World-Systems Analysis: Wallerstein’s Theory of Hegemony

[@JonBerry555]

World-Systems Analysis seems better at explaining how countries interact economically rather than why they interact the way they do.

[@infidelheretic923]

It seems to be better describe what currently is rather than how we got here.

[@MrGksarathy]

That was my first thought exactly. It seems tailor-made to fit our current circumstances as opposed to reconstruct how we got here. That, and it seems painfully Eurocentric.

[@amaara909]

For sure

[@mathusalen1]

​@@MrGksarathyinteresting comment considering a lot of world-system and dependency theory authors come from the global south, eurocentrism is actually a term coined by Egyptian dependency theorist Samir Amin

[@MrGksarathy]

@@mathusalen1 I guess it goes to show just how pervasive Eurocentrism is. That, and it just seems painfully ironic.

[@Valkanna.Nublet]

Three systems of economy: Slavery, where slaves are exploited to create wealth for the slave owners. Feudalism, where peasants are exploited to create wealth for the land owners. And Capitalism, where.. umm.. don't say exploited... everyone is happy and jolly and equal in the bestest system ever!

[@dreamingbutterfly1]

Something something iPhone.

[@margaretwordnerd5210]

That's capitalism with a side of gaslighting (a popular combo), best exemplified by Trickle Down Economics. You do sarcasm with a nice flourish, thanks for sharing.😁✌🖖

[@Mrax_Taylor]

I dont think thats what World-Systems Analysis is , At lest according to The Cynical Historian ,World-Systems Analysis whilerevolution which while bring about socialism (pretty cool to my) 8:03 - sours

[@Mrax_Taylor]

I meantI dont think thats what World-Systems Analysis is , At lest according to The Cynical Historian ,World-Systems Analysis says the contradictions of capitalism while bring about whirled revolution which while bring about socialism (pretty cool to my) 8:03 - sours

[@infidelheretic923]

There's more flexibility under capitalism. But yeah it's difficult to get around the workers not owning the means of production problem.

[@roccoliuzzi8394]

The big problem is hoping to have a "GRAND THEORY OF EVERYTHING ". I have read dozens of economics books and have gotten insight from nearly all. The world is complicated. You have to think on your feet, applying specific ideas to specific problems.

[@SOLOcan]

Isn’t that itself a grand theory of everything?

[@roccoliuzzi8394]

@@SOLOcan Pragmatism is a method, not a theory.

[@SOLOcan]

@@roccoliuzzi8394 Which is why you need a reason to adopt it. Which would be "theory"

[@roccoliuzzi8394]

@@SOLOcan I have no interest in noodling. Bye.

[@NRWTx]

Nah World system allows to show value transfer from global south to north. I dont know other theories that can do so. Besides samir amin, prebish singer, but they are kinda incorporated in wallerstein

[@discdoggie]

I’ve followed you since the beginning and you were NEVER boring or not great. All hail King Richard

[@francescocastellucci9086]

I agree with your conclusion, since from the strict perspective of specilized skilled labour as a drive for industrialization and capitalism, East Asia had a massive advantage over Europe for most of the middle ages even into the modern era, which was lost only at the start of the industrial revolution in Europe. Trade with China and India was sought after not only to profit from rare spices and exotic raw materials but also some high skilled artisanal products like silks, chinaware and other textiles.

[@MrGksarathy]

Yup, the EIC went out of its way to destroy the Indian textile industry because its skilled workforce would directly compete with British factories.

[@davidogundipe808]

Your American history has been a gem for me.

[@Matthew.E.Kelly.]

The transition from feudal aristocracy to capitalist bourgeoisie is demonstrated by the shift from members of isolated ruling class groups competing with one another to a unification of ruling classes into a cooperative monolith.

[@nathanielzarny1176]

What? The bourgeoisie have to compete against each other in order to survive in the market. Sure they may have similar interests, but so did the old aristocracies who wanted lower taxes and more privilege. I don't see how capitalists united.

[@Matthew.E.Kelly.]

