Wallerstein, Immanuel. (1990). "Antisystemic Movements: History and Dilemmas". In S. Amin (Ed.), Transforming the revolution : social movements and the world-system (pp. 187 p.). New York: Monthly Review Press.
The Creation of Antisystemic Movements and the Debate about Strategy, 1789-1945:
Wallerstein attempts to highlight and put into historical context different social movements, and eventually prescribe a set of policies and ideals that should be adhered to by progressives in the future. “The post-1945 history of these movements can only be understood or appreciated in the context of their history as organized continuing movements. And this history must perforce start with the French Revolution” (13). This movement was the cornerstone of all successive movements, having put the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity on the global pedestal.
After the French revolution, he claims that other social movements were disorganized. For his example, he talks about the revolution of 1848. As this revolution was a broadly based proletarian uprising across
Wallerstein then goes on to highlight revolutions and social movements that occurred after the revolution of 1848. These movements became increasingly socialist, though not uniformly. There were issues with the implementation of socialist movements globally, and there was specifically a rupture between socialist movements and nationalist movements. “The socialist movements were to be found largely in core countries, the nationalist movements largely in peripheral ones” (23).
Postwar Success of the Movements: Triumphs and Ambiguities:
“People resist exploitation. They resist as actively as they can, as passively as they must” (27).
He looks at the three “worlds” and claims that, in many ways, in and around the era of 1945, many antisystemic movements felt as if they had won. There had been large movements towards socialist governance throughout the globe. “…the period after 1945, in at least a majority of the countries of the world, representing at least three-quarters of the worlds’ population, the ostensible intermediate objective of nineteenth-century antisystemic movements—the coming to power either of a workers or of a popular movement—had in fact occurred” (33).
“To be antisystemic is to argue that neither liberty or equality is possible under the existing system and that both are possible only in a transformed world” (36).
“Let us therefore sum up the experience of the post-1945 coming to power of the movements. Each kind of movement put into effect some very great reforms which have earned them substantial popular support. There were some great changes of which the movements could boast and whose consequences were visible. At the same time, despite initial advances in social equality, political liberty, and international solidarity, in the long run, the movements disappointed, and disappointed greatly…” (38).
Forward to What? The Debate on Strategy Reopened:
He highlights some of the important movements post WWII that have shown themselves to be antisystemic, but wonders where we are really going. 1968 represented a year in which a new wave of antisystemic movements erupted. He posits that we need to think about both long-term and short-term strategies.
Agenda for the Movements:
“The lesson of 1848 was that spontaneous uprisings were not viable as a path of serious social or national revolution. Social transformation requires social organization. It was out of this lesson that the ‘old’ antisystemic movements were born. We have argued that 1968 marked the emergence of ‘new’ antisystemic movements that were protesting against the successes (that we see as failures) of the ‘old’ antisystemic movements” (48).
He sees four things that must happen: repolitization of the base, reconceptualization of the understanding of transformation in society, bring together diverse movements in a “family”, and, the “deghettoization” of social movements (48-53).
