RecentTitlesin ContributionsinEconomicsandEconomicHistory PrivatizationorPublicEnterpriseReform?InternationalCaseStudieswith ImplicationsforPublicManagement AltFaraztnand,editor EconomicBarbarismandManagerialism DavidS.Vena MicroenterpriseDevelopmentforBetterHealthOutcomes RosaliaRodriguez-Garcia,JamesA.Macinko,and"WilliamF.Waters IdeologyandUtopiaintheSocialPhilosophyoftheLibertarianEconomists RickTilman ContendingIssuesinAfricanDevelopment:Advances,Challenges,andtheFuture ObiomaM.Iheduru,editor NewRegionalDevelopmentParadigms,Volume1:GlobalizationandtheNew RegionalDevelopment AsfawKumssaandTerryG.McGee,editors NewRegionalDevelopmentParadigms,Volume2:NewRegionsConcepts, Issues,andPractices DavidW.Edgington,AntonioL.Fernandez,andClaudiaHoshino,editors NewRegionalDevelopmentParadigms,Volume3:Decentralization,Governance, andtheNewPlanningforLocal-LevelDevelopment WalterB.Stohr,JosefaS.Edralin,andDevyaniMani,editors NewRegionalDevelopmentParadigms,Volume4:EnvironmentalManagement, PovertyReduction,andSustainableRegionalDevelopment JamesE.NickumandKenjiOya,editors SmarterGrowth:Market-BasedStrategiesforLand-UsePlanninginthe21st Century RandallG.HolcombeandSamuelR.Staley,editors AdvocateforAmericanEnterprise:WilliamBuckDanaandtheCommercialand FinancialChronicle,1865-1910 DouglasSteeples HamiltonUnbound:FinanceandtheCreationoftheAmericanRepublic RobertE.Wright Libraryof CongressCataloging-in-Publication Data The modern/colonial/capitalist world-system in the twentieth century: global processes, antisystemic movements,andthegeopolitics of knowledge / editedbyRamonGrosfoguel and Ana MargaritaCervantes-Rodriguez. p.cm.(Contributions in economicsandeconomichistory, ISSN0084-9235; no.227) Includes index. ISBN0-313-31804-2(alk.paper) 1.Socialsystems.2.Economic developmentSocial aspects.3.Globalization. I.Grosfoguel, Ram6n.II.Cervantes-Rodriguez, Ana Margarita.III.Series. HM701.M632002 306dc212001050111 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Dataisavailable. Copyright2002by RamonGrosfoguel and AnaMargaritaCervantes-Rodriguez Allrights reserved.No portion of this book maybe reproduced,by any process or technique, without theexpress writtenconsent of thepublisher. A paperback edition of The Modern/Colonial/Capitalist World-System in the Twentieth Century is available from Praeger Publishers, animprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.(ISBN 0-275-97197-X). Libraryof Congress Catalog Card Number:2001050111 ISBN:0-313-31804-2 ISSN:0084-9235 First publishedin2002 Greenwood Press,88Post Road West, Westport,CT 06881 An imprint of GreenwoodPublishing Group, Inc. www.greenwood.com Printed in theUnitedStatesof America Thepaperusedin thisbook complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National InformationStandardsOrganization(Z39.48-1984). 1 09 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Contents Acknowl edgmentsi x Introduction.UnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentric Mythol ogi es:UniversalistKnowl edges,Decol oni zati on,and Devel opmental i smxi RamonGrosfoguelandAnaMargaritaCervantes-Rodriguez TheTwenti ethCentury:DarknessatNoon?xxxi ImmanuelWallerstein I.GlobalProcesses,PowerRelations,andAntisystemic Movement s1 1.GlobalizationandtheNati onalSecurityStateCorporate Compl ex(NSSCC)intheLongTwenti ethCentury3 ThomasEhrlichReifer 2.BuckingtheSystem:TheTimeSpaceofAntisystemic Movements21 RichardE.Lee 3.SomeInitialEmpiricalObservationsonInequalityinthe Worl d-Economy( 1870- 2000)33 RobertoPatricioKorzeniewicz,AngelaStach, DavidConsiglio,andTimothyPatrickMoran 4.Transnationalism,Power,andHegemony:Revi ewof AlternativePerspectivesandTheirImplicationsfor World-SystemsAnalysis47 AnaMargaritaCervantes-Rodriguez viContents 5.MassMi grati onintheWorld-System:AnAntisystemic MovementintheLongRun?79 EricMielants 6.Twentieth-CenturyAntisystemicHistoricalProcesses andU.S.Hegemony:FreeTradeImperialism,Nati onal Economi cDevel opment,andFreeEnterprise Imperialism103 SatoshiIkeda II.Women' sStudies,FeministTheory,andWorld-Systems Analysis125 7.Commodi tyChainsandGenderedExploitation: RescuingWomenfromthePeripheryofWorld-Systems Thought127 WilmaA.Dunaway 8.RevisioningSocialChange:SituatedKnowl edgeand UnitofAnalysisintheModernWorld-System147 NancyForsytbe 9.IntersectingandContestingPositions:Postcolonial, Feminist,andWorld-SystemsTheories171 ShelleyFeldman 10.WritingonGenderinWorld-SystemsPerspective199 SheilaPelizzon HI.TheAftermathoftheColonialSystem,Coloniality,and theGeopoliticsofKnowl edge213 11.TheGenesisoftheDevel opmentFramework:TheEnd ofLaissez-Faire,theEclipseofColonialEmpires,and theStructureofU. S.Hegemony215 FouadMakki 12.TheConvergenceofWorld-HistoricalSocialScience, orCanThereBeaSharedMet hodol ogyforWorl d-SystemsAnalysis,PostcolonialTheory,andSubaltern Studies?237 SantiagoCastro-GomezandOscarGuardiola-Rivera 13.Maki ng"Africa"i nBrazil:Ol dTrendsandNe w Opportunities251 LivioSansone Contentsvii 14.TheConvergenceofWorld-HistoricalSocialScience: "BorderThi nki ng"asanAlternativetotheClassical ComparativeMet hod267 KhaldounSubhiSamntan Index287 AbouttheContributors303 Acknowledgments Thisvol umehasitsoriginsinthe24t hAnnualConferenceofthePolitical EconomyoftheWorld-System(PEWS)sectionoftheAmericanSociological Associ ati on,heldatBostonCollegeonMarch24and25,2000.Thecon-tributorstothevol umehaveengagedinseriousthinkingaboutprocesses, relations,andtrendsthatareatthecoreof world-systemsanalysis,orthose thatshoul dgaingreatercentralityintheperspective.Theyhavedoneso throughrigorousandcommi ttedanalysesoftheissuesexploredand throughcooperati onandcamaraderiethroughouttheentireprocess,from theorganizationofeverydetailfortheconferenceinBoston,tothepains-takingeditorialprocessleadingtothepublicationofthevol ume.Their criticismofconservativelinesofthoughtasdistortersofhistory,theiref-fortstoimproveworl d-systemanalysisthroughconceptualrefinement,and theerasureofborderswi thotherperspectiveswi thwhi chitsharesimpor-tantcommonal i ti esconstitutetheConfucianthreadofthisvol ume.Other thanthat,thisworkisfarfromreflectinguncriticallinearityinthecourse ofthought.Rather,intellectualcooperati onandoverlappinghavegone handinhandwi ththeelaborationofdivergentpointsofvi ewonissues pertainingtoantisystemicmovements,thewaysthroughwhi chworl d-systemsanalysisshouldincorporatealternativeperspectives,andtheuse-fulnessofsuchcombi nati onforadvancingourknowl edgeonthemost generalprocessesandthesubprocessesoftheworld-system.Wehopethat thisvol umewillrepresentanimportantbuildingblocforfurtheradvancing ourunderstandingoftheseprocesses.Wealsohopethatourgraduatestu-dents,seasonedscholarsandintellectualsall,intheGramsciansense,will findtheinsightfulchapterspresentedhereusefulfortheirrespectiveaca-demicendeavorsandemancipatoryprojects. XAcknowledgments Wearegratefultothepeopl eatBostonCollegewhomadetheorgani-zationoftheconferencepossible.Wewoul dliketoexpressgratitudeto theDeanofArtsandSciencesatBostonCollege,Dr.Mi chaelSmyer,for hisencouragementandfullsupport.WearealsogratefultoLeahSchmalz-bauer,BrendaPepe,andMagdal enaDerdzinska,whoseactiveandintense workmadetheconferencepossible.ChloeS.Gec-rasandNadi aGrosfoguel wereimportantsourcesofemoti onalsupportthroughouttheorganization oftheconference.OurcolleaguesStephenPfohl,WilliamGamson,and CharlesDerberintheSoci ol ogyDepartmentatBostonCollegewerealso greatsourcesofsupportforitssuccess.Wewoul dalsoliketoexpressour appreciationtoDr.AzaraSantiago-Riveraforherconstantencouragement duringtheeditorialstageandtoDr.EdnaAcosta-Belen,directorofthe CenterforLatino,LatinAmerican,andCaribbeanStudies(CELAC)atthe StateUniversityofNe wYork,forallocatingstudentsfortrainingandser-vicepurposesduringdifferentphasesoftheeditorialprocess.Weespecially thankourcommonfriend,Dr.WilliamC.Smith,andourrespectivefam-iliesfortheirunconditionalsupport. Anequaldistributionofdutiesandintellectualcontributionbytheedi-torshasledtotheproductionofthisvol ume,andhasstrengthenedour friendshipandunveiledthepointsofinterceptionofourintellectualcuri-osity.Asaresult,ourcooperati onhasgrownstrongerbasedonasolid foundati onofmutualrespectforourownacademicandpoliticalcommi t-mentagainstoppression,regardlessoftheshapeittakes,thelocusinwhi ch itmanifestsitself,andthei deol ogybackingit.Finally,weappreciateIm-manuelWallerstein'sencouragementanddevotedsupportthroughoutthe entireprocess.Weareproudtobelongtoagenerationthathastheop-portunitytoengageinalivedebatewi thoneofthemostprominentfigures ofthesocialthoughtofourepoch.Wehopethatwewillcontribute, throughthiseffort,toafurtheradvancementofhisvaluablelegacy. Introduction UnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentric Mythologies:UniversalistKnowledges, Decolonization,andDevelopmentalism RamonGrosfogueland AnaMargaritaCervantes-Rodriguez Throughoutthetwentiethcentury,theworl d-systemhasoperatedthrough somemythol ogi esthatmol dthewayweconceptualizetheworl dtoday. Therearethreemythol ogi esthatwewoul dliketoaddressinthisintro-duction:objectivist/universalistknowl edges,thedecol oni zati onof themod-ernworl d-system,anddevelopmentalism.Thethreeareintertwinedwi th eachotherandtiedtoEurocentricformsofthinkingandknowl edgepro-duction.Thedevelopmentalistmythcannotbefullyunderstoodwi thout awarenessofthemythofdecol oni zati on,andneitherofthemiscompre-hensibleunlessweidentifytheirconnecti onwi ththemythofuniversality intheproductionofknowl edge.Tobesure,Occidentalism,orthediscourse aboutthesuperiorityoftheWest,hasbeenthecommondenominatorof thethreemythsinquestion.Occidentalismanditscorrespondingmythol -ogiesservethefunctionofconcealingtherootcausesofEuropean/Euro-Americanpowerandprivilegesystemsintheglobalhierarchyofthe worl d-systemandtheglobaldesignsuponwhi chtheyhavebeenerected. Theyhavealsobeenefficientinsilencingthe"Other";historicallydefined throughoutseveralcenturiesofEuropeancolonialexpansi on.Conse-quently,thesemythshaveperniciouslycontrolledourimaginationand eclipsedourrepresentationsofalternativewaysoflife,politicalopti ons, andepistemologies. THEMYTHOFOBJECTTVTSTANDUNIVERSALIST KNOWLEDGES Itisimportantthatwe,asscholars,recognizethatwealwaysspeakfrom aspecificsiteinthegender,class,racial,andsexualhierarchiesofagiven xiiUnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologies regioninthemodern/ col oni alworld-system.Ourknowl edges,asthefem-inistthinkerDonnaHaraway(1997)contends,arealwaysalready"situ-ated. "Fol l owi ngQuijano(1993)andMi gnol o( 2000) ,wecanaddthatthe colonialdifferenceproducedbythecolonialityofpowerinthemodern/ colonialworl d-systemframesthesituatednessofourknowl edgesinim-portantways.Thenoti onsof"colonialityofpower"(Quijano1 9 9 1 , 1 9 9 3 , 2000)and"colonialdifference"(Mi gnol o2000)havebecomecrucialto geopoliticallysituatingtheformsofthinkingandcosmol ogi esproducedby subalterngroupsinrelationtodomi nantones.Majorconstitutiveelements ofthecolonialityofpoweraretheracialclassificationandreclassification oftheworld'spopul ati on(forwhi chtheconceptof"culture"hasbeen instrumental),andthedevel opmentofthecorrespondingEurocentricin-stitutionalstructures(stateapparatuses,universities,church)andepiste-mol ogi calperspectivestoreinforcetheglobalracial/ethnichierarchy associatedwi thsuchclassification(Quijano1998;Mi gnol o2000) .Histor-ically,thecolonialityofpowerisentangledwi ththeriseofcapitalismand itsconsol