@@nathanielzarny1176...you don't see hegemonic capitalist unity behind wars for profit, invasions/foreign intervention over control of natural resources in developing nations & the global south? You don't see capitalist unity in Hawaii being a U.S. state, for example? Or the destruction of Libya? South Africa & the central Congo region? Wild.

[@RevShifty]

@@Matthew.E.Kelly. Seriously. Just the fact that private equity firms exist and own almost everything demonstrates your point well enough on its own. It's not even really a question.

[@Matthew.E.Kelly.]

@@RevShiftyI'm sure there's a hand-waving dismissal of all of it as just "free market competition" 😆

[@Razzanonymous]

@@Matthew.E.Kelly.War is not profitable for a significant majority. Look at the stock market during times of war.

[@thomasridley8675]

This is an aspect i have little knowledge of. So exploring it will be a great experience. Why things change is as important as the change itself.

[@underratedbub]

I'd like to see re-makes of your previous videos you mentioned, especially oriental despotism. I never understood from that video exactly how oriental despotism was shown to be a deficient theory, only that current consensus had moved on from the theory.

[@davidogundipe808]

I was just thinking about you dropping a new video, and viola you dropped this.

[@chrisreed4065]

I basically boil it down to this. 1 Europe was among the first to develop deep water navigation 2 Europe's location on the western end of eurasia meant they had good access to the Americas 3 Disease wipe out a large portion of Native Americans which basically laid bare an entire continent of resources. 4 Europe is a relatively small area with lots of nations so you either were good at war or got conquered. 5 This interstate competition lead to greater technological advancments such as industrialization. 6 The non-european major powers, the Ottoman Empire, and Qing China peaked in the 17th and 18th centuries respectively. 7 Which meant that when the Europeans showed up in force in the 19th century they were unable to cope or unwilling in the case of the Qing.

[@SomasAcademy]

I mostly agree with this, but would say that Europe having a lot of countries close together was significant for reasons other than just competition; it also made communication and trade, and with them the transfer of ideas and technologies, much easier. For example, the Industrial Revolution spread from England to other Western European countries fairly quickly not just because those countries were incentivized to "keep up" with England, but also because their proximity allowed them to make note of and buy or replicate new technologies developed in England (which of course also goes for the adoption of other technologies developed in other countries). Other countries further away had similar competitive incentives, but distance slowed down the transfer of technologies. And this quick transfer of technologies not only helped Western European countries to keep up with the latest innovations, but was also key in enabling further innovations, since newly introduced technologies could be iterated on. I would say this factor was more significant than military competition alone, since it accounts for a lot of non-military technologies that significantly contributed to the economic growth of Western European powers during the Early Modern period and the Industrial Revolution. So, I'd replace 4 and 5 with: 4. Europe is a relatively small area with lots of countries, producing a great deal of economic and military competition as states struggled to avoid being overshadowed or conquered by their neighbors 5. Alongside competition, close proximity of many countries allowed for fast transfer of technologies, allowing multiple European powers to benefit from the same technological innovations such as industrialization before more distant countries got the chance to adopt these innovations

[@nathanielzarny1176]

Id further add to it by pointing out that besides Canada, the Americas were decolonized by 1800, before the industrial revolution for the most part, and the countries that did partake in the most colonizing, Spain and Portugal, were poorer and less developed than Germany and France.

[@RevShifty]

Except Polynesians, China, and India had all developed deep water navigation centuries before anyone in Europe. And I'm sure at least a couple more I'm forgetting because the coffee hasn't kicked in yet. That's the problem with such a Western centric education. You end up missing what the rest of the planet was doing during the same time.

