How can globalism and internationalism be compared?

Mislav Kukoč Cosmopolitanism, internationalism, globalism Globalization is one of the most widespread cultural, social, economic and political phenomena in recent times. It increasingly shaped the discourse between the humanities and social sciences at the beginning of the third millennium - an era that has seen the end of the old age and sees the birth of a new, not yet clearly defined world. The multidimensional nature of the concept of globalization requires both an interdisciplinary analysis and, above all, as a conditio sine qua non, a philosophical approach. In this context, the central task of philosophy is to conceptualize and differentiate with regard to the diversity of the complicated and complex problems of globalization, to carry out a careful comparative analysis of the various approaches to globalization and their dimensions, and finally to make an appropriate assessment of their normative ones Aspects.1 Globalization seems to be generally regarded as a new paradigm and a fundamental expression of a newly dawning epoch - as a new chapter in the history of philosophy. According to some authors, it is not just about a far-reaching transformation process, but about the transition to a global society or the beginning of the global age. Hans Lenk takes the position that modern globalization is more of a general construct, an abstraction or a conceptual process to cope with general dynamic processes that characterize our common present world and that of the future. As an ideological concept, globalization develops its own dynamic, derived from a sub-sector - namely the economic sector - for the realization of generally binding social structures and the state of the world as a whole. 2 In contrast to this approach, I define globalization as a value-free phenomenon, as an objective reality in the contemporary world, a complex phenomenon with both positive and negative sides, properties and modes of action. It is about a complex and contradicting process of building the world as a whole through the creation of global institutional structural and cultural forms, ie 1 Kukoč 2011, p. 13. 2 Lenk 2006. 103 Forms that are produced or transformed by globally available means become. Understanding globalization and the processes that accompany it requires a conceptualization and differentiation with regard to its different dimensions and specific forms in the areas of humanity, ethics, society, culture, politics, institutions, law, religion, environment, economy, finance, science, IT, Technology, etc. Methodologically, problems arise due to the fact that there seem to be no conceptual or theoretical differences between the various forms of development of globalization processes. On the contrary, equating globalization with the economic sector through capital and modern industry suggests a tendency to reduce all other globalization processes to economic models.3 Such generalization, which relates exclusively to the economic sector, is usually classified as “globalism”. Globalism is a concept that is often, but incorrectly, used as a synonym for globalization. In my paper, I intend to highlight not only the difference between these two concepts, but also the difference between cosmopolitanism and internationalism. While globalization is a value-free, objective phenomenon, globalism - similar to the other isms - connotes a subjective, voluntaristic and ideological point of view, i.e. a doctrine or ideology that expresses the principles of interdependence and unity of the whole world, of all nations and states instead of one approves of national and state particularism. In contrast to related concepts such as cosmopolitanism, which emphasizes the cultural identity of the “world citizen”, and internationalism, which promotes the ideology of revolutionary “brotherhood” within a nation, the idea of ​​globalism is based on post-national economic information as well as intercultural global integration and interdependence Let's start with cosmopolitanism, or with the key concept of our conference theme today: cosmopolitan democracy. On the one hand, cosmopolitanism is the oldest of the concepts described above. It is also of a much broader and more complex meaning. A distinction must also be made between patriotism or nationalism on the one hand and internationalism and globalism on the other. A significant difference for the idea of ​​cosmopolitan democracy exists above all between the concept already given in antiquity and the current conception of cosmopolitanism in the age of globalization. 3 Lenk 2006. 4 Spajić-Vrkaš, Kukoč, Bašić 2001, p. 179. 