Advertise here

یادداشت هایی پیرامون "امانوئل والرشتاین" و برخی نظریات او

Balatarin


  امانوئل موریس والرشتاین، رئیس پیشین انجمن جهانی جامعه شناسی، تحلیل گر نظام های بین الملل، جامعه شناس و متفکر چپ‌گراست. او از بزرگ ترین متفکران سوسیالیست قرن ۲۱ است. امانوئل والرشتاین در اسفند سال ١٣٩٢ در دانشگاه تهران (ایران) سخنرانی کرد. 

ماجرای زندگی امانوئل والرشتاین والرشتاین (زاده ی ۲۸ سپتامبر ۱۹۳۰ در شهر نیویورک)، همه ی درجات دانشگاهی اش، از جمله دکترایش را در سال ١٩۵٩ از دانشگاه کلمبیا گرفت. گرچه والرشتاین در دهه ی ١٩٦٠ به عنوان متخصص آفریقا، آوازه ای به هم زد، اما مهم ترین خدمت او به جامعه شناسی، کتاب "نظام نوین جهانی" (تحلیل نظام جهانی از سال ١٤۵٠ تا سال ١٦٧٠) در سال ١٩٧٤ است که چاپ های دوم و سوم آن به ترتیب در سال های ١٩٨٠ و ١٩٨٩ در امریکا منتشر شد. این کتاب توفیقی روزافزون به دست آورد و با استقبال جهانی روبرو گشت به طوری که به ٩ زبان، و به خط نابینایان ترجمه شد. در ١٩٧۵، او با تالیف این اثر توانست جایزه معتبر انجمن جامعه شناسی آمریکا موسوم به «جایزه سوروکین» را دریافت کند. این جایزه احتمالا به پاس بزرگداشت پیتیریم آلکساندروویچ سوروکین جامعه‌ شناس آمریکایی روسی ‌تبار (۲۱ ژانویه ۱۸۸۹ - ۱۱ فوریه ۱۹۶۸) است. والرشتاین از آن به بعد همچنان کار درباره ی "نظام نوین جهانی" را پی گیری و چندین مقاله و کتاب از جمله جلد دوم کتاب نظام نوین را منتشر کرد که در آن، تحلیل نظام جهانی را تا سال ١٧۵٠ ادامه داد.
امانوئل والرشتاین تا سال ١٩٧٠ در دانشگاه کلمبیا مشغول به‌کار بود. بعد از سال‌ها ماندن در این دانشگاه و پنج سال کاردر دانشگاه مک‌گیل (مونترال کانادا)، در ١٩٧٦، استاد برجسته جامعه­شناسی دانشگاه ایالتی نیویورک در بینگهمتون (یکی از چهار دانشگاه ایالتی نیویورک که در سال ۱۹۴۶ تاسیس گردیده‌است) و مدیر مرکز مطالعات اقتصاد و سیستم­های تاریخی گشت. وی هم اکنون محقق برجسته ی دانشگاه ییل است.
برخی از كتاب‌های والرشتاین
علاوه بر كتاب "نظام نوین جهانی"، از دیگر كتاب‌های والرشتاین می­توان به علوم اجتماعی نیاندیشیدنی (١٩٩١)، پس از لیبرالیسم (١٩٩۵)، پایان جهان چنان كه ما می­فهمیم (١٩٩٩)، سقوط قدرت امریكا: ایالات متحده در دنیای آشوب‌زده (٢٠٠٣) و جهان شمولی اروپا: خطابه ی قدرت (٢٠٠٦) اشاره كرد.
برخی از نوشتار ‌های والرشتاین
شورش‌ در همه جا - آینده سرمایه‌داری - كودتاي دست‌راستي‌هاي آمريكا در هندوراس و تلوتلوهاي اوباما - نرمش قهرمانانه: ايران و ايالات متحده - پایان سرمایه‌داری و بسیاری نوشتار ‌های دیگر
والرشتاین بر این نظر است که نظام سرمایه داری نه به خاطر ناکامی ها بلکه به دلیل موفقیت هایش از بین خواهد رفت . وی در نظریه ی بحران ساختاری می گوید که همه ی نظام های جهانی حرکت دورانی دارند به این معنا که بعد از متولد شدن و طی زندگی عادی، شرایط افول آنها از درون خودشان پدید می آید. به باور این نظریه پرداز؛ وقتی نظام سرمایه داری از بین برود، دو امکان برای آینده پدید می آید، یک گروه مدافع سرمایه داری می مانند و یک گروه نیز به دنبال جایگزین ها یی برای آن هستند و به یقین نظامی که در آینده پدید می آید در وهله ی اول قطبی نبوده و به دور از نظام سلسله مراتب و خودکامگی است.   نظریاتی درباره ی والرشتاین و آثار او
١ - محمدامين قانعي راد در نوشتاری زیر عنوان "سفر والرشتاين فرصتي براي همگرايي در علوم اجتماعي ايران" می نویسد: "والرشتاين در آستانه ی ٨٤ سالگي همچنان تحولات جهاني را دنبال و ديدگاه هاي خود را منتشر مي کند. او در سال ٢٠١١ چهارمين جلد اثر سترگ خود درباره نظام نوين جهاني را با عنوان «نظام نوين جهاني: ليبراليزم مرکزگراي پيروز، از ١٧٨٩ تا ١٩١٤» منتشر کرد. او در اين مجلد تکوين، تعارض و وضعيت هژمونيک گرايش هاي سياسي از انقلاب فرانسه تا آغاز جنگ جهاني اول را در زمينه نظام جهاني سرمايه داري بررسي مي کند. در آغاز اين دوره سرنوشت ساز، انقلاب فرانسه به حاکميت مردم مشروعيت بخشيد و در واکنش به اين دگرگوني فرهنگي جهاني، سه ايدئولوژي بزرگ کانسرواتيزم، ليبراليزم و راديکاليسم ظهور کردند و سرانجام سرمايه داري پس از دوران آشوبناک انقلابي، نظم نسبي را در جهان پديد آورد و ليبراليزم به مثابه ی ايدئولوژي مسلط به پيروزي رسيد. والرشتاين علاوه بر نيم قرن مطالعات گسترده و برنامه ی پژوهشي بلند مدت خود، در مقالات پژوهشي و همچنين يادداشت ها و تفاسير سياسي خود به تحليل علمي و اظهارنظر پيرامون مسايل جاري جهان کنوني مي پردازد. او در سال هاي اخير در نوشته هاي کوتاه خود در سايت شخصي اش رخدادهاي اجتماعي و سياسي از انتخابات ايران در سال ١٣٨٨ تا تحولات خاورميانه، از بحران سوريه که آن را لاينحل توصيف مي کند تا اعتراضات اخير در اوکراين را به گونه اي تحليلي مورد بررسي قرار داده است. او در يکي از يادداشت هاي اخيرش با عنوان: «نرمش قهرمانانه: ايران و ايالات متحده» به بررسي چشم انداز تحولات احتمالي در رابطه ايران و آمريکا مي پردازد. به اين ترتيب والرشتاين علاوه بر انجام مطالعات تاريخي و تمدني با گستره وسيع، نسبت به مسايل و رخدادهاي سياست معاصر نيز با رويکردي راهبردي واکنش نشان مي دهد".