[@SomasAcademy]

​@@nathanielzarny1176 The Americas were decidedly not decolonized by 1800; by 1800 the only American colonies that had gained independence were those making up the US (which notably began colonial expansion into the North American interior shortly after independence, maintaining similar economic foci to Great Britain in growing their own wealth). Most countries in the Americas gained independence between 1804 (Haiti, the first colony other than the US colonies to gain independence) and 1825, and a few smaller countries remained colonies as late as the 20th century. As for Spain and Portugal taking longer to Industrial and ending up significantly less wealthy than some other European countries despite colonizing larger parts of the Americas from earlier on, yes, that demonstrates that there are a bunch of nuances beyond colonizing in the Americas automatically leading to wealth. However, colonization in the Americas was an important factor in enabling some countries, especially Great Britain, to acquire the capital and economic structures that enabled and incentivized industrialization between the late 18th and mid-19th centuries and further colonial expansion in Asia and Africa. American colonization doesn't explain anything on its own, but in combination with the other factors (and some not listed that would definitely be important in a more detailed overview, such as colonial management strategies, mineral wealth vs. other natural resource extraction vs. cash crop cultivation, and several other economic factors) it is definitely an important point in explaining why Western European powers became more globally dominant during the Early Modern to Industrial eras.

[@chrisreed4065]

@RevShifty Except the Polynesians didn't have things like compasses and cross staffs. They used the stars like everybody else at the time. They just had bigger balls. The Chinese had compasses but no cross staff, and after one major expedition, they did nothing. I'm not aware of the Indians having had anything but the compasses as well. Everyone you mentioned, except the Polynesians, only sailed along established trade routes in South East Asia, the Indian Ocean, and Middle Eastern waters. Not far from the coast. I didn't say other cultures didn't have ships or didn't sail. Learn what deep water navigation is and come back to me.

[@merryfergie]

Thank you for the video. I always appreciate you for the content you present.

[@Nostripe361]

I heard a theory a long time ago but can’t remember the name. That the west’s was just do to the random choice Europe made in the late Middle Ages to develop tech to replace the man power shortage after the Black Death as other powers at the same time jumped into traditionalism, got conquered by the mongols or had a massive rise of religious power over coming merchant and educational powe

[@LordBaldur]

This kind of reminds me of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and his explanation about the correlation between the economy and the quality of life. For example, factories required skilled workers, but mines do not. This could explain why countries that are resource rich, often have vastly unequal distributions of wealth.

[@DakuHonoo]

I'm mostly interested in some sort of analysis that would be showing the chinese - middle kingdom hegemony and how it's regaining it now

[@CynicalHistorian]

You should check out Andre Gunder Frank's _ReOrient_

[@sebastianM]

Very cool! Thanks for the depth and clarity of your lesson. I would be interested in hearing about Weber's take next. In particular, his comparative sociologies of religion and states.

[@Dave0G]

That just sounds like a recounting of things as they happened to happen, without giving the why at any point.

[@dogukan127]

Very suprised to come across the Brenner debate on a youtube - While I get that you are critical of Brenner's critique of Wallerstein, you should see that paper that you cited. It is quite an amazing take on origins of capitalism.

[@dendostar5436]

I enjoyed the video. I’d like to take some time and let this all soak in.

[@BradyPostma]

I enjoyed the peppy music. Fast music × 2.0 playback speed = the musician absolutely sawing that violin in half

[@robinmiller1989]

balanced introduction. thanks! entertaining as always, and I've been watching from the beginning. your videos were never boring 😊

[@michaelhorn6029]

Without giving it too much weight I had a potential insight the other day. Some geologic documentary I saw this week contained the words 'Rich deep soil that had been ground up and fertilized by glaciers.'. That made me wonder, how much this affects the history of Northern Europe and North America? If there is extra deep soil running from the Black Sea to the North sea that is a lot of agricultural potential. Similarly in the Great Plain of North America. It took time and technology to unlock that potential but once it was available the economics of both regions changed rapidly. Also did glacial action expose important minerals in Europe as it seems to have done in parts of Canada?

[@randomchannel-px6ho]

Any channel discussing hegemony (big asterisks that it's not weird right wing borderline or explicitly fascist conspiratorial shit) is a sign that it's a smart channel

[@PrinceJackTheFirst]

I would like to hear Cypher's opinion on the view that European hegemony can by explained by Europe's technological advancement/superiority starting in the late 18th century and coming to fruition in the 19th century, as expressed in the idea of an industrial revolution. Of course this view is proximal and begs the distal question of why Europe became technologically superior in the first place. However, I'm not interested in that, I'm interested in the supposition that technology, and Europe's ability to exert its benefits for its own ends, was be all end all behind's Europe's hegemony. I'm an engineer so this supposition seems only natural to me, but I distrust anything that seems obvious.

