Historical Social Science: Class Structure in the Modern World System Malcolm Alexander School of Humanities Griffith University

Queensland

There have been many attempts by socioloand historians to bridge the gulf that separates their disciplines and such attempts have produced works of sociological history, historical sociology, histories of sociology and historiography informed by the sociology of knowledge. In this paper I shall examine the intellectual project of a ’historical social science’ as it is suggested and exemplified in the writings of 1. Wallerstein and R. W. Connell. This project is not part of an exhibition of hybrid interdisciplinary curiosities but, rather, part of the continuing effort to understand the formation. and transformation of large-scale social units over long periods of time, an effort exemplified, for instance, in the work of Marx, Weber, Schumneter, Toynbee or C. W. Mills. This tradition seeks to reconstruct the past with an understanding of the way in which the system of capitalist productive relations and social power has been the singular achievement of the modern epoch, emerging and triumphing over other historical systems. Currently, this endeavour retains its appeal as a corrective both to the static and ahistorical constructs of structural functionalism, on the one hand, and the anti-theoretical habits of empiricist on the other. historiography

gists

This oaper examines the intellectual project of a ’historical social science’ as adumbrated within the theoretical and methodological writings of Wallerstein and Connell. It then examines the application of these precepts in their substantive work; Connell’s history of capitalism in Australia, developed with the collaboration of T. Irving, and Wallerstein’s ambitious history of the modern world-system: the ’capitalist world-economy’.1 I shall argue that both authors urge a similar vision of the temporality of social structures and the categories 56

the categories of class and the state. This sense of the mutability of sociological categories leads each of them to see structures as created and sustained as part of the continuous struggle for the appropriation of surplus value. However, by considering the world-system itself as the arena for this struggle, it will be argued that Wallerstein’s work extends this sense of the mutability of social structures beyond boundaries that still limit Connell’s account of capitalist development in Australia. My analysis will start from the critique of sociological habits of thought that each author offers and the alternatives they propose. I will then compare how each deals with a central problem of social theory; the concept of

they engender; in particular

hegemony. Both Wallerstein and Connell have written

extensively about the nature of the intellectual enterprise in which they see themselves engaged and, although both are professors of sociology, both are critical of the perspectives and intellectual habits of that discipline. In Wallerstein’s case this extends to an explicit rejection of

the

distinctness

of

any

social

science

discipline: I do not believe that the various recognized social sciences are separate disciplines, that is,

coherent bodies of subject matter organized around separate levels of generalization or separate meaningful units of analysis. I believe instead

they are a single subject matter ... and social science are one subject matter, which I shall call (inelegantly, but in order to avoid confusion) historical social science (Wallerstein, 1979: ix).

history

By contrast, Connell’s critique of sociology is fairly narrowly focused, not only on sociology but, within sociology, and class.

Through

theories of stratification his central concern with

on

socialist theory and issues of class analysis, Connell argues for a historical and contextual understanding of the process of class formation and the origins of class consciousness, an understanding totally opposed to the sterile ’categorical’ approach of conventional mobility research.

then be applied in any historical

In outlining the general nature and aim of their intellectual enterprise both authors stress that although theory is their point of departure, their final aim is an intelligible reconstruction of history as the working out of those theoretical tensions and contradictions which are, thus, the foundations of the present capitalist system. Connell uses the term ’generative’ to describe this approach:

Both Wallerstein and Connell criticise any theoretical schema which is abstractly formulated and rigidly imposed on historical reality, whether this be done in the name of Marxism or not. From Wallerstein’s position it is the rigidity of any ’developmental sequence’ which has to be criticised.

We may call this type of theory ’generative’ (on the analogy of linguistics) to stress its most distinctive feature, the way in which elementary structures and processes are seen to generate a huge and complex social reality ... A generative theory, however convincing or unconvincing in the abstract, is only validated by yielding an intelligible account of historical reality (Connell, 1977: 5-7).

Wallerstein, arguing that theory is neither

a

process of induction nor of rarified abstraction, puts his case in strikingly similar terms: ... if there is but a single historical social science integrally linked to politics, then perhaps we should invert our methodology. We may still specify; we may still abstract. But now we would neither specify in order to isolate the unique, nor accumulate specifications in order to abstract. Perhaps our new motto should be: the purpose of abstractions is to arrive at specificity. In trying to interpret the real world, which is perhaps the only thing we can do, we must apply to it successive abstractions, each capturing a part of the global reality until, by adding abstraction to abstraction we have arrived at a comprehensible picture of what has existed over time and space (and how that relates to the social time and space in which we live and work) (Wallerstein, 1979: xi-xii).

