World-Systems Analysis: Wallerstein’s Theory of Hegemony 

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

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.

Isn’t that itself a grand theory of everything?

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

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

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

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

Something something iPhone.

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.😁✌🖖

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

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

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

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

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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

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

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

You should check out Andre Gunder Frank's _ReOrient_

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

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.

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.

​@@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.

@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.

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

​@@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 ✌️😸💚

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

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

@@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.

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

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

Huh?

@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

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

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.

Go to that episode

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

I have a video putting his specific theory in historiographical context: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XKRgibRw-Bw.html And another about how EP Thompson modified it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Igb9f_cSRBk.html

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.

@@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.

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

My place is too tiny for another cat

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

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

@@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

"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.

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

@@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

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

@@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

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

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

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

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