104 Cosmopolitanism The idea of ​​cosmopolitanism has its origins in ancient Greek philosophy. The first stage of development is the cosmological period, which made the kosmos - the world - the central theme of philosophical thought and metaphysical research. While pre-philosophical mythology and poetry traced the cosmos back to chaos, the older Ionic school of philosophy, accompanied by the emancipation of logos from myth, was dominated by the belief that the world was “order, harmony”, a well-ordered whole. According to Anaximenes, air and breath (pneuma) encompassed the whole world (kosmos). Parmenides spoke of diakosmos, a "world order". Democritus made a distinction between mega diakosmos and micro diakosmos. Heraclitus says: “This world order, the same for all beings, was not created by any god or man, but was always and is and will be: always living fire, flaring up according to measure and going out according to measure. Fire's transformations: firstly the sea, half of it earth, the other a glowing wind ”.5 With this, the question of the world, the cosmos as a whole, became the subject of European philosophy and science for the first time. Parallel to the development of Athenian democracy, the second, the anthropological period of Greek philosophy began, which was accompanied by flourishing cultural and economic progress. In contrast to the ontology of the first cosmological period, the anthropological sophistic turn was characterized by the fact that it dealt for the first time with ethical and socially charged philosophical topics. While the original idea of ​​a political order was understood as a reflection of the cosmic order and the nomos was based on nature and its laws, the sophists presented a novelty: They attributed the setting of laws to man. With the demand - “Man is the measure of all things, that which are that they are, of those that are not that they are not” 6 - Protagoras designed a picture of the future that foretells the subjectivity of the modern age. Diogenes, who belonged to the Socratic school of the Cynics, saw himself as a “citizen of the world” and in this way articulated the freedom of the individual for the first time.7 After the collapse of the polis and the Aristotelian concept of man as zoon politikon, Alexander the Great built a world state (cosmopolis ), which replaced the city-state (polis). In this sense, during the epoch of Hellenism, the leading philosophy school of the Stoics also acknowledged the idea of ​​a general law of the cosmos as the natural and rational order, likewise 1. 5 Diels 1974, I. Heraklit, Fr. 30. 6 Diels 1974, II Protagoras, Fr. 1. 7 Diogenes Laertius 1998, VI. 63. 105 as to the idea of ​​a world state as an ideal world community. The genuine Hellenistic idea of ​​the world citizen (kosmopolites) was a challenge for the idea of ​​the Greek polis. Until now it had been considered the only form of human society that differed from Persian despotism and the barbarian communities. Since its origins in Hellenic philosophy, especially that of the Stoics, cosmopolitanism reflected a universalistic notion of the connectedness of all human beings, a global oikoumene that removed the inequality between Greeks and barbarians, between masters and slaves. The idea of ​​the cosmopolis became the basis of the universalistic worldview of Roman and Christian thought and gave the modern age the vision of a larger community of people. The modern concept of liberal cosmopolitanism as well as the term cosmopolitanism go back to the 18th century of the European Enlightenment. Closely associated with modern cosmopolitan thinking is the name Kant, who further developed the philosophical idea of ​​cosmopolitanism and transformed it into a cosmopolitan legal philosophy and political philosophy. Kant's basic objective was the expansion of international law to include universal citizenship. His view of cosmopolitanism went far beyond the framework of the international approach in the direction of a fundamentally intertwined world order.8 The development of the concept of “cosmopolitanism” became an essential part of Kant's philosophy of history. His conclusion: History itself will lead to the creation of a cosmopolitan republican world order that will replace the national republican forms of government.9 A global civil right contained in all legal constitutions - ius cosmopoliticum - would not only be a source of limiting state actions against its own citizens, but would also Avoiding conflicts in international relations with the aim of achieving “eternal world peace ”.10 The concept of liberal cosmopolitanism, which was brought into being under the influence of the European Enlightenment in the 18th century, turned out to be a theoretical prerequisite and prognosis for European unification. Jean-Jacques Rousseau imagined a new age as follows: “... Whatever one may say, there are no longer any French, German, Spanish or even English; there are only Europeans left. All have the same inclinations, the same passions, the same customs, because no one has received a national figure through a special institution ”.11 While Rouseau is critical of this (editor's note, HO), Hegel explains:“ Man is so because he Human is not because 8 Robertson / Scholte 2007, vol. 1, p. 229 f. 9 Kant 1969 (1784). 