[@emmisysquire9684]

Great video! Could you cover what you personally think is the best argument for the question posed?

[@CynicalHistorian]

Maybe once I've gone through all the theories, because frankly there's some i like more than others, but could never say any of them are definitive

[@erinmac4750]

​@@CynicalHistorian I look at them as different tools for analyzing or the lens available to perceive different aspects of society, groups, or countries. I don't think you can stick to just one. It's like trying to fix a car with only screwdriver. These are insightful, explanatory videos, though. I feel they help me understand how to better use these tools. #AllHailKingRichard ✌️😸💚

[@elanaastrudkroneberg8028]

this video was a really good start for my new learning journey! thanks

[@Hchris101]

I like this channel

[@gregorybryon9851]

Can you look at Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory?

[@SunflowerSocialist]

Thank you for making that point about Marx! He was first and foremost a social scientist and his theories are based on an analysis of capitalism! People either think he was the 19th century version of a pundit or commentator (although he certainly did commentary) or they think he was some sort of prophet. A good friend of mine is actually a Marxian economist and just got his PhD and do you know who he works for now? Goldman Sachs! They hired him right after he got his PhD because they wanted Marxian economists to be analysts for them!

[@CynicalHistorian]

Well, didn't you know? Goldman Sachs is postmodern neomarxism personified! /s

[@stefankotz2242]

Do "why nations fail" next

[@alexv3357]

I generally favour _Why Nations Fail_ by Acemoglu and Robinson. It does an excellent job describing both how economies work within and between countries and more importantly the role of politics in economics, which is something a lot of both economists and political scientists seem to overlook

[@CynicalHistorian]

As far as I'm aware of, they're just repeating the tired old modernization theory. I've already covered that

[@alexv3357]

@@CynicalHistorian They actually specifically argue against modernisation theory, at least in the sense that social, political, and economic development have some kind of natural end goal or result. They claim essentially that the wealth of nations is conditional on a combination of: a) strong central government capable of maintaining control over a whole territory; b) rule of law, which protects the property rights of a state's subjects; and c) inclusivity, in which the ruling class or faction in a state does not use political power to arbitrarily restrict access to capital or limit other freedoms such that ordinary people cannot build wealth for themselves by investing in their homes and businesses. The relative wealth of a society, when controlled for arbitrary and temporary factors such as natural resource wealth, is a measure of labour efficiency, and a society can only build labour efficiency continuously by allowing ordinary people to do so without arbitrary restriction. The industrial revolution began in Britain when it did because institutional changes in Britain allowed common people to access capital and patent ideas, and it spread to places which adopted similar institutions, and not to where it didn't. In this view, the reason why nations don't develop or stop abruptly after decades of rapid growth is because their rulers have a vested interest in making sure they don't. A regime, politically speaking, is underwritten by a particular set of economic institutions. To whoever is currently in power, every new business not under the direct control of their own supporters represents one more potential threat; allowing free enterprise would be suicide. Every king and dictator that ever existed did so not by squashing potential political rivals directly but by suppressing potential economic rivals to their supporters, and in doing so freezing their country's economic institutions in place. When a nation is faced with a significant deficit in technologies and techniques available to them but not adopted - a situation that might be imprecisely but conveniently called backwardness - then political reform to allow their adoption can unleash explosive growth, but unless that reform is towards genuine inclusivity, then the society will stagnate again when adopting more new technologies again threatens the arbitrary ruling party. This is what happened to the USSR and to North Korea in the mid-20th century, it is what is now happening to China, and it is what has happened over and over again to nations all around the developing world, which are held back by the persistent political structures of colonialism or native autocracies. This theory explains both whether a nation will be rich or poor compared to other nations and also the differences _within_ a nation. The US South remains poorer than the North and West Coast in many places as a direct legacy of the non-inclusive institutions of slavery and Jim Crow, for example, and the areas of Peru that are currently the poorest are the areas subject the _mita_ system of forced labour. Within the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Hungarian half was kept underdeveloped very intentionally by a nobility that was more powerful there than in the western half of the empire precisely so that they could continue to rule without competition. Pretty much every other theory I've ever heard tends to regard nations as a whole and compare then in entirety, but _Why Nations Fail_ is more granular. The reason I find this book so compelling is that most people living in societies in inclusive institutions tend to regard the accumulation of increasing labour productivity that results from that inclusivity as both natural and desirable, but _Why Nations Fail_ convincingly demonstrates that from the perspective of the people who rule most societies, it is precisely the opposite.