i dati onthroughEuropeanconquestandcol oni zati onintheAmer-icas.Thus,colonialityofpowerisenactedbythe"colonialdifference"or theEurocentric"classificationoftheplanetinthe'modern/colonial'imag-inary."Suchdi chotomyhasbeenforcefullyarticulatedthroughthe"Oc-cidentalism"metaphor(Mi gnol o2 0 0 0 : 1 3 ;alsoArrighi1994;Quijanoand Wallerstein1992) . Thecapitalistworl d-systemwasformedbytheSpanish/Portugueseex-pansi ontotheAmericasinthel ongsixteenthcentury(Wallerstein1974) . Thisfirstmoderni ty(from1492to1650)builtthefoundationsof theracist/ colonialcultureandglobalcapitalistsystemthatwearelivingtoday.The expansi ontotheAmericasin1492andtheexpul si onofArabsandJews fromSpaininthenameof"bloodpurity"{purezadelasangre)werecon-temporaneousprocesses.Thus,the"internalborder"meanttokeepArabs andJewsatarm'slengthwasbuiltsimultaneouslytothe"externalborder" separatingthepeoplesfromperipheralgeographicalzones(Mi gnol o2000) . TheSpanishandPortugueseexpansi ontotheAmericaswascrucialforthe constructionoftheracialcategoriesthatwoul dlaterbegeneralizedtothe restoftheworl d(QuijanoandWallerstein1992) .Racialdesignationssuch asWhi te,Negro,andIndianwereinstrumentalintheEuropeancoloniza-ti onoftheAmericas.Inaddition,theformationofaglobalracial/ethnic hierarchywascontemporaneouswi ththedevel opmentoftheinternational divisionoflabor.AsQuijanoasserts,therewasno"pre"or"post"intheir jointconstitution.Christianitywasalsocentralintheconstitutionofthe colonialimaginaryoftheworl d-systemduringthefirstcenturyofEuropean col oni zati on.Themythofthe"superiority"ofthe"civilized"Westerners/ Europeansoverthe"uncivilized"non-Europeans,basedonracialnarra-tiveson"superior/inferior"peoplesandcosmovi si onswasconstructedin thisperiod.Thisiswhyithasbeensuggestedthat"Occidentalism"(the UnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologiesxiii domi nantdiscourseofthefirstmodernity)isthesocio-historicalprecon-ditionfortheemergenceof"Orientalism"(thedomi nantdiscourseofthe secondmodernity)(Mi gnol o2000) . Duringthesecondmodernity( 1650- 1945) ,thecoreoftheworld-system shiftedfromSpainandPortugaltoGermany,theNetherlands,England, andFrance.TheemergenceofNorthwesternEuropeasthecoreofthe capitalistworld-systemcontinued,expanded,anddeepenedthe"internal imaginaryborder"againsttheJews,Arabs,andGypsiesandthe"external imaginaryborder"builtduringthefirstmodernityagainsttheAmericas andlaterexpandedtoincludeothergeographicalzonessuchasAfrica,the Mi ddl eEast,andAsia(Wallerstein1980;Mi gnol o2000) .However,the secondmodernityaddedanewborder,thistimebetweenNorthwestern EuropeansandIberianpeoples.Hispanic/LatinSouthernEuropeancultures wereconstructedasinferiortotheNorthwesternEuropeans.Thishierar-chicaldivisionwi thi nEuropewoul dextendtoencompassNort hAmerica where,undertheAnglo-Saxon-Protestanthegemony,theEuro-Americans ofSpanishdescentwereregardedasaninferior"Other."Specifically,the Hi spani c/ Angl oborderwoul dbereenactedinthecontextoftheU. S.im-perialexpansi onin1848(Mexican-AmericanWar)and1898(theSpanish-AmericanWar).Despitethedisparateformsadoptedbytheoutcomesof suchevents(annexationofhalfofMexi canterritory,politicalannexati on ofPuertoRi co,andtheformationofaprotectorateinCuba),theset wo imperialwarssetthefoundationsoftheprospectivecolonialityofpower bysettingtheregionalgroundsofwhatwoul dconstituteU. S.globalhe-gemony.Equallyrelevant,byredrawing"theearlydivisionbetweenAngl o andLatinAmerica"theset woeventswoul dmark"thehistoricalcoreof anethnicconflict,regardlessoftheplaceoforiginofthosecalled'Hispan-ics'or'Latino/as'"(Mi gnol o2000: 136) .Fromthereon,wi thi nthecontext oftheUnitedStates,"Hispaniccultures"oftheAmericasweresubalter-nized,andthenoti onof"Whiteness"woul dbefurtherdistancedfromits meaningsinLatinAmerica. LatinAmericanindependence,achievedinstrugglesagainstSpainand Portugal,washegemoni zedbyEuro-Americanelites.Itwasnotaprocess ofsocial,political,cultural,oreconomi cdecol oni zati on.Whitecreoleelites continuedtodomi natethepowerrelationsofthenewl yindependentre-publicsofSouthandCentralAmericainthenineteenthcentury.Blacks, mulattoes,Nati veAmericans,andpeopl eof colorremainedinsubordinated anddisenfranchisedpositions,nowunderanemergingcolonialityofpower thatdidnotneedcolonialadministrationsforitsenactment.However,as wasoutlinedabove,inthecontextoftheU.S.expansi on,WhiteSpaniards (ortheir"criollo"descendants)wereexcl udedfromthenoti onof"White-ness"intheUnitedStates,and"Hispanics"wereconstructedaspartof the inferior"Other"andexcludedfromthesuperior"White,""European" races.Eventually,theAmericannoti onofWhitenesswoul dexpandtoin-xivUnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologies dudegroupsthatwereinternalcolonialsubjectsofEuropeunderNorth-westernEuropeanhegemony(e.g.,theIrish,EasternEuropeans,andthe Jews),whi chwoul demphasizeclassasamajorsocialmarkerwi thi nthese groups,whiletheIndiansandtheBlackswoul dcontinuetoberacial/co-lonialsubjects.However,thesupremacyoftheWhi teovertheBlackand theIndiandidnotexhaustthemultiplestrategie'sof"Othering"deployed astheUnitedStatesfurtherexpandeditsglobalpower.Thehistoryofthe secondmodernityiscrucialtounderstandingthepresenttendencytora-cializeimmigrantsfromLatinAmericaandtheirdescendants. Thesecondmodernityrepresentsamilestonesincethecapitalistworl d-systemexpandedtocoverthewhol eplanet(Wallerstein1979) .European (understoodnotmerelyingeographictermsbutinthebroaderculturaland politicalsenseofWhi teEuropeansupremacy)andEuro-Americanpro-cessesofnationbuilding,suchasthestrugglesforcitizenshiprights,de-vel opmentofparliamentaryregimes,andthedefinitionoftheofficial languages,werealsopartandparcelofaglobalcolonial/racistimaginary thatestablished"internal"and"external"borders(Quijano1993;Mi gnol o 2000) .Theinvisibilityofglobalcoloniality(Quijano2000)intheprocess ofbuildingmodernnation-statesinnineteenth-centuryEuropeandthe Americasreflectshowpowerfulandingraineditscolonial/racistculturewas andstillis.Whi l ecategoriesofmodernitysuchascitizenship,democracy, andnati onbuildingwereacknowl edgedforthedomi nantNorthwestern Europeans,thecolonial"Others"weresubmittedtoforeignmilitarypres-ence,formsofpoliticaltutelage,coercedformsoflaborexpl oi tati on,and subjectedtoauthoritarianruleintheircountriesasawayofgrantingthe systemicequilibriumrequiredforthedevel opmentoftheintertwinedpro-cessesofnati onbuildingandglobalexpansi on.Whilesoci obi ol ogyoreu-genicswereknowl edgesproducedinthenameofsciencetojustifyor articulate"biologicalracistdiscourses,"underthemorerecentformsof coloniality,"biologicalracism"hasbeengraduallyreplacedbywhatis calledthe"newracism,"or"culturalracist"discourses.Yetthecomplicity between"science"and"racism"manifestsmorebluntlytodayinthe"sci-entific"articulationof the"neo-cultureofpoverty"approaches.Ultimately, theseapproachestendtoblamethecultureofracializedgroupsforthe perpetualcycleofimpoverishmentinwhi chtheyhavebeentrapped throughoutgenerations."Culturalracist"discoursesdonotcontendthat % thefailureof"colonial/racialized"groupsisdueto"inferiorgenes"or "inferiorIQ"(althoughthisisstillapervasiveandpopularperceptionand wearewitnessingrenewedacademicattemptstoreviveit),butratherto "improper"culturalhabitsand/oran"inferior"culture. However,thetrajectoriesofcolonialityandthecolonialdifference(s) havenotbeenlinearorunproblematicfromtheperspectiveoftheconstruc-ti onofknowl edgeunder"Occidentalism. "TheworksofChicanaandChi-canoscholarssuchasGloriaAnzaldua( 1987) ,NormaAlarcon( 1981) , Jose UnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologies xv Davi dSaldivar( 1998) ,andWalterMi gnol o' s( 1995,2000)explicitcritical dialogueswi thDarcyRibeiro'searly[ 1960s]noti onof"subalternknowl -edges"aswellasFoucault's[ 1976]"subjugatedknowl edges, "remindus thatthecolonialexperienceleadstocompl extranslocalscenariosthat shapetheproductionanddisseminationof knowl edge,including"subaltern knowl edges. "Thenoti onsof"subjugatedknowl edges, ""subalternknowl -edges, "and"borderthinking"(Mi gnol o2000)eloquentlyillustratethis point."Borderthinking"inparticularmanifestsitselfthroughknowl edge producedbypeoplewhomovetransnationallybetweenformercolonizing countriesandtheirrespectivecol oni es,andalsoamongpeople"around whomtheworl dmoved"(locusofenunciation)(Mi gnol o2000) ."Border thinking"refersalso,perhapsprincipally,tothe"in-between"l ocati onof subalternknowl edges,criticalofbothglobalhegemony(globalcoloniality) andlocalpowerrelationscorrespondingtolocalhistories(internalcol o-niality).Fromthisperspective,the"colonialdifference(s)"arethusthe "housewhereborderepi stemol ogydwel l s"andwheretheEurocentriccri-tiquetoEurocentrismyieldstocritiquesof Eurocentrismfromthesubaltern sideofthecolonialdifference(Mi gnol o2000:37) .Thenoti onisalsoin-tendedtocallourattentiontothe"doublecritique"(tobothOccidentalism andotherformsoffundamentalism)implicitin"borderthinking"whi ch ultimatelyrelieson"spatialconfrontationsbetweendifferentconceptsof history"(67).Thus,theconceptualtriadaof"colonialityofpower, ""the colonialdifference,"and"borderthinking"helpstosituate,geopolitically, ourunderstandingofpowerrelationsasmanifestedindomi nantmetaphors anddiscoursesthatshapeourknowl edgeofsocietytoday.Altogether,such conceptualapparatusismeanttoimproveGramsci'snoti onof"subaltern-i ty"understoodasapowerstructuremol dedaroundclassrel ati onsby incorporatingtheroleofcolonial/racialrelationsandnon-Westernreligions inshapingsubalternity. Ifthemodernworl disconstitutedbyacolonialdifference,ifthereisno modernitywi thoutcoloniality,and,therefore,westillliveinamodern/ colonialworl d,thenknowl edgesarenotproducedfromauniversalneutral location.Thus,weneedtoepistemologicallyaccountforthegeopoliticsof knowl edgeproduction.Thequestionremains:Fromwhi chlocationinthe colonialdivideareknowl edgesproduced?Nati onal i standcolonialistdis-coursesarearticulatedfromapowerposi ti oninthecolonialdivideofthe modern/colonialworl d,whi l esubalternsubjectsarticulatethinkinganddis-coursesfromthesubordinateposi ti onofthecolonialdifference.Colonialist discoursesreproducetheNorth-Southglobalcolonialdivide,whilenation-alistdiscoursesreproducean"internal"colonialdividewi thi nnationalfor-mati ons.Theknowl edge,criticalinsights,andpoliticalstrategiesproduced fromthesubalternsideofthecolonialdifferenceserveasapointofde-parturetomovebeyondcolonialistandnationalistdiscourses.Inother words,ratherthanexclusivelyacknowl edgethesubalterns,weneedtoac-xviUnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologies knowl edgethattheircosmol ogi es,thinkingprocesses,andpoliticalstrate-giesconstitutefoundationalelementstodismantleandtransgressdomi nant perspectivesintheprocessofknowl edgeproduction. TheauthorsincludedinPartIIIofthisvol umeexplicitlydealwi ththe mythofuniversalknowl edgesandtheircorrespondinghegemoni cdesigns, andsearchforalternativewaysofl ooki ngatworld-historicalprocessesand theircorrespondingformsofagency.Khal dounSamman(Chapter14)spe-cificallyarguesthatdespitethedifferencesthatexistbetweenworld-system analysisandsubalternandpostcol oni alstudies,theyallsharea"common thread":"theirunderstandingofhowoneshoul dstudysociety,nation,and civilization...theyallareattemptingtooverturnthetraditionalmethods thathavedomi natedsocialsciencesoverthepastt wocenturies."Al to-gether,theseperspectivesconstitutea"world-historicalfield."Santiago Castro-GomezandOscarGuardiola-Rivera(Chapter12)offeraradical postcol oni alcritiquetothenewformsofglobaldesignsandEurocentric knowl edgesinthepresent"globalization"era,whi chtheyconceptualizeas newformsofglobalcoloniality:"Today,neitherthenation-statenorthe groupfunctionorganicallybutonl yaswaysofcodi ng,decoding,andre-codi ngtheactivityofagentsthatarenowtreatedasmerelyanotherspace orvalue-creativeforcethatcanbecol oni zed.Theresultisaprocessof col oni zati oninwhi chthereareonl ycol oni esandnocolonizercountriesas such,sincethecolonialcharacterofpoweracquiresyetanotherform:it doesnotcomefromthe(organic)nation-statebutfromglobalandi deo-logicalstateapparatuses."Theirargumentiscentralfortheanalysisofthe reproductionofglobalcolonialityandtheunderstandingoftheinvisibility ofcolonialrelationstoday.LivioSansone(Chapter13)showstheglobal culturalexchangesacrosstheBlackAtlanticandthedifferentmeaningsthat "Africa"acquiresaccordingtothediversityoflocalhistories.Thedifferent "essentialistic"attemptstofixthemeaningof"Africa"andtobuildglobal designsaboutAfricansandtheAfricandiasporaareconfrontedwi ththe differentcolonialhistoriesandtheresistanceofBlackpeopl eascolonial subjectsofthecapitalistworld-system.ThisiswhatunderliesSansone's statementthat"thecaseofBrazilandofthetransatlanticfluxesetrefluxes ofpeopl e,commodi ti es,symbol s,andideaslinkingSouthAmericawi th Nort hAmerica,Europe,andAfricatheBlackAtlanticisevidencethat theiconshavebecomemoregenuinelyglobalthantheirsharedmeaning.