These general statements present historical social science as a twofold process. On the one hand there is the task of making manifest the particular constraints and contradictions which follow from the principles of organisation of a given historical structure. On the other hand there is the task of showing how the history of that structure-its ’rise and (future) demise’ to borrow Wallerstein’s (1974b) phrase-is constrained and patterned in accordance with these principles, and thus intellegible in terms of them. There is no logical sequence implied here, rather the two tasks occur simultaneously in the practice of historical social science. What is rejected, however, is the idea that the social scientist can build abstract ’models’ which can

or

social

setting. Instead, this view implies, the particular principles of social organisation which are examined by social scientists must be those which are embedded in the collective practices of the historical structure they are examining.2

this version of Marxist thought, so prevalent between 1945 and 1965, is a sort of ’mechanical copying’ of liberal views. Basically, the analysis is the same as that represented by Rostow except that the names of the stages are changed and the model country has shifted from Great Britain to the USSR. I will call this approach the ...

developmentalist perspective, as espoused by or Marxists (Wallerstein, 1979: 52).

liberals

Connell, however, goes further than criticising the work of mainstream Communist theory and argues that the writings of Althusser, Poulantzas and Carchedi suffer also from the tendency to impose an a priori definition of class on the course of historical change. the peculiar style of Althusserian class analysis, [is] that characteristic combination of a tight-laced conceptual system with a promiscuous application of class categories in practice.... Historical events can legitimately be picked up if they are ’relevant illustrations of the subject under investigation’, and put down again if they ...

not, like Poulantzas’ facts about facism.... It is much easier to work out class analysis on the basis of purely imaginary examples ... the categories of mobilization and class formation are absent from the theoretical apparatus. They are not needed: the class already exists, ahead of time, as a possibility within the theoretical system; it is simply recognized when needed in the analysis of the conjuncture (Connell, 1979a: are

327). To illustrate the ’third course’ between Marxism and conventional sociology which Wallerstein and Connell propose, it is useful to consider their disagreements with conventional liberal scholarship, which is relatively unified, rather than the diverse, disparate and sometimes contradictory traditions of Marxism. It is the particular categories of nation-state and class which Wallerstein and Connell, respectively, seek to deconstruct.

Theories of the State: Wallerstein Wallerstein’s account of the emergence of the world-system stresses that the nation-

modern

57

state does not have an independent basis but, rather, strong state-machineries develop in the

of the capitalist world-economy and fail to develop in the peripheral regions of that worldeconomy. Thus a diversity of political structures is crucial for the structure of the capitalist world-economy as a whole. Founded in Europe’s peripheralisation of the Americas and Eastern Europe during the ’long sixteenth century’, the capitalist world-economy survived attempts by the Hapsburg dynasty to consolidate and centralise its political structure, an attempt core

which,

if

it

had

succeeded,

would

have

supplanted the politically diverse capitalist world-economy with a politically centralised world-empire. Since this time the capitalist world-economy has expanded, in fits and starts according to its unique dynamic as a historical system which is economically unified but politically fragmented. Its political decentralisation allows entrepreneurs to pursue their self-interest and these unrestrained drives generate expansion of the system as a whole at certain times but, inevitably, lay the groundwork for a crisis of the system which turns the competition for surplus inward, making it a zero-sum game (Wallerstein,

1974a; 1974b). Within this system the unity and cohesion of nation-states is not guaranteed. On the contrary, the perpetuation of peripheral areas depends upon these regions lacking such unity and, hence, being open for unequal exploitation (Wallerstein, 1974a: 349). The political superstructure of the system is, moreover, an inter.state system, i.e. the dynamic of competition between states means that the creation and strengthening of the state-machinery is the initial point of its development and incorporation of the collective sentiments of nationalism is a later development.

Independence between collective sentiments of nationalism and the construction of the state is also stressed by Wallerstein’s (1974a: 145) acknowledgement that these ’status-groups’ (citizens of the state) are an important institutional focus in the contemporary interplay of forces within the capitalist world-economy. The successful nation-state is one where the ruling cadres have co-opted these collective sentiments and established their identification with the state-machinery itself. Similarly ’ethno-nations’ cannot achieve their goal of privileging their members unless they control a state-apparatus. This view is critically opposed to liberal and conventional views of nationalism and the nation-state. In most of these accounts nationalism is treated as a widespread sentiment within defined populations. True, it may be 58

harnessed by cynical politicians, but it exists independently of these manipulations. Nationstates are the final expression of this sentiment and then, to use the phraseology and metaphors of more conservative scholars, they are forged and tested in the great contest of war. Thus, rather than being a necessary response to the pressures of the larger world-system, the origins of the state remain at the level of the individual or collective unconscious of the population.