[@colindevane]

Nice work man, thank you! I’d like to hear more about Eric Williams “Capitalism and Slavery,” and perhaps it might be good to consider Walter Rodney’s thought alongside his. It seems like Wallerstein doesn’t take into account the role of slavery and colonialism in the origins, powering and shaping of early modern and even industrial capitalism, in nearly every way. They formed the (often hidden by western historiography’s triumphalist narrative of progress) origins of the modern globalized trade system, the birth of the corporation, the economic abundance which informed the basis of the technological explosion of the Industrial Revolution (as if the “enlightenment” and scientific revolution weren’t nearly exclusively feeding off the “darker continents”. Speaking of the development of naval power, Rodney commented (I believe in “Decolonial Marxism”) that the slave trade formed the incentive for many crucial naval technological advances, for instance. Leaving that repressed, “shadow” history out of the narrative seems more than uninformed, but in face dangerously and myopically narcissistic. Thanks for any work you can do to critique and clarify the underbelly of capitalism’s triumphalist narrative

[@chrisolmsted5678]

A capitalist system where the only questions to be answered are "is this better for me?" and "will this increase my boss's profit?" Is really easy to distribute globally even without good communication. Every event from disease to invention could be exploited locally at the time it was first recognized. Alignment for profit established lines of communication so that mimicking profit generating success would distribute the practice. Basically stuff happens all the time and capitalism responds faster which gives it an edge everywhere which like interest compounds over time.

[@markskinner7420]

I saw the thumbnail and thought you had been lured into the Battletech fandom somehow....

[@CynicalHistorian]

Huh?

[@markskinner7420]

@CynicalHistorian it's a science fiction franchise. The graphic showing the periphery and the core is pretty similar to how the political map of the different constantly warring factions is explained

[@CynicalHistorian]

interesting. That's just wikipedia's default for imperialism studies: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_imperialism

[@markskinner7420]

That would actually fit the setting. The various powers constant attempts to grab each others territory/ hold onto what they already swiped is so over the top it borders on parody. At one point they nearly blow their interstellar civilization back into a pre space flight level of tech.

[@cameronmclennan942]

I'd love to hear more about the following ideas in relation to the development of the west and capitalism that I've heard lately, but don't have much detail on: - the plague (black death) that wiped out a large proportion of the labour force and gave those remaining more bargaining power that led to some liberalization - the combination of colonialism and certain protectionist policies along with the enclosures. E.g. English mercantilists taling over parts of India, destroying their fabric production capacity, shipping cheap cotton/wool back to England to be processed and sold for export with added value. While at the same time, the landed class seeing they were getting left out of the money making, enclosed land off from peasants to increase sheep herds so they could get a slice of the booming textile market. And this reinforced the urbanization/labour market for industry

[@SamBroadway]

I almost made the mistake of not waiting for the appearance of Mr Kitty😅 I may be biased but he is one of my favorite parts of this channel.

[@CynicalHistorian]

He 100% decides if he gets featured in an episode. I have no control over him - after all, he is royalty

[@SunflowerSocialist]

Great video. Personally I think Wallerstein got a lot more right than wrong, but you’re right that it’s abstraction is a major short coming. It’s a good macro level explainer but it’s not without its flaws.