% Italsoshowsthattherehavebeenverypowerful'localizing'forcesinthe waysthingsAfricanhavebeenclassifiedandranked. " Theprocessof"Othering"peopleshasoperatedthroughasetofop-posi ti onssuchastheWestandtheRest,civilizedandsavage,intelligent andstupid,hardworkingandlazy,superiorandinferior,masculineand feminine,pureandimpure,cleananddirty,andsoon.Thereareworl d-systemichistorical/structuralprocessesthatconstitutethesenarratives, whi chareschematicallydesignatedastherelationshipbetweenEuropean UnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologiesxvii modernity(e.g.,citizenship,nati onbuilding,democracy,civil/socialrights), Europeancolonialexpansi on,colonialmodernities,andWhite/masculinist supremacy.However,assomecontributionstothisvol umeexplicitlyillus-trate(Chapters4,7,8,and9),theprocessof"Othering"occursinevery-daylifeandthroughintermediateprocesses.Assuch,itisinformedby severalpower/ empoweri nglogicsthatrequirespecification.Drawi ngon feministanalyses'concernwi t hessentialism,ShelleyFeldman(Chapter9) warnsusthatworld-historicalanalysesarenotinsulatedfromtheEnlight-enmenttrap,whi ch,sheemphasizes,alsomanifestsinthereductionofthe "Othering"problematictothe"West/Rest"di chotomy.Onthisline,Feld-maninvitesustoexami nethe"post"perspectivesmorecarefully,including "postcolonialstudies,"andtheirbasicassumpti onthatdifferenceandhet-erogeneitymatter:"Recognizingdifference,however,isnotinvokedfrom thepoi ntofvi ewofastruggleforsameness,whi chistheposi ti onofthe developmentalistprojectwheretheWestservesasthemarkanddirection ofalinearpathtoprogress.Norisdifferencei nvokedtoexpressthemove fromthepre-politicaltotheliberaldemocratic.Rather,differenceinthe post-traditionrepresentsplurality,non-homogenei ty,complementarity,and contradictionthatdonotdependonapresumptionofradicalrelativism." NancyForsythe(Chapter8)arguesinfavorof"afeministworld-systems analysis"onthegroundsthat"theworld-systemsstudyoflong-term,large-scalesocialchangeishelpfulinadvancingourunderstandingofandpolitics ofembodi mentandmultiplicity."Shealsonotesthatwomen' smovements willalsobenefitfromworld-systemsanalysissincetherelationalityamong body,socialstatus,andscienceasintegralcomponentsofsocialchangehas aTimeSpacedimension"thatroughlycorrespondstothemodernworl d-system. "Forher,suchacross-fertilizationispossibleinsofarasworl d-systemsanalysisdoesnotassumealackofcorrespondencebetweenthe l ongtermandthelargescale,ontheonehand,andspatialandtemporal boundariesofthestudyoflong-term,large-scalesocialchange,onthe other.Suchadialoguebetweenfeministtheoryandworld-systemsanalysis, sheargues,requiresamorecarefulattentiontotheissueoftheunitof analysis.Forthis,Forsythecontends,thekeyforworl d-systemsanalysisis "establishing,ratherthanassuming,themeani ngof,andthen,theration-alityamong,theconceptual,spatialandtemporaldimensionsofthetopic athand. "ForsytheandFeldmanagreethatworld-systemsanalysislacksa soundtheorizationontheissueofempowerment.ForFeldman,however, theunderstandingofpoliticalpracticemustantecede,analytically,theissue ofwomen' sempowerment.ShefindsTerenceK.Hopki ns'comprehensi on ofintersectionalityandcausalityparticularlyusefulforthisendeavor. BuildinguponHopki nsshearguesthat"gender,caste,sexuality,andethnic relations"shouldberevisited,"notvi ewedasderivativeofaccumulation practices."Arguingforthegenderingoftheanalysisofpoliticalaction,she xviiiUnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologies notesthat"genderdifferentiationnotonl yisaconsequenceofparticular economi crelationsbutactuallycontributestotheirstructuring." Inaparsi moni ouscritiqueoftheneglectofwomeninworld-systems analysis,Wi l maDunaway(Chapter7)advocatesthe"engendering"ofthe househol ds,thecommodi t ychains,andtheverynoti onofexploitation. Shetakesissuewi ththewayinwhi chworld-systemsanalysisconceptualizes househol dprocesseswhoseunderstandingispivotalinthestudyofthe househol dasamajorinstitutionoftheworl d-economy.Forexampl e,in hercritiqueofthenoti onof"incomepool i ng, "shecontendsthat"resource pool i ng"insteadof"incomepool i ng"bettergrasps"thefactthatnonwage andunpaidlaboristhepivotalthesisoftheworld-systemsmodelofhouse-hol ds. "Sheisalsotroubledbythelackoftheorizationontheissueof"the powerstrugglesandinequalitieswi thi nhousehol ds. "Dunawayalsoenvi-sionstheglobalcommodi t ychainsconceptualizationasapromisingre-searchareathroughwhi chworld-systemsanalysiscanintegratewomenand househol ds,butthiswillonl yhappen,sheargues,if"everydaylife"moves toamoreprominentposi ti onintheglobalcommodi tychainsconceptu-alization.Dunaway,Feldman,andForsytheconvincinglycontendthatthe neglectofwomeninworld-systemsanalysisrelinquisheswomen' sissuesto thewrongepistemologicalandpoliticalhands. Throughamappi ngofhowthelinkbetweentransnationalismandpower relationsisconceptualizedfromdifferentperspectives,AnaMargarita Cervantes-Rodriguez(Chapter4)encouragesthecriticalengagementof world-systemsanalysiswi thcurrentstudiesoftransnationalism, particularlythosedevelopedthroughconceptualapparatusesthatdefy modernization,politicalrealism,andtheneo-classicaldogma.Cervantes-Rodriguezarguesthattheincorporationofinsightsfromstudiesofthelink betweentransnationalismandpowerrelationsthatspecificallyfocuson issuessuchastransnationalmigrations,socialmovements,strategiesofac-cumul ati on,advocacynetworks,andterroristnetworkshelpframethe analysisofpowerrelationsbeyondthenation-statefrontier.Hercontri-butionillustrateshowsuchapproacheshelpimproveourunderstandingof thecompl exinterplayofclass,ethnicity,gender,religion,nationalorigin, andcitizenship,inshapingsystemsofhegemonyandpowerrelationsthat spanborders.Aninnovativeintegrationofsuchinsightsintoworld-systems analysis,sheargues,constitutesaprerequisiteforabettergraspofthelink1 betweenpowerandproducti onstrategiesfol l owi ngtheglobalcommodi t y chainsconceptualization,theanalysisofpowerregimesrelatedtohouse-hol dstrategiesunderthecurrentdynamicsoftheworl d-economyandcur-rentmigratoryregimes,andthestudyoftheantisystemicpotentialof transnationalprocesses. SheilaPelizzon(Chapter10)alsodealswi ththeissueofadialogue amongperspectivesbut,differentfromtheonesoutlinedabove,empl oys world-systemsanalysisasthepredomi nantargumentation"locus":"By UnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologiesxix studyinggenderinworld-systemsperspective,world-systemsanalysis gainedanewstructurethatexplainsalotaboutwaysthateliteswhether thestateanditsagents,localelites,orcapitalists,keepsocialcontroland whyhousehol dsasweknowthemwereformedinthe first place. "Shealso arguesthatbystudyinggenderinworld-systemsperspective,"political economycoul dhavegainedmorecompleteinsightsintotherelationship betweenstate,capital,andlabor.Eventheort hodoxMarxi stswoul dhave gainednewinsightintotheclassstruggle"whi l e"feministscoul dhaveseen thatpatriarchyhasbeenpartofastructuralcomponentofcapitalism,not aholdoverfromaremotepast. " Alltheseworksconfirminonewayoranotherthattheglobal,hege-moni c,colonialcultureinvolvesaveryintricateandunevensetofgender, racial,andsexualnarrativeswi thl onghistoriesthatarereenactedinthe presentthroughtheemergenceofcompl exsetsofmediations.Simultane-ously,theyalsoshowthatcounter-narrativesaremaki ngsignificantinroads inknowl edgeproductionandthatthereisnoobjectivist,neutral,god-eye vi ewaboveandbeyondthegeopolitical"situatedness"ofknowl edgepro-ductioninthecolonialhori zonofmodernity. THEMYTHOFDECOLONI ZATI ON Thepolitico-juridicaldecol oni zati onoftheperipheryinthecapitalist worl d-systemwasfinalizedinthetwentiethcenturyasaresultofthean-ticolonialstrugglesof"ThirdWorl d"peopl esandtheconcomi tant transformationofdirectcolonialruleintoacostly,unfeasiblehegemoni c project.Thishasledtothecreationofanew,pervasivemythol ogyaccord-ingtowhi chwearenowlivingina"postcolonial"era.Theepistemological concl usi onisthatthe"oldlanguage"of"core-periphery"relationshipsis obsoletetoaccountforglobalinequalityandpoverty.Thisargumentis linkedtothedevelopmentalistassumpti onthateachnation-stateisinde-pendentfromeachotherandthattheyareallevolvingtowardself-determinationandprogress.Insomecases,theassumpti onisthatas nation-stateshaveemergedoutofthe"former"col oni es,thereisnoreason tocontinuetalkingaboutmetropolitanexpl oi tati onordomi nati on.The questionsatstakeare:Di dtheworl ddecolonizewi ththeendofcolonial administrationsinthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury?Ho wdowe makesenseofthedemiseofthecolonialadministrationsintheperiphery ofthecapitalistworl d-economyinthepresenceofanever-growinggap betweenrichandpoornations?Whatnewglobalformsofpowerrelations havebeencreatedtodisciplineandcontroltheperipheryoftheworl d-economyintheprocessofsurplusextraction,intheabsenceofdirectco-lonialruleasthedomi nantformofcore-peripheryrelationshipsinthe world-system? Thedistinctionbetweencol oni al i smandcolonialityopensapromising XXUnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologies conceptualroutefortheanalysisoftheseissueswi thoutfallingforthe seductive"postcolonial"myth(Quijano1991,1993,1998) .Sinceitsfor-mati oninthesixteenthcentury,thatis,forover450years( 1492- 1945) , themodern/colonialcapitalistworld-systemenactedcolonialismasthe domi nantformofcore-peripheryrelationships(Wallerstein1974;Mi gnol o 1995) .Col oni al i smwascentraltotheformationofaninternationaldivi-si onoflaborandaninter-statesystemstructuredintocore,peripheries, andsemi-peripheries.Itwasalsocentralfortheformationofahegemoni c Eurocentricglobalculturethatshapedvalues,knowl edgeproduction, status,conceptofbeauty,educati on,art,politics,andsoon.Theformation ofaninternationaldivisionoflabor,asmenti onedbefore,wascontem-poraneouswi ththeformationofglobalracial/ethnichierarchiesbutalso genderandsexualhierarchies(Grosfoguel2002) .Thus,theEuropeanco-lonialexpansi onnotonl yformedacapitalistworl d-system,wherecapitalist accumulationbecamethedrivingforceofthesystem,butitalsoembodi ed thesimultaneousformationofaglobalhierarchyofEuropean/non-European,male/female,andheterosexual / homosexualwi thitsrespective geocultureofracism,sexism,andhomophobi a(ibid.).Tobesure,thecon-temporarydilemmaof whi chcomesfirst,capitalistaccumulationorgender/ sexual/racialoppression,isafalsedilemma.Historically,thesehierarchies havegonehandinhandwi ththeircorrespondingsystemsofdomi nance. Theseformsofoppression,underthescopeofOccidentalism,arenot merelyinstrumentalto,butconstitutiveofcapitalistaccumulationprocesses onaworl dscale.Sexual,gender,andracialhierarchiesareintertwined wi th capitalistaccumulationhierarchiesintheworl d-system.TheEuropeanco-lonialexpansi onwaspredominantlyaEuropean-capitalist-heterosexual-mal eexpansi on.WhereverEuropeanscol oni zed,theyi mposedthevalues, hierarchicalorder,andprivilegescorrespondingtotheirparticularsexual, gender,class,andracial/ethnicloci.TheparticularvaluesofEuropean-capitalist-heterosexual-malesweremadethe"universaltruth,""world rationality,"and"globalcommonsense"ofthemodern/colonialworl d-systemthroughcolonialism. Core-peripheryinequalitiesandasymmetriesinherenttotheinterna-tionaldivisionoflabor;theinter-statesystem;theracial/ethnic,gender,and sexualhierarchies;andEurocentricculture/knowledgeproductionhavenot beensignificantlyalteredfol l owi ngtheendofcolonialadministrations1. Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatsystemsofhegemoni esandpowerre-gimesinformedbysuchcontinuitymanifestexclusivelybetweenthecore andtheperiphery,northatcolonialityofpoweristheonl ylogicshaping powerrelations.Whatwearetryingtoemphasize,andemphasisimplies simplificationforthepurposeofargumentation,isthesubjacentcontinuity thatcharacterizescapitalist,cultural,andgeopoliticalrelationsonaglobal scaleafterthecollapseof"globalcol oni al i sm"inthepost - 1945era.Anibal Quijano(2000)capturessuchcontinuityinhisconceptof"globalcol oni -UnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologiesxxi ality."Thenoti onpointsoutthatcorestatesintheinternationaldivision oflaborcontinuetobelocatedprimarilyinWesternEuropeand/orcoun-trieswi thpredominantlyEuropean-descendantpopul ati ons,whilethepe-ripheralzonesaremainlypopulatedbynon-Europeanpeopl e.Theonly exceptiontotheruleisJapan,whi chistheonlynon-Europeancountryin thecoreofthecapitalistworl d-economy.However,asiswi del yacknowl -edgedinworld-systemsanalysis,Japanwasnevercol oni zedorperipher-alizedbytheWestandparticipatedintheWest'scolonialexpansi onby buildingitsownmodern/ col oni alempire. Thehistoricalpreconditionfortheemergenceof"globalcoloniality"is "globalcol oni al i sm. "Wi thout450yearsof"globalcol oni al i sm"there woul dbeno"globalcoloniality"today.Thepointisthatglobalinequal-itiesandasymmetriesarestillinformedbythestrongholdsoftheEurocen-tricimaginary,andshapedbythecontinuitiesofcolonialrelationsona worl dscalewi thouttheexistenceofcolonialadministrations.Production hasreachedunprecedenteddecentralizationlevels,andglobalfinancial flows,ignitedbynewtechnologicalparadigms,playafundamentalrolein thetransferofweal th.However,theseprocesseshavealsogonehandin handwi ththehyper-concentrationandcentralizationofcapitalandwealth incorestates,andwithintheminglobalcities(Sassen1991) ,andwi ththe pervasiveroleoflaborintheprocessofvaluemaki ng(Castells2000) .The transferofsurplusvaluefromperipherytocore,fromnon-EuropetoEu-rope/Euro-America,hasbeeninstrumentalinthesedynamics.Thesubor-dinationandexpl oi tati onoftheperipherycontinuestobeacentralaxisof thecapitalistworl d-economy.Importantchangeshaveoccurred,however. Ontheonehand,newdisciplinaryinstitutionsofglobalcapitalism,such astheInternationalMonetaryFund,theWorl dBank,andtheWorl dTrade Organization,havereplacedcolonialadministrationsinthedeploymentof directeconomi cinterventionintheperiphery.Theglobalmediaalsoplay animportantroleinthediffusionofvalues,consumpti onhabits,andsys-temsofbeliefsthatreinforcetheracial/ethnic/gender/sexualglobalhierar-chies.Moreover,core-controlledmilitaryorganizationssuchastheNort h AtlanticTreatyOrganization( NATO)and"virtualwars"areincreasingly employedasmechani smsofpunishmentandcontrolofsubordinatedpop-ulations. ThomasReifer'scontribution(Chapter1)iscrucialfortheunderstanding ofthehistoricalconnectionsbetweentheWASP(WhiteAngl o-SaxonProt-estant)establishment,U.S.hegemony,andtheresurgenceofhighfinance andheavyindustryinthelatetwentiethcentury.Reifershowshowcapi-talistaccumulationhasbeenentangledwi thmilitarismandWhi tesuprem-acy.Reiferarguesthattheconceptof"thegeopoliticaleconomy""provides therealmissinglinkbetweenstateandcapital,capitalaccumulation,social classes,andgeopolitics,aswellasstructureandagency,thathashaunted historicalsoci ol ogy.Corporatelawyers,investmentbankersandalliedin-xxiiUnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologies dustrialistsplayedkeyrolesinAmerica'swars,fromWorl dWarItothe present,throughgroupsliketheNSLandtheCol dWarCommi tteeonthe PresentDanger. "Inhisvi ew,thesecorporategroupsconstitutethebour-geoisie's"organicintellectuals"ofthecapitalistworld-system. Theimbricationsofgenderinequalitywi thracial/ethnichierarchiesalso playanimportantroleinshapingthenewformsadoptedbytheinterna-tionaldivisionoflabor.Recruitmentpractices,andexternallyinducedpo-liticalturmoilhavegivenwaytothe"free"mobilityoflabortothecore, someti mesunderextremexenophobi csituationsthathaveledtoattempts atblockingimmigrants'accesstosocialservicesandcitizenshiprights. Non-Europeanwomenconstitutethemainsourceofcheaplaborformul-tinationalcorporations.Therapidexpansi onoftheExportProcessing Zonesi nNorthernMexi co,theDomi ni canRepublic,southernChina,Ma-laysia,India,andCentralAmericaispartofthistrend.Fromasubaltern perspective,contemporaryacademicdebatesintermsofwhatdetermines inthelastinstancethe"economy"orthe"geoculture"arealsochi cken-eggdilemmas.Theunprecedenteduseof"ThirdWorl d"laborincoreso-cietiesisanotherimportantfeatureoftheworl d-economy. Thepostwarprocessesofnationbuildinginthevastmajorityofthe peripheryofthecapitalistworl d-economyarestillinformedbythecolonial legaciesandbythecolonial/racialculturebuiltduringcenturiesofEuro-peancolonialexpansi on.TheEurocentriccolonialcultureasani deol ogy isnotgeographicallylimitedtoEurope,butratherconstitutesthegeocul-tureandimaginaryofthemodern/colonialworld-system.Hence,modernity isal waysconstitutedbycoloniality.Howeverappealingthenoti on"post-colonial"maybe,itprovestobeempiricallyinadequate.Colonialrelations arenotmerelyaninstitutionalphenomenon.Currentevidenceonformsof politicalandculturaldomi nati onandeconomi cexpl oi tati onsuggestthat thecolonialityofpowerisnothistoricallylimitedtotheperiodofcolonial rule.Despitetherhetoricoftheirpowerbrokers,thenewinstitutionsof globaldomi nancethatemergedinthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury arenotmeanttopromotea"postcolonial"orderbasedondemocracy, devel opment,and"self-determination"intheperiphery,buthaverather functionedasstrongholdsofthelong-lastingcolonialimaginaries,identi-ties,andsymbolsuponwhi chglobalcapitalismhaserecteditssystemof domi nati onandexpl oi tati onsincethesixteenthcentury.Themyththatwe, liveinadecol oni zedworl dneedstobechallengedsinceithascrucialpo-liticalimplicationsintermsofhowweconceivesocialchange,struggles againstinequality,scientificdisciplines,knowl edgeproduction,Utopian thinking,democracy,anddecolonizationitself. THEMYTHOFDEVELOPMENT Itishardtothinkofaconceptwi thagreatercentralityintheepisteme ofpowerthantheconceptofdevelopment.Devel opment,initsmostcom-UnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologiesxxiii prehensiveform,isrationalizedasathree-dimensionalprocessthatincludes "self-sustained"economi cgrowth,theconsol i dati onofinstitutionstopro-tectandfurtherconsolidatedemocracyandtherespectforindividualrights, andgreateraccesstosocialbenefitsforthepopul ati onatlarge.Assuch, theconceptofdevel opmenthasbeenusedasapowerfultooltoadvance socialprojectsrootedinemancipatoryideals.However,theconceptofde-vel opmenthasalsopredominantlyactedasa"comprehensiveconceptof control . "1 The"developmentsystem"wasanimportantpoliticalinnovationofthe secondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.Sincethen,CraigMurphy(1990) remindsus,theissueof"development"hasmovedtothetopof theagendas of"everyoneofthepostwarglobalintergovernmentalorganizations,in-cludingagenciesliketheIMF,theInternationalTel ecommunci ati onsUn-i on,thecommuni cati onsatelliteagency(INTELSALT),andtheWorl d IntellectualPropertyOrganization, "amongothers.AccordingtoMurphy, the"developmentsystem"hasperformedmultiplevaluablefunctionsfor thecorestates.Oneofthemostsalientfunctionshasbeentomatchthe rationalityofprivateinvestorswi thcapitalistexpansi on(Craig1990) .Ac-cordingtohi m,othermajorfunctionshavebeenthereplacementofcol o-nialinstitutionsatal owercost;toprotecttheinternationalfinancialsystem fromfiscalcrisesinperipheralstates;asadeterrencemechani smagainst SovietandSinoexpansi oni smintheperiphery;andasapopulisttoolto supportauthoritarianregimesintheperipherywi thwhi chthecorecon-trolledboththemarginalizedandtheprivilegedgroupsthateventuallybe-camethemainbenefactorsofdevel opmentprogramsthroughclientelism (Craig1990) .SatoshiIkeda(Chapter6)referstothechallengethatpro-tectionistpoliciesthatpromoted"national"enterprisesoccasionallyrep-resentedforU. S.corporations,butemphasizesthattherewereimportant compensatoryrationales:"Theideaofnationaleconomi cdevel opmentwas notnecessarilyincontradictionwi ththesystemoffreeenterpriseasl ong astheU. S.enterprisecoul doperatefreelywi thi nagivennationalborder. . . .Eventhoughtheprojectof'national'economi cdevel opmentwassome-whatcontradictorytotheearlierdesignofworl d-economy,theU.S.ac-ceptedthisstrategyasacountermeasureagainstCommuni stexpansi on. " Morerecently,afterthecollapseoftheSovietbloc,theincorporationof vastzonesoftheperipheryandsemi-periphery,includingChina,intothe "maquiladorasystem"hasreliedonanewglobaldesign:theneoliberal project,whi chtoalargeextenthaspushedderegulationintheperiphery. FouadMakki(Chapter11)highlightsthatwhiletheconceptofdevel-opmentishardlyanovel tyofthepostwarperiod,developmentalismasan ideology"representedahistoricallyspecificpower-knowl edgenexusthat emergedataparticularconjuncture."Suchhistoricalconjuncture,Makki argues,manifestedatransitioninthenatureofthecolonialrelationand wasframedbythreehistoricalprocesses:theattempttoform"national economi es"intheaftermathoftheGreatDepressionandtheobsolescence xxivUnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologies ofthenoti onof"self-regulatingmarkets, "decolonizationmovements,and theconsol i dati onofU. S.hegemony.Makkifurtherexplicatestheinterplay ofthetemporal/spatialdi mensi onsofthedevelopmentalproject.Hi scon-tributionsupportsthethesisthat"development"becameacrucialconcept inthetransitionfromahegemoni cdiscourse,basedonwhatcanbere-gardedastheoriginaryformsof"Othering"thecolonialsubjectsatthe onsetofcol oni zati on(e.g."civilize"vis-a-vis"primitive"),intoauniver-salizingdiscourse:"' Devel opment'wasinthisrespectcrucialinreconfig-uringtheglobalidentityofex-col oni esinawaythatwasincorporativeand universalistic,yetstillhierarchical.Itnotonl ydefinedthetermsinwhi ch colonialexpl oi tati onandrelativeinequalitywereunderstoodbutalsopro-videdthepromiseofafuturebeyondcol oni al