Central to Wallerstein’s position, therefore, is the assertion that consciousness, in this case national consciousness, is not independent of the institutional structure of the system. It is not a series of ideas or essences which become manifest in political institutions but rather is moulded and shaped through the interplay of interests and institutions. In Connell’s work a similar position is presented, however, his starting point is discussion of the conception of class consciousness.

Class An

Theory: Connell

of Connell’s critique of the arguments against those who regard class consciousness as the ideas, perceptions and goals held in common by a group or a class. This position derives from Weber’s differentiation of class, status-groups and parties in his essay on ’Class, Status and Party’. As Connell and Irving point out, the same position is assumed by Marxists who glibly appeal to the distinction between class ’an sich’ (in itself) and class ’fiir sich’ (for itself) (1980: 8). Their critique of this position is that it makes the process of communalisation the central aspect of class formation and hence defines away the critical issue of how structural divisions arise in the first place. Instead of a class theory, they claim, we have an elite theory which asserts that conflict is the basis of change but gives no indication of the real basis and battleground of such conflict. Dahrendorf is cited as the theorisl who carries this position to its logical extreme.

important part

sociology

are

Following Thompson, Connell and Irving (1980) suggest that class formation is a process where classes-in-opposition, that is, structures, are created. They cite Poulantzas, and Giddens’ concept of ’class structuration’, in support of this notion. This is

not the end of it does serve to establish differences with the liberal image of consciousness. In particular there is a shift in the concepts of action and agency. Unlike Weberian status-groups, classes are not selfconscious entities capable of articulating goals and setting out to achieve them. The notions of rationality, means-ends calculations and goalorientation have disappeared and class action is

their their

exposition but

cumulatively reactive rather purposive.

than

immediately

These arguments attack a view of human motivation and action common among sociologists of the 1950s and 1960s. For instance, Denis Wrong’s ( 1961 ) highly influential critique of Talcott Parson’s ’overdctermined’ view of man reaffirmed the basic dichotomy between conscious and unconscious motives which sustained this view. For these theorists, the unconscious, responding in part to the social pressures of significant others, is the source of ideas and beliefs, but the way in which these ideas and beliefs are embodied in action reflects means-ends calculations of the individual, or the group. To return to the example of nationalism used earlier, this view would suggest that the desire to defend the ’fatherland’ or the ’mothe,country’ is explicable in terms of unconscious needs, but the way in which the nation organises to achieve this end is capable of analysis in terms of its technical rationality and social organisation. Similarly, when criticising mainstream sociology’s dependence on role theory, Connell argues that it rests upon unstated assumptions about the ultimate will and purpose of those who impose sanctions and therefore is, ultimately, an individualist and not a social theory (Connell, 1979b: 14-16).

Although starting

from different

points

of

criticism, both Wallerstein and Connell generate notion of consciousness which undermines the of rationality and purposiveness often associated with the analysis of ’social action’. This is not the central thrust of their arguments, but is an illustrative example of what is involved in the intellectual project of historical social science. However, this example should not be taken as suggesting that Wallerstein and Connell deny the existence of individual or organisational goals and motives. Indeed, Rowse’s (1978) criticism of Connell argues that such remnants of Weberian intersubjectivity arc a fundamental flaw in Connell’s work. However, the point of Connell’s analysis is that, although we must acknowledge that capitalists have motives (the drive for profit maximisation in particular) the achievement of these goals is limited by the competing goals of other actors; as in a game situation. Thus the goals of the capitalist class cannot simply be imposed on society and the organisation of capitalist society does not represent the achievement of their ’project’ (Connell, 1977: 78). Similarly, Wallerstein (1979: 285) argues that capitalism is unique as a historical system which disproportionately rewards those groups who appropriate and accumulate surplus value. It is the working of these motives in the aggregate, however, a

assumptions

which

precipitates crises

The Unit of

of the

world-economy.