٢ - بنا بر نوشتاری در تارنمای ویکی‌پدیا: "امانوئل والرشتاین نقش مهمی برای دولت‌ها قایل نیست و مبارزه طبقاتی را در اندیشه‌هایش نادیده می‌گیرد".
٣ - مینا ذبیحی  در "بررسی نظریه ی جهانی شدن والرشتاین با تاکید بر ابعاد فرهنگی" می نویسد: "در واقع از بسیاری جهات، توجهی که او تاکنون به خود جلب کرده و احتمالا همچنان ادامه خواهد داشت، از خود آثارش مهم تر است. مفهوم نظام جهانی به کانون تفکر و تحقیق در جامعه شناسی تبدیل گشته است، دستاوردی که کمتر دانشوری می تواند مدعی آن شود. می توان گفت بسیاری از جامعه شناسانی که اکنون درباره ی نظام جهانی تحقیق و نظریه پردازی می کنند، کم و بیش انتقادهایی به والرشتاین دارند، اما هیچ کدام نقشی را که او در تکوین افکارشان بازی کرد، انکار نمی کنند".
٤ - تارنمای مرکز دائر‌ه‌المعارف بزرگ اسلامی می نویسد: "امانوئل والرشتاین یکی از مهم‌ترین نظریه‌پردازان حال حاضر چپگرا در عرصه جهانی است و به سنتی فکری‌ای تعلق دارد که تحلیل سیستمی- جهانی نامیده می‌شود. تحلیل سیستمی تاریخی- جهانی رویکردی چندرشته‌ای است که می‌کوشد هم‌نهادی از مطالعات علوم مختلف برای درک سازوکار زایش و پویش و زوال سیستم‌های تاریخی جهانی به‌دست دهد. از این‌رو، عمده تحلیل‌های والرشتاین به روایتی تاریخی- انتقادی از زایش سرمایه‌داری، تکامل این نظام، تحولات هژمونیک در این سیستم و در نهایت فرادستی آمریکا در نظام جهانی اختصاص دارد".
۵ - نوذر شفیعی، در نوشتاری زیر عنوان "بازخوانی نظریه ی سیستم جهانی از دیدگاه والرشتاین" می نویسد: "نظریه ی سیستم جهانی یکی از معروفترین نظریه‌های روابط بین‌المللی است.این نظریه در افکار مارکسیستی ریشه دارد، به عبارت دیگر از انتقاد مارکسیست ها از امپریالیسم الهام گرفته‌ است.نظریهء سیستم جهانی، رخدادهای بین‌المللی را در چهارچوب ساختاری تقسیم می‌کند که براساس منطق سرمایه ‌داری شکل گرفته است. نظریه‌پردازان آن معتقدند که هرگونه تلاشی‌ برای فهم سیاست بین‌الملل باید براساس درک وسیع تر و عمیق تر از فرایندهایی صورت گیرد که در درون سیستم جهانی عمل می‌کند. امانوئل والرشتاین، در میان نظریه‌پردازان سیستم جهانی از جایگاه خاصی برخوردار است به گونه‌ای که اساسا نظریهء سیستم جهانی با نام والرشتاین همراه است".
الگوی جدید روابط قدرت های بزرگ و منطقه ای
روز ١١ اسفند سال ١٣٩٢ والرشتاین درنشستی بانخبگان ایرانی درباره ی الگوی جدید روابط قدرت های بزرگ و منطقه ای با تاکید براینکه امروزبهترین گزینه پیش روی آمریکا وایران ادامه گفت وگو و دستیابی به توافقی جامع است، گفت: "چالش پیش روی مذاکرات این است که هر دو طرف می خواهند به توافقی دست یابند که بتوانند آن را نزد مردم خود با افتخار توجیه کنند. وی تصریح کرد: اما به هر حال، گفت وگو بهترین راه حل است چرا که اگر گفت و گو به شکست منجر شود، اتفاقی که پس از آن رخ خواهد داد، قابل پیش بینی نیست. وی با اشاره به رخدادهای اخیر در سوریه و افغانستان، گفت : در جهان امروز نوع روابط قدرت های منطقه ای با قدرت های بزرگ در حال تغییر است. واقعیت این است که برخی قدرت های جهانی، امروز همانند گذشته قوی نیستند و برخی قدرت های منطقه ای بیش از گذشته قدرت دارند و به همین علت روابط میان آنان نیز تغییر کرده است. البته این بستگی دارد که چه کشورهایی درفهرست ˈقدرت بزرگˈ و چه کشورهایی نیز جزو ˈقدرت منطقه ایˈ باشند. برزیل به عنوان یک قدرت منطقه ای در آمریکای جنوبی، توانسته است گام هایی چشم گیر در محدود کردن قدرت ایالات متحده بر دارد و ساختارهایی را در آمریکای جنوبی به وجود آورد که در حال تغییر دادن شرایط گذشته است.
والرشتاین که پیشتر گفته بود آمریکا و چین نه در مسیر تقابل که در مسیر تعامل گام بر می دارند، درباره امکان تقابل واشنگتن و پکن بر سر منافع اقتصادی در شرق آسیا، گفت: اگر برخوردی هم به وجود آید، برخورد کوچک خواهد بود. وی همچنین راجع به افول نظام ابرقدرتی در جهان، به ظهور و شکست طیف ˈبازهاˈ در میان نو محافظه کاران آمریکایی پرداخت و مذاکره و تعامل را منطقی ترین راه حل برای چالش های میان آمریکا و ایران دانست. این پژوهشگر ارشد دانشگاه ییل آمریکا درباره ظهور اندیشه موسوم به ˈقرن آمریکاییˈ در ایالات متحده نیز گفت: همه چیز از نشستی آغاز شد که گروه هواداران اعمال قدرت در آمریکا در اواخر دهه ٩٠ میلادی برگزار کردند. این گروه ٢٠ نفره اعتقاد داشتند که همه رییسان جمهوری آمریکا از نیکسون تا کلینتون روشی نادرست را در عرصه بین الملل پیمودند و آنان وارد نشدن نیروهای آمریکایی به بغداد در جنگ نخست خلیج فارس را هم باعث