10 Kant 1974 (1795), p. 77ff. 11 Rousseau 1985 (1772), Chapter III. 106 he Jew, Catholic, Protestant, German, Italian, etc. is. This awareness, to which the thought applies, is of infinite importance - only inadequate if, for example, as cosmopolitanism, it fixes itself on facing concrete state life. ”12 This took place under the influence of the nation-building process and the corresponding ideologies of nationalism and internationalism Interest in cosmopolitanism during the 19th and 20th centuries. After the collapse of communism in the late 20th century and the increasing unification of the world, the age of globalization has dawned in the 21st century. Internationalism In the 19th and 20th centuries, cosmopolitanism lost its importance, along with the growing idea of ​​the nation state, nationalism and internationalism. Although the idea of ​​cosmopolitanism partially overlaps with that of internationalism, there is a fundamental difference between the two concepts. The term international was coined by Jeremy Bentham around 1780 and meant the political relations between the nation states. It is a concept that was largely incomprehensible, even unknown, in the late 18th century, when there were hardly any cross-border relations between states. It was only in the course of the following centuries that an understanding of this developed and applied to numerous social, cultural and economic areas, in particular in connection with the ideology of anarchism, communism and socialism and connected with the idea of ​​establishing solidarity between peoples - regardless of nationality Borders, interstate conflicts and economic competition between countries. The concept of internationalism is largely rooted in the labor movement. Socialist and / or communist internationalism was born in Europe and spread around the world with the outbreak of industrial revolutions and the rise of the industrial working class. The international labor movement founded the Socialist International and declared May 1st International Labor Day. In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels expressed criticism that the workers owned neither land nor nation. And so it says in the famous final sentence of the manifesto, which was to become the current catchphrase for proletarian internationalism: “Proletarians of all countries unite.” 13 The 19th century was also a period of the 2. 12 Hegel 1911 (1821), § 209. 13 Marx / Engels 1959 (1848), p. 493. 107 Nation building, dominated by the ideology of nationalism. States tried to “nationalize” their working class through military service, social imperialism, and national and state mythology - followed by excessive nationalism and chauvinism.14 This ambiguity regarding nationalism and internationalism was also evident in the ideological conflicts between the rival factions of the revolutionary movement, namely Marxism and the Anarchism. In a letter dated July 20, 1870, Marx expressed his nationalist claim during the Franco-Prussian War: "Establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat ... would at the same time the preponderance of our theory over the Proudhons." the international solidarity of exploited workers in all countries had begun, in formal relationships of nationally marked trade connections, political parties and state armies. The fatal result of the resulting nationalism was that the threatened general strike against the outbreak of World War II did not materialize. After the October Revolution in 1919, the Third Communist International (Comintern) was formed. One of its aims was to revitalize proletarian internationalism. However, it quickly turned into an instrument of the Soviet state and served it as an ideological alibi for Great Russian hegemony over the other nations of the communist bloc. Internationalism is primarily attributed to the movements of the left - this tradition includes, for example, the internationalism of the Third World in connection with the non-aligned movement and the Cuban Revolution under Tito, Castro and Che Guevara -; at the same time, the ultra-right, religious and communist as well as liberal-democratic internationalism also exist side by side. The idea of ​​liberal-democratic internationalism largely overlaps with that of liberal cosmopolitanism, which emerged under the influence of the Enlightenment in the 18th century. In contrast, modern cosmopolitanism is now to be compared with the concept of globalism, which represents the ideology of a predominantly neoliberal globalization. 14 Robertson / Scholte 2007, vol. 2, p. 649 f. 15 Marx / Engels 2013 (1870). 108 Globalism Methodologically, there is a difference between “globalization” as an objective modern reality, a phenomenon with both positive and negative elements and characteristics, and “globalization” as a neo-liberal policy controlled by leading global centers of power. “Globalism” is defined as a doctrine and / or ideology that promotes the principle of interdependence and unity of the whole world, of all nations and states, instead of national and state particularism. In contrast to similar notions such as “cosmopolitanism”, which advocates the cultural identity of the pre-national “world citizen”, and “internationalism”, which propagates the ideology of a revolutionary “brotherhood” between peoples, the idea of ​​globalism is based on a post -national economic, informational