Analysis

Having established some identity between Wallerstein and Connell’s theoretical approaches, it is now appropriate to analyse the differences in their historical social science. The most obvious difference between them is the ’unit of analysis’ (Wallerstein) or ’historical structure’ (Connell ) which is the focus of their analytic interest. This difference is crucial in comparing the intelligibility of their histories (which is the final test of their theoretical work). For Connell (and Irving) the unit of analysis is the historical structure: A llstralia, a nation-state established through the processes of class struggle and the imposition of bourgeois hegemony over a given population. For Wallerstein the unit of analysis is the capitalist world-economy. Connell and Irving introduce the notion of Australia as a historical structure as the resolution of their theoretical deliberations on how class analysis should proceed. A society is boundaries blur depth ... it is relations come

a self-defining unit; its in time and space and analytic necessary to see the way class to dominate other patterns of relationships as an aspect of the process of carving out a distinct region for the operation of class relationships, the process of creating a social ’space’ of a certain kind. The process of colonial expansion in the nineteenth century that created ’Australian society’ shows this very clearly, as interlocking class processes in metropole and colony constructed a new kind of social unit. The problem of ‘class society’ comes down to the extent to which class relations themselves redefine historical regions (or cease to) ( Connell and Irving. 1980: 15 ) .

not

Connell and Irving’s narrative is structured around this central problem of class formation. The early Nineteenth Century is analysed in terms of the diffuse class structures fostered by the opposition of the plantation ideals of the pastoralists and the more thoroughly capitalist ideals of the urban bourgeoisie, and the consequent fragmentation of the working class. The next chapter of their history details the establishment of bourgeois hegemony by the mercantile bourgeoisie of the era 1840-1890. After this the narrative describes the challenge to that hegemony by working class agitation till c.1930. It traces the origins of the industrial ruling class from the 1890s and tells how the political wing of this ruling class consolidated hegemony once again at the beginning of the post World War Two era. The major emphasis within this history is the building of hegemony and the forms of social control necessary to maintain it. Analysis 59

of this process is seen as sufficient explanation of the consolidation of Australia as a nation-state and a distinct region. In the course of their narrative, Connell and Irving give some attention to the impact of external conditions on the development of the state and the process of class struggle in Australia. However, while the analysis of British imperialism is impressive in its integration of economic, political and class factors to explain the granting of self-government, this does not generate an analysis which can then be applied to understand the structures of contemporary

imperialism. The granting of self government

in the early 1850s is seen as the result of two sets of circumstances. The unchallenged supremacy of British industry and consequent confidence in the virtues of free trade: made possible a contraction in the sphere of the imperial state in relation to colonies of British settlement; there was room now for the exercise of local autonomy by regional sections of the imperial ruling class in these colonies (Connell and Irving, 1980: 108). ...

...

The second set of circumstances were the of working class radicalism in the wake of the gold rushes and the emerging political preponderance of a liberal urban bourgeoisie. This analysis, therefore, describes direct and interrelated links between class formation and class interests in Britain and Australia and sees Australia as a distinct part of a larger entity, the network of British imperialism. Analysis of Australia in the context of twentieth century imperialism, however, is limited by the almost exclusive focus on the internal pattern of class struggle. The external arena is simply a background against which local struggles are played out. The ’long boom’ of 1950-70 is presented as a trend common to all the economies of Europe, North America and Australia. The use of immigration to create a pool of unskilled, ethnically differentiated labour and changes in the labour process which combined to increase corporate control of the workplace are presented, similarly, as local manifestations of a worldwide trend (Connell and Irving, 1980: 292-5). Rather than seeing the capitalist world-economy, or imperialism, as a structured entity and Australia’s position as distinct within that structure, Australia is just an undifferentiated recipient of these historical trends.

weakening

Concepts

of

Hegemony

The concept of hegemony is central to Connell and Irving’s history and provides the key to 60

generative theory. Their use of that concept provides a point of contrast to Wallerstein’s work which will be explored later. In defining hegemony they point out the two distinct probtheir

lem

areas

it

covers:

Gramsci used the term in two main senses, to refer to the role of political leadership held by one class in an alliance of classes, and to a situation of cultural dominance held by one class in the society as a whole ( Connell and Irving, 1980: 22).

They then observe that it is the second of these meanings which concerns them, the question of cultural dominance rather than the issue of class alliances. Thus, although a strength of their analysis of the nineteenth century is its description of different class fractions within the bourgeoisie, these questions are not elaborated in the generative structure of their theory. Their central generative principle, as for Marx, is the system of private property which, in turn, defines the labour market and a set of social inequalities that enable the exercise of power. The consolidation and centralisation of capital permits the organisation and mobilisation of the capitalist class and consolidates its power. Where a counter-mobilisation of the working class is absent or weak, its position can be maintained without recourse to direct repression; a situation of hegemony. Overt class conflict takes the form of a struggle for control of the state, both to gain control of the institutions of repression and control and to bring about change in the basic ground rules of class struggle, rules presently legitimated by states which have evolved as the instruments of bourgeois hegemony (Connell, 1977: 5-7; Connell and Irving, 1980: 19-24). Connell’s

own empirical work has focused directly on the process of cultural domination through his studies of childhood socialisa-

more

tion, the middle-class bias of the media and the

theory and practice of patriarchy. In considering the patterns of labour force organisation and changes to it: issues such as proletarianisation of labour, formation of trade unions, the role of households in the labour process and the extraction of surplus value; Connell’s concern remains the interactions between these larger for counterprocesses and the potential hegemonic mobilisation (Connell, 1977: Ch.