تحقیر ایالات متحده آمریکا می دانستند. نکته جالب درباره نشست یادشده این است که جرج دبیلو بوش که امروز نماد اجرای سیاست های ˈقرن آمریکاییˈ است، غایب بزرگ آن نشست بود. وی افزود: در واقع برگزارکنندگان این نشست چون تصور می کردند که جرج دبیلو بوش در دور تازه انتخابات فرمانداری تگزاس شکست خواهد خورد و جب بوش (برادر جرج) در ایالت فلوریدا پیروز خواهد شد، ˈجبˈ را دارای بخت بیشتری برای ریاست جمهوری می دانستند و او را در این همایش دعوت کردند؛ هر چند بعدها، داستان دقیقا برعکس شد. جمع بندی شرکت کنندگان نشست طرح قرن آمریکایی به گفته والشتاین این بود که ایالات متحده باید با استفاده از نیروی نظامی برتر خود، اقتدارعمل بیشتری درعرصه جهانی نشان دهد تا سه گروه از کشورها مانند ایران و کره شمالی؛ کشورهای اروپای غربی و طیف های میانه رو در جهان عرب که بالقوه می توانند اتمی شوند را مرعوب یا متاثر کند. والرشتاین در ادامه با بررسی دوران ریاست جمهوری بوش پسر گفت : جرج بوش در عمل طی هشت ماه نخست ریاست جمهوری اش،سیاستی کاملا متفاوت از طیف تندروی نومحافظه کار داشت. وی افزود:چنانکه درجریان سقوط هواپیمای آمریکا توسط چین هم وی تاکید کرد که موضوع از طریق گفت وگو با چین حل و فصل شود اما حادثه یازده سپتامبرهمه چیز را عوض کرد. والرشتاین با تاکید بر اینکه حادثه ی یازده سپتامبر قطعا توسط القاعده برنامه ریزی و اجرا شد، گفت: این حادثه، نقطه ی عطفی در سیاست خارجی جرج بوش بود و او را بر آن داشت که از راهبرد هواداران قرن آمریکایی پشتیبانی کند.
رییس پیشین انجمن جهانی جامعه شناسی با مرور سیاست های بین المللی جرج دبیلو بوش بین سال های٢٠٠١ تا ٢٠٠٦، افزود : در عمل، این سیاست ها نه تنها موفقیتی به بار نیاورد، بلکه به شکست قطعی منجر شد به طوری که هیچیک از طرف هایی که قرار بود از اقتدار ایالات متحده بترسند، مرعوب نشدند! افزون بر این، آمریکا در سال ٢٠٠٣ برای اولین بار در تاریخ در شورای امنیت شکست خورد و واشنگتن که هیچگاه در شورای امنیت کمتر از ٩ رای موافق نداشت، اکنون با مخالفت اکثریت اعضا روبرو می شد. وی افزود: شکست سیاست های جرج دبیلو بوش به شکست حزب جمهوری خواه در انتخابات پارلمانی ایالات متحده درسال ٢٠٠٦ انجامید و در این زمان بود که بوش دست به تغییراتی در سیاست و در ترکیب کابینه اش زد از جمله، وی دونالد رامسفلد وزیر دفاعش که یکی از پایه گذاران طرح قرن آمریکایی بود را بر کنار کرد. در واقع، باراک اوباما با دنبال و برجسته کردن رویکردی پیروز شد که جرج بوش از سال ٢٠٠٦ به بعد برگزیده بود و مردم آمریکا نیز به افرادی چون جان مک کین که نماینده رویکرد موسوم به قرن آمریکایی بود، رای منفی دادند.
وی با اشاره به این که استفاده از نیروی نظامی، موجب تضعیف موقعیت کشورها درعرصه ی بین الملل می شود، گفت: هزینه های اقتصادی هنگفت بکارگیری ارتش و ورود به جنگ، هزینه ی فراوان سیاسی استفاده از نیروی نظامی و آرمانی و ایده آل نبودن نتایج حمله نظامی سه دلیل آشکار این واقعیت در تضعیف موقعیت کشورهاست".
یادداشت پایانی  ١ - گزارشی از سفر امانوئل والرشتاین به ایران (در اسفند ١٣٩٢) را می توان در بسیاری از تارنماها پی گیری نمود و برای نمونه علاقه مندان می توانند به نشانی های زیر مراجعه نمایند: http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/29385 http://www.isa.org.ir/monthly-note/6398 http://www.isa.org.ir/news/6391 ٢ - آگاهی های بیشتری پیرامون ماجرای زندگی و آثار امانوئل والرشتاین را می توان به زبان انگلیسی در تارنمای شخصی وی به نشانی زیر یافت: http://www.iwallerstein.com/ ۵ - بی تردید بررسی زندگی و آثار امانوئل والرشتاین تنها در یک نوشتار نمی گنجد و این امر نیازمند پژوهش ها ی گسترده تری است. دکتر منوچهر سعادت نوری
منابع و مآخذ
امانوئل والرشتاین : تارنمای شبکه ایران - تارنمای دانشنامهٔ آزاد ویکی‌پدیا - تارنمای پژوه
ماجرای زندگی امانوئل والرشتاین : تارنمای انسان شناسی و فرهنگ - بسیاری از تارنماها
برخی از كتاب‌های والرشتاین - نوشتاری از ابوذر رحيمي : تارنمای پژوه
برخی از نوشتار ‌های والرشتاین : تارنماهای باشگاه اندیشه - خبرگزاری فارس - همشهری ‌آنلاین و بسیاری از تارنماها
سفر والرشتاين فرصتي براي همگرايي در علوم اجتماعي ايران - نوشتاری از محمدامين قانعي راد: تارنمای بانک اطلاعات نشريات کشور  
بررسی نظریه ی جهانی شدن والرشتاین با تاکید بر ابعاد فرهنگی - نوشتاری از مینا ذبیحی : تارنمای انسان شناسی و فرهنگ
امانوئل والرشتاین و آینده سرمایه‌داری در گفت‌وگو با پرویز صداقت : تارنمای مرکز دائر‌ه‌المعارف بزرگ اسلامی 
بازخوانی نظریه ی سیستم جهانی از دیدگاه والرشتاین - نوشتاری از نوذر شفیعی: تارنمای نورمگ و نشریه ی مصباح مهر و آبان ١٣٨٢ - شماره ٤٧ 
الگوی جدید روابط قدرت های بزرگ و منطقه ای : تارنمای شبکه ایران 
 گزیده ای از نوشتارها

