Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600–1750

I am a chilean citizen living in Chile, but I am not historian. I am a retired biologist (D.Phil. Physiology, London 1966) and physician (Internal Medicine, Endocrinology U. Texas Houston). But as a citizen I am keenly interested in history, in particular of the Western World and Latin America. I find "The Modern World System" an outstanding work for the understanding of our history as a cultural and economical evolution moving in ever changing directions related to the interplay of different national and social groups. Under this light, Latin American history appears clearly a part of the complex evolution of capitalism and the evolution of the core nations.

Good

The central idea in this monumentally documented (220 pages of references for 200 pages of text) study is that a 'Cumulative self-sustaining change in the form of endless search for accumulation has been the leitmotiv of the capitalist world-economy since its genesis in the 16th century.'The 17th century history was determined by the struggle for the surplus-value between states and classes.States tried to concentrate all the major sources of capitalist profits within their frontiers in order to become the centre (core) state: cereals, textile, metallurgical products, transport infrastructure, entrepots of the Atlantic trade.The core country tried to use other countries as conveyors (semi-peripheries) of the created surplus-value in the peripheries.Within the emerging core state, classes battled among themselves for a major part of this surplus-value.In the beginning of the 17th century, Holland (the Seventeen Provinces) became the centre of the European economy, which dominated the world.Its position was first attacked by the Navigation Act (1651). It was ultimately replaced by England, which had defeated France (Treaty of Paris -1763).The 17th century saw the emergence of a new class: the bourgeoisie. In England, an eventual power struggle for the surplus-value between the bourgeoisie and the landowner aristocrats was avoided through a political compromise. More, the king lost his power to the Parliament, which was controlled by the capitalist classes. Merchants, financiers and landowner aristocrats could work together for the exploitation of the world economy.The 17th century saw also the emergence of proto-industrialization: many small producers engaged in cottage industry and rural wage work.I believe that this extremely solidly underpinned study has a major flaw: 'the endless search for accumulation' is not an end, but a means. As Robert Kuttner said: 'Wealth is power.' Power means a bigger chance to survive (as a state, a union, a unit or an individual) in the struggle for life.Power is not only a question of social\economic systems, but also a matter of political, military or technological strenght.Why did Britain conquer the waves? Politically, the capitalists controlled the Parliament and could implement their policies. Militarilly, the Navy's strenght assured victory in wars and permitted access to markets or a blocking of the entry of raw materials directly into enemy states. Socially, there was a compromise between the powerful classes. Technologically, the proto-industrialization would cumulate into the Industrial Revolution, which assured Britain's core status for a long time to come.This book contains a wealth of information and is thought-provoking, but somewhat one-sided.Highly recommended.

This is the second work in a three part series. These are all phenomenal works that have stood the test of time. If you are interested in the study of World System Theory here is one of the best places to start. This work also looks at the economic model of mercantilism during its modern peak in Europe. The author explains how core, semi-periphery and periphery nations interact with each other politically and economically. This book is a must read for anyone wanting to go into any social science graduate school.