The ‘Third World’ is a term that began to evolve from the times of the French Revolution.
Although the term now obscures as much as it illuminates, in the time of the Cold War the world might be divided into First (Western, capitalist, developed) World, Second (Eastern,
World-systems theory, like structuralism in general, demands a fair redistribution of the world’s economic wealth. In order that this should be achieved, world-systems theory provides support for a new international economic order, often abbreviated in written form to the unpronounceable acronym NIEO. Demands for a NIEO involve fair prices for products produced by the Third World and a restructuring of world trade in general. A NIEO can be contrasted with the actual economic order which is a Liberal International Economic Order, or LIEO. Given that this version of structuralist doctrine emphasises the systematic nature of exploitation, and given the stress on conflicting interests, we can safely assume that the rich are not likely to give up their wealth and privilege without a struggle. Therefore, the challenge for the poor is to break free from the structures which constrain them. How to do this, in theory or in practice, is a different matter.
Identity and community
Recognition of the significance of gender and racial discrimination was fairly central to the ‘post-Marxist’ turn which occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s in social theory (see chapters 4–6).
However, generally speaking neither early Marxist nor later structuralist writers paid much attention to aspects of identity and community that did not easily fit within the broad framework of a global capitalist order and notions of class struggle. Despite the importance of nationalism, as both an ideology and political force in nineteenth-century Europe, Marx devoted most of his time and ener-gies to exploring the theme of class consciousness, class interests and class struggle.
Given the national and ethnic diversity which existed in the Soviet Union, it is somewhat sur-prising, perhaps, to find that none of the leading Bolshevik revolutionaries, including Lenin and Trotsky, gave sustained attention to the ideology of nationalism. Moreover, the intellectual and pol-itical climate of the USSR during the first half of this century was such that there were no serious challenges to Stalin’s rather simplistic view of the world ‘community’ as being fundamentally divided into two opposing blocs or ‘camps’. Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Marxists tended to regard nationalism, or indeed any other form of identification – religious, cultural, ethnic and so on – as a manifestation of ‘false consciousness’; in effect a distraction from the real class-based structures of politics. This view continues to find echoes in some contemporary Marxist work.
That said, in the 1960s there emerged many national liberation movements in parts of Africa and Latin America which were left-leaning, or pro-Marxist-Leninist and, for this reason, it became necessary to develop an account of nationalist struggle which was neither dismissive (as in the notion of false consciousness) nor incompatible with the basic assumptions of structuralism. Thus, in Wallerstein’s account of the modern world-system, we find some attention being given to nationalism as a powerful source of political identification.
Wallerstein argues that the increasing definition of state structures has led to the shaping, reshaping, creation and destruction, and revival of the idea of ‘peoples’. He believes that these
‘peo-Communist, industrial) World and Third (Southern, poor, agricultural) World. Nowadays it is recognised that there is a lot which is different about various parts of the developing world and many parts of the developed world which nonetheless exhibit many of the symptoms of poverty of the Third World. Though the term thus has some problems, it is nonetheless useful as a way of talking about the marginalised, excluded and poorer areas of the world. Politically, terms like ‘majority world’ are more acceptable, but we continue to use the term ‘Third World’ here because it gives a very real sense of the marginalisation which is key to structuralist thought.
ples’ come to see themselves (and are seen by others) as controlling state structures. Through this identification of ‘peoples’ with the state, ‘nations’ are created. On the other hand, within the bound-aries of the ‘nation-state’ there are significant groups who are not identified as having rights to control state structures or exercise political power directly. These people come to be seen by ‘nationals’ as
‘minorities’. However, it is important to realise that Wallerstein does not regard national identity as rooted in some real shared ethnic heritage or history. Nations are ‘solidarity groupings’ whose bound-aries are constantly constructed, defined and redefined, and nationalism is a device which is used to strengthen and consolidate the power of the state.
World systems theory incorporates an analysis of those forces which work against the system as well as dominant, class-based, structures. Thus, it is possible to identify a number of oppositional or
‘anti-systemic’ forces at work in world politics. Nationalism is not all of one kind. Some forms of nationalism certainly work to consolidate capitalism and disguise the exploitative nature of the cap-italist world-system. However, some national liberation movements are clearly anti-systemic. Various groups have an interest in supporting and opposing particular definitions of the ‘nation-state’ and so, according to Wallerstein, ‘nationalism’ must be seen as both a mechanism of imperialism/integration and of resistance/liberation.
Clearly, here we have an analysis of nationalism which is influenced by the underlying theory of class politics. Indeed, Wallerstein goes on to say that anti-systemic movements are organised in two main forms around two main themes: social movements around class and the national movement around ‘nations’ or peoples. Anti-systemic (or revolutionary) movements first emerged in organised form in the nineteenth century to promote human equality and so were, by definition, incompatible with the functioning of the capitalist world economy. It was the political structure of the capitalist world economy – a series of sovereign states – which compelled movements to seek the transform-ation of the world-system via the achievement of political power within separate states. However, because the capitalist world-system is based fundamentally on class division and exploitation, which is transnational or global in nature, the organisation of anti-systemic movements at the state level necessarily has contradictory effects. Nationalism counterposes the logical and ideological necessity of worldwide struggle against the immediate political need of achieving power within one state.
Whatever the tactic of a given social movement, it achieves power in a state structure and is then con-strained by the logic of the inter-state system.
Structuralists have also endeavoured to give some account of racism and sexism in the world-system. According to Wallerstein racism is a belief system which functions to justify the inclusion of certain groups in the workforce and the political system at a level of reward and status sharply inferior to that of some larger group. Sexism has the same objective, although it is reached via a different path. By restricting women to certain modes of producing income and by defining such modes as
‘non-work’ (through the concept of the ‘housewife’) sexism works to reduce wage levels in large sectors of the world economy. According to Maria Mies, in the contemporary global economy the coercion of women as ‘housewives’ remains essential for a system which allowed male workers to be free citizens.
However, while structuralists have attempted to give some account of identity, forms of solidarity and types of community (such as nation-states and anti-systemic movements), it is fair to say that this analysis has been profoundly coloured by their basic beliefs about the primacy of social class and class struggle. Indeed, overall structuralists have tended to emphasise class as the coming together of identity and interests.
Conflict and violence
For structuralists, conflict is intimately connected with the forces of global capitalism. Global econ-omic relations are highly conflictual, because of the tendencies inherent in capitalism – it is built upon and perpetuates divisions between social classes and between core states and periphery states.
Conflicts between social groups, and indeed states, are generated by the nature of the system itself.
Conflict is not then primarily rooted in the nature of the inter-state system, as realists hold, but arises out of the exploitative nature of capitalism. For this reason, attempts to mediate or resolve conflict by well-meaning individuals or groups are unlikely to be effective.
In the sense of direct physical violence, like war, the link between capitalism and conflict can be seen in terms of imperialism and the violent subjugation of those peoples who opposed it. It has also been claimed, by Lenin for example, that capitalist competition leads to inter-state war, though the evidence here is not clear and might even be contradictory. What is evident is that some conflicts appear to have at least partly capitalist economic motivations. For example, Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor was followed by a treaty with Australia on oil exploitation off the Timorese coast. Many observers argue that the US/UN military operation in the Gulf in 1991 was not motivated by liber-ating Kuwait from Iraqi occupation and upholding international law. Instead they argue that the invasion was motivated by economic interests and the need to secure access to natural resources (oil).
Furthermore, the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq can be seen to have less to do with liberating the Iraqi people from a dictator than making profit from Iraq’s resources, the reconstruction effort and the military activity itself.