Some Notes about Immanuel Wallerstein and his Theories
By Manouchehr Saadat Noury, PhD
Abstract: In this reference article, the "Life Story" of American Professor Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein (born 28 September 1930), List of his "Articles and Books", Some Remarks on his "Sociological Theories", His Analyses on "The New Model of International Relations and World Affairs" are briefly presented and discussed. The Epilogue of the article provides some interesting links to the "Reports on his Trip to Iran in February 2014" and also to the Personal Website of Immanuel Wallerstein.   http://msnselectedarticles.blogspot.ca/2014/03/blog-post_8.  

Balatarin

Comments 22 Pending 0

Sort comments:
SokhananeMozoon4

SokhananeMozoon Interested in Art & Culture

NiloufarParsi

Niloufar Parsi http://niloufarparsi.wordpress.com

"واقعیت این است که برخی قدرت های جهانی، امروز همانند گذشته قوی نیستند و برخی قدرت های منطقه ای بیش از گذشته قدرت دارند و به همین علت روابط میان آنان نیز تغییر کرده است "

Essentially, this fact negates one of the central pillars of Wallernstein's thesis because weaker countries are able to break through and develop themselves despite 'world systems' holding them back. In this sense, the 'world systems' and 'dependency' schools of thought were wrong. The emerging economies of the world including Iran and a changing global economic order demonstrate the point.

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

Iran has definitely exhibited its potential as a regional power, it just can't get paid in cash for the Oil it sells. So much prowess, so much potential!
The central thesis of world system theories (which Wallerstein is only one of them; Samir Amin, Frank, Giovanni Arrighi,...) is predicated on the unfolding crisis of capitalism. Onslaught of world wide crisis since 2008, has once more proved the correct prognosis of Wallerstein & his colleagues. As they all point out such crisis are structural & not merely cyclical.

NiloufarParsi

Niloufar Parsi http://niloufarparsi.wordpress.com

And who says the western financial 'crisis' was 'worldwide'? Quite the opposite! It has been a period of rapid growth for the great majority of the world. Even faster than a decade earlier.

http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/20446

Freedom

Mihaita For a dictatorship free planet, free press, free speech and no censorship, Liberal Democracy only!

interesting article and glad to read something intelligently written. thank you

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

The question you left unanswered in that blog (if you look it's still there) is:
What kind of a "rapid growth" could also simultaneously have the highest recorded number of unemployment world wide. A basic definition of growth is described as a phase with relatively none to very low levels of unemployment. As Wallerstein correctly points out the world economy is suffering from lack of effective demand, prolonged deflation & other symptoms of underconsumption.
See his recent article on World Deflation.

NiloufarParsi

Niloufar Parsi http://niloufarparsi.wordpress.com

Please provide evidence for your claim: " the highest recorded number of unemployment world wide"

Is this in absolute or relative terms?

Outside of your ideological dreams, what are the Facts and Figures?

NiloufarParsi

Niloufar Parsi http://niloufarparsi.wordpress.com

What do you mean by " the highest recorded number of unemployment world wide.".."?

I am only asking for your lack of conceptual clarity. can you clarify this claim of yours as it seems to be foundation for your apocalyptic vision of the world of today.

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

Living in the End Times
by Slavoj Žižek

Žižek analyzes the end of the world at the hands of the “four riders of the apocalypse.”

There should no longer be any doubt: global capitalism is fast approaching its terminal crisis. Slavoj Žižek has identified the four horsemen of this coming apocalypse: the worldwide ecological crisis; imbalances within the economic system; the biogenetic revolution; and exploding social divisions and ruptures. But, he asks, if the end of capitalism seems to many like the end of the world, how is it possible for Western society to face up to the end times?