[@kidmohair8151]

it is interesting that in order for capitalism to take hold and then become the dominant socio-economic system, it had to resort to slavery, in particular in the US, to get its footing, thus regressing to the ancient imperial slave economy. even in the British empah, slavery was widespread. it just had a different name. the French empire also resorted to what amounted to slavery, and any discussion of the German or Belgian empires will just lead to Namibia and the Congo. that capitalism was born out of slavery only reinforces its inherent inequality, and gives the lie to its credo of hard work = success.

[@phoenixshadow6633]

I always say history is the graveyard of grand unifying narratives.

[@jonathanguzman3044]

Very good analysis of it

[@Pelaaja20]

Can you make a video on Conceptual history?

[@CosmoShidan]

I would add that Marx also critiqued capitalism as well.

[@plethoraofpinatas.]

Thank you for educating me. Also, thank you for making me realize how dumb I am!

[@jacobduchesne22]

I think the movie Kill The Messenger would be a great based on a true story video, based on the drug smuggling from the iran-contra situation.

[@martinhumphreys4891]

That was really interesting. I'm definitely not smart enough for this, though. Does the analysis say anything about that vague system which will replace our current?

[@CynicalHistorian]

No, not really. Just that the current system is doomed

[@bobcornwell403]

I think a better explanation of why Western Europe came to dominate the planet is better weapons technology and better military tactics. And I think geography hadva lot to do with it. Wesern European soil is loaded wth limestone which acts as a natural fertilizer. This is a huge subsidy from Mother Nature. Also, Western Europe is full of inlets and natural harbors. This makes it difficult for a single authority to govern. It tends to brek up into smaller states and sub-states which were endlessly at war with one another. This was bad. But it was good in that encouraged a faster rate of technological development. And the constant wars led to steady improvements in military strategies and tactics. Countries that did not keep up faced being dominatef if not conquered by those that did. Colonialism preceeded industrial capitalism by several centuries. So, although it furthered colonialism, it can't be blamed for it. Wold Systems Analysis best explains how things work today rather than how they came to be.

[@mra4521]

That diagram reminds me of a map of the Star Wars Galaxy.

[@merpeople12]

Looks like this video came just in time for my comps lol

[@WdTPD]

OMG thanks, I started reading his work and 😴😴😴 i need an explainer (will watch later)

[@jimlabbe8258]

In my reading of Wallerstein, capitalism isn’t defined by free trade and a division of labor alone… although these are key features. Rather capitalism’s defining characteristic as a historical system is the goal to accumulate of private capital or wealth. Maybe I am misreading him but that’s what I got from his 1996 book “Historical Capitalism with Capitalist Civilization.”

[@yogikarl]

Niklas Luhmann : systems theory god

[@GillamtheGreatest]

king richard needs a sibling named karl meowx and i will die on this hill

[@kevjones5047]

Personally, I'd go with Mao, but to each their own bad puns...

[@CynicalHistorian]

My place is too tiny for another cat

[@GillamtheGreatest]

@@CynicalHistorian well we gotta get you a bigger place then. how many subs will that take?

[@3dPrintingMillennial]

Imagine how many inventions, ideas, thoughts, and progress has been lost simply because of poverty.

[@garysmith1863]

6? I dunno

[@gustavchambert7072]

Hmmm. I haven't read most of Marx to be honest, but from what I can find in a cursory search, he's not really mentioned in association with oriental despotism. I wouldn't be all that surprised if he did in fact use it, but could you be a bit more specific?

[@CynicalHistorian]

Go to that episode

[@gustavchambert7072]

@@CynicalHistorian ok. Fair point. Kind of a dumb question, really.

[@jthadcast]

smith was pretty anti-modern-capitalism, anti-rentier, and the pending doom from deregulation.