and intercultural global integration and interdependence. In truth, however, this ideology hides the intention of an economic and cultural hegemony of the western powers, supranational trading corporations and banking institutions; similar to how the ideology of proletarian or socialist internationalism had served the Soviets as an ideological fig leaf for Great Russian hegemony over other nations of the communist bloc.16 The pro-globalist attitude is in line with westernization or modernization, especially in an “Americanized” form.17 Renowned Critical theorists such as Immanuel Wallerstein warn that the process of globalization should not be viewed in isolation from the historical development of the capitalist world system.18 From a globalist perspective, globalization is the most important instrument of continued Western dominance over other world cultures; it is described as hyper-capitalism, MacDonald imperialism (or MacDonaldization) 19, Hollywood and CNN20, also as neo-colonialism. Martin Khor comes to the conclusion: “Globalization is what we in the Third World have called colonization for several centuries.” 21 Numerous other theorists defend this point of view and point to the domination of the world by a few global corporations.22 Many throw similar opinions this critic to the global specialized agencies 3. 16 Spajić-Vrkaš, Kukoč, Bašić 2001, p. 179. 17 Spybey 1996; Rupert 2000, pp. 19-64; Taylor, P.J. 2000, pp. 49-70. 18 Wallerstein 1999. 19 Ritzer 2000. 20 Schiller 1991 pp. 13-28. 21 Khor 1995. 22 Barnet / Cavanagh 1994; Korten 1995; Berger 1999. 109 like the World Bank and the World Trade Organization claim to have usurped the power of states and local governments.23 The newly emerged ideology and politics of neoliberal globalism permeates and intensifies the inequality of relations between Western and non-Western cultures.24 This State is described as post-colonial imperialism, which has not only exacerbated the exploitation of the south, the “periphery”, by the north, the “center”, but also the formerly communist-ruled regions, the “semi-periphery”, as a result of the second Fell victim to World War II. This applies in particular to the countries "beyond Eden", namely those behind the newly erected Iron Curtain between the European Union and the Eurasian (South) East.In these countries globalization triggers permanent financial and economic crises, impoverishment growth as a result of the structural adjustment programs imposed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, constant subordination to world trade without any advantages, as well as cultural imperialism of global communications.25 By means of authoritarian political guidelines neoliberal globalism sets the framework for modern globalization, with the result that the ruling classes and countries make generous use of power. The victory of neoliberal globalism is evident in the economy, particularly the financial markets and among the managers of cross-border companies. Business associations such as the International Organization of the Employers' Federation and the World Economic Forum serve as bulwarks for neoliberal globalism. Big, business-minded mass media outlets like the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times habitually support the politics of globalism. Given this concentration on the centers of power, neoliberal globalism is also classified as the political orthodoxy of globalization. What is undisputed, however, is that it has recently gained widespread acceptance.26 Leading advocates of globalization are promoting globalism through electronic media around the world. Neoliberal decision-makers make ideological claims that put globalization in a positive light. They postulate the self-regulating market as a “natural fact” and thus pave the way for the normative basis of a future global order that supposedly promotes individual freedom and material progress. They propagate neoliberal globalization as an inevitable, irresistible “force of nature”, similar to weather or gravity with the assertion “there is no alternative”. Everyone, so the central claim, will benefit from the 23 George / Sabelli 1994. 24 Huntington 1996; Hurrell / Woods 1999. 25 Thomas / Wilkin 1997. 26 Scholte 2000, pp. 29, 35, 40, 242. 110 Globalization; Free trade and open markets ensured excellent prospects for the creation of new jobs, economic growth and rising living standards. Claims of this kind spring from the neoliberal ideology that free markets and democracy are two sides of the same coin. This is particularly questionable. In truth, a “market democracy” of low intensity can be identified that ensures “efficient” and skilful governance without public control - in other words, it is a neoliberal globalism with a democratic deficit.27 In connection with this point, the concepts of cosmopolitanism are discussed below and globalism are juxtaposed in order to then introduce an alternative concept, namely the idea of ​​cosmopolitan democracy in connection with the phenomenon of globalization. Rethinking cosmopolitanism in the age of globalization After