i sm. "Bymasteringthehis-toricalprocessesinvolvedintheformationofthedevelopmentalistproject throughouthischapter,Makkiarguesthat"globalization"emergesasthe newconceptcandidatetosuittheuniversalizingdiscourseundercurrent condi ti onscharacterizedbyactualprocessesoftransnationalizationandthe embracingofneoliberalideas.Hi scontributionillustratesoneofhismost salientconclusions:"Thehistoryofthedevel opmentframework,wi thits displacementsandreversalsofanearlierimperialprocessofglobalization ...permitsustothinkmorecriticallyonthislatetwentieth-century process ofglobalization. " Devel opmental i smasani deol ogyreinforcestheaut onomousillusionof peripheralnation-statesandtheevolutionarynoti onofprogress(Waller-stein1992a,1992b) .Thecentralideaisthateachperipheralnation-state is"independent"andwillpassthroughthesame"stages"of thecorestates, andthatsoonerorlatertheformerwoul dmirror-imagethelatterinthe moderni zati onpath.Thedevelopmentalistfallacyinducedpractitionersand theoreticiansintheperipherytofocustheirpoliticaleffortstowarddevel-opment,morefrequentlythannotnarrowlydefinedaseconomi cgrowth andtechnologicali mprovementbutstrategicallyconceivedasarealizable goalineachnation-stateoftheperipheryandsemi-periphery.Thus,while theworl d-economywasbeingorganizedaroundglobalcapitalflowswi thi n ahierarchicalinternationaldivisionoflaborinformedbytheglobalracial/ ethnichierarchy,politicswasbeingfragmentedinanarrayofnation-states, eachoneorganizedaroundfalsepremisessuchasthepremiseof developmentalism(Wallerstein1984,1995) .Onthisline,RichardLee (Chapter2)arguesthat"[t]hedeclineofthe'old,'state-orientednationalist andclass-basedmovementswasaresultoftherealizationoftheirfailure todeliveronpromisesofprogressandparalleledthecollapseoftheEast-WestconfrontationandtherenewedawarenessoftheNorth-Southsplit." Leeshowsthecomplicitybetweenstructuresofknowl edgeandthelimits toimaginingalternativeworl dsbeyonddevelopmentalismandthenation-stateastheprivilegedsiteforpoliticalaction.Developmentalistillusions contributedtochannelingtheantisystemicmovements'politicaleffortsin UnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologies xxv theperipheryinnationalstatepolicieswi ththeobjectiveofachievingde-vel opmentbymeansofoverl ooki ngtheglobalpol i ti cal -economi crelations ofinequalityandtheglobalracial-ethnichierarchylinkedtotheformer thatstandinthewayof"nationaldevelopment. "Ultimately,thefallacyof "nationaldevel opment"wascrucialtoconcealingthepersistenceofglobal colonialrelationsinthe"postcolonial"worl d-system.Whenantisystemic movementswerechanneledthroughthepathoftakingoverthenation-state,theyreproducedtheoldcolonialhierarchiesdisguisedas"postcol o-nial"undertheassumptionsthattheeliminationofacolonial administrationwasenoughtoeradicatecolonialrelations,andthatthe countryinquestioncoul d"nationallydevel op"wi thoutforeigninterven-tion.Theideaaboutthepossibilityof"nationaldevel opment"wi thout globalstructuralchangesisoneofthegreatestmythsofthetwentiethcen-tury.InChapter3,RobertoPatricioKorzeniewicz,AngelaStach,Davi d Consiglio,andTi mothyPatrickMoranteardownthedevelopmentalistil-lusionwi thananalysisofinequalitytrendsthroughoutthetwentiethcen-tury.Theirworkreliedonapainstakingmethodol ogi calprocedurewi th whi chtheyquestiontheaccuracyofadjustingi ncomedataforpurchasing powerparities,whi chgivesthefalseimpressionthatthelevelsofinequality havedeclinedinrecentdecades.Theyconcl udethati ncomeinequalityhas growninrecentdecadestothepoi ntthat"bythemi d- 1990sworl din-equalitieswereattheirhighestrecordedleveloverthepastt wocenturies." Theirworkconfirmsthatnoneofthethreevariants(Communi stmove-ments,social-democraticmovements,andnationalliberationmovements) throughwhi chthe"OldLeft"seizedpowerthroughoutthetwentiethcen-tury(Wallerstein1995)alteredthefundamentaldynamicsofworl di ncome inequality.Theglobali ncomeinequalitytrend,theauthorssustain,willbe reducedonl ybytheimplementationoft wosetsofreform:(1)amassive transferofresourcesfromweal thytopoorcountriesand(2)theelimination ofrestrictionstolabormobility"designedtoenhancethebargainingpower ofthepoorbyopeni ngupmarketsthatwoul dtrulymakeadifferencein thelivesofthepoor. "Theydonotplacesomuchhope,however,inactual implementationofsuchreforms. Thedevelopmentalistfallacyaffectedthescopeofantisystemicmove-ments.Insteadoffightingthesystemsofoppressionatalllevels,wi thi nand beyondthestructuresofthenation-state,majorprogressivegroupsex-haustedpoliticaleffortsintheadministrationofthenation-statefol l owi ng adevelopmentalistillusion.Nei thersocialistandsocial-democraticdevel-opmentalattemptsnornationalliberationmovementscoul descapeitsbi-zarreresults(Wallerstein1995) .Enchantedbythedevelopmentalist promise,"ThirdWorl d"leadersbelievedthatbytakingoverthenation-state,theycoul dachieve"real"sovereigntyanddevelopmentandreduce theinequalitygapbetweentheireconomi esandtheeconomi esof thecenter. Radicalsocialmovementsbecamebureaucratizedandmetamorphosedinto xxviUnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologies conservativeforcesoncetheytookoverthestateapparatusandfocusedon thegoalof"development. "Inthenameof"nationaldevel opment"both "socialist"and"capitalist"regimesjustifiedoppression,includingflagrant repressionoflabormovementsandviolationsoflaborrights.Theyevoked endlesssacrificesandharshausteritymeasurestowardtheworki ngclasses andpavedthewayfortheirsubmissiontoglobalcapitalismwhi l ethere wasaprocessofelitereaccommodati on,whi chundersocialistregimes adoptedtheformof"thenewclass."Itisincreasinglyacknowl edgedthat the"socialist"regimesbasedtheirstructureinstatecapitalistformsof pro-ducti onandconsequentlytendedtomaxi mi zestatepower,whilethe"cap-italist"regimestriedtoimitatemechani smsempl oyedinthecenterforthe maxi mi zati onofprofits.Theyweredifferentformsofproductiveorgani-zationwi thi nacapitalistworl d-systemorganizedaroundasingleinterna-tionaldivisionoflabor(Wallerstein1979) .However,thepromisedlandof devel opmentremainedanillusion.Paradoxically,despitetherevolutionary jargonanddevelopmentalistrhetoricofsocialistmovementsintheperiph-ery,theydidnotleadtosignificantchangesintheperipherallocationsin theinternationaldivisionoflabor.Cuba,whi chhasexperiencedoneofthe mostradicalrevolutionsofall"ThirdWorl d"revolutions,constitutesper-hapsoneofthesaddestcasesbecauseofthedramaticdetachmentthatthe radical"sovereignty"and"developmentalist"discourseshavehadwi ththe needsandchangingexpectationsofthepopul ati onontheonehand,and world-systemicforces,ontheother.Theisland'sgrowi ngdependenceon U.S.labormarketsthroughtheescalatingdependenceofthousandsofCu-banhousehol dsonthemigradollarssentbyrelativesresidingintheUnited States,thedefactodollarizationoftheCubaneconomyafterthecollapse oftheSovietbloc,andunfulfilledlabor,women' s,andethnicminority expectationsorthesteadyreversalofsomeofthepreviousachievements inthesedirectionsindicatethattakingoverthestateapparatuscombi ned wi thadevelopmentalistagendahasrepresented,atbest,anunpavedroute towardemancipation. TherecentZapatistaarmedstruggleinChiapasrepresentsaneffortto provideanalternativeresponsetothefailureofnationalliberationand socialistmovementsinthetwentiethcentury.TheZapatistasareusually portrayedasthefirstpost-developmentalist,post-national,andpostcol oni al guerrillamovement,criticalofthetraditionalguerrillamovementsinthe regionasawayoutofoppression.Theyhavechallengedglobalcapitalism andglobalcoloniality.Theydecenteredthestrugglefromthegoalofad-ministrationofthenation-stateandrefocusedthestruggletowardaglobal strategythroughtransnationalformsofagency,includingtheuseofthe Internet,againstmodern/ col oni alcapitalistformsofexploitation.Wedo notknowtheresultsofthisstruggleyet,butsofartheyhavebeenquite successfulinchallengingtheoldcolonialityofpoweroftheMexi canstate wi thoutfallingintothetemptati onofadministratingthenation-state.In UnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologiesxxvii addition,antisystemicmovementsmayalsomanifestthroughactsofresis-tanceofsubjugatedsubjectsofthe"globalSouth"incoresocietiesand evenastheunintendedconsequencesoftheextremistconservativeagendas. ThesignificantgrowthofLatino/asinrecentdecadeshasrunintothesurge ofracismandxenophobi a.Thequestionistowhatextentsuchattitudes areintrinsicallyantisystemicontheirown.InChapter5,EricMielants addressesthisquestion.Hecallsourattentiontothelimitsthatracismand xenophobi aaddressedagainstimmigrantshaveforthestabilityofthesys-tem.Hedoessobydistinguishingwhatheseesast woantisystemicgradi-entsof"massmigration. "Onereferstothe"antisystemicpressure"that "massmigration, "andparticularlypopul ati onmovementsrelatedtoeco-logicalcrisesput"ontheinter-statesystem. "Thesecond,totheantisys-temiccharacteroftheracialagenda:"itisimportanttoacknowl edgethe increasingsignificanceofthefar-right,wi tharacialanti-meritocratic agenda,asapossibleanti-systemicmovementinitself,insteadoftreating itasnothingmorethananaccidentaloutburstinnationalelectionsora purelocalphenomenonwi thi nanation-stateinaperiodofeconomi cre-cession. "Mi el ants'poi ntchallengestraditionalconceptualizationsofanti-immigrantxenophobi candracistmovementsinthecore.Theeffectsof thesemovementsonthedifferentdynamicsofthemodern/colonialworl d-systemasawhol eremaintobeseeninthecomi ngyears. ( I N) CONCLUSI ON Theimportanceofasystematicanalysisoftheoutlinedmythol ogi esis thattheycontributetoconcealinginthepresent"postcolonialadministra-tions"modern/colonialworld-systemthecontinuedhierarchical/unequal relationsofdomi nati onandexpl oi tati onbetweenmetropolitan/European/ Euro-Americancentersandnon-Europeanperipheralregions.Devel opmen-talism,Eurocentricuniversalistknowl edges,andthemythofdecolonization formpartofthecolonial/Eurocentricimaginaryofthemodern/colonial world-system.Thenewdomi nantglobalizationdiscourseassumesahori-zontal,equal,non-exploitativeworl dwhereeverybodycanmakeitifthey workhardenough,whileitalsoopensupthelocaleconomytointerna-tionalfinancialinstitutionsandtransnationalcorporations.Inthemean-time,povertyishyper-concentratedintheSouthandintheperipherywi thi n thecore,whileweal thishyper-concentratedintheNort handinthecore withinthecore.Whiletheperipheryisgloballyfragmentedinmultiple nation-states,corporationsareorganizedataworl dscale,whi chkeeps reproducingaglobalcolonialhierarchyintheso-called"postcolonial"era (thelast50years).Underthesecircumstancesitisrelativelyeasytoplace theresponsibilityofperipheralmasspovertyintheperipheryitselfand dismissEuropean/Euro-Americanresponsibility.Thenewfaceofdevelop-mentalismisglobalneoliberalism.Al thoughtheoutcomeoftheneoliberal xxviiiUnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologies policieshasbeentodismantlethedevelopmentaliststates,globalneoliber-alismstilloperatesunderabasicdevelopmentalistpremise:thatbyapplying marketliberalizationatthenation-statelevel,eachcountrywoul dsooner orlaterachieveeconomi cgrowthanddevelopment.Thishasledtoafe-rociouscompeti ti onamongperipheralstatesintermsofsellingtheirre-sourcesmostcheaplytotransnationalcorporationswhi l emillionsof workerssufferirreversibletraumaticexperiencesasmigrantsinthecore, wheretheytrytosecureafamilyi ncome,whi chisincreasinglyhardtofind intheperiphery. Insum,developmentalism,Eurocentricuniversalistknowl edges,andthe mythofdecol oni zati onhavebeencrucialideologiesinconcealingEuro-pean/Euro-Americanresponsibilityinthefateofperipheralregionsaround theworl d.Theworl dneedsaseconddecol oni zati onmoreprofoundthan thejuridical-politicaldecolonizationexperiencedinthelast50years.Thi s seconddecol oni zati onshouldaddresstheglobalclass,gender,racial,sex-ual,andregionalasymmetriesproducedbythehierarchicalstructuresof themodern/colonialcapitalistworld-system.Definitely,aglobalprobl em cannothavea"national"solution:itrequiresglobalsolutions(plural). NOTE 1.Bode(1979),citedandfurtheranalyzedinvanderPijl,TransnationalClasses andInternationalRelations.