个劳工运动不知道资本的全球性质、贫富分化的日益加剧，以及跨民族、跨种族联系的必要性。资本主义中心国家“不仅未能在国外提供稳定的劳工剥削区与劳工和平区”，“而且促使全世界对资本积累的系统性特征有了新的认识。这些发展要求着世界系统研究者发展新的概念并研究资本劳动关系，特别是跨越国家和大陆的处于‘中心’‘外围’边界的新的阶级形成和劳动组织形式”。他以对女性主义运动的研究为例指出，在过去，老一辈左派认为妇女解放将等待革命、夺取国家权力或建立社会主义国家后才可以实现。但是，我们今天要理解这种超越民族国家的进步，并走向由不同地方的运动组成的全球运动，这需要更多的世界体系作为一个整体，共同致力于种族压迫和反系统运动。另一方面，一些西方左翼学者对世界范围内阶级斗争的研究已取得一些成果。其一，许多学者关注到国家边界上的阶级联盟的存在，认识到这些地方的资产阶级会在维护自身利益时勾结起来。其二，国家本身被认为是世界经济范围内的阶级斗争这一宏大戏剧中的调停人。其三，沃勒斯坦对描述性的职业术语或阶级术语(如奴隶主、职业者、农民)缺乏耐心，失去了理解他们的活动对世界资本主义运作的作用。

World-systems theory is a theoretical system formed in response to the reality of capitalist changes in the process of globalization, absorbing the nutrients of Marxist class theory and criticizing Western capitalist modernization theory. It not only revived historical sociology but also established a theoretical system explaining the differentiation of world capitalism. As Robertson stated: “Wallerstein has made a great contribution to our thinking about and research on the contemporary world by reminding us of the historical nature and large scale of the processes consistent with world capitalism. If we are to understand the current period of globalization and global crisis, we must have a long-term historical perspective, a perspective that identifies enduring cycles, trends, structures, and patterns of structural change.” Although world-systems theory has sparked many controversies among Western left-wing scholars in the 21st century, even controversies over basic concepts, it has also gained greater influence through these debates, thereby promoting the international academic community’s understanding of Marxist theory and its attention to and exposure of the nature of capitalism. After Wallerstein’s death, many well-known foreign newspapers and magazines successively published commentary articles on Wallerstein. It can be anticipated that the international academic community will continue to pay sustained attention to world-systems theory. (Notes omitted)

世界体系理论是针对全球化发展历程中资本主义世界变动的现实、吸收马克思主义阶级理论营养并批判了西方资本主义的现代化理论而形成的理论体系。它不仅复兴了历史社会学，还建立了解释世界资本主义分化的理论体系。正如罗伯逊所说：“沃勒斯坦通过提醒我们注意与世界资本主义相一致的过程的历史性和大规模性，为我们思考和研究当代世界作出了巨大贡献。如果我们要了解当前全球化和全球危机的时期，就必须有一个长期的历史观点，一个确定持久周期、趋势、结构和结构变化模式的观点。”尽管世界体系理论在21世纪引起了西方左翼学者的诸多争议，甚至是基本概念的争议，但世界体系理论也在这些争论中形成了更大的影响力，从而推动了国外学术界对马克思主义理论的认识及对资本主义本质的关注与揭露。在沃勒斯坦去世后，国外许多知名报刊杂志相继发表了对沃勒斯坦的评论文章。可以预料，国外学术界会对世界体系理论进行持续关注。（注释略）

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