The Brenner-Wallerstein Debate

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Wiley-Blackwell andThe International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Studies Quarterly.One of the most critical evaluations of Immanuel Wallerstein's worldsystems perspective comes from Marxists who dislike the dominant role played by trade as opposed to class interaction in his analysis. At the forefront of this critique is Robert Brenner, whose article in New Left Review, "The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism," has elicited far less of a debate than is warranted. In the first part of this article we carefully outline the various parts of this important critique, briefly drawing attention to some of the much more fundamental issues each addresses. In the second part we consider one of the most important of these issues, that of the most appropriate level of analysis for understanding political phenomena. The debate over this point revolves largely around events in Poland in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Thus this rather arcane topic takes center stage in an argument with far broader implications. We conclude that while one should maintain a wider system level of analysis, more attention must be paid to the concrete determinants of power within political units as well.

Theory and Methodology of World Development

“…Denemark and Thomas (1988) review this debate and contend that it is better to maintain a wider system level of analysis and also to pay more attention to the concrete determinants of power within political systems. Denemark and Thomas point to the errors of overly state-centric analysis.…”

Rethinking Global Political Economy

“…For all of the sometimes vitriolic debate that has emerged on these issues among authors in the critical tradition (see Denemark and Thomas 1988;Frank , 1998Frank and Gills 1993/6;Wallerstein 1993Wallerstein , 1995bWallerstein , 1999Arrighi et al 1999;Denemark 1999Denemark , 2000, each of our chapters focuses on offering an alternative to the atomistic individual or the national state as the core of analysis. These chapters open a discussion of how to understand the global political economy in terms of both time and space.…”

“…As Denemark and Thomas (1988) usefully point out, Wallerstein's emphasis on the "world-system" level of analysis challenges more orthodox Marxist understandings of capitalism as a nationally confined mode of production. Yet whereas the former famously emphasizes the structural constraints to capitalist development generated by a regionalized worldwide division of labor, the latter leaves open to the mediating forces of class and the state the possibility of capitalist development in specific regions of the world.…”

INVIGORATING WORLD SYSTEM THEORY as CRITICAL THEORY: Exploring Philosophical Foundations and Postpositivist Contributions

“…And the contests are ugly. Since unique WS foundations remain unspecified, WS theorists suffer simultaneous accusations of "vulgar marxism" (Zolberg, 1981:275), "neo-Smithian[ism]" (Brenner, 1977;Skocpol, 1977Skocpol, :1079; cf., Denemark and Thomas, 1988;Denemark, 1992), and Third World totalitarian worship (Chirot, 1980:539). Conceptual confusion follows the uncertainty over ideological groundings <7>.…”