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1998. REFERENCES Alarcon,Norma.1983."ChicanaFeministLiterature:ARe-VisionthroughMal-intzinloxMalintzin:PuttingFleshBackontheObject."InCherrieMoraga andGloriaAnzaldua,eds.,ThisBridgeCalledMyBack:WritingbyRadical Womenof Color.NewYork:KitchenTable/WomenofColor,pp.182-190. Anzaldua,Gloria.1987.Borderlands/LaFrontera:TheNewMestiza.SanFran-cisco:Spinsters/AuntLute. Arrighi,Giovanni.1994.TheLongTwentiethCentury:Money,Power,andthe OriginsofOurTimes.London:Verso. Castells,Manuel.2000.TheInformationAge:Economy,SocietyandCulture,Vol. 1:TheRiseoftheNetworkSociety.Oxford:Blackwell. Craig,Murphy.1990."FreezingtheNorth-SouthBloc(k)aftertheEast-West Thaw."SocialistReview(July-September):2546.Reprintedbypermission inPaulViottiandMarkKauppi,InternationalRelationsTheory:Realism, Pluralism,Globalism(2nded.).NeedhamHeights,MA:AllynandBacon, pp.513- 531. Grosfoguel,Ramon.2002.ColonialSubjects:PuertoRicansinaGlobalPerspec-tive.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Haraway,Donna.1991.Simians,CyborgsandWomen:TheReinventionofNa-ture.NewYork:Routledge. UnthinkingTwentieth-CenturyEurocentricMythologiesxxix Mignolo,Walter.1995.TheDarkerSideof theRenaissance:Literacy,Territoriality andColonization.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress. .2000.LocalHistories/GlobalDesigns:EssaysontheColonialityof Power, SubalternKnowledgesandBorderThinking.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUni-versityPress. Quijano,Anibal.1991."ColonialidadyModemidad/Racionalidad."PeruIndigena 29:11-21. .1993."'Raza,''Etnia'y'Nation'enMariategui:CuestionesAbiertas."In RolandForgues,ed.,JoseCarlosMaridtguiyEuropa:ElOtroAspectodel Descubrimiento.Lima,Peru:EmpresaEditoraAmautaS.A.,pp.167-187. .1998."LaColonialidaddelPoderylaExperienciaCulturalLatinoameri-cana."InRobertoBriceno-LeonandHeinzR.Sonntag,eds.,Pueblo,Epoca yDesarrollo:LaSociologiadeAmericaLatina.Caracas:NuevaSociedad, pp.139-155. .2000."ColonialityofPower,Ethnocentrism,andLatinAmerica."NE-PANTLA1(3):533-580. Quijano,Anibal,andImmanuelWallerstein.1992."AmericanityasaConcept,or theAmericasintheModernWorld-System."International Journalof Social Sciences134:583-591. Saldivar,JoseDavid.1997.BorderMatters.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press. Sassen,Saskia.1991.TheGlobalCity:NewYork,London,Tokyo.Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress. Wallerstein,Immanuel.1974.TheModernWorld-System,Vol.I:CapitalistAgri-cultureandtheOriginsoftheEuropeanWorld-EconomyintheSixteenth Century.NewYork:AcademicPress. .1979.TheCapitalistWorld-Economy.CambridgeandParis:Cambridge UniversityPressandEditionsdelaMaisondesSciencesdel'Homme. .1980.TheModernWorldSystem,Vol.II:MercantilismandtheConsoli-dationoftheEuropeanWorld-Economy,1600-1750.NewYork:Academic Press. .1983.HistoricalCapitalism.NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress. .1984.ThePoliticsoftheWorld-Economy.CambridgeandParis:Cam-bridgeUniversityPressandEditionsdelaMaisondesSciencesdel'Homme. .1992a."TheConceptofNationalDevelopment,1917-1989:Elegyand Requiem."AmericanBehavioralScientist35(4/5)(March/June):517-529. .1992b."TheCollapseof Liberalism."InRalphMilibandandLeoPanitch, eds.,TheSocialistRegister1991.London:MerlinPress,pp.96-110. .1995.AfterLiberalism.NewYork:NewPress. TheTwentiethCentury:DarknessatNoon? ImmanuelWallerstein Inthemiddleofthetwentiethcentury,ArthurKoestlerwroteanovelabout theSovietregimeanditsshowtrials,whi chheentitledDarknessatNoon. Iwoul dliketotakethisasmymetaphorfortheentiretwentiethcentury, notjusttheSovietregime.Butatthesametime,thecenturywasinmany waysalso"BrightSunatMi dni ght. "Indeed,thewaythatwethinkabout thiscentury,sodifficulttoassess,hasdependedverymuchontheplace fromwhi chandthemomentatwhi chweobserveit.Wehavebeenon somethingofaroller-coasterride.Weshouldrememberthatroller-coaster ridesendinoneoft woways.Usually,theyreturntotheirstartingpoi nt, moreorless,althoughtheridersmayhavebeeneitherexhilaratedorvery frightened.Butsometi mestheyderail. HenryLucecalledthetwentiethcentury"theAmericancentury."Hewas unquestionablyright,althoughthisisonl ypartofthestory.Theriseofthe UnitedStatestohegemonyintheworl d-systemstartedcirca1870inthe wakeofthebeginningofthedeclineoftheUnitedKi ngdomfromitserst-whileheights.TheUnitedStatesandGermanycompetedwi theachother ascontendersforthesuccessiontotheUnitedKi ngdom.Whathappened iswellknownandstraightforward.BoththeUnitedStatesandGermany greatlyexpandedtheirindustrialbasebetween1870and1914,bothsur-passingGreatBritain.One,however,wasasea/airpower,andtheothera landpower.Theirlinesofeconomi cexpansi onwerecorrespondinglydif-ferent,aswasthenatureoftheirmilitaryinvestment.TheUnitedStates wasalliedeconomi cal l yandpoliticallywi ththedecliningerstwhilehege-monicpower,GreatBritain.Eventually,therewerethet woworl dwars, whi chonecanbestthinkofasasingle"thirtyyears'war, "essentiallybe-xxxiiTheTwentiethCentury:DarknessatNoon? tweentheUnitedStatesandGermanytodeterminehegemonyintheworl d-system. Germanytriedthepathoftransformingtheworld-systemintoaworl d-empire,whattheycalledatausendjahrigesReich.Thepathofimperial conquesthasneverworkedasaviablepathtodomi nancewi thi ntheframe-workofthecapitalistworl d-economy,asNapol eonhadpreviouslylearned. Theworld-imperialthrusthastheshort-termadvantageofitsmilitaryvigor andprecipitateness.Ithasthemiddle-termdisadvantageofbeingveryex-pensiveandunitingalltheopposi ti onforces.Astheconstitutionaland quasi-liberalmonarchyofGreatBritainhadralliedautocratic,tsarist RussiaagainstNapol eon,sothequasi-liberalrepresentativerepublicofthe UnitedStatesralliedtheStalinistSovietUni onagainstHitler,or,rather, bothNapol eonandHitlerdidgoodjobsinunitingthet woendsofthe Europeanlandmassagainstthevoraciouspowerstructurelocatedbetween them. Ho wshallweassesstheconsequencesofthisstruggle?Letusstartwi th thematerialoutcome.In1945,afterincrediblydestructivewarfareevery-whereontheEuropeancontinentandsimilarlydestructivewarfareinEast AsiadestructiveintermsbothoflivesandofinfrastructuretheUnited Stateswastheonl ymajorindustrialpowertoemergeunscathedeconom-ically,evenstrengthenedastheresultofwartimebuildup.Forseveralyears after1945,therewasactualhungerinalltheotherpreviouslyeconomi cal l y advancedregions,andinanycasetherewasadifficultprocessofbasic reconstructionofthesezones. ItwasquiteeasyinsuchasituationforU. S.industriestodomi natethe worl dmarket.Theirmajorprobl eminitiallywasnott oomanycompetitive sellersbutt oolittleeffectivedemand,t wofewbuyersworl dwi debecause ofthedeclineofpurchasingpowerinWesternEuropeandEastAsia.This requiredmorethanrelief;itrequiredreconstruction.Howeverprofitable suchreconstructionwoul dbeforU.S.industry,itwascostlyfromthepoi nt ofvi ewofU. S.taxpayers.Meeti ngtheshort-runcostsposedaninternal politicalprobl emfortheU. S.government. Meanwhi l e,thereseemedtobeapolitical-militaryprobl emaswel l .The U.S.S.R.,despitethedestruction,l oomedlargeasamilitarypower,occu-pyinghalfofEurope.Itproclaimeditselfasocialiststatewi thatheoretical mi ssi ontoleadthewhol eworl dtosocialism(andthen,intheoryagain,to Communi sm).Between1945and1948,so-calledpopulardemocracies,un-dertheaegisoftheCommuni stParty,wereputintoplace,onebyone,in thezoneswheretheRedArmywastobefoundattheendofWorl dWar II.By1946,Wi nstonChurchillspokeofan"IronCurtain"thathadfallen onEuropefromStettintoTrieste. Inaddition,intheimmediatepost - 1945years,Communi stparties showedthemselvestobeextremelystronginalargenumberofEuropean countries.WetendtoforgettodaythatCommuni stpartieswon2 5 - 4 0 % TheTwentiethCentury:DarknessatNoon?xxxiii ofthevoteintheearlypostwarelectionsinFrance,Italy,Belgium,Finland, andCzechosl ovaki atheresultbothoftheirpreviousstrengthinthein-terwaryearsandoftheirwartimeroleinanimatingagoodpartofthe resistanceagainstNazi sm/ fasci sm.ThesamewastrueinAsia.InChina, theCommuni stPartywasmarchingonShanghaiagainstaNati onal i stgov-ernmentthathadlostitslegitimacy.Communi stpartiesand/orguerrillas wereremarkablystrongaswellinJapan,thePhilippines,Indochina,and theDut chEastIndiesandnotnegligibleelsewhere. Communi stmovementshad,astheFrenchsay,leventenpoupe.They claimedthathistorywasontheirside,andtheyactedasthoughtheybe-lievedit.Sodidalotofothersbelieveit,rangingfromconservativemove-mentstocenter-leftmovements,mostparticularly,themajorityof thesocial democrats.Theseotherswereafraidthat,inafewyears,theircountries, too,woul dbecomepopulardemocracies.Andtheydidn'twi shthistohap-pen.Moreemphatically,theywerereadytoresistactivelywhatnowwas rhetoricallycalledaCommuni stmenacetothefreeworl d. Inthelast30years,therehasbeenalargeamountofrevisionisthisto-riography,comi ngfromboththeleftandtheright.Theleftrevisionists havetendedtoclaimthattheso-calledCommuni stmenacewasabogey-man,erectedbytheU. S.governmentandworl drightforces,bothtoensure U.S.hegemonyintheworld-systemandtoputdown(oratleastlimit)the strengthofleftandworkers'movementsintheWesternliberalstates.The right-wingrevisionistshavetendedtoclaim,especiallysincetheavailability ofSovietdocumentsafter1989,thattherewasindeedaworl dwi denetwork ofspiesfortheSovietUni on,whi chdidindeedhaveeveryintentionof subvertingnon-Communi ststatesandtransformingthemintopopularde-mocracies. Thefactisthatboththeleftandtherighthistoriographicalrevisionists areprobablylargelyrightintheirempiricalassertionsandfundamentally wrongi ntheirhistoricalinterpretation.Nodoubt,bothsidesassertedboth publiclyandevenmoreinprivatewhattherevisionistssaidtheyhadas-serted.Probably,mostindividualsinthekeyagenciesofeachsidebelieved therhetoric,oratleastbelievedmuchofit.Nodoubt,t oo,bothsides engagedinactionsthatwentinthedirectionofcarryingouttherhetoric, andnodoubtfinally,bothsideswoul dhavebeendelightedtoseetheother sidecollapseandwereforthemostpartevenhopi ngforit. Stillweneedalittlesangfroidandalittlerealpolitikinourappreciation ofwhatreallywenton.Itseemsclear,inretrospect,thattheCol dWar wasahighlyrestrained,carefullyconstructedandmoni toredexercisethat nevergotoutofhandandneverledtotheworl dwarofwhi cheveryone wasafraid.Ihavecalleditaminuet.Furthermore,inretrospect,nothing muchhappened,inthesensethattheboundarylinesasof1989werepretty muchtheboundarylinesasof1945,andtherewasintheendneitherSoviet aggressioninWesternEuropenorU. S."rollback"inEasternEurope.Fur-xxxivTheTwentiethCentury:DarknessatNoon? thermore,thereweremanypointsatwhi cheachsideshowedrestraint aboveandbeyondthecallofrhetoric.Ofcourse,wecansaythatnoneof thiswastheintent,merelytheresultofastalemate,andtosomeextent thatmaybetrue.Still,stalematesareabettedbylassitudesthatresultfrom tacitintents. Suchahistoricalscenariocallsforcautioninassessingthemotivesand theprioritiesofeachside.Letusl ookatt wocodewords:Yaltaandcon-tainment.Yaltawasthenameofameetingoftheheadsofstateofthe