10). These studies of hegemony as cultural domination directly affect Connell’s consideration of the other issue of hegemony; the questions of class leadership, alliances and fractions. As suggested, his theoretical postulate is that the capitalist class has no need of class mobilisation when no working class movement challenges

the established hegemony, and his studies of cultural domination verify this latter condition. Connell’s empirical analysis of the Australian ruling class further complements this position. He argues, firstly, that business and government should not be seen as separate institutional structures but rather, from an initial unity, the societal-based ruling class developed separate business and political career paths when the political function became necessarily specialised in order to rebut the challenge of working class political parties (Connell, 1977: 52-3; cf. Connell and Irving, 1980: 289-292). The second aspect of his analysis is the detailed examination of ruling class conflict Securely based on societal hegemony, the ruling class, he argues, seldom needs to be mobilised and rather than group solidarity being the condition of its existence and functioning, chronic and constantly shifting competition characterises its milieu. His empirical account of events in the period 1970-75 stresses this process of constant conflict. In line with his polemic against ’communalisation’, he presents this account in terms of the random outcomes of disparate concerns and avoids any ’categorical’ analysis of class fractions (Connell, 1977: Ch. 5 ) . This empirical account avoids, indeed denies, the need to consider the issues of class alliances and hegemonic

fractions. In analysing the Australian class structures, Connell and Irving carefully avoid the faults identified in other sociologists. However, in many instances, this is achieved by presenting events as historically specific rather than relating them back to the concepts of generative theory. The reason for this, I would suggest, is that the focus on hegemony as social domination limits the generative theory to a view of the material gains of class struggle as realisable only in further accumulation by the capitalist class or in increased living standards for the working class. Although connected to the ’concepts of surplus value and capital accumulation’, this view of class conflict as an intianational zero-sum game focuses primarily on the tactics and strength of the contending parties. There is little sense of how the outcome of these struggles affects Australia’s position within the capitalist worldeconomy and thereby contributes to maintaining its distinctiveness as a region within that larger

entity. Wallerstein: The

Capitalist

World-Economy

and Class Relations

Wallerstein’s focus

on

the

the theoretical these limitations.

world-system of

capitalist world-economy provides framework which

overcomes

a

Unfortunately Wallerstein has not been explicit in laying out the generative core of his analysis. Indeed,

as

formulated in parts of The Modern

World-System ( 1974a), he seems to follow a ’categorical’ approach, as concepts of core,

periphery and semiperiphery are used in rigid manner. Later developments in

a

fairly

Wallerstein’s work show a movement away from this tendency, in so far as the processes of conflict within the capitalist world-economy are shown to create and sustain opportunities for certain countries to become core or semiperipheral states. We are required, therefore, to extract a ’generative’ base from Wallerstein’s writings, one, however, that suggests quite a different analysis of class conflict and hegemony to that presented by Connell. The generative principle of Wallerstein’s theory is, I would argue, the assertion that the capitalist world-economy, is economically unified but politically diverse.-’ A corollary of this is that the material base of class formation is not contained by political boundaries, but rather is transnational (or, perhaps, a-national). However, the capitalists’ drive to accumulate and realise surplus value follows two strategies that involve political control. There is the (worldwide) process of extracting surplus from the (world) proletariat, but there is also the process of intra-bourgeois competition. Insofar as states are the vehicles to achieve these ends, the struggle among capitalists pits states against each other. Furthermore, capital and the bourgeoisie are transnational and have no inherent loyalty to particular states. States themselves are therefore competing to attract and hold capital, and thus become or remain centres of significant capital accumulation. Within Wallerstein’s work the term hegemony applies to situations quite different to those delineated by Connell and Irving. It describes the situation where one state achieves pre-eminence in the competitive struggle of the interstate system, such as occurred with Britain in the Nineteenth Century and the United States in the post-World War Two era. This usage of the term reflects that of the Chinese leadership when they accuse the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. of ’great power hegemonism’. It constitutes a distinct third meaning of the term since, although it refers to issues of leadership, it is the outcome of a struggle for leadership among states, not among classes or fractions of classes. This concept of hegemony relates to the operation of states within the competitive structure of the capitalist world-economy. One aspect of this situation is summarised by Skocpol’s phrase ’the potential autonomy of the state’. As she elaborates: 61