[@rishishard4742]

It seems like its useful, but as everything does, needs to use that framework to be evolved and innovated

[@HealthyThinkingsubstack]

If you’ve read-studied Marx, I’m wondering if you could comment on whatever histheory was? What arose for me today about the value of or rather perhaps lack of value of Marxist socialism …, the concern that arose for me was that Marxist socialism at least certainly has no ultimate goal apparently other than the distribution of goods/money/resources/power. Can you confirm, refute, discuss? Thanks

[@CynicalHistorian]

I have a video putting his specific theory in historiographical context: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jny1mJyYh9xgeNk And another about how EP Thompson modified it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5jFapmVmLiFeM0

[@edspace.]

I may be misunderstanding something but if the Europeans became more powerful and drained the other regions of the world wouldn't that mean that North America and Australasia would be poor regions like Africa or at least like South America? Granted my ability to explain historical theories is not as advanced seeing as I made a puppet show using rubber ducks and a ceramic elephant going through history.

[@AizakkuZ]

No, because some of those Europeans then stayed in those places to escape the chaos of Europe. The goal was different, the goal in Australia and America wasn’t to essentially plunder like the other places you mentioned. Instead it was to escape, for political, religious, or whatever other substantial reason. Although mind you, I’ve only extensively studied American and European history. With Australian history I’m essentially clueless and the closest thing I’d know is some of these people were English prisoners.

[@edspace.]

@@AizakkuZ Good points, I suppose this would show the difference between extractive colonialism and settler colonialism as settlers brought and built capital in their colonies in North America and Australia (and you are correct about the prison colony, which also meant when people started arriving voluntarily after discoveries of Gold in the 1820s onwards there was capital infrastructure such as roads already in place). My only presumption is that some kind of combination of these happened in South America which lead to its capital infrastructure being somewhat built up (and modernized from indigenous capital) but not as much as in North America. I wonder what World System's Theory would say as to why the colonists chose extraction in some places and settlement in others.

[@TheJsmitty85]

Pick one and I will watch your video

[@nebojsag.5871]

Jared Diamond is flawed, but he's fundamentally right that it's like 90% geography. Also, continental orientation is only a tiny fraction of that geography argument.

[@christianweibrecht6555]

Russia, its massive size was its greatest strength & weakness

[@robwo]

"these are both idiotic takes" - Tell us what you really think, Cypher

[@CynicalHistorian]

"I know writers who use subtext and they're all cowards, every one of them." - Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, 2004

[@kevjones5047]

@@CynicalHistorian You know, as a writer, if you took away my paper, I would write on my heart. If you take away my ink, I'd write on the wind. (Pauses) It wouldn't be an ideal way to work. - Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, 2004

[@Mrax_Taylor]

World-Systems Analysis: why Europe is powerful but not how it got powerful.

[@ihavenojawandimustscream4681]

Holy based

[@nBasedAce]

I don't know anything about Karl Marx's Oriental Despotism but the Edo Period was definitely despotic.

[@SomasAcademy]

"Oriental Despotism" is a completely different concept from some Asian countries having been despotic at some points. It is rather the theory that "Oriental" states (including not just Asian state but also examples like ancient Egypt) are naturally predisposed to despotism, in contrast to the west, which is often explained through environmental factors like the idea that "the orient" is too hot for people to be productive without a totalitarian ruler maintaining strict management of the water supply. It's a very stupid theory rooted in Orientalist stereotypes rather than evidence.

[@odiadordeisrael]

why is argentina in the semi-periphery while chile is in the periphery. unforgivable.

[@CynicalHistorian]

IDK, as i said in the video; this is absurdly abstract. Getting mad at that is incredibly dumb

[@ihavenojawandimustscream4681]

Argentinian capitalists used to play a middleman role in extracting LATAM agricultural products to Europe

[@Mrax_Taylor]

first time rezone four Europe rise that's not stupid.

[@misterrea861]

So Wallerstein is treating mercantilism as an early form of capitalism? That seems a little overbroad. I'd like for you to do a history of Palmerism. And make it _really_ long cause according to Palmer, bigger is *always* better

[@randomchannel-px6ho]

Also my daily reminder that Marx literally wrote the book on capitalism lok

[@duckpotat9818]

Why do we seek to explain why Europe dominated the 19th and 20th century. But don't seek to explain why China and India economically and culturally dominated Eurasia for thousands of years? or the fertile crescent before that? With Iran and the Levant being secondary powers. Even the quintessential colonial empire- The British Empire held India as a key holding. Even Iran never got conquered by Rome. Europe's dominance in just these 2 centuries seems more of a fluke anomaly akin to Alexander's empire and successor states and not a long term pattern that can be explained by a theory. I think we would just be overfitting data to a function.