UnitedStates,theU.S.S.R.,andGreatBritaininFebruary1945.Yaltaos-tensiblyfixedtheboundariesoftheprospectivepostwargarrisoningof troopsandthereforeofgeopoliticalinfluence,aswellasthemodalitiesof constitutinggovernmentsinliberatedcountries.Containmentwasadoc-trineinventedbyGeorgeKennanafewyearslater.Kennan,speakingfor himselfbutindirectlyfortheUnitedStatesestablishment,advocatedjust that,containmentbytheUnitedStatesoftheSovietUni onnot ,however, containmentinplaceofwel comebutcontainmentinplaceofrollback,a col dwarthatwoul dnotandshouldnotbecomeahotone.BeforeJohn FosterDullesbecamesecretaryofstateunderEisenhowerin1953,hehad advocated,againstKennan,rollback.But,onceinpower,Dullesinfact practicedcontainment(mostnotablyin1956inrelationtotheHungari an Revol uti on),androllbackwasrelegatedtothediscourseofmarginalpol-iticians. WhatYalta/containmentachieved( whowilleverknowtheinnermotives ofalltheactors?)isquiteclear.TheSovietUni onhadazoneunderits absolutecontrol(mostofwhatwecallEastandCentralEurope).The UnitedStatesclaimedalltherestoftheworl d.TheUnitedStatesnever interferedintheSovietzone(exceptbypropaganda).SeeU.S.actions(or ratherinaction)i n1953,1956,1968,and1981i nresponsetovarious versionsofwhatlatercametobecalledtheBrezhnevDoctri netheright claimedbytheU.S.S.R.tomaintainforciblywi thi nitsblocanystatethat waspartofit.Ontheotherhand,theU.S.S.R.neverreallyinterferedin anyzoneoutsideitsspherewi thmorethanpoliticalpropagandaandalittle money,wi ththesoleseriousexcepti onofAfghanistan(abigmistake,as theyweretolearn).Tobesure,somecountriesignoredthisnicebilateral U. S. -Sovi etarrangement,andwewillcometothat. WhathadYaltatodowi ththeissueofU. S.worl d-economi cpriorities intheimmediatepostwarperiod?Aswehavesaid,theUnitedStatesneeded tocreateworl deffectivedemand;however,theUnitedStatesdidnothave unlimitedmoneywi thwhi chtodothat.Intheallocationofitsresources, theUnitedStatesgaveprioritytoWesternEuropeforbotheconomi cand politicalreasons.TheresultwastheMarshallPlan.TheMarshallPlan,let usnonethelessremember,wasofferedbyMarshalltoalltheallies.Di dthe UnitedStatesreallywanttheSovietUni ontoaccept?Idoubtitverymuch, TheTwentiethCentury:DarknessatNoon? xxxv andIrememberhearingaStateDepartmentspokesmanadmitasmuch publiclyatthetime. Inanycase,theSovietUni ondeclinedtobepartoftheproposaland madesurethatnoneofthecountriesinitszonerespondedfavorably.This wasabonanzafortheU.S.governmentfort woreasons.HadtheSoviet Uni oncomei nonthepl an,i twoul dhavebecomet ooexpensive,andi n additiontheU. S.Congresswoul dneverhavevotedit.Themainargument thatobtainedbipartisancongressionalsupportfortheMarshallPlanwas theneedtocontainCommuni sm.Sowhatinfactwashappening?Marshall PlanaidwastheothersideoftheYaltaarrangements.TheSovietUni on wasfreetoestablishamercantilistblocwi thi ntheworl d-economy,but thenitgotnoeconomi caidinitsreconstruction.Nointerference,butno aid.Theonl ytimethatthesenicearrangementsseemedthreatenedwasthe momentoftheBerlinBlockade.Butthenetresultoftheblockadewasa truceatthepoi ntwhereitstarted,givingtheUnitedStatestheexcuseto launchNATOandtheSovietUni ontheexcusetocreatetheWarsawPact. Italsogaveeachsidetheexcusetospendalotmoreontheirmilitary, whi chwasactuallybeneficialeconomi cal l yintheshortrun,ifnotinthe longerrun. Ofcourse,Asiawasabitleftoutinthesearrangements,andtheChinese Communi stshadnointentionofbeingleftout.SotheymarchedonShang-hai,contraStalin'swi shes.IntheUnitedStates,therightsaidthatthe UnitedStateslostChina,butactuallyitwastheSovietUni onthatlost China,andthatturnedouttobemoreimportantinthel ongrun.Then cametheKoreanWar.Whatevertherealstoryaboutwhostartedwhat andwhen,itseemsclear,againinretrospect,thatneithertheUnitedStates northeSovietUni onwantedtostartsuchawar.Afteralongandnasty involvement,inwhi chtheUnitedStateslostlivesbuttheSovietUni ondid not,thewarendedwi thatrucemoreorlessatthestartingpoint,aresult verysimilartothatoftheBerlinBlockade.Onceagain,thiswargavethe neededexcusefortheUnitedStatestobolsterenormousl ytheJapanese economyandtosignadefensepact.SoEastAsia,fromaU. S. -Sovi etvi ew-point,wasinontheYaltaarrangement.Chinanowdefactoaccepteditas wellaftertheQuemoy- Mat sui mbrogl i oin1955. TheAmericancenturywasageopoliticalrealityinwhi chtheotherso-calledsuperpower,theU.S.S.R.,hadarole,avoi ce,butnotreallythe powertodoanythingbutstrutaroundinitscage,untilthecagei mpl oded in1989.Wi ththisi mpl osi on,however,theunderlyingpoliticaljustification forU. S.hegemonydisappearedaswell,andthegeopoliticsoftheworl d-systemchanged,asubjecttowhi chweshallreturn. Letusturntothesecondgreathappeningofthetwentiethcentury,the exactoppositeofU.S.hegemonythesl owbutsteadypushbackbythe non-Westernworl dofPan-Europeandomi nance.Theheightofthe"ex-pansi onofEurope"wasactuallycirca1900,afullcenturyago.Itwasthen xxxviTheTwentiethCentury:DarknessatNoon? thatW. E. B.DuBoiswasproclaimingthat"theprobl emofthetwentieth centurywastheprobl emofthecolorline."Noonebelievedhimatthe time,buthewasabsolutelyright.EvenbeforeWorl dWarI,therewerea numberofso-calledrevolutionsthatshouldhavemadeanalyststakenotice: Mexi co,Afghanistan,Persia,China,and,notleast,theJapanesedefeatof Russiain1905.TherewasalreadythenaPan-*extra-Westernworl dmutual cheeringsocietysuchthattheseeventswerenoticedfarandwi deandserved toencouragefurtheracti onagainstPan-Europeandomi nance. Indeed,IbelieveweshouldthinkoftheRussianRevol uti onnotasa proletarianrevolution,whi chitclearlywasnot,butasthemostsuccessful andspectacularoftheeffortstopushbackPan-Europeandomi nance.To besure,manyRussiansinsistedthattheywereEuropeans,andtheBolshe-vikswereonthatsideofthelong-standingdebateinRussiabetweenWest-ernizersandSlavophiles.Butthisonl ypointstothecentralambivalenceof themovementstopushbackPan-Europeandomi nance.Theywerede-mandi ngseparationandintegrationatthesametime,bothinthenameof equality.Inanycase,theBolsheviksrealized,afterthenon-occurrenceof thefabledGermanrevolution,thattheirsurvivalandworl drolewere linkedtotheworl danti-imperialiststruggle.Thi swasthemeaningofthe BakuCongressin1920. Inthepost - 1945period,decol oni zati onbecametheorderoftheday. Thi swasinpartintelligentandtimelywi thdrawalbythecolonizingpow-ers.Butthiswi s domontheirpartwasverylargelytheresultofsomeheroic strugglesbynationalliberationmovementsacrossthreecontinents.The threethathadthegreatestgeopoliticalimpactwereVi etnam,Algeria,and Cuba.Innoneofthesecasescanitbearguedthatthesemovementswere agentsof theSovietUni on.Quitetheopposi te.Thesemovementsessentially weredefyingtheYaltaarrangementsandimposinganothersetofpriorities inthegeopoliticalarena,onetowhi chboththeSovietUni onandthe UnitedStateshadtobend,eventually. Ifwecompare2000and1900,weseethedegreetowhi chtheanti-imperialiststrugglewasmagnificentlysuccessfulandyetchangedmany feweroftherealitiesoftheworld-systemthanitsparticipantshadhoped, intended,andexpectedittodo.In2000,therewerenosignificantformal coloniesleft.WehaveanAfricanSecretary-GeneraloftheUnitedNat i ons (UN).Formal,avowedracismhasbecometaboorhetoric.Ontheot hei hand,weknowthedegreetowhi chneo-col oni al i sm(inNkrumah' snow forgottenbutaptphrase)isrampant.AnAfricanmaybesecretary-general oftheUN,butanAmericanheadsthemoreimportantWorl dBank,and aWesternEuropeantheInternationalMonetaryFund.Whiletherhetoric ofracismist aboo,therealityisasgreatasever,andeveryoneunderstands theunavowedcodewordsthatpermitittooperate. Indeed,theverysuccessoftheantisystemicmovementshasbeenthe majorcauseoftheirundoing.Inthelatenineteenthcentury,thevarious TheTwentiethCentury:DarknessatNoon?xxxvii antisystemicmovements,allpoliticallyweak,evolvedtheirstrategyforso-cialtransformation,thefamoustwo-stepplan:first,mobilizetoachieve statepowerineachstate;thenusestatepowertotransformsociety.This wasthestrategyadoptedbytheMarxi stsinthenameoftheworkers' movement.Thiswasthestrategyadoptedbythepoliticalnationalists.This waseventhestrategyadoptedbythewomen' smovementsaswellasmove-mentsofso-calledminoritiesinsofarastheyconcentratedonsuffrageand otherpoliticalrights.In1900,thisstrategyseemedtheonlyplausibleroad forthesemovements,andprobablyitwas.Itcertainlyseemedtobea difficultroad.Bythe1960s,themobilizationshadachievedsteponeall overtheworl d.Theantisystemicmovementswereinpower,oratleast partialpower,almosteverywhere.Stept wo,transformingsociety,coul d nowbeundertaken,anditsresultscoul dbeassessed.Themilitantsandthe massesultimatelyfoundtheresultstobesofarbel owtheirexpectations thattheycametoventtheirdisillusionmentuponthemovementsthem-selvesandtheirleaders,firstinthe1968worl drevolutionandtheninthe follow-upofthenextthreedecades. Thet wotwentieth-centurytrendsbecameconjoinedinthelastdecades ofthecentury.ThecollapseoftheCommuni smsin1989- 1991wasthe climaxoftheprocessofdisillusionmentthathadsurfacedin1968.Itwas, however,alsoandsimultaneouslytheknellofU.S.globalpower,removing itspoliticalunderpinningsint woways.Ontheonehand,itendedthe politicaljustificationforacontinuingsubordinationtoU.S.leadershipof itst womaineconomi crivals,anowrevitalizedWesternEuropeandJapan. Ontheotherhand,itendedtheconstraintsthattheantisystemicmove-mentshadplacedonmasspoliticalactivity,whi chtheyhadbeenchan-nelingandinrealitylargelydepoliticizing.So,wecansaythat,in2000by compari sonwi th1900,thePan-Europeanworl dwasactuallymuchweaker geopoliticallyandculturally,buttherestoftheworl dhadspenttheam-muni ti onthatithadmobilizedandwaswal l owi ngineconomi candpolit-icaldistresswi thoutthecertaintythatithadoncehad,thathistorywason itsside.Hence,darknessatnoonforboththePan-Europeanworl dandthe restoftheworl d,afteral ongperiod(especially1945- 1970)ofbrightsun atmidnight. InthisstorythatIamtelling,IhavenotmentionedtheNazi/fascist onslaughtintheinterwaryearsortheso-calledethnicpurificationsthatwe havebeenundergoingoflateortheGulaghorrorsoftheCommuni stre-gimes(but,ofcourse,alsoofmanyotherregimes).Aretheynotimportant? Yes,ofcourse,inthesensethathorrendoussufferingisal waysimportant andal waysmorallyrepugnant.Buthowdoweassess,first,thecausesof thesehorrorsand,second,thetrajectory?Thedomi nantcentristmythis thatthesehorrorswerecausedbyideologicalpresumptionandcollective socialdeviancefromthemoderate,steadypathlaidoutfortheworl d-systembythosewhohadthemostpowerinit.Auschwi tzissaidtohave xxxviiiTheTwentiethCentury:DarknessatNoon? beentheresultofirrationalracism,Gulagstheconsequenceofarrogant imposition(andexpectation)ofUtopias,ethnicpurificationtheresultof atavistic,culturallyingrainedxenophobi as. Evenwi thoutl ooki ngatthedetails,thisisanimplausibleformofanal-ysis.Auschwi tz,Gulags,andethnicpurificationalloccurredwi thi nthe frameworkofahistoricalsocialsystem,thecapitalistworl d-economy.We havetoaskwhatitisaboutthissystemthatproducedsuchphenomena andal l owedthemtoflourishinthetwentiethcenturyinwaysandtoa degreethathadn'toccurredbefore.Weliveinasysteminwhi chtherehas beenacontinuingclassstruggle.Weliveinasystemthathasinvolvedthe steadypolarizationofthepopul ati onseconomi cal l y,politically,socially, andnowevendemographically.Weliveinasystemthathasbuiltracism andsexi smintoitsstructuresfromtheoutset.And,ofcourse,weliveina systemthathasstructuredtheveryantisystemicmovementsthathavechal-lengedthelegitimacyandviabilityofthesystemitself. Oneofthewaysinwhi ch1900wasdifferentfrom1800,afortiorifrom 1700or1600,isthatthestakesoftheglobalcasinohadbecomemuch