We should not forget that states also always exist in determinant geopolitical environments. in interaction with other actual or potential states. An existing economy and class structurc condition and influence a given state structure and the activities of the rulers. So, too, do geopolitical environments create tasks and opportunities for states and place limits on their capacities to cope with either external or internal tasks or crises (Skocpol. 1979: 30; cf. Alexander, 1979: Ch. 2). states may sometimes have coherent motivations and goals, but they cannot realise these directly because of the restraints of the larger system and the motivations and goals of other groups within that system. It is this insight into the workings of the capitalist world-economy that lies behind Wallerstein’s assertion that there is no separate socialist world-system in the modern world-system but only certain state-machineries which are controlled by groups committed, in principle, to the building of socialism (Wallerstein, 1974a: 351 ). It is this perspective which, in turn, permits analysis of the problems of socialist countries within the framework of his generative theory. They are seen as part of the semiperiphery and have to face the external and related internal problems of countries in this particular position (Wallerstein, 1979: Ch. 5 ) .

Thus, like individuals,

stein (1979: Ch. 5) and developed, in particular, by Rubinson (1976) and Skocpol (1979). This approach highlights the consequences of the internal class struggle for a state’s position vis a vis other states; its ’international competitiveness’, in the language of business economists. in Thus analysing which scmiperipheral countries move ahead of others in a time of change within this zone of the capitalist worldeconomy, Wallerstein suggests that it is those able to maintain the highest ’wage-labour cost differential with the core countries’ i.e. the lowest wages (Wallerstein, 1979: 107).4

Wallerstein also develops a second line of Rather than seeing internal class as an element of a state’s competitiveness, he develops the notion that class struggle is transnational. This perspective locates the dynamic of class struggle as part of the recurrent crises of the capitalist world-economy; the ’long waves’ of the system’s fluctuations. He presents these fluctuations as a cycle of overproduction and underconsumption, within the system as a whole. The system’s own expansion fuels accumulation and overproduction and its crises involve a rearrangements of the patterns of effective demand through a global redistribution of income. He portrays the immediate future of this cycle as follows:

analysis. struggle

This aspect of Wallerstein’s historical social science thus raises important issues for Connell’s analysis of the Australian ruling class. It suggests that the autonomy of the political wing of the ruling class emerges, and is structurally sustained, not only as a counter to the internal challenge of working class political successes but also to maintain the boundaries and integration of the state in the face of the transnational loyalties of capital. It must resist the forces of national disintegration associated with international capitalism. In the face of these challenges, the political wing of the ruling class will be forced to exercise a much greater degree of autonomous action than that outlined by Connell. Just as we cannot ’have distinct classes and bring them into relationship with each other’ so too we cannot have distinct states and bring them into relationship with each other.

I expect the world-economy to take a marked upturn once again in the 1990s. The result of the turmoil and the realignments will in fact have been, as before, to increase world demand to a point high enough to stimulate a further expansion of world production. There will probably be significant cost-saving technological innovations, possibly centering on the provision of energy. There will be significant further ’proletarianisation’, deriving on the one hand from the impact of the displacement of ’traditional’ industrial enterprises to semiperipheral areas and on the other hand from the reinforcement of wage-income-dependent household structures in the core. This further change in core household structures will be effectuated by a vast increase in the tertiary sector, the continuing entry of women into the full-time labour force, and the redefinition of social roles sought by the various antisexist and antiracist movements ( Wallerstein, 1980a: 179).

Important as it is, this analysis of interstate competition cannot remain the end of our analysis since it would appear to have abolished issues of class analysis entirely. However, there are two ways in which class analysis can be reintegrated into world-system analyses. The first path involves stressing the importance of internal hegemony for success within the competitive structure of the capitalist worldeconomy. This linkage is suggested by Waller-

Within this overarching pattern of change, class struggle, and its outcomes, are seen as part of a world pattern rather than reflections of an intrcrnational hegemony. Connections between the direct impact of class struggle upon the world-economy and the indirect links which result from the national level of class struggle are not clear, but the viability of linking class struggle directly to a differentiated pattern of world-economic changes is apparent.5

62

Finally,

In this quotation Wallerstein posits direct links between patterns of class struggle and the realisation of surplus-value and capital accumulation in the capitalist world-economy as a whole. To make Wallerstein’s transnational view of class struggle more explicit, I will sketch out some specific instances of how this perspective might be developed in relation to issues that affect Australia’s position within the capitalist world-economy. Two such instances are firstly the changing nature of the labour market in semiperipheral resource-supplying countries and, secondly, debate about the character of their bourgeoisies.