cosmopolitanism experienced a downward trend in the 19th and 20th centuries and globalization began its triumphant advance in theory and practice since the 1990s, it has recently been gaining interest again. This modern cosmopolitanism, which goes beyond the moral cosmopolitanism of antiquity and the legal and legal cosmopolitanism of Kant, is primarily referred to as political cosmopolitanism. It was factors such as the end of the Cold War, the collapse of communism and apartheid, the development of global information technologies, the strengthening and expansion of the European Union, the new human rights laws and the international criminal courts that gave new substance to this vision. Cosmopolitanism thus gains further dimensions in the context of intercultural, multicultural and cross-cultural connections and relationships in the age of globalization. Both antiquity and the Enlightenment took a Eurocentric view of cosmopolitanism. Similar to Hellenistic cosmopolitanism, which reflected the superiority of the Greek and Latin languages ​​and cultures, the Enlightenment reflected the dominance of the French, later that of the Anglo-American language and culture. Modern cosmopolitanism has broken through the limited horizon of Western perception and promotes a critical and cross-border dialogue with other cultures and civilizations around the world. An essential objective is the diversity and plurality of cosmopolitan projects. In the resistance to the uniform cultural forces of “Americanization” or “MacDonaldization”, a cultural globalization is recognizable in the new forms of expression 4. 27 Robertson / Scholte 2007, Vol. 2, pp. 522 f. 111 of cosmopolitanism. This opposing force is assigned to a new specific way of life called glocalization.28 The cosmopolitan philosophers Jacques Derrida (différance) and Jürgen Habermas (communicative everyday practice) have made intercultural, non-confrontational dialogue a permanent theme in modern society. Despite differing approaches, their consistent message that they can face the challenges in a world of diversity is a firm belief in the fundamental virtue of accepting the values ​​of others.29 In addition to cultural cosmopolitanism, political cosmopolitanism plays an important role in the context of globalization. Cosmopolitan Democracy It is the endeavor of cosmopolitan democracy to unite the globalization of democracy with the democratization of globalization. It is the realization of a normative theory project that seeks to apply the various principles, values ​​and democratic processes to globalization policy. Modern information and communication technologies open their doors to a global public sphere; In this way, societies in distant parts of the world should be able to participate in deliberative processes. Electronic pin boards on the Internet, video conference calls and interactive television offer improved communication options between citizens. In the global space, the potential of an electronic and digital democracy can be realized in the future, which is not possible in territorial democracy. A “push-button” democracy of digital referendums would offer citizens the immediate opportunity to vote on political issues.30 Cosmopolitan democracy is based on the empirical observation that states are autonomous in terms of legal principles, but not in practice. Environmental threats, contagious diseases, trade, terrorism and migration make genuine independence increasingly difficult for states. Under such circumstances it becomes increasingly difficult for many to make meaningful democratic decisions within their state. Conceptually, cosmopolitan democracy can best be grasped using the various government dimensions linked at local, state, intergovernmental, regional and global levels. Through the creation of government and non-governmental organizations 5. 28 Robertson 1992, p. 173 f. 29 Robertson / Scholte 2007, vol. 1, p. 231 f. 30 Scholte 2000, p. 32, 275 f. 112 Association of local communities and institutions that do not necessarily belong to the same state is possible. Cosmopolitan democracy thus implies strengthening local democracy. Within the state dimension, states are called upon to grant rights to those who have traditionally been denied rights - refugees and immigrants alike. Within the intergovernmental dimension, the presence of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) such as the United Nations and the European Union is an indicator of the fundamental willingness of states to extend certain principles such as formal equality between member states, public accountability and legal principles to the intergovernmental level. However, IGOs ​​are increasingly confronted with a lack of enforceability of democracy in their own practice. Again and again voices against the European Union and other regional and global government organizations accuse them of a “democratic deficit”. Most of them were founded on the basis of formal equality with other members. As a result, many small states with a total population of only five percent of the world hold a majority of the votes in the