higher.Wi nni ngandlosinghadgreaterconsequencesforthecombatants, bothbecausethepossibilityofmobility(upwardanddownward)forin-dividualsandcollectivitieswasevergreaterandbecausethegapwasever greaterandgrowi ngsteadilyatageometric,notarithmeticpace.Ishallnot attempthereanexplicationoftheparticularsofanyofthesephenomena. Iwi shmerelytoinsistthattheexpl anati onmustbefoundinthefunctioning ofthesystemandnotinsomesupposeddeviancefromitsproperfunction-ing.Iwi shalsotoinsistthat,howeverterriblethesehappeningswerefor allthosewhosufferedfromthem,theymatteredlesstothehistoricalev-ol uti onofthemodernworl d-systemthanthet wocentralrealitiesofthe twentiethcentury,theriseandbeginningofthedeclineofU.S.hegemony andthespectacularpoliticalreassertionoftheextra-Europeanworl d, whi chchangedlessthaneveryonehadsupposeditwoul d. Ifonecomparesthetwentieth-centurycapitalistworl d-economywi t hthe nineteenth-centurycapitalistworl d-economy,thereisreallyoneremarkable difference.Thenineteenthcenturywasthecenturyofprogress,inwhi ch thecapitalistsystemseemedatlasttobebearingitstechnologicalfruits anditspotentialforcapitalaccumulation.Itwasthecenturyinwhi chthe newascendantgeocultureofliberalismseemedtosweepawaythelastcuK turalvestigesoftheAncienRegime.Itwasthecenturyinwhi chthecitizen wasatlastenthronedasthebearerofsovereignty.Itwasthecenturyof FaxBritannicainthecorezones(oratleastpeopl eweredeludedinto ignoringtheoccasi onalruptures)andofthefinalimperialconquestsinthe extra-Europeanzones.Itwastheperiodinwhi chtobebourgeois,Whi te, male,Christian,andskilledwasproofofcivilizationandguaranteedprog-ress.ThisiswhytheoutbreakofWorl dWarIin1914wassuchacultural shockwi thi nthePan-Europeanzones. TheTwentiethCentury:DarknessatNoon? Thetwentiethcentury,aswesaidattheoutset,wasarollercoaster.On theonehand,thetechnologicaladvancesinallfieldsoutstrippedtheantic-ipationofthenineteenthcenturybyfar.WelivedamidaJulesVernefan-tasy,andwewerepromisedfarmoreinthenext30years.Sohadcapital accumulation,evenifwesubtractallthecapitalstockdestroyedinthe multipleconflagrations.Thedemocratizationoftheworl dalsoproceeded apace,inthesensethatthedemandsoffullcitizenshipweretakenupby allandsundryandwentfarbeyondtheimaginationsofeventhemost daringnineteenth-centuryadvocates.Sotherewewere,brightsunatmid-night. Yet,asweallknow,intheyear2000,weweresurroundedbyfear, confusion,desperatescramblingagainbyallandsundry.Weweredis-couragedbythehorrorsofthetwentiethcentury.Wewerediscouraged evenmorebythefailures:thefailureoftheUnitedStatestofulfilltheworl d liberalUtopiathatitsideologistshadbeenconstantlypromisingandthe failureoftheantisystemicmovementstocreatethenewsocietythatthey hadconstantlypromised,atleastuntilveryrecently,leslendemainsqui chantent.Itisasthoughtheincredibleandever-fastergrowthofthecap-italistsystemhadgottenoutofhandandcreatedcancersmetastasizingall overtheplace. Weareface-to-facewi thuncertainty.ItisallverywellforPrigogineto tellusthatuncertaintyisthecentralrealityoftheuniverse,notmerelyof ourpresenthistoricalsituation.Westilldonotlikeit,andwefinditvery hardtohandl epsychol ogi cal l yandpoliticallyandyetwemust.Wefi nd ourselvesintheterminalphaseofahistoricalsystem,anageoftransition, asIhavearguedel sewhere.1Wemustturntoourintellectual,moral,and hencepoliticaldutiesinanageoftransition.Thefirstinlineisthesearch forlucidityaboutwhereweare.RosaLuxemburgsaidalreadyatthebe-ginningofthetwentiethcenturythat"themostrevolutionarythingone candoisal waystoproclaimloudlywhatishappeni ng. "2 Oncewe' vedonethat,wemustdiscusswi thourfriends,withourallies, withallthosewhoseemtowantamoredemocraticandegalitarianworl d whatkindsofnewstructureswemightwant,atleastinbroadoutline,and whatkindsofstrategieswemi ghtuseintheveryintense,butinevitably confused,struggleofamajorhistoricaltransition.Wehavetoconductsuch adiscussionwi thouthierarchy,withmuchopenness,andwithacertain amountofhumility,but,ontheotherhand,wi thsomeclarityaboutmi n-imalstandardsofinclusivenessandsomeinsistenceonalong-termhistor-icalvi ew. Thiswillnotbeeasy.Suchdiscussionis,ofcourse,alreadygoingon, butnotenough.Weneedtoaddourvoices,bothinscholarlyarenasand inmorepublicarenas.Wemustbeserious.Wemustbecommi tted.We mustbecool headed.Wemustbeimaginative.Nosmallorder.ButasHillel said2, 000yearsago,"IfnotI,who?Ifnotnow,when?" xlTheTwentiethCentury:DarknessatNoon? NOTES 1.SeeTerenceK.HopkinsandImmanuelWallerstein,coords.,The Ageof Tran-sition:TrajectoryoftheWorld-System,1945-2025(London:ZedBooks,1996). SeealsoImmanuelWallerstein,Utopistics,or,HistoricalChoicesoftheTwenty-firstCentury(NewYork:NewPress,1998). 2."WieLasallesagte,istundbleibtdierevolutionarsteTat,immerdaslautzu sagen,wasist." Parti GlobalProcesses,PowerRelations, andAntisystemicMovements xlTheTwentiethCentury:DarknessatNoon? NOTES 1.SeeTerenceK.HopkinsandImmanuelWallerstein,coords.,TheAgeofTran-sition:TrajectoryoftheWorld-System,1945-2025(London:ZedBooks,1996). SeealsoImmanuelWallerstein,Utopistics,or,HistoricalChoicesoftheTwenty-firstCentury(NewYork:NewPress,1998). 2."WieLasallesagte,istundbleibtdierevolutionarsteTat,immerdaslautzu sagen,wasist." Parti GlobalProcesses,PowerRelations, andAntisystemicMovements Chapter1 GlobalizationandtheNationalSecurity StateCorporateComplex(NSSCC)in theLongTwentiethCentury ThomasEhrlichReifer I NTRODUCTI ON ThroughafocusontheAmericanestablishmentanditsoverseasalliesin thecontextofclassstruggles,wars,andrevolutionaryupheavals,globali-zationisanalyzedinthischapteraspartoftherise,demise,andrecon-structionofthecapitalistworldmarketinthelongtwentiethcentury (Arrighi1994) .1Late-nineteenth-centuryglobalizationandtheturntoward militarizedoverseasexpansionbytheAnglo-Americanestablishment,based onstate-corporatemanagementoftheeconomywithmarketsguaranteed byarmsspending,providedthemodelforthecreationofU.S.hegemony ontheenlargedsocialfoundationsoftheNe wDealworldorder.Ananal-ysisofhowthegeopoliticaleconomyofU.S.militarizationhelpedusherin boththeriseanddemiseoftheNe wDealworldorderisusedtoaddress keydebatesinhistoricalsociology. POLANYI'SDOUBLEMOVEMENT:AGEOPOLITICAL ECONOMY KarlPolanyi's(1944)enduringachievementwashisrootingofthecol-lapseofnineteenth-centurycivilizationinthedoublemovementoftheex-pansionoftheself-regulatingmarketandcountermovementsforthe self-protectionofsociety.Thehallmarkofeconomicliberalismthenas todaywasthebeliefintheself-regulatingmarketmechanism.Theleaders ofthecountermovement,incontrast,embracedvariousformsofsocial imperialism,restrictiveassociations,cartels,and/orstateinterventionas mechanismsofself-protectionagainsttheunregulatedmarketmechanism. 4GlobalProcesses,PowerRelations,andAntisystemicMovements Forthosewhoembracedthemetaphysicalpowersofself-regulatingmar-kets,theirtruthsseemedself-evident.Afterall,hadnotEnglandspurred thevastmaterialexpansionoftheworld-economyandbroughtrelative peacetopostwarEurope?Indeed,theentwiningofEngland'sworld-empire andempireofhautefinanceassuredBritainthecontroloverthebalance ofpowerandworldmarketthatunderlayitshegemony.Notsurprisingly, thecorebaseofsupportforBritain'sliberalinternationalismlayinthe Anglo-Americancosmopolitanfinancialhousesformingtheaxisofthe transatlanticcircuitofmoneycapitalfuelingU.S.industrializationfrom railroadstotheriseofheavyindustry. Incontrasttotheinitialmaterialbasisofeconomicliberalismincos-mopolitanfinancialcapitalism,supportforthecountermovementsofeco-nomicnationalismandstateinterventionismcamefromthevariantsof late-nineteenth-centurycorporatecapitalismgroupedaroundtheproduc-tivecapitalconcept.Ofcourse,cosmopolitanhighfinanceandcorporate capitalismoftendevelopedhistoricallyalongmoreflexibleandincreasingly synthetic,ifcontradictory,linesthantheseideotypicalmodelssuggest.Nev-ertheless,onecanascertaindifferentvantagepointsorconceptsofcontrol ofmajorcapitalgroupsandstatesassociatedwithparticularlocationsin thegeopoliticaleconomy(vanderPijI1984). Moreover,startinginthelatenineteenthandlatetwentiethcenturies,the fulldevelopmentofmaterialexpansionsgavewaytoperiodsoffinancial capitalism,withthegrowingpowerof Anglo-Americaninvestmentbankers andcorporatelawyerssignalingthe"rise[of]aclassofpecuniaryexperts whosebusinessisthestrategicmanagementoftheinterstitialrelationsof thesystem"(Veblen1904:20).Separatefirmsand"separatestateshadto competeformobilecapital,whichdictatedtothemtheconditionsunder whichitwouldassistthemtopower"(Weber1961:247- 249) .Asaccu-mulationflowedbeyondtheboundsofprofitableinvestmentinpeaceful tradeandproduction,mobilecapitaltookflighttowardzoneswiththe highestratesofprofitandlowestprotectioncosts,fuelinginter-stateand inter-enterprisecompetitionandmorepureformsoffinancialspeculation. Thispivotalroleofmoneycapitalintherestructuringofthecapitalist world-systemduringhegemonictransitionsdoesnotmerelyexpresspro-cessesofcyclicalrecurrence.Instead,eachmajorphaseofworld-systemic capitalistdevelopmentbroughtintoexistencenewsocioeconomicforces andeverlargermilitary-industrialcomplexes,heighteningcontradictions withexistingsocialrelationsofproductiononaworldscaleuntilthese relationswereburstasunder.TheGreatDepressionsof1873- 1896andof theearlytwentiethcenturydramaticallyillustratedthesecontradictions,as thesocialrelationsofproductiononaworldscalewereoverturned,further expandingthescopeandreachofthecapitalistworld-system. TheTimeSpacecompressionoftheworld-systemthatcamewiththe spreadofrailways,thetelegraph,andmechanizedtransportallowednew GlobalizationandtheNationalSecurityStateCorporateComplex5 statestomobilizetheirvastgeographicandindustrialresourcestocompete withEnglandontheworldstage.Aseconomicdepressionandprotection-ismspread,powerelitesrespondedbyincorporatingworkersintoprojects formilitarizedexpansionintooverseasmarketsasantidotestoworkerun-restandexcesssurpluscapitalandproductivecapacity.Theobverseside ofthisexpansionoffinancialactivitywasthereciprocalstimulusof military industrializationandhautefinanceaspartofthelargerchangingspatial configurationoftheinter-statesystemandrestructuringofthegloballand-scapeofcapitalaccumulationthataccompanyhegemonictransitions. KarlPolanyi(1944)andindeedJohnHobson(1905)bothderivedtheir modelofhighfinanceanditssupranationalcharacterfromEngland.Hob-sonchronicledtheroleoffinanceinimperialismandmilitarism,whereas PolanyiunderscoreditsinstrumentalroleinEurope's100years'peace.As GiovanniArrighi(1983)hasexplicated,thesedivergentassessmentsre-flectedacontradictionattheheartofhighfinanceitselfbetweenitssu-pranationalcharacterasaspeculativeintermediaryonthemoneymarket anditswholesaledependenceonstatepolitico-militarypowertoensurethe protectionofitsoverseasinvestmentsaswellasnewopportunitiesforfi-nancialintermediationandspeculation.Thus,whenBritishhegemonywas young,highfinanceretainedtherelativelypeacefulcharacteristicsinEurope underscoredbyPolanyi. InHobson' s(1905)contrastingmodeloffinancialcapitalism,highfi-nancemobilizestheexcessliquidityonthemoneymarketforstateloans andexpansionistmilitarism.Hobson' smodelmoreaccuratelycapturesthe tendenciesoffinanceduringautumnsofwhatArrighi(1994)calls"sys-temiccyclesof accumulation"(SCA)andthehegemonicstructuresof which theyareapart.Theseperiodsarecharacterizedbyfinancialexpansionsand intensifiedinter-statecompetition,includingformobilecapital(cf.Arrighi 1983:114- 125) .Incontrasttobothmodelsoffinancialcapitalismpre-sentedbyHobsonandPolanyi,RudolfHilferding'sdescriptionofthefu-sionofheav