Australia in the Capitalist World Economy: Some Considerations Australia

has

a number of booms in her history. These booms are fostered by the fluctuations of the capitalist world-economy and have specific effects which involve an intrusion of a transnational system of production into the domestic labour market. A major instance of this is the impact of the mining and extractive industries. These industries are sustained and structured by their interaction with world markets rather than the domestic economy. This permits a higher level of capital intensity than would otherwise be the case and there is a corresponding concentration of skilled labour, isolated from the urban working classes and exhibiting a high level of geographical mobility. The particular characteristics of these communities and the type of class consciousness they generate create divisions within the working class which might become critical. In Canada the term ’resource proletariat’ has been coined to describe this phenomenon. What is being analysed in this instance is not just the effects of foreign investment, but rather the effects of foreign trade and the specialisation of social structures attendant on participation in the capitalist world-economy. An extreme case of the labour market effects of such development is sketched by Arrighi (1970) for Africa. In this situation, he argues, a labour aristocracy’ arises of the workers in the extractive industries and the bureaucracy that can be built upon its royalties and taxes. One of the distinctive features of Australia, and Canada, is precisely that such cleavages are held in check and the institutions which ensure this constitute an important element of these countries’ semiperipheral status compared to the situation of peripheral regions. (See Alexander, 1979: Ch. 5 and Ch. 6.) The second example of the impact of transnational forces on domestic class formation is provided by analyses of the particular

export-oriented

experienced

resource

character of the

bourgeoisie in countries. (This issue has been

semiperipheral

major theme economy in Canada. ) Tom Naylor (1975) and W. Clement (1975; 1977) have described the disproportionate concentration of local capitalists in the areas of transportation, banking and finance. This concentration of interest, they argue, led the local bourgeoisie to encourage multinational investment in both resource extraction and manufacturing industry rather than encouraging industrialisation through a domestically controlled accumulation process. The character of major sections of the Canadian bourgeoisie is therefore shaped by the particular role they have carved out for themselves at the interstices of transnational structures rather than in any independent domestic base. Furthermore, rather than seeing fractionalism in terms of local and foreign ownership, an explicit link is made to the material base of the capitalist of

a

political

world-economy. These two examples of a transnational analysis of class formation apply to issues which relate to the analysis of Australia as a distinct entity within the capitalist world-economy. The analysis of class forces they involve affects our understanding of the conditions in which the locai state exists and therefore overcomes the limitations of too exclusive a focus on the ’potential’ autonomy of the state. Together, however, these two facets of world-system theory provide new dimensions for the class analysis of Australia as a historical structure. Such analysis will thus be able to produce a fuller comprehension of transnational and local class struggles and their combined outcome and feed back into a further elaboration of the generative theories proposed by both Connell and Wallerstein.

Through its critique of previous perspective, the intellectual project of a ’historical social science’ directed attention to the way in which ’structures’ or ’historical systems’ are maintained as spatio-temporal totalities through the working of their basic principles of organisation and the contradictions and class struggles these entail. In looking at the way Connell and Wallerstein carry through this project, I have contrasted their units of analysis and, as a consequence, the different generative principles they develop. These differences were further developed in relation to the concept of hegemony. However, it is only by considering the modern worldsystem itself as a unit of analysis, that our analysis can avoid the pitfalls criticised in previous work. Thus, the problems of a historical social science are not problems of intellectual work in the abstract, but concrete problems related to conceptualisation, understanding and 63

analysis we

Alexander, M. L.

FOOTNOTES 1. Wallerstein

the term ’the modern world-system’ simply as a descriptive term to denote the contemporary world-system as we know it. His worldsystems theory involves comparison of the modern world-system with other world-systems, mini-systems and world empires. It is this comparison that leads him to define the modern world-system as a capitalist

2.

uses

world-economy. (Wallerstein, 1979: 5.) Wallerstein and Connell seldom refer to their work as a ’paradigm’. This term of Kuhn (1960) is often used very loosely so that it retains the connotations of relativism which informed pre-Kuhnian views of scientific theories. These views exhorted the scientist to be sceptical of all theories and pluralist in his/her theoretical allegiances. Kuhn’s own argument suggests that scientific paradigms are generated through the collective experimental practices of a science and thus are grounded in the material achievements of its experimental tradition, making such theoretical scepticism impossible. In a similar fashion, the project of a historical social science suggests that its achievements in producing intelligible and comprehensive accounts of historical structures serve to ’verify’ its ’theories’. In this way it too avoids the relativism implied by the loose use of the term ’paradigm’.

