THE NATURE OF THE WORLD-ECONOMY
 
[p.510] 1.1. The concept world-economy (economie-monde in French) should be distinguished from that of world economy (economie mondiale) or international economy. The latter concept presumes there are a series of separate "economies" which are "national" in scope, and that under certain circumstances these "national economies" trade with each other, the sum of these (limited) contacts being called the international economy. Those who use this latter concept argue that the limited contacts have been expanding in the 20th century. It is thus asserted that the world has become "one world" in a sense it wasn't prior to the 20th century.
By contrast, the concept "world-economy" assumes that there exists an "economy" wherever (and if but only if) there is an ongoing extensive and relatively complete social division of labor with an integrated set of production processes which relate to each other through a "market" which has been "instituted" or "created" in some complex way. Using such a concept, the world-economy is not new in the 20th century, nor is it a coming together of "national economies," none of the latter constituting complete divisions of labor. Rather, a world-economy, capitalist in form, has been in existence in at least part of the globe since the 16th century. Today, the entire globe is operating within the framework of this singular social division of labor we are calling the capitalist world-economy.
1.2. The capitalist world-economy has, and has had since its coming into existence, boundaries far larger than that of any political unit. Indeed, it seems to be one of the basic defining features of a capitalist world-economy that there exists no political entity with ultimate authority in all its zones. [p.502] Rather, the political superstructure of the capitalist world-economy is an interstate system within which and through which political structures called "sovereign states" are legitimized and constrained. Far from meaning the total autonomy of decision-making, the term "sovereignty" in reality implies a formal autonomy combined with real limitations on this autonomy, which are implemented both via the explicit and implicit rules of the interstate system and via the power of other states in the interstate system. No state in the interstate system, even the single most powerful one at any given time, is totally autonomous– but obviously some enjoy far greater autonomy than others.
1.3. The world-economy is a complex of cultures – in the sense of languages, religions, ideologies – but this complex is not haphazard. There exists a Weltanschauung of imperium, albeit one with several variants, and there exist cultures of resistance to this imperium.
1.4. The major social institutions of the capitalist world-economy – the states, the classes, the "peoples," and the households – are all shaped (even created) by the ongoing workings of the world-economy. None of them are primordial, in the sense of permanent, pre-existing relatively fixed structures to which the working of the capitalist world economy are exogenous.
1.5. The capitalist world-economy is a historical social system. It came into existence, and its genesis must be explained. Its existence is defined by certain patterns– both cyclical rhythms and secular trends – which must be explicated. It is highly probable that it will one day go out of existence (become transformed into another type of historical social system), and we can therefore assess the historical alternatives that are before us.
 
ПЕРВАЯ ОСТАНОВКА
В чем заключается ключевое отличие «миро-экономики» от «мировой экономики»? Постарайтесь нарисовать схему одной и другой модели, чтобы увидеть это отличие.
Что, с точки зрения И. Валлерстайна, лежит в основании «миро-экономики»?
Каким периодом датирует автор начало становления капиталистической миро-экономики?
Как можно соотнести экономическую «карту» миро-экономики и политическую карту мира? Какие последствия для понимания суверенности современного государства это имеет?
Как предстает перед нами миро-система с точки зрения многообразия существующих культур?
Каковы, с точки зрения И. Валлерстайна, основные социальные институты, поддерживающие капиталистическую миро-экономику?
Как Вы понимаете положение о том, что миро-экономика является “historical social system”?
Какие аргументы Вы можете привести в пользу того, что эта работа представляет неомарксистское направление исследований?
Можно ли считать, что данная работа подтверждает тезис о том, что неомарксистская парадигма может быть названа «глобализмом»? Подтвердите свое мнение аргументами.      Найди в тексте ответы на вопросы, если что добавляй свои знания, вставь цитаты из текста и их перевод