In a major new analysis of our global situation, Žižek argues that our collective responses to economic Armageddon correspond to the stages of grief: ideological denial, explosions of anger and attempts at bargaining, followed by depression and withdrawal.

For this edition, Žižek has written a long afterword that leaves almost no subject untouched, from WikiLeaks to the nature of the Chinese Communist Party.

http://www.versobooks.com/books/968-living-in-the-end-times

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

The report from ILO gives a detailed account of worldwide unemployment.
When you comprehend what Deflation, lack of Effective Demand & Underconsumption means, then you're on you first step toward conceptual clarity.
The current global combination of environmental, economic & socio-political crisis speaks for itself.

P.S. Did you bother to, after three weeks, read the figures I posted for global unemployment in you blog?

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

Please check out the latest numbers, for 2013, from World Bank, IMF, WTO,...on world wide unemployed.
I've also posted all these numbers in your blog, two months ago. Did you even bother to look at them?
The numbers have been posted for more than two months in your own blog, yet you can't see them?
Is this what they call selective amnesia? Or it's just optical limitations?

NiloufarParsi

Niloufar Parsi http://niloufarparsi.wordpress.com

The burden is on you to show that there has been a decline in comparison to previous periods and on a global level

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

See the ILO report just above. Relevant numbers about a current global economic decline in comparison to previous periods were posted on your blog more than two weeks ago, and yet you're asking for proofs; what's wrong with this picture?

NiloufarParsi

Niloufar Parsi http://niloufarparsi.wordpress.com

last time I checked, the world remained a capitalist one. What did I miss?

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

That's why it's experiencing structural crisis.

NiloufarParsi

Niloufar Parsi http://niloufarparsi.wordpress.com

what structural crisis are you talking about?

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

Millions of people unemployed, at least half of them on long term unemployment.
World wide unemployment increasing & on the rise, worldwide rates of growth diminishing & on decline.
Continued global turbulence in world financial markets (all the"gains" of past four years were wiped out in the first two months of this year; see Economist).
A prolonged global economic stagnation characterized by structural, long term, large scale unemployment, coupled with ever jittery, unstable financial markets, could be one definition of structural crisis.
For further conceptual clarity you may also check out what Deflation , Underconsumption and Effective Demand mean & are interacting.

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

Thanx for this timely blog.
Below is an article on what he called: new revolts against the system, almost ten years ago in 2002. Arab Spring and movements of Middle East, North Africa, MENA, confirm most of his observations in here.

--------------------------------------------

NEW REVOLTS AGAINST THE SYSTEM
New Left Review 18, November-December 2002


I coined the term ‘antisystemic movement’ in the 1970s in order to have a formulation that would group together what had, historically and analytically, been two distinct and in many ways rival kinds of popular movement—those that went under the name ‘social’, and those that were ‘national’. Social movements were conceived primarily as socialist parties and trade unions; they sought to further the class struggle within each state against the bourgeoisie or the employers. National movements were those which fought for the creation of a national state, either by combining separate political units that were considered to be part of one nation—as, for example, in Italy—or by seceding from states considered imperial and oppressive by the nationality in question—colonies in Asia or Africa, for instance.

http://newleftreview.org/II/18/immanuel-wallerstein-new-revolts-against-the-system

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

READING FANON IN THE 21st CENTURY
IMMANUEL WALLERSTEIN

‘I belong irreducibly to my time’, wrote Frantz Fanon in his first book, Black Skin, White Masks. That time was, of course, the era of anti-colonial struggles. Born in the then French colony of Martinique in 1925, where he was a student of Aimé Césaire, Fanon fought with the Allied forces in the Second World War and then trained in Lyon as a physician and psychiatrist. His remarkable Black Skin, White Masks was published in 1952 and had a significant impact in intellectual circles in France at the time. It was a passionate cri de cœur—‘the experience of a black man thrown into a white world’. [1] In 1953 Fanon was appointed to the Blida Psychiatric Hospital in Algeria, just a year before the outbreak of the War of Independence. He rapidly became outraged by the stories of torture that his Algerian patients recounted to him. Already a sympathizer with their cause, he resigned his post and went to Tunisia to work full time for the Gouvernement Provisoire de la République Algérienne (gpra). He wrote extensively for El Moudjahid, the official journal of the revolution.

In 1960, the gpra sent him as its ambassador to Ghana, at that time the de facto centre of the movement for African unity. The gpra wanted him to reinforce links not only with Ghana, but with the various nationalist movements in Africa still struggling for their independence, and whose leaders regularly passed through Accra. It was there that I first met Fanon in 1960 and where we had long discussions about the world political situation. He was both very encouraged by the global sweep of the national liberation movements, and disturbed by the signs he saw already in the limitations of the leadership of many of these movements—discomforts he would discuss at length in his last book. Soon thereafter, he fell ill of leukemia. He went first to the Soviet Union and then to the United States for treatments, which were fruitless. I was able to visit him in hospital in Washington, where we discussed the nascent Black Power movement in the United States with which he was fascinated. He exploded with anger about us policies in the world. He said ‘Americans are not engaged in dialogue; they still speak monologues’. In the last year of his life, he devoted himself principally and furiously to writing the book published posthumously as The Wretched of the Earth. [2] Fanon lived to read the famous preface by Jean-Paul Sartre, which he thought superb. The title of the book, Les damnés de la terre, was, of course, drawn from the opening lines of the Internationale, the song of the world workers’ movement. He died, much too young, in 1961.