[@milosminion]

I definitely lean towards the Marxist view, but ultimately I think there's no possible way to analyze the way the world operates using only a few simple rules.

[@Adrian-lu5vc]

I love this channel but I hate that derpy farming game background music

[@CynicalHistorian]

It's a kazoo cover of a very appropriate song: "Ain't I right," by Marty Robbins. Actually there's two kazoo covers, since I also put in Dixie during the lost cause thing. Both covers by yours truly

[@Adrian-lu5vc]

@@CynicalHistorian country raised and I love Marty robbins but respectfully I’d rather dubstep be playing in the background than those kazoo covers It takes my brain from historical knowledge to feeling like I’m watching some life hack video about grilled cheese

[@CynicalHistorian]

Well there isn't much historical knowledge to be found while Crypto speaks 😉

[@CynicalHistorian]

@@Adrian-lu5vc Hold up! I just realized this is a comment from last week's video. Sorry. Today's video has the kazoo cover. This is just typical gypsy jazz

[@edelwei9374]

Incelligence.

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

Oh lord, and the depiction of the transition to capitalism is cringe. Beyond that, James Burke’s Connections series offers a very different view on change. Systems analysis does indeed adopt the fallacies of economics’ assumptions, like rising marginal costs in manufacture, debunked with empirical evidence and modeled by Steve Keen based on reported cost structures in industry. Anything that mentions, equilibrium, utility maximization, marginal costs is mathematically unsound. Anything that does not account for energy and credit/debt in economies lacks essential features of modern economies and are deficient.

[@salokin3087]

How is marginal costs in manufacture empirically debunked?

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

@@salokin3087 Studies done by Fisher, who noted that companies reported they had fixed or declining costs with volume. The underlying reason: The very existence of mass production and its economies of scale. The marginal cost theory says costs rise as production rises, which may have been true before the advent of modern factory design and supply chains, but this has not been the case especially since WWII where mass production was an existential matter. Factories are designed to be maximally efficient at capacity. In war time this meant maximally efficiency of resources during peak effort. Think D-Day as a concept. Post WWII the same principals are useful because there are only certain periods of peak demand (Christmas) where the majority of sales are made anyway. Maximal efficiencies in the manufacture for these periods is plainly desirable. The math simply works out this way: the more market share a company commands which determines the upper limit of their sales, the more the minimize their per unit costs and maximizes their profit.

[@timmyturner327]

Medieval Europe was fairly unique in not really being driven by pure monetary gain as other historical societies.

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

Short note here most economics is trash. Any system integrating trash economics is suss.

[@LEEboneisDaMan]

+

[@Ramondenner1991]

Trying to explain a complex problem with a single unified theory… A “core” problem of that theory is the classification itself. The same country can be “core”, “perifery” or “semi” depending on the “where” and “how” you are collecting and analyzing the data

[@Ramondenner1991]

Pursuit of power interests me the most!!! Plz! ❤

[@JINXY_VISTERAL]

20s no views L+ fell off

[@nathanielzarny1176]

One of the reasons i dont like the idea of the core and periphery is that it just doesnt make much sense when you look st it beyond the big players. The saudis extract resources for those at the top, yet are richer than "core" nations that colonized like portugul which is a developed economy for the most part. Its not simply a system of exploitation, but of profit numbers. You dont make much money in agriculture, but you sure do in the oil Business. Somehow i dont think the saudis are being exploited by the Portuguese.

[@Barwasser]

Your hair is distracting...

[@christophereichten9005]

Your channel is full of childish topics and pure excrement. Go away ghoul

[@Aercusnor]

Marx was a much better historian than economist, and should be read thusly.