UN General Assembly. In contrast, the veto right of the permanent members in the UN Security Council cannot be justified democratically. In addition, the democratic balance sheet of supra-governmental government organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, the OECD, etc. proved to be extremely thin. Overall, both regional and global regimes have not shown themselves to be much more accessible - neither representative nor “democratic” - than the colonial powers in earlier ages of territorial world politics. Thus, with a view to a functioning cosmopolitan democracy on a global level, many questions remain unanswered: distribution of competencies among different bodies; Jurisdiction within national powers or global institutions; national sovereignty or global constitutionalism? 31 In view of even greater and more difficult cultural and religious civilizational differences on a global level, it is difficult to believe in the project “cosmopolitan democracy” with correspondingly effective solutions. The broad goal of moving international and global politics to reverse antagonism to agonism (from political discord to political unity) through non-violent conflict resolution and tolerant dialogues would be a step further in 31 Robertson / Scholte 2007, Vol. 1, P. 224ff. 113 Towards a higher level of civilization. So far, this idea sounds like wishful thinking and unrealistic utopia. (Translated from English by Anna Frazier) Literature Barnet, Richard J./Cavanagh, John 1994: Global Dreams: Imperial Corporations and the New World Order. New York. Berger, John, 1999: The Threat of Globalism, Race & Class, 2-3 (40). Diels, Hermann, 1974: The Fragments of the Pre-Socratics, Volume I. and II, ed. v. W. wreath. Berlin. Diogenes Laertius, 1998: Lives and Opinions of Famous Philosophers. Hamburg. George Susann / Sabelli, Fabrizzio, 1994: Faith and Credit: the World Bank’s Secular Empire. Boulder. Hegel, Georg, Wilhelm, Friedrich, 1911 (1821): Basic lines of the philosophy of law. Leipzig. Huntington, Samuel P., 1996: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York. Hurrell, Andrew / Woods, Ngaire (Eds.), 1999: Inequality, Globalization, and World Politics. Oxford. Kant, Immanuel, 1964 (1784): Idea for a general story with cosmopolitan intent. In: Kant works - writings on anthropology, philosophy of history and pedagogy, Volume XI., Frankfurt a.M. Kant, Immanuel, 1979 (1795): For Eternal Peace - A philosophical draft. In: Peace utopias Kant, Fichte, Schlegel, Görres. Edited by Z. Batscha and R. Saage, Frankfurt a.M. Khor, Martin, 1995: Address to the International Forum on Globalization. New York. Korten, David C. 1995: When Corporations Rule the Word. West Hartford. Kukoč, Mislav, 2010: Liberal Democracy versus Neoliberal Globalization. In: Religion as a power of life. Edited by J. Bohn and T. Bohrmann, Leipzig, pp. 181-194. Kukoč, Mislav (ed.) 2011: Filozofija i globalizacija / Philosophy and Globalization, Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo / Croatian Philosophical Society. Zagreb. Kukoč, Mislav, 2014: Religion in the Trap of Globalization. In: M. R. Ott (Ed.), The Dialectics of the Religious and the Secular: Studies on the Future of Religion, Leiden-Boston, pp. 184-193. Lenk, Hans, 2006: Perspectives and Dimension of Globalization - With Special Regard to IT, Science and Economics. In: Interim World Philosophy Congress, New Delhi. Marx, Karl / Engels, Friedrich, 1959 (1848): Manifesto of the Communist Party, in: MEW, Vol. 4, Berlin, pp. 461-493. Marx, Karl / Engels, Friedrich, 2013: Correspondence. II / 17: June 1870 to June 1871. MEGA, Third Department: 1. Berlin. Ritzer, Georg, 2000: The Macdonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks (CA). Robertson, Roland, 1992: Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London. 114 Robertson, Roland / Scholte, Jan Aart (eds.), 2007: Encyclopedia of Globalization, Vol. 1, 2, New York - London. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1985 (1772): Consideration of the Government of Poland, (The Government of Poland). Indianapolis. Rupert, Mark, 2000: Ideologies of Globalization: Contending Visions of a New World Order. London - New York. Schiller, Herbert. I., 1991: "Not yet the Post-Imperialist Era". In: Critical Studies in Mass Communication, vol. 8, no.1, pp. 13-28. Scholte, Jan Aart, 2000: Globalization: a critical introduction. New York. Spybey, Tony, 1996: Globalization and World Society. Cambridge. Spajić-Vrkaš Vedrana / Kukoč, Mislav / Bašić, Slavica, 2001: Obrazovanje za ljudska prava i demokraciju: interdisciplinarni rječnik (Education for Human Rights and Democracy: The Interdisciplinary Dictionary). Zagreb, Croatian Commission for UNESCO. Taylor, Peter, J., 2000: Izations of the World: Americanization, Modernization and Globalization. In: C. Hay & D. Marsh (Eds.), Demystifying Globalization. Basingstoke, pp. 49-70. Thomas, Caroline / Wilkin, Peter (Eds.), 1997: Globalization and the South. Basingstoke. Wallerstein, Immanuel, 1999: Globalization or The Age of Transition? A Long-Term View of the Trajectory of the World-System, at: 115