It was this work, not Black Skin, White Masks, which brought Fanon his world reputation, including of course in the United States. The book became something like a bible for all those involved in the many and diverse movements that culminated in the world revolution of 1968. After the initial flames of 68 died out, Wretched of the Earth receded into a quieter corner. In the late 1980s, the various identity and post-colonial movements discovered his first book, upon which they lavished attention, much of it missing Fanon’s point. As he wrote in the Introduction to Black Skin, White Masks, Fanon thought that to overcome the alienation of the black man would require more than what Freudian psychoanalysis had to offer. Freud had argued the need to move beyond a phylogenetic to an ontogenetic explanation; for Fanon, what was required was a sociogenic explanation. Although Black Skin, White Masks would have a second life as a central text in the postmodern canon, thirty years after it was published, the book was in no way a call to identity politics. Quite the contrary, as Fanon’s lines in the concluding pages make clear:

The disaster of the man of colour lies in the fact that he was enslaved.
The disaster and inhumanity of the white man lie in the fact that somewhere he has killed man.
And even today they subsist, to organize this dehumanization rationally. But I as a man of colour, to the extent that it becomes possible for me to exist absolutely, do not have the right to lock myself into a world of retroactive reparations.
I, the man of colour, want only this:
That the tool never possesses the man. That the enslavement of man by man cease forever; that is, of one by another. That it may become possible for me to discover and to love man, wherever he may be.
The Negro is not. Any more than the white man. [3]

Whatever Fanon was, he was not a postmodernist. He might rather be characterized as one part Marxist Freudian, one part Freudian Marxist, and most part totally committed to revolutionary liberation movements. If he belonged to his time, however, his work still has much to offer ours. The very last sentence of Black Skin, White Masks is this: ‘My final prayer: O my body, make of me always a man who questions!’ It is in this spirit of interrogation that I offer my reflections on the utility of Fanon’s thought for the twenty-first century.

I am struck, on rereading his books, firstly by the degree to which they make very strong declarations of which Fanon seems entirely confident, especially when he is being critical of others; and secondly, by the way these declarations are usually followed, sometimes many pages later, by Fanon spelling out his uncertainties about how best to proceed, how to achieve what needs to be accomplished. I am also struck, as was Sartre, by the degree to which these books are not at all addressed to the powerful of the world but rather to the ‘wretched of the earth’, a category that overlaps heavily for him with ‘people of colour’. Fanon is always angry at the powerful, who are both cruel and condescending. But he is even angrier at those people of colour whose behaviour and attitudes contribute to sustaining the world of inequality and humiliation, and who often do so merely to obtain crumbs for themselves. In what follows, I will organize my reflections around what I think are three dilemmas for Fanon—the use of violence, the assertion of identity and the class struggle.

What gave The Wretched of the Earth so much punch and attracted so much attention—both of admiration and of condemnation—was the opening sentence of the first chapter, ‘Concerning Violence’:

National liberation, national renaissance, the restoration of nationhood to the people, commonwealth: whatever may be the headings used or the new formulas introduced, decolonization is always a violent phenomenon. [4]

Is this an analytical observation or a policy recommendation? The answer may be that it is meant to be both. Perhaps Fanon himself is not sure which of the two meanings takes priority; and perhaps it does not matter. The idea that fundamental social change never occurs without the use of force was not a new one. All the radical emancipatory traditions of the nineteenth century had believed that the privileged never cede real power voluntarily; power is always wrenched from them. This belief helped define the presumed difference between a ‘revolutionary’ and a ‘reformist’ path to social change. Yet in the post-1945 period, the utility of the distinction between ‘revolution’ and ‘reform’ was wearing thin—wearing thin among the very militants of the most impatient, angry, uncompromising movements. And therefore, the use of violence, not as sociological analysis but as policy recommendation, was coming into question.

If ‘revolutionary’ movements, once in power, seemed to accomplish much less than they had promised, it was equally true that ‘reformist’ movements did not do much better. Hence the ambivalence about the policy on violence. Algerian nationalists had lived through this cycle in their own biographical experience. Ferhat Abbas, president of the gpra from its foundation in 1958 to 1961, had spent the first thirty years of his political life as a reformist, only to admit that he and his movement had got nowhere. He concluded that violent uprising was the only meaningful tactic if Algeria did not wish to be forever a colony, and ‘enslaved’.

In Wretched of the Earth, Fanon seems to be making three points about the use of force as a political tactic. First of all, in the ‘Manichean’ colonial world, its original source is located in the continuing violent acts of the colonizer:

He of whom they have never stopped saying that the only language he understands is that of force decides to give utterance by force. In fact, as always, the settler has shown him the way he should take if he is to become free. The argument the colonized person chooses has been furnished by the settler, and by an ironic turning of the tables, it is the colonized person who now affirms that the colonialist understands nothing but force. [5]

The second point is that this violence transforms both the social psychology and the political culture of those who were colonized.

But it so happens that for the colonized people this violence, because it constitutes their only work, invests their characters with positive and creative qualities. The practice of violence binds them together as a whole, since each individual forms a link in the great chain, a part of the great organism of violence which has surged upwards in reaction to the settler’s violence in the beginning. The groups recognize each other and the future nation is already indivisible. The armed struggle mobilizes the people; that is to say, it throws them in one way and one direction. [6]

The third point, however, seems to contradict the optimistic tone of the second, the seemingly irreversible path towards national and human liberation evoked in the opening chapter. The second and third chapters of the book, written during the ongoing war for national liberation in Algeria, are particularly fascinating for the light they throw on ‘Concerning Violence’. The second chapter, ‘Spontaneity: Its Strengths and Weaknesses’, is a generalized critique of nationalist movements. Their ‘inherent defect’, Fanon says, is their focus on ‘those elements which are the most politically conscious: the working classes in the towns, the skilled workers and the civil servants’—that is to say, a tiny portion of the population, which hardly represents more than 1 per cent:

The overwhelming majority of nationalist parties show a deep distrust towards the people of the rural areas . . . The Westernized elements experience feelings with regard to the bulk of the peasantry which are reminiscent of those found among the town workers of industrialized countries. [7]

This inherent defect is precisely what makes them fail to be revolutionary movements, which cannot be based on a Westernized proletariat but must rely rather on the uprooted peasantry, blocked on the outer fringe of the urban centres:

It is within this mass of humanity, this people of the shanty towns, at the core of the lumpenproletariat that the rebellion will find its urban spearhead. For the lumpenproletariat, that horde of starving men, uprooted from their tribe and from their clan, constitutes one of the most spontaneous and the most radically revolutionary forces of a colonized people. [8]

Fanon passes from this paean to the detribalized lumpenproletariat to an analysis of the nature of nationalist movements once in power. He is ferocious and unforgiving, and denounces them in one of the most famous sentences in this book: ‘The single party is the modern form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, unmasked, unpainted, unscrupulous and cynical.’ The national bourgeoisie of underdeveloped countries ‘should not be opposed because it threatens to slow down the total, harmonious development of the nation’, he declares. ‘It should simply be stoutly opposed because, literally, it is good for nothing.’ He then proceeds to a denunciation of nationalism, pure and simple:

Nationalism is not a political doctrine, nor a programme. If you really wish your country to avoid regression, or at best halts and uncertainties, a rapid step must be taken from national consciousness to political and social consciousness . . . A bourgeoisie that provides nationalism alone as food for the masses fails in its mission and gets caught up in a whole series of mishaps. [9]

It is at this point that Fanon turns to the question of identity, my second theme. He initiates the discussion by saying that, of course, vaunting ancient civilizations does not feed anyone today. But it serves the legitimate purpose of taking a distance from Western culture. The racialization of culture was the responsibility initially of the colonizers, ‘those Europeans who have never ceased to set up white culture to fill the gap left by the absence of other cultures’. The concept of Negritude, Fanon argues, ‘was the emotional if not the logical antithesis of that insult which the white man flung at humanity.’ But, he goes on, ‘this historical obligation which has brought the men of African culture to racialize their claims . . . will tend to lead them up a blind alley.’ Fanon is very critical of any attempt to assert cultural identity that is independent of, not located within, the political struggle for national liberation. In the fourth chapter, ‘On National Culture’, he writes:

To believe that it is possible to create a black culture is to forget that Negroes are disappearing . . . There will never be such a thing as black culture because there is not a single politician who feels he has a vocation to bring black republics into existence. The problem is to get to know the place that these men mean to give their people, the kind of social relations that they decide to set up and the conception they have of the future of humanity. It is this that counts; everything else is mystification, signifying nothing. [10]

His closing thrust is quite the opposite of identity politics:

If man is known by his acts, then we will say that the most urgent thing today for the intellectual is to build his nation. If this building is true, that is, if it interprets the manifest will of the people and reveals the eager African peoples, then the building of a nation is of necessity accompanied by the discovery and encouragement of universalizing values. Far from keeping aloof from other nations, therefore, it is national liberation which leads the nation to play its part on the stage of history. It is at the heart of national consciousness that international consciousness lives and grows. And this twofold emerging is ultimately only the source of all culture. [11]

In the Conclusion to Wretched of the Earth, however, as though he had gone too far in understating the merits of a different path for Africa—a non-European path—Fanon points to the example of the United States, which had made as its goal that of catching up with Europe, and succeeded so well that it ‘became a monster, in which the taints, the sickness and the inhumanity of Europe have grown to appalling dimensions’. For Fanon, then, Africa must not try to ‘catch up’ and become a third Europe. Quite the contrary:

Humanity is waiting for something other from us than such an imitation, which would be almost an obscene caricature. If we want to turn Africa into a new Europe and America into a new Europe, then let us leave the destiny of our countries to Europeans. They will know how to do it better than the most gifted from among us. But if we want humanity to advance a step further, if we want to bring it up to a different level than that which Europe has shown it, then we must invent and we must make discoveries . . . For Europe, for ourselves and for humanity, comrades, we must turn over a new leaf, we must work out new concepts, and try to set afoot a new man. [12]

In Fanon’s weaving, in both books, around the question of cultural identity, of national identity, we see the fundamental dilemma that has plagued all anti-systemic thought in the last half-century and probably in the next as well. The rejection of European universalism is fundamental to the rejection of pan-European dominance and its rhetoric of power in the structure of the modern world-system—what Aníbal Quijano has termed the coloniality of power. But, at the same time, all those who have been committed to the struggle for an egalitarian world, or to what might be called the historic socialist aspiration, are very wary of what Fanon called the ‘pitfalls of national consciousness’. So we continue to weave, for to do so seems the only way to remain on a path to a future in which, in Fanon’s words, humanity ‘advances a step further’.

My third theme, the class struggle, is never centrally discussed as such anywhere in Fanon’s writings. And yet it is central to his world-view and to his analyses. For, of course, Fanon was brought up in a Marxist culture—in Martinique, in France, in Algeria. The language he knew and that of all those he worked with was impregnated with Marxist premises and vocabulary. But at the same time, Fanon and those he worked with had rebelled, forcefully, against the ossified Marxism of the Communist movements of his era. Aimé Césaire’s Discourse on Colonialism remains the classic expression of why intellectuals of the colonial world (and of course not they alone) withdrew their commitment to Communist parties and asserted a revised version of the class struggle. The key issue in these debates was the question, which are the classes that are struggling? For a long time, the discussion was dominated by the categories of the German Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The basic argument was that, in a modern capitalist world, the two classes that were in fundamental conflict and dominated the scene were the urban, industrial bourgeoisie and the urban, industrial proletariat. All other groupings were remnants of dead or dying structures and were destined to disappear, as everyone came to blend into, define themselves as, bourgeois and proletarian.

By the time Fanon was writing, relatively few people regarded this as an adequate or reliable summary of the real situation. The urban industrial proletariat was nowhere near a majority of the world’s population and in general, did not seem to be a group that had nothing to lose but its chains. As a result, most movements and intellectuals were in search of a different framing of the class struggle that fitted better as sociological analysis and served more effectively as the basis of radical politics. There were many proposals of new candidates for the historical subject who would be the ‘spearhead’ of revolutionary activity. Fanon thought he had located them in the detribalized, urbanized, lumpenproletariat. But he admitted his doubts when he depicted the ‘pitfalls of spontaneity’.