3. The best statement of this generative principle is probably the following: The functioning then of a capitalist worldeconomy requires that groups pursue their economic interests within a single world market while seeking to distort this market for their benefit by organizing to exert influence on states, some of which are far more powerful than others but none of which controls the world market in its entirety (Wallerstein, 1979: 25). In this seminal article, which originally appeared in 1974, Wallerstein argues that it is only by consideration of the capitalist world-economy as an entity in its own right that we can avoid the ’pseudoproblems’ associated with theories which posit various stages of development. Furthermore, it is argued by Bach ( 1980) that a world-system theory must focus on the spatio-temporal totality of the capitalist world-economy and not become intent on the subsidiary categories of ’core’, ’semiperiphery’ and ’periphery’.

4. This particular aspect of the semiperipheral situation doesn’t provide grounds for analysing the situation of ’high wage’ countries such as Australia. It might suggest that changing international pressures will foster trends toward corporatism in this country (see, Clegg, 1980), however, this need not be a necessary consequence of Wallerstein’s theory if we assume that Australia’s distinctiveness as a semiperipheral country is based on her potential as a supplier of resources rather than a supplier of cheap labour (cf. Alexander, 1979). 5. This perspective of Wallerstein’s raises the difficult question of whether the focus of opposition to the capitalist world-economy rests with the organised proletariat of the core or the more diffuse opposition of socialist countries and third world liberation movements (cf. Wallerstein, 1980b; 1979: 95-131).

64

REFERENCES

of the historical structure within which

live.

1979 ’The Political Economy of Semi-Industrial Capitalism : A Comparative Study of Argentina, Australia and Canada, 1950-1970’. PhD dissertation, McGill University, Montreal. Arrighi, G. 1970 ’International Corporations, Labor Aristocracies, and Economic Development in Tropical Africa’. In R. I. Rhodes (ed.), Imperialism and Underdevelopment: A Reader. New York and London:

Monthly Review Press. Bach, R. L. 1980 ’On the Holism of a World-Systems Perspective’. In T. Hopkins and I. Wallerstein (eds), Processes of the World-System. Beverley Hills: Sage. Clegg, S. R. 1980 ’Restructuring the Semi-Peripheral Labour Process’. In P. Boreham and G. Dow (eds), Work and Inequality. Melbourne: Macmillan. Clement, W. 1975 The Canadian Corporate Elite: An Analysis of Economic Power. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. 1977 Continental Corporate Power: Economic Linkages between Canada and the United States. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Connell, R. W. and Irving, T. 1977 Ruling Class, Ruling Culture. Cambridge: C.U.P. 1979a ’A Critique of the Althusserian Approach to Class’. Theory and Society, Vol. 8: 303-345. 1979b ’The Concept of Role and What to Do With It’. A.N.Z.J.S., Vol. 15, 3: 7-17. Connel, R. W. and Irving, T. 1980 Class Structure in Australian History. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Kuhn, T. 1960 The Structure University of

of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago Press.

Naylor, R. T. 1975 The History

of Canadian Business, 2 vols. Toronto: James Lorimer and Co. Rowse, T. 1978 ’Connell and the Ruling Class’. Intervention, No. 10/11, (August): 97-106. Robinson, R. 1976 ’The World-Economy and the Distribution of Income Within States: A Cross-National Study’. American Sociological Review, 41 (August) : 63859.

Skocpol, T. 1979 States and Social Revolutions. Cambridge: C.U.P. Thompson, E. P. 1968 The Making of the English Working Class. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Wallerstein, I. 1974a The Modern World-Srstem, New York: Academic Press. 1974b ’The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System’. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 16, 4 (September): 387-415. 1979 The Capitalist World-Economy: Essays by Immanuel Wallerstein. Cambridge: C.U.P. 1980a ’The Future of the World-Economy’. In T. Hopkins and I. Wallerstein (eds), Processes of the World-System. Beverley Hills: Sage. 1980b ’Nationalism and the World Transition to Socialism: Is there a Crisis?’. Paper presented at the Colloquium ’Nationalism and Capitalism in

Crisis’, Starnberg, Germany, (June). Wrong, D. 1961 ’The Oversocialized Conception of Man in Modern Sociology’. American Sociological Review, Vol. 26 (April): 183-193.