In the end, what we have from Fanon is more than passion and more than a blueprint for political action. He offers a brilliant delineation of our collective dilemmas. Without violence the wretched of the earth can accomplish nothing. But violence, however therapeutic and however effective, solves nothing. Without breaking from the domination of pan-European culture, it is impossible to move forward. But the consequent assertion of particularity is stultifying and leads inevitably to ‘pitfalls’. The class struggle is central, provided we know which are the classes that are really struggling. But lumpen-classes, on their own, without organizational structure, burn out.

We find ourselves, as Fanon expected, in the long transition from our existing capitalist world-system to something else. It is a struggle whose outcome is totally uncertain. Fanon might not have said so, but his books are evidence that he sensed it. Whether we can emerge collectively from this struggle and into a better world-system is in large part dependent on our ability to confront the three dilemmas discussed by Fanon—to confront them, and to deal with them in a way that is simultaneously analytically intelligent, morally committed to the ‘disalienation’ for which Fanon fought, and politically adequate to the realities we face.

[1] The words of Francis Jeanson, who wrote the Preface to the original French edition, Peau noire, masques blancs.
[2] New York 1963, henceforth WE. Translations amended by the author.
[3] Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, London [1967] 1970, pp. 164–5.
[4] WE, p. 35.
[5] WE, p. 84.
[6] WE, p. 93.
[7] WE, pp. 108–11.
[8] Fanon was here obviously influenced by the Battle of Algiers and its role in the Algerian revolution. WE, p. 129.
[9] Respectively, WE, pp. 165, 175–6, 203–4.
[10] WE, pp. 212–4, 234–5.
[11] WE, pp. 247–8.
[12] WE, pp. 315–6.

http://newleftreview.org/II/57/immanuel-wallerstein-reading-fanon-in-the-21st-century

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

امانوئل والرشتاین و پایان سرمایه‌داری.

پرویز صداقت

"به نظر والرشتاین رخداد بزرگی در افق پدیدار می‌شود: بحرانی ساختاری بسیار بزرگ‌تر از رکود بزرگ اخیر که تنها پیش‌درآمد دوره‌ای از دشواری‌ها و تحولات عمیق‌تر است. امانوئل والرشتاین می‌گوید طی سه یا چهار دهه‌ی آینده سرمایه‌داران جهانی با ازدحام بیش از حد بازارهای جهانی مواجهند و تحت فشار سنگین همه‌ی جنبه‌های هزینه‌های اجتماعی و بوم‌شناختی انجام فعالیت اقتصادی، ممکن است به سادگی دریابند که تصمیم‌گیری‌های متعارف سرمایه‌گذاری‌شان امکان‌ناپذیر است.

والرشتاین تأکید می‌کند دو بدیل پیش رو داریم: نخست بدیلی نسبتاً دموکراتیک‌تر و نسبتاً عادلانه‌تر از وضع موجود و دوم بدیلی غیردموکراتیک و غیرعادلانه‌تر از سرمایه‌داری (مقایسه کنید با سوسیالیسم یا بربریت در نزد رزا لوکزامبورگ). این که در نهایت کدام بدیل بر دیگری چیره می‌شود نمی‌توان پیشاپیش تعیین کرد اما خوش‌بینی، شرط ضروری تاریخی برای بسیج انرژی‌های پرشور در جهانی است که با فرصت‌های به لحاظ ساختاری واگرا مواجه می‌شود. آن‌چه برای والرشتاین مشخص است پایان تاریخی سرمایه داری و نقشی است که در دوران بحران ساختاری کنشگران اجتماعی می‌توانند ایفا کنند. تحول در جهت بدیلی دموکراتیک و عادلانه زمانی شدنی است که پشتیبانی کافی و توجه عموم به سمت اندیشیدن و استدلال برای طرح‌های بدیل گسیل شود.

سرانجام آن که به نظر والرشتاین یک سیستم تاریخی هر قدر هم پویا باشد مانند همه‌ی سیستم‌ها در نهایت به مرزهای زوال خواهد رسید. در این نظریه، در فضای نومیدانه‌ای که سرمایه‌داران خود را در آن می‌یابند سرمایه‌داری به پایان می‌رسد."

http://pecritique.com/2014/02/28/%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A6%D9%84-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%AA%D8%A7%DB%8C%D9%86-%D9%88-%D9%BE%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1/

Zendanian

Zendanian An injury to one is an injury to all.

والرشتاین، فراتر از مناسک

با وجود این، پرسشی که در این یادداشت کوتاه می توان مطرح کرد، پرسشی هستی شناختی درباره حضور او در ایران در این برهه زمانی است. شکی نیست که این حضور به مثابه یک «مهمان» ارزشمند و یک شخصیت «دانشمند» مغتنم است. اما فراتر از این مناسک که ما همواره آنها را دوست داریم، زیرا علاقمندی هایمان به حاشیه بیشتر از متن است، پرسش اساسی در آن است که حضور والرشتاین به مثابه یکی از مهم شخصیت های ضد نولیبرالیسم، اگر نگوییم مهم ترین شخصیت، در شرایطی که بخش بزرگی از نخبگان ما از حوزه اقتصاد گرفته تا حتی علوم اجتماعی و سیاسی و به ویژه در عرصه روشنفکری، حتی اگر این را به رسم «مهمان نوازی» و «تعارف» بر زبان نیاورند، به شدت مخالف نظریه های او هستند و گمان بر آن دارند که بهترین راه پیش پای ما، دنبال کردن الگویی سرمایه داری در شکل نولیبرالی آن است، چه معنایی را در خود دارد؟

http://www.anthropology.ir/node/22185